COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Overview - Flood Risk Management Plans 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: adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, disaster area, environmental risk prevention, flood, international cooperation, risk management, water management, water pollution, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 31 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Overview - Flood Risk Management Plans 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) 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) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Contents 

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 5 

1. 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 12 

1.1.  Rationale for continued action at the EU level ........................................................ 13 

2.  Main elements of the Floods Directive........................................................................... 18 

2.1.  The objectives and key provisions of the Floods Directive ..................................... 18 

2.2.  The European Commission’s 2015 implementation report .................................... 20 

3. 

Approach to the Assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans ............................ 22 

Part A. Assessment of Member State Flood Risk Management Plans ................................... 24 

4. 

Governance of Flood Risk Management ....................................................................... 24 

4.1.  Administrative level for the preparation of FRMPs ............................................... 24 

4.2.  Adoption and legal status of the FRMPs .................................................................. 27 

4.3.  Strategic Environmental Assessments ...................................................................... 30 

4.4.  Overview of Member State reporting of the FRMPs .............................................. 31 

4.5.  Links to previous plans .............................................................................................. 32 

5. 

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

5.1. 

Information provision on the consultation process ................................................. 35 

5.2.  Consultation mechanisms .......................................................................................... 37 

5.3.  Active involvement of stakeholder groups ............................................................... 38 

5.4. 

Incorporating consultation results in the FRMPs ................................................... 42 

5.5.  Summary of good practice and areas for further development ............................. 43 

Integration of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and Flood Hazard Maps and 

6. 
Flood Risk Maps ....................................................................................................................... 46 

6.1.  Overview of the previous steps .................................................................................. 46 

6.2.  Conclusions of the PFRAs .......................................................................................... 49 

6.3.  Conclusions from the FHRMs ................................................................................... 53 

6.4.  Coordination with other Member States and third countries ................................ 58 

6.5.  Summary of good practice and areas for further development ............................. 60 

1 

 
 
7. 

Setting objectives for the management of flood risks .................................................... 62 

7.1.  Overview ...................................................................................................................... 62 

7.2.  Specific and measurable objectives ........................................................................... 69 

7.3.  Setting the objectives: coordination .......................................................................... 71 

7.4.  Summary of good practices and areas for further development ............................ 72 

8.  Measures for the achievement of objectives................................................................... 73 

8.1.  Measurable and specific flood risk management measures (including location) . 76 

8.2.  Location ....................................................................................................................... 76 

8.3.  Linking objectives and measures .............................................................................. 79 

8.4.  Prioritisation of the measures .................................................................................... 83 

8.5.  Responsible authorities .............................................................................................. 88 

8.6.  Progress of implementation ....................................................................................... 90 

8.7.  Measures taken under other Community Acts ........................................................ 92 

8.8. 

Inclusion of specific groups of measures .................................................................. 93 

8.9.  Monitoring progress in implementation ................................................................. 101 

8.10.  Financing of measures .......................................................................................... 104 

8.11.  Coordination with the WFD ................................................................................. 109 

8.12. 

Summary of good practice and areas for further development ........................ 113 

9. 

Consideration of costs and benefits and use of CBA ................................................... 117 

9.1.  Overview of the consideration of costs and benefits in FRMPs ........................... 117 

9.2.  Overview of the methodologies applied .................................................................. 121 

9.3.  Summary of good practice and areas for further development ........................... 124 

10.  Consideration of the likely impacts of climate change ................................................ 126 

10.1. 

Integration of climate change in the PFRA and FHRM stages......................... 127 

10.2.  Addressing climate change in the FRMPs .......................................................... 127 

10.3.  Climate change adaptation measures .................................................................. 134 

10.4.  No-regret measures to address climate change .................................................. 135 

10.5. 

Summary of good practices and areas for further development ...................... 136 

2 

 
 
Part B. International coordination within the framework of the Floods Directive ............. 138 

11.  Overview of international cooperation for flood risk management in the EU ........... 138 

11.1.  Main elements of the FD related to international issues.................................... 139 

11.2.  Types of international coordination .................................................................... 139 

11.3.  Overview of international cooperation and coordination frameworks ............ 142 

11.4.  Conclusions from previous phases of the flood risk management cycle in 
transboundary RBs............................................................................................................. 144 

Recommendations for transboundary cooperation in the framework of the FD ................. 168 

Annex 1  Member State FRMPs assessed .......................................................................... 170 

Annex 2  Overview of measures by aspect ......................................................................... 173 

Annex 3 

List of measure aspects and types ....................................................................... 174 

Annex 4  Map of iRBD for which an assessment was carried out .................................... 175 

Annex 5  Overview of international coordinating mechanisms ........................................ 176 

3 

 
 
 
Acronyms 

APSFR 
CA 
CBA 
CIS 

CIS-WGF 
EEA 
EIA 
ESIF 
EU 
EUSF 
FD 
FHRM 
FRMP 
iFRMP 
iRBD 
iUoM 
NWRM 
PFRA 
RB 
RBD 
RBMP 
SEA 
UCPM 
UoM 
WFD 
WISE 

Area of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
Competent Authority 
Cost-benefit analysis 
Common Implementation Strategy of the Water Framework Directive and 
the Floods Directive 
CIS Working Group on Floods 
European Environment Agency 
Environmental Impact Assessment 
European Structural and Investment Funds 
European Union 
European Union Solidarity Fund 
Floods Directive (Directive 2007/60/EC) 
Flood Hazard and Risk Map 
Flood Risk Management Plan 
international FRMP 
international River Basin District 
international Unit of Management 
Natural Water Retention Measures 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment 
River Basin 
River Basin District 
River Basin Management Plan 
Strategic Environmental Assessment 
Union Civil Protection Mechanism 
Unit of Management  
Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) 
Water Information System for Europe 

4 

 
 
 
 
Executive Summary 

Partly in response to the large floods along the Danube and Elbe rivers in the summer of 2002 
and  partly  in  response  to  mounting  evidence  that  socioeconomic  development1  and  climate 
change  increase  the  chances  that  floods  in  Europe  could  become  more  catastrophic  and 

frequent, in November 2007 the Floods Directive (FD) entered into force. The purpose of the 
Directive  is  to  establish  a  framework  for  the  assessment  and  management  of  flood  risks, 

aiming  at  reducing  the  adverse  consequences  for  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural 
heritage and economic activity associated with floods. 

The  Directive  takes  a  three  step  cyclical  approach  to  flood  risk  management  by  requiring 

Member  States  to  (1)  undertake,  by  December  2011,  preliminary  flood  risk  assessments 
(PFRA) leading to the identification of areas that are at significant risk of flooding, known as 

areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFR); (2) by December 2013, prepare flood hazard 
and risk maps (FHRM) showing how far floods might extend, the depth or level of water and 

the impacts there might be on human health, the economy, environment and cultural heritage 
and,  finally,  (3)  prepare  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  (FRMP)2.  These  Plans  were  to  be 
published by December 2015 and reported by March 2016 to the European Commission. Some 
FRMPs however were reported with delay and for two Member States the length of the delay 

did  not  allow  for  the  inclusion  of  any  of  their  FRMPs  in  the  Commission’s  assessment, 
consequently these are not discussed in the present Overview3. 

The Commission’s assessment4 draws on two main sources:  (1) depending on the number of 
FRMPs  established  in  each  MS  either  on  all  FRMPs,  or  on  a  representative  sample  and  (2) 
Member State reporting to the European Commission (covering all FRMPs)5. The assessment 
focuses  on  and  summarises  the  progress  made  in  the  process  of  managing  flood  risk  in  26 

Member  States.  It  also  identifies  areas  for  further  development.  It  can  be  concluded  that 
Member States made good efforts in the preparation of their first ever FRMPs under the FD, 

with solid results. Various challenges in connection to flood risk management have also been 
identified,  which  should  be  addressed,  depending  on  their  nature,  during  the  2nd  cycle  of 

1 E.g. through the encroachment of assets into floodplains. 
2 Over 270 FRMPs were eventually prepared across the 28 Member States. 
3 This is the case for Greece’s and the Republic of Ireland’s FRMPs, which were not included in the assessment. 
The Republic of Ireland reported in May 2018 and Greece reported in October/November 2018. A FRMP for 
Spain’s Canary Islands was not reported as of yet. 

4 The present report reflects the situation as reported by each Member State to the European Commission in 2016 
or 2017 and with reference to FRMPs prepared earlier. The situation in the MSs may have altered since then. 
5 The format for reporting was jointly elaborated by the Member States and the European Commission as part of a 

collaborative process called the “Common Implementation Strategy”. 

5 

 
 
                                                      
implementation  of  the  Directive  (2016  to  2021)  and  in  subsequent  cycles6.  Indeed,  whereas 
establishing  and  publishing  the  Plans  is  an  obligation  under  the  Directive,  the  envisaged 
function  of  the  Plans  should  primarily  be  that  of  a  management  tool,  employed  for  the 

reduction  of  potential  adverse  consequences  from  significant  flooding.  In  this  sense,  the 
recommendations  put  forward  in  the  EU  overview  and  the  individual  Member  State 

assessments  aim  at  strengthening  flood  risk  management  in  the  EU  on  the  basis  of  good 
practice as it emerges from the implementation of the FD by the Member States themselves. 

Governance and public participation 

In almost all Member States the FRMPs have been adopted at various administrative levels and 
through  various  acts7.  In  almost  all  Member  States  the  FRMPs  underwent  a  Strategic 
Environmental  Assessment  (SEA),  either  across  the  board  or  in  at  least  some  Units  of 
Management  (UoMs)8.  In  20  of  the  Member  States  assessed,  objectives  for  flood  risk 
management  were  set  at  the  national  level  or  by  adapting  national  level  objectives  to 

regional/local  circumstances.  National  and  municipal  authorities  were  reported  by  19  and  18 
Member States respectively as responsible for the implementation of measures to achieve the 
set objectives. For the majority of measures more than one authority was reported. 

The Directive requires Member States to encourage the active involvement of interested parties 
in  the  production,  review  and  updating  of  the  FRMPs.  All  Member  States  used  a  variety  of 

information  channels  for  outreach  to  the  public  and  stakeholders  (most  made  draft  FRMPs 
available  via  the  internet,  which  was  also  the  primary  medium  for  the  submission  of  written 

comments) and a broad range of stakeholders were involved in the preparation of the FRMPs, 
e.g.  civil  protection  authorities  were  involved  in  19  Member  States  in  at  least  some  of  the 

UoMs  assessed.  Less  information  was  found  in  the  FRMPs,  or  Member  State  reporting,  on 
how  the  effects  of  the  consultation  were  taken  into  account;  for  ten  Member  States, 

information was not found for some or all UoMs assessed. 

6 There is no “sunset clause” in the Floods Directive. 
7  The  establishment  of  the  FRMP  for  the  Canary  Islands  in  Spain  is  pending.  The  Lithuanian  FRMP  was  not 
adopted,  instead  the  FRMP  is  a  supporting  document  for  the  Water  Sector  Development  Programme  2017-
2023 and its Action Plan. 

8  UoMs  in  the  sheer  majority  of  Member  States  coincide  with  the  Water  Framework  Directive’s  River  Basin 

Districts. Member States have designated a total of 209 UoMs for the implementation of the FD. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Integration  of  the  Preliminary  Flood  Risk  Assessment  and  the  Flood  Hazard  and  Risk 
Maps 

To ensure FRMPs are as integrated as possible and to provide for continuity between the three 
steps  of  the  flood  risk  management  cycle,  the  FD  foresees  that  the  FRMPs  will  include  the 
conclusions of the PFRA and FHRM steps. Indeed, all except two Member States9 reported the 
conclusions  of their PFRAs10 as well as  the conclusions of the FHRMs in their FRMPs. The 
FRMPs assessed, along with Member State reporting, provide some information in nearly all 
Member States11 on how the FHRMs were used to prepare the Plans themselves. Detail on the 
choice of flooding sources included in the FRMPs were found in the FRMPs of few Member 
States12,  still,  almost  all  Member  States,  save  for  four13,  provide  at  least  some  information 
about the sources of flooding considered in the FRMPs assessed. 

Setting of objectives 

According to the FD, Member States shall establish appropriate objectives for the management 
of  flood  risks.  All  MS  set  such  objectives.  In  terms  of  number  of  objectives,  some  Member 
States  set  a  few  broad  objectives,  other  Member  States  presented  a  larger  number,  often  of 

more  specific  sub-objectives.  An  almost  equal  number  of  Member  States  (ten  and  nine 
respectively)  explicitly set  objectives  for the reduction of the potential adverse consequences 

from flooding and for reducing the likelihood of flooding; the later objective however was on 
the whole represented less prominently in the FRMPs assessed than the former. 

Whereas  the  objectives  in  12  Member  States  include  at  least  some  specific  and  measurable 
elements, the objectives in 14 Member States are neither specific nor measurable in terms of 

what,  where  and  by  when  should  be  achieved.  Concretely  defining  measures  and  clearly 
linking  these  measures  to  objectives  could  serve  as  an  alternative  to  defining  specific 

objectives, provided the measures are selected and designed in such way that their completion 
would  result  in  achieving  the  objectives  set.  11  of  the  Member  States  included  in  this 

assessment made a link between their objectives and the measures to achieve them; five did so 
only for some UoMs and 11 did not establish a clear link. Three Member States – and only for 

9 Belgium and France for the PFRA and Malta and France for the FHRM. 
10  There  are  currently  more  than  7.000  APSFRs  in  the  EU.  Roughly  40%  of  these  are  located  in  Croatia.  In 

Hungary two vast areas are designated as its APSFRs. 

11 For Croatia and Malta no information was found at the time of the assessment. 
12 Including Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Luxembourg and Sweden. 
13 For Belgium, Malta and Romania, the FRMPs assessed do not provide information concerning the sources of 

floods considered, while for Bulgaria the information is provided in some but not all FRMPs assessed. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                      
some  of  the  UoMs  –  explained  how  the  implementation  of  measures  will  lead  to  the 
achievement of objectives14. 

Not all objectives being elaborated to a degree that would allow them to be monitored against 

progress and not all measures being clearly linked to the objectives they seek to achieve, these 
taken together may pose a challenge for the 2nd cycle when the MS will provide an assessment 
of the progress made towards the achievement of the objectives. 

Measures for the achievement of objectives 

FRMPs  should  include  measures  for  achieving  the  objectives  established  by  the  Member 
States.  All  Member  States  provided  a  list  of  measures  and  summary  information  for  each 

measure. The number of measures varies significantly across the Member States, ranging from 
few individual measures to thousands of measure groups. More than half of the Member States 

assessed  provided  elements  in  terms  of  what  the  measures  are  trying  to  achieve,  where  (and 
which  area  their  effects  will  cover),  how  and  by  when.  Around  40%  of  the  measures  are 

protection measures, 25% prevention measures, another 25% preparedness and the remaining 
10% recovery measures. In some cases, Member States have indicated that further specificity 
concerning measures will be developed in separate plans.  

All MS reported on the prioritisation of their measures, either on a five point scale15, or as a 
timetable.  To  illustrate,  around  10%  of  the  measures  reported  were  of  critical  priority,  60% 

were of very high or high priority, 20% of moderate priority and the remainder of low priority. 
Many  FRMPs  provide  at  least  some  information  on  how  progress  achieved  in  the 
implementation  of measures will be monitored, though in many  cases with  little detail16. All 
Member  States  assessed  indicated  the  progress  achieved  at  the  time  of  reporting  in  the 
implementation  of  measures.  These  being  the  1st  FRMPs,  about  half  of  the  measures  were 
reported as not started. Roughly two-thirds of the Member States provided information on the 

methods used for prioritising the measures.  

Specifically in terms of non-structural initiatives (i.e. measures not involving civil engineering 

structures),  the  FRMPs  of  all  Member  States  assessed  make  reference  to  spatial  planning 
and/or  land  use,  however,  the  extent  of  information  varies.  All  26  Member  States  assessed 

include  nature  based  solutions  as  measures  (including  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures-
NWRM  to  mitigate  flooding)  in  some  or  all  of  their  FRMPs,  either  as  projects  or  as 

14 Bulgaria, Poland and Sweden. 
15 Low, moderate, high, very high or critical priority. 
16  An  assessment  of  the  progress  made  towards  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  is  a  requirement  for  the  2nd 

FRMPs. 

8 

 
 
                                                      
preparatory studies. Despite insurance not being mentioned in the FD, in more than half of the 

26  Member  States  assessed  at  least  some  FRMPs  related  measures  are  foreseen,  including 
awareness raising on insurance schemes. 

Financing of measures 

Estimates  of  the  costs  of  flood  measures  were  made  available  by  about  half  of  the  Member 

States  assessed,  though  in  many  cases  this  information  does  not  cover  all  FRMPs  or  all 
measures.  For  the  Member  States  that  provided  (mostly  partial)  cost  estimates,  the  numbers 

vary: EUR 19 million in one case, EUR 2.8 billion in another. A number of FRMPs indicated 
that cost estimates would be reviewed during the implementation of the measures. 

In  23  of  the  26  Member  States,  most  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  identified  funding  sources, 
however,  in  many  cases  with  only  a  generic  reference,  that  is,  identifying  possible  funding 

mechanisms  rather than making budgetary commitments. For instance, in  14 Member States, 
the Cohesion Funds were indicated as a source. 

Use of cost and benefit analysis 

A  majority  of  the  Member  States  assessed,  19  of  26,  have  made  some  analysis  of  costs  and 
benefits  of  their  measures.  Amongst  the  19,  fewer,  11  Member  States  out  of  the  26,  used  a 

cost-benefit  analysis  (CBA)  in  all  UoMs  assessed.  A  further  five  of  the  19  Member  States 
indicated  the  use  of  CBA  for  some  of  their  FRMPs. When  looking  at  the  19  Member  States 

where a CBA (or an alternative method) was indicated, more than one third  – seven Member 
States17  –  reported  that  it  was  used  for  all  measures  in  at  least  some  UoMs.  Five  Member 
States  indicated  that  a  CBA  was  only  used  for  structural  measures18.  Further,  across  the  19 
Member States that applied some form of analysis of costs and benefits, twelve provided clear 

information  of  the  methodology  used.  In  nearly  all  these  cases,  a  national  approach  was 
developed. 

Links between FRMPs and River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) 

The  development  of  RBMPs  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  and  of  FRMPs 
under  the  FD  are  elements  of  integrated  river  basin  management.  The  two  processes  should 

therefore use the potential  for synergies and mutual  benefits.  Although in nearly all Member 

17 Austria, Finland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. 
18 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                      
States  assessed,  separate  FRMPs  and  RBMPs  were  prepared19  (very  often  however  by  the 
same authority), 21 out of 26 Member States make explicit reference to coordination with the 
environmental objectives set out in Article 4 of the WFD in all or at least some UoMs. On the 

other  hand,  in  over  half  of  Member  States,  the  objectives  of  the  FD  were  considered  in  the 
preparation of the RBMPs, according to the reporting of RBMPs under the WFD. 

Consideration of the likely impacts of climate change 

From  the  FRMPs  assessed,  24  of  the  26  Member  States  considered  at  least  some  aspects  of 

climate change and ten provided strong evidence that climate change impacts were considered. 
14  Member  States  discussed  future  climate  change  scenarios  in  their  FRMPs.  Among  those 

which discussed climate scenarios, the time frame presented in the Plans varies. Scenarios for 
2050 are seen in about half, and scenarios for 2100 are also cited in about half. 

Less  than  half  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  refer  to  the  national  adaptation  strategies  prepared  by 
Member States under the EU Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. In about a third of Member 
States  all  FRMPs  assessed  referred  to  such  national  strategies20;  in  a  further  few  Member 
States some, but not all FRMPs assessed, had such references21.  

International coordination within the framework of the Floods Directive 

Article  8  of  the  FD  calls  for  Member  States  to  coordinate  their  flood  risk  management 
practices  in  transboundary  River  Basins  (RBs),  including  with  third  countries,  and,  in 

solidarity,  not  to  undertake  measures  that  would  increase  the  flood  risk  in  neighbouring 
countries.  Two  large  groups  of  RBs  can  be  distinguished:  (1)  transboundary  RBs  where  a 
formal  international  agreement  and  an  international  coordinating  body  exists22,  as  well  as  an 
international FRMP (iFRMP) was produced; (2) transboundary RBs where at least one of these 

three  elements  is  absent.  It  is  clear  that  the  presence  of  a  coordinating  body,  ideally  a  river 
commission,  provides  a  strong  impetus  to  the  process.  Generally,  for  RBs  benefiting  from  a 

river  commission,  permanent  working  groups  have  been  set  up,  and  in  all  cases  the 
development of the iFRMP was done in consultation with the iRBMP. Common objectives for 

flood risk management were established at the international level and for almost all a limited 
number of joint coordinated measures were defined. Public consultation was performed and a 

joint  communication  strategy  was  put  in  place  in  some  of  the  basins  that  have  a  river 

19  Four  Member  States  presented  some  form  of  combined  FRMP/RBMP,  three  of  these  for  the  whole  country 

(Croatia, Lithuania and Malta) and one partly (Belgium for the Brussels and Flanders regions). 

20 Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Croatia, Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia. 
21 Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. 
22  Such  as  the  International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Danube  River  (ICPDR)  or  the  International 

Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR). 

10 

 
 
                                                      
commission.  Likewise,  consideration  of  climate  change  is  more  developed  there.  The 

appreciation of the upstream and downstream effects, at the basin scale, of measures that are 
geographically not in the vicinity of national borders is an area with room for development. 

11 

 
 
 
 
1.  Introduction 

While many Member States already had national policies to address floods, most of Europe’s 
River Basins (RBs) are shared by more than one country.  Before the Floods Directive (FD)23 
was put in place, European Union (EU) policy to tackle flooding mainly focused on emergency 

response  and  instruments  that  partially  addressed  or  contributed  to  the  management  of  flood 
risk. The Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM)24 was developed in 2001 to facilitate the 
mobilization of support and assistance in the event of major emergencies, including floods. In 
addition,  following  the  2002  floods  in  central  Europe,  the  European  Union  Solidarity  Fund 
(EUSF)25 was  created as  a specific instrument  for granting rapid  financial assistance directly 
after a major disaster to help the affected areas to return to living conditions that are as normal 

as possible. 

Whereas  these  instruments  can  provide  relief  to  affected  populations,  they  are  not  flood-
specific  and do not  address  the root causes of floods, nor are  focused on preventing damage 

from floods. Consequently, there was scope for targeted and concerted action at European level 
that would result in better management of flood risks; this realisation led to the introduction of 

the FD in 2007. 

This  document  provides  an  overview  of  the  first  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  (FRMPs) 

produced by EU Member States and reported to the European Commission under the FD. 26 
Member States are discussed26. The Plans operationally cover the period 2016-2021. Whereas 
establishing the Plans is a legal  obligation under  the Directive, the envisaged function of the 
Plans should primarily be that of a management tool, employed for the reduction of potential 

adverse  consequences  from  significant  flooding.  In  this  sense,  the  recommendations  put 
forward in the EU overview and the individual Member State assessments aim at strengthening 

flood  risk  management  in  the  EU  on  the  basis  of  good  practice  as  it  emerges  from  the 
implementation of the FD by the Member States themselves. 

23 Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and 

management of flood risks, OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27–34, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060 

24 http://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/civil-protection/mechanism_en 
25 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/solidarity-fund/ 
26 The Republic of Ireland and Greece are not included due to very late reporting. 

12 

 
 
                                                      
 
The  European  Commission’s  individual  Member  State  assessment  reports  (published  in 
parallel)  provide  relevant  background  detail  to  the  present  EU  overview27.  Together  they 
should  support  and  improve  the  implementation  of  the  FD.  The  present  document  and  its 

annexes should therefore facilitate the identification of good practice, as well as the reflection 
on areas of flood risk management that require improvement28, through further development, in 
subsequent cycles of implementation of the Directive29. 

Next  to  the  equivalent  one  for  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)30,  this  document 
underpins  the  implementation  report  from  the  European  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament and the Council of the EU foreseen in Articles 18 of the WFD and 16 of the FD. 

1.1.  Rationale for continued action at the EU level 

While  floods  are  a  natural  phenomenon,  human  choices,  historic  and  still  widespread  today, 

have a significant effect on their occurrence and impacts. Locating assets within floodplains or 
near the coast, the reduction of water-retaining surfaces, interventions to water courses or their 

surroundings and man-instigated climate change, all contribute to an increase in the likelihood 
and adverse impacts of flood events. Since some time already there is evidence that Europe is 

subjected  to  an  increasing  number  of  large,  damaging  floods.  Figure  1  below  shows  that  the 
number of large flood events over a 25-year period increased and it is clear from the recently 
prepared EU Overview of Risks31 that floods remain the most common risk for Europe: 27 out 
of 28 Member States included floods as a main risk in their national risk assessments submitted 
to the European Commission under the UCPM32. 

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

28  See  also  Special  report  no  25/2018  from  the  European  Court  of  Auditors:  “Floods  Directive:  progress  in 
improve”, 
and 

implementation 

risks, 

need 

assessing 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=47211  

planning 

while 

29 There is no “sunset clause” in the Floods Directive. 
30  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2000  establishing  a 

to 

framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1–73, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/En/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060 

31 Commission Staff Working Document – Overview of natural and man-made disaster risks the European Union 
may  face{SWD (2017)176 final};  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/285d038f-
b543-11e7-837e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

32 In November 2017, the European Commission proposed to strengthen the EU Civil Protection Mechanism by 
encouraging  a  stronger  collective  European  response  with  the  development  of  a  reserve  capacity  (known  as 
‘rescEU’)  to  complement  national  capacities,  and  by  stepping  up  disaster  prevention  and  preparedness  in 
Participating States to the Mechanism (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-6766_en.htm). 

13 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
Figure 1 

Numbers  of  large  floods  in  Europe  each  year  during  1985–2009,  based  on 

Dartmouth Flood Observatory records  

Source: Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz, Iwona Pińskwar & G. Robert Brakenridge (2012): Large floods in 

Europe, 1985–2009, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2012.745082 

Estimates indicate that coastal and inland floods killed more than 2 000 people and affected 8.7 
million in the period 1991-201533. Most noticeable were the catastrophic floods in the summer 
of 2002 in the Danube and Elbe RBs, but also the 2013 summer flooding in central and south 
east Europe. 

Economic losses caused  by floods can be devastating, including damages to  private housing, 
monuments,  transport  or  energy  infrastructure  and  various  economic  sectors.  In  addition  to 

economic,  social  (including  health)  and  cultural  heritage  damage,  floods  often  have  severe 
environmental  consequences  too,  affecting  terrestrial  and  aquatic  ecosystems,  e.g.  through 

pollution.  Potential  cascading  effects  of  a  flood  event  may  include  the  loss  of  vital 
infrastructure,  the  outbreak  of  epidemic  or  epizootic  events,  damage  to  industrial  facilities 

causing the release of chemical or radioactive substances. Clearly hence implementing the FD 
contributes  also  to  the implementation  of policies other than flood risk management, e.g. the 

WFD. 

Next  to  socioeconomic  change,  human  induced  climate  change  may  increase  the  scale  and 

33  EEA  Report  No  15/2017,  “Climate  change  adaptation  and  disaster  risk  reduction  in  Europe  Enhancing 

coherence of the knowledge base, policies and practices” Available at: 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-change-adaptation-and-disaster 

14 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
frequency  of  floods  in  many  parts  of  Europe.  The  Joint  Research  Centre  of  the  European 

Commission  found  that  even  a  2°C  rise  in  global  temperature  is  still  expected  to  lead  to  a 
significant increase in floods and droughts in many regions of Europe.34 

Figure 2 

Projections  of  future  floods  in  Europe  under  a  +2°C  global  warming  –  100 
year return period  

Source:  Roudier,  P.,  Andersson,  J.C.M.,  Donnelly,  C.  et  al.  Climatic  Change  (2016):  Projections  of 
future  floods  and  hydrological  droughts  in  Europe  under  a  +2°C  global  warming.  135:  341. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1570-4. 
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1570-4 

Under the no-adaptation scenario (i.e. assuming continuation of the current protection against 
river floods up to a current 100-year event), EU damages from the combined effect of climate 

and  socioeconomic  changes  are  projected  to  rise  from  EUR  6.9  billion/year  to  EUR  20.4 
billion/year by the 2020s, EUR 45.9 billion/year by the 2050s, and EUR 97.9 billion/year by 
the 2080s.35 

Considering these numbers, the importance of collecting accurate and consistent  disaster loss 
data  cannot  be  overstressed.  However,  disaster  loss  data  remains  an  area  requiring 

improvement,  EU  Member  States  included.  Therefore,  one  of  the  actions  listed  in  the 

34 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/more-intense-floods-and-droughts-europe  
35 Rojas et al. (2013) Climate change and river floods in the EU: Socio-economic consequences and the costs and 

benefits of adaptation, Global Environmental Change 23, 1737–1751 available at: 
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013001416#  

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
“RescEU” Communication36 is for Member States and the European Commission to promote a 
more systematic collection and dissemination of loss data. The European Commission, through 
its Joint Research Centre, has launched the Risk Data Hub (RDH)37, expected to be the point of 
reference  for  curated  EU-wide  risk  data,  either  through  hosting  relevant  datasets  or  through 
linking  to  national  platforms.  The  RDH  integrates,  among  other  tools,  the  European  Flood 
Awareness System (EFAS)38. Member States can also input their own disaster loss datasets. 

Floods  are  only  one  of  the  threats  our  societies  are  faced  with  next  to  other  disaster  risks 

(natural  or  man-made),  the  fight  against  crime  and  terrorism,  border  security.  These  threats 
involve  issues  such  as  chemical,  biological,  radiological  and  nuclear  threats,  crisis 

management,  resilience  etc.  A  range  of  research,  technological  developments  as  well  as 
capacity-building,  training  and  education  projects,  are  striving  to  support the  implementation 

of these policies. 

However, the extent of the policy framework and the wide scope of supporting initiatives often 
lead to a lack of awareness about policies and/or project outputs by the “users”39. In response 
to  needs  expressed  by  different  actors  for  improving  exchanges  of  information  and  build  up 
synergies  among  different  types  of  activities  (research,  capacity-building,  education  and 
training, a “Community of Users on Secure, Safe and Resilient Societies”40 was introduced by 
the European Commission in 2014 and has since become a recognized mechanism to exchange 

information  both  within  the  EU  institutions  and  intergovernmental  agencies  and  the  many 
different actors involved in safety and security risk management. 

Worldwide,  beside  windstorms,  floods  are  the  most  frequent  cause  of  natural  hazard  losses: 
about  a third of all reported events  and a third of the economic losses  resulting from  natural 
catastrophes  are  attributable  to  floods.41  Disaster  risk  management  aspects  are  underlined  as 
critical to poverty reduction and enablers of sustainable development in the EU's consensus on 

development  and  contribute  towards  meeting  the  UN’s  Sustainable  Development  Goals. 
Indeed,  flooding  is  directly  relevant  to  two  at  least  SDG  goals:  No  11  and  No  13  on 

Sustainable  Cities  and  Communities  and  Climate  Action  respectively.  Work  at  the 

36 https://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/eu_disaster_management_rescue.pdf 
37  As  part  of  the  European  Commission’s  Disaster  Risk  Management  Knowledge  Centre  (DRMKC)  for 
strengthening  the  interface  between  science  and  policy,  https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/partnership/Scientific-
Partnerships/Risk-Data-Hub#documents/789/list 

38 https://www.efas.eu/ 
39  Namely  policy  makers  (at  EU/national  level),  scientists  (researchers/academics),  industry  (incl.  SMEs), 

practitioners (e.g. first responders), and civil society (NGOs, general public, city networks etc.) 

https://www.munichre.com/touch/naturalhazards/en/naturalhazards/hydrological-

40 https://www.securityresearch-cou.eu/node/5  
41 

hazards/flood/flood/index.html  

16 

 
 
                                                      
international level on disaster risk management is under the Sendai Framework for disaster risk 

reduction 2015-2030, adopted by United Nations (UN) Member States at the third UN world 
conference  on  disaster  risk  reduction  in  March  2015  and  endorsed  by  the  UN  General 

Assembly.  The  European  Commission  launched  an  Action  Plan  in  2016  to  support  reaching 
the Sendai objectives42 and the FD is one of its contributing elements. 

42 Commission Staff Working Document, Brussels, 17.6.2016, SWD(2016) 205 final/2, Action Plan on the Sendai 
Framework  for  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  2015-2030,  A  disaster  risk-informed  approach  for  all  EU  policies; 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/1_en_document_travail_service_part1_v2.pdf  

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
2.  Main elements of the Floods Directive 

2.1.  The objectives and key provisions of the Floods Directive 

Given the clear need for a targeted and coordinated approach at EU level  towards flood risk 
reduction, the FD was proposed as an instrument by the European Commission on 18 January 

2006  and  entered  into  force  on  26  November  2007.  The  purpose  of  the  Directive  is  to 
‘…establish  a  framework  for  the  assessment  and  management  of  flood  risks,  aiming  at  the 

reduction  of  the  adverse  consequences  for  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage 
and economic activity associated with floods…’ (Article 1) 

After  transposition  into  national  law  and  the  necessary  governance  arrangements,  that 
principally  consisted  of  identifying  UoMs43  and  Competent  Authorities  (CA),  the  Directive 
required  Member  States  to  make,  by  December  2011,  preliminary  assessments  of  flood  risk 
(PFRA)  leading  to  the  identification  of  any  areas  that  are  at  significant  risk  of  flooding.  By 

December  2013,  the  Member  States  were  to  have  prepared  FHRMs  showing  how  far  floods 
might extend, the depths or levels of floodwaters and the impacts that there might be on human 

health,  the  economy,  environment  and  cultural  heritage.  The  Directive  also  requires  that  the 
assessment  of  flood  risk  and  associated  mapping  must  be  coordinated  between  the  Member 

States  sharing  RBs  that  cross  national  boundaries.  For  the  third  major  step  in  the  risk 
management cycle, the Directive calls on Member States to prepare FRMPs, which were to be 

completed and published by December 2015. Building on the prior steps, the FRMPs should 
detail appropriate objectives and identify measures for achieving these objectives. 

The following table provides an overview of the risk management cycle as defined by the FD. 

43 The UoM in most Member States coincide with the WFD’s RBDs. 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 1 

Timetable for the implementation of the Floods Directive (2nd cycle focus) 

Subject 

Deadline for 
completion 
(1st cycle) 

Deadline for 

notification/reporting 
(following completion 

from the part of the 
MS) 

2nd cycle 
implementation 

Main 

reference 

Transposition and 
notification to the 

Commission 

Competent Authorities and 
Units of Management if 

different from WFD and 
notification to the 

Commission 

Transitional measures (not 
relevant in the 2nd cycle) 

26.11.2009 

26.11.2009 

- 

Article 17 

26.05.2010 

26.05.2010 

3 months after 
any changes 

Article 3(2) 
(and Annex 1 

WFD) 

22.12.2010 

22.12.2010 

- 

Article 13 

Preliminary Flood Risk 
Assessment-PFRAs/APSFRs 

22.12.2011 

22.03.2012 

22.03.19, every 
6 years 

Articles 4 & 5, 
Article 15 

thereafter 

Flood Hazard and Risk 

22.12.2013 

22.03.2014 

22.03.20, every 

Article 6, 

Maps-FHRMs 

6 years 
thereafter 

Article 15 

Flood Risk Management 

22.12.2015 

22.03.2016 

22.03.22, every 

Article 7, 

Plans-FRMPs 

Commission’s first 

implementation report 

Commission’s second 

implementation report 

6 years 
thereafter 

Article 15 

22.12.2018 

Every 6 years 

Article 16 

22.12.2024 

Every 6 years 

Article 16 

There are links between the purpose and approach to flood risk management prescribed by the 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
FD  and  the  achievement  of  water  quality  objectives  under  the  WFD.  The  FD  states  in  its 

preamble that the implementation of the two Directives should ‘…use the mutual potential for 
common synergies and benefits...’ (point 17 of the preamble). At the same time, Article 1 of 

the  WFD  says  that  the  purpose  of  the  Directive  “…is  to  establish  a  framework  for  the 
protection  of  inland  surface  waters,  transitional  waters,  coastal  waters  and  groundwater 

which: [inter alia] … (e) contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts”… 

The FD is in almost all Member States implemented at the level of the River Basin Districts 

(RBDs)  designated  under  the  WFD  and  the  CA  responsible  for  the  WFD  are  generally  also 
responsible  for  flood  risk  management  under  the  FD  (except  where  other  UoM  and  CA  are 

designated  by  Member  States).  The  implementation  cycles  and  reporting  mechanisms  of  the 
two  Directives  are  synchronized:  the  first  set  of  FRMPs  due  in  December  2015  should  have 

been coordinated with the second RBMPs under the WFD (and possibly also integrated into), 
which were also due in December 2015. The public information and consultation mechanisms 
of the WFD can furthermore be utilised44. 

Measures  can  contribute  to  both  Directives’  ends.  From  a  design  and  impact  point  of  view, 
NWRM45 are an example of measures that can contribute simultaneously to the achievement of 
objectives  under  the  WFD  and  the  FD  by  strengthening  and  preserving  the  natural  retention 
and storage capacity of aquifers, soils and ecosystems46. At the same time, plans for new flood 
protection infrastructure need to be assessed in terms of potential impacts on the achievement 
of good status under the WFD.  

2.2.  The European Commission’s 2015 implementation report  

In accordance with Article 18(4) of the WFD the European Commission published in 2015 an 
interim  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  on  the  implementation  of  the 

44 Commission Staff  working document  SWD(2015) 51, final,  Report on the progress in implementation of the 
FD, Accompanying the Document ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the 
Council  –  The  WFD  and  the  FD:  Actions  towards  the  ‘good  status’  of  EU  water  and  to  reduce  flood  risks. 
Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-
framework/pdf/4th_report/CSWD%20Report%20on%20the%20FD%20.pdf 

45 www.nwrm.eu  
46  COM(2015)  120  final,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  – 
The WFD and the FD: Actions towards the ‘good status’ of EU water and to reduce flood risks. Available at: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0120 

20 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
 
WFD,  which  also  discussed  the  FD47  and  included  an  overview  of  the  first  steps  in  its 
implementation.  

This  report  found  that  most  Member  States  had  developed  new  preliminary  flood  risk 

assessments,  while  few  used  existing  assessments  or  relied  on  a  combination  of  new  and 
existing ones. Criteria for defining significant floods and methods for quantifying impacts were 

diverse across Member States and, in some cases, not systematically specified. Only one third 
of Member States explicitly considered climate and long-term socio-economic changes in their 

assessment  of  flood  risk  at  the  start  of  the  decade.  Despite  these  gaps,  the  report  recognised 
that for the first  time, all  Member States acted together under the same  policy  framework to 

prevent  or  reduce  social,  economic  and  environmental  damage  from  flood  risk.  The  flood 
hazard  maps  and  flood  risk  maps  produced  are  a  tool  for  decision  makers  and  authorities  to 

decide on, visualise, communicate (inter alia to the public) and implement measures aimed at 
reducing flood risks in an effective and sustainable way for water and the society. In addition, 

the report indicated that the FD has served as a strong incentive for the Member States to focus 
on  prevention  and  awareness  actions  for  flood  risk  management,  in  addition  to  protection 

measures. 

2.3  The Common Implementation Strategy 

Implementation of the WFD and the FD has been supported since May 2001 by informal co-
operation  under  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  (CIS)48,  led  by  Water  Directors  of 
Member States and the European Commission, with  participation from relevant stakeholders. 

The  CIS  has  successfully  delivered  thirty-six  guidance  documents;  served  as  a  valuable 
platform  for  exchange  of  experience  and  best  practice  on  implementation  among  Member 

States,  but  also  for  exploring  common  issues  of  concern  and  joint  responses.  All  documents 
produced under the CIS are made public on CIRCABC49, a collaborative platform. Within the 
CIS, it is the Working Group on Floods (CIS-WG F) that primarily deals with issues pertaining 
to the implementation of the FD. 

47  COM(2015)  120  final,  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  – 
The WFD and the FD: Actions towards the ‘good status’ of EU water and to reduce flood risks. Available at: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0120 

48 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm  
49 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/3644e20b-f5c5-46de-9d2f-3d9efb965fac  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
3.  Approach  to  the  Assessment  of  the  Flood  Risk  Management 

Plans 

After each of the two main steps of the flood risk management cycle defined by the FD, the 
European Commission produced assessments of the Member States’ PFRAs and FHRMs. The 

present  document  bases  itself  on  the  assessment  of  the  third  and  final  step  of  the  flood  risk 
management cycle, the FRMPs. The document reflects firstly an assessment of the national (or 

sub-national) FRMPs prepared by Member States (in Part A of this document) and secondly, 
an assessment of international  cooperation among Member States and with  third countries in 

International River Basin Districts (iRBDs)/international Units of Management-iUoMs (in Part 
B of this document).  

The  assessment  of  Member  States  FRMPs  drew  on  mainly  two  sources:  (1)  Member  State 
reporting  to  the  European  Commission  under  the  FD  (covering  all  FRMPs)50  and  (2) 
depending  on  the  number  of  FRMPs  established  in  each  MS  either  on  all  FRMPs,  or  on  a 
representative  sample51.  Member  States  were  requested52  to  report  summaries  of  the  key 
elements of their FRMPs. They were for example requested to report on measures taken under 
their FRMPs, thereby providing data including the location, costs, priority, responsible for the 

implementation authorities.  

50 Member States reported to the Water Information System for Europe (WISE,  https://water.europa.eu/) via the 
European Environment Agency (EEA)’s ReportNet infrastructure and its Common Data Repository (CDR): 
http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/ReportekEngine/searchdataflow?dataflow_uris=http%3A%2F%2Frod.eionet.europ
a.eu%2Fobligations%2F603&years%3Aint%3Aignore_empty=&partofyear=&reportingdate_start%3Adate%3
Aignore_empty=&reportingdate_end%3Adate%3Aignore_empty=&country=&release_status=released&sort_
on=reportingdate&sort_order=reverse&batch_size  The  format  for  reporting  was  jointly  elaborated  by  the 
Member  States  and  the  European  Commission  as  part  of  a  collaborative  process  called  the  “Common 
Implementation Strategy”. 

  Data must be reported in a clear and consistent way by all Member States. The assessment of the FRMPs was 
based  on  a  common  assessment  template  used  for  all  Member  States.  The  format  for  reporting  was  jointly 
elaborated by the Member States and the European 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. 

51  This  report  reflects  the  situation  as  reported  by  each  Member  State  to  the  European  Commission  in  2016  or 
2017 and with reference to FRMPs prepared earlier. The situation in the MSs may have altered since then. 
52 European Commission, Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC): Guidance Document No. 29  – A 
compilation of reporting sheets adopted by Water Directors CIS for the WFD(2000/60/EC), Technical Report 
2013-071, 2013. Available at: 
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/acbcd98a-9540-480e-a876-
420b7de64eba/Floods%20Reporting%20guidance%20-%20final_with%20revised%20paragraph%204.2.3.pdf  

22 

 
 
                                                      
 
 
 
The  overview  in  Part  A  of  this  document  is  based  on  the  Member  States  reports.  As  two 

Member States had not reported their FRMPs at the time of the assessment, the assessment of 
FRMPs is based on 26 Member States53.  

It should be noted that up to five FRMPs were assessed in each Member State. The FRMPs for 
assessment were chosen based on several criteria: first, to capture the variety of methods used 

(for  example  in  Member  States  with  a  decentralised  structure  where  regions  or  localities 
followed different approaches); second, to capture different types of flood sources; and third, 

to  include  UoMs  that  are  part  of  larger  transboundary  units.  Annex  1  provides  the  list  of 
FRMPs assessed. 

All  chapters  of  Part  A  on  national  FRMPs  indicate  noteworthy  good  practices  and  areas  for 

further development for all Member States (with the exception of the chapter on governance). 
Further, this  overview highlights  in  boxes throughout  the document a range of good practice 

examples  collectively  covering  all  Member  States:  These  examples  are  intended  to  be 
illustrative  and,  owing  to  the  diversity  of  flood  risk  Member  States  are  faced  with,  the 

examples may or may not serve as good practice suitable for replication elsewhere. For further 
information  and  to  gain  a  better  appreciation  of  the  context,  the  individual  Member  State 

assessment reports should be visited. 

The assessment for international coordination under the FD (Part  B) drew on Member States 

reporting, together with national FRMPs as well as on international FRMPs (iFRMP) for those 
iRBD  where  iFRMPs  were  prepared  (for  example  the  Danube  or  the  Rhine  basins).  The 

assessment  covered  a  total  of  27  international  basins,  including  those  with  lower  levels  of 
cooperation, where no iFRMP was prepared. 

53  Greece  and  the  Republic  of  Ireland  had  not  reported  in  time  to  be  included  in  this  assessment.  Spain  had 
reported 17 of 25 FRMPs at the time of the assessment, which was carried out on this basis. The Republic of 
Ireland reported in May 2018 and Greece reported in October/November 2018. A FRMP for Spain’s Canary 
Islands was not reported as of yet. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Part  A.  Assessment  of  Member  State  Flood  Risk  Management 
Plans 

4.  Governance of Flood Risk Management 

This chapter covers several issues related to the governance of flood risk management and of 

FRMPs.  It  firstly  provides  an  overview  of  the  number  of  UoMs  and  Areas  of  Potential 
Significant  Flood  Risk  (APSFRs)  designated  by  Member  States  and  then  considers  the 

administrative level (local, regional or national) at which the Plans were prepared. The chapter 
then provides information on the level that the Plans were adopted at and discusses their legal 

status.  The  following  section  reviews  the  use  of  SEA  procedures.  The  chapter  proceeds  to 
present an overview of Member States reporting of the FRMPs, and finally it considers links 

between the FRMPs and flood management plans that preceded the introduction of the FD.  

4.1.  Administrative level for the preparation of FRMPs 

Member States have designated a total of 209 UoMs for the implementation of the FD. Within 
these  UoMs,  Member  States  identified  7.906  APSFRs54  (the  total  as  reported  for  the  FRMP 
assessment55).  

The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  UoMs  and  APSFRs  reported  per  Member  State. 
APSFRs  were  first  reported  at  the  PFRA  stage;  some  Member  States  updated  their  numbers 

later during the risk management cycle, which for some coincided with reporting their FHRMs 
or FRMPs. A 4% increase in the number of APSFRs took place between 2011 and 2015 (see 

Table 2 below). 

In the majority of the Member States the UoMs correspond to the RBDs under the WFD. Italy 
is one exception as it follows the water governance scheme in place before the introduction of 

the  WFD  and  consequently  its  UoMs  cover  different  types  of  basins  (national,  interregional 
and regional basins): Italy has designated 47 UoMs but only 8 RBDs. Romania is another case, 

with 12 UoMs but only one RBD. 

54  Belgium,  Italy  and  the  Netherlands  applied  Article  13(1)(b)  as  a  transitional  measure  in  the  1st  cycle  of 

implementation of the FD and did not undertake a PFRA/identify APSFRs under the FD. 

55 7 594 APSFRs were reported at the time of the PFRA. 

24 

 
 
 
                                                      
Table 2 

Number of UoMs and APSFRs reported  

MS 
AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 
IT 
LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

Total 

UoMs 
3 

APSFRs  
(as reported at  
FRMP stage, 2015) 
391 

APSFRs  
(as reported at 
PFRA stage, 2011) 
391 

7 

4 

1 

3 

10 

4 

3 

25 

8 

14 

2 

1 
47 
4 

2 

4 

1 

4 

10 

10 

12 

10 

2 

2 

16 

209 

116 

19 

269 

841 

10 

20 
1 30656 
21 
12257 
2 976 

2 

129 

15 

25 

4 

268 

54 

399 

18 

61 

559 

281 

116 

19 

269 

809 

10 

27 

1 229 

21 

146 

2 976 

2 

129 

15 

25 

268 

399 

18 

61 

383 

281 

7 906 

7 594 

Sources: Member States reporting to WISE. European Commission, European Overview Assessment of 
Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of Potentially Significant Flood 
Risk: Final report, Figure 9 (prepared by WRc and partners), September 2015. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/EU%20PFRA%20Overvie
w%20Report.pdf 

Note:  the  table  does  not  include  either  Greece  (124  APSFRs  reported  at  the  PFRA  stage),  nor  the 
Republic  of  Ireland  (305  APSFRs),  as  these  two  Member  States  did  not  report  in  time  for  the 
FRMP assessment. 

56 There have been changes in Spain’s APSFRs. The updated total will be 1 342 APSFRs. 
57 France noted that one APSFR was missing in the reporting for APSFRs (2012-2014). It was added in the update 

of the reporting of FHRMs in May 2017. It was therefore included in the count in the table above.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
According to the Directive, Member States should prepare one FRMP for each RBD or UoM 

that contain APSFRs, or a set of FRMPs coordinated at the level of the RBD (Article 8.1). All 
FRMPs  identify  the  level  at  which  the  planned,  ongoing  or  executed  measures  take  place. 

Member States have taken a variety of different approaches to the preparation of their FRMPs 
(see Table 3 below).  

Table 3 

Number of FRMPs per Member State and their geographical coverage   

National 

Regional 

UoM/RBD 

Sub-basin or 
Municipal 

AT  
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
NL 
MT 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

1 

1 

1 
1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

40 

7 
4 

3 
5 
2 
3 
17 

14 

~30 

4 
4 

3 
9 
11 

2 
13 

(see Notes) 

20 (municipal) 

16 (APSFRs) 

18 (APSFR) 

9 (sub-basin) 
23 (sub-basin) 

Sources: Member States reporting and FRMPs.  
Notes:  The  Czech  Republic  prepared  both  UoM-level  and  sub-basin  FRMPs  (the  latter  were  not 
reported  to  WISE,  nor  assessed).  Italy  prepared  FRMPs  at  UoM  level  and  at  the  level  of 
RBDs  that  comprise  several  UoMs;  the  estimate  is  made  based  on  the  links  to  FRMPs 
reported to WISE at the time of the assessment. Spain had reported 17 out of 25 FRMPs at the 
time of assessment.  

Half  of  Member  States  assessed  –  13  out  of  26  –  prepared  an  FRMP  for  each  UoM  where 

APSFRs  were  identified.  Six  Member  States,  however,  prepared  a  single  FRMP  at  national 
level covering all UoMs, and a further five Member States chose to develop Plans at a lower 

level, generally for sub-basins within an UoM. In Slovakia, the FRMPs prepared at the UoM 
level  include  sub-plans  for  sub-basins  of  the  UoM.  Germany  and  Italy  followed  a  mixed 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
approach where some Plans are prepared at regional/Laender level and others at UoM level; in 

Denmark  municipalities  elaborated  municipal  FRMPs  which  were  summarised  in  FRMPs  at 
UoM level. In Finland and Sweden, FRMPs were prepared for individual APSFRs. In England 

and  Northern  Ireland,  most  plans  are  prepared  at  the  UoM  level,  but  in  Scotland  and  Wales 
they  are  prepared  at  a  lower  level,  for  14  Local  Districts  (Scotland)  and  eight  FRMPs  at  the 

level of the Lead Local Flood Authorities (Wales).  

A  few  Member  States  prepared  FRMPs  also  for  UoMs  without  APSFRs.  One  example  is 

Estonia:  an  FRMP  was  developed  for  the  Koiva  UoM  (EE3).  Even  though  no  APSFRs  had 
been identified, national legislation called for an FRMP for each UoM, and the Koiva FRMP 

aims to  avoid  risks from  potential floods in  the future, with  measures to  improve the natural 
water  retention  capacities  of  the  landscape  (potentially  also  serving  as  a  baseline  for  future 

action).  In  the  United  Kingdom  as  well,  FRMPs  were  prepared  for  several  UoMs  such  as 
Northumbria (UK03) that did not contain APSFRs. Austria’s FRMP, prepared at national level, 

covers all three UoMs including the Elbe (AT5000), which does not contain APSFRs, though 
no measures are planned there.  

In total, as shown in Table3, over 260 FRMPs were prepared across the 26 Member States58. 

4.2.  Adoption and legal status of the FRMPs 

The European Commission’s 2012 assessment of the first RBMPs noted that their legal status 

varied across Member States. Key factors in determining legal status included the role of the 
Plans  in  the  national  hierarchy  of  policy  and  legal  acts,  the  adopting  authority  and  the 

procedure  for  adoption.  The  legal  ‘effect’  of  the  plans  on  other  administrative  acts,  such  as 
permits and spatial planning instruments, would also vary. A similar analysis was carried out 
for the 1st FRMPs and is detailed below. 

For  nearly  all  Member  States,  information  was  available,  either  in  the  FRMPs  or  from  other 

sources,  on  the  legal  status  of  the  Plans  (see  Table  4).  In  at  least  eleven  Member  States,  the 
FRMPs  were  approved  at  the  level  of  national  government.  In  Hungary,  for  example,  the 

government adopted the national FRMP in March 2016 (via Decree 1146/2016).  

In five Member States, the FRMPs were adopted by the Ministry for Environment: this was for 
instance  the  case  in  Latvia,  where  the  Minister  of  Environmental  Protection  and  Regional 

Development  adopted  the  FRMP  for  the  Daugava  UoM  (LVDUBA)  in  November  2015  and 

58 In addition to these, Greece prepared 15 FRMPs and the Republic of Ireland 29. 

27 

 
 
                                                      
the  other  three  FRMPs  the  following  month.  In  Finland,  the  Ministry  for  Agriculture  and 

Forestry, responsible for water management, approved the FRMPs in  December 2015.  In the 
Netherlands, the FRMPs are part of the National Water Plan (2016-2021), which was approved 

by the (at that time) Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and the Ministry of Economic 
Affairs. 

Authorities at UoM/RBD level approved the Plans in France and Italy. In mainland France, the 
basin prefects approved the Plans. In Italy, the RBD authorities adopted the FRMPs in March 

2016 and the national  government  followed in  February  2017.  In  Belgium,  the FRMPs were 
approved by the three regions (Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia); in Portugal, while the plans 

for  mainland  UoMs  were  approved  at  national  level,  those  for  the  autonomous  regions  of 
Azores  and  Madeira  were  approved  by  the  regional  governments.  In  Denmark,  plans  were 

prepared  at  municipal  level  and  approved  by  municipal  councils.  Two  overarching  FRMPs 
were prepared in Denmark, however, these were not approved at national government level.   

Table 4 

Legal adoption of the FRMPs 

Other 
Ministry 

UoM/ 
RBD 

Regions 

Local 

Date of adoption 

National 
Govern
ment 

Ministry 
of 
Environ
ment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IT 

LT 

 




March 2016 

Brussels: January 2017 
Flanders: December 2015 
Wallonia: March 2016 

December 2016 

December 2016 

December 2015 

 

 

** 

** 

 

January 2016 

January and April 2016; 
March 2018 ** 
December 2015 

Late 2015 ** 

July 2016 

March 2016 

authorities:  March 
RBD 
2016;  Council  of  Ministers: 
February 2017 
* 

 

 

28 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
National 
Govern
ment 

Ministry 
of 
Environ
ment 

Other 
Ministry 

UoM/ 
RBD 

Regions 

Local 

Date of adoption 

 

 

 

 

 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

 




 

 



March 2018 

November  and  December 
2015 ** 
February 2016 

December 2015 

October,  November 
December 2016 ** 

and 

September 
2016, 27 October 2017 ** 

and  October 

December 2016 

December 2015 

July 2017 

December 2015 

for  NI, 
December  2015 
Scotland  and  Wales;  March 
2016 for England 

 

 

Sources: Member State reporting, FRMPs.   
Notes: In Finland, the ‘other ministry’ refers to the Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, responsible 
for  water  management.  In  the  Netherlands,  the  ‘other  ministry’  is  the  Ministry  of  Economic 
Affairs 

*  In  Lithuania,  the  Water  Sector  Development  Programme  2017-2023  was  approved  by  the 
Government in February 2017 and the Action Plan of Water Sector Development Programme 
2017-2023  by  the  Minister  of  Environment  and  Minister  of  Agriculture  in  May  2017:  Both 
documents refer to and are partly based on the national FRMP. 

**  In  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Spain,  Latvia  and  Portugal,  the  date  of  adoption  varies 

across the FRMPs. 

For almost all the Member States the FRMPs have been officially adopted, giving them legal 

status. A few of the FRMPs themselves provide information on their legal weight (see the box 
below for France).  

Box 1 - The legal effect of the FRMPs 

In France, the FRMP for the Rhône-Méditerranée UoM (FRD) contains a section on the legal weight of 
the plan, indicating that with the FRMP’s approval, other plans and administrative documents need to 
be updated within three years to be compatible with its provisions. This section refers to plans at several 
levels,  including  the  Schémas  de  cohérence  territoriale  (SCoTs,  Schemas  for  territorial  coherence), 
plans  covering  several  municipalities,  and  to  the  plans  locals  d’urbanisme  (PLUs)  and  plans  locals 
d’urbanisme  intercommunal  (PLUIs),  the  main  local  planning  documents. The FRMP  also  delineates 

29 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the scope of the FRMP compared to the RBMP for the Rhône-Méditerranée. 

4.3.  Strategic Environmental Assessments59 

An SEA is mandatory for plans/programmes which: 

 

are prepared  for agriculture, forestry, fisheries,  energy, industry, transport,  waste/ 
water management, telecommunications, tourism, town & country planning or land 

use and which set the framework for future development consent of projects listed 
in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, or 

 

have been determined to require an assessment under the Habitats Directive. 

In 23 of the 26 Member States, it is clear that the FRMPs underwent an SEA in at least some 

UoMs.  For  example,  an  SEA  is  carried  out  for  only  some  Swedish  and  French  FRMPs.  In 
Malta, on the other hand, an SEA screening was carried out, and on the basis of this, there was 

no full SEA undertaken on the Maltese FRMP. No information was found on SEA procedures 
in Denmark and Estonia; however, this may reflect an omission to provide information rather 

than the lack of an SEA procedure.  

In  some  Member  States,  including  Luxembourg,  Latvia,  Croatia,  Cyprus  and  Portugal,  the 

SEAs  of  the  FRMPs  were  conducted  together  with  the  SEAs  of  the  RBMPs  and  the  results 
were reported in one of the two documents. In the Netherlands, the SEA was carried out on the 

National Water Plan (2016-2021), which includes the draft FRMPs.  

The  FRMPs  in  several  Member  States  provide  information  on  the  SEA  procedure.  For 
example, in Bulgaria, draft results of the SEA procedures were open for public consultation at 

the  same  time  as  the  FRMPs,  so  both  drafts  were  discussed  together.  All  four  Bulgarian 
FRMPs  provide  information  about  the  conclusions  of  the  SEA  procedures.  In  Poland,  a 

stepwise scheme of public consultation and participation in the SEA procedure for the FRMP 
project was used. This gave interested parties the opportunity to participate in both the process 

of developing FRMP measures and in the SEA process. The FRMP for Croatia indicates that 

59 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the 

effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32001L0042 

30 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
neighbouring Member States and third countries were invited to provide  comments as part of 

the SEA procedure. 

4.4.  Overview of Member State reporting of the FRMPs 

MS  were  required  to  report  to  the  European  Commission  on  their  first FRMPs  by  22  March 

2016. Half of EU’s 28 Member States reported at least some of the FRMPs by that date (see 
Table  5  below).  By  July  2017,  all  Member  States  had  reported  except  for  Ireland,  which 
reported in May 201860, and Greece, which published the FRMPs in the official gazette in July 
201861 and reported in October/November 2018. 

Table 5 

Member State reporting of the FRMPs to WISE 

Reporting to WISE 

Updates 

AT 
BE 
BG 
HR 
CY 
CZ 
DK 
EE 
FI 
FR 
DE 
EL 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LV 
LT 
LU 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SK 

March 2016 
March 2016 (February 2017 for one UoM) 
December 2016 
September 2016 
September 2016 (January 2017 for XML) 
March 2016 (Sept 2017 national FRMP) 
March 2016 
May 2016 
March 2016 
March 2016 
March 2016 
October/November 2018 
March 2016 
May 2018 
March 2016 
March 2016 (June 2016 FRMPs) 
July 2017 
October 2016 (June 2017 XML) 
October 2016 (Dec 2017 XML) 
March 2016 
October 2016 
Oct 2016 (March 2017 XML) 
February 2017 
March 2016 

July 2016 

January 2018 (one UoM) 
April 2017 
September 217 
June 2016  
- 

August 2016 

December 2016 
June 2017 

60 http://www.floodinfo.ie/about_floodplans/ 
61 http://floods.ypeka.gr/index.php/sxedia-diaxeirisis 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Reporting to WISE 

Updates 

SI 
ES 

SE 
UK 

August 2017 
February-April 2016 
(March-April 2018 for one UoM) 
March 2016 
March 2016 

Source: Member State reporting. 

May 2017 

4.5.  Links to previous plans 

As noted earlier, some Member States have had long-standing policies to address flood risks. 
In these Member States, the FRMPs follow and build on previous plans to address flood risks. 

In Italy, for example, the regions and some RBs had prepared Plans for Hydrogeological Status 
(Piani  di  Assetto  Idrogeologico,  PAIs)  to  address  hydrogeological  risks  including  different 

types  of  flooding  as  well  as  landslides  related  to  heavy  rainfall.  Italy  used  information  from 
these earlier plans instead of undertaking a PFRA in the first cycle. In the Netherlands, well-

known  for  its  efforts  to  address  flood  risks  from  the  sea,  the  FRMPs  follow  a  set  of  major 
government initiatives taken over the previous decade (see the box below). The Dutch FRMPs 

include  measures  taken  under  other  plans  and  programmes.  This  is  the  case  for  FRMPs  in  a 
few other countries as well: for example, in Croatia, the FRMP’s infrastructure measures are 
based on a prior water infrastructure plan62.  

Member States may decide – under Article 13(3) of the FD  – to make use of earlier FRMPs 
(i.e. finalised before December 2010) instead of preparing 1st cycle FRMPs, provided that their 
content is equivalent to the requirements of Article 7 of the Directive. The assessment found 

application  of  Article  13(3)  in  only  one  Member  State,  for  a  small  share  of  the  German 
FRMPs. 

Box 2 - Previous flood risk initiatives 

In the Netherlands, the four FRMPs refer to and build on recent and ongoing national programmes and 
legislation  for  flood  risk  management.  These  include  the  2007  Room  for  the  River  Programme63 
(Ruimte voor de Rivier) to restore flood plains and other natural features as measures against flooding, 
now nearing completion. Another key initiative has been the Delta Programme64 (first launched in 2008 

62 Specifically, the Multi-annual Program for the Construction of Water Structures for Regulation and Protection 

and Structures for Amelioration, for 2013-2021: http://www.voda.hr/hr/visegodisnji-programi-gradnje 

63 https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/english/  
64 https://www.government.nl/topics/delta-programme/introduction-to-the-delta-programme  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
and most recently updated in 2017) to protect against flooding and secure freshwater resources in the 
face of expected climate change impacts. Related to the Delta Programme, the Netherlands took several 
Delta  Decisions65  (proposed  in  2014  and  adopted  in  the  2015  Delta  Programme):  the  Decision  for 
Water Safety, for example, states that by 2050, dykes and dunes should provide sufficient protection so 
that the risk of fatalities is no higher than 1 in 100,000 citizens per year. 

65 https://english.deltacommissaris.nl/delta-programme/delta-decisions  

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
5. 

Public information and consultation  

According to Article 1 of the 1998 Aarhus Convention “In order to contribute to the protection 

of  the  right  of  every  person  of  present  and  future  generations  to  live  in  an  environment 
adequate to his or her health and well-being, each Party shall guarantee the rights of access to 

information,  public  participation  in  decision-making,  and  access  to  justice  in  environmental 
matters…”66  Directive  2003/35/EC67  is  providing  for  public  participation  in  respect  to  the 
drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment with the objective to 
contribute  to  the  implementation  of  the  obligations  arising  under  the  Århus  Convention. 

Provisions  for  public  participation  in  environmental  decision-making  are  to  be  found  in  a 
number of other environmental Directives, including the WFD and the FD. 

Article  10(1)  of  the  FD  states  that  Member  States  shall  make  available  to  the  public  the 

FRMPs  –  and  this  was  also  the  case  for  the  previous  phases  in  the  flood  risk  management 
cycle, i.e. the preparation of the PFRAs and the FHRMs. Moreover, the active involvement of 

interested parties in the production, review and updating of the FRMPs should be encouraged 
(Article 10(2)). This chapter reviews the information available in the Member States reporting 

and the FRMPs assessed on information provision, public consultation and active stakeholder 
involvement68.  Three  distinct  facets  are  discussed:  (1)  the  provision  of  information  to  the 
public  and  stakeholders  on  the  consultation  itself,  and  the  provision  of  FRMPs  and  related 
documents;  2)  the  actual  public  consultation  and  consultation  methods;  and  (3)  the  active 
involvement of stakeholders.69 

Effective  public  participation  should  result  in  adaptations  which  improve  the  evidence  and 

assumptions  in  the  FRMPs,  refine  the  scope  of  the  measures  to  be  taken  and  increase 
stakeholders’ ownership of the plans and commitment to their implementation. This aspect is 

explored  by  looking  at  how  the  plans  were  reported  to  have  changed  as  a  result  of  the 
consultation.   

66 http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf  
67 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003L0035  
68  The  majority  of  the  information  presented  in  this  section  is  taken  from  the  FRMPs.  In  some  cases,  Member 
States  have  provided  additional  information,  however,  this  additional  information  are  only  included  in  the 
graphs that follow if evidence was found in documents reported to WISE. 

69  The  CIS  Guidance  Document  on  Public  Participation  underlines  that  active  involvement  goes  beyond 
consultation:  ‘…it  implies  that  stakeholders  are  invited  to contribute  actively  to  the  process  and  thus  play  a 
role  in  advising  the  competent  authorities.’  European  Commission,  Public  Participation  in  Relation  to  the 
Water Framework Directive, Guidance Document No 8 (of the C), 2003. Available at: 
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0fc804ff-5fe6-4874-8e0d-de3e47637a63/Guidance%20No%208%20-
%20Public%20participation%20%28WG%202.9%29.pdf 

34 

 
 
                                                      
 
5.1. 

Information provision on the consultation process  

All  of  the  Member  States  covered  in  the  assessment  have  used  a  variety  of  information 

channels for communicating with the public and stakeholders on the FRMPs.  

Figure 3 

Mechanisms to inform the public and stakeholders  

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 

The FRMPs for Austria, Germany and Slovakia explicitly refer to a strategic approach, starting 
at the initial phase of development of the FRMP, to provide information about the content and 

the preparation process of the Plans (see the box below on Austria). The communication and 
information channel that was used the most was the internet, followed by stakeholder meetings 

and the use of media such as newspapers, TV and radio (see Figure 3 above). With regard to 
the  internet,  several  Member  States  set  up  dedicated  websites  on  floods:  one  example  is 
Poland, where the website dedicated to flood protection and to the Plans under development70 
was  updated  on  an  ongoing  basis.  Surveys  and  social  media  platforms  were  used  least. 

Romania  reported  the  use  of  a  high  number  of  information  channels,  followed  by  Austria, 
Belgium,  Poland  and  Portugal,  including  the  internet,  public  displays,  printed  thematic 

brochures and (online) dialogue platforms. An innovative approach was used in Poland: a film 
trailer shown in cinemas was used to reach out to the general public. 

70 www.powodz.gov.pl  

35 

 
 
 
                                                      
Box 3 - Public information and consultation 

In  Austria, a broad public information and consultation strategy was followed for the consultation on 
the  FRMP.  Many  public  relations  channels  and  several  dialogue  platforms  for  topics  related  to  water 
management  were  used,  such  as  the  Round  Table  on  Water  and  an  internet  platform  called 
"Flussdialog"/River  Dialogue,  which  targeted  many  different  stakeholders  as  well  as  the  general 
population.  

In  terms  of  providing  the  documents  for  consultation,  24  of  the  26  Member  States  assessed 

made  all  draft  FRMPs  available  via  the  internet,  and  two  more  did  so  in  some  of  the  UoMs 
assessed  (see  Figure  4  below).  The  second  most  common  method  was  making  paper  copies 

available in municipal buildings, this was done by less than half of the Member States.  

Figure 4 

Mechanisms to provide FRMP documents to the public and stakeholders  

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 

Relatively  few Member  States provided documents  at  the offices of  competent  authorities or 

regular exhibitions, and few provided them via direct mailing. (Croatian authorities specifically 
noted that printed versions were not distributed due to the large size of the document.) Direct 

mailing  was  used  in  Poland  for  all  FRMPs;  Poland  was  the  Member  States  which  used  the 
most  channels,  six,  to  provide  documents.  In  contrast,  several  Member  States  –  including 

Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  France,  Hungary,  Lithuania  and  Latvia  – 
chose to work with downloadable documents only. 

36 

 
 
 
 
A few Member States also  indicated that information on the FRMPs was provided also  once 

they were completed: Slovenia is one example (see the box below). 

Box 4 - Informing the public about the final FRMP 

After the publication of the final FRMP, Slovenia organised workshops with local inhabitants in flood-
risk  areas  and  with  local  water  professionals.  In  December  2015,  there  were  four  workshops  for  the 
basins of Savinja river (at Ljubno ob Savinji), Mura and Drava rivers (at Murska Sobota), Sava river (at 
Ljubljana) and Soča and Adriatic rivers (at Nova Gorica) that explained the FRMP. In 2017, a public 
discussion and exhibition was held, covering both UoMs. 

5.2.  Consultation mechanisms 

In all Member States, the internet was a crucial mechanism for the consultation process itself 

(see  Figure  5  below).  It  was  mainly  used  to  submit  written  comments.  A  high  number  of 
Member States also used workshops and conferences to gather feedback on the consultation.   

Figure 5 

Mechanisms for the consultation 

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 

On average, Member States use four different channels to carry out the consultation. The most 
popular  channels  to  carry  out  the  consultation  were  the  internet,  direct  invitations  and 

workshops  and  conferences.  Bulgaria  and  Estonia  used  the  highest  number  of  channels,  six 
each. In Poland, multiple events were held during the six-month FRMP consultation, including 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
conferences, focus meetings, Water Forum and expert meetings. Written comments could also 

be submitted by mail or email. After this period, further consultations were held as part of the 
SEA procedure for the plans. 

Discussions  on  social  media  platforms  were  an  innovative  method  used  by  Finland.  A 
discussion forum was also set up on the public consultation page for the Kemijoki catchment 

FRMP. 

Three  Member  States  used  surveys  of  the  public:  this  was  seen,  for  example,  in  Bulgaria, 
where members of the public were asked about the main issues to be addressed in the FRMP. 

In Austria, over 11 000 individuals participated via an online questionnaire (the report does not 
say,  however,  if  the  questionnaire  only  looked  at  the  FD  or  whether  it  also  referred  to  the 

WFD, as both Directives are covered in the “Flussdialog” web portal). Latvia used a survey of 
local governments (rather than the public) as an early input to the FRMPs: the survey included 

questions about flood risks in the municipality, currently planned measures and possible non-
traditional solutions to reduce flood risks. 

5.3.  Active involvement of stakeholder groups  

In the majority of Member States, a broad range of stakeholders were actively involved in the 

preparation  of  the  FRMPs  (see  Figure  6).  The  leading  groups  were  local  and  regional 
authorities,  involved  in  all  the  Member  States  for  which  information  is  available,  and  civil 

protection  authorities.  The  latter  were  consulted  for  all  FRMPs  assessed  in  14  of  the  26 
Member  States  –  and  in  19  Member  States  for  at  least  some  UoMs.  Flood  warning/defence 

authorities and water supply and sanitation companies were actively involved in more than half 
of the Member States. Consumer groups and academic and research institutions were actively 

involved in very few Member States, according to the information available.  

38 

 
 
 
Figure 6 

Stakeholder groups actively involved in the preparation of the FRMPs 

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 

Based  on  the  information  provided,  on  average  stakeholders  from  about  eight  sectors  were 

actively involved for all or part of the UoMs. Portugal and Germany were the Member States 
actively involving the widest variety of stakeholder groups (14) for its various UoMs, followed 

by Bulgaria and Hungary (each with 13).  

No  information  was  found  in  the  documents  uploaded  to  WISE,  however,  about  the 

stakeholder  groups  consulted  in  the  development  of  the  FRMPs  for  two  Member  States: 
Lithuania and Slovenia.71  

Box 5 - Active involvement of stakeholder groups 

A broad range of stakeholder groups were actively involved in the mainland  Portuguese FRMPs 
assessed. For the FRMPs for the Douro (PTRH3) and Vouga, Mondego and Lis (PTRH4A) UoMs 
for  example,  these  stakeholders  included:  government  bodies  at  different  levels  and  for  different 
sectors, economic interests and civil society associations. For the Douro, solid waste management 
companies and insurance companies were also mentioned.  

In several Member States, the stakeholders involved varied among FRMPs: this  was the case 
for  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Germany,  Finland,  Italy,  Portugal,  Sweden  and  the  United 

Kingdom.  For  example,  in  Denmark,  where  the  plans  were  prepared  at  municipal  level, 
stakeholders were involved depending on their relevance for and interest in local flood issues. 

71 Slovenia subsequently informed that this information is published in a separate report on public participation. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Nonetheless,  most  of  the  municipalities  in  Denmark  involved  a  range  of  actors  from  public 

agencies and the private sector.  

MS used a wide variety of mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders (see Figure 

7 below). The most common were the establishment of advisory groups, workshops, technical 
meetings,  seminars  or  conferences  and  involving  stakeholders  in  drafting  the  FRMPs. 

Interactive online tools, information events, formation of alliances and regular exhibitions were 
the mechanisms used least frequently. 

A  common  mechanism,  used  in  about  half  of  all  Member  States,  was  the  establishment  of 
multi-stakeholder  advisory  groups.  Luxembourg,  for  example,  created  “Flood  Management 

Partnerships” as a mechanism for local stakeholder involvement in flood risk management. In 
Bulgaria, active involvement included stakeholder meetings at regional and national levels and 

meetings of the Basin Councils: all four UoMs have Basin Councils (required by national law) 
that bring together stakeholders. These Councils provided feedback during the preparation of 

the FRMPs. In Poland, steering committees were created at water region and RB  levels (both 
below UoM level). In Estonia, drafts of the FRMP were submitted for review and approval by 
the  national  Commission  for  RB  Management,  which  brings  together  government  bodies, 

national  experts  and  water  service  companies.  In  one  UoM  in  Portugal,  an  Advisory 
Committee  with  16  representatives  of  different  public,  private  and  civil  society  bodies  was 

formed to monitor the development of the FRMP. A consultative council was created for each 
of Latvia’s four UoMs (see the box below). 

Figure 7 

Mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders  

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 

40 

 
 
 
 
Box 6 - Consultative Councils  

A Consultative Council was set up in each of Latvia’s four UoMs to coordinate the interests of state 
institutions, local authorities and non-governmental organisations as well as private companies and 
other  interest  groups  in  matters related to the achievement  of  environmental  quality  and  flood  risk 
objectives in the area concerned. The main function of the Consultative Council was to evaluate the 
RBMP,  FRMP  and  programmes  of  measures  in  accordance  with  the  public  interest  and  provide 
opinions and recommendations for further development of the plans to the national body responsible, 
the Latvian Environmental Geology and Meteorology Centre72. The companies involved were from 
the  drainage,  water,  agriculture  and  energy  sectors.  During  the  development  of  the  FRMPs,  the 
Consultative Councils also participated in negotiations with the Ministry of Agriculture, which is the 
responsible authority for implementation of flood risk management measures in rural areas. 

In  the  United  Kingdom,  Scottish  UoMs  had  Local  Advisory  Groups  which  included 
representatives from a range of sectors, including government agencies, local authorities, non-

government organisations, utility companies and land and asset managers. In Northern Ireland, 
a  consultation  network  was  set  up  to  ensure  all  relevant  stakeholders  had  an  opportunity  to 

participate in discussion and exchange of information and views on the preparation of FRMPs. 
Within  this  network  there  were  three  main  groups:  an  FD  steering  group,  an  FD  stakeholder 

group and flood forum groups for each RBD.  

In Denmark some municipalities put groups in place to work on specific aspects of the FRMP. 
These  included  relevant  interests  such  as  neighbouring  municipalities  and  landowners  or 

companies that might be affected by the Plan. 

In  Finland,  all  the  FRMPs  assessed  had  a  flood  group  made  up  of  representatives  of 
stakeholders that was directly involved in drafting the FRMP. Stakeholders outside the flood 
groups were able to contribute to the FRMP through specially-organised workshops.   

Workshops  and  conferences  were  a  mechanism  used  in  12  Member  States.  In  Estonia,  for 

instance, a total of 25 meetings and workshops were held with interested parties. Stakeholder 
meetings  to  discuss  the  draft  FRMPs  were  organised  at  regional,  UoM/RBD  and  national 

levels. 

72 Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Centre which is responsible for the development of the Plans. 

41 

 
 
 
                                                      
5.4. 

Incorporating consultation results in the FRMPs 

With regard to the effects of the consultation, for about a third of the Member States assessed, 

no information was found in the FRMPs or Member States reporting on how the results of the 
consultation had been taken into account73.   

Where information was found, this often indicated that adjustments had been made to specific 

measures which had already been selected (12 Member States), and that new information had 
been added to the FRMPs (9 Member States). In nine Member States, changes were made to 

the actual selection of measures (see Figure 8).  

Figure 8 

Effects of consultation on the FRMPs  

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 

Changes to the methodology used as a result of the consultation were reported by Finland as a 
result  for  one  of  its  UoMs  and  by  Croatia  for  its  FRMP  (which  covers  both  of  that  Member 

States’  UoMs).  In  Luxembourg,  the  FRMP  provides  extensive  information  on  how 
consultation results were considered (see box below).  

73 Information was in some Member States included in background documents. For instance, Bulgaria, Spain and 
Hungary  prepared  Annexes  to  the  FRMPs  with  extensive  information  on  the  outcomes  of  the  stakeholder 
consultations;  in  Italy,  the  website  for  the  Eastern  Alps  RB  district  (ITA)  provided  relevant  documents,  but 
similar information was not found on the websites for other FRMPs assessed in Italy. 

42 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Box 7 - The effects of consultation on FRMPs  

In  Luxembourg,  the  proposal  and  selection  of  measures  was  part  of  the  active  involvement 
process,  particularly  through  workshops  organised  for  the  Flood  Management  Partnerships,  and 

consultation of local authorities in flood risk areas. The measures proposed from these workshops 
were largely incorporated in the FRMP.  

Comments received as a result of the initial consultation on the draft FHRMs in 2010/11 were also 
examined and incorporated into the final draft FHRMs which were made available to the public in 
2014, together with the draft FRMP. For example, following public consultation and reference to 
updated data, some recalculations were performed on some of the maps, and localised adjustments 
were made in some APSFRs. In addition, the legend of the Flood Risk Maps was simplified.  

In  four  Member  States,  the  specific  impacts  of  the  consultation  are  not  clear  (Spain,  France, 
Lithuania, and the Netherlands). In some Member States, FRMP consultations were carried out 

in  conjunction  with  consultations  with  other  matters,  for  example  the  RBMP.  The  Maltese 
authorities,  for  example,  combined  flood  management  consultations  with  a  number  of  other 

water-related  topics.  Eventually,  the  Maltese  stakeholders  attending  discussions  were  more 
concerned on issues such as water scarcity, which subsequently became the main emphasis of 

stakeholders.  

For ten Member States, information was not found for some or all UoMs assessed. In Finland, 

three  out  of  five  FRMPs  assessed  included  information  on  the  effects  of  consultation  on  the 
plans. In the United Kingdom, the only UoM found that provided a summary of the changes 

made  as  a  result  of  the  consultation  response  was  the  Neagh  Bann  in  Northern  Ireland.  For 
Italy, while some information on the consultation responses was found on websites, there was 

no  systematic  overview  provided  on  the  effects  of  consultation  in  any  of  the  five  FRMPs 
assessed. 

5.5.  Summary of good practice and areas for further development  

As  noted  in  section  4,  the  assessment  found  that  all  Member  States  engaged  in  noteworthy 

practices;  similarly  areas  for  further  development  were  identified  in  all.  The  following 
paragraphs summarise, based on the Member States reports and the FRMPs assessed, the good 

practices and areas for further development identified in involving stakeholders in the drafting 
process for FRMPs. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.5.1 Good practice 

Many  Member  States  reports  and  FRMPs  underline  the  efforts  made  to  organise  broad 
stakeholder  consultations  at  various  stages  of  the  development  of  the  FRMPs  and  at  various 

levels of influence or competence. Several highlight a strategic approach and an emphasis on 
broad  public  participation.  Reference  was  made  to  the  use  of  coordination  commissions, 

partnerships,  consultative  councils  or  working  groups  to  streamline  the  process  between 
national, regional and local authorities.  

Workshops,  information  fora  and  technical  meetings  were  organised  to  actively  involve  and 
engage  stakeholders.  When  it  comes  to  informing  the  general  public,  some  Member  States 

created dedicated websites to provide information on the consultations and publish surveys and 
summary  reports.  This  facilitates  access  to  information  by  stakeholders  and  members  of  the 

public with different levels of technical expertise. 

Including  feedback  on  the  results  of  consultations  in  (annexes  to)  the  FRMPs  was  also 
practiced  by  several  Member  States,  showing  an  increased  awareness  of  the  importance  of 

transparency.  In  one  case,  a  workshop  was  organised  to  provide  feedback  to  participants  on 
how their input had been used, in a more proactive approach. Information from the public has 

been used in the different planning and development phases of the FRMPs. This shows greater 
willingness on the part of Member States to take account of the concerns and suggestions of 

stakeholders and members of the public. 

Some  Member  States  are  also  linking  more  streamlined  participation  with  integration  across 

different levels of governance (local, regional, national, transnational) and different objectives 
(water  quality,  flood  management,  marine).  This  is  likely  to  contribute  to  more  efficient 

planning and greater stakeholder buy-in. 

5.5.1.  Areas for further development  

Although  broad  public  information  and  consultation  campaigns  were  set  up  by  the  Member 
States, the concrete effects of these activities and the way in which the  consultation activities 

have  influenced  the  final  FRMP,  are  in  many  instances  not  summarised  in  the  FRMP  itself. 
Lack  of  information  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  participation  methods  used,  for  example  in 

44 

 
 
 
 
terms of the number of people involved, the input received and how the input was used should 
as well be addressed in the 2nd cycle.   

Better  stakeholder  analysis  and  greater  transparency  about  the  stakeholders  who  have 

participated in the planning process would be likely to encourage greater efforts from the part 
of  the  stakeholder  groups  who  are  currently  not  being  brought  round  the  table  to  become 

partners. It may be the case, particularly in Member States where a strong public participation 
culture  has  still  to  be  developed,  that  stakeholders  and  members  of  the  public  only 

demonstrated a low level of interest, despite the invitation to participate. In these cases, apart 
from  continuing  to  foster  a  culture  of  public  participation  across  the  spectrum,  it  may  be 

worthwhile  to  measure  the  success  of  the  channels  of  communication  used,  or  the  messages 
passed and, if these were low, to consider alternatives. 

The  duration  of  public  consultation  varied  between  Member  States  (and  for  the  United 

Kingdom, also between FRMPs).  

On this basis, the following recommendations can be made for the preparation of the second 
FRMPs: 

 

Information  on  public  and  stakeholder  involvement  should  be  provided  more 
systematically in the second FRMPs. 

 

To ensure greater coordination with the public consultation for the RBMPs – and to 

ensure  adequate  time  is  provided  to  the  public  to  respond,  in  the  next  cycle 
Member States should consider providing the same, or at least parallel periods for 

the consultation of the FRMPs and the RBMPs. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 Integration  of  the  Preliminary  Flood  Risk Assessments  and 

6. 
Flood Hazard Maps and Flood Risk Maps 

The  FRMPs  are  based  on  the  prior  work  carried  out  by  Member  States:  the  PFRAs  and 
FHRMs. These three steps together form part of a chain, as the FHRMs are to be prepared for 

the APSFRs identified as a conclusion to the PFRA stage, and the plans are to be established 
“on  the  basis  of”  the  FHRMs  (Article  7  of  the  FD).  The  conclusions  of  these  previous  steps 

should be integrated in the FRMPs (in accordance with the Annex of the FD). 

6.1.  Overview of the previous steps 

MS  were  to  complete  their  PFRAs  by  22  December  2011  (Article  4  of  the  FD)  and  then 
prepare  their  FHRMs  by  22  December  2013  (Article  6).  The  results  of  these  two  prior  steps 

were made public by the European Commission in 2015. Member States had three months to 
report  their  PFRAs  and  FHRMs  after  they  were  completed.  Most  countries  were  covered  by 

the  2015  European  Commission  assessments.  Exceptions  were:  Greece  (which  was  late  with 
the reporting of both the PFRAs and the FHRMs, now reported); Bulgaria (which was late with 

the reporting of the FHRMs, now reported); and Croatia, Malta and Portugal, which were late 
in concluding their reporting. 

6.1.1.  Assessment of the previous steps 

Overall, the assessment of the PFRAs74 found that: 

 

Some Member States considered in their preliminary assessment all types of floods 
depending on their source75 while others only some types, but without providing an 
explanation  why  certain  types  were  excluded.  In  the  cases  where  reasons  were 

provided, some types of floods were not included because of their unpredictability 

74 European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of Potentially 

Significant Flood Risk, September 2015, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm 

75 According to the Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC) (p.61)Member State were to consider the 
following  types  of  floods  based  on  the  sources  of  flooding,  defined  by  the  CIS  Working  Group  on  Floods 
(WGF): fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, seawater, floods from artificial water-bearing infrastructure, and other. 
The guidance is available at:  
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/acbcd98a-9540-480e-a876-
420b7de64eba/Floods%20Reporting%20guidance%20-%20final_with%20revised%20paragraph%204.2.3.pdf   

46 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
 
or because insufficient  data were available; in  a  number of cases, Member States 

indicated their intention to include the missing flood types in future assessments.  

  MS  were  to  report  the  adverse  impacts  of  past  floods  in  terms  of  four  main 
categories:  human  health,  environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic 

consequences. In most cases, the impacts of historic floods were mainly reported in 
terms  of  human  health  (reflecting  the  information  on  record),  while  the 

consequences of potential future floods were reported in terms of economic losses. 

 

To identify and quantify potential future adverse consequences of floods, Member 

States applied different methods. Some countries used modelling (hydrological and 

hydraulic), while others applied GIS analysis; for many, details about the methods 
were not provided. 

 

16  of  the  23  Member  States  assessed  considered  climate  change  in  their  PFRAs, 

however, the approaches used were mostly not clear. 

The assessment of the FHRMs76 found that: 

 

For eight Member States, there were differences between the APSFRs identified in 

the PFRA and those for which FHRMs were prepared. 

 

Some  types  of  floods  associated  with  the  APSFRs  were  not  included  in  the 
FHRMs.  The  most  common  source  of  floods  mapped  by  Member  States  was 

fluvial  (mapped  in  25  Member  States).  The  most  common  sources  of  reported 
historical flood events were fluvial (66% of events) followed by pluvial (20%) and 

sea  water  (16%).  In  terms  of  potential  future  floods,  the  sources  reported  were 
fluvial (76%) followed by sea water (18%) and pluvial (8%). 

 

Even  though  all  Member  States  (except  the  island  Member  States  of  Cyprus  and 

Malta) share RBs with neighbouring countries, in most cases (15) it was not clear if 
shared  flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  areas  were  designated  and  mapped  and  if 
information was exchanged77. 

76 EU overview of  methodologies used in preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps, September 2015, 

available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm  

77 It was subsequently (i.e. post reporting) clarified by the Member States that information was exchanged. 

47 

 
 
                                                      
The 2015 FHRM assessment identified areas for improvement and provided recommendations 

for  each  Member  State.  In  the  assessment  of  the  FRMPs,  the  previously  identified  areas  for 
improvement  were  revisited.  However,  the  majority  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  provide 

explicit information if and how these issues have been addressed and if the recommendations 
from  the  2015  assessment  have  been  considered  in  the  FRMPs.  Although  the  information 

available in some of the FRMPs assessed suggest that progress has been made and some of the 
areas for improvement have been addressed, to obtain an accurate picture the assessments of 
the 2nd cycle PFRAs and FHRMs must be carried out first. 

6.1.2.  Application of Article 13 

A  Member  States  may  have  decided  as  a  transitional  measure  for  the  1st  cycle  of 
implementation  of  the  FD  not  to  undertake  the  PFRA  or  identify  APSFRs  and/or  prepare 

FHRMs under the FD, if the country had finalised an equivalent exercise before 22 December 
2010. The assessment of the PFRAs78 indicated that Article 13(1)(a) and (b) were applied in 10 
Member States: 

 

Latvia  and  Luxembourg  notified  the  use  of  Article  13(1)(a)  across  all  their 

territories; 

 

Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal79 notified the use of Article 13(1)(b) 
across all their territories; 

 

Denmark,  Slovakia,  Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom  notified  the  use  of 

combinations  of  Articles  4,  5,  13(1)(a)  and/or  13(1)(b)  (i.e.  they  applied  Article 
13(1) over part/s of their territory). 

The  assessment  of  FRMPs  found  that  only  a  few  of  these  Member  States  mentioned  the 

application  of  Article  13(1)  in  their  FRMPs.  The  five  Italian  FRMPs  assessed  did  so, 
explaining  that  Italy  used  the  previous  Plans  of  Hydrogeological  Status  to  identify  areas  of 

flood risk. Latvia’s four FRMPs note that a risk assessment was carried out in 2007. 

78 European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of Potentially 

Significant Flood Risk, September 2015, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm 

79 Portugal subsequently modified its approach and implemented Article 4. 

48 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
6.1.3.  Changes since the last reporting 

The  assessment  of  FRMPs  and  Member  States  reporting  looked  for  evidence  on  whether 

Member  States  have  updated  their  APSFRs  or  their  FHRMs  since  their  last  reporting  on  the 
subject.  In  9  of  the  26  Member  States  assessed,  the  FRMPs  refer  to  changes.  FRMPs  in 

Germany, Spain, Romania, Sweden and Luxembourg report modifications to the APSFRs, for 
example in terms of boundaries or the total numbers of areas designated. In Belgium, Croatia, 

Italy,  Romania  and  Poland,  some  FRMPs  report  changes  to  the  FHRMs,  e.g.  to  provide 
information  missing  from  the  1st.  cycle,  reflect  updates  in  the  APSFRs  or  refine  the 
information  in  the  FHRMs  (see  the  box  on  Poland  below).  In  seven  Member  States,  the 
number  of  APSFRs  changed  between  the  PFRA  stage  and  the  FRMP  stage  (see  Table  2  in 

section 4).  

Box 8 - Example of changes to the previous steps reported in the FRMPs 

In Poland, the FRMPs refer to changes in the identification of flood hazards and risks: a verification 
of the FHRMs was carried out in 2014; the FRMPs were based on maps that were updated in 2015 
following this verification. The FRMPs explain that the flood hazard maps published in December 
2013 were prepared based on a terrain model validated for the years 2011-2013. In 2014, the flood 
hazard maps were reviewed in connection to comments made by administrative authorities and other 
stakeholders, concerning inter alia, the fact that the maps did not include infrastructure and property 
investments completed later than the acquisition of the numerical terrain model. In the period from 
22  December  2014  to  22  June  2015,  further  comments  of  administrative  authorities  were  received 
regarding  needs  to  include  flood  risk  and  the  methodology  used  in  the  development  of  maps 
(including  for  maps  for  seawater  flooding  in terms  of  wavelengths). To  meet  these expectations, a 
further  scenario  was  prepared  for  the  FRMPs,  containing  updated  ranges  of  flood  risk  areas  in 
relation to the areas indicated in the FHRM in 2014. 

6.2.  Conclusions of the PFRAs 

Nearly  all  Member  States  assessed  included  the  conclusions  of  their  PFRAs  in  their  FRMPs 
(with  the  exception  of  France  and  Belgium;  the  latter  applied  Article13(1)(b)  and  did  not 

prepare  a  PFRA  under  the  FD).  Most  often  these  conclusions  are  presented  as  a  textual 
description, a list or a summary of the APSFRs. Nearly all Member States provide also maps 

of the APSFRs designated, such as summary maps or more detailed maps of example APSFRs. 
In most cases, the FRMPs also provide links to websites where these and more detailed maps 
can be found. The Belgian and French FRMPs also include links to APSFR maps even though 

49 

 
 
 
they  do  not  provide  details  about  their  PFRAs.  In  at  least  four  Member  States,  however,  the 

internet links provided in the FRMPs were not functional at the time of the assessment of the 
FRMPs. In three other cases, web-links to maps are provided only for some but not all of the 

FRMPs assessed. 

The FRMPs in  a few Member  States note that, in addition  to  APSFRs,  other risk areas were 

designated.  One  example  is  Latvia,  where  priority  flood  areas  are  designated;  another  is 
Finland, where flood areas not judged as significant were identified.  

In ten of the 26 Member States assessed, the FRMPs provide information not only about the 

conclusions of the PFRAs but also the methodology and process of their preparation (the box 
below provides an example from Bulgaria. 

Box 9 - FRMPs that provide information on the PFRA process 

In  Bulgaria,  although  the  structure  and  level  of  detail  of  the  PFRA  presentation  varies  across  the 
FRMPs, all four present a brief description of the PFRA, information about the main floods and their 
causes  in  the  past,  analysis  of  the  potential  floods  in  the  future  (e.g.  causes  and  impacts)  and  a 
description  of  the  designation  of  APSFRs.  The  Black  Sea  FRMP  provides  a  description  of  the 
national  methodology  for  the  PFRA,  including  information  used  to  model  future  floods.  The  East 
Aegean  FRMP  also  provides  detailed  maps  of  the  past  and  potential  future  floods  together  with 
references and sources for the analysis. 

6.2.1.  Inclusion of flood conveyance routes 

Article 2(1) of the Directive defines flooding as “the temporary covering by water of land not 
normally  covered  by  water.”  According  to  Articles  4  and  7(3)  of  the  FD,  Member  States 

should  include  flood  conveyance  routes  in  their  PFRAs  and  FRMPs  respectively.  In  both 
Articles,  flood  conveyance  routes  are  mentioned  next  to  flood  extent.  This  is  because  flood 
conveyance  routes  can  be  defined  either  as  the  progression  of  flood  water  downstream,  or, 
once out of the channel (alternatively, once it has accumulated e.g. due to intense raining) as 

the course that flood water follows as it spreads, or extends, beyond the area that it normally 
covers. Depending on the source, the characteristics and the mechanism of the flood80, whereas 
in  a  rural,  flat  area,  flood  water  may  spread  in  all  directions,  in  an  urban  area  with  a  more 
varied terrain (e.g. valleys) and several “obstacles” (such as buildings or large vehicles) flood 

80 Guidance Document No. 29, “Guidance for Reporting under the FD”, pp. 59-66. 

50 

 
 
 
                                                      
water may follow a narrower path, roughly along what would have been a thalweg prior to the 

urbanisation of the area. 

The assessment of the PFRAs81 showed that conveyance routes were one of the aspects most 
often  not  included  in  the  PFRAs:  Only  six  Member  States  provided  information  on  the 
conveyance  routes  of  historical  floods.  For  the  FRMPs  as  well,  only  some  of  the  FRMPs 

assessed include explicit information about flood conveyance routes. Among these, the FRMPs 
of five Member States – the Czech Republic, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia  – 

provide information about the identification of flood conveyance routes. In the Netherlands, for 
example,  conveyance  is  mentioned  throughout  the  Rhine  FRMP  (NLRN)  to  highlight  that 

rivers  need  more  space  to  allow  the  evacuation  of  water.  Other  FRMPs  mention  that  flood 
conveyance routes were considered but without providing further detail (this was the case for 

FRMPs assessed in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany and Slovenia). However, in yet other 
FRMPs assessed, no references to flood conveyance routes were found.82 

Box 10 - Using the PFRA in the development of FHRMs: examples from Austria and Cyprus 

In Austria, the FRMP reports that the PFRA and the identified APSFRs were used as the basis for 
developing  the  FHRMs;  some  additional  sources  of  information  were  also  consulted  (results  from 
run-off models, zoning/hazard zoning according to Austrian law, hazard zoning plans according to 
the  1975  forestry  law,  and  the  floods  zoning  for  Austria).  The  FRMP  states  that  the  flood  hazard 
maps cover more areas than the APSFR if possible, but it is not specified how much more or which 
areas in addition to the APSFRs.  

In  Cyprus,  the  PFRA  created  a  database  of  valuable  information  about  past  flooding  events,  their 
gravity, extent, location, frequency and the subsequent impacts on the population, the economy and 
the environment. The PFRA process contributed to the identification of existing drainage and flood-
relief mechanisms and provided a detailed depiction of current land uses in Cyprus, particularly in 
relation  to  sources  of  flood.  The  codification  and  examination  of  these  data,  in  combination  with 
climate change  considerations,  was used in the identification  of  APSFRs. The  PFRA  and  APSFRs 
were then used as the basis for developing the FHRMs. 

81 European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of Potentially 

Significant Flood Risk, September 2015, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm  

82 Some Member States, including Austria and Italy, note that conveyance routes were considered in the FHRMs 
though they were not referred to in the FRMPs assessed. E.g. in Italy, conveyance routes are used to define 
measures. 

51 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
The reasons why conveyance routes were one of the aspects often not included in the FRMPs 

(and  PFRAs)  are  not  clear.  Possible  explanations  could  be  little  or  no  information  on  past 
floods,  uncertainty  about  the  probability  (or  the  most  likely  location)  of  natural  or  flood 

defence exceedance (or failure); not accurate enough digital models of the terrain or the built 
environment; not powerful enough hydrodynamic models. 

6.2.2.  Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHRMs 

Although the level of detail provided across Member States varies, in most cases the results of 
the  PFRAs  were  used  to  inform  the  FHRMs  and  FHRMs  were  prepared  for  the  APSFRs 

identified during the PFRA: This process is described in the FRMPs of 15 of the 26 Member 
States. The FRMPs of some Member States provide also information on how the FHRMs were 

prepared  based  on  the  PFRAs  (see  the  box  above)  or  how  the  preparation  of  the  FHRMs 
resulted in some updates of the PFRA/APSFRs (see the box below for examples). 

Box 11 - Updating the APSFRs in the FHRM process: examples from Hungary and Luxembourg 

In  Hungary,  the  flood  risk  modelling  that  was  used  for  the  PFRA  has  been  updated  to  take  into 
account  recent  infrastructure  (such  as  roads)  and  buildings  in  the  floodplain.  A  2D  numerical 
modelling technique83 was introduced and applied to calculate the potential flooding, and this work 
required updating of the information based on the flood basins, resulting in some modifications of the 
PFRA results. For the FHRMs, Hungary revised the design flood protection levels84 on all rivers that 
were the subject of mapping: the new levels draw upon the modification of the findings of the PFRA. 

In Luxembourg, the FRMP reports that some recalculations were performed on the maps for some 
APSFRs.  Recalculations  of  mapping  data  involved  consideration  of  additional  measures  (extended 
re-naturalisation  measures  in  the  Alzette  APSFR  A01,  and  ecologically  oriented  flood  protection 
measures  in  the  Sauer  APSFR  A03);  and  in  some  locations  more  detailed  modelling  using  a  two-
dimensional  water  level  model  (Nordstad  in  A01,  Roudbach/Attert  confluence  A12/A11).  These 
updates were undertaken in the maps made available to the public in 2014. 

83 A 2D numerical model was applied as, according to the FRMP, this is the only technique with which interim 
changes  could  be  tracked  effectively  and  the  calculations  could  be  run  taking  into  account  the  new 
circumstances. 

84 Design flood level is the water level for the base flood used in planning for Hungary’s FRMP, this refers to the 
water  level  for  a  1%  probability  flood  (based  on  a  flow  rate  at  a  given  section  of  the  river  for  the  1% 
probability flood) 

52 

 
 
 
                                                      
6.3.  Conclusions from the FHRMs 

Nearly  all  Member  States  assessed  reported  the  conclusions  of  the  FHRMs  in  their  FRMPs 

(with  the  exceptions  of  France  and  Malta).  Most  often  these  conclusions  are  presented  as  a 
short textual description or explanation and links to websites where the maps can be found (it 

should be noted that the French FRMPs assessed contain links to FHRMs even though details 
about  these  maps  are  not  provided).  Some  FRMPs  reproduce  examples  of  FHRMs.  The 

internet links provided in some FRMPs were not functional at the time of the assessment: this 
was  the  case  for  all  FRMPs  assessed  in  six  Member  States  and  for  some  but  not  all  of  the 

FRMPs assessed in four other Member States. 

Box 12 - A web site on risk management for the public 

In  the  Netherlands,  FHRMs  can  be  seen  found  on  a  web  site  –  http://www.risicokaart.nl  –  that 
provides  the  public  with  information  on  flood  risks  and  other  risks,  including  hazardous  substances, 
fires and nuclear accidents. Online maps can be accessed by entering a local address. The web site also 
provides information on preparation in case of a flood, alert networks and actions to take during a flood 
event. A similar website exists in the United Kingdom: https://www.gov.uk/check-flood-risk 

6.3.1.  Flooding sources 

As  noted  above,  the  assessment  of  Member  States’  PFRAs  noted  that  in  many  cases,  not  all 

conceivable  flood  sources  were  explicitly  considered.  The  assessment  of  FRMPs  found  a 
continuation  of  this  practice:  The  majority  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  provide  only  limited 

information about the sources of floods considered, likely making the implicit assumption that 
the  sources  considered  in  previous  steps  of  the  cycle  are  carried  over.  In  few  cases,  namely 

Belgium, Malta and Romania, the FRMPs assessed do not provide any information concerning 
the sources of floods considered, while in Bulgaria’s case, the information is provided in some 

but  not  all  FRMPs  assessed.  Many  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  mention  flood  sources  without 
explanation why some types of floods have not been included – this is the case for the FRMPs 

from 12 Member States.  

The  assessment  of  the  PFRAs85  indicated  that  four  Member  States  had  not  included  any 
information  on  sources  of  flooding  in  their  flood  risk  assessments  since  they  applied  Article 

85 European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of Potentially 

Significant Flood Risk, September 2015, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm  

53 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
13(1)(b). All other Member States, except for Luxembourg86, had considered fluvial floods in 
their assessments. Thirteen Member States had considered all five types of flooding sources – 
fluvial,  pluvial,  groundwater,  seawater  and  floods  from  artificial  water  bearing  structures 
(AWBS)87; of these, only four Member States considered all five types of floods as significant, 
while  for  five  Member  States  there  was  no  information  why  some  types  of  considered  were 

significant or not. Of the other countries, eight Member States provided explanation why some 
types  of  flooding  sources  were  not  considered  as  significant  while  seven  countries  excluded 
some types of flooding without providing a justification88.  

Considering  the  sources  of  flooding  for  which  FHRMs  were  prepared,  the  assessment  of  the 
FHRMs89 analysed information for 26 Member States (Bulgaria and Greece were late with the 
reporting) and found at the time that all Member States90 prepared maps for fluvial floods. In 
addition,  17  Member  States  prepared  maps  for  seawater  floods,  14  for  pluvial  floods,  9  for 
floods from AWBS and only 4 for groundwater floods91. 

Explanations  or  justification  of  the  choice  of  flooding  sources  included  in  the  FRMPs  were 

found only in the FRMPs of some Member States including Austria and Denmark (described 
in  the  box  below)  as  well  as  Cyprus,  Luxembourg  and  Sweden.  Hungary,  Slovakia  and 

Slovenia report covering ‘all relevant’ sources of floods either separately or together, while the 
Portuguese  FRMPs  explain  that additional sources of flooding will be considered in  the next 

management cycle. 

Box 13 - Examples of explanations which sources of floods have been included in the FHRMs 

In  Austria,  fluvial  and  pluvial  floods  are  considered  significant.  However,  no  APSFRs  have  been 
designated so far for pluvial flooding, as these are very local events in Austria, and the uncertainties 
were  considered  too  high.  Floods  from  groundwater  and  artificial  water  bearing  structures  are  not 
considered  significant,  and  again  no  APSFRs  have  been  designated.  Hence,  APSFRs  have  been 
designated  only  for  fluvial  floods  (including  floods  from  lakes)  and  as  a  result  FHRMs  have  been 

86 Subsequently Luxembourg clarified that it was in fact fluvial flooding that was considered. 
87 Table 10 in European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of 

Potentially Significant Flood Risk, September 2015, p.40, link as above. 

88 Table 13 in European Overview Assessment of Member States’ reports on PFRA and Identification of Areas of 

Potentially Significant Flood Risk, September 2015, pp.49-50. 

89 EU overview of  methodologies used in preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps, September 2015, 

available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm  

90 Except Luxembourg, however, as noted in an earlier footnote, it was fluvial flooding also for Luxembourg. 
91  Table  3.1  in  EU  overview  of  methodologies  used  in  preparation  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps, 

September 2015, p.19. 

54 

 
 
                                                      
produced only for this type of floods.  

In Denmark, the FHRMs in all FRMPs assessed cover only fluvial and seawater floods. Neither in the 
FRMPs assessed, nor in the national web-GIS, are there maps for groundwater floods or floods from 
artificial  water  bearing  structures  (according  to  the  PFRA  assessment,  the  latter  are  not  relevant  for 
Denmark; information was not found, however, to indicate if groundwater floods could be relevant92). 
Pluvial  flooding  was  not  assessed  at  the  PFRA  stage.  Nevertheless,  for  one  of  the  five  municipal 
FRMPs  assessed  a local  map  was  prepared showing  the  combined  effect of  flooding  from  seawater, 
fluvial and pluvial sources. 

Considering the information available in the  FRMPs assessed (a summary  is  provided in  the 
following table) the most significant source of flooding in the majority of the Member States is 

fluvial floods. Some Member States considered also seawater floods or the combined effects of 
multiple sources of floods (in fact Slovenia and Slovakia presented only the combined effects 

of different types of floods). Overall, few Member States considered pluvial and groundwater 
floods or floods from artificial water bearing structures. 

Table 6 

Types of flooding sources reported in the FRMPs assessed per Member State  

MS 

Fluvial 

Pluvial 

Seawater 

Ground-

AWBS 

Other 

Multiple 

water 

sources 

sources 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

 

 

NA 

NA 

NA 

 

NA 
 

AT 
BE93 
BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 
EE94 
ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IT 

 

NA 
 

 

 

 

 

NA 
 

 

 

 

 

 

NA 

 

 

NA 

 

 

Not relevant 

NA 
 

Not relevant 
 

 

NA 
 

 

 

 

Not relevant 
 

 

 

 

 

 

92  European  Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  Member  State  Report:  DK  – 

Denmark, 2015. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/DK%20FHRM%20Report.pdf 

93 At the FHRM stage, Belgium prepared maps for fluvial, pluvial, sea water, groundwater and AWBS floods. 
94 At the FHRM stage, Estonia prepared maps for fluvial, pluvial and sea water floods. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
MS 

Fluvial 

Pluvial 

Seawater 

Ground-

AWBS 

Other 

Multiple 

LT 

LU 

LV 
MT95 
NL 

PL 

PT 
RO96 
SE97 
SI 

SK 

UK 

 

 

 

NA 
 

 

 

NA 
 

() 

() 
 

water 

sources 

 

NA 

NA 

() 

() 

 

Not relevant 
 

NA 
 

 

NA 

() 

Not relevant 
 

 

 

NA 

NA 
 

() 

 

NA 

NA 

() 

NA 

NA 

() 

sources 
 

 

NA 

NA 

 

 

Sources: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 
Notes:  AWBS=Artificial  Water  Bearing  Structures;  NA=Not  available  (i.e.  information  was  not 
available  in  the  FRMPs  assessed,  footnotes  were  added  based  on  the  ‘EU  overview  of 
methodologies  used  in  preparation  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps’  report);  ()=the 
flood type was considered through the assessment of ‘multiple sources’ of floods. 

6.3.2.  Using the FHRMs in the development of the FRMPs 

The FRMPs assessed, along with Member States reporting to WISE, provide some information 
in  nearly  all  Member  States  on  how  the  FHRMs  were  used  to  prepare  the  Plans  themselves 

(with  the  exception  of  Croatia  and  Malta  whose  FRMPs  do  not  describe  how  the  FHRMs 
informed the plans).  

Many  FRMPs  refer  to  the  FHRMs  informing  the  definition  of  the  measures.  Some  Member 

States  report  that  the  FHRMs  informed  the  setting  of  objectives  or  priorities  and  the  public 
participation process (for an overview see the following table). 

Table 7 

Use of the FHRMs in the development of the FRMPs per Member State 

MS 

Setting FRM 

Setting FRM 

Defining FRM 

Public participation process 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

priorities 

objectives 

 

 

 

 

measures 
 

 

 

 

95 At the FHRM stage, Malta prepared maps for pluvial floods. 
96 At the FHRM stage, Romania prepared maps for fluvial and pluvial floods. 
97 In Sweden, separate maps for floods from AWBS were produced but these were not included in the FHRMs. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
MS 

Setting FRM 

Setting FRM 

Defining FRM 

Public participation process 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

priorities 
 

objectives 
 

measures 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources: Member State reporting and FRMPs.  
Notes: FRM=Flood Risk Management; information not found in the FRMP for Malta;  in Croatia the 

FHRMs informed the assessment of potential damages. 

Despite these references, few FRMPs provide a detailed explanation of the role FHRMs played 
in the preparation of the Plans.  

Box 14 - Using the FHRMs in the development of the FRMPs 

In Portugal, all FRMPs include a standard text regarding the relevance of the FHRM work and its 
results for the definition of the FRMP. In four of the FRMPs assessed98 it is clearly stated that the 
FHRMs have been used to define and prioritise flood risk measures and their type (although it is not 
clear how the maps guided the definition of objectives). The measures were devised and prioritised 
considering the damages identified in the FHRMs, and in particular addressing the significance of: 
human lives at jeopardy, potential damage to the environment, potential damage to infrastructure and 
potential damage to hazardous industry. 

In the United Kingdom, the English FRMPs assessed (Solway Tweed for the English part of UK02 

98 Portugal subsequently clarified that this approached was applied for all mainland FRMPs. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
and  Severn,  UK09)  state  that  in  developing  the  proposed  measures,  conclusions  were  drawn  from 
FHRMs which help to identify risks and opportunities. In the Scottish strategies assessed (Clyde and 
Loch Lomond in UK01 and Solway in the Scottish part of UK02), it is stated that the FHRMs helped 
inform the selection of measures to manage flood risk in Potentially Vulnerable Areas. Target areas 
within the Potentially Vulnerable Areas have been set to focus measures. 

6.4.  Coordination with other Member States and third countries 

6.4.1.  PFRA/APSFR stage coordination 

The assessment of the PFRA and FHRM stages found that inter-MS provision of information 
was lacking regarding transboundary cooperation99, including on the existence of shared flood 
risk  areas.  The  FRMPs  assessed  provide  some  information  on  this  topic.  Nearly  all  Member 

States which share UoMs with neighbouring Member States report that coordination took place 
during  the  PFRAs,  even  though  common  transboundary  APSFRs  were  hardly  identified.  In 

fact,  references  to  shared  APSFRs  were  found  in  the  FRMPs  of  only  two  Member  States 
assessed:  Bulgaria  (APSFRs  shared  with  Greece  to  the  south  and  Romania  to  the  north)  and 

Finland  (APSFRs  shared  with  Sweden).  This  is  contrary  to  at  least  one  international  FRMP, 
where  transboundary  APSFRs  were  identified.  Considering  the  transboundary  nature  of 

significant  flooding,  this  apparent  contradiction  should  be  resolved  in  the  direction  of 
appreciating the whole extent of an APSFRs’ area of influence (upstream and downstream), as 

opposed to resorting to exclusively nationally defined APSFRs. 

In most cases, the FRMPs assessed, as well as Member States reporting, refer to coordination 
on flood risk management through the river commissions for international RBs. In some cases, 

coordination  under  bilateral  agreements  is  also  reported,  for  example  between  Germany  and 
the  Netherlands.  The  FRMPs  for  both  Bulgaria  and  Slovenia,  for  example,  describe  bilateral 

meetings with neighbouring Member States and, in Bulgaria’s case, also with third countries. 

6.4.2.  FHRM stage coordination 

As  noted  above,  very  few  assessed  FRMPs  refer  to  shared  APSFRs,  which  would  require 

preparation  of  joint  FHRMs.  The  FRMPs  in  Bulgaria  and  Finland  provided  an  overview  of 
work on joint FHRMs (see the box below).  

99 The Member States subsequently clarified that the absence of information was an omission and that there exists 
transboundary  cooperation,  as  was  later  largely  confirmed  by  the  assessment  of  national  and  international 
FRMPs. 

58 

 
 
 
                                                      
In  other  Member  States,  FRMPs  indicate  that  information  on  FHRMs  was  exchanged  with 

neighbouring  countries  and  via  international  RB  commissions.  Luxembourg’s  FRMP,  for 
example,  refers  to  close  co-operation  with  neighbouring  Member  States  within  international 

RB  commissions  as  well  as  within  an  Interreg  project  called  TIMIS  Flood  (Transitional 
Internet Map Information System on Flooding). 

Box 15 - Examples of international coordination on joint FHRMs  

In  Bulgaria,  FHRMs  were  prepared  for  all  risk  areas  shared  with  other  Member  States  in 
transboundary  UoMs.  The  development  of  the  FHRMs  for  these  two  transboundary  APSFRs  was 

coordinated and based on mutually agreed methodologies within the international Danube RB, and 
with Greece. The Danube FRMP explains that the FHRMs for the Bulgarian area of the Danube were 
prepared as part of the project Danube Floodrisk100, which included all countries from the ICPDR as 
partners  to  the  project.  As  part  of  the  project  all  national  methodologies  were  coordinated  and  a 
common  database  with  all  necessary  data  was  set  up.  The  preparation  of  the  FHRMs  for  the 
transboundary  area  with  Romania  was  bilaterally  coordinated  at  each  step  of  the  preparation.  The 
preparation of the FHRMs for the transboundary APSFR shared with Greece was coordinated by the 
technical sub-group to the joint expert group under the Joint Declaration for Cooperation in the Area 
of  Water  Management  with  Greece.  At  its  meetings,  the  methodologies  of  the  two  countries  were 
discussed, a common methodology (e.g. concerning the scenarios to include) for the development of 
the FHRMs in the transboundary areas was agreed and necessary data exchanged. 

In  Finland,  the  only  international  UoM  analysed  in  detail  for  this  assessment  is  Tornionjoki 
(FIVHA6),  shared  with  Sweden,  with  an  APSFR  shared  on  both  sides  of  the  border.  In  this 
catchment,  flood  maps  were  elaborated  in  co-operation  with  Swedish  authorities.  In  the  FRMP 
summary,  it  is  indicated  that  the  Finnish-Swedish  Transboundary  River  Commission  and  the 
Swedish  authority  MSB  (Swedish  Civil  Contingencies  Agency)  gave  their  written  opinions  on  the 
designation of the APSFR. Moreover, in the FRMP it is explained that a joint Interreg IV A project, 
“Detailed  inundation  planning  in  the  lower  part  of  Tornio  River”,  carried  out  from  2009-2012, 
estimated  flood  risk.  A  specific  coordination  body  was  not  formed  for  the  FRMP;  rather, 
coordination  work  was  carried  out  by  the  authorities  of  both  regions  and  via  the  Finnish-Swedish 
Transboundary River Commission. The corresponding Swedish FRMP also refers to the Interreg IV 
A project, but provides fewer details. 

100 http://www.danube-floodrisk.eu/  

59 

 
 
 
                                                      
6.5.  Summary of good practice and areas for further development 

In  terms  of  good  practices,  the  FRMPs  of  all  Member  States  assessed  provide  information 

about  the  previous  steps  of  the  flood  risk  management  cycle,  and  nearly  all  provide 
conclusions from the PFRAs and the FHRMs together with maps of APSFRs and examples of 

FHRMs  (even  if  in  some  cases  the  maps  are  provided  only  via  web-links).  Some  Member 
States  provide  details  about  the  process  of  preparing  the  PFRAs  and  the  FHRMs.  A  few 

Member States (including Bulgaria, Finland and Luxembourg) provide detailed descriptions of 
coordination during the PFRA and FHRM stages with neighbouring Member States and third 

countries.  

Areas for further development identified in the FRMPs assessed include the following: 

Although  Member  States  often  state  that  the  PFRAs  and  the  FHRMs  informed  the 

development  of  FRM  priorities,  objectives  and  measures,  details  how  insights  from  previous 
phases were used are missing in many of the FRMPs. For instance there appears to be room for 

progress in estimating flood conveyance routes. 

Some countries do not provide links to websites where all maps of APSFRs or FHRMs can be 
found while in some cases, the web-links provided in the FRMPs are no longer functional. 

Although most Member States provide at least some information about the sources of flooding 
considered in the FRMPs, this information is not available in all FRMPs assessed and in some 

cases  the  omission  of  some  conceivable  sources  of  flooding  is  not  explained  or  clearly 
justified. 

Considering the transboundary nature of flood risk, some Member States nevertheless do not 

provide  details  on  international  coordination  during  the  PFRA  and  FHRM  phases  in  their 
FRMPs.   

On this basis, the following recommendations can be made for the preparation of the second 

FRMPs: 

 

In  the  next  cycle,  Member  States  should  provide  more  information  on  the  main 

sources  of  flooding  identified,  on  how  the  results  of  the  PFRA  and  FHRM  steps 

were used in the preparation of the FRMPs (including conveyance routes) and on 
the  approach  to  international  coordination  for  the  prior  steps  of  the  risk 
management cycle as well as the Plans themselves. 

60 

 
 
 

Online  access  to  PFRA/APSFR  information  and  FHRMs  should  be  provided  and 

maintained in  order to  preserve and make  available the full  context  within which 
the FRMP is developed and implemented. 

 

The  full  extent  of  an  APSFRs’  area  of  influence  (upstream  and  downstream) 

should  be  considered  with  a  view  to  identifying  APSFRs  with  a  transboundary 
dimension; this aspect is also relevant in deciding on measures. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
7.  Setting objectives for the management of flood risks 

The FRMPs should describe the objectives for the management of flood risk for the APSFRs 

identified. These objectives should focus on reducing the “potential adverse consequences of 
flooding for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity” (Article 

7(2)  of  the  FD).  Where  appropriate,  the  objectives  should  also  focus  “on  non-structural 
initiatives and/or on the reduction of the likelihood of flooding”.  

To appreciate by when objectives are to be achieved, they need to be measurable, if possible 

with  clear  targets  and  a  timeframe  for  their  achievement:  if  this  is  the  case,  quantitative 
indicators can be defined to monitor progress towards the targets. 

7.1.  Overview 

7.1.1.  Administrative level at which objectives are set 

All Member States assessed have set objectives in their FRMPs101. Figure 9 below shows the 
level  at  which  the  objectives  are  set  across  the  26  Member  States  that  reported  in  time  for 
inclusion in the assessment. 

Objectives are set at national level in 15 of the 26 Member States where all FRMPs have the 

same  objectives  (or  in  the  case  of  Austria,  Hungary,  Cyprus,  Croatia,  and  Malta,  a  single 
national FRMP). Portugal follows a nearly national approach: Common objectives were set for 

the  FRMPs  covering  the  mainland  UoMs,  and  these  were  also  adopted  in  one  autonomous 
island region (Madeira, PTRH10); the other autonomous island region (Azores, PTRH9) set its 

objectives independently. 

101  Only  one  exception  has  been  identified:  One  of  Denmark’s  20  municipal  FRMPs  was  at  a  “strategic  level” 

(taken to mean that its provisions need not be very detailed) and does not contain objectives. 

62 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 9 

Level at which FRMP objectives are set  

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 

In five Member States – Estonia, France, Germany, Spain and Sweden (see box below) – a set 
of national objectives is adapted at the level of individual FRMPs. In France, three objectives 

are set in a national floods policy; the FRMPs, which are prepared at UoM level, refer to these 
objectives and also set their own. In Germany, one of the five FRMPs assessed – for Bavaria’s 

Danube  FRMP  in  DE1000  –  further  articulates  the  four  national  objectives  into  six  “action 
objectives”; two other FRMPs assessed – the Elbe UoM (DE5000) and the Schlei/Trave UoM 

(DE9610) both identify three further objectives (for example, one further objective is to “take 
into  consideration  the  interests  of  regionally  responsible  actors”.  In  Spain,  eight  national 

objectives are set, and the FRMPs then prioritise these based on their local situations.  

Box 16 - Adapting national objectives to the level of the FRMP  

In  Sweden  there  are  four  national  objectives  which  are  then  refined  further  in  each  FRMP  into 
specific  objectives,  measure  related  objectives  and  knowledge  objectives  with  the  result  of  each 
FRMP having a slightly different set of objectives.  

The five FRMPs assessed use the structure of three objective ‘types’ in different ways:  

  The FRMP for Älvsbyn defines 9 specific objectives;  
  The FRMP for Falun has 30 objectives, including specific, measure-oriented and knowledge 

objectives; 

63 

 
 
 
 
  The  FRMP  for  Karlstad  presents  16  specific  and  knowledge  objectives  but  no  measure-

oriented objectives; 

  The  FRMP  for  Kristianstad  has  17  objectives,  including  specific,  measure-oriented  and 

knowledge objectives; 

  The FRMP for Stockholm defines 14 specific objectives. 

In two of the 26 Member States, objectives are set at regional level: Belgium and the United 
Kingdom (for the latter, “regional” level refers to the four jurisdictions of England, Northern 

Ireland,  Scotland  and  Wales).  In  one  Member  State,  Denmark,  FRMPs  were  prepared  at 
municipal level, and each municipality set separate objectives.  

Objectives were set at UoM/FRMP level in only two Member States: in Finland, where each 
FRMP,  prepared  for  a  sub-UoM  catchment,  sets  its  own  objectives;  and  in  Italy,  where 

objectives are set for each FRMP (some FRMPs are prepared at UoM level and others at RBD 
level – in Italy the two designations in most cases have different geographical boundaries). In 

Italy, however, all but three UoMs follow a similar approach recommended at national level, 
with  objectives  set  for  the  four  themes  of  reducing  adverse  consequences  to  human  health, 

economic activity, cultural heritage and environment.  In figure 9 above, the one “other” refers 
to  Portugal,  where  mainland  UoMs  take  a  national  approach,  while  the  islands  take  a 

regional/UoM  approach  (although  Madeira  identifies  the  same  objectives  as  those  on  the 
mainland). 

7.1.2.  Structure and number of objectives 

In addition  to  setting objectives at  different  geographical  scales, several  Member States have 

used  a  two-level  approach  for  their  objectives.  For  example,  in  Croatia,  two  main  objectives 
are set, which are neither specific nor measurable, but are accompanied by two strategic aims 

which are indeed specific and measurable. Poland has set three main areas for its objectives: 
(1) halting any increase in flood risks, (2) reducing existing flood risks and (3) improving the 
management system for floods. Under these three areas, more detailed objectives are set. This 
approach  is  seen  in  eight  Member  States,  around  a  third  of  those  assessed  (in  three  of  these 

Member States, namely Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom, a two-level approach is 
used in some but not all FRMPs).  

In  terms  of  the  number  of  objectives,  some  Member  States  set  a  few  broad  objectives:  an 
example is  seen in  the box below on Austria. Other Member States present  a larger number, 

64 

 
 
 
 
often  of  more  specific  sub-objectives,  in  their  FRMPs:  Table  8  showing  the  objectives  for 

Bulgaria provides an example.  

Box 17 - Flood risk management objectives  

The FRMP’s objectives in Austria are based on the "Hochwasserrisikokreislauf" (flood risk cycle), 
which itself is based on the disaster risk management cycle (response/rehabilitation and 
reconstruction/prevention and mitigation/preparedness). From this, four generic objectives are 
formulated:  

1 Avoidance of new risks prior to a flood event.  

2 Reduction of existing risks prior to a flood event.  

3 Reduction of adverse consequences during and after a flood event.  

4 Strengthening the awareness of hazard and risk.  

Table 8  

Bulgaria’s national objectives and their sub-objectives 

Objective 

Sub-objective 

1.Protecting human lives 
and public health 

1.1 Minimising the number of people hurt or impacted by floods;  

2.Higher level of protection 
of the critical infrastructure 

and businesses 

3.Increasing the protection 
of the environment 

1.2 Ensuring the fast conveyance of waters from urban areas in cases of intensive 
rainfall or floods; 

1.3 Re-establishing normal living conditions 

1.4 Minimising the number of impacted social infrastructure 

2.1 Improving the protection of the technical infrastructure 

2.2 Improving the protection of important economic and cultural and historic sites 

3.1 Improving the protection of the sewerage systems; 

3.2 Improving the protection of industrial sites (mainly IPPC and SEVESO sites); 

3.3 Minimising the impacted areas for protected waters, protected territories and 

protected zones; 

3.4 Improving the water retention capabilities of agricultural, forest and coastal 
areas. 

4.Improving the 
preparedness and reactions 
of the population: 

4.1 Increasing the preparedness of the population in case of floods 

4.2 Improving the reactions of the population in case of floods 

65 

 
 
 
 
5.Improving the 

5.1 Creating a modern normative base for territorial planning and FRM 

administrative capacity for 
flood risk management 

5.2 Providing operative information for FRM 

5.3 Enhancing the qualification/skills of the personnel responsible for FRM 

5.4 Minimising the flood risk along the water route of the whole RB 

5.5 Ensuring the adequate reactions of the public institutions in case of floods 

This variety shows the different ways in which Article 7 of the FD has been implemented in 
the various Member States, with adaptation to local circumstance and context, including their 
geographies,  administrative  flood  risk  management  structures  and  policy  or  methodological 

legacies. 

Since  risk  is  generally  defined  as  the  product  of  “impact  x  likelihood”,  the  two  following 
sections examine how these two dimensions  were considered in objective setting  (cf.  Article 

7(2) and point 2 in the preamble of the FD). 

7.1.3.  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

The FD calls for objectives to address the “potential adverse consequences of flooding”. This 
is the case for the objectives in all the FRMPs assessed102.     

For  ten  of  the  Member  States  assessed103,  strong  evidence  was  found  that  the  objectives 
specifically  consider  all  four  areas  cited  in  the  Directive:  human  health,  economic  activity, 
environmental,  and  cultural  heritage:  in  other  words,  these  are  specifically  cited  in  the 

objectives  (see  Figure  10  below).  In  Latvia,  for  example,  the  overall  objective  of  flood  risk 
management across four FRMPs is to reduce adverse consequences of floods on human health, 
environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic  activities,  including  the  reduction  of  potential 

surface water pollution and of erosion processes along the sea, rivers, and lake shores.  

For 16 other Member States, the evidence was considered less strong, and one or more of these 
four  areas  were  not  explicitly  cited.  In  Hungary,  for  example,  the  FRMP  states  that  the 

objectives address adverse consequences to human health first, and environment and economic 
activity second; cultural heritage is not specifically mentioned. In Denmark, all 20 municipal 

102 It should be noted that in Malta the objectives refer to specific actions to be taken rather than broader goals 
such as reducing adverse consequences of  flooding. However, Maltese confirmed that the primary objective 
for the development of the FRMP was to reduce such potential adverse consequences 

103  Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Romania  and 

Sweden. 

66 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
FRMPs call for reducing adverse consequences of flooding; however, not all refer explicitly to 

consequences on human health, economic activities, cultural heritage or the environment.  

In  several  FRMPs,  quite  specific  objectives  are  developed  for  these  areas.  For  example,  in 

Lithuania, the third objective of the FRMPs is that “no new significant pollution sources that 
may be hazardous to the environment and public health shall be established in low probability 

flood  zones  (0.1%  of  probability)”.  In  Romania,  national  objectives  include  the  goal  to 
minimise  flood  risks  on  transport  infrastructure,  and  the  following  indicator  is  identified  for 

this objective: Length and importance of the transport infrastructure (roads, railways, railway 
stations, ports, airports, etc.) exposed to flood risk. 

Figure 10 

Evidence  that  FRMP  objectives  address  potential  adverse  consequences  of 

floods  

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 

Somewhat fewer objectives address cultural heritage. One example is seen in Italy, where the 

FRMP for Sardinia (ITR201)  sets  two objectives  for cultural  heritage:  Mitigation of possible 
damages  to  the  landscape  system;  Safeguarding  archaeological  and  architectural  sites, 

historical and artistic heritage, monuments, museums. 

7.1.4.  Objectives to reduce the likelihood of flooding 

For the second dimension, i.e. objectives to explicitly address the reduction of the likelihood of 
flooding, these were almost equally referred to by the MS, but on the whole represented less 
prominently in  the FRMPs assessed:  Thus, strong evidence was found  in  the FRMPs of 9 of 

67 

 
 
 
 
the  26  Member  States  assessed,  and  some  or  weak  evidence  in  15  Member  States,  with  no 
evidence  in  two  Member  States104.  Reducing  the  likelihood  of  flooding  would  mean  fewer 
cases where there is natural or defence exceedance. This could for example be via a reduction 

in  peak  flows  (through  for  instance  natural  water  retention  upstream),  instead  of,  or  next  to, 
reinforcing  defences.  This  finding  should  warrant  closer  attention  in  the  2nd  cycle  of 
implementation. 

Examples of Member States that set objectives in this area include Slovenia, whose FRMP also 

links the objective for the reduction of the likelihood of flooding to measures related to proper 
planning,  construction  and  the  management  and  maintenance  of  infrastructure  for  protection 

from adverse effects of flood waters, among others. Further, both Austria and Germany call for 
the  mitigation  of  existing  risks  prior  to  a  flood  event  and  the  mitigation  of  new  risks.  In 

addition, the Czech Republic set the reduction of the likelihood of flooding as one of the two 
strategic objectives. This is further addressed by a specific objective, reduction of flood danger 

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

water retention and proper rainwater management in urban areas). 

In  a  few  Member  States,  objectives  refer  to  specific  initiatives  to  reduce  the  likelihood  of 
flooding, and the focus there seems to be on protection from flooding. For example, some of 

the  municipal  FRMPs  in  Denmark  call  for  improving  infrastructure,  such  as  sea  dykes,  to 
reduce  the  likelihood  of  flooding.  Other  Danish  FRMPs  identify  a  level  of  protection  to 

achieve:  The  Solrød  FRMP  defines  a  target  of  protection  against  2.8m  sea  level  rise  for  its 
infrastructure, equivalent to a 1000-year return interval event for some areas. 

7.1.5.  Objectives for non-structural initiatives  

A  majority  of  the  Member  States  assessed,  15  out  of  26,  provide  strong  evidence  that  their 
objectives  call  for  non-structural  initiatives,  such  as  improving  the  process  of  flood  risk 

management,  addressing  flood  issues  in  land  use  planning  or  raising  awareness  amongst  the 
population. In Bulgaria, for example, two objectives call for improving the preparedness of the 

population  for  floods  and  the  reactions  of  the  population  in  flood  events;  in  addition,  five 
objectives call for improving administrative capacity for flood risk management, including the 

legal basis for territorial planning and the skills of personnel. In Latvia, an objective calls for 
improving  the  information  base  by  developing  a  Flood  Risk  Information  System  and 

104 Portugal and Sweden. 

68 

 
 
                                                      
improving early warning. Portugal’s objectives call for improving knowledge and forecasting 

and also improving spatial planning and exposure management in flood risk areas. 

In seven further Member States, there is some evidence for non-structural initiatives. In Italy, 
for example, the five FRMPs assessed did not include objectives in this area105; however, all 
five  include  non-structural  measures.  Moreover,  the  FRMP  for  the  Po  UoM  (ITN008),  the 

largest  in  Italy,  calls  for  “improving  knowledge  of  [flood]  risk”.  In  the  United  Kingdom, 
raising  awareness  of  flood  risks  is  an  objective  in  the  England  and  Northern  Ireland  FRMPs 

assessed,  but  such  non-structural  initiatives  are  not  part  of  the  objectives  for  the  equivalent 
documents assessed for Scotland; it should be noted although that in Scotland, non-structural 

initiatives are a mandatory consideration in the development of all measures.  

Finally,  in  four  Member  States,  the  objectives  do  not  specifically  call  for  non-structural 
initiatives.  

7.2.  Specific and measurable objectives 

From  the  second  cycle  onwards,  FRMPs  should  include  an  assessment  of  the  progress  made 

towards  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  set  (Annex  of  the  Directive).  Defining  objectives 
with at least some degree of specificity – and linking measures with objectives – would aid this 

assessment of progress. To be specific, an objective should provide clear information on what 
should  be  achieved,  on  the  location  where  it  should  be  achieved  and  on  the  timetable  for 

achievement. To be measurable, it should be possible to express the objective in a quantitative 
form; ideally, a target should be set.   

The objectives  in  12 Member States include at  least  some specific and measurable elements. 

This is the case for all objectives set in the Finnish FRMPs assessed (see the box below).  

Box 18 - Measurable objectives  

In  Finland,  some  objectives  set  quantitative  targets  to  be  achieved  (e.g.  number  of  flooded 
dwellings, economic damage from floods, and number of days key services are disrupted by floods) 
and clear locations where the objectives will be achieved (e.g. which APSFR). It is clear how some 
of the objectives will be achieved (e.g. by specifying measures) but there is no information by when.  

The  FRMPs  assessed  include  quantifiable  objectives  which  cover  all  dwellings  or  sites  hard  to 

105 Although it must be noted that all FRMPs assessed include non-structural measures. 

69 

 
 
 
                                                      
evacuate. For example, in the FRMP of Kokemäenjoki catchment area (part of FIVHA3) an objective 
is set  that  all  permanent  housing  in  the flood  risk  area  is  protected from  floods  or  preparedness to 
floods is such that the health and safety of people are not compromised.  

Numerical targets are not common. Nevertheless, one example is found in the FRMP of Hamina and 
Kotka  coastal  area (part  of  FIVHA2),  where an  objective  sets the  maximum  hours  of  power,  heat, 
water and telecommunication loss due to floods.  

Some Member States have linked indicators to their objectives, making them more specific and 
measurable: this is the case in Bulgaria and Romania (see the box below). On the other hand, 

in  Poland,  the  FRMPs  set  out  common  indicators  to  monitor  the  achievement  of  the  three 
objectives, although the objectives themselves do not contain targets.    

Box 19 - Indicators to measure the achievement of objectives 

Romania  has  identified  quantitative  indicators  for  each  of  its  national  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. For 
each indicator, a minimum and an ‘aspirational’ target is set.  

Bulgaria also identified indicators for its national objectives: for example, objective 1.4 is to minimise 
the number of social infrastructure facilities affected by floods, and the indicator for this is “the number 
of social infrastructure facilities potentially impacted by floods with a 1% probability of occurrence”. 
However, a time frame for achieving these objectives is not set. 

In  little  over  half  of  the  Member  States  assessed  –  14  out  of  26  –  the  objectives  are  neither 
specific  nor  measurable.  Many  Member  States  have  set  objectives  in  general  terms:  For 
example, Germany’s national objectives include the reduction of adverse consequences during 
a flood event and the reduction of adverse consequences after a flood event. In Spain, one of 

the  eight  general  objectives  is  more  specific  compared  to  Germany’s  example  above,  to 
“increase  the  perception  of  flood  risk  and  self-protection  strategies  on  the  part  of  the 
population and social and economic agents”, however not measurable. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
7.3.  Setting the objectives: coordination  

The  FRMPs  in  several  Member  States  describe  the  process  for  setting  objectives;  however, 

most FRMPs assessed have at best brief information on this topic. 

In  several  Member  States,  the  FRMPs  refer  to  discussions  among  government  bodies.  In 
Germany,  for  example,  the  overall  objectives  for  all  plans  were  set  by  LAWA,  the  Working 
Group  on  water  issues  of  the  Federal  States  and  the  Federal  Government106,  and  thus  were 
agreed among the Federal States and the Ministry of Environment. In Romania, the objectives 

were coordinated at national level by the working group set up to develop the FRMPs, which 
included specialists from the Romanian Waters, RB Administrations, and the National Institute 

for Hydrology and Water Management.   

Other Member States refer to discussions at international level: Luxembourg’s FRMP refers to 
coordination with the international commissions for the Meuse107, Mosel-Saar108 and Rhine109; 
Hungary’s FRMP refers to coordination with the international commission for the Danube110. 
Only  one  plan,  Finland’s  Tornionjoki  FRMP  (FIVHA6)  refers  to  bilateral  coordination: 
Finland shares this international UoM with Sweden, and objectives were coordinated between 

the authorities of the two Member States.  

With  regard  to  consultation  with  the  public  and  stakeholders,  most  FRMPs  assessed  did  not 
explicitly  state  that  consultation  was  undertaken  on  the  objectives  themselves.  On  the  other 

hand,  several  did  note,  for  example  in  Croatia,  that  the  objectives  were  part  of  the  general 
public and stakeholder consultations carried out on the FRMP. However, one example is seen 

in Italy’s Eastern Alps FRMP (ITA), where stakeholder workshops covered a series of topics, 
and  early  workshops  discussed  the  FRMP’s  objectives.  In  Luxembourg  public  participation 

was  an  integral  part  of  preparing  the  FRMP,  including  setting  overall  objectives,  and 
identifying more detailed local objectives and measures. 

In  two  Member  States  –  the  Czech  Republic  and  Poland  –  the  FRMPs  state  that  objectives 
were built on the objectives of previous flood and water management plans. Bulgaria notes that 

a  preparatory  project  financed  by  EU’s  Cohesion  Policy  supported  the  development  of  the 
FRMPs, including their objectives.  

106 http://www.lawa.de/index.php?a=2  
107 http://www.meuse-maas.be/Accueil.aspx  
108 http://www.iksms-cipms.org/servlet/is/392/  
109 https://www.iksr.org/en/  
110 https://www.icpdr.org/main/  

71 

 
 
 
                                                      
7.4.  Summary of good practices and areas for further development 

Looking  across  the  Member  States,  it  is  clear  that  there  are  some  good  practices  –  for 

example, addressing the  likelihood of flooding and non-structural  initiatives in  objectives, as 
well as providing clear information on the process for the development of objectives – as well 

as  some  areas  for  further  development  which  are  highlighted  in  the  previous  sections.  One 
main  finding  in  terms  of  areas  for  further  development  applies  to  the  majority  of  the 

Member  States:  The  objectives  are  not  specific  or  measurable  in  terms  of  what  should  be 
achieved, on the location where it should be achieved and on the timetable for achievement. 

This finding should be further evaluated, also in relation to the findings on the measures set for 
achieving the objectives (discussed in chapter 8).  

On  this  basis,  the  following  recommendation  can  be  made  for  the  preparation  of  the  second 

FRMPs: 

 

For  the  second  cycle,  FRMP  objectives  should  be  as  specific  and  measurable  as 

possible to be able to make an assessment of progress towards the achievement of 

objectives  set.  Ideally,  objectives  should  be  SMART:  Specific,  Measurable, 
Attainable, Realistic and Timebound.  

72 

 
 
 
 
 
8. 

 Measures for the achievement of objectives 

At  the  general  level,  the  FD  states  that  FRMPs  “…shall  include  measures  for  achieving  the 

objectives established…” (Article 7(2)). The Annex of the Directive requires MS to include as 
a component of their FRMP/s a summary of the measures. As a consequence, at the EU level it 

is challenging to create representative statistics of measures across the EU. Moreover, Member 
States  could  report  their  measures  as  either  “individual”  or  “aggregated”111.  The  following 
analysis  therefore  provides  a  high  level  illustration  to  appreciate  the  situation  rather  than  an 
accurate account of measures selected by the Member States to be used for scientific analysis. 

All Member States that reported provided a list of measures and summary information for each 

measure. The number of measures reported, however, varies significantly across the Member 
States from 17 568 measures in Germany112 to 10 measures in Malta (see Table 9 below). The 
variance goes beyond any possible differences in size, population or flood risks assessed: For 
example,  comparing  two  Member  States  in  north-western  Europe  of  similar  populations, 

France  reported  648  measures  while  the  United  Kingdom  reported  9  391.  In  terms  of 
individual or aggregated measures, here too, there is no clear pattern, with three Member States 

reporting only individual measures, nine reporting only aggregated measures and 14 reporting 
both types of measures (based on 26 Member States that reported by April 2018)113.  

Some differences in approach are explained in the FRMPs. Estonia’s FRMPs, for example, set 
out  a  three-level  structure  of  12  “measure  blocks”,  the  broadest  category,  each  with  one  or 
more  “measure  groups”  (24  measure  groups  in  total)  and  then  110  specific  “actions”114. 
Several Member States reporting only aggregated measures, as Estonia, indicated either in their 

FRMPs  or  in  subsequent  communication  that  the  measures  reported  incorporate  a  higher 
number  of  activities  and  projects.  Most  Member  States  however  did  not use  a  hierarchy  like 

this for their measures.   

111 The Reporting Guidance mentions that “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. 

112 Germany reported only aggregated measures, each of which can include a set of individual actions. 
113  It  is  also  worth  noting  that  it  appears  (through  comparison  of  reported  information  with  the  FRMPs)  that 
several Member States did not report the, at the time, actual number of measures (as reflected in the FRMP), 
either  because  the  individual  situation  of  a  Member  State  did  not  conform  with  a  standardised  reporting 
system, or because of an error in the reporting. 

114 Estonia reported the number of “measure groups”. Due to such structures and possibly other reasons, for a few 
Member States the number of measures listed in the FRMPs differs from the number reported to the European 
Commission via WISE. Where possible, information presented here is based on WISE reporting.  

73 

 
 
                                                      
Table 9  

Number of measures reported by each Member State 

Aggregated 

Individual 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

9 775 

184 

61 

5 

55 

17 568 

28 

70 

1 171 

0 

50 

107 

46 

6 741 

61 

70 

15 

0 

116 

0 

223 

791 

210 

40 

32 

336 

0 

484 

133 

33 

6 

0 

0 

0 

192 

412 

601 

0 

0 

1 605 

0 

813 

81 

10 

0 

2 429 

76 

2347 

138 

0 

1 381 

9 055 

Total 

9 775 

668 

194 

38 

61 

17 568 

28 

70 

1 363 

412 

648 

107 

46 

8 346 

61 

883 

96 

10 

116 

2 429 

299 

3 138 

348 

40 

1 413 

9 391 

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 and 2017. 
Notes:  Member  States  including  Estonia,  Germany  and  Slovenia  have  indicated  that  the  measures 
reported  will  be  elaborated  through  a  higher  number  of  activities  and  projects.  Croatia’s 
FRMP, prepared at national level, contains 54 measures (53 national and one in only one of 
the two Croatian UoMs); in the reporting at UoM level, a total of 107 measures were indicated 
(54 in one UoM and 53 in the other). Italy later noted that there is a total of 8 348 measures, 
rather  than  8  346,  a  reporting  inaccuracy.  In  Latvia,  the  FRMPs  detail  101  measures, 
compared to 96 measures reported to WISE. 

Consequently,  due  to  the  many  differences  in  approach,  the  numbers  of  measures  cannot  be 

compared across Member States (the sections that follow refer to shares rather than numbers of 
measures).  

Specifically  with  regard  to  the  nature  of  measures,  the  FD  stipulates  that  FRMPs  “…shall 

address  all  aspects  of  flood  risk  management…”  (Article  7(3)).  In  their  reporting,  Member 

74 

 
 
 
 
States  were  requested  to  assign  each  measure  to  one  or  more  aspect:  prevention,  protection, 

preparedness  and  recovery  &  review  (“no  action”  or  “other  type  of  measure”  could  also  be 
chosen)115.  

Figure 11 

Share of measures by measure aspect116 

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 and 2017. 
Note:  Based  on  all  measures  reported  for  26  Member  States.  Please  note  that  some  measures  were 

reported for more than one aspect; all aspects reported are included. 

The  share  of  measures  assigned  to  each  aspect  varies  across  Member  States  (see  Figure  11 
above),  however,  on  average,  41%  of  measures  are  protection  measures,  26%  prevention 

measures, 24% preparedness, 8% recovery & review, and 1% ‘other’ (including the choice of 
“no  action”).  In  Hungary,  Luxembourg  and  Slovakia,  the  vast  majority  of  measures  are 
assigned to protection, while in Estonia more than half of the measures are for prevention. It is 
also worth noting that Member States reported ‘No Action’ measures117. 

115 As Member States could assign a single measure to more than one measure aspect and measure type, there was 

some double-counting when counting the total measures: This occurred in nine Member States. 

116 Owing to the distinction between individual and aggregated measures  –  and due to the inherent difficulty in 

averaging across measures of a varied nature, charts such as this one are of an illustrative value. 

117  “No  action”  can  generally  be  a  management  response  to  risk,  provided  the  risk  is  at  an  acceptable,  to  the 
exposed party, level. In the context of this assessment, several Member State reported “no action” measures. In 
France, these included activities to gather information, for example on the resilience of existing infrastructure, 
and in Belgium, to delineate the role of different actors in flood management; in the United Kingdom as well, 

75 

 
 
 
                                                      
8.1.  Measurable  and  specific  flood  risk  management  measures  (including 
location) 

Measures are considered specific and measurable if their description is clear in terms of what 
they  are  trying  to  achieve,  where  they  are  to  be  achieved  (and  which  area  their  effects  will 

cover),  how  they  are  to  be  achieved,  and  by  when  they  are  expected  to  be  achieved.  This 
information will support the monitoring of implementation and the evaluation of their results.  

In the FRMPs assessed, more than half of the Member States considered provided all or most 

of these  elements  in  their measure descriptions.  Many Member States list  measures in  tables 
that  specify  fields  such  as:  location,  implementation  timeframe,  budget,  responsible  entity, 

indicators  for  monitoring  progress.  Examples  are  seen  in  Member  States  including  Bulgaria, 
Finland and Spain (see the box below). In Austria, a catalogue of measures and a background 

document provide these elements. In Italy, a detailed table was annexed to the FRMP for the 
Eastern Alps  (though for other  Italian FRMPs assessed, the list  of measures contained fewer 

fields).  

Box 20 - Providing detailed information on measures  

The five  FRMPs  in  Spain  provide  information  on  the  location  of  the  measures  (some  at  UoM  level, 
others at APSFR level and others at a specific location, for example along a river). The FRMPs also 
indicate the timeframe for implementation, the budget, the responsible authority and provide indicators 
for monitoring progress. Nonetheless, the information tables include some gaps (for example, budgets 
are  not  provided  for  ongoing  measures  carried  out  by  authorities).  The  indicators  for  the  most  part 
measure the progress of implementation; they do not refer to the impact of measures.  

Section 8.2 provides further detail on the location of measures reported by Member States. A 

further  key  dimension  is  the  extent  to  FRMPs  present  the  links  between  their  measures  and 
their overall FRMP objectives: This is discussed in Section 8.3.  

8.2.  Location 

For many kinds of measures, the location will be broad, such as national or UoM scale: This 
will be the case, for example, for actions to raise public awareness, initiatives to improve flood 

some  studies  and  assessments  are  listed  in  this  category,  but  so  are  some  other  activities  such  as  wetlands 
restoration. In Malta, this was a WISE reporting inaccuracy.  

76 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                        
warning systems and laws or guidance to integrate floods in spatial planning. Other measures 

will  have  specific  locations.  This  will  be  the  case  for  infrastructure  investments  as  well  as 
natural water retention measures.   

Figure 12 

Location of measures reported by Member States 

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016 and expert elaboration. 
Notes:  Compiled  from  Member  States  reporting  to  WISE  on  location  and  geographic  coverage  of 
measures.  Information  reported  in  the  reporting  sheets  could  be  aggregated  in  18  out  of  26 
Member  States.  As  the  reporting  fields  were  open  and  Member  States  followed  different 
approaches to reporting, results should be considered indicative. “Other” refers to catchment 
and local levels in Sweden and the United Kingdom and national level in Romania and Sweden 
(although in the case of the latter, the five measures reported at national level should have been 
reported at APSFR level). 

MS  reporting  to  WISE  provides  an  overview  of  where  measures  will  be  achieved.  For  18 
Member States, it was possible to compile this data (see Figure 12 above)118. As shown, eight 
of the 18 Member States indicate that all measures are at the level of the whole UoM. This is 

118 Member States were asked to report information on the location and geographic coverage of measures in the 
Reporting  Sheets.  The  fields  were  open,  and  Member  States  reported  in  a  variety  of  ways.  Many  Member 
States provided enough information to determine the level of the location, i.e. APSFR or UoM. The figure in 
this section is compiled from responses to both questions.  

77 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
related  in  part  to  the  level  at  which  measures  are  reported.  A  number  of  Member  States, 

including Croatia and Estonia, indicate in their FRMPs that each measure reported can include 
multiple actions or projects, which may have more specific locations.   

Five  Member  States  indicate  that  at  least  80%  of  measures  are  the  level  of  the  APSFR  (this 
includes  Germany,  which  also  indicated  that  its  measures  will  be  carried  out  via  individual 

projects).  Fewer  Member  States  reported  more  detailed  locations:  these  include  Sweden  and 
the  United  Kingdom,  where  around  60%  of  measures  are  reported  at  catchment  and  local 

levels. 

For some Member States, more detailed information  was found in the FRMPs assessed. One 
Member States,  Lithuania, has embedded planned infrastructure measures in  its FHRMs (see 

box below). For the Member States which had measures with locations that could not be easily 
aggregated  in  the  graph  above,  the  table  below  shows  the  location  of  measures,  with 

information taken from the FRMPs and the reporting sheets. 

Box 21 - Locating measures on flood maps 

Lithuania  has  indicated  the  specific  locations  for  infrastructure  measures.  Moreover,  an  interactive, 
online  map  of  the  FHRMs  contains  the  proposed  locations  for  embankments  and  the  territories  they 
protect as a layer. The map is available at: http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=6d87deab-3ecc-
412a-9b66-7fd6361f26ba (accessed in June 2018).   

Table 10  

Location  of  measures  reported  by  Member  States  (where  locations  cannot  be 
apportioned) 

BE 

CZ 

HR 

FR 

HU 

IT119 

LU 

LV 

PT 

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

119 Not all UoM use all locations listed in the table’s lines.  

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
BE 

CZ 

HR 

FR 

HU 

IT119 

LU 

LV 

PT 

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Water body level  

More detailed than water body 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Other 

✔ 

✔ 

Sources: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

8.3.  Linking objectives and measures 

In  the  preamble  of  the  FD  there  is  reference  to  the  objective  of  the  Directive,  “namely  the 
establishment  of  a  framework  for  measures  to  reduce  the  risks  of  flood  damage…”  and  in 

Article  7(3)  to  FRMPs  including  “measures  for  achieving  the  objectives  established…”. 
Concretely defining measures and clearly linking these measures to objectives could serve as 

an alternative to defining specific objectives, provided the measures are selected and designed 
in  such  way  that  their  completion  would  result  in  achieving  the  objectives  set  within  a 

timeframe.  Consequently,  the  relationship  between  measures  and  objectives  is  a  key  issue. 
There should be a clear pathway from objectives to measures, along with an analysis of how 

the  measures  contribute  to  the  objectives.  This  section  draws  from  the  section  on  objectives 
and  looks  at  four  elements  for  this  pathway:  (1)  whether  objectives  are  specific  (and  thus 

measurable);  (2)  whether  the  measures  are  specific  (and  measurable);  (3)  if  a  link  is  made 
between  objectives  and  measures;  and  finally,  (4)  whether  FRMPs  report  that  there  are 

mechanisms  to  indicate  if  the  implementation  of  measures  will  ensure  the  achievement  of 
objectives.  

To recall, section 7.2 of this document indicates that the FRMPs in 12 Member States are to 

some degree specific in terms of objectives. The table below assesses Member States in terms 
of  the  specificity  of  their  objectives  and  their  measures:  Whether  objectives  or  measures  are 
general,  specific  or  partially  specific120.  It  also  indicates  if  there  are  clear  links  reported 
between  the  measures  and  objectives  next  to  whether  it  is  clear  that  implementation  of  the 

measures will achieve the objectives.   

120 This overview inevitably involves an aggregation of different Member States approaches: for example, ‘partly 
specific’ measures include – differences across FRMPs assessed, as seen in the United Kingdom; differences 
across  types  of  measures,  as  seen  in  Romania  where  measures  at  APSFR  level  are  specific  but  not  those  at 
higher  levels;  and  Member  States  where  only  some  specific  information  is  provided  on  measures,  as  in 
Estonia. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 11 

Objectives, measures - and their links 

MS 

Objectives 

Measures 

Cyprus 
Bulgaria 

Belgium 

Malta 

Sweden 

Finland 

Latvia 
Poland 

United Kingdom, the 
Lithuania 
Romania 

Specific 
Specific 

Specific 

Specific 

Specific 

Partly specific 

Partly specific 
Partly specific 

Partly specific 
Specific 
Partly specific 

Specific 
Specific 

Partly specific 

Partly specific 

Partly specific 

Specific 

Specific 
Specific 

Partly specific 
Specific 
Partly specific 

Denmark 

Partly specific 

Partly specific 

Czech Republic, the 
Portugal 
Slovakia 
Hungary 

Germany 
Slovenia 

Austria 
Estonia 
Spain 
Italy 
Luxembourg 

Netherlands, the 
Croatia 
France 

General 
General 
General 
General 

General 
General 

General 
General 
General 
General 
General 

General 
General 
General 

Sources: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 

Specific 
Specific 
Specific 
Specific 

Partly specific 
Partly specific 

Partly specific 
Partly specific 
Partly specific 
Partly specific 
Partly specific 

General 
General 
General 

Links between 
objectives and 
measures 
Link exists 
Link for one FRMP 

Link for Brussels 
FRMP only  
Link clear only for one 
case 
Link exists  

Some of the FRMPs 
provide links 
Link exists 
Link exists 

Link exists 
No clear link 
No clear link 
Some of the municipal 
FRMPs provide links 

Link exists 
Link exists 
Link exists 
No clear link 

Link exists 
Link exists 

No clear link 
No clear link 
No clear link 
No clear link 
No clear link 

Link exists 
No clear link 
No clear link 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As  shown  in  the  table,  six  Member  States  set  specific  objectives  in  their  FRMPs,  six  set 

objectives with some specificity, meaning that they may lack location or targets or timescales, 
and 14 Member States set general objectives. In terms of measures, the FRMPs in 10 Member 

States  present  specific  measures,  those  in  13  Member  States  report  measures  that  are  partly 
specific and those in three Member States present only general measures.  

The FRMPs in more than half of Member States, 16, provide some sort of link between their 
measures  and  objectives  (in  all,  eleven  Member  States,  or  some,  five  Member  States,  of  the 

FRMPs  assessed).  In  the  United  Kingdom,  the  Northern  Irish  FRMP  assessed  links  each 
measure to one or more detailed objectives. Other examples are seen in some Finnish FRMPs, 

which  have  a  description  for  each  measure  including  for  which  objectives  they  contribute  to 
and  what  flood  protection  benefits  they  bring;  in  one  of  these  FRMPs,  there  is  an  analysis 

whether  each  measure  contributes  to  the  objectives  directly  or  indirectly  through  flood 
protection benefits: for example, improved flood risk maps contribute indirectly to the public 

safety  objective.  One  German  FRMP  assessed  provides  graphs  showing  the  percentages  of 
effectiveness  of measures in  relation  to  the four  categories of adverse  consequences listed in 

the Directive (i.e. consequences for human health, economic activity, environment and cultural 
heritage). 

In some cases, Member States have indicated that further specificity concerning measures will 

be  developed  in  separate  plans:  For  example,  Austria’s  national  FRMP  contains  aggregated 
measures  comprised  of  detailed  projects  and  actions  elaborated  in  plans  prepared  at  APSFR 

level. Other Member States, e.g. Germany, indicated that these details would be prepared in the 
implementation phase.  

In  three  Member  States,  general  objectives  are  linked  to  specific  measures.  One  example  is 
Portugal, described in the box below. Another example is Slovakia, whose FRMPs provide an 

assessment  of  the  potential  impact  of  the  existing  and  suggested  protection  measures  in 
achieving objectives; however, as the objectives are general, it is not clear if or to what extent 

they will be achieved once measures are implemented. 

Box 22 - Linking objectives and measures 1 

The  objectives  set  in  Portugal  are  neither  specific  nor  measurable.  For  example,  four  of  the  five 
FRMPs  assessed  present  a  nationally  set  objective  to  “improve  resilience  and  reduce  vulnerability  in 
areas of possible flooding”. The FRMPs do, however, contain some information on how the objectives 
are to be achieved, as the measures are formulated based on the objectives. The measures are devised 

81 

 
 
 
considering  the  following  aspects:  Harmful  consequences  to  population,  economic  activities,  cultural 
sites and protected environmental areas; geographical areas where these are or may be located; reducing 
the severity of flooding in the APSFRs. 

The five FRMPs assessed include detailed information on measures, referring to their location (either 
the  whole  UoM  or  other  more  detailed  locations),  the  implementation  timeframe,  the  budget,  the 
responsible entity and indicators for management. Almost all measures are specific and measurable. An 
annex contains tables where, for each measure, the strategic and operational objective it aims to tackle 
is identified. Although the measures are connected to the objectives, the indicators for the measures do 
not have quantified targets to be achieved and do not quantify how much measures can contribute to the 
fulfilment of objectives.  

Of the 12 Member States that report some specificity in their objectives, three  – Bulgaria (in 
one FRMP), Cyprus and Lithuania – report specific measures and nine have partially specific 

measures. The example of Cyprus is presented in the box below. 

Box 23 - Linking objectives and measures 2 

The FRMP in Cyprus has specific objectives setting out “what” and “where”: The first objective aims 
to reduce the hazard of floods with a 20-year chance of occurrence in already developed areas and new 
areas  under  development.  Each  objective  is  then  linked  to  two  or  more  “priority  action  fields”  that 
describe “how” each objective is to be achieved. Thus, the objectives are, for the most part, specific and 
measurable. 

Further,  for  all  38  measures,  the  Programme  of  Measures  indicates  “what”,  “where”,  “how”  and 
“when” for each measure: There is a detailed description of what each measure is aiming to achieve, 
where exactly, when and how is going to be implemented: the area and target year of implementation, 
the  processes/technical  methods  to  be  used  and  the  competent  authorities  in  charge.  Finally,  each 
measure is clearly linked to an objective:   

  24 measures, all for protection, are linked to hazard reduction (63% of the total 38 measures);  

  11 measures (two prevention, one protection, five preparedness and three recovery and review) 

are linked to vulnerability reduction (29% of measures);  

  Three measures (two prevention and one protection) are linked to the limitation of exposure to 

floods (8%)  

82 

 
 
 
 
Finally,  the  FRMPs  in  only  three  Member  States  provide  some  indication  that  the 

implementation of their measures would result in achieving the objectives: Indeed, this is seen, 
only  partially,  in  three  Member  States.  In  Bulgaria,  the  FRMP  for  the  West  Aegean  UoM 

(BG4000)  reports  information  about  the  expected  results  and  indicators  for  tracking  both 
implementation  progress  and  progress  towards  achieving  the  objectives  of  each  measure.  In 

Poland,  the  objectives  do  not  include  specific  targets;  however,  background  reports  to  the 
FRMP  provide  some  explanation  by  how  much  many  individual  projects  will  contribute  to 

objectives,  for  example,  the  expected  increase  in  water  retention  on  agricultural  land.  In 
Sweden,  some  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  set  ‘measure-oriented’  objectives,  such  as  the 

establishment  of  cooperation  on  flow  regulation  for  smaller  streams  (found  in  the  Falun 
FRMP); some set  ‘knowledge’ objectives  – for example, detailed information on flow levels 

that  can  lead  to  serious  flooding  consequences  for  cultural  heritage  (in  the  Karlstad  FRMP). 
These objectives should be achieved when the related measures are carried out. 

Overall, however, FRMPs lack clarity on how objectives would be met and if measures were 
sufficient  to  achieve  objectives.  For  many  Member  States,  objectives  are  not  specific  or 

measurable  and  often,  the  measures  are  not  specific  or  measurable  either.  Further,  less  than 
half of Member States provide a link between objectives and measures in the FRMPs assessed. 

8.4.  Prioritisation of the measures 

The Annex to the FD states that FRMPs should indicate the prioritisation of measures. Across 
the 23 Member States that reported on the priority of their measures on a five point scale121, 
patterns varied (see Figure 13 below). In France, almost half of all measures are indicated as 

being of critical priority. Austria, Bulgaria and Spain indicated that over 20% of their measures 
were  of  critical  priority,  but  others  had  smaller  shares  of  critical  priority  measures.  A  set  of 

eight Member States – the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, 
Poland  and  Slovenia  –  identified  more  than  half  of  their  measures  as  having  “very  high” 

priority.  Another  group,  including  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Malta  and  the  Netherlands, 
indicated that more than half of their measures were of “high” priority.  

121 According to the FD’s Reporting Guidance, Member States could either report on the priority on a five-point 
scale (low, moderate, high, very high, critical and no information) or report the timetable of their measures. Of 
the 26 Member States that reported, 23 provided information on the priority of their measures, and 11 of these 
also reported on the timetable. In addition, some Member States only assigned measures to three of these five 
levels of priority. For a few Member States, however, there were differences across UoMs, with some UoMs 
reporting information on priorities and others not.  

83 

 
 
 
                                                      
Most  of  the  Member  States  indicated  that  their  measures  fell  into  the  higher  categories  of 

priority. Ten of the 23 Member States reporting on priority by means of a scale indicated more 
than 80% of their measures were in one the three highest categories of priority (critical, very 

high and high priority): The Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, 
the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Slovenia  and  Spain.  Another  seven  Member  States  indicated  that 

between  50%  and  80%  of  their  measures  were  in  one  of  these  three  categories:  Belgium, 
Denmark, Finland, France, Malta, Portugal and Sweden. 

Two Member States reported all measures with the same priority: Luxembourg as ‘very high’ 
and  Hungary  as  ‘moderate’.  For  Luxembourg,  Member  States  authorities  subsequently 

indicated that this was a reporting oversight. Hungarian authorities noted that all 46 measures 
are planned to be completed by 2021 with no specific prioritisation, and thus all were reported 

as  moderate.  Two  Member  States  reported  90%  or  more  of  their  measures  in  one  category, 
Croatia as moderate priority and the Netherlands as high priority122.  

Figure 13 

Prioritisation of measures reported by Member States  

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016. 

122 In the Netherlands, flood prevention has the utmost priority, hence all measures have received at least priority 
“high”, with the exception of one “medium” measure regarding a “water test” of spatial planning proposals via 
a consultative process. 

84 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Notes: Data shown for the 23 Member States that reported on the priorities of their measures (Cyprus, 

Romania, and Slovakia did not report on this, only on the timetable of their measures). 

On average, 9% of the measures reported by each Member State were of critical priority; 32% 

were  of  very  high  priority;  28%  of  high  priority,  21%  of  moderate  priority  and  8%  of  low 
priority. When looking at different aspects of flood management, the priorities assigned within 

prevention,  protection  and  preparedness  measures  are  roughly  similar,  while  recovery  and 
review measures were assigned lower priority (see Figure 14 below). 

Figure 14 

Priority of measures across the aspects of flood management 

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016. 
Notes: The figure shows shares by measure aspect and by level of priority: The total across all aspects 
(including “other”) is 100%. Shares based on the average for each Member State. “No action” 
measures not included. The information is based on the 23 Member States reporting priorities for 
their measures (consequently, Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia are not included). 

8.4.1.  Methods for prioritisation 

In  about  two-thirds  of  the  Member  States  assessed  (18123  out  of  26),  the  FRMPs  or  other 
documents  provided  information  on  the  methods  used  for  the  prioritisation124.  In  all  these 
cases, some sort of a multi-criteria assessment was used.  

123 For the United Kingdom, this was only the case for some of the FRMPs assessed. 
124 In both Cyprus and Romania information was not reported in the reporting sheets for each individual measure, 

but information from the FRMPs was used in this section.  

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Among these criteria, 13 of the 18 Member States used some assessment of the effectiveness of 

measures:  In  Bulgaria,  one  of  the  criteria  is  the  “extent  of  problem  solving”,  including  how 
effective  is  the  measure  in  achieving  objectives;  Germany  and  Cyprus  also  include  the 

effectiveness  of  the  measure  in  reaching  overall  and  specific  aims.  Other  Member  States, 
including Latvia, Italy (for some of the FRMPs assessed), Belgium (Wallonia), and Slovakia, 

assessed the number of inhabitants, polluting facilities, cultural heritage sites or protected areas 
addressed  by  the  measures.  In  England,  public  investments  in  flood  and  coastal  risk 

management  works  identified  based  on  Department  for  Environment  Food  &  Rural  Affairs 
(DEFRA) policy and Environment Agency guidance are prioritised.  

Box 24 - A three-step process for prioritising measures 

In  the  Walloon  Region  of  Belgium,  measures  were  prioritised  in  three  steps:  First,  a  multicriteria 
analysis  of  the  measures;  second,  an  analysis  of  the  results  of  this  prioritisation  and,  eventually, 
adaptation  by  stakeholders  within  technical  committees  by  sub-basin;  and  third,  validation  of 

prioritization  by  the  coordination  team,  the  Transversal  Floods  Group  (Groupe  Transversal 
Inondations).  

The multicriteria analysis took into consideration the following criteria: 

  human health (number of people affected); 

 

 

 

 

economic activities at risks; 

synergies  identified  with  other  water  management  plans,  including  the  RBMPs  and  plans  for 

economic activities, e.g. transport on water and related infrastructure; 

environmental aspects (synergies or conflicts of interest) and 

cultural aspects. 

Over half of the Member States that provided information on methods for prioritisation (11 of 
the  18)  refer  to  an  assessment  of  costs  and  benefits,  including  via  CBA  (see  chapter  10  for 

further  information  on  the  consideration  of  costs  and  benefits).  In  Wales  the  cost-benefit 
analysis  is  included  alongside  the  risk  calculation  from  the  Communities  at  Risk  Register,  a 

tool that considers a number of factors to indicate the most vulnerable communities at risk of 
floods. A similar number (nine of the 18) include a criterion that is related to the WFD: Austria 

refers  to  the  relevance  of  measures  for  the  WFD  and  Estonia  refers  more  generally  to 
beneficial links for the implementation of other EU legislation, in particular the WFD. 

86 

 
 
 
A  few  Member  States  –  five125  of  the  18  Member  States  that  refer  to  costs  and  benefits  – 
include  elements  of  feasibility:  For  example,  Germany  refers  to  ‘implementability’  as  a 
criterion,  including  time,  resources,  planning  process,  financing  and  public  acceptability;  the 

United Kingdom (Scotland), Cyprus, Croatia, Poland and Portugal refer to the availability of 
finance. Among other criteria, only one Member State assessed, Austria126, explicitly included 
adaptation to climate change among the criteria127.  

Several  Member  States  indicated  a  link  between  the  timetable  and  the  prioritisation  of 

measures: In four of Portugal’s FRMPs, one of the criteria for the prioritisation of measures is 
for  measures  that  can  be  undertaken  during  the  current  cycle.  This  was  also  seen  in 

Luxembourg,  where  an  aim  was  to  present  measures  that  could  be  implemented  in  the  short 
term. In Belgium (Brussels region), an overall timetable of measures is linked to their priority: 

Priority 1 measures should be implemented in the first years of the Plan (2016-2017), Priority 
2 measures in 2018-2019; and the implementation of Priority 3 measures should start by 2021 

(2020-2021). 

8.4.2.  Timetable 

Fourteen Member States reported on the timetable of their measures. For those Member States 
reporting information on the timetable of their measures, most measures are to be implemented 

within the current FRMP cycle, 2016 to 2021 (see Figure 15 below). A few Member States – 
including  Belgium,  Latvia  and  Sweden  –  reported  measures  as  ongoing:  these  ongoing 

measures  include  early  warning  systems  and  administrative  actions  underway  and  without  a 
completion date. Romanian FRMPs state that almost all measures should be implemented by 

2021,  but  measures  involving  major  works  that  start  between  2016  and  2021  will  only  be 
completed  by  2027,  while  in  Malta,  three  measures  are  scheduled  to  be  completed  in  2017, 

2018,  and  2019  respectively,  with  the  remaining  seven  measures  to  be  continued  throughout 
the 2nd cycle. 

A  small  number  of  Member  States  reported  both  the  priority  of  their  measures  and  the 
timetable – Belgium, Lithuania and Sweden – and as noted above, all indicated that more than 

half of their measures were of critical priority. 

125 In the case of United Kingdom, only Scotland. 
126 Cyprus did not report the prioritisation of measures in the reporting sheet, however, the FRMP states that an 

initial assessment of measures was based on several criteria, including adaptation to climate change. 

127  Both  Croatia’s  and  Cyprus’  FRMPs  stated  that  climate  change  was  considered  as  a  criterion  for  the 
prioritisation of  measures, however, neither of these Member States reported prioritisation in their reporting 
sheets.  

87 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 15 

Timetable reported for measures  

Source: WISE electronic reports and expert elaboration. 
Notes:  Fourteen  Member  States  reported  on  the  timetable  of  their  measures.  Of  these,  Romania  and 
Cyprus  both  indicated  2016-2021  as  the  timetable  for  all  measures;  Slovakia,  2021;  and  for 
Estonia,  Finland,  Poland,  Portugal,  and  Spain,  no  aggregation  was  possible  due  to  the  large 

number  of  different  responses.  For  Italy,  the  figure  only  represents  those  Italian  UoMs  that 
reported information on the timetable of their measures. 

8.5.  Responsible authorities 

MS were requested to report the authority responsible for each measure. The aggregated data 
show  that  in  a  majority  of  Member  States  where  data  is  available128,  national  and  municipal 
authorities  were  responsible  for  measures  (see  Figure  16).  Many  Member  States  identified 
regional authorities, and a few identified specialised bodies such as civil protection authorities 

in Austria and Slovenia, local flood authorities (in the United Kingdom) and water companies. 
In Belgium, unclassified water courses are managed by local residents.  

128  Member  States  could  report  either  the  name  of  the  responsible  authority  or  the  level  of  responsibility.  Both 

were open fields; the entries were aggregated to the extent possible.  

88 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 16 

Authorities identified for the implementation of measures 

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 
Notes:  Regional  authorities  can  include,  depending  on  the  Member  State,  provincial  and  district 
authorities. Catchment authorities refer to water management authorities below the UoM level. 
Member States also often reported more than one responsible authority. 

Most Member States reported more than one responsible authority for their measures, in some 
cases  reporting  several  authorities  per  measure:  The  box  below  presents  the  approach  in 

Estonia. In Italy, another example, about two-thirds of measures are implemented by regional 
authorities,  about  one-sixth  by  municipalities  and  the  remainder  by  others,  including  civil 

protection authorities, water service operators and (for about 1% of measures), national bodies; 
however,  the  number  of  measures  assigned  to  the  various  types  of  authorities  varies  greatly 

across Italy’s UoMs.  

Box 25 - Authorities responsible for measures 
In  Estonia,  each  action  has  a  main  authority  directly  responsible  for  its implementation; for  many 
actions,  additional  authorities  support  the  main  one.  In  most  cases  the  main  authority  is  either  at 
national level – a Ministry or a public authority under a Ministry – or at municipal level. In few cases 
the implementing authority is the owner of a facility. As examples:  

• 

• 

Local  municipalities  are  responsible  for  actions  related  to  construction  or  restoration  of 
public  water  supply  systems,  spatial  planning  and  obligations  and  activities  under  the 
Building Act.  
For preparedness for emergency situations, each local municipality is the main authority and 
the  Rescue  Board  (a  national  body  that  coordinates  of  emergency  work  and  response, 
including for fires, floods and snow storms), the additional authority.  

89 

 
 
 
 
• 

• 

• 

For  natural  water  retention  measures  such  as  buffer  strips,  in  most  cases  the  local 
municipality is the main authority and the land owner the additional authority.  
The  national  Environmental  Inspectorate  is  the  main  authority  for  actions  related  to 
supervision  of  protection  of  environment  and  consequently  for  supervision  of  actions  to 
address pollution risks from industrial plants and agriculture during floods.  
The  Health  Board  is  the  main  authority  for  a  mapping  action  to  establish  and  periodically 
update a list of enterprises in each APSFR that use, process or produce hazardous chemicals. 
The Environmental Board is the authority that supports this action. 

A  few  FRMPs  present  a  division  of  labour.  In  England  (the  United  Kingdom),  the 

Environment  Agency  is  responsible  for  most  protection  measures  while  Lead  Local  Flood 
Authorities (local authorities given responsibilities for flood management) are responsible for 

the  majority  of  recovery  and  review  measures.  In  Portugal,  the  FRMPs  for  mainland  UoMs 
explain that national authorities are responsible for larger, more expensive measures and local 

authorities for smaller measures.   

In  contrast,  a  few  Member  States  indicate  that  a  single  authority  is  responsible  for  most 

measures: in Slovakia, the Ministry of Environment is responsible for 99% of all measures. In 
Malta, while the national Energy and Water Agency is responsible for all measures, the FRMP 

lists government bodies and stakeholders that would need to be engaged for each measure (see 
the box below).  

Box 26 - Engaging government and other stakeholders in implementation 

Malta’s FRMP indicates, for each measure, the government and other stakeholders that would need to 
be  involved  in  the  process.  For  example,  the  measure  "Modelling  the  impact  of  the  National  Flood 
Relief  Project  on  flood  hazard  and  risk  in  identified  catchments"  identifies  eight  government  bodies, 
including: the Environment and Resources Authority; the Eco-Gozo Regional Development Directorate 
within  the  Ministry  for  Gozo;  the  Marine,  Storm  Water  and  Valley  Management  Unit  within  the 
Ministry for Transport and Infrastructure.  

8.6.  Progress of implementation 

All 26 Member States assessed indicated the progress of implementation of their measures. On 
average,  49%  of  the  measures  in  each  Member  State  were  reported  as  not  started,  closely 

90 

 
 
 
 
followed by ‘progress ongoing’, 42% of measures; a further 6% of the measures were reported 
as ongoing construction and 2% as completed129.  

The  levels  reported  vary  across  the  Member  States.  In  eight  Member  States  –  Bulgaria, 

Hungary,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Poland,  Slovakia,  Luxembourg  and  Cyprus  –  over  80%  of 
measures  were  reported  as  not  started.  For  five  others  –  Belgium,  The  Czech  Republic, 

Portugal, Sweden and Italy – over 60% had not been started (see Figure 17 below). In contrast, 
12 of the 26 Member States reported over half of their measures as either ‘progress ongoing’ or 
‘ongoing construction’130.  

Figure 17 

Progress of implementation of measures 

Source: WISE electronic reports. 

129  Many  Member  States  reported  in  2016,  or  in  2017,  so  these  results  should  not  reflect  current  (late  2018) 

progress. 

130 According to the Reporting Guidance for the FD, “Construction on-going” means the construction or building 

works have started but are not finalized” 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Looking at the progress of measures by measure aspect (based on an average across Member 
States131),  a  somewhat  larger  share  of  ‘preparedness’  measures  were  in  progress  ongoing  or 
ongoing construction compared to other aspects of flood risk management; a somewhat larger 

share of protection measures had not been started (see Figure 18).  

Figure 18 

Progress of implementation of measures by aspect of flood risk management 

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016. 
Notes: The figure shows shares by measure aspect and by progress of implementation: the total across 
all aspects (including other) is 100%. Shares based on the average for all 26 Member States. “no 
action” measures not included. 

8.7.  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

In its Annex, the FD calls for FRMPs to include measures taken under other Community Acts, 
including the WFD, the EIA Directive132, the SEA Directive133 and the Seveso Directive134. 12 

131 For each Member State it was calculated which percentage of which measure aspect was completed, ongoing 
construction,  progress  ongoing,  and  not  started.  This  was  then  averaged  across  all  Member  States  –  for 
example,  an  average  of  the  percentage  of  all  completed  prevention  measures,  all  completed  protection 
measures, all completed preparedness measures etc.  

132 Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment 
of the effects of certain public and private  projects on the  environment Text  with EEA  relevance (replacing 
Directive 85/337/EEC). 

133 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the 

effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. 

92 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
of the 26 Member States assessed reported other Community Acts which were relevant to the 

reported measures. Of those Member States  that  did  report this information, most referenced 
the WFD but not other Directives (see relevant section  for more information on coordination 

with the WFD). 

Member States provided further information in the FRMPs. Several Member States referred to 

the  EIA  and  SEA  Directives,  mainly  to  note  that  some  of  their  measures  would  undergo  an 
EIA or that the FRMPs as a whole underwent an SEA procedure (see relevant section). FRMPs 

in  eight  of  the  26  Member  States  assessed  refer  to  the  Seveso  Directive:  for  example,  in 
Germany, technical guidelines to address rainfall and flooding at Seveso installations had been 
developed.  In  Italy,  two  FRMPs  assessed135  include  the  protection  of  Seveso  installations 
among  their  objectives  and  a  third  FRMP136  sets  out  an  indicator  related  to  Seveso 
installations.  Romania  includes  an  indicator  for  its  objective  to  minimise  flood  risks  on 
potentially polluting sites (see section on objectives).  

8.8. 

Inclusion of specific groups of measures 

8.8.1.  Spatial planning and land use  

Article 191 of the Lisbon Treaty defines the objectives that Union policy on the environment 

shall  contribute  to,  including  preserving,  protecting  and  improving  the  quality  of  the 
environment  and  protecting  human  health.  According  to  Article  192  of  the  Treaty,  the 

European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  acting  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  legislative 
procedure,  decide  what  action  is  to  be taken  by  the  Union  in  order  to  achieve  the  objectives 

referred to in Article 191. Measures affecting town and country planning and land use are not 
exempted,  however,  there  is  a  derogation  from  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure  and  the 
Council should act unanimously137. 

The FD states that FRMPs should take into account spatial planning and land use and include 
‘the promotion of sustainable land use practices (Article 7(3)). The subject of spatial planning 

has  been  discussed  in  workshops  organised  by  the  WGF  on  two  occasions  as  an  element  of 

134 Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-
accident  hazards  involving  dangerous  substances,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council  Directive 
96/82/EC Text with EEA relevance. 

135 For the ITA RBD (Eastern Alps) and the Abruzzo and Sangro UoMs (ITI023 and ITR131). 
136 For the ITE RBD (Central Apennines). 
137 For the precise wording please see 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E191:EN:HTML and 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E192:EN:HTML  

93 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                        
 
 
flood risk management. The following passages provide the summary of the two workshops’ 

reference  to  spatial  planning,  which  took  place  seven  years  apart.  Comparing  the  two,  one 
concludes there is progress, with gaps remaining.  

“…[I]t became obvious  that  there are gaps in coordinating land-use planning  and flood risk 
management,  caused  chiefly  by  the  assignment  of  responsibility  to  several  parties,  differing 

planning  standards,  and  different  legal  bases.  Changes  in  the  legal  situation  (stronger 
legislative  basis  for  spatial  planning),  better  funding,  as  well  as  improved  information, 
communication and cooperation were considered to be the key elements for success.”138 

“Since  2007,  several  Member  States  improved  their  acts  and  rules,  for  increasing  the 
coordination  between  spatial  planning  and  flood  risk  management,  but  in  the  most  of  the 

countries,  it  is  necessary  to  improve  them,  because  there  are  still  some  gaps.  The  FRMPs 
include  measures  to  improve  this  coordination,  being  one  of  the  group  of  measures  more 
important.”139 

The conclusion immediately above is supported by the findings of a survey conducted amongst 
the 28 Member States in 2016 where 12 Member States indicated that the FD had a positive 
impact on coordination in flood related spatial planning matters140. 

As a result, the FRMPs of all the Member States assessed141 make reference to spatial planning 
and land use142; however, the extent of information varies and not all FRMPs include measures 
in this area.  

In  five  of  the  26  Member  States  assessed  did  the  FRMPs  provide  information  on  the 

approaches  used  in  current  land  use  and  spatial  planning  legislation  to  address  flood  risk. 
Examples  include  Luxembourg,  where  the  national  Water  Law  prohibits  new  building 

developments  in  flood  risk  areas.  Latvia’s  FRMPs  report  that  national  legislation  bans 

138  CIS  WGF  “Flood  Management  in  Local  Planning”  workshop  report,  Bad  Radkersburg/AT  and  Gornja 

Radgona/SI, April 2008, https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/1be90c02-9de4-4daa-a2ae-0546700c4567 

139 CIS WGF “Coastal Flooding and Spatial Planning” workshop report, 22 and 23 October 2015, Zurbano Palace 

Madrid, Spain, https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/b5450ce2-09b6-461b-88e2-647d21a9047b 

140  “Flood  Risk  Management    in  the  EU  and  the  FD's  1st  Cycle  of  Implementation  (2009-15),  a  questionnaire 
based report”. This is a product of WGF 19’s  workshop (14-15 April 2016, Vienna, Austria), the document 
was endorsed by the EU Water Directors at their meeting in Malta in June 2017, available at: 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/ec110327-9521-468f-b6b8-cc32b1245c3c 
141  None  of  Malta’s  ten  measures  explicitly  refer  to  spatial  planning  or  land  use  for  addressing  flood  risks. 
However,  one  measure  includes  spatial  planning  aspects  –  the  adoption  of  Sustainable  Urban  Drainage 
Systems (SUDS) in planning.  

142  Different  types  of  urban  planning:  https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/building-competitive-cities-

technical-working-paper/page6.html#footnote-80 

94 

 
 
                                                      
construction in river flood plains with a 10%  yearly probability of flooding. Slovenia’s 2002 

Water Law prohibits construction that would increase flood risks (though where urbanisation is 
allowed, protection and compensation actions must be taken).  

Measures  for  spatial  planning  and  land  use  were  identified  in  the  FRMPs  of  23  of  the  26 
Member States reporting. The most common area for measures is for new spatial planning and 

land use restrictions or  bans on construction in  flood-risk areas:  This  is  seen in  16 of the 23 
Member States assessed that have spatial planning and land use measures. In some cases, this 

involves binding rules: As an example, all five Portuguese FRMPs assessed include a measure 
for  the  demarcation  of  areas  of  high  probability  of  flooding  (T  =  20  years):  in  these  areas, 

construction will be prohibited. In addition, adjacent zones corresponding to areas with a low 
probability of flooding occurrence (T – 100 years) will also be demarcated: Here, construction 

will be restricted. In other cases, the measures refer to guidance: For example, the FRMP for 
Falun in Sweden includes a measure to develop a guidance document for planning in proximity 

of flood-prone rivers.  

In  seven  of  the  26  Member  States,  FRMPs  include  measures  to  relocate  economic  activities 
and  properties  away  from  flood-risk  zones:  One  example  is  in  Poland  (see  the  box  below). 

FRMPs  in  four  Member  States  include  measures  for  the  preparation  of  guidelines  on  spatial 
planning and land use in flood risk areas: Denmark, Italy, Poland and Spain. In Croatia, there 

is  a  measure  for  public  education  on  the  need  for  land-use  restrictions  and  restriction  of 
activities in flood prone areas.  

Box 27 - Measures to relocate buildings and facilities from flood risk areas 

The FRMPs in Poland include the following measures:  

  Analysis of the possibility of removal, change of use and modernization of facilities located 

in the specific flood zones, along with the analysis of purchase options; 

  Analysis of conditions for relocation of buildings from areas of particular flood threat;  
  Plans for resettlement and purchase of properties located in specific areas;  
  Development  of  a  buy-out  and  resettlement  program  in  areas  particularly  exposed  to 

flooding;  

  Analysis of land management behind flood embankments and in inter-embankment areas to 

prevent an increase of flood hazards.  

95 

 
 
 
8.8.2.  Nature based solutions, including NWRM 

The FD states the FRMPs shall take into account “…areas which have the potential to retain 

flood water, such as natural floodplains…” and that they may include the “…improvement of 
water  retention…”  (Article  7(3)).  In  the  preamble,  the  FD  asks  FRMPs  to  “consider  where 

possible the maintenance and/or restoration of floodplains…” 

The information compiled from the Member States indicate that all 26 assessed143 include the 
notion of nature based solutions or a subset of these, NWRM, in some or all of their FRMPs. 
The  number  of  NWRM  per  Member  States,  however,  varies  significantly.  At  one  end  of  the 

scale,  NWRM  make  up  about  90%  of  Luxembourg’s  813  individual  measures;  Austria’s 
FRMP  states  that  NWRM  are  ongoing  or  planned  in  96  APSFRs,  completed  in  32  APSFRs, 

and  foreseen  in  the  next  implementation  cycle  in  200  APSFRs.  Slovakia  has  included  520 
measures under type M31 for natural flood management144: NWRM make up almost 40% of 
Slovakia’s  1  413  measures,  and  opportunities  for  these  types  of  measures  were  identified 
through modelling (see the box below).  

Box 28 - Modelling to identify NWRM opportunities 

In Slovakia, a theoretical analysis of the impact of measures was carried out for each APSFR. This 
modelling was used to identify sub-catchments with a potential for improved natural water retention 
using landscape and ecological measures, for example in agricultural areas and for forests. 

The FRMPs present a range of nature based solutions. Plans in at least 11 Member States call 
for the restoration of natural river characteristics – in Bulgaria, for example, there are measures 

for  the  re-meandering  of  rivers.  In  at  least  three  Member  States,  Bulgaria,  Lithuania,  and 
Romania  (see  the  box  below),  measures  include  afforestation.  Sustainable  urban  drainage 

systems (SuDS) are included in the FRMPs in Poland, Malta and the United Kingdom.   

Box 29 - Nature based solutions 

143 In Cyprus a number of measures relate to water retention, however, the actual use of NWRM is limited or is 
not presented in an explicit way. In Malta, one measure includes NWRM aspects – the adoption of Sustainable 
Urban  Drainage  Systems  (SUDS).  In  Sweden,  spatial  planning  measures  are  only  found  in  some  FRMPs, 
notably, two that were not selected for assessment 

144 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. 

96 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
In Croatia, the national FRMP sets out measures for nature based solutions, including the incorporation 

of  water  retention  and  wetland  areas  in  spatial  planning,  encouraging  flood  solutions  involving 
wetlands,  former  floodplains,  meadows  and  pastures  and  the  restoration  of  alluvial  forests,  and 
promoting public awareness on natural water retention. 

In Romania, the five FRMPs assessed all include nature based solutions related to forest management 
in  flood  risk  areas.  Several  FRMPs  include  other  types  of  nature  based  solutions,  including  the 
following:  

 

 

 

 

Creation of new wetlands (Someș-Tisa FRMP, RO9); 

Restoration of natural river banks (vegetative protection), Someș-Tisa FRMP  

Reconnection and restoration of flood plains (Someș-Tisa and Prut-Bârlad, RO11, FRMPs);  

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

Whereas  some  of  the  measures  foresee  investment  in  nature  based  solutions,  others  involve 

preparatory  studies  and  related  work.  For  example,  Poland’s  FRMPs  include  measures  to 
develop guidelines and the identification of ‘priority areas for re-naturalisation in river valleys, 

with particular reference to wetlands’. At the same time, the FRMPs for both the Vistula and 
Oder UoMs in Poland note restrictions to the use of NWRMs, as existing infrastructure make it 

difficult to effectively use flood plains in the event of a flood. 

Across all Member States, there was very little reference to ecosystem services – in Croatia’s 
reporting  sheet,  there  was  reference  in  the  context  of  taking  such  services  into  consideration 

during flood extent control as part of ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction.  

8.8.3.  Measures that consider nature conservation 

The FD also states that FRMPs should consider nature conservation (Article 7(3)). To a great 
extent, nature based solutions (including NWRMs) address this area. In Spain, for example, the 

description of measures for river restoration refer specifically to Natura 2000 sites.  

Beyond nature based solutions, however, few FRMPs assessed refer to measures that explicitly 

address  nature  conservation.  One  example  is  seen  in  Italy:  The  FRMP  for  Puglia  and  the 
Ofanto  RB  includes  measures  for  the  protection  of  vegetation  and  analysis  of  the  impact  of 

structural measures on the environment. In Belgium one FRMP assessed contains a flood risk 
measure where nature conservation is clearly stated: A measure on river restoration.  

97 

 
 
 
 
 
A  few  FRMPs  explain  how  nature  conservation  issues  are  considered  in  the  selection  of 

measures:  In  Latvia,  for  example,  the  location  and  design  of  dykes  was  selected  taking  into 
account the location of Natura 2000 sites, the needs of animal migration and protection of flora 

and soil; the design will seek to integrate dykes into the natural landscape. In Sweden several 
FRMPs indicate that nature conservation was considered in the development of measures. 

8.8.4.  Measures concerning navigation and port infrastructure  

The FD also calls for FRMPs to consider navigation and port infrastructure. Few FRMPs had 

measures  that  addressed  this  area:  These  were  clearly  seen  in  only  five  of  the  26  Member 
States  assessed,  and  even  here,  in  few  measures.  In  Estonia,  for  example,  there  is  a  specific 

action  to  prevent  flood-related  pollution  originating  from  ports.  Hungary’s  FRMP  includes  a 
measure for the reconstruction of a lock. In Belgium, one FRMP assessed stated that shipping 

on  the  river  is  taken  into  consideration,  while  another  FRMP  assessed  does  not  include  a 
specific  measure  on  navigation,  but  has  at  least  one  measure  that  is  related  indirectly: 
Optimising the shipping canal in Brussels for receiving run-off water.  

In  other  Member  States,  including  Bulgaria,  Denmark  and  Germany,  measures  to  protect 

critical  infrastructure  may  include  ports  and  navigation.  The  plans  in  at  least  five  Member 
States  –  Finland,  the  Netherlands  Poland,  Italy145,  and  Spain  –  make  a  general  reference  to 
navigation and ports, but measures in this area where not identified.  

8.8.5.  Dredging  

Dredging is not mentioned in the FD. It is considered in certain areas of the EU and elsewhere 
as  a  tool  for  flood  control;  in  isolation,  however,  without  considering  the  river  basin  wide 

situation in terms of sediments, it does not appear to address sustainably wider catchment flood 
risk. It can also have negative effects on the ecology of a river, e.g. through the removal of fish 

spawning  sites,  which  puts  at  risk  economically  important  species  like  the  salmon. 
Consequently, dredging may negatively affect the potential for common benefits between the 

FD  and  the  WFD  (see  section  9.10  below)  and  its  use  should  be  considered  along  other 
parameters. 

145  The  FRMP  for  Puglia  and  Ofanto  (ITR161I020)  mentions  port  infrastructure  among  the  factors  considered. 
Italy also clarified that the FRMP for Puglia/Ofanto includes ports in the strategic infrastructure addressed for 
risk reduction. Within the analysis of the port infrastructure, actions  for the reduction of coastal erosion are 
considered as a reduction factor of the risk of the flood from the sea. 

98 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
The  FRMPs  in  at  least  seven  Member  States  include  measures  for  dredging  of  rivers  to 

increase  the  river  channel  capacity  and  its  ability  to  convey  water  for  flood  alleviation 
purposes.  

Examples  are  seen  in  Finland,  where  the  FRMP  for  Kokemäenjoki  contains  two  measures: 
“dredging of existing river channels in the centre of the port” and “mowing and dredging of the 

estuary  of  the  Kokemäki  river  in  Pihlavanlahti  Bay”.  All  five  FRMPs  assessed  for  Portugal 
include measures for dredging as part of a strategy for removing silt in river channels. 

In  a  further  six  Member  States,  the  FRMPs  include  measures  that  could  potentially  include 

dredging. In Bulgaria, for example, there are measures for cleaning river beds and ensuring the 
capacity  and  ability  of  the  river  channel  to  convey  water.  Similarly,  in  the  Czech  Republic, 

Hungary and Slovakia, there are measures to increase or maintain the river channel capacity. In 
Austria, it was subsequently explained that navigation, port infrastructure and dredging were 

implicitly  incorporated  into  a  national  measure  on  maintenance  of  protection  and  mitigation 
measures, river maintenance. A measure on increasing the river channel capacity and its ability 

to  convey  water  for  flood  mitigation  in  Germany  (found  in  all  UoMs)  can  be  assumed  to 
involve dredging.    

8.8.6.  Insurance and other economic instruments 

The subject of disaster insurance, a way to share and transfer risk, has been considered at the 

EU  level  in  the  past.  In  2013  a  Green  Paper  on  the  insurance  of  Natural  and  Man-made 
Disasters  was  published  and  a  public  consultation  took  place146.  More  recently,  in  2017,  a 
study  report  titled  “Insurance  of  weather  and  climate  related  disaster  risk:  Inventory  and 
analysis of mechanisms to support damage prevention in the EU”147 was published. One of the 
findings  was  that  whereas  on  the  whole  (across  extreme  weather  events),  insurance  at 
affordable  rates  is  available  in  the  countries  studied148,  there  is  less  success  in  providing 
incentives for risk reduction at the level of the policy holder. Build-back-better requirements, 
as a standard element of insurance contracts, is one of the recommendations put forward. 

146 http://ec.europa.eu/finance/consultations/2013/disasters-insurance/index_en.htm  
147 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4f366956-a19e-11e7-b92d-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

148  The  countries  studied  were:  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Germany,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  Hungary,  Austria,  Poland, 

Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 

99 

 
 
 
                                                      
Although  insurance  is  not  mentioned  in  the  FD149,  in  more  than  half  of  the  Member  States 
assessed (15 out of 26), at least some FRMPs in each Member State include measures related 
to insurance. Relatively speaking, the number of measures in this area, however, appears to be 

small and information regarding the role of insurance is  not  provided consistently across the 
Member States. 

Still,  the  FRMPs  in  several  Member  States  refer  to  current  national  insurance  systems:  For 
example,  the  National  Joint  Insurance  Compensation  Agreement  and  the  National  Entity  for 

Agrarian Insurance in Spain (the five FRMPs assessed refer only to insurance of agriculture, 
however).  Several  municipal  FRMPs  in  Denmark  mention  the  Danish  Storm  Council,  a 
national insurance mechanism150. It was pointed out by Sweden and Belgium that insurance is 
a  national  competency,  and  thus  is  not  covered  in  the  FRMPs,  which  are  prepared  at  a 

subnational  level.  In  Belgium  a  national  law  on  insurance  (2014)  gives  insurance  companies 
the right to refuse coverage for properties in flood risk zones 

Some  Member  States  included  specific  measures  to  set  up  or  improve  insurance  schemes 

capable  of  providing  cover  for  flood  victims.  In  Austria,  one  measure  mentions  the 
development of insurance schemes that provide better coverage. In Germany as well, measures 

call for the development of insurance schemes, here specifically  for the private and business 
sectors.  In  Lithuania,  flood  insurance  is  not  currently  available  and  the  FRMP  includes  a 

measure  to  revise  national  legislation  on  flood  damage  compensation  mechanisms.  In  the 
United  Kingdom,  the  FRMP  for  the  Neagh  Bann  UoM  in  Northern  Ireland  includes  two 

measures: One is “to work with the insurance industry to assist them in introducing 'FloodRe' 
to NI to help address long term flood insurance affordability issues”. In Portugal a Recovery 

measure foresees a national legislative proposal that will provide a framework for insurance in 
flood-prone  areas.  In  Romania,  there  is  one  national  level  measure  in  each  of  the  assessed 

FRMPs  that  is  for  the  design  of  regulations  regarding  the  insurance  system  for  buildings 
situated in potential flooding areas151, while in Slovenia, two projects for each sub-basin deal 
with establishing a scheme of subsidising of insurance premiums.  

149  In  a  survey  carried  out  amongst  the  28  Member  States  in  2016,  seven  Member  States  indicated  that  the 
introduction of the FD had an influence on insurance policy. Source: “Flood Risk Management in the EU and 
the FD's 1st Cycle of Implementation (2009-15), a questionnaire based report”, available at: 
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/ec110327-9521-468f-b6b8-cc32b1245c3c 

150 A national insurance scheme exists in France as well. 
151 A Romanian law 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 2010. 

100 

 
 
                                                      
 
In few Member States – including Bulgaria, Cyprus, Luxembourg, and Slovenia152 – FRMPs 
include  measures  to  raise  awareness  of  insurance  schemes.  The  FRMP  for  Cyprus,  for 
example,  contains  two  measures:  One  to  raise  awareness  of  insurance,  including  in  local 

authorities, and the other to promote the use of flood insurance. 

The FRMPs in a few Member States identify insurance companies as possible funding sources: 

For example, in Estonia it is stated that these companies may fund flood relief actions. Finally, 
hardly any reference was found to other economic instruments for flood risk management. One 

example was found in Northern Ireland: a measure for a Homeowner Flood Protection  Grant 
Scheme  to  support  households  and  communities  in  enhancing  the  resistance  of  properties  to 

flooding.  

8.9.  Monitoring progress in implementation 

The  Annex  to  the  FD  states  that  FRMPs  should  describe  “…the  way  in  which  progress  in 

implementing the plan will be monitored”.  

For  the  Member  States  assessed,  many  FRMPs  provide  some  information  on  the  monitoring 

processes  to  be  followed,  though  for  many  the  description  is  not  detailed.  In  some  Member 
States, such as Croatia, it is not clear if monitoring is specifically for FRMP progress, or if it is 

integrated into WFD/RBMP monitoring. 

The  FRMPs  in  at  least  12  Member  States  nonetheless  describe  indicators  to  be  used  in 
monitoring: this is seen, for example, in Bulgaria (see the box below) and Lithuania. In Italy, 

the FRMP for the Central Apennines sets out a list of indicators to be used, while other Italian 
FRMPs  assessed  do  not.  In  Slovenia,  seven  steps  of  implementation  for  each  construction 

project  is  set  out,  however,  non-construction  measures  do  not  have  clear  targets  and/or 
indicators.  In France,  several  FRMPs explain that indicators to  follow the implementation  of 
the Plan will be identified early in the implementation cycle on the basis of the indicators set 
out in the national strategy for flood risk management (the strategy identifies a set of indicators 

to be used to follow the progress of its implementation and that of the FRMPs and lower-level 
plans that address flood risk)  

Box 30 - Indicators to track measures 

In  Bulgaria,  an  Annex of the West  Aegean  FRMP (BG4000)  provides  two types  of  indicators for 

152 As well as an operational objective in the Walloon FRMPs in Belgium.  

101 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
each measure:  

 

 

Indicators for tracking the progress of implementation (e.g. number of initiatives, number of 
normative documents, number of inspections) and  

Indicators  for  tracking  progress  towards  achieving  the  objectives  (e.g.  fewer  number  of 
people impacted by floods, improved administrative capacity for FRM, better protection for 
the life and health of the population in APSFRs, better protection of critical infrastructure or 
environment). 

The  FRMPs  in  at  least  eight  Member  States  153  set  out  quantitative  baselines  for  monitoring 
progress:  This  is  the  case  in  Spain,  where  baselines  include,  as  an  example,  kilometres  of 
coastline already mapped for flood risk. In Romania, the expected value for the year 2021 was 

established for each monitoring indicator, which is compared to the reference year 2015. 

While only about one-third of Member States referred to a baseline in their FRMPs, the PFRA 
and FHRM results of the 1st cycle could be used to identify or develop a baseline (e.g. in terms 
of population or cultural heritage already effectively protected from a 100-year flood)154. This 
approach  will  be  followed  in  the  Czech  Republic  (see  the  box  below).  In  Luxembourg,  the 
FHRMs are referred to as baselines against which the FRMP and its measures will be assessed, 

while in Slovenia the results of the PFRA are used as the baseline. In Poland, although there is 
not a specific reference to the FHRMs, the baseline is determined based on the level of flood 

protection prior to the development of the FRMP. 

Box 31 - Using FHRMs to assess the effectiveness of FRMP measures 

In  the  Czech  Republic,  the  effectiveness  of  measures  under  the  FRMPs  will  be  evaluated  in  all 
APSFRs through an analysis of FHRMs at the end of the flood risk management planning period. The 
original  FHRMs  will  be  used  as  the  baseline.  The  analysis  will  consider  the  following  criteria:  1) 
change  in  areas  at  unacceptable  risk,  2)  change  of  the  number  of  population  at  unacceptable  risk,  3) 
change  of  the  number  of  constructions  (objects)  at  unacceptable  risk,  4)  individual  assessment  of 
vulnerable objects, 5) change of the number of updated municipal flood action plans, 6) change of the 
number of local urban plans (or change in their quality), 7) change in the number of flood warning sites, 
8) change of the number of the municipalities with flood warning systems. 

153 In the case of Denmark, this was for most of the FRMPs assessed.  
154 Austria, for example, subsequently explained that the baseline will be the status in 2015, the date of the first 

FRMP. Progress will be assessed against the state of the implementation and against the FHRMs.  

102 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
A  few  FRMPs  indicate  the  timeframes  for  progress  monitoring  reports  –  for  example  in 

Slovenia, a report is to be published every two years, while in Flanders (Belgium) a monitoring 
programme is executed on a yearly basis155. In Italy, some FRMPs state that yearly monitoring 
reports,  drawing  on  information  provided  by  regional  bodies  are  produced.  In  Romania, 
progress  is  reported  annually to  the  Inter-Ministerial  Council for Waters.  In the Netherlands, 

the FRMP explains that regional water authorities and national water authorities have to report 
on the progress of their tasks (once a year) and on the progress of large programmes (twice a 

year).  The  Dutch  Delta  Commission  makes  a  yearly  report  on  progress  under  the  Delta 
Programme. In Sweden, the FRMPs are monitored on a yearly basis. 

Other Member States, including Estonia and Lithuania, refer to monitoring points in the middle 
and  end  of  the  FRMP  cycle,  while  Croatia  requires  the  competent  authority  to  report  on  the 

implementation of the FRMP after the first half of the planning period and in the next FRMP. 
In Belgium reporting is done in 2017 and 2019. In both Latvia and Luxembourg, on the other 

hand, monitoring timeframes are set on the basis of individual measures.  

In terms of actors, several FRMPs state that the competent authority for the implementation of 
measures is  responsible for monitoring progress.  In Finland, flood  groups that bring together 

public bodies and private stakeholders will contribute to monitoring. In Malta it is stated in the 
report sheets that an Inter-Ministerial Committee on Water will be established to monitor the 

implementation  of both  WFD and FD measures. While the responsibilities of the Committee 
are  outlined,  it  is  not  explained  how  the  progress  is  measured  or  evaluated.  In  Belgium 

(Flanders)  the  Water  Execution  Programme  is  a  monitoring  body  responsible  for  annual 
monitoring of progress while in Brussels the Brussels Institute for Environmental Management 

coordinates and monitors overall progress on the FRMP annually, measuring both progress of 
the planned days of the project, and financial progress.  

At least three Member States (Bulgaria, Denmark and Slovenia)156 indicate that the monitoring 
report would be published online. Slovenia’s FRMP also indicates that monitoring reports are 

subject to a simplified public consultation process.  

155  Flanders  informed  it  monitors  progress  qualitatively  (not  started,  on-going…),  quantitively  (if  possible)  and 

financially. 

156 Information portals on monitoring are found in Finland, Denmark, and Luxembourg. 

103 

 
 
 
                                                      
8.10.  Financing of measures 

8.10.1. Costs of measures 

An important factor in the success of the implementation of the programme of measures is the 

availability of funding to support the investments required. 

Estimates  of  the  costs  of  flood  measures  were  available  for  about  half  of  Member  States 
assessed  (see  Table  12157  below),  though  in  many  cases  this  information  does  not  cover  all 
FRMPs or all measures. In several Member States (for example Belgium), cost information is 
available in sources other than the FRMPs – for example, websites dedicated to the Programme 

of Measures. For the 14 Member States where estimates are (partly) available, the costs range 
from EUR 19 million in Cyprus to EUR 2.8 billion in Poland.  

Table 12 

Total costs reported for FRMP measures 

Member 
State 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Croatia 

The  Czech 
Republic 
Finland 

Hungary 

Italy 

Latvia 
Poland 

Portugal 

Costs reported for: 

Structural 
measures 

Non-structural 
measures 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

Total costs reported  
(national currency and 
approximate value in 
Euros) 
EUR 40 million 

BGN 627 million  
(EUR 320 million)  
EUR 19 million 

HRK 4.6 billion 
(EUR 598 million) 
CZK 14 347 million 
(EUR 280 million) 
EUR 472 million 

HUF 183 billion 
(EUR 580 million) 
EUR 3 781 million 

EUR 203 million158 
PLN 11 650 million 
(EUR 2 800 million) 
EUR 176 million 

Notes 

Information for two FRMPs, 
including investment costs but 
not operational costs. 
Information available for 3 out 
of 4 FRMPs.  
Costs for 20 measures – 
remaining 18 measures mostly 
have no cost. 
Cost for 2013-2022 for 
infrastructure construction. 
For “concrete” measures, 
mainly construction measures 
Investment costs for 99 
measures  
Preliminary costs for 26 out of 
47 measures 
Costs for three of five FRMPs 
assessed: Eastern Alps (ITA), 
Ofanto/Puglia (ITR161I020), 
and Sardinia (ITR201). 
Sardinia gave information on 
structural measures only. 

Costs for the majority of 
measures reported. 
Costs for the five FRMPs 
assessed. 

157  Table  for  illustration  only:  European  Commission’s  own  calculations  on  the  basis  of  FRMPs  assessed  and 

Member State reporting. 

158 Based on information provided by Latvia. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Member 
State 

Slovenia 
Slovakia 
UK (N. 
Ireland) 

Costs reported for: 

Structural 
measures 

Non-structural 
measures 

 
 
 

 
 
 

Total costs reported  
(national currency and 
approximate value in 
Euros) 
EUR 540 million 
EUR 400 million 
GBP 145 million 
(EUR 129 million)) 

Notes 

Cost for one UoM. 

Sources: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 
Notes: Unless otherwise indicated, the costs reported include both investment and operational costs.  

Box 32 - A detailed breakdown of measure costs 

In the FRMP for Neagh Bann in Northern Ireland (UKGBNIIENB) a detailed breakdown of the costs 
is given in the FRMP: 

Prevention (2% of total cost): costs of Rivers Agency’s liaison with planning authorities regarding new 
development: These are the estimated costs for the provision of flood risk  management advice to the 
government and local councils; 

Protection (95% of total cost): costs of measures in Rivers Agency’s Capital Works Programme; costs 
associated  with  Rivers  Agency’s  proposed  operation  of  the  Homeowner  Flood  Protection  Grant 
Scheme; costs associated with Stakeholder Groups formed to address the requirements of the FD; costs 
associated  with  drainage  maintenance;  costs  associated  with  drainage  and  flood  risk  management 
activities by “Transport Northern Ireland”; costs associated with drainage and flood risk management 
activities  by  “Northern  Ireland  Water”;  costs  associated  with  drainage  and  flood  risk  management 
activities  in  the  Northern  Ireland  Department  of  Regional  Development  (DRD)  ‘Living  with  Water’ 
Programme; 

Preparedness  (3%  of  total  cost):  costs  associated  with  Rivers  Agency’s  provision  of  Emergency 
Planning Expertise, Flood Warning, Information and Awareness activities. 

A number of FRMPs indicated cost estimates would be reviewed during the implementation of 
the  measures:  Slovenia’s  FRMP,  for  example,  explains  that  the  costs  of  new  construction 

measures  were  estimated  via  expert  judgement  and  will  be  assessed  in  the  project  planning 
phase.  

Several  Member  States  –  including  Finland,  Luxembourg,  Portugal,  Cyprus,  and  Spain  – 

indicated that some measures were not allocated specific budgets as they are considered core 
activities  of  the  competent  authorities.  In  Finland,  for  example,  this  includes  permitting 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
processes and land use planning; in addition, costs assumed to be carried by landowners as part 

of their own regular activities or legal obligations were not budgeted.   

Figure 19 

Reported costs for individual measures, by category 

Source: WISE electronic reports 2016, 2017. 
Notes: “Unknown” was used when the Member States reported that the cost is “unknown”. “No info” 

was used when the Member States did not report any information for that specific measure.  

Eight  of  the  26  Member  States  that  reported  provided  information  on  the  costs  for  each 
measure159  (see  Figure  19  above).  Most  measures  reported  cost  EUR  100,000  or  less.  The 
breakdown nonetheless varies across the Member States: For example, in Italy the percentage 
of  measures  costing  between  one  to  five  million  euros  (45%  of  all  measures  with  reported 

costs) is far larger than the percentage costing between zero and EUR100 000 (<1%). 

While little information is available on the distribution of costs among the aspects of flood risk 

management,  it  appears  that  these  vary  significantly,  both  across  Member  States  as  well  as 
among FRMPs within a single Member States. In Portugal, the share of total cost each FRMP 

allocated  to  prevention  measures  ranged  from  0-53%;  for  protection  measures,  35-99%;  for 
preparedness measures,  27-68%; and for recovery measures, from 0-28%. Large ranges were 

also seen among the FRMPs assessed in Spain.  

159 This reporting was optional and even in the Member States in the graph, not all measures had cost information 

reported.   

106 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
8.10.2. Funding sources 

In 23 of the 26 Member States160, most of the FRMPs assessed identified funding sources for 
measures  (see  Figure  20  below);  however,  in  many  cases  the  FRMPs  make  only  a  generic 
than  making  budgetary 
funding  mechanisms 
reference, 

identifying  possible 

rather 

commitments.   

MS’s  own  government  budgets  –  whether  at  national,  regional  and  local  levels  -  were  cited 

most  frequently:  Each  of  these  levels  was  identified  in  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  Member 
States  whose  FRMPs  provided  funding  information.  In  addition,  three  Member  States 

mentioned  dedicated  government  funding  instruments:  The  Hochwasserschutzprogramm,  a 
fund  in  Germany  jointly  managed  by  Federal  States  and  the  Federal  Government;  the  Delta 

Fund in the Netherlands and the National Water Fund and Climate Fund in Slovenia.  

Figure 20 

Funding sources for measures 

Sources: Based information available from the assessment of FRMPs in 26 Member States. 
Notes: No clear information was found for France161 and Luxembourg, and these Member States are 

thus not represented in the figure.    

In  15  Member  States,  Cohesion  Policy  Funds  were  indicated:  these  include  the  European 

Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund as well as the European Social Fund (the 
latter  was  cited  only  in  the  FRMPs  assessed  for  two  Member  States,  Spain  and  Portugal). 

160 In Malta the information on costs was found in the RBMP, into which the FRMP is integrated. 
161  In  France  FRMPs  are  implemented  via  the  PAPI  (Programmes  d’actions  de  prévention  des  inondations), 

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

107 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
FRMPs in two Member States – Portugal and Slovakia – indicate that EU funds are expected 

to provide a large share of resources for FRMP investments: In Slovakia, Cohesion Policy co-
financing is envisaged for most measures. 

The  European  Solidarity  Fund  was  cited  by  five  Member  States.162163  The  Common 
Agricultural Policy was cited by six Member States.  

Private and enterprise sources, including groups potentially affected by flooding, were cited in 
FRMPs in six Member States164. In Denmark, for example, several municipal FRMPs indicate 
that  companies  potentially  affected  by  flooding,  including  water  and  electric  utilities,  are 

expected  to  finance  measures.  In  the  United  Kingdom,  the  water  utility  and  the  national  rail 
infrastructure operator are indicated as sources of funding in the two Scottish FRMPs assessed.  

Finally,  other  sources  were  cited  in  six165  Member  States:  Poland’s  FRMPs,  for  example, 
indicated  international  development  banks  including  the  European  Investment  Bank  as  a 
potential  source;  while  Croatian  FRMPs  refer  to  a  loan  from  the  Development  Bank  of  the 

Council of Europe and water charges collected by Croatian Water, the water entity under the 
umbrella  of  the  ministry.  Bulgaria  referenced  EMEPA166  and  irrigation  system  enterprises. 
Both Austria and Malta identified the EU LIFE Programme as a funding source, with the latter 

also identifying EU Horizon 2020 projects. 

In Bulgaria, the FRMPs raise the prospect that the identified resources might be insufficient to 
cover estimated costs. Similarly, Slovenia’s FRMP states that only EUR 400 million is likely 

to be available from financing sources, meaning that not all measures – whose total costs were 
estimated at EUR 530 million – would be covered in the follow up to the 1st FRMP. In the two 
English FRMPs assessed, it was stated that measures do not all have secured funding and are 
not  guaranteed  to  be  implemented.  Instead,  money  is  allocated  to  Risk  Management 

Authorities based on government policy that gives the highest priority to the areas at highest 
risk.  

162  In  addition  to  these  five  Member  States,  Austria  informed  that  in  case  of  major  flood  disasters,  funding  of 
measure type M20 (Sofortmaßnahmen) can be supported by the EU Solidarity Fund. To illustrate, in Austria, 
the EU Solidarity Fund was mobilised for the enormous flood damages in the years 2002, 2005 and 2013. 

163 This fund was set up to respond to major disasters in the EU, including floods. 
164 Austria, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Poland, and the United Kingdom.  
165 The FRMPs in Lithuania do not define what is meant by “other”.  
166 The Bulgarian Enterprise for Management of Environmental Protection Activities. 

108 

 
 
 
                                                      
8.11.  Coordination with the WFD 

8.11.1. Developing the FRMPs and RBMPs 

In  the  majority  of  Member  States  and  UoMs  assessed,  separate  FRMPs  and  RBMPs  were 

prepared (see Figure 21 below).  

Figure 21 

Coordination between FRMPs and RBMPs 

Source: Member States reporting under the FD and the WFD; FRMPs. 

There are nevertheless few exceptions. In Croatia and in the Flanders and Brussels Regions of 

Belgium, a single plan was prepared for both FRMPs and RBMPs. In Malta as well, a single 
plan was  prepared, with  the FRMP presented  as  an annex of the RBMP. In  Lithuania, while 

separate plans were prepared, measures from both the FRMPs and the RBMPs were integrated 
into  the  Water  Sector  Development  Programme  2017-2023,  although  it  should  be  noted  that 

the  Programme  includes  only  limited  text  from  each  plan.  In  the  Czech  Republic,  separate 
FRMPs  and  RBMPs  were  prepared  at  UoM  level  (consequently,  the  Czech  Republic  is  not 

included  in  the  figure  among  the  Member  States  with  integrated  plans);  however,  integrated 
plans  were  prepared  at  a  lower,  sub-basin  level,  addressing  both  RB  management  and  flood 
risk management167.  

167 The Czech Republic indicated three levels of plans: those for international UoMs (level A), for national UoMs 
(level B) and sub-basins within the UoMs (level C); the Czech Republic reported the level B plans to WISE 
but not the level C plans.  

109 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Despite  this  diversity,  almost  all  Member  States have  designated  UoMs  under  the  FD  which 

correspond to the RBDs designated for the WFD (with the exception of Italy and Romania). In 
the United Kingdom, for example, this extends to sub-basins (catchments).  

In  addition,  in  nearly  all  the  Member  States  assessed,  the  same  authorities  prepare  both  the 
FRMP and the RBMP. Among the exceptions is Northern Ireland, where different authorities 

prepare the two types of plans but have continuous engagement through an interdepartmental 
steering  group  and  via  local  Flood  Forums;  another  is  Sweden,  whose  Water  Authorities 

prepared the RBMPs while county administrations prepared the FRMPs.  

In other Member States, it is often stated in the FRMPs that coordination is carried out between 
the two authorities. In Slovenia, for example, the FRMPs and RBMPs are prepared in the same 

authority  but  by  different  teams.  In  both  Italy  and  the  United  Kingdom,  this  depends  on  the 
UoM (and in the case of the United Kingdom, the country).  

In more than half of the Member States assessed, it was reported that consultation of the draft 

FRMP  and  draft  RBMP  were  carried  out  together.  In  Bulgaria,  for  example,  national  law 
requires  the  public  consultation  for  both  plans  to  be  run  in  parallel.  Some  Member  States 
carried out joint stakeholder engagement activities for the two Plans. In Estonia, for example, 

consultations within the Commission for RB Management, which brings together government 
bodies,  national  experts  and  water  service  companies,  addressed  both  the  FRMPs  and 
RBMPs.168  

In another example of linked work, joint SEAs were undertaken for the RBMPs and FRMPs in 
three out of the five UoMs assessed in Spain.  

8.11.2. Relationship with WFD Objectives 

In  the  majority  of  the  Member  States  assessed  –  21  out  of  the  26  –  FRMPs  refer  to 

coordination with the environmental objectives set out in Article 4 of the WFD in all or at least 
some of the UoMs assessed (see  Figure 22 below). Austria’s FRMP, for example, states that 

WFD  objectives  must  not  be  endangered  and  have  priority  over  FD  objectives.  On  the  other 
hand, in 18 Member States, the objectives of the FD were considered in the preparation of the 

RBMPs in all or at least some of the UoMs assessed (based on reporting of RBMPs under the 
WFD).  

168 In addition, Austria informed that a joint brochure and a joint roundtable on water issues were used to launch 

the consultation process for both its FRMP and RBMP. 

110 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 22 

Integration of objectives in RBMPs and FRMPs 

Source: Member States reporting under the FD and the WFD; FRMPs. 

Moreover,  in  at  least  nine  Member  States,  the  FRMPs  describe  measures  in  terms  of  their 

WFD objectives: For many of these FRMPs, measures are assessed to determine whether they 
impact  on  WFD  objectives  (see  the  example  below  from  Poland).  Germany,  for  example, 

categorised its flood measures on three levels: those that support implementation of the WFD; 
those  that  are  neutral  or  not  relevant;  and  those  that  might  lead  to  a  conflict  with 
implementation  of the WFD. Some FRMPs in Italy, such as the Plans for the Po and for the 

Eastern Alps, also categorised flood measures along these lines. 

Box 33 - Assessing the impact of FRMP measures on WFD objectives 

In Poland, the FRMPs indicate that the biological and hydromorphological quality elements under 
the  WFD  were  considered  in  the  analysis  of  the  impacts  of  the  FRMPs  on  WFD  objectives. 
Hydromorphological  elements  considered  include:  Quantity  and  dynamics  of  water  flow, 
connections with groundwater bodies, river continuity, morphological conditions: river depths, width 
variation, structure and composition of river beds, coastal zone structure. The FRMPs also indicate 
that opportunities for fish passages for flood structures were analysed. 

8.11.3. Synergies between FRMP and RBMP measures  

In several areas, FRMP measures can support WFD objectives. Moreover, synergies between 

FRMPs and RBMPs can include: 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
  Consistent application of WFD Article 4(7) and designation of heavily modified water 

bodies due to measures 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  achieving  WFD 
Environmental Objectives;  

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

  The RBMP PoM includes win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the 

WFD and FD, drought management and NWRMs; 

  Permitting  or  consenting  of  flood  risk  activities  (e.g.  dams,  dredging,  flood  defence 

construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs.  

The figure below shows how these actions were applied in the FRMPs assessed.  

Figure 23 

Synergies between FRMP and RBMP measures 

Source: Member States reporting under the FD and the WFD; FRMPs. 

112 

 
 
 
 
Looking  at  coordination  overall,  a  number  of  Member  States  carried  out  efforts  across  all 

aspects  of  FRMP  and  RBMP  preparation:  one  example  is  Germany,  described  in  the  box 
below.  

Box 34 - Coordination of FRMPs and RBMPs 

Germany carried out an intensive coordination of its FRMPs and RBMPs. Aspects included: joint 
consultation, coordination between competent authorities, coordination of objectives and measures. 
The  FRMPs  also  contain  assessments  of  the  interactions  between  measures  under  the  FD  and  the 
objectives of the WFD. As noted above, Germany assessed its FRMP measures in terms of their level 
of  support  for  WFD  objectives.  Coordination  with  local  authorities  and  authorities  from  other 

departments  (than  those  responsible  for  floods)  took  place  with  relevant  stakeholders  when 
developing both plans. 

8.12.  Summary of good practice and areas for further development 

8.12.1. Good practices 

Across  the  Member  States  there  were  a  number  of  good  practices.  To  begin  with,  several 

Member  States  clearly  linked  their  measures  to  the  objectives  in  all  or  some  of  the  FRMPs 
assessed. For example, Slovakia provided a comprehensive assessment of the potential impact 

of the existing and suggested protection measures in achieving the FRMP objectives.  

Secondly, some Member States such as Bulgaria and Estonia included specific detail on their 
measures,  including  location,  cost  and  responsible  authority.  The  FRMPs  for  a  few  Member 

States such as Poland provided estimated costs for all measures as well as indications of main 
sources of funding.  

Several  Member States  provide clear information in  their FRMPs with  respect  to  monitoring 
the progress of the measures in relation to the objectives and for tracking the implementation 

of  the  measures.  In  Spain  (for  the  five  FRMPs  assessed)  progress  in  the  implementation  of 
planned  measures  is  tracked  via  monitoring  indicators,  including  quantitative  baselines  and 

targets. In Bulgaria, the FRMP for the West Aegean (BG4000) defines two separate indicators 
per planned measure - one for tracking implementation progress and one for tracking progress 

towards achieving the objectives. Interestingly, Denmark and Slovenia indicate that they will 
include  an  element  of  public  transparency  and  consultation  with  respect  to  monitoring  the 

implementation  of  measures.  Specifically,  in  one  Danish  municipality  (Norddjurs)  there  are 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
plans to have a public log where the public can follow the implementation of measures and in 

Slovenia, monitoring will be carried out every two years and will include a public consultation 
process.  

The prioritisation of measures was addressed well by a number of Member States. In Italy, for 
example, the FRMPs provided details of the prioritisation processes including the criteria used.   

With respect to co-ordination of measures with the WFD and integration with RBMPs, three 

areas  of  good  practice  can  be  observed  1)  with  respect  to  co-ordination  of  plans  and 
consultation and 2) processes for assessing the relationship between measures in FRMPs and 

RBMPs and 3) presence of win-win measures for both Directives.   

Nearly  all  Member  States  included  nature  based  solutions  (including  NWRMs);  a  few, 
including  Austria  and  Luxembourg,  planned  a  high  number  of  such  measures.  A  range  of 

approaches  are  seen:  Bulgaria’s  FRMPs,  for  example,  include  several  types  of  NWRMs:  the 
re-naturalisation  of  rivers  and  river  beds;  re-meandering  of  rivers,  and  afforestation  of  areas 

along  rivers,  coasts  and  dams.  Malta  refers  to  the  introduction  of  sustainable  urban  drainage 
systems.  

Almost all Member States included measures on spatial planning and land use in their FRMPs: 
For  example,  all  of  Germany’s  FRMPs  assessed  have  measures  to  control  building  and 

development  in  floodplains.  In  many,  as  in  France,  the  measures  call  for  the  integration  of 
flood risks into spatial plans. 

While  few  Member  States  addressed  insurance  in  their  plans,  good  practices  can  be  seen  in 

Lithuania and Portugal, both of which include measures for the national framework for flood 
insurance.  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Luxembourg,  and  Slovenia’s  FRMPs  include  measures  to  raise 

awareness of insurance schemes. 

8.12.2. Areas for further development 

A  key  aspect  requiring  attention  and  seen  in  many  FRMPs  was  a  lack  of  clarity  on  how 
objectives  would  be  met  and  if  measures  put  forward  were  indeed  sufficient  to  achieve 

objectives. This is related in part to the fact that for many Member States, objectives are not 
specific or measurable (see section 7) and often, the measures are not specific or measurable 

either.  Further,  only  about  half  of  Member  States  provide  a  link  between  objectives  and 
measures  in  their  FRMPs,  for  example  by  identifying  which  objectives  each  measure 

114 

 
 
 
 
contributes  to.  Few  FRMPs  identify  indicators  or  other  mechanisms  that  would  show  if  the 

implementation  of measures will lead to  the  achievement of objectives,  or a baseline  against 
which to measure their impacts. Considering that these were the first FRMPs and that there is a 

requirement  to  assess  progress  towards  the  achievement  of  objectives  set  from  the  second 
FRMPs  onwards,  the  evidence  cannot  be  conclusive,  but  it  is  suggestive  and  points  to 

difficulties in assessing progress come 2021. 

With  respect  to  costs  there  was  a  lack  of  or  incomplete  cost  information  in  many  Member 
States. Several Member States lacked information on funding sources as well. For a number of 

countries, the methodology for prioritisation of measures was not clear or not provided.   

In terms of links  with  the WFD, some Member  States made unclear or no links between the 
FD’s and the WFD’s measures, others made limited links.  

There  was  a  lack  of  detail  on  nature  based  solutions  (including  NWRMs)  in  a  few  FRMPs. 
Very  few  FRMPs  provide  information  on  how  nature  conservation  was  addressed  in  their 

measures, though nature based solutions should have positive impacts on nature.   

On the basis of the discussion in  chapter 8, the following recommendations can be made for 
the preparation of the second FRMPs: 

  Member  States  should  seek  to  exhaust  possibilities  for  specific  and  measurable 
details  on  their  measures  and  should  clearly  link  measures  to  objectives  in  their 
FRMPs.  Where  possible,  FRMPs  should  also  present  indicators  or  other 

mechanisms 
achievement of objectives. 

to  show  how 

the 

implementation  of  measures  supports 

the 

  Member  States  should  provide  a  baseline  against  which  impacts  are  measured  in 
their FRMPs. This information will help to ensure that measures’ progress towards 
reaching the objectives set is monitored. 

  Member  States  should  provide  in  their  FRMPs  more  concrete  information  on  the 

estimated costs of the measures and sources of funding. 

  Member  States  should  strengthen  the  links  between  the  FRMPs  and  the  RBMPs 

where the two Directives intersect.  

115 

 
 
 
 
 
  Member  States  should  seek  to  identify  further  opportunities  to  use  nature  based 

solutions for flood risk management. 

  Member States should assess whether encouraging economic instruments (possibly 
including  insurance)  that  promote  flood  risk  reduction  are  relevant  to  their 

particular situation and mix of measures. 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
9.  Consideration of costs and benefits and use of CBA 

The FD states that “Flood risk management plans shall take into account relevant aspects such 

as  costs  and  benefits….”  (Article  7(3)).  The  Annex  on  FRMPs  goes  on  to  list,  among  the 
components to be included in the Plans, “when available… a description of the methodology… 

of cost-benefit analysis used to assess measures with transnational effects” (which effects may 
extend geographically wider than the location of the measure itself, or of the relevant APSFR), 

indicating  this  analysis  is  particularly  valuable  in  a  transboundary  context.  The  Directive’s 
Annex also calls on FRMPs to describe the prioritisation of measures: An analysis of costs and 

benefits of measures could be an important consideration both in their selection as well as their 
prioritisation.  

This  section  reviews  the  information  gathered  from  Member  States’  reporting  and  from  the 

FRMPs  assessed  on  approaches  to  consider  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  measures  set  out  in 
their FRMPs, including their use of CBA.  

9.1.  Overview of the consideration of costs and benefits in FRMPs 

A majority of the Member States assessed, 19, have made some analysis of costs and benefits 

of their measures. Among the 19, fewer, 11 out  of 26 of the Member States assessed used a 
CBA  in  all  UoMs  assessed  (see  Figure  24  below).  A  further  five  of  the  19  Member  States 

indicated  the  use  of  CBA  for  some  of  their  FRMPs,  in  some  cases  referring  to  cost-
effectiveness rather than cost-benefit analysis. In Portugal, for example, the FRMP for Azores 

(PTRH9)  includes  “the  cost-effectiveness  of  measures”  among  its  objectives,  and  the  FRMP 
for  Madeira  (PTRH10)  provides  a  cost-effectiveness  assessment  for  one  measure.  In  Italy,  a 

reference  to  CBA  is  found  in  three  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  though  the  information 
provided was limited for some: For the Eastern Alps (ITA), for example, economic analysis is 

one of the four criteria used for prioritisation, though details on the approach are not provided 
in the Plan. The FRMP for Puglia and Ofanto (ITR161I020), on the other hand, discusses costs 

and benefits (see the box below).   

Not all FRMPs  provided a summary of  results from  CBA: For  example, no information  was 

found for two of Bulgaria’s four FRMPs, nor in two of the five Italian FRMPs assessed.  

117 

 
 
 
 
Box 35 - Assessing costs and benefits in the FRMP  

In  Italy,  the  FRMP  for  Puglia  and  Ofanto  provides  an  overview  of  the  costs  of  measures  to  be 
financed  by  the  Puglia  Region  and  presents  estimates  of  the  costs  of  floods  for  three  sectors: 
urban/residential, industry and agriculture. The Plan also notes that recent and historical floods have 
high  costs  in  terms  of  transport  infrastructure  and  also  in  terms  of  lives  (the  reporting  sheet  notes 
impacts on human health and lives are difficult to quantify in monetary terms and are not included in 
the  cost  estimates.)  The  Plan  indicates  that  damage  costs  will  be  further  estimated  in  the 
implementation of the Plan itself.   

Figure 24 

Number  of  Member  States  reporting  the  use  of  cost-benefit  analysis  or 
alternative approves for measures 

Source: Member States reporting and FRMPs. 
Note: Cyprus uses a cost-benefit analysis for construction measures and an alternative system for non-
construction  measures.  As  Cyprus  has  one  UoM,  it  is  counted  in  the  category  ‘all  UoMs’. 
Slovenia’s  FRMP  and  French  authorities  state  that a  CBA  is  to  be  done  at  project  level;  both 
have been included in the first category “for all UoMs”.  

Three  of  the  19  Member  States  that  made  some  analysis  of  costs  and  benefits  presented 

alternative  approaches:  Both  Austria  and  Luxembourg  indicated  that  expert  judgement  was 
used to rate the cost-effectiveness of measures on a simple scale (in Austria, the scale had three 

levels:  very  high,  high  and  even,  i.e.  neutral,  cost-effectiveness).  The  Czech  authorities 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
clarified that a full CBA was not used, although an expert assessment of costs and benefits was 

carried out for at least a set of measures.  

Information on the use of CBA was unclear in seven Member States. Latvia and Sweden169, for 
example reports the use of CBA but no information on where and how it was applied, or on its 
results, was found in the FRMPs. In Germany, the use of CBA or the methodologies applied 

were not found in the FRMPs assessed (CBA is applied at the project level), while in Malta, it 
was subsequently clarified by the Maltese authorities that a holistic economic assessment was 

carried  out  as  part  of  the  analysis  of  FRMP  and  RBMP  measures.  For  Spain,  while  all  five 
FRMPs  assessed  refer  to  CBA  as  a  criterion  for  selecting  and  prioritising  measures,  the 

reference  is  always  brief,  and  no  further  details  were  found,  nor  evidence  of  the  results  of  a 
CBA  exercise.  In  the  Netherlands  cost  benefit  analysis  was  carried  out  as  part  of  the 

preparation of the National Water Plan, details are lacking on the methodology and outcomes 
in the FRMP. In Croatia, a CBA methodology was developed but apparently was not used for 

the  FRMP  (it  will  be  used  for  the  revision  of  the  separate  Multi-annual  programme  for  the 
construction of regulation and protection water facilities and amelioration facilities.) 

9.1.1.  Measures assessed with CBA 

When looking at the 19 Member States where a CBA or an alternative method was indicated, 

more than one third – seven Member States – reported that it was used for all measures (see 
Figure  25  below)  in  at  least  some  UoMs.  This  includes  Austria  and  Luxembourg,  which 

employed  a simplified approach to  cost-effectiveness  analysis based  on expert judgement.  In 
Lithuania,  it  is  reported  that  CBA  was  used  for  measures  across  all  four  aspects  (protection, 

prevention,  preparedness  and  recovery  &  review);  however,  CBA  was  not  carried  out  for 
NWRMs due to methodological difficulties (see also below)170.   

Five Member States indicated that CBA was only used for structural measures. In many cases, 

as in Finland, it appears that CBA is used mainly for structural measures that are construction 
projects,  i.e.  “grey  infrastructure”,  rather  than  NWRMs  or  other  nature-based  approaches 
(“green infrastructure”). In Estonia, however, both grey and green infrastructure were assessed. 

In Slovenia and France, CBA was not carried out during the preparation of the FRMP itself; 
rather, it is used at project level - in France it is not clear which types of measures are subjected 

169  In  the  Swedish  guidance  document  on  how  to  produce  the  FRMP,  costs  and  benefits  are  seen  as  voluntary 
basis,  except  for  the  international  plan  for  the  APSFR  Haparanda,  which  is  an  area  shared  with  Finland. 
Sweden  also  noted  that  in  the  Vännäs  FRMP  (not  among  the  five  assessed  here),  the  most  cost-effective 
measures have been prioritised, and in particular low or no cost measures were considered in this FRMP. 

170 Despite this, Lithuania was still categorised as “all measures” in the graph below.  

119 

 
 
 
                                                      
to a CBA, but in Slovenia, the focus appears to be on structural measures. In Romania, a multi-

criteria  analysis  with  cost-benefit  elements  was  used  for  most  measures  at  APSFR  level. 
However,  it  was  not  used  for  non-structural  measures  deemed  necessary  for  flood 

management,  nor  those  measures  with  major  environment  benefits,  as  these  measures  are 
considered to be a high priority, regardless of the results of such an analysis.  

Figure 25  Measures assessed with CBA and alternative methods 

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 
Note: Based on the 19 Member States that used CBA (or alternative analysis) in some or all of their 

UoMs – out of the 26 Member States assessed. 

In three Member States, the application of CBA varies across the UoMs assessed. Italy is one, 

mentioned  above.  The  second  is  the  United  Kingdom:  in  the  Neagh  Bann  UoM  in  Northern 
Ireland,  the  FRMP  mentions  that  maintenance  and  capital  programmes  are  evaluated  using 

cost-benefit  criteria;  the  Severn  FRMP  indicates  that  in  Wales,  the  prioritisation  of  all 
measures considers costs and benefits; in Scotland, the FRMPs assessed state that all measures 

are  appraised  for  their  costs  and  benefits  (including  potential  economic  benefits  and  non-
monetary  impacts  on  the  community  and  the  environment).  In  Denmark,  the  third  Member 

States,  two  municipalities  assessed  used  CBA  for  the  prioritisation  of  measures.  In  the 
municipal  FRMP  for  Odense  Fjord,  costs  were  calculated  for  all  proposed  measures.  In  the 

municipal FRMP for Aabenraa, costs for a levee and some technical infrastructure (pumps and 
sluices) were calculated. In both cases, only investment costs appear to have been considered. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
In four Member States (Belgium, The Czech Republic, France, and Portugal), information was 

not found to understand if CBA was applied to all measures or only some.  

9.2.  Overview of the methodologies applied 

Across the 19 Member States that applied some form of CBA (or related analysis), twelve171 
provided  clear  indications  of  the  methodology  used.  In  nearly  all  these  cases,  a  national 

approach had been developed. One example is Bulgaria, described in the box below.  

Box 36 - Cost-Benefit Analysis methods  

Bulgaria’s  national  methodology  was  based  on  EU  guidance  for  investment  projects  financed  under 
Cohesion  Policy172.  Bulgaria further  developed  this  approach for  application  to  structural  projects for 
floods: A national catalogue of measures provides estimates of the costs of the measures (investment 
and  operational  costs);  benefits  were  estimated  based  on  the  damages  avoided  by  the  projects, 
calculated  for  different  assets  (including  homes,  infrastructure  and  land).  Costs  and  benefits  were 
calculated for three flood scenarios (20, 100 and 1000-year floods), based on information in Bulgaria’s 
FHRMs173.  In  Bulgaria,  results  were  presented  in  terms  of  economic  net  present  value  (ENPV), 
economic  rate  of  return  (ERR)  and  benefit-to-cost  ratio  (B/C)  –  these  indicators  were  also  used  in 
Poland (see the next box).   

As in Bulgaria, several other Member States indicate that costs were estimated based on both 
investment and operational costs – this was the case for Cyprus174, Hungary and Slovenia, for 
example.  

A few Member States refer to the benefits part of the CBA in terms of protection of health, the 

environment and cultural heritage in flood events. In Slovenia, benefits are calculated in terms 
of  reduction  of  damage  to  the  health  of  people,  environment,  cultural  heritage  and  the 

economies of the affected areas. Slovakia’s methodology considers a broad range of damages 

171  Detailed  information  was  found  for  Bulgaria,  Finland,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Poland,  Slovenia, 
Slovakia  and  Cyprus.  Some  information  was  found  for  Denmark,  Estonia  and  Romania.  Information  for 
Croatia was provided subsequently by the Croatian authorities, however, no information was to be found in the 
FRMP or in the reporting sheets.  

172 European Commission, Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects: Economic Appraisal Tool for 

Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 (prepared by Davide Sartori et al), 2014. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/guides/2014/guide-to-cost-benefit-analysis-of-
investment-projects-for-cohesion-policy-2014-2020  

173 In Bulgaria’s Danube UoM (BG1000), only the 100-year scenario was used.  
174 Cyprus’ methodology concerned the cost-effectiveness analysis.  

121 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
avoided in its calculation of the benefits of flood investments, including cultural heritage sites, 

potential pollution loads from IPPC and Seveso installations. In Poland, the avoidance of both 
material and intangible losses were included in the benefit calculations (see the box below).  

Among  the  FRMPs  that  provided  information  on  CBA  methodology,  the  time  frame  used  in 
the calculations  varies.  Hungary and Cyprus, for example, reported using a 30-year planning 

timeframe; Poland, a 50-year time frame; in Slovakia the lifetime of a measure was considered 
to be 100 years.  

Box 37 - Cost-benefit analysis 

In Poland the analysis period covered 2015 to 2064. First, an analysis of investment and operational 
costs  was  carried  out,  followed  by  an  analysis  of  social  costs  and  benefits.  The  following  social 
benefits  were  included:  flood  losses  avoided  as  a  result  of  investments,  avoided  intangible  losses 
calculated  in  the  amount  of  40%  of  material  losses,  induced  economic  benefits.  The  reduction  of 
flood  losses  was  calculated  as  the  difference  between  the  losses  without  investment  and  with 
investment (after completion). Based on the hydrological model, the surface of floods was simulated 
for various flow values with a defined probability of occurrence: 10%, 1% and 0.2%. The values of 
flood losses were based on national scale. These values were indexed for inflation (based on values 
appropriate for a given category of land use in previous years).  

The method used is based on the calculation of average annual flood losses (AAD). On the basis of 
the cost-benefit analysis, the following economic performance indicators were calculated: economic 
net present value (ENPV), economic rate of return (ERR) and benefit-to-cost ratio (B/C). 

As noted above, Austria and Luxembourg used a simplified cost-effectiveness approach based 

on expert judgement. In Austria, each measure description has a qualitative estimation of the 
cost-effectiveness  of  the  measure.  For  example,  for  Austrian  measures  under  type  M01  (EU 
measure type M21175), the following assessment is provided: “As the costs of this measure are 
relatively low, and the associated reduction in risk potentially very high, it can be assumed that 
the  cost-effectiveness  is  usually  very  high”.  In  Luxembourg,  a  similar  approach  considered 
several factors such as: Economic costs and benefits, effectiveness in terms of achieving WFD 

objectives, implementation feasibility and expected flood risk reductions and improvements in 
the risk management.  

175 Prevention, Avoidance, Measures to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas, 

such as land use planning policies or regulation. 

122 

 
 
 
                                                      
9.2.1.  Consideration of multi-benefits from measures 

Measures can have multiple benefits beyond those related to their immediate aims. This is the 

case  in  particular  for  nature-based  solutions  (such  as  afforestation,  room  for  the  river  and 
wetlands restoration measures): In addition to benefits for flood protection, these can increase a 

range of other ecosystem services such as enhancement of biodiversity, provision of food and 
raw  materials,  and  enhancement  of  recreation  opportunities176,  but  also  potentially  prevent 
other disasters such as mud- or landslides. Multi-benefits of measures can exist in other areas 
as  well:  For  example,  preparedness  measures  for  flood  protection  may  also  improve 

preparedness for other natural hazards, such as forest fires.  

Relatively  few  indications  were  found  that  multi-benefits  were  considered.  In  some  of 

Denmark’s  municipal  FRMPs,  the  provision  of  recreation  benefits  alongside  flood  risk 
reduction  efforts  is  considered.  In  Luxembourg  and  Cyprus,  as  noted  above,  the  cost-

effectiveness  assessment  considered  WFD  objectives,  and  thus  the  ecological  and  chemical 
status of water bodies. Also in Bulgaria, synergies between FD measures and WFD objectives 

were  considered.  In  the  case  of  Hungary,  it  was  reported  that  the  FRMP  considered  multi-
benefits; however, no details were found in the plan itself.   

9.2.2.  Consideration of the transnational effects of measures in CBA 

The  Annex  to  the  FD  states  that  FRMPs  should  describe  the  methodology  for  CBA  of 

measures  with  transnational  effects  when  available.  The  assessment  of  FRMPs,  however, 
found  only  one  example  where  CBA  was  used  in  this  context  for  a  specific  measure,  in 

Finland’s FRMP for the Tornionjoki catchment (see the box below). 

Box 38 - Bilateral coordination on mapping, objectives and measures 

The lower Tornio or Torne River forms part of the border between Finland and Sweden. Coordination 
between  the  Finnish  Tornionjoki  catchment  (FIVHA6)  and  the  Swedish  Torne  River  UoM  (SE1TO) 
has covered the preparation of FHRM maps, supported via a joint Interreg project (see section 7) and 
objectives (see section 8). CBA was used in a transboundary context: A measure for flood protection 
walls in the city of Tornio was assessed for impacts on the city of Haparanda in Sweden, just across the 
Torne River. 

176  European  Commission  (DG  Regional  and  Urban  Policy),  The  Guide  to  Multi-Benefit  Cohesion  Policy 

Investments in Nature and Green Infrastructure (prepared by IEEP and Milieu Ltd), 2013. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/guide_multi_benefit_nature.pdf 

123 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
A  great  number  of  FRMPs  noted  that  there  were  no  transboundary  measures,  and  for  this 

reason transnational effects have not been considered. This approach, however, would not have 
captured  possible  transnational  effects  stemming  from  national  measures.  In  Poland, 

transnational effects were assessed as negligible in most cases.  

9.3.  Summary of good practice and areas for further development 

Among good practice, a key result is that some form of consideration of costs and benefits – 
both  the  use  of  CBA  as  well  as  simpler  approaches  –  was  made  in  over  two-thirds  of  the 

Member States assessed. A number of Member States, such as Poland and Slovakia, provided a 
clear  overview  of  the  methodology  used  for  CBA.  While  not  all  Member  States  used  a 

comprehensive  CBA  approach,  Austria,  The  Czech  Republic,  and  Luxembourg  applied  a 
simple method based on expert judgement. 

Among the areas for development, not all Member States provided clear information on the 

CBA  methodologies  applied  and  their  results;  in  several  cases  the  FRMPs  assessed  do  not 
describe clearly how CBA results have been used in the selection or prioritisation of measures.  

One notable area for development is that only one case has been identified (and only for one 
measure) where a CBA was used to assess measures with transnational effects. This is indeed 

notable given the many transboundary RBDs/UoMs in Europe.  

In addition, few examples were found where CBA included multi-benefits. Such benefits are 
expected especially for  NWRMs,  and in  several  Member States that  used CBA, this was not 

carried out for such measures but only for “grey infrastructure” construction measures.  

On this basis, the following recommendations can be made for the preparation of the second 

FRMPs: 

  Member  States  should  consider  a  more  systematic  consideration  of  costs  and 
benefits, where possible via the use of CBA. These methods should be integrated 

into the selection and prioritisation of measures, to promote cost-effective paths for 
efficient flood risk management.     

 

A  review  of  potential  transnational  effects  of  FRMP  measures  (even  if  the 

measures  themselves  do  not  cross  borders),  supported  through  CBA,  should  be 
carried out, for example in the context of international RB commissions, to ensure 

124 

 
 
 
that these effects are considered in the selection and prioritisation of measures. 

 

It may be useful to further explore and identify methods for multi-benefits and for 

the CBA of nature based solutions  at  EU level.  Developing expertise in  this  area 
will reinforce the overall CBA approach. 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
10.  Consideration of the likely impacts of climate change 

The  EU’s  2013  Climate  Change  Adaptation  Strategy177  underlines  the  importance  of 
addressing flood risks due to climate change, highlighting the role of the Directive in doing so. 
The  evaluation  of  the  2013  EU  Strategy  on  adaptation  to  climate  change  concluded  in 

November  2018  that  as  a  policy  instrument  the  strategy  has  succeeded  in  focusing  decision-
makers on the need to  prepare for climate hazards178. The FD in  turn underlines that climate 
change leads to greater “likelihood and adverse impacts of flood events” (preamble, recital 2). 
The Directive therefore  calls on Member States to  address  climate change in  the PFRAs and 

the  FRMPs  and  to  address  likely  climate  change  impacts  on  the  occurrence  of  floods  in  the 
reviews  of  their  FRMPs  (Article  14(4))  –  consequently,  the  consideration  of  climate  change 

impacts will become mandatory with the second cycle of FRMPs. 

The economic costs of flooding in Europe have increased significantly since the 1970s, and the 
changing climate has played a role in this trend179. Greater flood risks are forecast in coming 
decades,  in  particular  in  northern  and  north-western  Europe.  A  recent  review  by  the  EEA 
underlined  that  modelling  of  the  effects  of  climate  change  on  river  water  flooding  indicates 

major  differences  across  Europe:  increases  in  flooding  are  projected  in  parts  of  France, 
northern Italy as well as the Balkans and Carpathian regions; some other areas, however, may 

see  decrease  in  flooding.  On  the  other  hand,  mean  sea  levels  are  expected  to  rise  in  coming 
decades, as are increases in the intensity of storm surges: these factors are expected to increase 
the  frequency  of  seawater  flooding  across  EU  coastlines180.  Most  recently,  the  October  2018 
report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Global Warming of 1.5°C” 

mentioned that human exposure to increased flooding is projected to be substantially lower at 
1.5°C  as  compared  to  2°C  of  global  warming,  although  projected  changes  create  regionally 

differentiated  risks.  The  report  reminds  that  the  differences  in  the  risks  among  regions  are 
strongly influenced by local socio-economic conditions.181 

177 See https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what_en (under review at the time of drafting this report) 
178 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/europe-ready-climate-impacts-commission-evaluates-its-strategy_en 
179 Other key factors include development within floodplains.  
180  From  EEA,  Climate  change  adaptation  and  disaster  risk  reduction  in  Europe:  Enhancing  coherence  of  the 

knowledge base, policies and practices, EEA Report No. 15/2017 

181 Technical summary: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/  

126 

 
 
 
                                                      
10.1.  Integration of climate change in the PFRA and FHRM stages 

Looking  back,  the  EU  Overview  Report  on  the  PFRA  assessment  found  that  17  Member 

States, out  of 23 that were assessed,  considered  climate change in  their  assessments of flood 
risk. Seven Member States did not consider climate change, and there was no information for 
the  remaining  five  Member  States182,183.  Subsequently,  the  EU  Overview  report184  on  the 
development  of  the  FHRMs  found  that  16  out  of  27  Member  States  assessed  took  climate 

change into account. The two reports noted different approaches compared to the PFRA stage 
for a few Member States: For example, Estonia, Hungary and Spain considered climate change 

in the PFRA stage but not the FHRM stage, while Ireland did not consider climate change for 
its PFRA but did for the FHRMs.  

10.2.  Addressing climate change in the FRMPs 

Information  from  Member  States  reporting  and  from  the  FRMPs  assessed  found  that  a  high 

share of Member States considered at least some aspects of climate change: as shown in Figure 
26  below,  the  FRMPs  of  ten  Member  States  provided  strong  evidence  that  climate  impacts 

were considered; those for 14 Member States provided some evidence (out of FRMPs assessed 
in 26 Member States).  

182 One Member State had not reported, four had applied Article 13. 
183  European  Commission,  European  Overview  Assessment  of  Member  States’  reports  on  PFRA  and 

Identification of Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk (drafted by WRc et al), 2015, Table 18. 

184 European Commission, EU overview of  methodologies  used in preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood  Risk 

Maps (drafted by WRc et al), 2015. 

127 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 26 

Consideration of climate change in FRMPs 

Source: Member State reporting and FRMPs. 

An  example  of  strong  evidence  is  seen  in  Denmark,  where  most  of  the  municipal  FRMPs 

assessed  refer  to  links  with  municipal  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation  plans.  In 
Estonia,  each  FRMP  includes  a  chapter  dedicated  to  climate  change  and  how  its  impact  has 

been addressed, starting from the PFRA stage. 

Member  States  providing  some  evidence  including  those  where  only  a  small  share  of  the 

FRMPs  assessed  considered  climate  change.  In  Finland,  one  FRMP  (for  the  Kalajoki 
catchment  areas  in  FIVHA4)  includes  adaptation  among  its  objectives.  This  category  also 

includes  Member  States  where  brief  information  is  provided  on  climate  impacts  but  little 
description on how climate is considered in measures. For a few Member States, the discussion 

of climate is brief and general.  In Cyprus it is stated that the FRMP is reviewed periodically 
and updated if necessary, taking into account the likely effects of climate change in relation to 

the occurrence of floods.   

10.2.1. Reference to national climate change adaptation strategies  

Although  many  FRMPs  consider  potential  impacts  of  climate  change  on  flooding,  less  than 
half  refer  to  the  national  adaptation  strategies  prepared  by  Member  States  under  the  EU 
Adaptation Strategy185. In eight of the 26 Member States – Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Croatia, 

185 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what_en 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Hungary,  Malta186,  Poland  and  Slovakia  –  all  FRMPs  assessed  referred  to  such  national 
strategies; in  a further six Member States  -  Belgium, Bulgaria,  Italy, Portugal,  Spain  and the 
United Kingdom  – some but  not  all FRMPs  assessed had such references;  and no references 

were found in the FRMPs of the remaining 12 Member States (see Figure 27 below).  

The FRMPs that do make such references describe the adaptation strategies in quite different 

terms. In some cases, there is only a brief citation. For example, the Austrian FRMP states that 
all measures in the FRMP are in line with the recommendations in the strategy. For Bulgaria, 

Spain  and  Portugal,  on  the  other  hand,  FRMPs  indicate  their  aim  to  develop  synergies  with 
adaptation strategies. In Slovakia, FRMPs state that some measures are taken from the national 

adaptation strategy. It is worth noting that in Italy, the SEA carried out for one FRMP included 
an analysis of the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.  

Most  but  not  all  Member  States  had  published  national  adaptations  strategies  before  their 

FRMPs  were  established.  In  six  Member  States,  however,  the  national  strategy  had  not  yet 
been  adopted  in  late  2015  (the  deadline  to  establish  FRMPs):  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus, 
Estonia,  Latvia  and  Slovenia187  188.  Nonetheless,  the  Estonian  and  Cyprus  FRMPs  refer  to  a 
draft of the national strategy, as does one of the four Bulgarian FRMPs.  

186  In  Malta  the  reference  to  the  national  climate  adaptation  strategy  is  in  the  Second  Water  Catchment 

Management Plan, but not in the Annex that is the FRMP. 

187  Estonia’s  and  Slovenia’s  national  adaptation 
adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries  

strategies  were 

since  adopted:  https://climate-

188 In Sweden the Swedish National Strategy for climate Change Adaptation was adopted in the first half of 2018. 

However, a 2009 report was referenced by several FRMPs (not assessed in this study).  

129 

 
 
                                                      
Figure 27 

References to National Climate Change Adaptation Strategies 

Source: Member States reporting and FRMPs. 

The lack of reference to the national adaptation strategies in almost half of the Member States 

is  a  finding  that  requires  attention,  given  concerns  that  climate  change  will  affect  flooding 
patterns in many Member States and that these policy documents address national adaptation. 

Equally,  future  versions  of  national  adaptation  strategies  should  draw  from  the  findings  of 
FRMPs so that synergies are exploited. 

10.2.2. Presentation of potential climate impacts 

In just over half of the Member States considered, 15 out of 26189, the FRMPs provide at least 
a  short  discussion  of  potential  impacts  of  climate  change  on  flood  events  (see  Figure  28). 

These  Member  States  consider  a  potential  shift  in  the  occurrence  (or  intensity)  of  extreme 
events and/or changes in the main source of flooding.  

For three Member States, information is provided for only some of the UoMs190. In Italy, for 
example, reporting to WISE briefly refers to future climate impacts in the Mediterranean area, 
but only one of the five FRMPs assessed mentions possible climate impacts (Italy’s reporting 

to WISE states that climate issues will be addressed in the next cycle of FRMPs).  

189 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Croatia, Hungary, Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. 

190 Bulgaria, Italy, and Sweden. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Of  those  Member  States  that  did  not  present  the  potential  climate  impacts,  two  (Latvia  and 
Portugal)  did  not  consider  climate  change  in  the  FRMPs  assessed.  In  Austria,  Denmark191, 
Lithuania,  Romania,  Spain,  and  Slovenia,  although  impacts  were  not  discussed,  the  FRMPs 

include  measures  that  address  climate  change.  Indeed,  in  Spain  and  Austria  the  uncertainty 
concerning climate change was highlighted, with measures designed to investigate the possible 

impacts further.  

Figure 28 

FRMPs that present potential climate impacts  

Source: Member States reporting and FRMPs. 

The  table  below  provides  a  summary  of  the  main  impacts  of  climate  change  on  flooding 

identified in the FRMPs. It should be underlined that this table represents a brief summary of 
the  information  presented  in  the  plans,  which  draw  on  a  range  of  national  and  international 

studies, and not  on the  underlying research. Poland’s  FRMPs, for example, cite  a number of 
sources including an FP6 project, ENSEMBLES192, on climate modelling for Europe, as well 
as a catchment-level study in Poland.  

191 In Denmark climate  change  scenarios are often set out in the  Flood Risk Maps or municipal climate  change 
adaptation and mitigation plans rather than the FRMPs (although the FRMPs do refer to these documents).  

192 http://ensembles-eu.metoffice.com/ 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 13 

Information provided in FRMPs regarding climate impacts on flood risks 

Member 
State 
Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

The Czech 
Republic 
Estonia 
Finland 

France 
Germany 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

The 
Netherlands 
Poland 

Sweden 

Slovakia 

The  United 
Kingdom 

Increase  Decrease 

No change 

Notes 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More summer precipitation, prolonged winter 
precipitation, more heavy rainfall will increase 
occurrence of flooding. 
Extreme rainfall might increase risk of flash floods; 
spring floods might decrease 
Less summer precipitation, less precipitation in 
certain areas, more precipitation in others, steady 
trend of sea level rise 
Increase in occurrence of extreme flooding events 
and decrease in annual precipitation.  
High uncertainty across studies but overall no major 
changes expected 

Shift predicted from spring floods to those in 
summer, autumn and winter 
Sea-level change.  
Increased flooding expected in Weser UoM 
(DE4000); no change in Rhine193 (DE2000); 
increased seawater flooding expected due to sea level 
rise 
Increase in extreme meteorological events (e.g. flash 
floods) and seawater flooding expected 
Increase in river floods (potential for fluvial 
flooding) 
Increase in heavy rainfall leading to flooding, and 
long-term, sea-level rise is expected. A change of 
storm surges is not anticipated. 
Extreme weather events are expected to be more 
frequent due to climate change 
Greater risks related to intense rainfall, but floods 
from snowmelt should decrease 
Increased water levels in lakes could 
increase/aggravate fluvial floods, and pluvial floods 
may become more significant.  
Not clear, but more irregular precipitation patterns 
expected 
Increase in heavy rain and other weather extremes 

Source: Member States reporting and FRMPs. 
Note: Member States whose FRMPs do not discuss changes in flooding due to climate change are not 

included. In several Member States, the impacts listed were not found in all FRMPs assessed.   

The  FRMPs  vary  in  terms  of  the  extent  of  information  they  present  on  climate  impacts.  As 

mentioned  above,  the  FRMPs  of  15  Member  States  assessed  discuss  the  expected  impact  of 
future  climate  change;  another  three  Member  States  discuss  the  impacts  in  only  some  of  the 

193 Specifically, the FRMP for North Rhine Westphalia. 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
FRMPs assessed194. Several Member States, such as Poland, provide detailed information and 
references, while others provide only brief notes on potential climate impacts.  

Fourteen  Member  States  include  timeframes  for  the  scenarios  -  the  remaining  six195  did  not 
provide  specific  timeframes  of  scenarios.  All  Member  States  identified  as  having  “strong 
evidence” in the section above included timeframes, however, it is worth noting that Belgium, 

Bulgaria,  Finland,  and  Luxembourg  all  were  identified  as  having  “some  evidence”  but  did 
include qualitative timeframes in at least some FRMPs.  

The time frame presented in the Plans varies (see the table below). Most common are scenarios 

for 2050, seen in five Member States, and scenarios for 2100, cited in six Member States. For 
most  of  the  Member  States  that  discussed  climate  scenarios,  their  FRMPs  presented  climate 

scenarios for at least two time frames. 

In  a  few  Member  States,  approaches  varied  across  the  FRMPs  assessed:  in  the  United 
Kingdom,  for  example,  the  Neagh  Bann  FRMP  in  Northern  Ireland  presents  information  for 

2030 and 2100 scenarios; the FRMP prepared for the English part of the Solway Tweed UoM 
discusses  a  range  of  time  frames  from  2025  to  beyond  2100;  and  the  Scottish  flood  risk 
management strategies assessed refer to 2080 scenarios.  

Table 14 

Time frame of climate scenarios discussed in the FRMPs 

Belgium (Brussels) 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Estonia 
Germany 
Finland 
France 
Luxembourg 
The Netherlands 
Poland 
The United Kingdom 

2030 
 

2050 
 

2070/2080 
 

* 
 



**

* 
- 







**

 


**

2100 



*



*

 

**

194  The  Latvian  reporting  sheets  refer  to  studies  on  climate  change  impacts,  however,  climate  change  was  not 

taken into account in the FRMPs, and thus Latvia is not included in this count.  

195 Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary (scenarios are instead set out in the Second Climate Change Strategy), Italy, 

Sweden, and Slovakia. 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Source: Member States reporting and FRMPs. 

* For Croatia, Cyprus and France, the time frames indicated represent an approximation: in 
Cyprus scenarios were developed for a period of 20, 50, and 100 years, however, the baseline 
was not clear (although 2007 is the end of the historical time period used for the model); in 
Croatia,  the  timeframes  are  the  periods  2011-2040,  2041-2070,  and  2071-2099;  in  France 
one  FRMP  makes  reference  to  year  100.  **  For  the  United  Kingdom,  different  scenarios 
presented across the FRMPs. 

10.3.  Climate change adaptation measures  

The EU Adaptation Strategy underlines the importance of mainstreaming adaptation to climate 
change throughout EU and Member States policies and investments. Key actions identified in 

the  Strategy  include  climate-proofing  investments  and  ensuring  more  resilient  infrastructure 
including green infrastructure196. 

A  few  Member  States  –  including  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Germany  and  Finland  –  indicated  that 

adaptability  to  climate  change  was  a  factor  in  the  design  and  prioritisation  of  measures.  In 
Denmark, some measures were designated as having a high priority for implementation as they 

were derived from municipal climate change mitigation and adaption plans.  

The FRMPs in a few Member States described methods to check the effectiveness of measures 

in the face of climate change scenarios. In Estonia, actions under the FRMPs were assessed for 
their climate sensitivity (see the box below). In Germany, LAWA (the national working group 

on water and floods) carried out a climate-proofing check of all measure categories, to assess 
their adaptability to a changing climate. This work did not, however, cover single measures. 

In  the  United  Kingdom,  two  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  –  those  for  the  English  part  of  the 

Solway  Tweed  UoM  (UK02)  and  for  the  Severn  (UK09)  –  state  that  allowances  for  climate 
change will be built into flood risk management works: for example, the Severn FRMP refers 

to  larger  foundation  walls  and  raising  flood  defences.  The  Severn  FRMP  states  that  climate 
change  will  be  addressed  by  strengthening  infrastructure  inspection  and  maintenance.  In 

Germany, the FRMPs for the Danube (specifically, the Bavaria FRMP in UoM DE1000) and 
Schlei Trave UoM (DE9610) state that a safety margin of 0.5m is added when planning dykes 

to deal with the possible impacts from climate change. 

Box 39 - Assessing measures for their sensitivity to climate impacts 

196 European Commission, An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change, COM(2013) 216 final, 2013. 

134 

 
 
 
                                                      
In Estonia, the specific actions (i.e., single projects) were assessed for their climate sensitivity. The 
FRMPs  note  that  climate  sensitivity  was  assessed  more  thoroughly  for  construction  actions, 
especially when compared to administrative and advisory actions, due to the short-term nature of the 
latter.  Actions  determined  to  have  high  climate  sensitivity  include:  improving  flood  protection  of 
existing  sewage  treatment  plants  by  constructing  protective  walls  or  elevating  the  surface  in  areas 
prone to flooding, improving protection of drinking water systems (wells and bore wells, pumping 

stations,  water  pipes)  from  flooding  and  addressing  pollution  risks  to  drinking  water  during  flood 
events.  In  addition,  NWRMs  are  usually  categorised  as  being  highly  climate-sensitive,  due  to  the 
long timeframes indicated for them (up to 100 years). 

10.4.  No-regret measures to address climate change 

The FRMPs in several Member States identified measures that address climate change with a 
no-regret approach.  

One area for such measures is  natural  water retention  measures (NWRMs).  In the United 

Kingdom, the FRMPs for Solway Tweed and Severn (cited above) both state that identifying 
locations  to  work  with  natural  processes  can  help  improve  resilience  to  climate  change. 

Poland’s FRMP for the Oder (PL6000), there is a single measure to increase water retention in 
forests  includes  the  analysis  of  retention  in  connection  with  the  adaptation  of  forests  and 
forestry  to  climate  change.  In  Slovakia  the  FRMPs  highlight  that  afforestation  measures  and 

water  retention  measures,  including  the  construction  of  reservoirs,  are  appropriate  tools  for 
minimising  the  impacts  of  climate  change  on  the  likelihood  and  potential  adverse 

consequences of flooding.  

In  general,  NWRM  are  nature-based  solutions  that  can  help  to  adapt  to  climate  change  by 
preserving  or  restoring  ecosystems197.  As  noted  in  section  6,  many  FRMPs  refer  to  NWRM 
among  their  measures,  more  than  those  that  identified  the  role  of  NWRMs  in  addressing 
climate change.   

The FRMPs across several Member States s – including Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Germany, 

Italy,  Luxembourg,  Romania  and  Spain  –  refer  to  measures  to  further  study  climate  change. 
The FRMPs in Germany mention that several studies have been commissioned, for example, to 

link climate modelling to flood risk management.  

197 European Commission, EU policy document on NWRM, Technical Report - 2014 – 082, 2014. 

135 

 
 
 
                                                      
Two FRMPs mention working with insurance: the Severn FRMP (UK09) refers to a measure 

that  involves  working  with  the  insurance  industry  to  make  the  best  use  of  risk  information 
under  a  changing  climate.  The  Adaptation  Strategy  calls  for  promoting  insurance  and  other 
financial  products  for  resilient  decision-making198;  as  noted  in  section  6,  however,  very  few 
measures  in  the  FRMPs  address  the  insurance  sector.  The  FRMP  in  Cyprus  contains  two 

measures  for  insurance  (see  section  8.7.6  above),  both  of  which  make  reference  to  climate 
change.  

The  FRMPs  in  only  one  Member  State  refer  to  addressing  climate  change  via  land  use 
planning:  several  Finnish  FRMPs  include  land  use  planning  measures  such  as  updating 

building  sites  at  low  elevations  at  risk  of  flooding  so  as  to  take  into  account  climate  change 
impacts on flood levels.  

In several cases, FRMPs refer to climate change measures set out in other plans and strategies: 

In Estonia, measures to address flood risks in the face of climate change were included in the 
Implementation Plan of the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (approved 2017). In Poland, 

the National Strategy for Adaption to Climate Change also includes such measures, especially 
with regard to reducing pollution risks in flood-prone zones.   

10.5.  Summary of good practices and areas for further development 

In terms of good practices, the FRMPs in several Member States provided a clear overview of 

potential climate change impacts on flooding. In a few Member States, methods to assess the 
adaptability  or  sensitivity  of  measures  (climate  proofing)  to  climate  change  were  used, 

including for the prioritisation of measures. Some Member States, including Germany, Cyprus 
and the United Kingdom, have incorporated climate change in the design of measures. A few 

Member States identified specific measures that would address climate impacts in a no-regret 
manner. 

With regard to areas for further development, many Member States did not provide strong 

attention  to  climate  change  –  for  several,  the  FRMPs  hardly  address  the  issue;  however,  it 
should  be  noted  that  the  FD  requires  increased  attention  to  climate  change  impacts  from  the 
second  cycle  onwards  (starting  already  at  the  PFRA  stage).  Still,  at  the  same  time  it  is 

reasonable  to  expect  that  preparation  in  this  area  (based  on  existing  knowledge)  will  have 
started  in  the  Member  States  prior  to  the  second  cycle,  i.e.  during  the  first  cycle  (or  even 

198 European Commission, “An EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change”, COM(2013) 216 final, 2013. 

136 

 
 
 
                                                      
earlier). It would be equally reasonable to expect that ongoing work would be referred to in the 

first FRMPs, as was the case for some Member States. 

References  to  national  adaptation  strategies  were  found  in  only  about  half  of  the  FRMPs, 

suggesting  that  opportunities  for  synergies  on  actions  for  adaptation  are  not  being  exploited 
adequately.  Moreover,  relatively  few  examples  of  measures  to  study  climate  impacts  on 

flooding at the regional level were seen across the Plans assessed. 

Given  that  the  FRMPs in  most  Member  States  did  not  address  climate  change  in  depth,  it is 
expected there shall be greater attention to this issue in the next planning cycle, as per Article 

14 of the FD. 

On this basis, the following recommendations can be made for the preparation of the second 
FRMPs: 

 

A greater degree of harmonisation, ideally at the RB level, could support Member 

States in addressing climate change  flood related uncertainties in their FRMPs:  It 
should be useful to identify and review across RBs districts and regions, common 

scenarios and carry out research on climate impacts for Member States to consider 
in  the preparation of their Plans by e.g. making  appropriate use of EU modelling 
tools such as those available through the Copernicus Climate Change Service199.   

  Member  States  should  ensure  coordination  between  their  FRMPs  and  national 

adaptation strategies.  

Member  States  should  indicate  in  their  second-cycle  FRMPs  where  specific  adaptation 
measures  are  taken  and  to  what  extent  mainstreaming  has  taken  place  in  the  design  of 

measures. 

199 https://climate.copernicus.eu/ 

137 

 
 
 
                                                      
Part  B.  International  coordination  within  the  framework  of  the 

Floods Directive 

11.  Overview  of 

international  cooperation 

for 

flood  risk 

management in the EU 

There  is  long  standing  bilateral  or  multilateral  cooperation  established  between  the  Member 

States in the area of water management that predates the introduction of the WFD and the FD. 
Next to the assessment of the 1st FRMPs under the FD, a desk-based assessment of this cross-
border cooperation was carried out on the basis of (1) the transboundary RB level international 
FRMPs  (iFRMP)  and  (2)  the  national  FRMPs,  to  ascertain  how  the  FD  has  influenced  this 

cooperation, and with a view to making recommendations towards further reinforcing it. The 
findings  of  this  assessment  are  therefore  constrained  by  the  choice  of  the  aspects  examined 

(which align to the aspects assessed for the national FRMPs) and by the amount of information 
contained in the reviewed documents. 

Part  2  of  the  FRMP  European  Overview  presents  an  assessment  of  the  application  of  the 

Directive at the iRBD/iUoM level. It aims to provide a view from the outside, thus supporting 
the implementation of the Directive by River Commissions and Member States s (and non-EU 

countries) over future implementation cycles. A series of fact sheets for the international RBs 
is provided separately and describes co-operation in more detail. 

The overview is based on the information  reported by Member States to  the WISE, previous 
national  and  EU  overview  reports  on  PFRA  and  FHRM  published  by  the  European 
Commission200  and the national  and international  Flood  Risk  management  Plans (FRMP and 
iFRMPs). 

27  RBs  were  chosen  for  the  assessment  (see  Table  16  for  an  overview).  RBs  shared  with 

Greece  (five  iRBDs)  and  Ireland  (three  iRBDs)  could  not  be  assessed  due  to  the  delayed 
reporting. In addition, RBs shared between Lithuania-Latvia-(Russia)-(Belarus) (three iRBDs), 
one basin shared between Italy and France201 and four iRBDs shared between Sweden-Norway 
were not assessed. 

200 Available under http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/overview.htm 
201  Italy  has  applied  Art  13(1)(b)  for  all  UOMs  and  no  PFRA  reporting  was  carried  out.  Italy  clarified  that  a 
Memorandum  of  Understanding  was  signed  in  2013  (“Protocollo  d’intesa  transfrontaliera  per  il  bacino 
idrografico  del  fiume  Roja  e  dei  suoi  affluenti”)  with  the  aim  of  carrying  out  international  coordination 

138 

 
 
                                                      
11.1.  Main elements of the FD related to international issues 

Member  States  shall  coordinate  their  flood  risk  management  practices202  in  shared  RBs, 
including  with  third  counties,  and  shall  in  solidarity  not  undertake  measures  that  would 

increase the flood risk in neighbouring countries. Member States should take into consideration 
long term developments, including climate change, as well as sustainable land use practices in 

the flood risk management cycle. Article 8 of the FD requires that Member States shall ensure 
coordination with the aim of producing one single iFRMP, or a  set of FRMPs coordinated at 

the level of the iRBD or iUoM.  

11.2.  Types of international coordination  

According  to  the  type  of  coordination  mechanism  that  has  been  established  by  the  Member 
States in the different iRBDS/iUOM, four main categories have been identified in the context 
of this assessemnt203: 

a)  Category  1  RBs  which  are  iRBDS/iUOMs  with  (a)  formal  international 
agreement(s),  an  international  coordinating  body  and  an  iFRMP  produced  by  this 
international body; 

b)  Category  2  RBs  which  are  iRBDS/iUOMs  with  (a)  formal  international 
agreement(s), an international coordinating body, but no iFRMP; 

(c)  Category  3  RBs  which  are  iRBDS/iUOMs  with  (a)  formal  international 
agreement(s), but no international coordinating body and no iFRMP; 

d) Category 4 RBs which are iRBDS/iUOMs with no formal international agreement, 
no international coordinating body and no iFRMP. 

An overview of the identified categories is given in Table 15. 

Table 15 

Different types of international co-ordination in relation to the Flood Directive 

Category 

Formal international 

International coordinating 

IFRMP produced 

activities  under  Directives  2000/60/EC  (the  WFD)  and  2007/60/EC  (the  FD).  In  addition,  several  Interreg 
projects were launched in the last years one of which “Concert-Eaux” is still ongoing. In addition, the FRMP 
LIGURIA UOM, which is included in the Northern Apennines RBMP approved by Decree of the President of 
the Council of Ministers on 27th of October 2016, contains information on the above described activities. 

202 See Article 5(2), Article 7(1), Article 7(4), Article 8 and Annex A.II(3) of the Directive. 
203 Other categories might exist, but have not been identified in the context of this assessment. 

139 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                        
1 
2 
3 
4 

agreement 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 

body 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
No 

Yes 
No 
No 
No 

The assessment suggests that despite the absence of river basin commissions, there is notable 
cooperation  between  Germany  and  Denmark,  Sweden  and  Finland,  Latvia  and  Estonia  and 

Spain and Portugal. 

The map in Annex 4 shows the RB assessed. 

Table 16 

List of selected iRBDs/iUoM for which an assessment was carried out 

Category 

International RBs 

Danube204 

1
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

2

y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

Elbe 
Rhine 

Meuse 

Odra 
Scheldt 
Duero/Douro 
Guadiana 
Miño/Minho 
Tagus (Tajo/Tejo) 
Isonzo/Soča 
Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru 

Ems 
Tornio/Torne 
Teno/Tana 

Riparian EU Member States /Non-EU countries 
Austria, Bulgaria, The Czech Republic, Germany, 
Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, 
Slovakia 
Non-EU countries: Switzerland, Albania, Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, 
Montenegro, FYROM205 
Austria, The Czech Republic, Germany, Poland 
Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, 
Luxembourg, The Netherlands 
Non-EU countries: Switzerland, Liechtenstein 
Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, The 
Netherlands 
The Czech Republic, Germany, Poland 
Belgium, France, The Netherlands 
Spain, Portugal 
Spain, Portugal 
Spain, Portugal 
Spain, Portugal 
Italy, Slovenia 
Poland 
Non-EU countries: Moldova, Ukraine 
Germany, The Netherlands  
Finland, Sweden 
Finland 
Non-EU countries: Norway206, Russia 

204 Within the Danube an additional sub-catchment FRMP for the Sava is under development. 
205 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 
206 Norway is not implementing the FD. 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Category 

3
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

4
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

International RBs 
Garonne/ (Cantabrico 
Oriental) 
Garonne/ (Ebro) 
Vistula 

Pregolya 

Torne Bothanian Bay 

Vidaa/Wiedau207 
Krusaa/Krusau208 
Po 

Gauja/Koiva 
East Estonia 

Kemijoki209 

Teno/Tana 

Nemunas/Nieman/Nema
n/Nyoman 
Schlei Trave 
Eider 
Eastern Alps (Adige) 

Riparian EU Member States /Non-EU countries 
France, Spain 

France, Spain 
Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania 
Non-EU countries: Ukraine, Belarus 
Poland, Lithuania 
Non-EU countries: Russia 
Finland, Sweden 
Non-EU countries: Norway 
Denmark, Germany 
Denmark, Germany 
Italy, France 
Non-EU countries: Switzerland 
Estonia, Latvia 
Estonia, Latvia 
Non-EU countries: Russia 
Finland 
Non-EU countries: Norway, Russia 

Finland 
Non-EU countries: Norway, Russia 
Lithuania, Poland 
Non-EU countries: Russia, Belarus 
Germany, Denmark 
Germany, Denmark 
Italy 
Non-EU countries: Switzerland 

It should be noted that the categories might differ from the categories applied under the WFD’s 
equivalent assessment because of different agreements made for the management of flood risk. 

The  table  below  lists  those  RBs  where  no  assessment  was  carried  out  due  to  absence  of 
information through FD implementation channels for the national parts of the RBs. 

207  The  transboundary  rivers  shared  by  Denmark  and  Germany  are  the  Vidaa/Wiedau  and  the  Krusaa/Krusau 
rivers. Vidaa-Krusaa is part of the Eider and Schlei/Trave  RBD in Germany, and  make  up the  whole of the 
iRBD in Denmark (Internationalt Vanddistrikt DK4). 

208 See footnote above. 
209 Finland clarified that only a very small part of the RB is in Russia (2,9%) and an even smaller part in Norway. 
These parts are very sparsely populated small upstream catchments with only a very little human or hydrological 
impact on the Kemijoki RB. In addition, no flood risk issues have been identified in these parts from the work of 
the Finnish-Russian transboundary commission. 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 17 

List of iRBDs/iUoM for which an assessment was not carried out 

International River Basin 

Shannon/North Eastern 

Neagh Bann 

North Western 

Drin  

Aoos/Vjosa 

Nordland 

Troendelag 

Bothanin Bay 

Skagerrak and Kattegat 

Lielupe 

Venta 

Daugava 

Mesta-Nestos 

Struma-Strymonas 

Central Macedonia 

Riparian EU Member States /Non-EU 
Member States  
The United Kingdom, Ireland 

The United Kingdom, Ireland 

The United Kingdom, Ireland 

Greece 
Non-EU countries: Albania, FYROM 
Greece 
Non-EU countries: Albania 
Sweden 
Non-EU countries: Norway 
Sweden 
Non-EU countries: Norway 
Sweden 
Non-EU countries: Norway 
Sweden 
Non-EU countries: Norway 
Lithuania, Latvia 

Lithuania, Latvia 

Lithuania, Latvia 
Non-EU countries: Russia, Belarus 
Bulgaria, Greece 

Bulgaria, Greece 

Greece 
Non-EU countries: FYROM, Serbia 

11.3.  Overview of international cooperation and coordination frameworks  

11.3.1.  Overview  of  international  coordinating  bodies,  international  agreements  or 

conventions 

For  all  Category  1  and  2  RBs  that  were  part  of  the  assessment,  international  coordinating 

mechanisms are in place. For the Category 1 RBs, International Commissions have been set up 
that are coordinating the work for the entire iRBD among riparian countries. All coordinating 

bodies have a specific working group that addresses flood management. 

For the Category 3 RBs international cooperation is mainly based on a number of agreements. 
Hence, coordination is performed by the different governing bodies or working groups based 

on  the  international  agreements,  but  few  information  on  the  nature  of  the  tasks  performed  is 
available. An overview of international coordinating mechanisms can be found in Annex 5. 

142 

 
 
 
In the Po RB coordination activities have only been carried out for to the SEA of the Italian 

FRMP: Institutional representatives of France and Switzerland were consulted with regards to 
the cross-border portions of the Po basin. No further known coordination activities have been 

put in place for the preparation of the Italian FRMP (IT) in the Po.  

The  Eastern  Alps  FRMP  (IT)  explains  that,  for  the  international  RBD  Adige,  due  to  the 

limited  territorial  extension  (only  1.09%  of  its  surface  is  in  Switzerland)  and  the  absence  of 
particular  issues  related  to  the  management  of  flood  risks,  no  agreement  has  been  signed 

between the two states, nor the development of a shared plan was necessary. Slovenia reported 
only international coordination activities in relation to the Danube and the Sava RBs but not in 

relation to the Eastern Alps. 

In the cases of the Gauja/Koiva RB and the East Estonia RB no information was reported in 
the national FRMPs (EE, LV) or WISE regarding any kind of international cooperation210. 

For  the  Nemunas/Nieman/Neman/Nyoman  RB  little  information  was  reported  by  Poland, 

where it is stated that no APSFR were identified and no iFRMPs were prepared.  

The Kemijoki RB is shared between Finland, Norway and Russia. According to information 

provided by Finland to WISE, there is no international coordination in place as no flood risk 
issues have been identified211.  

11.3.2  Financial resources for joint co-operation 

For all Category 1 RBs it is not clear if financial resources for joint cooperation (other than for 

the  functioning  of  the  international  commissions)  have  been  made  available  by  the 
participating Member States. The iFRMPs do not provide any information on whether there is 

financing  for  joint  activities  and  projects.  In  the  iFRMP  of  the  Danube  it  is  indicated  which 
financial instruments are planned to be used for joint cooperation. 

210  Estonia  and  Latvia  informed  that  an  agreement  was  signed  on  24/10/2003  between  the  Ministry  of 
Environment of the Republic of Latvia and the Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Estonia on co-
operation in protection and sustainable use of trans-boundary watercourses. The agreements provided for the 
establishment  of  groups  of  experts  from  the  competent  authorities  which  convene  regularly  to  exchange 
information and to coordinate issues important for the development of the RBMP and the FRMP. Latvia and 
Estonia also informed that there are no trans-boundary flood risk areas (APSFR) within the Gauja/Koiva RB 
Estonia informed that there are no trans-boundary flood risk areas within the East Estonia RB. Therefore, there 
are no transboundary flood hazard and risk maps, nor flood risk management plans. 

211 Finland informed that only a very small part of the RB is in Russia (2,9%) and an even smaller part in Norway. 
These  parts  are  very  sparsely  populated  small  upstream  catchments  with  only  a  very  little  human  or 
hydrological impact on the Kemijoki RB. In addition, no flood risk issues have been identified in these parts 
from the work of the Finnish-Russian transboundary commission. 

143 

 
 
 
                                                      
Similarly, for the Category 2 RBs no information is available on whether financial resources 

for joint cooperation have been made available. There is also no information on the financing 
for joint activities and projects212. Only for the Duero RB one measure (M24: Elaboración de 
estudios de mejora del conocimiento sobre la gestión del riesgo de inundación – Preparation of 
studies  to  improve  flood  risk  management  knowledge)  refers  to  the  costs  of  international 

cooperation, but no costs are specified.  

Finally,  also  for  the  six  Category  3  RBs  it  is  not  clear  if  financial  resources  for  joint 

cooperation have been made available. There is also no information on the financing for joint 
activities  and  projects.  Only  for  the  Vistula  RB  it  is  stated  that  there  are  no  investment 

activities in the Vistula RB that could have cross-border effects. Countries in the Vistula RB 
(also those outside the EU) are being kept informed about any activates/projects carried out or 

planned in this RB during the bilateral commission meetings.  

As  there  is  in  general  little  information  about  financing  related  to  the  implementation  of 
measures  in  transboundary  RBs,  the  level  of  commitment  and  ambition  to  reduce  flood  risk 

and  impacts  on  a  common  basis,  with  this  particular  aspect  in  mind  as  an  indicator,  remains 
unclear. 

11.4.  Conclusions from previous phases of the flood risk management cycle 
in transboundary RBs 

Article 4 of the FD requires Member States to undertake a PFRA for each RBD, UoM or the 

portion of an iRBD or iUoM lying within their territory. 

11.4.1  International coordination of risk assessment 

Articles 4 and 5 of the FD require Member States to coordinate the PFRA and to identify areas 
of potentially significant flood risk (APSFR) for each iRBD, or iUoM or portions thereof lying 

within their territory. 

For all Category 1 RBs a coordination of the PFRA at international level has taken place. 

In  the  Danube  RB  an  updated  version  of  the  APSFR  map  published  in  the  PFRA  report  in 

2011 was developed. Especially the determination of transboundary APSFR was coordinated. 

212 Slovenia informed of the Slovenian-Italian VISFRIM strategic flood risk reduction project in the Isonzo/Soca 
https://www.ita-
flood 

common 
RB  which 
slo.eu/sites/default/files/Graduatorie_strategici_lestivce_strateski_Ita-Slo_05_2018.pdf 

includes  many 

activities. 

reduction 

risk 

144 

 
 
 
                                                      
Transboundary APSFRs were defined by the ICPDR’s Flood Protection  Expert Group as any 

area (in the transboundary reach of a river) that has been assigned as transboundary APSFR by 
at  least  one  country.  The  assignment  was  discussed  then  further  at  the  bilateral  level.  If  the 

transboundary  character  of  an  APSFR  is  regarded  as  not  yet  agreed  by  one  country,  this  is 
shown on the map. For a river crossing a border, the area of common interest is assigned as a 

transboundary  APSFR.  The  extent  of  this  area  of  common  interest  has  to  be  agreed  by  the 
neighbouring countries.  The  ICPDR agreed that two scenarios (medium and low probability) 

are relevant for the level of the iRBD. Only fluvial flooding was considered. 

In  the  Rhine  RB,  the  PFRA  has  been  coordinated  on  the  international  level  by  the  ICPR 

including  an  updating  of  the  Interactive  Rhine  Atlas  of  2001,  now  available  as  interactive 
Rhine  Atlas  2015.  The  iFRMP  also  provides  maps  of  APSFRs  for  the  whole  Rhine  RB 

including transboundary APSFRs. A special report on the identification of APSFRs within the 
whole RB is available. There is no information on which sources of flooding were considered.  

For the Meuse RB, the iFRMP states that each of the bordering countries has developed its risk 

assessment, but for water bodies crossing the borders bilateral coordination has taken place. A 
map with APSFRs in the iRBD is presented in the iFRMP together with a table that shows the 

transboundary waters and gives some basic information on how the coordination between the 
countries was organised. Only fluvial flooding was considered. 

In the Elbe RB, the risk assessment was coordinated through the working group under the Elbe 
Commission.  Austria  and  Poland  have  not  identified  APSFRs  within  the  Elbe,  but  Germany 

and  the  Czech  Republic  did.  The  iFRMP  states  that  there  was  a  workshop  held  between  the 
Czech Republic and Germany to discuss and compare methodologies for the PFRA. While the 

methodologies  themselves  were  not  coordinated  during  their  development,  the  results  of  the 
methodologies – i.e. the identification of APSFRs – were compared to ensure that the different 

methodologies nevertheless resulted in the same areas, which they did. It is unclear whether the 
sources of flooding considered in the transboundary flood risk areas are the same between the 

Czech  Republic  and  Germany.  The  iFRMP  states  that  in  the  Czech  Republic  fluvial  floods 
caused  by  regional  precipitation  were  taken  into  account  whereas  flooding  from  heavy  rain 

leading  to  flash  floods  is  only  locally  important  and  has  not  resulted  in  the  designation  of 
APSFRs  and  that  groundwater  causing  floods  was  not  taken  into  account.  In  Germany, 

generally, coastal and fluvial floods were taken into account. Other types of flooding have not 
been considered as significant.  

145 

 
 
The  iFRMP  for  the  Odra  RB  states  the  Member  States  have  exchanged  the  necessary 

information  to  carry out  the risk assessment and to  produce the relevant  maps. However, the 
detailed  risk  assessment  was  different  in  the  countries  and  is  described  separately  for  each 

Member State. Furthermore, the potential adverse consequences of future floods considered in 
the different Member States are different. No transboundary APSFRs were identified. 

In  the  Scheldt  RB  the  PFRAs  were  based  on  national  approaches,  but  Member  States  have 
exchanged  information  through  the  international  commission  during  the  preparation  of  the 

PFRA.  Transboundary  APSFRs  were  identified.  The  iFRMP  includes  a  description  of  the 
commonalities  and  differences  between  countries’  PFRA.  The  sources  of  flooding  that  were 

considered in the PFRA depend on the geography of the regions. The Netherlands, France and 
the Flemish region of Belgium have considered sea water flooding and river flooding. France 

has  also  discussed  surface  run-off  and  groundwater  flooding  in  one  section,  but  no  run-off 
flood  risk  was  calculated.  In  the  Belgium  region  of  Brussels  river  flooding,  groundwater 

flooding,  surface  run-off,  and  pluvial  flood  risks  have  been  analysed,  while  in  the  region  of 
Wallonia river flooding and surface run-off were taken into account. 

In the four Spanish/Portuguese Category 2 RBs it is not clear whether the risk assessment has 

been coordinated on an international level as no specific information is provided in the national 
FRMPs  (Spain,  Portugal).  Only  for  the  Guadiana  RB,  three  transboundary  APSFRs  were 

identified according to the national reports: Two fluvial APSFRs (ES040_EXT_019 (Guadiana 
X)  &  ES040_AND_001  (Guadiana  XI))  and  one  coastal  APSFR  (ES040_AND_008),  but  no 

joint  flood  risk  map  has  been  drawn  up.  There  is  no  information  on  whether  the  sources  of 
flooding considered in the common APSFRs are the same.  

For the Isonzo/Soča RB, during a meeting of the Permanent Bilateral Commission for Water 
Management,  flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  maps  already  prepared  and  available  for  the 
respective parts of the iRBD were presented213. The text of the FRMP (Italy) explains that the 
measures  to  manage  flood  risk  were  subject  to  coordination  rather  than  the  risk  assessment 

itself.  No 
Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru RB.  

transboundary  APSFRs  were 

identified.  The 

same  applies 

to 

the 

For  the  Ems  RB,  the  document  on  international  coordination  states  that  the  methodologies 

used in both Member States are different, but coordination and data exchange during the risk 
assessment has happened and the results are comparable. In Germany the sources of flooding 

213 Slovenia informed that in a meeting of the Permanent Bilateral Commission for Water Management in 2012 
information  exchange  on  the  PFRA  and  the  harmonisation  of  APSFR’s  in  the  RB  took  place. 
http://www.statika.evode.gov.si/fileadmin/vg_komisije/SLO-IT-zasedanje_december%202012.pdf 

146 

 
 
                                                      
that were considered are fluvial and coastal flooding, while the Netherlands considered fluvial, 

pluvial,  coastal  flooding  and  flooding  from  artificial  water  bearing  infrastructure.  The 

transboundary APSFRs that were identified are Haren-Rütenbrock-Kanal and the Ems Estuary.  

The coordination of the risk assessment in the Torne RB is summarised in Appendix 6 of the 

FRMP for Haparanda. There is no information on how the coordination was performed, but the 
results of the coordination are given214. No transboundary APSFRs were identified.  

Flood risk in Teno/Tana RB has been jointly assessed between Finland and Norway and it is 
very  low  or  even  non-existent  and  no  APSFR  has  been  designated.  The  Finnish-Norwegian 
Transboundary  Water  Commission  has  also  acknowledged  the  low  flood  risk  in  the  area  and the 
cooperation  is  presently  focusing  on  other  aspects  such  as  implementation  of  the  WFD  and 
fisheries. 

For  the  Category  3  RBs  only  very  limited  information  on  international  coordination  or 

transboundary  APSFRs  is  available.  For  the  Garonne-Eastern  Cantabrian  RB  no 
information  on  any  international  coordination  of  the  risk  assessment  was  provided. 

Transboundary APSFRs were identified, but the information provided in the national FRMPs 
(Spain,  Portugal)  is  not  matching.  According  to  the  Spanish  FRMP  (ES017)  there  are  two 
transboundary APSFRs (Irún-Hondarribia and regatas Ugarana y Lapitxuri), while the French 

FMP (FRF) identifies one shared APSFR, the Basque coastline. The sources of flooding that 
are  considered  are  not  entirely  overlapping  for  the  two  Member  States.  In  the  Garonne-

Cantabrico  RB  the  Spanish  FRMP  (ES017)  mentions  that  fluvial  and  marine  flooding  were 
considered,  while  in  the  French  FRMP  (FRF)  it  is  stated  that  overflows  of  watercourses, 

marine submersions, urban or agricultural runoff, rising groundwater, rising mountain torrents 
and ruptures or failures of hydraulic structures are taken into account. No further information is 

available for any of the other Category 3 RBs. 

An overview on where transboundary flood risk areas have been identified is provided in the 
table below. 

214  Finland  informed  that  in  addition,  a  joint  report  on  the  PFRA  was  prepared  in  2011  and  the  coordination  is 

briefly described in the national FRMPs. 

147 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 18 

Overview  on  whether  transboundary  APSFRs  have  been  identified  for  the 
iUOM/iRBD 

Category 

iRBD 

Transboundary APSFRs identified 
for the iRBD/iUOM 

Yes 
x 
x 
x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

1
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

2
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

3
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

Danube 
Rhine 
Meuse 
Elbe 
Odra 
Scheldt (Escaut) 
Duero/Douro 
Guadiana 
Miño/Minho 
Tagus/Tajo/Tejo 
Isonzo/Soča/Soca 
Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru 
Ems 
Tornio/Torne 
Teno/Tana 
Garonne (Cantabrico) 
Garonne (Ebro) 
Vistula 
Pregolya 
Schlei/Trave 
Eider 

No 

x 

x 

x 
x 
x 
x 

x 
x 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

11.4.2. Conclusions of the PFRA phase for the entire international UoM/RBD 

For  only  a  part  of  the  RBs  the  conclusions  of  the  PFRA  are  presented  for  the  entire 
iRBD/iUOM,  namely  for  three  of  the  Category  1  RBs,  none  of  the  Category  2  RBs  and  for 

three of the Category 3 RBs. Table 19 below provides an overview. 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 19 

Overview  of  whether  results  of  the  PFRA  were  presented  for  the  entire 

IRBD/iUoM or not 

Category 

iRBD 

1
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

2
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

3
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

Danube 
Rhine 

Meuse 

Elbe 
Odra 
Scheldt (Escaut) 
Duero/Douro 
Guadiana 
Minho/Lima 
Tagus/Tajo 
Isonzo/Soča 
Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru 
Ems 

Tornio/Torne 
Teno/Tana 
Garonne (Cantabrico) 

Garonne (Ebro) 
Vistula 
Pregolya 
Vidaa/Wiedau  
Krusaa/Krusau 

Conclusions of PFRA presented 
for the entire iRBD/iUOM 
Yes 
No 
x 

x 
(maps, no 
conclusions) 
x 
(maps, no 
conclusions) 
x 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
(maps, no 
conclusions) 
x 

x 
x 
x 

X 
X 

x 
(but only included 
in the Spanish 
FRMP) 

x 
x 

11.4.3. Conclusions of the FHRM phase for the entire international UoM/RBD  

The FD (Article 6) does not specify which probabilities should be considered for the different 

flooding scenarios except for floods with a medium probability where a return period of ≥100 
years should be considered.  

While  in  most  RBs  medium  probabilities  refer  to  a  return  period  of  ≥100  years,  for  the 
scenarios addressing low and high probability flooding large differences exist. Table 20 gives 

an overview of scenarios  considered in  the different  iRBDs (in  case different  scenarios were 
used at Member States level, ranges of return periods are specified). 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 20:  Ranges  of  different  return  periods  used  in  the  iUOM/iRBD  for  the  three 

flooding scenarios (in years) 

Category 

iRBD 

1
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

2
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

3
y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

Danube 
Rhine 
Meuse 
Elbe 
Odra 
Scheldt (Escaut) 
Duero/Douro 
Guadiana 
Miño/Minho 
Tagus/Tajo 
Isonzo/Soča 
Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru 
Ems 
Tornio/Torne 
Teno/Tana 
Garonne (Cantabrico) 
Garonne (Ebro) 
Vistula 
Pregolya 
Vidaa/Wiedau  
Krusaa/Krusau 

Return period for 
low probability 
flooding 
100-1 000 
no info 
100-1 000 
200-1 000 
200-500 
100-10 000 
500-1 000 
500-1 000 
500-1 000 
500-1 000 
300- 500 

200-1 000 
250-10 000 
250-1000 
500-1 000 
500-1 000 
500-1 000 
no info 
200 
200 

Return period for 
medium probability 
flooding 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
25-300 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
No information  
100-300 
100 
100 
100-300 
100-300 
100 
no info 
100 
100 

Return period for 
high probability 
flooding 
no info 
no info 
10-30 
5-25 
5-25 
10-30 
10-20 
10-20 
10-20 
10-20 
10-30 

10-30 
2-50 
20 
10-30 
10-30 
5-50 
no info 
10 
10 

11.4.4. Joint FHRMs for the transboundary APSFRs 

Article 6 of the FD requires Member States to prepare FHRMs. For all Category 1 RBs joint 
FHRMs were developed. For the Danube RB, detailed information on those maps is provided 

in the iFRMP. These maps refer to the different categories human health, economic activities 
and  environment,  but  not  to  cultural  heritage215.  For  the  other  Category  1  RBs,  only  the 
information that common maps are available is provided, but not of the probabilities used for 
their preparation. For the Category 2, Category 3 and Category 4 RBs no joint maps exist, with 

the exception of the Ems RB. 

11.4.5. Potential adverse consequences shown in iFRMPs 

Only  for  two  of  the  Category  1  RBs,  the  Danube  and  the  Elbe,  some  of  the  adverse 

consequences associated with flooding are presented in the iFRMPs.  

215 Cultural heritage will be added in the second cycle. 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
In the Danube RB, there are at least 936 000 people affected by floods with a high probability, 

at least 3 721 000 people affected by floods with medium probability and at least 6 734 000 
people  affected  by  floods  with  low  probability.  In  relation  to  economic  activities 
approximately  29  000  km2  of  agricultural  areas  are  potentially  affected  by  low  probability 
floods. A significant share of the urban areas is potentially affected by low probability floods 

in Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovakia and The Czech Republic, while the largest urban 
area potentially affected by low probability floods is in Hungary (783 km2). The iFRMP also 
provides some numbers  that relate to  the  risk to  the environment,  e.g. numbers of  Integrated 
Pollution  Prevention  and  Control216  (IPPC)  and  Seveso  Directive217  installations  affected  by 
floods that could cause pollution and drinking water and recreational areas that are at risk of 
flooding.  Floods  with  high  probability  affect  146  installations  and  241  drinking  water  and 

recreational  water  areas,  floods  with  medium  probability  affect  337  installations  and  413 
drinking  water  and  recreational  water  areas  and  floods  with  low  probability  affect  617 

installations and 796 drinking water and recreational water areas in the Danube RB. 

In  the  Elbe  RB  323  942  people  may  be  affected  by  low  probability  floods  in  the  Czech 

Republic  and  1.57  million  in  Germany,  103  104  by  medium  probability  floods  in  the  Czech 
Republic  and  377  039  in  Germany  and  26  232  by  high  probability  floods  in  the  Czech 

Republic and 104 380 in Germany. General economic areas at flood risk are only specified for 
medium probability floods with 103 areas in the Czech Republic and 235 in Germany. Risks to 
the environment are specified for affected Pollutant Release and  Transfer Register218 (PRTR) 
systems.  For  cultural  heritage  sites  affected,  specific  sites  are  listed  but  are  not  linked  to 

probability  scenarios.  Five  sites  are  mentioned  in  Germany  and  two  are  mentioned  in  the 
Czech Republic. 

Information  on  adverse  consequences  associated  with  floods  is  not  available  for  any  of  the 

Category 2, Category 3 and Category 4 RBs. 

216  Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24 November  2010  on  industrial 

emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075 

217 Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-
accident  hazards  involving  dangerous  substances,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council  Directive 
96/82/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32012L0018 

218 http://prtr.eea.europa.eu/#/home  

151 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
11.5. Joint objectives and measures for flood risk management 

11.5.1. Setting of joint objectives in iUoMs/iRBDs  

The  FD  foresees  that  the  FRMP  for  each  UoM  sets  objectives  for  the  management  of  flood 

risks within the areas covered by the Plan. The objectives should focus on reducing the adverse 
consequences  of  flooding  to  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic 

activity.  

In most Category 1 RBs common objectives for flood risk management have been established 
on the international level. 

For  the  Danube  RB,  the  ICPDR  has  agreed  upon  the  following  objectives  for  flood  risk 
management  with  the  Member  States:  Avoidance  of  new  risks,  reduction  of  existing  risks, 

strengthening resilience, raising awareness and the solidarity principle. These objectives focus 
on  the  reduction  of  potential  adverse  consequences  of  flooding  for  human  health,  the 

environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic  activity  and  address  all  aspects  of  flood  risk 
management  focusing  on  prevention,  protection,  preparedness,  including  flood  forecasts  and 

early  warning  systems  and  taking  into  account  the  characteristics  of  the  Danube  RB.  The 
objectives are not quantified and are in line with the ones established nationally by the riparian 

Member States.  

Similar  joint  objectives  have  been  established  for  the  management  of  flood  risk  at  the 
international level of the Rhine RB. The iFRMP for the Rhine details the different objectives 

as follows: avoid new, unacceptable, risks; reduce existing risks to an acceptable level; reduce 
adverse  consequences  during  a  flood  event  and  reduce  adverse  consequences  after  a  flood 

event. In Annex 4 of the iFRMP there is an assessment that shows how the different objectives 
are reflected at the Member States level. The assessment shows that the general targets of flood 

risk management on the national and international level are the same in the whole basin. 

In the Meuse RB the joint objectives for flood risk management have been established by the 

five  Member  States.  The  objectives  are  defined  at  strategic  level  and  operational  levels.  The 
strategic level objectives which are listed in the iFRMP are: 

 

Joint  and  efficient  responsibility  based  on  the  solidarity  principle:  The  aim  is  to 

determine the most appropriate level so as not to take higher-level measures which 
can be implemented more efficiently at the local level; 

152 

 
 
 

 

Solidarity in the case of flooding; 

Proportionality of measures: Creation of a prioritization program, if possible on the 

basis of a CBA. 

The three operational objectives, which were derived based on the national objectives defined 
by the five Member States, are: 

 

 

 

Effective international coordination of measures with transboundary effects; 

Improvement of the flood forecasting and warning; 

Improve flood risk knowledge. 

The iFRMP for the Elbe RB details the different objectives as defined by the Czech Republic 
and Germany. Whereas they do not appear to have been commonly developed, the objectives 

set  by  the  Czech  Republic  and  Germany  are  very  similar.  In  the  Czech  Republic  the  most 
important objective is to reduce the risk to inhabitants due to floods, as well as reduce risk on 

economic  activities,  cultural  and  historical  areas,  taking  into  account  the  precautionary 
principle.  Three  general  objectives  were  set:  1)  Prevent  the  emergence  of  new  risks  and  to 

reduce the size and areas with an unacceptable risk; 2) Reduce flood risk and 3) Improve the 
precaution  of  inhabitants,  the  resilience  of  buildings,  infrastructure,  economic  and  other 

activities against the negative effects of floods. In Germany, four general objectives were set at 
national  level:  1)  Avoid  new  risks  in  flood  risk  areas;  2)  Reduce  existing  risks  in  flood  risk 

areas; 3) Reduce the adverse effects during a flood and 4) Reduce the adverse effects after a 
flood. 

For  the  Odra  RB,  the  iFRMP  includes  a  table  with  joint  objectives  for  the  management  of 

flood risk at the international level which are then further detailed into sub-targets. There is no 
clear description how the joint objectives have been agreed on. The general objectives are: 1) 

Avoid new risks; 2) Reduction of existing risks;(3) Reduction of adverse consequences during 
a flood event and 4) Reduction of adverse consequences after a flood event. The objectives are 

the same for all countries of the ICPO. 

The objectives set in the iFRMP for the Scheldt RB were based on a comparison between the 

objectives set in the national plans and are shared objectives. They focus on: 1) strengthening 
transboundary cooperation for the planning and monitoring of measures with a transboundary 

153 

 
 
impact;  2)  improving  information  sharing  on  floods  and  flood  warning  and  3)  improving 

knowledge exchange to support decisions. The iFRMP notes also that all Member States and 
regions  mainly  aim  to  reduce  the  number  of  fatalities  and  economic  damage,  but  also  have 

objectives  for  the  protection  of  habitats,  with  attention  to  the  maximum  conservation  of 
associated protected habitats and species.  

From  the  situations  described  above,  it  becomes  evident  that  all  Category  1  RBs,  except  the 
Scheldt and Meuse, have largely similar objectives (particularly the Danube and the Rhine, but 

also  in  some  RBs  classified  into  other  Categories),  even  if  they  are  phrased  in  somewhat 
different ways. This could a reflection of riparian countries being members of more than one 

river commissions: 

 

 

 

avoidance of new risks, 

reduction of existing risks and 

reduction of adverse consequences. 

For the Category 2 RBs joint objectives for the management of flood risk at the international 
level have not been established in the four Spanish/Portuguese RBs. For the Isonzo/Soča RB 

at the meeting of the Permanent  Bilateral Commission for Water Management  held in Miren 
(Slovenia)  in  October  2014,  the  state  of  implementation  of  the  FD  was  discussed  and  the 

participants  noted  that  both  parties  had  common  objectives  and  decided  to  coordinate  their 
implementation. However, no more explicit information is provided on these objectives. It is 

therefore assumed that the objectives they refer to are those defined at the national level: To 
reduce  the  potential  negative  consequences  that  floods  may  have  on  human  health,  the 

environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic  activity.  No 
the 
Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru and the Teno/Naatamo/Paatsjoki RBs is provided. For the Ems RB, 

information 

for 

the  iFRMP  (Germany,  the  Netherlands)  details  the  different  objectives  as  follows:  a)  avoid 
new, unacceptable, risks; b) reduction of existing risks to an acceptable level; c) reduction of 

adverse  consequences  during  a  flood  event  and  d)  reduction  of  adverse  consequences  after  a 
flood event. The national objectives are the same, but they are described in much more detail. 

For the Torne RB, objectives for flood risk management were compared for the Finnish and 
Swedish parts and are mostly the same. These include for instance informing the general public 

about flood risk and how one can prepare for a flood with a return period of 50-100 years. In 
the  Tornio  FRMP  (Finland)  also  Haparanda’s  (Sweden)  objectives  are  presented  and 

154 

 
 
similarities and differences are shown in a table. 

For  none  of  the  Category  3  RBs,  joint  objectives  for  the  management  of  flood  risk  at  the 
international  level  have  been  established.  For  the  Garonne-Ebro  and  the  Garonne 

Cantabrico RBs , according to information provided to WISE by France, ‘an identification of 
cross-border issues is to be carried out, which will be followed by the establishment of useful 

contacts and cooperation’, meaning coordination of objectives has not yet taken place, but is to 
happen in the future.  

For the Vidaa/Wiedau and the Krusaa/Krusau RBs, objectives have been set. They are: (a) 

avoid  new,  unacceptable,  risks;  (b)  reduction  of  existing  risks  to  an  acceptable  level;  (c) 
reduction  of  adverse  consequences  during  a  flood  event  and  (d)  reduction  of  adverse 

consequences after a flood event. 

11.5.2. Planned joint and/or coordinated measures for the achievement of joint objectives 

Almost  for  all  Category  1  RBs  joint  coordinated  measures  were  defined.  Only  for  the  Odra 
RB no joint measures are specified in the iFRMP. Only for two of the Category 2 and 3 RBs, 
the Isonzo/Soča and the Ems, joint measures were defined. An overview of the joint measures 

in each iRBD is given in Table 21. 

Table 21 

Joint coordinated measures in the different iRBDs/iUOM 

Nr.219 

Description 

e
b
u
n
a
D

e
n
i
h
R

e
s
u
e
M

e
b
l
E

t
d
l
e
h
c
S

a
c
o
S
/
o
z
n
o
s
I

s

m
E

M21 

M11  No  Action,  no  measure  is  proposed  to  reduce  the 
flood risk in the APSFR or other defined area. 
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 

M22 

M23 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

219 Numbering according to ‘A User Guide to the Floods Reporting Shemas’ (Technical support in relation to the 

implementation of the FD (2007/60/EC)), see: 
http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/Floods/Floods_603_2016/resources/User%20Guide%20to%20the%20Floods
%20schema%20v6.0.pdf 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Nr.219 

Description 

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

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

M35 

M41 

M42 

M43 

M44 

flow 

flow 

interventions 

involving  physical 

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  Natural  flood  management  /  runoff  and 
catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow 
into  natural  or  artificial  drainage  systems,  such  as 
overland 
/  or  storage, 
interceptors  and 
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 
regulation,  Measures 
Protection,  Water 
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 
in 
freshwater  channels,  mountain  streams,  estuaries, 
coastal waters and flood-prone areas of land, such as 
the  construction,  modification  or 
removal  of 
structures  or  the  alteration  of  channels,  sediment 
dynamics management, dykes, etc.  
Protection,  Surface  Water  Management,  Measures 
involving  physical  interventions  to  reduce  surface 
water  flooding,  typically,  but  not  exclusively,  in  an 
urban  environment,  such  as  enhancing  artificial 
drainage  capacities  or  though  sustainable  drainage 
systems (SuDS) 
Protection,  Other  Protection,  Other  measure 
to 
enhance  protection  against  flooding,  which  may 
include flood defence asset maintenance programmes 
or policies 
Preparedness,  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 

156 

e
b
u
n
a
D

e
n
i
h
R

e
s
u
e
M

e
b
l
E

t
d
l
e
h
c
S

a
c
o
S
/
o
z
n
o
s
I

s

m
E

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nr.219 

Description 

reduce adverse consequences 

M51 

M52 

M53 

incl.  disaster 

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), 
assistance,  disaster 
legal 
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 

e
b
u
n
a
D

e
n
i
h
R

e
s
u
e
M

e
b
l
E

t
d
l
e
h
c
S

a
c
o
S
/
o
z
n
o
s
I

s

m
E

x 

x 

x 

M61  Other  

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

There  is  no  information  in  most  iFRMP/FRMPs  regarding  timing  of  the  implementation  of 

measures. For the Rhine RB, for some of the measures, in particular those measures aimed at 
lowering  the  water  levels,  a  timeframe  is  given  with  an  implementation  deadline  until  2020. 

For the Isonzo/Soča RB the FRMP states that transboundary measures will be implemented in 
the first phase (2016-18) and the second phase (2019-21).  

11.5.3. Joint principles for defining and prioritising measures 

In  many  Category  1  RBs  joint  principles  for  defining  measures  have  been  agreed  on  at  the 

international level.  

For the Danube RB, Annex 2 chapter 7 of the iFRMP lists transboundary projects supporting 
the  iFRMP.  Several  projects  or  project  proposals/ideas  presented  as  transboundary  projects 
were  developed  by  the  ICPDR  and/or  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region  (EUSDR, 
Priority Area-PA 5 - Environmental Risks220) and they shall, i.a.:  

 

reflect the objectives and priorities set in iFRMP;  

220 https://www.danubeenvironmentalrisks.eu/  

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 

 

have a transboundary character; 

help to implement the measures listed in the Annex.  

There is no ranking or prioritization of these projects, as they are all considered as supportive 

to the implementation of the iFRMP. In selecting the measures for this Plan, the priority was 
given  to  measures  with  downstream  effect  (according  to  Article  7(4))  of  the  FD,  such  as 

natural  water  retention,  warning  systems,  reduction  of  risk  from  contaminated  sites  in 
floodplain  areas,  or  exchange  of  information.  The  top  priority  was  given  to  NWRM  (water 

retention  and  giving more space to  rivers) but  the importance of the structural  measures was 
also recognized. 

In the Rhine RB, the Member States have agreed upon the following approach for the planning 
and implementation of measures:  

 

Regional or local measures which are known not to have any transboundary effects 

will be planned and implemented regionally/local;  

 

For regional measures with transboundary effects there will first be an exchange of 
information  at  a bilateral  level  or within river commissions  for sub-basins, as for 

example the Moselle (Sarre). Eventually, these measures must be coordinated on a 
bilateral or trilateral level in order to find joint solutions;  

 

The measures with regional effects mentioned under the second point above might 

also cause supra-regional effects. Therefore, such measures must at the same time 
be  included  in  the  mutual  exchange  of  information  within  the  ICPR.  Due  to  this 

approach, measures with transboundary effects are coordinated throughout the RB. 
The effect of planned measures must be determined in common. Aspects of cost-

effectiveness may be taken into account;  

 

Enhancement  of  national  or  regional  agreements  targeted  at  keeping  floodplains 
free of all uses; exchange on these activities within the ICPR. 

The afore-described approach is applicable to measures such as creating retention areas, dike 

relocation,  room  for  the  river  and  measures  regulating  discharges,  the  construction  or 
strengthening of dikes, etc. Joint principles for prioritising measures on an international level 
are mentioned in the iFRMP. The iFRMP lists a set of concrete joint measures that seem to be 

158 

 
 
a high priority for all Member States and aim at: (i) international coordination of measures (ii) 

improving  the  exchange  of  information  and  access  to  information;  (iii)  improving  flood 
forecasting  and  warning  systems  and  at  (iv)  implementing  measures  aimed  at  lowering  the 

water levels. The iFRMP states also that for the coordination of measures with supra-regional 
effects  aspects  of  cost-effectiveness  may  be  taken  into  account  but  no  further  information  is 

provided. 

For the Meuse RB, a joint  principle in  planning and implementing measures was defined by 

one  of  the  objectives  on  the  international  level  -  the  ‘Proportionality  of  measures’,  i.e.  the 
creation of  a prioritization  program  for measures.  It  is  stated that a  ranking of measures was 

performed  considering  the  mobilized  human,  technical  and  financial  resources  of  all 
stakeholders and the expected benefits. 

Also,  in  the  Elbe  RB  there  are  common  principles  for  defining  groups  of  measures.  The 

individual  measures  in  each  group  are  nationally  defined.  Each  group  of  measures  describes 
the  principles  behind  their  selection.  It  is  unclear  whether  there  are  common  principles  for 

prioritising measures. 

In the Odra RB there are joint principles for defining and prioritising measures, which relate to 

two transnational projects and the agreed ‘flood protection program 2004’. In the latter a list of 
priority actions/measures has been agreed on, which is the basis for the joint work. Actions and 

priorities  are  indicated  in  the  national  FRMPs,  taking  into  account  international  agreements, 
such  as  the  Polish-German  agreement.  There  is  no  information  in  the  iFRMP  on  whether  a 

cost-benefit  analysis  was  used  in  the  prioritisation  and  planning  of  measures  with  a 
transboundary effect.  

The iFRMP of the  Scheldt  RB does not  state that  common principles  for defining measured 

were  adopted.  A  categorisation  of  measures  (protection,  prevention,  preparedness  and 
recovery) is presented, but it is not clear whether this classification was used in the planning of 
individual regions/MS. The iFRMP also highlights which criteria are relevant for multi-lateral 
discussions.  France,  Brussels/Belgium  and  Wallonia/Belgim  were  still  in  the  process  of 

preparing their  programme of measures (PoM)  when the iFRMP was  prepared which is  why 
the relevant chapter of the iFRMP ought to be updated once the national PoMs are finished and 

available.  The  Netherlands  and  Flanders/Belgium  mainly  use  cost-benefit  analysis  and  a 
maximum  reduction  of  loss  of  lives  to  prioritise  measures.  There  is  no  explanation  of  how 

measures with a transboundary effect were prioritised. 

159 

 
 
The assessment of the Category 1 RBs points at initial attempts to prioritise measures. It will 

be a challenge to assess progress at a later stage, as hardly any information on monitoring the 
implementation is provided in the iFRMP. It can be assumed this will be the task of the various 

expert groups. 

11.5.4. Cost benefit assessments for transboundary measures 

The  FD  suggests  that  cost-benefit  analysis  is  used  to  assess  measures  with  transnational 
effects. 

For  all  Category  1  RBs  there  is  no  information  in  the  iFRMPs  on  whether  a  RB-wide  cost-
benefit analysis was used in the prioritisation and planning of measures with a transboundary 

effect.  

For  almost  none  of  the  Category  2  RBs  was  information  found  on  joint  principles  for 
prioritising  measures  or  on  the  use  of  cost  benefit  analysis.  The  exception  appears  to  be  the 

Isonzo/Soča  RB,  where  the  key  joint  principle  for  defining  and  prioritising  measures  is  to 
coordinate  the  methodology  for  the  evaluation  of  their  costs  and  benefits,  but  no  further 

information is provided. 

For  none  of  the  Category  3  RBs  information  on  the  use  of  a  cost-benefit  analysis  for 

prioritising measures is provided. 

It is unclear why CBAs are not widely used in the transboundary context as suggested by the 
Directive.  The  possibilities  should  be  investigated  by  the  expert  groups  set  up  by  the  river 

commissions  (or  explained  in  the  iFRMPs)  as  they  might  relate  e.g.  to  methodological 
challenges or to different approaches between countries that could not be reconciled in the first 

cycle. 

11.5.5. Solidarity principle applied at the international level 

Article 7(4) of the FD states that: ‘In the interests of solidarity, flood risk management plans 
established in one Member State shall not include measures which, by their extent and impact, 

significantly increase flood risks upstream or downstream of other countries in the same River 
Basin or sub-basin, unless these measures have been coordinated and an agreed solution has 

been found among the Member States concerned in the framework of Article 8.’ 

160 

 
 
 
 
For  all  Category  1  RBs  the  respective  iFRMPs  refer  to  the  solidarity  principle.  However,  in 

most  cases  not  very  detailed  information  is  provided  on  how  the  principle  was  applied  in 
practice. 

The iFRMP of the Danube RB states that the solidarity principle has been applied in the basin: 
The  ICPDR  agreed  that  the  measures  with  positive  downstream  effects  shall  have  the  key 

priority  at  the  basin-wide  level  planning  of  joint  measures.  The  Plan  states  that  to  avoid  the 
negative  downstream  effects,  the  national  legislation  shall  contain  provisions  stipulating  that 

FRMPs  shall  not  include  measures  which,  by  their  extent  and  impact,  significantly  increase 
flood risks in other countries. 

For  the  Rhine  RB,  the  iFRMP  restates  Article  7(4)  of  the  FD.  However,  it  remains  unclear 

how this principle is applied in practice. 

The iFRMP of the Meuse RB also restates Article 7(4) of the FD. The solidarity principle is 
also one of the joint objectives for the management of flood risk at the international level that 

have been established by the five Member States. However, also here it remains unclear, how 
this is handled in practice. 

For  the  Elbe  and  the  Odra  RBs,  the  iFRMPs  state  that  Article  7(4)  has  been  applied  in  the 
basin and that the relationship between up and downstream countries plays an important role in 

flood risk management within the basin. No information is provided on how this was applied 
in practice. 

For all Category 2 RBs it is not clear whether the solidarity principle has been applied. Spain 

and Portugal refer to the importance of the principle in the national FRMPs, but for all except 
one of the RBs (in the Tagus the principle of Article 7(4) is reiterated) no further information 

is  provided.  In  the  FRMP  for  the  Eastern  Alps  (Italy),  Article  7(4)  is  not  mentioned.  No 
information is provided for the Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru, the Tornio/Torne and the Ems RBs. 

All FRMPs related to the Category 3 RBs, cite the principle of solidarity as reflected in Article 
7(4)), the practice of it is unclear. 

11.6.  Consideration of climate change in transboundary RBs 

Article  4(2)(d)  of  the  FD  requires  that  Member  States,  depending  on  their  specific  needs,  to 

already in the first cycle consider the impact of climate change. Further, Article 14 stipulates 

161 

 
 
 
that  the  impacts  of  climate  change  and  long-term  developments  on  the  occurrence  of  floods 

shall be considered from the second cycle reviews and updates.  

The level of detail provided regarding climate change is varying for the different iRBDs. While 

there  has  been  a  clear  effort  to  take  climate  change  into  account  in  some  of  the  iRBDs,  in 
others  the  iFRMP  states  that  it  will  be  taken  into  account  in  the  future.  In  general,  it  can  be 

stated  that  consideration  of  climate  change  is  more  developed  in  those  basins  where  an 
international body has been established. 

Table 22 

Climate change considerations in the iRBD Category 1 

International River Basin 
Danube 

Climate change considered at the iRB level 
yes 

Rhine 

Meuse 

Elbe 

Odra 

Scheldt 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

The specific chapter on climate change in the iFRMP of the Danube RB for instance focuses 
on what regional scenarios have been developed and the effects on measures. The information 

on the effects on measures does not specify whether such effects were taken into account in the 
planning  of  measures  or  establishing  of  objectives.  However,  a  link  to  the  Danube  Climate 

Adaptation Study developed in 2012 is established. This link is rather general but it is stressed 
that  adapting  flood  risk  management  to  climate  change  issues  has  to  be  included  in  the  next 

FRMPs. 

For the Rhine RB more information related to climate change is provided in the iFRMP. The 

iFRMP has a specific chapter on how climate change was taken into account in the flood risk 
assessment. Aspects covered are: a) impacts of climate change for the Rhine catchment and b) 
climate  change  effects  on  measures  of  flood  risk  management.  The  chapter  first  lists  basin 
wide impacts from climate change based on a common assessment and the effects on flood risk 
management  measures.  Also,  following  the  instructions  of  the  15th  Conference  of  Rhine 
Ministers,  the  ICPR  has  drafted  a  strategy  to  adapt  to  climate  change.  However,  it  remains 

unclear if these scenarios are used on the national level. While climate change is not mentioned 
in  establishing  objectives  for  the  iFRMP,  the  plan  is  linking  selected  measures  to  climate 

change  and  several  of  the  common  measures  relate  to  climate  change  issues.  Many  of  the 
common measures described that are going to be implemented range among no-regret and win-

162 

 
 
 
win measures. They also have a positive effect on changes of the water balance brought about 

by climate change. 

For  the  Meuse  RB,  the  joint  summary  of  the  IMC  states  that  Member  States  have  started  to 

work  on  joint  flow  patterns  based  on  national  climate  scenarios.  There  is  no  information 
regarding whether climate change was considered in the setting of objectives or in the selection 

of measures.  

The  chapter  on  the  PFRA  of  the  iFRMP  of  the  Elbe  RB  has  a  specific  sub-section  on  how 
climate  change  was  taken  into  account  in  the  assessment.  The  chapter  first  lists  climate 

research projects that have been carried out in the last years within the Elbe region. Some of 
these projects are regional or national but the GLOWA project mentioned looked at the Elbe 

region as a whole. The chapter also states that a under the Elbe Commission a document was 
produced summarizing the previous research, including conclusions. It is not clear, however, if 

this  resulted  in  the  same  climate  scenario  being  used  amongst  the  riparian  countries.  The 
chapter on establishing objectives does not mention climate change.  

For the Oder RB, the chapter on the PFRA of the iFRMP has as well a specific sub-section on 
how climate change was taken into account in the PFRA for each Member State. It focuses on 

what  regional  scenarios  have  been  developed  in  each  Member  State  and  shows  that  no 
common  approach  was  used  so  far.  It  is  not  clear  whether  the  potential  effects  of  climate 

change on the risk of flooding have been taken into account when setting objectives.  

The iFRMP of the Scheldt RB highlights that climate change should be taken into account in 
the  future.  So  far,  the  Netherlands  and  Belgium/Flanders  have  taken  climate  change  into 

account in their territories when setting objectives. Climate change was not considered in the 
setting of joint objectives or in the planning of joint measures. 

For the Category 2 RBs, even less information is provided. For the Spanish/Portuguese RBs 

there is no information if climate change has been considered as an international coordination 
issue.  Spain  refers  to  previous  studies  existing  on  water  availability  reduction  (however  not 

much linked to flood risk), and explains that further studies will be undertaken, while Portugal 
refers to the fact that such studies will be undertaken by 2018 only. For the Isonzo/Soča RB, 
the FRMP for Eastern Alps (Italy) states that, in line with Article 14 of the FD, the impact of 

climate change on the occurrence of floods and their effect will be evaluated when reviewing 
the plan. The review will take into consideration the Italian National Climate Change Strategy 

which has been adopted on 16 June 2015. In the Ems RB, climate change is not addressed in 

163 

 
 
the coordination document (Germany, the Netherlands), but in the national FRMPs information 

is  provided.  In  the  Tornio/Torne  RB,  it  is  not  clear  if  climate  change  was  considered  as  an 
issue for bilateral coordination.221 

Climate change has been considered in parts of five of the international Category 3 RBs, within 
the national contexts.  

11.7. Monitoring progress in implementing the iFRMP 

According to the FD, Member States are required to provide information on the way in which 
progress towards implementing the identified measures will be monitored (Annex, part A.II.1). 

However,  the  assessment  showed  that  monitoring  is  in  general  not  agreed  upon  at  an 
international  level.  In most  iFRMP there is  no information  on  a joint  monitoring,  exceptions 

are  the  Danube  and  the  Meuse  RBs  where  the  working  groups  are  responsible  for  the  joint 
monitoring. For the Category 2 RBs, for the Isonzo/Soča RB progress in the implementation 

of the common measures was discussed in 2016; in the Ems RB common monitoring measures 
were  defined.  None  of  the  national  FRMPs  that  correspond  to  Category  3  RBs  provide 
information on the joint monitoring of measures at the international level. 

11.8. Public consultation in transboundary RBs 

Article  10  of  the  FD  requires  public  consultation  process  related  to  the  FRMP.  The  level  of 
public consultation on the joint/international FRMP varies in the different iRBDs. For some of 

the  Category  1  RBs  extensive  public  consultation  was  performed  and  a  well  planned  joint 
/transboundary  communication  strategy  seems  to  be  in  place  such  as  for  the  Danube,  the 

Rhine,  the  Elbe  and  the  Odra  RBs,  while  for  most  of  the  other  RBs,  almost  no  public 
consultation took place. For the Meuse and the Rhine, the iFRMP was published online on the 

websites  of  the  river  commissions.  The  iFRMP  of  the  Scheldt  (Escaut)  and  Meuse  clearly 
states that public consultation is seen as a responsibility of the Member States. 

For  the  Danube  RB,  the  ICPDR  pursues  a  range  of  activities  with  regard  to  public 
participation. These include: 1) public information such as the development of technical public 

documents  and  general  publications  (e.g.  the  quarterly  magazine  Danube  Watch);  2) 
environmental education, awareness raising and outreach (e.g. the annual river festival Danube 

221 Finland and Sweden informed that climate change was included as a topic in joint projects at the PFRA and 

FHRM phases. These activities will be strengthen in the 2nd cycle. 

164 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Day or the teacher’s kit Danube Box) and 3) public consultation activities directly linked to the 

development of a RBMP and a FRMP. Public consultation for the development of the iFRMP, 
was  done  in  two  main  steps,  in  which  comments  from  the  public  were  collected  1)  on  a 

timetable and work programme including public consultation measures and on 2) on the draft 
management plan. The opportunity to participate in each of these steps was promoted through 

the ICPDR network. For the consultation on the draft iFRMP, a comprehensive approach was 
chosen  that  aimed  at  stakeholder  groups  with  differing  degrees  of  involvement  in  water 

management  issues.  To  ensure  the  highest  possible  transparency,  all  comments  requesting 
changes or additions in the draft iFRMP were collected and processed by the relevant ICPDR 

expert or task group. A final report was published alongside with the final management plan in 
December 2015.  

The  draft  of  the  first  iFRMP  for  the  Rhine  RB  (part  A222)  was  published  on  the  ICPR 
website223 on the 22nd  of December 2014 and was thus  available for public participation and 
consultation.  This  online  consultation  was  done  in  parallel  to  that  of  the  draft  of  the  second 
iRBMP according to the WFD. This was also the case in most EU-MS of the Rhine catchment. 

ICPR observers such as NGOs are being involved from the start in the drafting through their 
participation in the working groups. Further, during the six months iFRMP online consultation 

period, the ICPR received statements and requests for adaptation of the draft. 

In  the  Elbe  and  Odra  RBs  public  consultation  international  workshops  on  the  FRMP  took 
place. International Forums for both rivers were held to inform the public on the current state 

of  play  of  both  the  WFD  and  the  FD.  Summaries  of  the  results  of  the  PFRA  for  the  two 
international  basins  made  available  to  the  public.  All  documents,  including  the  draft  FRMPs 

and  the  risk  maps  were  published  on  the  websites  of  the  Elbe  and  Odra  Commissions. 
Additionally,  for  the  Elbe  an  international  Elbe  Forum  on  the  International  FRMP  and  the 

International  RBMP  was  held,  while  for  the  Odra  an  international  Conference  on  the 
implementation of the WFD and the FD was organised. 

For  none  of  the  Category  2  RBs  a  joint/transboundary  communication  strategy  has  been 
developed. However, some public consultation of the national FRMPs at the international level 

has  taken  place  for  the  Spanish/Portuguese  catchments.  In  the  finish  FRMP  for  the 
Tornio/Torne  RB,  the  FRMPs  for  the  Tornio/Torne  River  includes  a  table  showing  several 

222 Part A equals catchment areas larger than 2,500 km². 
223 www.iksr.org  

165 

 
 
                                                      
meetings and workshops where the flood risk management work has been presented and many 
of these events have been joint events224. 

For the Category 3 RBs, no iFRMP exists, so generally no joint/transboundary communication 

strategy has been developed. 

11.9.  Cross-cutting issues with the Water Framework Directive 

According  to  Article  9  of  the  FD  the  development  of  the  FRMPs  is  to  be  carried  out  in 

coordination  with  that  of  the  RBMPs  under  the  WFD,  including  on  how  the  environmental 
objectives of the WFD have been taken into account in the FRMPs. Both the WFD and the FD 

require public participation. 

For  all  Category  1  RBs  the  development  of  the  iFRMPs  was  done  in  consultation  with  the 

iRBMP.  This  is  reflected  in  the  iFRMP  and  the  iRBMP.  The  information  provided  in  the 
iFRMPs for each iRBD is summarized below. 

For the Danube  RB, the iFRMP was developed  in  consultation  with  the WFD and since the 

ICPDR is responsible for both, the overall coordination of the implementation of the FD and 
the WFD in the Danube RB a good prerequisite for maximum use of mutual synergies exists. 

Some examples of win-win measures are stated in the iFRMP. To produce the PFRA several 
ICPDR  Contracting  Parties  used  data  that  they  had  collated  as  part  of  the  WFD  process  to 

assist with their contribution to the overall PFRA for the Danube. Furthermore, the ICPDR has 
produced a plan to meet the requirements of the WFD and FD. 

For the Rhine RB, the iFRMP states that as far as measures are concerned, possible synergies 
with the environmental targets of the WFD will be enhanced and the environmental effects of 

measures liable to cause a deterioration of the ecological status of water bodies will be reduced 
to a minimum. Annex 8 of the iFRMP shows possible synergies between measures of the FD 

and  measures  of  the  WFD.  In  most  riparian  countries  of  the  Rhine,  public  involvement 
concerning the draft of the first FRMP was done in parallel to that of the draft of the second 

RBMP. 

For  the  Meuse  in  the  Annex  of  the  iFRMP  an  overview  over  potential  synergies  between 
measures under the FD and objectives of the WFD is provided. Measures are judged based on 

224 In the Finish FRMP the summary of the Plan also exists in Swedish, Mäenkieli and in Northern Sami language 

(for the indigenous Sami people) 

166 

 
 
 
                                                      
whether they support WFD’s objectives, whether they are not relevant for the WFD objectives 

or whether they are in conflict with WFD objectives. 

According to the iFRMP, the measures planned in the Elbe RB were aligned with those under 

the WFD and the implementation  of both  Directives was coordinated, in  particular regarding 
the  improvement  of  efficiency,  information  exchange  and  synergies  in  achieving  the 

environmental objectives of the WFD. Measures were grouped into three categories: Measures 
that support the objectives of the WFD, measures that cause conflicts, and measures that are no 

relevant to the WFD. Similar to the Elbe, the iFRMP of the Odra RB has also been developed 
in  consultation  with  the  WFD.  Measures  of  the  FD  were  coordinated  with  those  under  the 

WFD  to  maximise  synergies,  to  ensure  information  exchange  and  to  ensure  that  WFD 
objectives are met. For both, the Elbe and the Odra it is stated that detailed information can be 

found in the national Plans. 

For  the  Scheldt  RB  the  iRBMP  states  that  the  measures  listed  in  the  iFRMP  were  screened 
with respect to their positive/negative effect on the WFD. Further it states that the reporting for 

the  WFD  and  the  FD  is  already  integrated  in  the  RBMP  of  Flanders  and  Brussels,  while 
Wallonia,  the  Netherlands  and  France  continue  to  report  in  two  separate  Plans.  It  is  planned 

that the International Scheldt Commission will have a role in coordinating measures that have a 
transboundary impact.  

For  the  Category  2  RBs  information  on  the  coordination  with  the  WFD  is  only  provided  for 
two RBs. For the Garonne-Cantabrico RB and for the Isonzo/Soča RB. Both cases concern 

coordination  meetings  of  technical  experts  on  synergies  between  the  FRMPs  and  the 
RBMPs.225 

For the Category 3 RBs no information on how the FRMPs were coordinated with the RBMPs 

on the international level was provided. 

225 The inventory of measures in the FRMP of the Eastern Alps (Italy) indicates for each measure whether there 
can be a synergy with the RBMP measures and whether the measure is also adopted in the RBMP (win-win 
situation). The inventory of measures in the Slovenian FRMP indicates for each measure whether there can be 
a synergy, potential conflict or no interaction with the RBMP measures. 

167 

 
 
 
                                                      
Recommendations 
framework of the FD 

for 

transboundary 

cooperation 

in 

the 

Based  on  the  assessment  of  international  coordination  within  the  framework  of  the  FD,  the 
following recommendations can be made: 

 

iRBD/iUoM falling into Category 1 should strengthen their efforts towards further 

development  of  common  methodologies  and  approaches  wherever  possible.  The 
implementation  of  measures  that  create  clear  transboundary  wins  should  be 

highlighted in the iFRMPs; as well as using cost benefit analyses more widely with 
a view to investing resources in the RBs more efficiently; 

 

iRBD/iUoM currently falling into Categories 2, 3 and 4 should aim to upscale their 

coordination;  the  most  advanced  amongst  them  should  consider  developing  an 
iFRMP, that is based as far as possible on a joint risk assessment; 

 

For all iRBD/iUoM cooperation with countries outside the EU should continue and 

opportunities for reinforcing this cooperation should be sought; 

 

transboundary  relevance  should  provide  more  detailed 
All  FRMPs  with 
information  on their international  coordination activities, so more lessons  learned 

can be drawn and shared with other RBs in order to trigger EU wide learning and 
demonstrate the value added to the citizens benefitting from it; 

  While for medium probabilities in most basins a 100-year return period is applied, 
low  and  high  probabilities  vary  widely.  Wherever  possible,  low  and  high 
probabilities  should  be  streamlined  to  reinforce  a  common  understanding  of  the 

flood risks; 

 

Numbers on the potential adverse consequences of flooding at the basin level (e.g. 

households  potentially  impacted)  should  be  provided  in  jointly  elaborated 

documents. This will underline the exposure levels and will provide focus; 

 

In  the  second  cycle,  climate  change  considerations  should  be  integrated  in  the 

setting of objectives and in the prioritisation of measures; 

168 

 
 
 

The priority criteria for the implementation of measures should be further detailed 

and efforts should be made to ensure that these internationally agreed priorities are 
also reflected on the national level as appropriate; 

  Monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  common  measures.  or  measures  with 
transboundary impact, should be more widely established at the international level 
in  order to  build shared  knowledge and increase  appreciation amongst  authorities 

and citizens. 

 

For those iRBDs which have not carried out a public consultation of their iFRMP, 
their Plans should be subject to public consultation at the national level to allow for 

additional  views,  increase  ownership  and  the  understanding  of  the  international 
dimension of the flood risk; 

 

The  link  with  iRBMPs  could  be  strengthened.  This  would  lead  to  hydro-

morphological measures planned under the iFRMP aligned with Article 4(7) of the 
WFD,  but  also  promoting  the  role  of  nature  based  solutions  as  flood  prevention 

measures and measures to reach good ecological status; 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1  Member State FRMPs assessed 

The table on the following pages lists the national FRMPs assessed. 

As noted in section 4, the assessment covered up to five FRMPs in each Member State. Where 

Member  States  prepared  a  higher  number  of  FRMPs,  five  of  these  plans  were  chosen  for 
assessment226.  The  choice  was  based  on  the  following  criteria:  First,  to  capture  different 
methods used (for example in Member States with a federal structure where regions or other 
administrative units followed different approaches); second, to capture different types of flood 

risks; and third, to include national plans in UoMs that are part of international UoMs. 

Member State 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 
Croatia 

The Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

FRMPs assessed (UoM code and name of FRMP) 

AT1000 : Danube 
AT2000: Rhine 
AT5000: Elbe 
BEEscautSchelde_BR: Scheldt (Brussels region) 
BEMaas_VL: Meuse (Flanders region) 
BESchelde_VL: Scheldt (Flanders region) 
BERhin_RW: Rhine (Walloon region) 
BEEscaut_RW: Scheldt (Walloon region) 
BG1000: Danube 
BG2000: Black Sea 
BG3000:East Aegean 
BG4000: West Aegean 
CY001: Cyprus 
HRC: Danube 
HRJ: Adriatic 
CZ1000: Danube 
CZ5000: Elbe 
CZ6000: Oder 
DK1: Holstebro 
DK1: Abenraa 
DK1: Odense & Kerteminde 
DK2: Slagelse 
DK2: Hvidovre 
EE1: West-Estonian 
EE2: East-Estonian 
EE3: Koiva 
FIVHA2: Kymijoki-Gulf of Finland: Hamina and Kotka coastal area 
FIVHA3: Kokemäenjoki-Archipelago Sea-Bothnian Sea: Kokemäenjoki catchment 
FIVHA4: Oulujoki-Iijoki: Kalajoki catchment 
FIVHA5: Kemijoki: Kemijoki catchment 
FIVHA6: Tornionjoki 

226  A  selection  of  FRMPs  was  made  in  the  following  Member  States:  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France, 

Germany, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 

170 

 
 
                                                      
Member State 

France 

Germany 

Hungary 
Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 
Malta 
The Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

FRMPs assessed (UoM code and name of FRMP) 

FRA: Scheldt, Somme and coastal waters of the Channel and the North Sea  
FRC: Rhine  
FRD: Rhone and Coastal Mediterranean  
FRF: Adour, Garonne, Dordogne, Charente and coastal waters of Aquitaine 
FRL: La Réunion 
DE5000: Elbe 
DE9610: Schlei Trave 
DE4000: Weser 
DE2000 Rhine UoM: North Rhine Westphalia  
DE1000 Danube UoM: Bavaria 
HU1000: Danube 
ITA: Eastern Alps RBD 
ITE: Central Apennines RBD 
ITI023: Sangro interregional basin (joint FRMP with ITR131, Abruzzo Region) 
ITR161I020: Puglia Region and the Ofanto River interregional basin 
ITR201: Sardinia Region 
LVDUBA: Dauguva 
LVGUBA: Gauja 
LVLUBA: Lielupe 
LVVUBA: Venta 
LT1100: Nemunas 
LT2300: Venta 
LT3400: Lielupe 
LT4500 : Dauguva 
LU000: Rhine 
MTMALTA: Malta 
NLEM: Ems 
NLMS: Meuse 
NLRN: Rhine 
NLSC: Scheldt 
PL1000: Danube 
PL2000 : Vistula 
PL3000 : Swieza 
PL4000 : Jarft 
PL5000 : Elbe 
PL6000 : Oder 
PL6700 : Ucker 
PL7000 : Pregolya 
PL8000: Nemunas 
PL9000 : Dniestr 
PTRH3: Douro 
PTRH4A: Vouga, Mondego and Lis 
PTRH5A: Tagus and West Rivers 
PTRH9: Azores 
PTRH10 : Madeira 
RO5: Buzău–Ialomiţa 
RO6: Dobrogea-Litoral 
RO9: Somes-Tisa 
RO11: Prut-Bârlad 
RO1000: Danube 
SK30000FD: Vistula 
SK40000FD: Danube 
SI_RBD_1: Danube 
SI_RBD_2: Adriatic 
ES017: Eastern Cantabrian 

171 

 
 
Member State 

FRMPs assessed (UoM code and name of FRMP) 

Sweden 

The United Kingdom 

ES080: Jucar 
ES014: Galician Coast 
ES060: Andalusian Mediterranean Basins 
ES110: Balearic Islands 
SE1: Bothnian Bay (Älvsbyn SE1A8932) 
SE2: Bothnian Sea (Falun SE2A6504) 
SE3: North Baltic Sea (Stockholm SE3A0336) 
SE4: South Baltic Sea (Kristianstad SE4A2980) 
SE5: Skagerrak and Kattegat (Karlstad SE5A5704) 
UK01: Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01, Scotland) 
UK02: Solway (in the Scottish part of UK02, Solway Tweed) 
UK02: Solway Tweed (for the English Part of UK02) 
UK09: Severn  
UKGBNIIENB: Neagh Bann 

172 

 
 
 
Annex 2  Overview of measures by aspect 

No Action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery and review 

Other 

Aggregated 

Individual  Aggregated 
4 301 
92 
25 

2 

14 

6 795 
5 
44 
325 

13 
20 
2 
3 291 
20 
11 
7 

12 

46 
122 
103 
20 
6 
111 

3 

1 

1 

43 

Individual  Aggregated 
5 474 
37 
15 
5 
26 

80 
35 
4 
1 

7 519 
8 
3 
228 

18 
9 
41 
3 017 
17 
18 

68 

39 
390 
16 
18 
14 
84 

2 
98 
300 

211 

7 
43 
5 

158 
5 
4 
59 

2867 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 

DE 
DK 
EE 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

Individual  Aggregated 
3128 
40 
16 

369 
38 
21 
5 

176 
142 
137 

1 549 

805 
38 

2171 
54 
2327 
25 

1 381 
3 275 

15 

7 638 
14 
20 
347 

6 
42 
3 
1 536 
20 
15 
8 

28 

97 
231 
85 
10 
6 
139 

173 

Individual  Aggregated 
2346 
13 
9 

25 
45 
5 

2612 
1 
3 
271 

4 
2 

385 
4 
1 

8 

41 
48 
4 
4 
6 
19 

11 
127 
175 

36 

1 

4 

88 
13 
16 
52 

3 127 

Individual  Aggregated 

Individual 

8 
11 
3 

3 
88 
47 

23 

67 
4 

2 

127 

2 
1 

459 

6 
34 

15 

25 

2 

4 

4 

81 

1 

91 

Grand 
Total 

15 249 
668 
199 
61 
38 

25 023 
28 
70 
1 363 
455 
107 
46 
10 064 
61 
883 
96 
10 
116 
2 484 
299 
52 
1 413 
9 888 
3 138 
348 
790 

 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3  List of measure aspects and types 

No Action 

M11  No Action, No measure is proposed to reduce the flood risk in the APSFR or other defined area, 

Prevention 

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

areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation  

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

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

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

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

M24  Prevention,  Other  prevention,  Other  measure  to  enhance  flood  risk  prevention  (may  include,  flood  risk 

modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability assessment, maintenance programmes or policies etc...)  
Protection  

M31  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.  

M32  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.  

M33  Protection,  Channel,  Coastal  and  Floodplain  Works,  Measures  involving  physical  interventions  in 
freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal waters and flood-prone areas of land, such as the 
construction,  modification  or  removal  of  structures  or  the  alteration  of  channels,  sediment  dynamics 
management, dykes, etc.  

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

M35  Protection,  Other  Protection,  Other  measure  to  enhance  protection  against  flooding,  which  may  include 

flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies  
Preparedness 

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

warning system  

M42  Preparedness,  Emergency  Event  Response  Planning  /  Contingency  planning,  Measure  to  establish  or 

enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning  

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

or preparedness for flood events  

M44  Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events to 

reduce adverse consequences  
Recovery & Review 

M51  Recovery and Review (Planning for the recovery and review phase is in principle part of preparedness), 
Individual and societal recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure, etc), Health 
and mental health supporting actions, incl. managing stress Disaster financial assistance (grants, tax), incl. 
disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, Temporary or permanent relocation , Other  

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

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

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

policies  
Other 
M61  Other  

174 

 
 
Annex 4  Map of iRBD for which an assessment was carried out 

175 

WeserRUUAFRFIESTRSEITDEPLNOROUKBYISBGIEATPTHURSLTCZGRLVBASKHREECHNLALBEMDSIDKMKMECYLUIMADSJFOLIMTJESMGGGIVAMCDanubeElbeRhinePoOdraVistulaRhoneEbroSeineDouroTagusBothnian SeaBothnian BayVuoksiAdour-GaronneGuadianaKemijokiGlommaTenoNemunasMeuseFinnmarkScheldtVentaEast AegeanEmsNordlandDaugavaEastern AlpsMinhoTromsSkagerrak and KattegatTroendelagGaujaTorne RiverShannonEast EstoniaWest AegeanEpirusTornionjokiLielupeEiderNorth WesternPregolyaWestern MacedoniaNeagh BannCentral MacedoniaSchlei/TraveEastern CantabrianSambreVidaa-KrusaaAdigeUckerFRGSE2RO1000SE1FRFFRDPL2000FRHITBITFSE5PL6000DE2000ES091DE5000SE4ES020ITAHU1000AT1000ITEUK01ITCES050SE3FIVHA3ES030ES040FIVHA4FIVHA1ITHDE1000FIVHA5LT1100FIVHA2ITGES080DE4000BG1000NO1105NO5101CZ_5000FRCSK40000CH10EE2EE1UK04UK05NO5102BG3000NLRNUK09PTRH5FIVHA7UK08ES070UK06UK02ES060ES018PTRH3IESEES100CZ_1000GR08UK10BG2000IESWFREES014PTRH4GR04UK03GR13GR11IEEACH5006701,340335kmNational and International River Basin DistrictsEU iRBDsCategory 1Category 2Category 3Category 4Not reviewedNon EU iRBDsNot ReviewedCategory 1Category 2Category 3Category 4National RBD 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5  Overview of international coordinating mechanisms 

1

y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

2

y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

Category 

iRBD 

Danube 

Rhine 

Meuse 

Elbe 

Odra 

Scheldt (Escaut) 

Duero/Douro 

International Coordinating Body/ 
International Coordinating 
Mechanism 

International Commission for the 
Protection of the Danube River 
(ICPDR) 
International Commission for the 
Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) 
International Meuse Commission 
(IMC) 
International Commission for the 
Protection of the Elbe (ICPER) 
International Commission for the 
Protection of the Odra (ICPO) 
Internatioal Scheldt Commission 
(ISC) 
Albufeira Convention 

Guadiana 

Albufeira Convention 

Miño/Minho 

Albufeira Convention 

Tagus (Tajo/Tejo) 

Albufeira Convention 

Isonzo/Soča/Soca 

Dniester/Dnistr/Nistru 

Ems 

Italian-Slovenian Commission for the 
hydroeconomy 
Agreement between the Government 
of Ukraine and the Government of 
Poland on Cooperation in the Field of 
Water Management in Frontier 
Waters (signed in 1996). This 
agreement established the Ukrainian-
Polish Commission. 
Agreement between the Government 
of the Republic of Moldova and the 
Government of Ukraine on the joint 
management and protection of the 
cross-border waters in 1994. 
Managed through close cooperation 
between the German Federal States of 
Lower Saxony and North Rhine-
Westphalia and the Netherlands as 
well as with the German Federal 
Government 
No international coordinating body 
but supporting document on 
international coordination developed 
in addition to the three national 
FRMPs (DE, NL) 

176 

Means of coordination 

Expert Group ‘Flood 
Protection’ (FP EG) 

Working Group ‘Flood’ 

Working Group ‘Flood 
management’ 
Working Group ‘Flood 
management’ 
Working Group ‘Flood 
management’ 
Working Group ‘PA7b’ 

Infrastructure and Flood 
Security Working Group 
Infrastructure and Flood 
Security Working Group 
Infrastructure and Flood 
Security Working Group 
Working Groups on 
Hydrological 
Information, Planning 
and Information 
Exchange 
No permanent working 
group 
Ukrainian-Polish 
Working Group on flood 
control regulations and 
drainage 

Two working groups: a) 
an international 
coordination group and 
b) an international 
governance group which 
also deals with flood 
management 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Tornio/Torne 

Teno/Tana, 
Nataamo/Neiden, 
Pasvloa/Paatsjoki/Pasvik 

Garonne/ 
Cantabrico Oriental 

Garonne/Ebro 

3

y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

Vistula 

Non-permanent working 
groups are in place. The 
Swedish Finnish River 
Commission can arrange 
meetings and working 
facilities for the working 
groups. 

No working group 

No working group 

Group R - for flood 
prevention measures, 
regulation of border 
watercourses, water 
supply, land 
improvement, planning 
and hydrogeology; 
HyP Group - for 
hydrology and flood 
protection, dealing 
among others among 
other exchanges and 
control of 
hydrometeorological 
information, performing 
flow measurements on 
boundary profiles; 
Ukrainian-Polish 
Working Group on flood 
control regulations and 
drainage 

Coordinated by the Swedish Civil 
Contingencies Agency, the Ministry 
of Agriculture and Forestry in Finland 
and the Finnish-Swedish Border 
Commission  
Finland-Sweden Intergovernmental 
Agreement of 2010 with the objective 
to inter alia prevent flood and 
environmental accidents for the Torne 
River. 
Coordinated by the Finnish-
Norwegian Transboundary Water 
Commission and the Finnish-Russian 
Transboundary Commission. 
Agreement of Toulouse (established 
between Spain and France in 
February 2006) 
FRMP (ES017) includes a specific 
annex on international cooperation, 
which details all issues regarding this 
topic 
Agreement of Toulouse (established 
between Spain and France in 
February 2006) -under this 
convention it was agreed to make 
independent plans, and to hold 
technical meetings for coordination, 
but no further details on these 
meetings are provided 
Joint Commission of the Lanós Lake 
and the Upper Garonne Joint 
Commission are also in place, but no 
activities are reported. Spanish FRMP 
(ES091) refers to technical meetings, 
but no further details are given 
Convention on the Protection and Use 
of Transboundary Watercourses and 
International Lakes (17 February 
2000) 
Agreement between Poland and 
Slovakia on Water Management in 
Border Countries (14 May 1997) 
Agreement between Poland and the 
Ukraine on cooperation in the field of 
water management in border waters 
(10 October 1996) 
Agreement between Poland and 
Belarus on cooperation in the field of 
environmental protection (20 May 
1992) 
Agreement between Poland and 
Lithuania on cooperation in the field 
of border water use and protection (7 
June 2005) 
International cooperation in the area 
of particular water regions is carried 
out under the statutory tasks and 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
concentrates on cooperation in border 
waters (Slovakia, Ukraine, Lithuania, 
Belarus) and other cooperation in the 
field of water management. This 
cooperation is also based on the 
arrangements for mutual cooperation 
in the implementation of the EU 
water policy. For the Vistula River 
Basin, information exchange with 
Slovakia takes place within the 
framework of the Polish-Slovak 
Border Water Commission and the 
Polish-Ukrainian Border Water 
Commission. At present negotiations 
are underway on the draft agreement 
between Poland and Belarus on 
cooperation in the field of water 
management in border waters. 
International cooperation is 
coordinated by the National Water 
Management Board in Poland and 
based on two formal international 
agreements: one with Lithuania (7 
June 2005) and one with Russia (first 
signed 17 July 1964 under the USSR 
and automatically renewed every 5 
years). 
National FRMPs (LT, PL) exist, but 
no iFRMP was prepared. 
Signed bilateral joint declaration on 
cooperation between Denmark and 
Schleswig Holstein 
Signed bilateral joint declaration on 
cooperation between Denmark and 
Schleswig Holstein 

No working group 

Pregolya 

Vidaa/Wiedau 

Krusaa/Krusau 

178