COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Cyprus Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60//EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Cyprus, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, disaster area, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 61 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Cyprus Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60//EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

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

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

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

Overview of the assessment .................................................................................................... 6 

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

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

Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 12 

1. 

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

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

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

2. 

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

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

2.2 

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

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas ................................................... 16 

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the FHRM ..................... 16 

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

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

3.1 

3.2 

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

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................ 18 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ........................................... 19 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding ............................. 19 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ............................................................................... 19 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ....... 20 

4. 

 Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ....................................................... 21 

4.1  Cost of measures ........................................................................................................ 22 

4.2 

Funding of measures .................................................................................................. 23 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................ 23 

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

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

4.6 

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

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ........................................... 27 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures ................................................................... 27 

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

4.10  Specific groups of measures ....................................................................................... 28 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding .................................................................. 31 

1 

 
4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ...................................................... 32 

4.13  Coordination with the WFD ....................................................................................... 32 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures ............. 34 

5. Consideration of climate change ........................................................................................... 36 

5.1  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change ......... 37 

6. Cost-benefit analysis ............................................................................................................. 39 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ..................................................... 39 

7.  Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation  41 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................ 41 

7.2 

Public information and consultation .......................................................................... 41 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders .......................................................................... 43 

7.4 

7.5 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................ 44 

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) .............................................................. 46 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................ 46 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 47 

Background & method .......................................................................................................... 47 

Types of measures used in reporting ..................................................................................... 48 

List of Annex A tables & figures .......................................................................................... 49 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................ 50 

Measure details: cost ............................................................................................................. 52 

Measure details: name & location ......................................................................................... 53 

Measure details: objectives ................................................................................................... 54 

Measure details: authorities ................................................................................................... 56 

Measure details: progress ...................................................................................................... 56 

Measure details: other ........................................................................................................... 59 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................... 60 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) ................................................. 61 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

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

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

3 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

This report assesses the FRMP for Cyprus1. It assesses the FRMP and Member States reporting 
to  the  European  Commission  in  2016.  Its  structure  follows  a  common  assessment  template 
used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources:  

  Member State  reporting2  to  the European Commission  on the FRMPs  as  per Articles 7 
and 15 of the FD:  this reporting provides an overview of the plans and details  on their 

measures; 

  The FRMP: one Flood Risk Management Plan has been prepared in Cyprus, covering the 

entire Member State and its sole River Basin District (RBD).  

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

2   Referred to as “Reporting Sheets” throughout this report. Data must be reported in a clear and consistent way 
by  all  Member  States.  The  format  for  reporting  was  jointly  elaborated  by  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission as part of a collaborative process called the “Common Implementation Strategy”: 

   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm  
   Whereas a key role of the Commission is to check compliance with EU legislation, the Commission also seeks 
information to allow it to determine whether existing policies are adequate. It also requires certain information 
to create a European-wide picture to inform the public. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview 

Figure 1 

 Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

  International River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) 
  National River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) as presented in the 2012 RBMP assessment reports 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cyprus has one Unit of Management (UoM) covering the whole country. A single FRMP has 
been  developed  and  reported  for  this  UoM  at  national  level.  The  FRMP  consists  of  a  main 

document and seven supplementary documents.  

The  Cypriot  FRMP  was  approved  by  the  Competent  Authority,  the  Water  Development 

Department  of  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Rural  Development  and  Environment,  on  20 
December 2016. 

The  table  below  gives  an  overview  of  the  UoM  in  Cyprus,  including  the  code,  name  and 
number  of  APSFRs  reported.  It  also  shows  if  all  documents  required  were  submitted  to 
European Environment Agency’s (EEA) Water Information System for Europe (WISE)3 – the 
FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML.  

Table 1 

Overview of UoM in Cyprus 

UoM 

CY001 

Name 

CYPRUS 

Number of APSFRs 

XML reported 

PDF Reported 

19 

Yes 

Yes 

The FRMP can be downloaded from the following web page: 

  http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/wdd/wdd.nsf/all/23FC10198BC67AC5C2257FB70019986A?

opendocument 

Overview of the assessment 

The table below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs. 
The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: 

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

not met. 

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

  Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication 
of  the  approach  used  for  the  criterion.  Depending  on  the  comment  in  the  adjacent 

column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”. 

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

FRMP to address the criterion. 

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

o=2&d-4014547-s=3 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMP 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Flood risk management 
objectives have been 
established 

Strong evidence 

Cyprus has set a strategic objective – the 
reduction of flood-related risk– and three 
general objectives, which are further broken 
down into several priority action fields4.  

Flood risk management objectives relate to... 

...the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong evidence  

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Strong evidence  

...to non-structural initiatives   Some evidence  

The strategic objective is to reduce flood-related 
risks. The FRMP sets out three general 
objectives: one calls for reducing exposure to 
floods, the second calls for reducing 
vulnerability to floods and the third general 
objective calls for reducing flood related 
hazards. Consequently, Flood risk management 
objectives relate to the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences. 

Cyprus has set a strategic objective for reducing 
risk (which includes the likelihood of flooding), 
including via the containment of flood waters. 

While not specifically stated in the general 
objectives, this aspect is included in several 
priority action fields, including actions for 
spatial development and for strengthening 
knowledge. 

Flood risk management objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... 

...human health  

Some evidence  

...economic activity  

Some evidence  

...environment  

Some evidence  

4  FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 8, pp.117-118. 

7 

The strategic objective refers to reduction of 
flood related risks to achieve the best possible 
benefits (in a cost-effective manner) for the 
man-made environment, encompassing human 
health, cultural heritage and economic activities. 
Consequently, the objectives refer to human 
health.   

As for human health (see above), the strategic 
objective makes a reference to economic 
activities.  

The strategic objective refers to the reduction of 
flood-related risks to achieve the best possible 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...cultural heritage  

Some evidence  

Measures have been... 

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Some evidence  

benefits for the natural environment.  

The strategic objective refers to cultural heritage 
as part of the man-made environment (see above 
under human health). 

The FRMP presents a set of 38 planned or 
ongoing measures at UoM and APSFR level. In 
its reporting, Cyprus indicates that these are 
made up of 33 individual and five aggregated 
measures. The majority of measures (26 of the 
38,68 %) are for protection, including all five 
aggregated measures.  

The FRMP describes (a) the criteria for the 
selection of measures and (b) those for the 
prioritisation of selected measures.  

A prioritisation of the selected measures was 
done in the context of the CEA/CBA analysis, 
but its effect is not clear, since all selected 
measures have a deadline of 2021. 

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

...costs & benefits  

Some evidence  

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

...flood conveyance  

Strong evidence  

Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit have been 
mentioned briefly as criteria during the initial 
evaluation/assessment of measures. The 
methodology for CEA/CBA analysis is provided 
in a document annexed to the FRMP. 
Nonetheless, it does not appear that a 
CEA/CBA was employed for the selection of 
measures, but only for their prioritisation. 

The flood extent is depicted for each APSFR in 
the corresponding flood hazard map and was 
taken into account in the development of 
measures. 

The FRMP states that flood conveyance routes 
were among the factors taken into account in its 
preparation. The reporting sheet moreover states 
that the importance of preserving watercourses 
and flood conveyance routes was recognized 
during the flood risk assessment stage. 

8 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...water retention  

Strong evidence 

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD  

Strong evidence  

...spatial planning/land use   Strong evidence  

...nature conservation  

Some evidence  

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

No evidence  

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Strong evidence  

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM 

No evidence  

Several measures are related to water retention; 
however, there is not an explicit focus on 
natural water retention measures (NWRM). Five 
specific measures may contain elements of 
NWRM. 

Links and synergies between the FRMP and the 
River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) have 
been analysed. Specific FRMP  

measures that provide synergies with RBMP 
measures and that support WFD objectives have 
been identified. An assessment of adverse 
environmental impacts, in particular in terms of 
WFD objectives, has been carried out to identify 
potential impacts and undertake remedial 
actions. 

With regard to spatial planning/land use 
measures, four measures are included in the 
national FRMP. These include incorporating 
floor risk assessment results into spatial and 
urban plans, protecting watercourses when 
licensing new construction and requiring new 
properties to manage rainwater so that run-off 
does not increase. 

One measure refers to nature conservation, 
while another one might have a nature 
conservation effect. 

Port infrastructure and navigation are not 
considered in the FRMP’s measures5. 

All measures in the FRMP have been assessed 
for their effectiveness with regard to addressing 
adverse impacts of climate change and impacts 
of climate change were considered in the 
previous implementation steps of the FD. 

Not relevant: there is only one UoM for Cyprus 
that covers the entire area of the island over 
which the Republic of Cyprus exercises 

5  Cyprus subsequently noted that there are no navigable rivers in Cyprus, and no port infrastructure connected to 
rivers. All APSFRS in Cyprus concern fluvial flash floods and there are no effects of floods on navigation/port 
infrastructure. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

effective control. 

Coordination ensured with 
WFD 

Strong evidence  

A specific chapter in the FRMP presents the 
links and synergies between the two Directives. 

Active involvement of 
interested parties 

Strong evidence  

Four public and stakeholder meetings were 
organised during the consultation period as well 
as a national conference for the presentation of 
the finalised FRMP. An internet portal was 
provided for the consultation, containing an 
online questionnaire, accessible to everyone. 
The views of local authorities as well as the 
opinion of government departments were taken 
into account in the drafting of the Plan before 
the public consultation procedure. 

Good Practices 

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

Table 3 

Good practices in the Cypriot FRMP 

Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

The FRMP comprehensively describes the PFRA and FHRM 
processes; the information provided regarding the FHRM results for 
each APSFR can be directly linked to the measures proposed. 

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

The FRMP starts from a strategic objective, which is then elaborated in 
three general objectives and in specific priority action fields. The 
objectives are for the most part specific and measurable; moreover, the 
approach used provides clear links from the strategic objective through 
to the measures proposed. 

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

For each measure planned, a detailed fiche is presented containing key 
information, including the objective it contributes to, its adaptability to 
climate change conditions, synergy with the objectives and measures of 
the RBMP, estimated implementation cost and financing source. 

The measures described in the Cypriot FRMP can be considered 
specific and measurable at both national and APSFR level.  

The measures and the FRMP as a whole have been coordinated with 
the RBMP’s measures and the WFD’s objectives. 

The FRMP includes land use and spatial planning measures, for 
example, modifying land use plans to address flooding issues.  

The FRMP includes two measures for the promotion of insurance for 
protection against flooding. 

10 

 
 
Topic area 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Use of CBA in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Public consultation 

Good practices identified 

The FRMP considered potential climate impacts (as did the prior 
stages), and the FRMP summarises the findings of the draft national 
Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and indicates that these findings 
were considered in the development of the measures. 

All measures proposed were assessed for their effectiveness in 
addressing adverse impacts of climate: those that remain effective in 
severe weather events, which may be caused by climate change, were 
evaluated more positively. 

Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit assessment, including the 
consideration of multi-benefits (specifically for WFD objectives) were 
conducted for the measures. 

The FRMP clearly describes the updates made in response to the 
consultation. 

Flood risk governance.  

The FRMP and its measures were coordinated with Cyprus’s RBMP. 

The preparation of the FRMP was coordinated with local authorities 
and with ministerial departments. 

Areas for further development 

The  assessment  identified  the  following  areas  for  further  development  in  the  Cypriot  FRMP 
assessed. 

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Cypriot FRMP 

Topic area 

Areas for further development identified 

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

Whereas the process of monitoring the progress of implementation of 
the measures has generally been defined, the FRMP does not provide 
indicators to monitor the progress of measures6, nor a baseline for this. 

While the objectives have specific and measurable elements, it is 
unclear if they will be achieved if all measures are completed7. 

The FRMP describes the criteria for the selection of measures and 
those for the prioritisation of measures, but not the specific 
methodology used for their selection. In addition, the prioritisation 
practically did not appear to have an effect, since all measures analysed 
are taken up and all have a deadline of 2021. 

There is limited use of NWRM (as opposed to technical water 

6  Cyprus  subsequently  informed  that  the  main  indicators  for  monitoring  the  implementation  of  each  measure 
will  be  defined  at  the  stage  of  implementation  of  the  FRMP  by  each  competent  authority  according  to  the 
nature of the measure and the implementation procedure. 

7  Cyprus  subsequently  noted  that  in  the  firstt  FRMP  a  large  part  of  the  measures  concerns  institutional 
arrangements related to flood risk management issues, whose effect is not direct, nor tangible and measurable. 
Construction measures are related to concrete results and measurable targets. These results will be evaluated 
during the revision of the FRMP at the stage of FHRM update. 

11 

 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

Areas for further development identified 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

retention), while various measures are planned concerning dredging 
and river bank, river bed and pond modifications that potentially could 
negatively affect the hydromorphological conditions of streams and 
rivers. 

While measures that remain effective in severe weather events, which 
may be caused by climate change, were evaluated more positively, it is 
unclear how in practice measures were assessed on the basis of their 
resilience to climate change, as well as the approach used to consider 
adaptation in the prioritisation of the measures. 

Use of CBA in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

The CEA and the CBA analysis did not affect the selection of 
measures.  

In  the  CBA  method  for  construction  measures,  the  potential  costs  of 
negative environmental impacts were not considered.8 

Recommendations 

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

  The  FRMP  should  specify  the  criteria  for  the  selection  of  measures,  providing  a  clear 
methodology that shows how the different  factors  (including CBA and climate change) 
are considered and weighed for the selection of measures. 

  The  contribution  of  the  measures  to  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  should  be 
presented, through the establishment of a baseline and of relevant indicators, to ascertain 

if the objectives will be reached once all measures are implemented. 

  Cyprus  should  make  a  systematic  consideration  of  opportunities  to  implement  nature 
based  solutions  (including  NWRM),  as  alternatives,  where  possible,  to  dredging  and 

‘grey  infrastructure’  modifications  of  river  banks  and  river  beds,  the  latter  approaches 
should  only  be  considered  as  second  option  or  in  combination  with  nature  based 

solutions. 

  The coordination between the national climate change adaptation strategy and the FRMP 
should  be  ensured  once  the  former  is  adopted  (and  even  before  since  it  is  still  under 
development). 

8  Subsequently  Cyprus  clarified  that  structural  measures  are  subject  to  environmental  legislation:  EIAs  have 
been conducted and remedial actions for negative environmental impacts have been adopted. The cost of these 
actions  is  included  in  the  investment  cost  that  has  been  taken  into  account  for  CB  analysis.  In  this  way, 
according to Cyprus, the cost of negative environmental impacts was considered. 

12 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Cyprus  has  reported  one  FRMP  covering  the  one  UoM  in  the  country.  In  addition,  seven 
supplementary documents have been reported. 

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

of previous FRMP for the first cycle (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements 
set out in the Directive). 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

For Cyprus, the single FRMP has been assessed: 

Table 5 

UoM assessed in Cyprus 

UoM code 

CY001 

UoM Name 

CYPRUS 

13 

 
 
 
 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The  conclusions  of  the  PRFA  are  presented  in  the  Cypriot  FRMP:  this  includes  a  summary 

map showing APSFRs, as well as individual maps for each APSFR, and a textual description, 
including the methodology employed and tables listing the APSFRs.  

A link to the PFRA document is provided in the FRMP. The plan also provides a link to maps 

of  the  APSFRs:  this  link  leads  to  a  webpage  of  the  Cypriot  Department  for  Water 
Development, where the summary map as well as the APSFR maps can be accessed, both in 
interactive and image versions9: www.flood.wdd.moa.gov.cy. 

Flood  conveyance  routes  are  explicitly  mentioned  in  the  Cypriot  FRMP  among  the  factors 
taken  into  account  in  the  drafting  of  the  plan,  but  not  specifically  in  regard  to  the  PFRA. 

However,  Cyprus’s  reporting  sheet  states  that  the  importance  to  preserve  watercourses  and 
flood conveyance routes has been recognised during flood hazard assessment stage.10 

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

The  FRMP  and  the  reporting  sheets  explain  that  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 flood hazard and flood risk (FHR) maps.11 

2.2 

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

Flood hazard maps have been presented in the FRMP: the plan includes maps for each APSFR. 

However,  only  small-scale  flood  hazard  maps  (and  no  flood  risk  maps)  are  included, 
incorporating  all  three  flooding  scenarios  (return  periods  of  20,  100  and  500  years).  Due  to 
their scale and low resolution these maps do not provide a great degree of detail.12 The FRMP 

9  The image versions are JPG files. FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 5, p.38. 
10  FRMP  2016-2021,  chapter  1,  p.4;  FRMP  2016-2021,  chapter  2,  p.16;  FRMP  2016-2021,  chapter  8,  p.121; 

Reporting sheet, “Summary of the Flood Extent”. 

11  FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 2.3, p.15; FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 5.1, p35-36; Reporting sheet, “Summary of 

the Flood Extent”. 

12  FRMP 2016-2021, chapters 7.1-7.20. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
also provides information regarding the methodology used and factors considered for drawing 
up the Cypriot FHRMs.13 

The FRMP also provides a link to interactive online versions of the flood hazard and flood risk 
maps14: www.flood.wdd.moa.gov.cy. The interactive FHRMs are very detailed. 

The  FHRMs  present  fluvial  floods.  They  do  not  cover  pluvial  floods,  groundwater  floods, 
seawater  floods,  floods  from  artificial  water  bearing  structures  or  floods  from  no  specific 

sources or more than one source of flooding.  

The FRMP reports that in Cyprus, urban and fluvial floods are the main sources of floods, but 
only  fluvial  floods  are  considered  to  be  significant15.  Hence,  all  areas  designated  as  APSFRs 
are situated around or close to a river or lake and FHRMs were produced only for this type of 

floods. The FRMP also notes that between 1945 and 2010, in the area controlled by the Cypriot 
Republic,  84  dams  and  extra-capacity  reservoirs  were  built  for  irrigation,  water  supply  and 
enrichment of ground waters. These projects, depending on their capacity and location, could 
help to retain water and reduce flooding in downstream areas; however, it is noted that most of 

these  dams,  especially  the  large  ones,  are  not  aimed  at  flood  protection  and  their  reservoirs 
may be full and unavailable to halt water flows in flood events.  

2.2.1  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

The  FRMP  and  the  reporting  sheets  indicate  that  the  FHRMs  were  considered  in  the 

development of objectives and served as a tool for assessing and developing possible measures, 
including measure types and locations.  

13  FRMP  2016-2021,  chapter  2.3,  p.15;  FRMP  2016-2021,  chapter  6.1,  p.61-65,  chapter  6.2  p.  65  and  67-68; 

Reporting sheet, “Summary of the Flood Extent”. 

14  FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 6.1, p. 66-67, chapter 6.2, p.69-70. 
15  The  report  on  the  PFRA  for  Cyprus  indicated  that  fluvial,  pluvial,  groundwater  and  seawater  sources  of 
flooding, as well as flooding from artificial water-bearing infrastructure, were all considered; only fluvial and 
pluvial  flooding  (called  ‘urban’  floods,  i.e.  flash  flooding  in  urban  areas)  were  taken  forward.  European 
Commission,  Assessment  of  data  and  information  reported  by  Member  States  on  their  PFRAs  and 
identification  of  APSFR  under  the  FD  Member  State  Report:  [CY]  -  [Cyprus],  2015.  Available  at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/PFRA%20Report%20-%20CY.pdf 

     The report on the FHRMs found that only fluvial flooding had been taken forward. According to information 
provided by Cyprus, “pluvial floods have been recognised as relevant but not as significant”. European 
Commission, Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps – Member State Report: CY – Cyprus, 2015. 
Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/CY%20FHRM%20Report.pdf 

15 

 
 
                                                 
Equally  developed  is  the  presentation  of  their  findings  and  conclusions.  Based  on  the 
information  and  knowledge  acquired,  an  appropriate  program  of  measures  was  developed  to 
achieve the objectives set.16 

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

The  FRMP  assessment  looked  for  information  on  changes  in  the  identification  of  APSFRs 
since  December  2011,  or  in  the  FHRMs  since  December  2013,  indicated  in  the  FRMP.  No 
changes are mentioned in the FRMP.17 

2.4 

Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the FHRM 

The FHRM assessment identified the following area for further development for Cyprus: 

  Regarding flood sources and artificial water bearing infrastructure: Cyprus informed that 
a  preliminary  study  was  done  to  assess  flooding  from  artificial  water-bearing 

infrastructure (dam failure) with the result that detailed studies for three dams would be 
carried out in the future. 

Neither the FRMP nor Cyprus’s reporting sheet refer to this issue.18 

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following good practice was identified:  

  The FRMP comprehensively describes the PFRA and FHRMs processes; the information 
provided  regarding  the  FHRM  results  for  each  APSFR  can  be  directly  linked  to  the 
measures proposed. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The FRMP should be based on all potentially significant flood sources. 

16  FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 2.3, p.15; FRMP 2016-2021; Reporting sheet, “Summary of the Flood Extent”. 
17 
18 

 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 2.1, p.11; FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 2.4, p.17. 
 Cyprus subsequently clarified that in the PFRA, flood risk from dam failures has been assessed and three areas 
were  recognised  as  vulnerable.  These  three  areas  were  identified  as  APSFRs:  (a)  Germasogia  dam  in 
APSFR14; (b) Polemidia dam in APSFR16; and (c) Tamasos dam in APSFR01. The detailed studies that were 
mentioned  consisted  of  dam  break  modelling  for  flood  inundation  hazard  and  risk  mapping.  This  mapping 
activity was not completed due to lack of resources in the 1s  cycle of flood hazard and risk mapping and will 
be completed in the 2nd cycle of flood hazard and risk mapping. Nevertheless, flood hazard and risk mapping 
for  the  three  APSFRs  for  fluvial  flooding  (without  dam  break)  makes  the  conservative  assumption  that  the 
reservoirs are full and overspill during the design flood event. The three reservoirs were also included in the 
FRMP and PoM. (Related measures are PREP-C14_01 and PRO-CY_01.) Furthermore, the dam break hazard 
and risk maps and the evacuation plans are considered sensitive information and will not be available to the 
public, but just to emergency response authorities so most likely they will not be included in the next FRMP. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3. Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

The Cypriot FRMP has determined objectives for the management of flood risk in the APSFRs 
as well as in whole River Basin of Cyprus19. In the FRMP, it is clearly stated that the strategic 
objective of Flood Risk Management is the reduction of flood-related risks to achieve the best 

possible  benefits  for  the  man-made  environment  (encompassing  human  health,  cultural 
heritage, economic activities) and for the natural environment in a cost-effective manner.  

Taking into account the main factors that determine flood risk – the probability of flooding, the 

degree of exposure and the vulnerability of flood recipients – the FRMP sets out three general 
objectives  in  these  three  areas.  These  general  flood  risk  management  objectives  were 

developed taking into account the flooding risks on the island as well as the characteristics of 
the APSFRs. The FRMP notes that: 

 

the main causes of floods in Cyprus are river and stream overflows (fluvial floods) due to 

the  elimination  of  riverbeds,  reductions  on  drainage  capacity  and  partial  coverage  of 
streams;  

  water shortage is the determining factor for the island's water management policy; 

 

 

land use restrictions and land values often pose pressures on natural watercourses;  

residential areas and limited commercial activities are the ones mainly affected by floods.  

In this light, the three objectives were specified and then analysed to identify specific priority 
action  fields  that  address  the  flooding  risks  of  the  UoM  as  well  as  consider  the  particular 

characteristics of the APSFRs identified: 

  Objective A: Reducing hazard to ensure, where possible, protection against floods with a 
20-year chance of occurrence in already developed areas or in new (under development) 

areas. This detailed objective has two priority action fields:  

o  A1: Water retention where possible, at upstream or within APSFRs (construction of 

buffer pits and reservoirs, reservoir management).  

o  A2: Protection, rehabilitation of the natural functioning of watercourses, where and 
to  the  extent  possible,  and  increase  of  drainage  capacity  in  watercourses  and 
conveyance  routes  (flood  defences,  clean-up  and  restoration  of  the  river  beds, 

upgrading of road passes and ensuring the continuity of watercourses).  

19 

 Reporting sheet “Summary of the Objective”; FRMP, Chapter 8, pp.117-123. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
  Objective B:  Reducing flood  exposure, in  new urban development  areas  within the 20-
year flood area, and of sensitive and polluting uses within the 100-year flood area. This 
detailed objective has two priority action fields: 

o  B1:  Spatial  development  for  reducing  flood  exposure  of  social  infrastructures  and 

polluting uses within the 100-year flood area.  

o  B2: Reducing flood exposure in new urban development areas, within the 20-year 

flood area, during spatial planning stage.  

  Objective  C:  Reducing  flood  vulnerability  of  all  activities  within  the  APFSRs.  This 

detailed objective has four priority action fields: 

o  C1:  Adaptation  of  new  construction  within  the  20-year  flood  area  to  make  them 

more resistant and less vulnerable to floods.  

o  C2: Improve knowledge of flood risk and flood mechanisms for all possible floods.  
o  C3:  Increase  preparedness  to  protect  existing  vulnerable  social  infrastructures  and 
polluting activities within the 100-year flood area to deal with flood conditions.  
o  C4:  Enhancement  of  the  preparedness  of  operators,  services  and  residents  for 

effective flood response.  

Consequently20: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods  

  The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding21  

  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented  

  The objectives refer to non-structural measures22 

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

The flood risk management objectives and their priority action fields together provide specific 

and measurable elements. The objectives themselves set out “what” and “where”: Objective A 
aims to reduce the hazard of floods with a 20-year chance of occurrence in already developed 

areas  and  new  areas  under  development.  The  priority  action  fields  describe  “how”  each 
objective is to be achieved: Priority field A1 refers to water retention. Thus, the objectives are, 

for the most part, specific and measurable.  

The FRMP provides information regarding the locations where the objective will be achieved 
and  how  it  will  be  achieved:  priority  action  field  A1  is  to  be  carried  out  upstream  of  or  in 

20  These categories are included in Art. 7 of the FD. 
21 

 The assessment adopts the generally accepted definition of risk as a product of consequence times likelihood, 
thereby also in alignment with Art. 7(2) of the FD. 

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

as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

18 

 
 
                                                 
APSFRs via specific actions such as reservoirs. In addition, every objective is associated with 
the  measures  to  be  implemented  in  each  APSFR23.  Moreover,  for  each  measure  the 
corresponding  objective  and  flood  risk  management  aspect  (protection,  prevention, 
preparedness and recovery) is specified24.  

Neither the objectives nor the priority action fields, however, indicate the time frame for their 
achievement25. Moreover, indicators have not been defined for the objectives or their priority 
action fields. 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

The  reduction  of  the  adverse  consequences  of  flooding  is  part  of  the  FRMP’s  strategic 

objective.  

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

Objective  A  (Reducing  Flood  Risk)  addresses  the  reduction  of  the  likelihood  of  flooding. 
Moreover, the action fields as well as specific measures related to this objective focus on the 

reduction of flood risk. 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

For the development of the FRMP, the Department for Water Development set up a Steering 
Committee  with  representatives  of  other  key  government  departments  and  ministries  (see 

section  7).  The  public  consultation  covered  the  FRMP  including  the  objectives  –  however, 
there is no evidence that stakeholders, other than those forming the Steering Committee, were 
involved in the development of the objectives26. 

The  results  of  the  PFRA  and  FHRM  stages  were  taken  into  account  in  developing  the 

objectives. As potential climate impacts were considered in those stages, this aspect was also 
considered at least indirectly. 

23 
24 
25 

26 

 FRMP 2016-2021, table 9.2, p.124-127. 
 FRMP 2016-2021, Tables 9.4.1 to 9.4.4 and 9.5.1 to 9.5.8, p.135-164. 
 Cyprus subsequently informed that the time frame for the achievement of objectives and priority action fields 
expands beyond 2021. 
 Cyprus informed subsequently that the objectives, as formulated in the draft FRMP, were presented during the 
public consultation. No changes or comments were derived from this process. 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.6  Good  practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The  FRMP  starts  from  a  strategic  objective,  which  is  then  elaborated  in  three  general 
objectives  and  in  action  fields.  The  objectives  are  for  the  most  part  specific  and 
measurable;  moreover,  this  approach  provides  clear  links  from  the  strategic  objective 

through to the measures proposed. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Timelines and indicators have not been defined for the objectives or their priority action 
fields.  This  may  create  hindrance  when  assessing  progress  made  towards  the 

achievement of the objectives. 

20 

 
 
 
 
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Cyprus has reported 33 individual measures and five aggregated27 measures, making a total of 
38  measures28.  Neither  the  FRMP  nor  the  reporting  sheet  explain  how  individual  and 
aggregated measures are defined. 

Cyprus has reported measures across the four aspects of flood risk management29 (please see 
Tables A1 to A4 and Figures A1 and A2 in Annex A for further details): 

  The greatest number, 26 of the 38 measures (68 %), are for protection, including all five 

aggregated measures; 

  There are five measures for preparedness (13 % of the total); 

 

 

four measures for prevention (11 % of the total), and 

three measures for recovery and review (8 %). 

The  FRMP  and  a  supplementary  document  to  the  plan  present  the  38  measures  in  terms  of 
these  aspects30.  The  FRMP,  however,  also  presents  measures  using  different  national 
categories. One approach divides measures into the following two groups:  

  Horizontal  measures,  which  concern  the  whole  UoM  and  apply  to  all  APSFRs  or  the 
whole  country:  there  are  a  total  of  28  horizontal  measures  according  to  the  FRMP  and 
supporting documents31; 

  Measures  for  specific  APSFRs:  10  measures,  according  to  the  FRMP  and  supporting 

documents, that mainly involve construction works32.  

28 

27 The Reporting Guidance mentions “Measures can be reported as individual measures (recommended for major 
projects)  or  aggregated  measures,…”  and  also  notes  that  measures  may  be  comprised  of  “many  individual 
projects”. European Commission, Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC), 2013, pp. 54-58. 
 The information reported to WISE was the starting point for the assessment in this section. The majority of the 
statistics  presented  are  based  on  processing  of  information  reported  to  WISE.  Assuming  that  the  Member 
States accurately transferred the information contained in their FRMPs to the reporting sheets (the sheets are 
the same for all Member States and are not customisable) and barring any undetected errors in the transfer of 
this information to WISE arising from the use of interfacing electronic tools, these statistics should reflect the 
content of the FRMPs. 
 Annex B provides an overview of the measure aspects and the measure types identified for each.  
 Reporting  sheet  “Summary  of  the  Aspects”  and  Supplementary  document  to  FRMP  2016-2021,  Tables  and 
Charts concerning measures, chapter 7. 
 The  reporting sheet,  however, indicates the  whole  UoM  as the location and coverage  for only 26  measures.  
Cyprus  clarified  subsequently  that  two  measures  (PRO-CY_01  and  PRO-CY_02)  are  characterised  as 
horizontal  even  if  in  the  field  “geographic  coverage”  of  the  reporting  sheet  to  WISE,  specific  APSFRs  are 
reported. This is the case because: 

29 
30 

31 

For measure PRO-CY_01, by nature the measure is applied to APSFRs with constructed reservoirs, so only these 

APSFRs are mentioned in the field “geographic coverage” of the reporting sheet to WISE; 

For  measure  PRO-CY_02,  the  APSFRs  reported  in  the  field  “geographic  coverage”  of  the  reporting  sheet  to 

WISE concern indicative areas where this measure may be applied. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
The FRMP moreover categorises the 38 measures into the following types of action: 

  Legislative / Administrative set up: one  measure 

  Measures of an economic nature (including taxation): four measures 

  Education / information measures: three measures 

  Non-structural interventions (e.g. Urban / Spatial Planning): eight measures 

  Measures  for  research,  information  development,  implementation  of  best  practices:  six 

measures 

  Environmental measures (green infrastructure): six measures 

  Technical Flood Protection Works: 10 measures 

In  a  section  on  timetable  and  costs33,  the  FRMP  further  categorises  the  38  measures  in  five 
groups based on costing and budgeting:  

  Legislative  /  Administrative  Measures  (most  of  these  do  not  additionally  burden  the 

annual budget): 18 measures 

  Studies (including the supply of supporting equipment): 12 measures 

  Education / information actions: one measure 

  Supply of equipment / materials: one measure 

  Construction (including related studies or update of studies, if required): six measures  

4.1 

Cost of measures 

Table 6 Estimated overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMP 

UoM 

CY001 

Estimated overall budget of planned measures (2015-2021) in EUR 

19 197 400 

Summary tables in both the Programme of Measures (PoM)34 and the FRMP35 provide the total 
cost  of  all  measures.  In  addition,  in  each  measure  description,  costs  are  given  if  available. 

Cyprus also provided this information in its reporting sheet.  

These sources indicate that: 

  €18 000 has been allocated for one prevention measure (out of four); 

  €19 023 400 has been allocated for 16 (out of 26) protection measures; 

32 

33 

34 
35 

 The  reporting  sheet,  however,  indicates  12  measures  located  at  APSFR  level.  See  the  clarification  in  the 
previous footnote.  
 FRMP  2016-2021,  chapter  9.6  (Timetable  and  Cost  of  Implementation  Program  of  Measures),  table  9-4, 
p.165-166. 
 PoM, Table 4-2, p.95. 
 FRMP 2016-2021, Table 9-5, p.166. 

22 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
  €120 000 for one (out of five) preparedness measure; 

  €36 000 for two (out of three) recovery measures. 

The FRMP and the PoM explain that the cost of each measure includes the estimated cost for 
its  implementation  and  the  “annual  operating/maintenance  cost”,  when  relevant.  For  some 

measures,  the  cost  estimate  has  been  divided  into  “implementation  cost”  and  in  “annual 
operating/maintenance cost”. 

On the basis of this information, the overall estimated cost for 20 measures totals €19 197 400. 
As noted above, 18 measures have no cost estimate. The vast majority of these measures are 

administrative/legislative  actions  and  for  most  of  them  there  is  apparently  no  need  for 
financing.  

4.2 

Funding of measures 

The  FRMP  states  that  the  main  source  of  funding  for  the  proposed  PoM  is  the  state,  i.e. 

authorities at national level. It is also mentioned that the measures may be co-financed by the 
EU Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund (i.e. structural funds). The 

PoM  indicates,  in  each measure  description,  the  main  source  of  funding  for  the  measure.  As 
noted above, measures for administrative and legislative actions mostly do not need additional 
financing.36 

Table 7 

Funding of measures 

Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding  

Use of public budget (national level)  

Use of public budget (regional level)  

Use of public budget (local level)  

Private investment  

EU funds (generic)  

EU Structural funds  

EU Solidarity Fund  

EU Cohesion funds  

EU CAP funds  

International funds  

CY001 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

The FRMP assessed includes a clear and explicit description of the measures with regard to:  

36 

 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 9.6, p.165 ; PoM, chapter 4, p.29-95.  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  What they are trying to achieve, 

  Where they are to be achieved, 

  How they are to be achieved, and 

  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

For  all  38  measures,  the  PoM  indicates  “what”,  “where”,  “how”  and  “when”  for  each 
measure37:  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. 

Information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  each  measure  is  also  provided  in  the 
PoM. 

The following table lists all the locations indicated for the measures: 

Table 8 

Location of measures  

International  

National  

RBD/UoM 

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Water body level  

More detailed than water body 

CY001 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

The measures are either at national level (which is the same as RBD/UoMlevel) or at APSFR 
level.38 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

In its reporting sheet, Cyprus has linked each measure 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 %); 

37 
38 

 PoM, Chapter 4.4. 
 FRMP 2016-2021, chapters 9.4 and 9.6, p136-164; PoM, chapter 4, p29-95. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  the  FRMP,  it  is  clear  how  the  measures  will  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  objectives; 
however,  it  is  not  clear  by  how  much  they  will  do  so39,  nor  whether  the  objectives  will  be 
achieved when all measures are completed40. Each measure is linked to one of the FRMP’s 3 
general  objectives  (see  section  3).  In  addition,  in  a  summary  table41,  the  FRMP  indicates  for 
each APSFR, the way Objective A (“risk reduction”) is achieved.  

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

Cyprus  reported  information  on  the  location  and  geographical  coverage  for  all  38  measures. 
The responses provided for the two categories were the same: for the majority of the measures 

(26 out of 38, 68 %) the location and geographic coverage was indicated as the UoM, while for 
the remaining 12 measures, APSFRs were listed. 

The four prevention and the three recovery and review measures are  all at  UoM level,  while 

protection and preparedness measures are split between the two levels (see Table A6 in Annex 
A for details). 

As noted above, the FRMP divides measures into 28 horizontal measures targeting the entire 
UoM and 10 specific measures that focus on APSFRs. The effects of horizontal measures are 

presented  at  national  level  in  the  specific  fiches.  The  FRMP  does  not,  however,  present  a 
discussion  of  the  downstream  effects  of  APSFR-level  measures  (e.g.  how  measures  taken 

upstream can affect flooding further downstream, beyond the APSFRs).   

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

In  the  reporting  sheet,  Cyprus  did  not  report  the  category  of  priority  of  any  of  the  measures 

(though Cyprus provided information on their timetable – see the following page). The FRMP 
and PoM also do not provide information regarding priorities among the different measures.42 43 

39 

40 

41 
42 
43 

 It  can  be  noted  that  in  a  supporting  document  on  “measures  assessment”  (which  evaluates  and  ranks  the 
selected measures on the basis of their cost-effectiveness), each measure is assessed regarding its efficiency. 
Therein,  the  measure  contribution  to  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  is  generally  linked  to  the  degree  of 
inherent  efficiency,  which  yields  the  extent  to  which  the  measure  achieves  a  significant  result.  At  the  same 
time, the contribution to the objectives of each measure is not specified; only the expected achievement of the 
results of a measure is rated on a “high-medium-low” scale. FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 9; Reporting sheets, 
“Summary of the Objectives”; Measures_Assessment_FRM_CY_2016, chapter 4, pp.21-84, and esp. chapter 
4.2, p.25. 
 Cyprus  subsequently  noted  that  in  the  first  FRMP,  a  large  part  of  the  measures  concern  institutional 
arrangements related to flood risk management issues, whose effect is not direct nor tangible and measurable. 
Construction measures are related to concrete results and measurable targets. These results will be evaluated 
during the revision of the FRMP at the stage of FHRM update. 
 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 8, p.125-126.  
 Supplementary document to FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 7, Tables and Charts on measures. 
 Cyprus subsequently noted that according to the FD’s Reporting Guidance prioritisation is covered either as a 
timetable for implementation or as a category of priority. The second option has been applied in the case of 
Cyprus. 

25 

 
 
                                                 
The PoM44 indicates that an initial assessment of measures was based on several criteria, such 
as: 

  efficiency of a measure towards the FRM objectives; 

  degree of influence; 

  adaptation to climate change; 

  cost-effectiveness; 

  synergy with the environmental objectives of the WFD and 

 

impacts on human life and the economy.  

In  addition,  for  the  prioritisation  and  estimation  of  the  implementation  time  of  measures, 
additional factors were considered, e.g.: 

  available resources; 

 

the results of consultation with all affected local authorities; 

  bodies;  

  organisations; 

  social groups,  

 

legal permits, licenses and studies required.  

The reporting sheet summarises all criteria and factors considered for the establishment of the 
PoM. However, no specific methodology is provided in the reporting sheet or the FRMP and 

the PoM on how these factors were considered and weighed to select the measures.  

Regarding the prioritisation of measures that had been already selected, a detailed assessment 

linked to the CEA/CBA is presented in the reporting sheet and in a supplementary document 
on  “Measures  Assessment  FRM_CY”;  see  also  section  6).45  In  practice,  this  prioritisation  of 
measures does not appear to play a major role however, since all selected measures are planned 
with a deadline of 2021.     

Cyprus  reported  as  the  timetable  for  all  measures:  ‘Start  2016  –  end  2021’.  In  the  PoM 

document attached to the FRMP, a small difference is provided for the timetable: 37 out of 38 
measures  are  to  be  implemented  until  2021  and  one  construction  measure  was  to  be 

implemented by 2016. 

44 
45 

 PoM 2016-2021, chapter 4.2, p24-25; see also reporting sheets, “Summary of the Objectives”. 
 Supplementary document “Measures Assessment FRM_CY”; Reporting sheets, “Summary of the Objectives”. 

26 

 
 
                                                 
4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

Cyprus reported the authorities responsible for measures. National  authorities are responsible 

for the lion’s share, 33 of the 38 measures (87 %). Regional authorities are responsible for four 
protection measures (11 % of all measures) and an inter-municipal authority for one measure 

(3 % of the total).  

In  the  FRMP,  further  detail  is  provided:  in  particular,  many  measures  have  more  than  one 

responsible authority reported, with  a total of 27 different authorities. For each measure, one 
authority has the main responsibility while the other bodies have an advisory role. The leading 

authority has the responsibility to  ensure the funds  required and, if needed, to  coordinate the 
other bodies in implementation.46 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

Cyprus reported the progress of implementation for its measures: 

  32 measures – including all prevention, preparedness and recovery and review measures 

– were reported as not started (84 %); 

 

five measures (also for protection) were reported as progress ongoing (13 % of the total); 

  one measure (for protection) was reported in ongoing construction (3 % of the 38 total 

measures). 

The FRMP (in the specific information per measure) provides a more detailed breakdown: 

 

for  32  measures,  the  implementing  authority  was  defined  and  it  had  secured  financing 

(the  term  used  to  describe  the  implementation  status  of  these  measures  is  “proposed”, 
thus “not started” according to the reporting); 

 

for four measures, a preparatory study had been completed and for one measure, a pre-

study had been completed;  

  and for one measure, construction was ongoing.47 

4.9.  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

Member States were asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has 

been  implemented.  Cyprus  reported  that  19  measures  are  associated  with  the  WFD  and  with 
measures under the national RBMP48. Other Directives are not identified.  

46 

47 

 Supplementary document to FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 8, Tables and Charts on measures; PoM, chapter 3 and 
chapter 4. 
 Supplementary  document  to  FRMP  2016-2021,  chapter  9,  Tables  and  Charts  on  measures,  Table  8;  PoM, 
chapter 3 and chapter 4. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
The  FRMP  mentions  that  the  EIA  Directive,  Seveso  Directive  and  the  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism  are  “linked”  to  the  Flood  Directive  implementation;  however,  further  details  are 

not provided. The FRMP also refers to other EU Directives, policies and initiatives: 

  European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF); 

  Decision n.2001/792/EC for a common mechanism to facilitate enhanced cooperation in 

civil protection assistance interventions; 

  Commission activity for disaster prevention; 

  Directive 96/61/EC for the integrated prevention and control of pollution; 

  The Aarhus Convention  and related Community  legislation (Directive 2003/105/EC) to 

address the risks of major accidents involving dangerous substances; 

  The  EU  Green  Infrastructure  Strategy.  Green  Infrastructure  has  been  associated  with  6 

protection measures49; 

  The  EU  Adaptation  Strategy.  Climate  change  adaptation  has  been  considered  in  the 
assessment of measures; there is a specific chapter (3.3) in the FRMP briefly presenting 
the  estimated  effects  of  climate  change  and  how  these  were  taken  into  account  in  the 

design of measures. Moreover, a degree of “high” or “medium” association with climate 
change  has  been  assigned  to  each  measure  depending  on  its  effectiveness  towards 

changing weather phenomena; 

  The Global Monitoring for Environment and Security program (GMES); 

  The Shared Environmental Information systems (SEIS); 

  The INSPIRE-Directive (2007/2/EC) is mentioned in measure PREV-CY_03 with regard 
to the processing and presentation of data and information on risk to the general public 

(interactive  FHRMs  are  available  to  the  public  on  the  webpage  of  the  Department  of 
Water Development). 

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

With  regard  to  spatial  planning/land  use  measures,  the  following  types  of  measures  are 

included in the FRMP assessed:  

  PREV-CY_01:  Incorporating  flood  risk  assessment  results  into  spatial  and  urban 
planning  through  Development  Plans  (Local  Plans,  Area  Plans,  Statement  of  Rural 
Policy);50 

48 
49 
50 

 Cyprus reporting sheet; FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 2 and chapter 10. 
 PoM, chapter 4, Biodiversity information. 
 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. 

28 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
  PREV-CY_02:  Ensuring  a  protection  zone  along  watercourses  when  licensing  new 

construction and development; 

  PRO-CY_04:  Inclusion  of  special  terms  in  planning  and  building  permits  for  the 
management of rainwater within private properties being developed, in such a way that 
the peak of the run-off remains at the levels before the new construction;51 

  PRO-CY_18:  Establishment  of  a  process  for  the  elaboration  of  Strategic  Water 
Management Plans (Master Plans) when planning new areas within development zones.52 

Whereas  the  FRMP  does  not  report  on  the  national  framework  for  land  use  and  spatial 
planning  or  its  evolution  since  2000,  the  FRMP53  (and  in  more  detail,  the  supplementary 
document:  “FRM  Stakeholder  identification”)  presents  all  relevant  authorities  involved  (and 

their legislative obligations linked to floods), including those responsible for spatial and urban 
planning. 

The  FRMP  and  the  reporting  sheet  indicates  the  difficulties  regarding  the  use  of  NWRM. 

Specifically, the reporting sheet states that: 

“The 19 APSFRs identified in Cyprus are located in downstream areas with significant 

residential development. It is also very important that land property has very high value 
in Cyprus and that there are significant limitations regarding land use changes”. 

At the same time, it is stated that: 

“When assessing the flood risk, the need to protect the watercourses and the drainage 
routes was recognised and measures have been adopted in this direction. Measures have 

also been taken with regard to spatial planning and land uses within flooded areas in a 
way  that  limits  flood  risk.  Finally,  measures  have  been  taken  for  the  exploitation  of 

existing reservoirs and for the construction of new retention ponds for the retention of 
flood waters and hazard reduction.” 

While 10 out of 38 measures are related to water retention, the actual use of NWRM is limited 

or is not presented in an explicit way. A number of measures are linked to the promotion and 
awareness  raising  for  NWRM  and  feasibility  studies  (e.g.  PRO-CY_04,  PRO-CY_05,  PRO-

CY_06, PRO-CY_07). In addition, five measures may contain NWRM elements: 

51 

52 

53 

 Μ34.  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. 
 Chapter 11. 

29 

 
 
                                                 
  Measure PRO-CY_03: “Use of absorption puts for rainwater retention in properties”; 

  Measure PRO-CY_13, "Remediation of the continuity of important streams”, which will 
investigate  locations  were  activities  are  taking  place  (mainly  agriculture)  within  flood 

plains  and  assess  possibilities  of  remediation  (e.g.  buying  of  land,  creation  of 
parks/protected areas). 

  Measure  PRO-CY_02,  “Projects  for  groundwater  enrichment  and  for  reducing  water 
flow in river beds upstream of APSFRs” might have NWRM elements, depending on its 

specification and location. 

  Measure  PRO-CY_14,  “Restoration  and  improvement  of  hydrological  features  in 
watercourses/streams (that entails the execution of necessary works to form the riverbed 

(central  and  flood)  in  order  to  improve  flow  conditions  and  control  the  deposition  of 
sediment)”.  Here,  water  retention  ponds  upstream  of  the  APSFRs  for  flood  retention 

might be considered NWRM depending on their design/specification; 

  Measure PRO-C11_1, “Restoration and increase of discharge capacity of Kamares river 
and river management aiming to  flood protection”. This water retention  measure might 
have NWRM elements, depending on its design/specification. 

Measures  that  specifically  consider  nature  conservation.54  One  measure  specifically 
considers  nature  conservation:  measure  PREV-CY_02  ensures  a  protection  zone  along 
watercourses when licensing new developments, in order to achieve the smooth flow of surface 
water and environmental protection. In addition, the measure PRO-CY_08 “Development of a 

national  regulation  for  river  bed  annual  cleaning  operations  and  management  of  riparian 
streams  vegetation”  might  have  a  nature  conservation  effect.  Yet,  the  specific  content  of  the 

regulation will determine in how far nature conservation will be a focus of this measure. 

The Cypriot reporting sheet and other relevant documents indicate that none of the measures 
consider ports and navigation.55 

The dredging of rivers/ponds to  increase the river channel  capacity and  its  ability to  convey 
water  for  flood  alleviation  purposes  as  well  as  bank  modifications/river  bed/pond 
modifications are specifically planned in/as part of (at least) four protection measures:  

  PRO-CY_14:  Restoration 

and 

improvement 

of 

hydrological 

features 

in 

watercourses/streams (that entails the execution of necessary works to form the riverbed 
(central  and  flood)  in  order  to  improve  flow  conditions  and  control  the  deposition  of 

54 
55 

 PoM, chapter 4, p.31.  
 FRMP 2016-2021; PoM; Reporting Sheets.  

30 

 
 
                                                 
sediment). River bed and river bank modifications are considered for 16 locations in 11 
APSFRs56, 57. 

  PRO-C10_01: Upgrading of Aradippou river’s road crossings that, among other actions, 

includes the formation of the riverbed; 

  PRO-  C15_02:  Protection  and  formation  of  the  Vathia  River’s  bed.  This  measure 
includes  among  others  the  installation  of  gabions  at  the  river  banks  and  introducing 
horizontal "steps" of gabions or rocks in the river bed; 

  PRO-C15_01:  Flood  retention  upstream  of  the  Parapotamos:  This  measure  contains 
engineering  measures  in  existing  natural  retention  pond  of  Ag.  Athanasios58  through 
installing gabions and dredging of the pond in order to increase its capacity.  

Overall, a high number  of dredging  and river bank and river bed modifications are therefore 
planned,  potentially  affecting  the  hydromorphological  characteristics  of  streams  and  rivers. 

Nonetheless, the description of the first measure listed above underlines the need for synergy 
with the WFD’s objectives and states that “modifications have to take place in a way that the 

hydromorphological modifications are minimised and the continuity of the streams is ensured”. 
As noted below, Cyprus reports that the provisions of Article 4(7) of the WFD were taken into 

account for the projects included in the FRMP PoM. 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

While  the  main  report  of  the  Cypriot  FRMP  does  not  provide  an  overview  of  the  role  of 
insurance policies in relation to flood risk management, in the supplementary document “Flood 
Risk  Management  Stakeholder  identification”59,  the  role  of  the  Agricultural  Insurance 
Organisation  of  Cyprus  and  (briefly)  the  insurance  policy  related  to  agricultural  products  is 

presented, as well as the compensation policy applicable to flood damages in Cyprus.  

The FRMP contains two measures aimed at increasing the role of insurance:  

  PREP-CY_03: Raising awareness in Local Authorities and communities of flood risk and 

the importance of property insurance; 

  RECOV-CY_03: Promotion of insurance (of persons and property) against floods.60 

56 
57 

58 
59 
60 

 PoM, p 4-70 to 4-72.  
 Cyprus subsequently informed that this  measure is  not limited to river dredging. In some cases (i.e.  APSFR 
C02), it includes water retention ponds upstream of the APSFR for peak discharge attenuation. 
 Cyprus subsequently stated that this measure concerns the enlargement of an artificial pond. 
 Supplementary document to FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 5, pp. 29 and 44. 
 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 9, p.158.  

31 

 
 
                                                 
4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

The FRMP states that to successfully implement the Program of Measures, an implementation 

monitoring  mechanism  is  needed.  Therefore,  a  Monitoring  Plan  for  overseeing  the 
implementation  of  all  measures  will  be  established  by  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior.  The 

following 
implementation/control sheet by the competent authority of each measure:  

information  will  be  monitored 

for  each  measure  via  a  dedicated 

  The actions required to implement the measure by the implementing body; 

  The timetable of actions (in quarters or semesters as appropriate); 

  Any risks that may delay their implementation; 

  Progress of implementation, recording the actions that have been taken.  

While the process of monitoring the progress of implementation of the measures has generally 
been defined, the FRMP does not identify indicators to support the monitoring process61 62, nor 
does it refer to a baseline against which progress will be monitored and assessed. 

4.13  Coordination with the WFD 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  development  of  the  FRMP  has  been  coordinated  with  the 
development of the second RBMP of the WFD63. 

Table 9 

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

second RBMP of the WFD  

Integration of FRMP and RBMP  

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD  
The objectives of the FD were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a 
Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMP  

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

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

Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included  

CY001 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

61 
62 

63 

 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 13; Reporting sheets, “summary of the progress”.  
 Cyprus subsequently clarified that the main indicators for monitoring the implementation of each measure will 
be defined at the stage of implementation of the FRMP by each competent authority according to the nature of 
the measure and the implementation procedure. 
 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 10; Reporting sheets, “summary of the progress”. 

32 

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

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

The  use  of  sustainable  drainage  systems,  such  as  the  construction  of  wetland  and  porous 
pavements,  have  been  considered  to  reduce  urban  flooding  and  also  to  contribute  to  the 
achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives64 
Notes: a  based on reporting under the WFD 

CY001 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The  first  FRMP  states  that  it  was  drafted  by  the  Department  of  Water  Development  (DWD) 

alongside the second RBMP to  achieve the  greatest  possible synergy between the two plans, 
which  are  the  main  water  management  tools  in  Cyprus.  The  coordination  of  implementation 

and  the  reinforcement  of  synergy  between  Directives  2000/60/EC  and  2007/60/EC  included 
the following:  

  A joint consultation procedure; 

  Measures  that  reinforce  or  support  objectives  and  actions  of  both  Management  Plans 
have  been  promoted.  The  FRMP  complements  the  RBMP,  and  the  FRMP  and  the 

arrangements foreseen for the implementation of the Flood Directive were incorporated 
into the second RBMP; 

 

In the preparation of the measures for both plans, potential negative interactions between 

objectives and measures of the two plans were identified and guidance was developed to 
address them; 

  An assessment of significant adverse environmental impacts that may be caused by the 
implementation of the FRMP was made at an early stage to identify the remedial actions.  

To promote synergies between the two plans, the following actions took place:  

  Correlations  between  the  APSFRs,  water  bodies  and  protected  areas  under  the  WFD 

were identified; 

  Six  measures  of  the  RBMP  aiming  to  address  negative  impacts  on  water  status  were 
identified as directly related to 13 measures of the FRMP (10 “protection” measures and 
3 “prevention” measures); 

  Measures of the FRMP that strengthen or support the objectives of the RBMP and WFD 
were also identified: certain FRMP measures can support the creation of an appropriate 

framework  for 

the  protection  of  hydrological  and  hydraulic  characteristics  of 

64 

 Four measures related to Sustainable Drainage Systems in urban areas have been included in the PoM (PRO-
CY_04, PRO-CY_05, PRO-CY_06, PRO-CY_07). 

33 

 
 
 
                                                 
watercourses.  These  include  practices  proposed  for  the  utilisation  and  management  of 
rainwater in urban areas. In particular, five protection measures have been included in the 

FRMP  that  contribute  to    reducing  hydro-morphological  pressures  on  surface  water 
bodies, one protection measure that contributes to water efficiency and water reuse and 

one protection measure that can support ecological flows from dams; 

  Measures  of  the  RBMP  that  may  affect  the  design  and  implementation  of  FRMP 

measures were identified; 

  Within the framework of the RBMP, the provisions of Article 4.7 of the WFD were taken 

into account for the projects included in the FRMP.  

Finally, the contribution of certain FRMP measures to the achievement of the WFD objectives 

was considered as a criterion of higher effectiveness when assessing these measures. 

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  For  each  measure  planned,  a  detailed  fiche  is  presented  containing  key  information, 
including  (among  other  elements)  the  objective  it  contributes  to,  its  adaptability  to 
climate change conditions, synergy with the objectives and measures of the RBMP, the 

authority  or  authorities  responsible  for  implementation,  estimated  implementation  cost 
and financing source; 

  The measures described in the Cypriot FRMP can be considered specific and measurable 

at both national and APSFR level; 

  The  measures  and  the  FRMP  as  a  whole  have  been  coordinated  with  the  RBMP’s 

measures and the WFD’s objectives.  

  The FRMP includes land use and spatial planning measures, for example, modifying land 

use plans to address flood issue.  

  The FRMP includes two measures for the promotion of insurance for protection against 

flooding. 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  While  the  process  of  monitoring  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the  measures  has 
generally been defined, the FRMP does not provide indicators to monitor the progress of 

measures, nor a baseline for this. 

  While the objectives have specific and measurable elements, it is unclear if they will be 

achieved if all measures are completed; 

34 

 
 
  The  FRMP  describes  the  criteria  for  the  selection  of  measures  and  those  for  the 
prioritisation of measures; no account of a specific methodology was found that was used 
for  their  selection.  In  addition,  the  prioritisation  practically  did  not  appear  to  have  an 

effect, since all measures analysed are retained and all have a deadline of 2021. 

  There is limited (and mostly only potential) use of NWRM described in the FRMP, while 
various  measures  are  planned  concerning  river  bank,  river  bed  and  pond  modifications 
that could negatively affect the hydromorphological conditions of streams and rivers. 

35 

 
 
 
 
5. Consideration of climate change 

The FRMP states that all measures proposed were assessed for their effectiveness in addressing 

adverse  impacts  of  climate  change.  Measures  that  remain  effective  to  more  severe  weather 
events, which are probably caused by climate change, such as an increase in the intensity and 

possibly  the  frequency  of  extreme  floods  in  relation  to  the  past,  were  evaluated  more 
positively. The FRMP also states that all measures will contribute to addressing the impacts of 
climate change to either a high or medium degree.65 Furthermore, the FRMP will be reviewed 
periodically and updated if necessary, taking into account the likely effects of climate change 
in relation to the appearance of floods.66 

The  FRMP  refers  to  the  proposal  for  a  national  Climate  Change  Adaptation  Strategy, 
developed  in  2014  but  not  yet  adopted67.  The  FRMPs  indicates  that  the  preparation  of  all 
measures in the FRMP have considered the recommendations provided in the Strategy.68 The 
FRMP summaries information in the Strategy regarding changes in the intensity and average 

precipitation  levels  during  the  period  1970-2007.  As  a  general  conclusion,  the  FRMP 
anticipates an increase in the occurrence of extreme flooding events and a decrease in annual 
precipitation levels (mostly based on historical data). The FRMP does not refer to changes in 
the main sources of flooding under long-term climate change scenarios.69 

The FRMP moreover explains that changes in the occurrence of flooding events due to climate 
change  were  taken  into  account  when  considering  flood  recurrence.  These  projected  trends 

(increase of floods in number of events, duration and effects), combined with changes in land 
use, were used as qualitative criteria in assessing the potential impacts of future floods in order 

to  identify  the  APSFRs.  The  FHRMs  for  the  19  APSFRs  were  drawn  up  for  three  scenarios 
with a return period of 500, 100 and 20 years. The impact of climate change on the intensity of 

rainfall  was  considered  in  these  scenarios  by  taking  into  account  precipitation  data  for  the 
period  1970-2007.  These  data  have  indicated  a  significant  increase  (44  %)  in  precipitation 

levels for various rain durations, from five minutes to six hours, and in the maximum amount 
of rainfall (31 %) for return periods of T50 and T100 years, in comparison to the period 1930-

65 
66 

67 

68 

69 

 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 9; PoM, chapter 4, p29-70.  
 FRMP  2016-2021,  chapter  2,  p11;  FRMP  2016-2021,  chapter  3,  p.31,  FRMP  2016-2021,  chapter  9,  p.134-
164. 
 European  Environment  Agency,  Climate-ADAPT  –  Sharing  adaptation  information  across  Europe,  Cyprus: 
https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries/cyprus (visited November 2018) 
 FRMP  2016-2021,  chapter  3,  p.29-31,  FRMP  2016-2021,  chapter  9,  p.134;  http://climate-
adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries/cyprus (Status of information: 11.1.2017). 
 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 6 and chapter 9.  

36 

 
 
                                                 
70.70  The  FRMP  also  highlights  uncertainties  in  the  projections  and  in  the  role  of  climate 
change in historical trends.71 

A broad range of individual measures address climate change, according to the descriptions in 
the  FRMP.  The  Cyprus  FRMP  mentions  climate  change  in  the  description  of  non-structural 

measures, including spatial planning.  

A  reference  to  climate  change  is  also  found  in  the  description  of  measures  using  economic 

instruments,  according  to  the  FRMP  assessed  and  the  reporting  sheet:  these  include  two 
instruments for insurance (see section 4) as well as instruments providing incentives to private 

owners to reduce storm water runoff, install rainwater utilisation systems and undertake flood 
protection measures.72 

Furthermore,  consideration  of  climate  change  is  included  in  the  description  of  protection 
measures to reduce runoff from public spaces, implement and maintain flood defence projects 

and  for  a  preparatory  measure  to  improve  the  warning  mechanism  for  exceptional  weather 
events and floods. 

5.1  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate 

change 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  FRMP  summarises  the  findings  of  the  draft  national  Climate  Change  Adaptation 
Strategy  and  indicates  that  these  findings  were  considered  in  the  development  of  the 
measures; 

  All  measures  proposed  were  assessed  for  their  effectiveness  in  addressing  adverse 
impacts of climate: those that remain effective in severe weather events, which may be 

caused by climate change, were evaluated more positively. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  While  measures  that  remain  effective  in  severe  weather  events,  which  may  be  caused  by 
climate change, were evaluated more favourably, it is unclear (1) how the climate change 

adaptation  potential of each measure was  considered in  the prioritisation of the measures 
and  (2)  according  to  which  criteria  some  measures  were  assessed  more  positively  due  to 

their resilience. 

  The  FRMP  should  be  coordinated  with  the  national  climate  change  adaptation  strategy 

once the latter is adopted. 

70 
71 
72 

 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 3, p29, p.36 ; FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 6, p.63.  
 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 3, p29-30 ; FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 6, p.63. 
 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 9, p.144, p.145, p.151, p.154, p.156.  

37 

 
 
                                                 
38 

 
 
 
 
6. Cost-benefit analysis 

Cyprus  carried  out  a  cost-effectiveness  assessment  (CEA)  for  all  measures;  a  CBA  was 

undertaken  for  construction  measures.  It  appears  that  these  assessments  did  not  affect  the 
selection  of  measures,  as  the  measures  considered  in  the  CEA/CBA  are  all  presented  in  the 

final  set  of  measures  (i.e.  no  measures  were  considered  and  then  not  taken  up  due  to  the 
CEA/CBA). The results of this work shows a prioritisation of measures, but which practically 

did not have an effect, since all measures are taken up and all have a deadline of 2021. 

The cost-effectiveness assessment was identified the effect/cost ratio for measures. Costs were 
estimated  for  the  implementation  and  operational  costs  of  measures  (in  a  timeframe  of  30 

years).  Regarding  the  assessment  of  effects,  the  following  parameters  were  taken  into 
consideration:  

 

the  importance  of  the  measure  (the  greater  the  importance,  the  larger  the  effect  or 
benefit);  

 

the efficiency of the measure, which depends on: if the measure has a significant effect 

or result; the efficiency of the measure under Climate Change conditions; the extent of 
the area which is affected by the measure; 

 

the  temporal  efficiency  of  the  measure  (i.e.  a  measure  having  a  fast  effect  is  more 
beneficial than one with slower impact time).  

Overall,  the  measures  that  reduce  significantly  vulnerability  and  exposure  to  floods  were 

assigned a higher effectiveness scoring.  

The  reporting  sheet  states  that  a  CBA  was  conducted  for  construction  works  measures.  The 

benefit is assessed in terms of the damage reducing effect, (calculated through an assessment 
of the risk before and after the intervention), while the costs were assessed as the sum of the 
investment and operational/maintenance costs (over a 30 year period)73. 

Multi-benefits have been considered: specifically, for each measure assessed through a CEA, 
the  "links  to  the  aims  and  measures  of  the  RBMP/the  WFD"  are  assessed.  A  benefit  here 

increases the value assigned to the importance of the measure. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following good practice was identified: 

73 

 This  work  is  described  in  detail  in  a  supplementary  document  to  the  FRMP,  submitted  to  the  CDR: 
Assessment of the proposed measures of the FRMP. 

39 

 
 
                                                 
  Cost-effectiveness  and  cost-benefit  assessment,  including  the  consideration  of  multi-

benefits (specifically for WFD objectives) were conducted for the measures. 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The CEA and CBA analysis did not appear to affect the selection of measures.  

 

In  the  CBA  method  applied  for  construction  measures,  the  potential  costs  of  negative 
environmental impacts were not considered74. 

74 

 Subsequently  Cyprus  informed  that  construction  works  are  subject  to  environmental  legislation:  EIAs  have 
been conducted and remedial actions for negative environmental impacts have been adopted. The cost of these 
actions  is  included  in  the  investment  cost  that  has  been  taken  into  account  for  CB  analysis.  In  this  way, 
according to Cyprus, the cost of negative environmental impacts was considered. 

40 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

Based  on  the  FRMPs  and  the  information  provided  in  the  reported  sheets,  the  Competent 
Authorities and the Units of Management identified for the FD have not changed.75 Cyprus has 
not reported new information to WISE since 2011. 

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

For the development of the FRMP, the Department for Water Development set up a Steering 
Committee  with  representatives  of  other  key  government  departments  and  ministries  (see 

below for further details). The participants were constantly informed and actively involved in 
the FRMP preparation.76 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  in  the  UoM 

assessed. Information on how the consultation was actually carried out and which stakeholders 
participated is presented in the rest of the section77: 

Table 10 

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

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  
Direct mailing 78  
Invitations to stakeholders 79  
Local Authorities  

Meetings  

CY001 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

Neither the FRMP nor the reporting sheet specify how the public and interested parties were 

informed about the consultation process or the meetings. The FRMP indicates, however, that 
the webpage for the plan was used throughout the entire consultation process (before and after 

 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 11, p.182-191.  
 FRMP 206-2021, chapter 12.3, pp. 197-199; Reporting Sheets, “summary of the consultation”. 

75 
76 
77  Cyprus  informed  subsequently  that  analytical  information  on  public  consultation  activities  is  presented  in  an 
annex document of the FRMP “Public consultation report”, which was mistakenly not uploaded to WISE. 
78  Cyprus  indicated  subsequently  that  the  participants  of  the  Steering  Committee  were  informed  about  all 

intermediate reports via e-mail. 
 Cyprus informed subsequently that all relevant stakeholders were invited to the consultation events. 

79 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the  open  consultation  period):  in  order  to  inform  the  public  and  obtain  the  views  of 
stakeholders  and  members  of  the  public,  Cyprus  used  an  internet  portal80  where  the  draft 
FRMP and accompanying documentation were accessible to everyone (an active hyperlink to 
the portal is provided in the FRMP).81 

In  addition  to  information  on  the  draft  FRMP  for  consultation,  a  presentation  of  the  final 

FRMP  and  RBMP  was  made  in  a  national  public  conference  organised  by  the  competent 
authority.82  

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

Table 11 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet  

Digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences 

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

Postal written comments 

CY001 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

The  actual  consultation  period  lasted  almost  two  months,  from  30  December  2015  to  20 

February  2016.  As  noted  above,  Cyprus  used  an  internet  portal  for  the  consultation.  This 
included  an  online  questionnaire  (no  information  was  provided,  however,  on  the  number  of 
responses). An evaluation of the consultation procedure is presented in the FRMP.83  

Four regional meetings were organised during that period; two were addressed to the general 
public while the other two were targeted to the identified stakeholders. In addition, a national 

conference took place for presentation of the finalised FRMP and RBMP. 

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

80 
81 
82 
83 

 www.flood.wdd.moa.gov.cy 
 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 5.6 and 7.  
 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 12, p.196-197; Reporting sheets, “Summary of the Consultation”. 
 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 12.4, pp. 200-201. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 12 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  
Paper copies distributed at exhibitions 84 
Paper copies available in municipal buildings (town hall, library etc.)  

Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority 

CY001 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 
As noted above, the FRMP indicates that all relevant documents were available online at the 
dedicated  internet  portal85;  no  other  information  about  their  distribution  or  availability  is 
provided in the FRMP or the reporting sheet.86 

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

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

Table 13 

Groups of stakeholders  

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

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  

Navigation / ports  

Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) 

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

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

Ministerial Departments of Environment, Forests, Meteorology, Civil Construction, Urban 
Planning, Public Revenues, Industrial Development and Archaeology 

The general public via online questionnaires 

Source: FRMP 

CY001 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

84  Cyprus  informed  subsequently  that  paper  copies  of  the  non-technical  summary  of  the  draft  FRMP  and  the 
consultation  questionnaire  were  distributed  at  the  open  meetings  and  the  conferences  held  during  the 
consultation. 
 www.flood.wdd.moa.gov.cy 
 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 12, p.196-197. 

85 
86 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The organisations listed in the table above are the ones explicitly named in the FRMP, but the 
list  is  not  exhaustive,  as  public  meetings  were  open  to  all  interested  parties;  however,  no 

information  on  the  number  of  stakeholders  participating  in  the  meetings  is  provided  in  the 
FRMP.  The  FRMP  underlines  that  the  views  of  a  broad  range  of  organisations  –  including 

local  authorities  as  well  as  government  departments,  public  law  bodies  and  social  groups 
whose  interests  are  affected  or  put  at  risk  from  the  decision-making  process  and  the 

management  of  flood  risks  –  were  taken  into  account  for  the  drafting  of  the  Plan. 
Environmental organisations were recognised as stakeholders and are specifically mentioned in 
the FRMP.87 

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

Table 14 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  
Involvement in drafting88 
Workshops and technical meetings 

Formation of alliances  

Information days 

Workshops 

CY001 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

In order to increase the active participation of principal public authorities responsible for water 

management and conservation (considered as stakeholders in the FRMP), the Department for 
Water Development set up a Steering Committee with representatives of other key departments 
and  ministries.  This  Steering  Committee  was  actively  involved  in  the  formulation  and 

preparation  of  the  Management  Plans  (FRMP  and  RBMP).  Its  members  were  constantly 
informed about the progress of the preparation of the plans and other relevant issues. 

In addition to the consultation meetings and conferences for the public and the stakeholders as 

noted  above,  five  technical  meetings  were  organised  before  and  after  the  consultation  period 
for consultation with the relevant public stakeholders.89 

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The table below shows the effects of consultation: 

87 
88 

89 

 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 11, Table 11.2, 11-3 p.186-194 ; FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 12, p.196-197. 
 Cyprus  informed  subsequently  that  via  the  Steering  Committee,  public  authorities  involved  in  FRM  were 
directly involved in drafting the FRMP. 
 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 12.3, p.197-198; Reporting sheets, “Summary of the Consultation”. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 15 

Effects of consultation 

Changes to selection of measures 

Adjustment to specific measures 

Addition of new information 

Changes to the methodology used 

Commitment to further research 

Commitment to action in the next FRMP cycle 

Source: FRMP 

CY001 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

A detailed description of the changes, adjustments and additions to the proposed measures, as a 

result of the consultation process, is included in the Cypriot FRMP. In particular:  

  Objective B, Reducing Flood Exposure, was adapted to avoid delays and difficulties in 

the planning process of building permits; 

  The description of priority action fields of the FRMP’s objectives for the 19 APSFR was 

supplemented; 

  Changes in the executing bodies of the measures for more effective implementation; 

  Changes in the classification of certain measures in terms of the four aspects of flood risk 

management (prevention, protection, preparedness, and recovery and review); 

  Clarification of the content of measures; 

  Several changes were made to measures: 

o  Measure  PRO-C05_01  "Reconstruction  of  culverts  and  bridges  in/over  the  main 
river bed of the Merika river in order to ensure the flood protection of the area" was 
added; 

o  An  extension  was  agreed  for  measure  PREP-CY_03  "Community  awareness 
campaigns against flood risk" to involve local actors and to measure PR0-CY_14 to 

include the APSFR C16 "P. Garyllis"; 

in 

the  context  of 

o  Proposals for measures to construct absorption pits along the watercourses will be 
implementation  of  measure  PR0-CY_14 

assessed 
"Rehabilitation and improvement of hydrological characteristics of watercourses";  
o  A  measure  for  the  developing  specifications  of  road  side  inlet  drainage  structures 
was  dropped  from  the  final  FRMP,  as  it  was  considered  to  be  a  subject  of  urban 

the 

drainage design studies; 

o  Measure  PRO-C15_02  "Canalisation  of  ‘Vathia’  tributary  (central  branch)"  was 

dropped from the final FRMP.90 

90 

 FRMP 2016-2021, chapter 12.5, p.201-202.  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) 

The FRMP has undergone an SEA procedure in order to assess its environmental impacts. The 

procedure includes four main steps:  

1.  Exploring environmental issues through an assessment study of the proposed Plan; 
2.  Consultation with citizens; 
3.  Incorporating the results of investigation and consultation into the Plan; 
4.  Monitoring the future impact of the implementation of the Plan; 

The FRMP indicates that it has incorporated recommendations set out in SEA Environmental 
Report.  These  are  outlined  in  the  FRMP;  while  the  plan  does  not  provide  a  link  to  the  SEA 
report, it is available on the website of the Water Development Department (WDD).91 

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The FRMP clearly describes the updates made in response to the consultation. 

91 

 FRMP  2016-2021,  chapter  12.5,  p.201-202;  Reporting  sheets,  “Summary  of  the  Consultation”.  The  SEA 
report is available from the following web page: 
http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/wdd/Wdd.nsf/all/ADD616573A0E0F0DC2257FA8002748D1?opendocument 

46 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

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

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

Background & method 

This  document was  produced as part of the  assessment of the FRMPs.  The tables and  charts 
below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the Member States and were used by 

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

are split into the following sections: 

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

  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 

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

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

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

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

  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts. 

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the FD)92, not all fields are 
mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields.  

Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers – for example, 
progress  is  measured  via  the  categories  set  out  in  the  Reporting  Guidance.  This  means  that 

producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort. For many fields, however, a 
free  data  format  was  used.  For  some  Member  States,  this  resulted  in  thousands  of  different 

answers, or answers given in the national language.  

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

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

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

 

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

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

47 

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

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

categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting 

The following table93 is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures 
is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. 

NO ACTION 

M11: No Action 

PREVENTION 

M21: Avoidance 

PREPAREDNESS 

M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning 

M42: Emergency response planning 

M43: Public Awareness 

M44: Other preparedness 

RECOVERY & REVIEW 

M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery 

M22: Removal or relocation 

M52: Environmental recovery 

M23: Reduction 

M24: Other prevention 

PROTECTION 

M31: Natural flood management 

M32: Flow regulation 

M33: Coastal and floodplain works 

M34: Surface Water Management 

M35: other protection 

M53: Other recovery  

OTHER MEASURES 

M61: Other measures 

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

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ........... 53 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect ............. 53 
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) .................................. 54 
Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Location of implementation by measure aspect ....... 55 
Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Objectives of the measures by measure aspect ......... 56 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Level of responsibility by measure aspect ................ 57 
Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A9: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ........ 59 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ..................................................................................... 51 
Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM ................................ 51 
Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM ............................... 52 
Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, 
including duplicates ................................................................................................................. 52 
Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) ............................................................................... 54 
Table A6 -Location of implementation by measure aspect ..................................................... 55 
Table A7: Objectives of the measures by measure aspect ....................................................... 56 
Table A8 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect ............................................................. 57 
Table A9 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect .................................................... 58 

49 

 
 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1 - Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

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

Number of aggregated measures  

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

Total number of measures  

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

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

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

33 

33 

5 

5 

38 

38 

N/A 

N/A 

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

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
review 

Other 

Grand Total 

CY001 

M21 

2 

M24 

2 

M32 

1 

M33 

5 

M34 

5 

M35 

10 

M41 

3 

Grand Total 
Note: Cyprus has one UoM. The Measure codes are listed at the beginning of this Annex. 

10 

2 

1 

5 

5 

3 

2 

M42 

M43 

M53 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

0 

33 

33 

50 

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

Prevention 

CY001 

Protection 

M32 

3 

M33 

2 

Grand Total 

3 
Note: Cyprus has one UoM. The Measure codes are listed at the beginning of this Annex. 

2 

0 

0 

Preparedness 

Recovery & Review 

Other 

Grand Total 

0 

0 

5 

5 

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

Prevention 

Total 

Protection 

Total 

Preparedness 

Total 

Individual 

Aggregated 

Individual 

Individual 

Recovery & 
review 

Individual 

Total 

Other  Grand Total 

CY001 

4 

4 

5 

21 

26 

5 

5 

Grand Total 
5 
Note: Cyprus has one UoM. The Measure codes are explained at the beginning of this Annex. 

21 

26 

5 

4 

4 

5 

3 

3 

3 

3 

0 

38 

38 

51 

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

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

Note: Cyprus only has one UoM 

The Measure codes are explained at the beginning of this Annex. 

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

CY001

4 

5 

21 

5 

3 

Prevention - Individual

Protection - Aggregated

Protection - Individual

Preparedness - Individual

Recovery and review - Individual

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: Cyprus only has one UoM 
The Measure codes are explained at the beginning of this Annex. 

Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

52 

 
 
 
Cyprus  provided  information  in  the  reporting  sheet  about  the  cost  of  all  measures,  as 
summarised  in  the  following  table.  Information  was  also  provided  for  cost  explanation, 

however  as  this  was  the  open  question  the  responses  given  varied  greatly  and  a  method  to 
aggregate the information was not found.  

Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) 

No cost 

0-10k 

10-20k 

20-100k  100-200k  200k-1M  over 1M  Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

3 

10 

4 

1 

18 

1 

4 

2 

7 

1 

1 

4 

4 

1 

1 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

26 

5 

3 

38 

Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) 

Recovery & review

1 

2 

Preparedness

4 

1 

Protection

10 

1 

4 

4 

1 

3 

3 

Prevention

3 

1 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

No cost

0-10k

10-20k

20-100k

100-200k

200k-1M

over 1M

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report information on the following: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

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

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cyprus  completed  these  fields  for  all  measures.  The  responses  provided  for  location  of 
measures  and  geographic  coverage  of  the  measures  were  identical.  For  the  majority  of  the 

measures (26 measures) the location and geographic coverage was indicated as the UoM, while 
for the remaining 12 measures different APSFRs were listed.  

Table A6 -Location of implementation by measure aspect 

APSFR 

UoM 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

10 

2 

12 

4 

16 

3 

3 

26 

4 

26 

5 

3 

38 

Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Location of implementation by measure aspect 

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

in the textual part of the XML); 

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

is required); 

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

required). 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objectives 

Cyprus  provided  information  about  the  objectives  of  all  measures.  Four  types  of  objectives 
were indicated as summarised in the following table. 

Table A7: Objectives of the measures by measure aspect 

Hazard 
reduction 

Vulnerability 
reduction 

Limitation of 
exposure to 
floods 

Vulnerability 
reduction and 
improvement of 
knowledge about 
flood risk 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

24 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

24 

1 

5 

3 

9 

2 

1 

3 

2 

2 

4 

26 

5 

3 

38 

Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A7: Objectives of the measures by measure aspect 

Category of priority 

Cyprus did not report the category of priority of any of the measures in the reporting sheet. 

Timetable 

Cyprus reported the timetable for all measures: ‘Start 2016 – end 2021’. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Name of the responsible authority(optional if ‘level of responsibility’ is reported); 

  Level of responsibility(optional if ‘name of the responsible authority’ is reported). 

Cyprus provided information about the responsible authority and level of responsibility for all 
measures.  However,  as  these  were  open  questions  the  responses  provided  for  ‘name  of  the 

responsible  authority’  varied  greatly  and  it  was  not  practical  to  aggregate  the  information. 
Please refer to the WISE electronic reporting for more details about the responsible authority 

for each measure. 

Table A8 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

National  
Authority 

Regional  
Authority 

Inter-municipal 
Authority 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

4 

21 

5 

3 

33 

4 

4 

1 

1 

4 

26 

5 

3 

38 

Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

Recovery & review

Preparedness

Protection

21 

Prevention

3 

5 

4 

National Authority

Regional Authority

4 

1 

Inter-municipal Authority

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

56 

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

whose responses are analysed below; 

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

Cyprus  reported  information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the  measures.  The 
Progress of implementation was reported as94:  

  COM (completed); 

  OGC (ongoing construction); 

  POG (progress ongoing); 

  NS (not started). 

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

Table A9 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

1 

5 

Grand Total 

5 
Notes: No measures were reported as completed. 

1 

4 

20 

5 

3 

32 

4 

26 

5 

3 

38 

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

57 

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

Notes: No measures were reported as completed. 

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

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

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

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

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

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

but are not finalized. 

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

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

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

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

58 

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

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

or started and is being developed at the moment. 

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

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

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

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

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

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

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

Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

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

  Any other information reported (optional field). 

Cyprus did not report ‘any other information’ for the measures in the reporting sheet. 

The WFD was  reported as an associated ‘other Community Act’ for 19 of the measures. For 
the remaining measures no other Community Acts were reported. 

59 

 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures95 

M11 

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

No Action 

Prevention 

M21 

M22 

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 

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. 

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

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

M33 

M34 

M35  Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may include 

flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies 

Preparedness 

M41 

M42 

M43 

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 

M44  Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events 

to reduce adverse consequences 

95 Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC): 

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

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
M51  Recovery and Review (Planning for the recovery and review phase is in principle part of preparedness), 

Recovery & Review 

Individual and societal recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure, etc), 
Health and mental health supporting actions, incl. managing stress Disaster financial assistance (grants, 
tax), incl. disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, Temporary or permanent 
relocation , Other 

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

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

Other 

Other 

M52 

M53 

M61 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) 

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

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

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

To ease access to measures, the catalogue of measures hereunder is sorted by the primary land 

use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most of the 
measures however can be applied to more than one land use type. 

Table B2 

List of NWRMs 

Agriculture 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures   

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers   

N01 Basins and ponds   

U01 Green Roofs   

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges   

F02 Maintenance of forest 
cover in headwater areas  

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management   

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting   

A03 Crop rotation   

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments   

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management  

U03 Permeable surfaces   

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours   

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation   

N04 Re-meandering   

U04 Swales   

A05 Intercropping   

F05 Land use conversion    N05 Stream bed re-

U05 Channels and rills   

A06 No till agriculture   

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry   

naturalization   

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams   

61 

U06 Filter Strips   

 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A07 Low till agriculture    F07 'Water sensitive' 

driving   

A08 Green cover   

A09 Early sowing   

F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream 
crossings   

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds   

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features   

U07 Soakaways   

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation   

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches   

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers   

U09 Rain Gardens   

A10 Traditional 
terracing   

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming   

A12 Reduced stocking 
density   

A13 Mulching 

F10 Coarse woody debris    N10 Natural bank 

U10 Detention Basins   

F11 Urban forest parks   

stabilisation   

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection   

U11 Retention Ponds  

F12 Trees in Urban areas   N12 Lake restoration  

U12 Infiltration basins   

F13 Peak flow control 
structures   

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater   

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests   

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas  

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

62