COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Mangement Plans - Member State: The Netherlands Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, 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) 75 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Mangement Plans - Member State: The Netherlands Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 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 .................................................................................................................................... 4 

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

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 6 

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

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

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

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

1. 

 Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment ......................... 15 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ............................................................................................ 15 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs ......................................................................................... 15 

2. 

 Integration of previously reported information ................................................................ 16 

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment................................ 16 

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs .................... 17 

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas ................................................... 18 

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk 
maps   .................................................................................................................................... 18 

2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information ....................................................................................... 19 

3. 

 Setting of Objectives ........................................................................................................ 20 

3.1 

Focus of objectives ..................................................................................................... 20 

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................ 21 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ........................................... 21 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding ............................. 22 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ............................................................................... 22 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ....... 22 

4. 

 Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ....................................................... 23 

4.1  Cost of measures ........................................................................................................ 24 

4.2 

Funding of measures .................................................................................................. 24 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................ 25 

1 

 
 
 
4.4  Measures and objectives............................................................................................. 26 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures .................................................................... 27 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ........................................................................................... 27 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ........................................... 28 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures ................................................................... 29 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ........................................................... 29 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ....................................................................................... 30 

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

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ...................................................... 31 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive ................................................... 31 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures ............. 32 

5. 

 Consideration of climate change ...................................................................................... 34 

5.1  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change ......... 35 

6. 

 Cost-benefit analysis......................................................................................................... 36 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ..................................................... 36 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation . 
 ........................................................................................................................................... 37 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................ 37 

7.2 

Public information and consultation .......................................................................... 37 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders .......................................................................... 38 

7.4 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................ 39 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 40 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding governance ................. 40 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 41 

Background & method .......................................................................................................... 41 

Types of measures used in reporting ..................................................................................... 42 

List of Annex A tables & figures .......................................................................................... 43 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................ 44 

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

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

Measure details: objectives ................................................................................................... 48 

2 

 
 
 
Measure details: authorities ................................................................................................... 52 

Measure details: progress ...................................................................................................... 55 

Measure details: other ........................................................................................................... 58 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................... 59 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) ................................................. 60 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

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

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

4 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

This report assesses the FRMPs for the Netherlands1. It assesses the FRMPs and Member State 
reporting  to  the  European  Commission  in  2016.  Its  structure  follows  a  common  assessment 
template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources:   

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

measures 

  Selected  FRMPs:  the  Netherlands  has  reported  four  FRMPs.  All  four  have  been 

considered in the assessment.   

2  

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

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview 

Figure 1 

 Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

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

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

The  Netherlands  has  designated  four  Units  of  Management  (UoMs)  under  the  Floods 
Directive,  with  one  FRMP  for  each  UoM.  The  four  UoMs  correspond  to  the  River  Basin 
Districts (RBDs) designated under the Water Framework Directive.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The FRMPs are part of the National Water Plan (2016-2021), which was approved by the (at 
that time) Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and the Ministry of Economic Affairs. 

The table below gives an overview of the four UoMs in the Netherlands, including the UoM 

code, the name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if all documents required 
for each UoM were submitted to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE3 – the FRMP 
as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML.   

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Netherlands 

UoM 

Name 

Number of APSFRs 

XML 
reported 

PDF 
Reported 

NLEM 

NLMS 

NLRN 

NLSC 

EMS 

MEUSE 

RHINE 

No ASPFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

No ASPFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

No ASPFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

SCHELDT 

No ASPFR assigned (Art. 13.1b applied) 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web page: 

  https://www.helpdeskwater.nl/onderwerpen/wetgeving-beleid/eu-

richtlijn/overstromingsrisico/ 

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  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives have 
been established  

Strong evidence 

The Netherlands has set common objectives 
for all FRMPs at national level for protection 
against floods, prevention of their 
consequences and for crisis management. 
Moreover, the FRMPs refer to long-standing 
Dutch legal requirements for flood 
protection, such as the national safety 
standards for flood protection works. 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of 
potential adverse 
consequences  

Strong evidence  

One common objective in the FRMPs is the 
prevention of the consequences of flooding.  

...the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Strong evidence  

...non-structural initiatives   Strong evidence  

The FRMPs include a common objective to 
protect against flooding. Moreover, the 
FRMPs cite long-standing legal protection 
standards in the Netherlands, including new 
safety requirements for flood protection 
works.  

One of the three themes of the national 
objectives is crisis management. Moreover, 
an objective on prevention refers to limiting 
flood impacts via spatial planning.  

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Some evidence  

...economic activity  

Some evidence  

The objectives themselves do not explicitly 
refer to human health, but they refer to 
national legal protection standards that do so 
(notably, the Delta Programme standard that 
the probability that an individual dies as a 
consequence of the risk of flooding must not 
exceed the 1:100.000 per year by 2050). 
Moreover, the FRMPs state that the 
objectives address human health.   

The objectives do not explicitly refer to 
economic activity, though this is a key aim of 
flood risk management in the Netherlands, 
such as flood safety rules cited in the 
FRMPs. Moreover, the FRMPs state that the 

8 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...environment  

Some evidence  

...cultural heritage  

Some evidence  

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Strong evidence  

objectives refer to economic activity. 

Although the objectives set out in the FRMPs 
do not refer directly to the environment, the 
FRMPs state that the objectives address this. 
Netherlands’ reporting sheets highlight that 
the National Water Plan includes a healthy 
ecosystem as part of its main goal4.  
Moreover, in the “Room for the River” 
approach, synergy is sought between flood 
risk reduction and environmental values, 

The objectives themselves do not explicitly 
refer to cultural heritage, but the FRMP’s 
text indicates that this is addressed by the 
flood objectives.   

The Netherlands has reported 116 aggregated 
measures and no individual measures. The 
Netherlands has reported measures across all 
four aspects of flood risk management, with 
the majority of measures (68 of 116, 59 %) 
for protection. 

The Netherlands has reported high priority 
for 108 of its 116 measures, very high 
priority for four measures and moderate 
priority for four measures.  

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

...costs & benefits  

Some evidence  

The four FRMPs assessed refer to cost 
benefit as a criterion for the establishment of 
priorities for the selection of measures. 
Specifically, they refer to the use of CBA for 
previous plans and programmes and indicate 
that the FRMPs were built on these results; 
however, details are lacking on the 
methodology and outcomes as well as the use 

4   The  Netherlands  subsequently  remarked  that  by  taking  measures  to  protect  lives  and  the  economy,  the 

environment is automatically included and that the environment was also included in the FHRMs. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

...flood conveyance  

Strong evidence  

...water retention  

Strong evidence  

...environmental 
objectives of the WFD  

Some evidence  

...spatial planning/land use  Strong evidence  

...nature conservation  

Some evidence  

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

Some evidence  

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Strong evidence  

of the previous CBA work in the FRMPs 
themselves5. 

Flood extent is addressed in the digital maps, 
whose links are provided in each of the 
assessed FRMPs. 

A reference to conveyance routes is found in 
all four FRMPs. In particular, conveyance 
(afvoer van hoogwater) is mentioned 
throughout the Rhine FRMP (NLRN and also 
in the Meuse, which highlights that rivers 
need more space (so called Uiterwaarden) to 
allow the evacuation of water. 

The Netherlands has had a long-standing 
programme to implement ‘Room for the 
River’, and measures are included in the 
FRMPs.  

There is a reference in each of the FRMPs 
that synergies with the objectives of WFD 
were sought in the measures. However, there 
is a lack of further evidence (e.g. FD 
measures that point explicitly towards 
contributing to the WFD) 

Spatial planning and land use is being 
considered in the FRMPs. (These aspects 
were already included in earlier programmes 
that formed the basis for the FRMPs.) 

All FRMPs state in general terms that 
synergies exist between flood protection and 
nature in the implementation of measures, 
though specific details are not provided.  

All four FRMPs assessed make a brief 
reference that they take into consideration 
navigation and port infrastructure. 

The FRMPs provide information on potential 
climate impacts and contain measures that 
consider climate change. The FRMPs 

5   The Netherlands subsequently clarified that the FRMP (page 50, ‘geschiedenis van de normering’) described 

that the flood standards (and the new flood standards adopted in 2017) are based on CBA. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Strong evidence  

Coordination ensured 
with WFD  

Strong evidence  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Some evidence  

moreover underline that climate 
considerations are implicit in their overall 
approach to flood risk management.  

All four FRMPs refer to active coordination 
with neighbouring Member States, both 
within international river basin commissions 
as well as bilaterally. 

The same authorities developed both the 
RBMPs and FRMPs, and the FRMPs 
indicate that coordination was ensured 
through several mechanisms, including the 
identification of synergies between measures. 

The reporting sheets note that the FRMPs 
were developed on the basis of earlier plans 
and programmes, which themselves 
underwent a broad consultation with the 
public, NGOs, the private sector and 
government authorities. For this reason, 
government authorities were mainly involved 
in the actual development and drafting of the 
FRMPs. 

Good Practices 

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

Table 3 

Good practices in the Dutch FRMPs 

Topic area 

Integration of previously 
reported information in 
the FRMPs. 

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk.  

Good practices identified 

Each of the FRMPs contains a separate document on international 
coordination, indicating how the Netherlands has coordinated with 
neighbouring Member States on flood risk areas.  

Common, national safety levels have been identified and are used to 
assess the safety of flood protection infrastructure and to guarantee the 
same level of safety for all citizens. 

Planning/implementing of 
measures and their 
prioritization for the 

The FRMPs provide a clear indication of funding sources for the 
measures, even though the overall budget is not provided.  
All measures are linked to one of the seven national objectives set for 

11 

 
 
 
 
Topic area 

achievement of objectives. 

Good practices identified 

the FRMPs. 
The FRMPs include measures for spatial planning and natural water 
retention, continuing the work of the Netherlands in these approaches to 
flood risk management 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

The FRMPs provide an overview of projected climate impacts, include 
measures that address climate change or moreover indicate that climate 
is considered in the overall approach to flood risk management. 

Public participation.  

Two websites were created to raise awareness and provide public 
information on the FRMPs and related flood information, including the 
FHRMs. 

Areas for further development 

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

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Dutch FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

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

The objectives in the FRMPs are not specific or measurable, though the 
FRMPs refers to other national flood targets, such as the national safety 
levels, that are specific and measurable.  
The information on these earlier plans and policies is limited in the 
FRMPs and the FRMPs themselves do not describe the process for 
setting objectives, nor the links between their objectives and other 
existing in parallel policy objectives and targets for flood risk 
management in the Netherlands. 

The FRMPs do not contain detailed information on costs of measures in 
the UoM.  
Each FRMP describes in very general terms what the measures are trying 
to achieve, where they are to be achieved and how they are to be 
achieved: Consequently, the measures are not specific or measurable in 
terms of quantifiably contributing towards achieving the objectives set.   
The FRMPs provide brief information on the process for monitoring 
existing programmes, but do not clearly explain how the measures 
themselves will be monitored, nor indicate if a baseline is used.   

Use of cost-benefit analysis 

While the Netherlands undertook a detailed CBA for prior flood 

(CBA) in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

programmes, it is not clear from the FRMPs, or the reporting sheets, how 
this information was used for the FRMP’s measures and little 
information is provided on the methodology. 

12 

 
 
 
Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed. 

Public participation.  

Flood risk governance.  

No reference in the FRMPs assessed to the national climate change 
adaptation strategy. 

The FRMPs indicate that the public, NGOs and the private sector were 
not actively involved in their preparation, since previous flood 
programmes had employed broad consultation methods. 

Prior to the FRMPs, the Netherlands established programmes to address 
flood prevention and protection, such as the Delta Programmes and the 
Room for the River Programme. The FRMPs provide only limited 
information on these earlier programmes and on Dutch policy and 
legislation to address flood risks, with insufficient explanation to 
interpret the background and linkages between these prior and ongoing 
initiatives and the FRMP. 
Neither the FRMPs nor the reporting sheets indicate if an SEA was 
carried out for the FRMPs6. 

Recommendations 

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

  To  be  able  to  assess  progress,  objectives  should  be  defined  in  an  as  specific  and 
measurable way as possible. The FRMPs should indicate whether a baseline is used for 
monitoring progress and if not elaborate one. 

  The  FRMPs  should  clearly  describe  their  links  with  other  prior  and  ongoing  flood 
programmes  and  legislation  in  the  Netherlands.  The  links  between  the  FRMP’s 
objectives  and  those  of  other  Dutch  programmes  and  legislation  for  flood  risk 
management  should  be  clearly  indicated,  as  should  the  process  for  developing  the 
objectives. 

  The FRMPs should provide information on the estimated costs of their measures as well 

as the links that measures may have with other flood risk programmes.  

  The  FRMPs  should  clearly  indicate  how  an  analysis  of  costs  and  benefits  is  used  in 
selecting and prioritising their measures and provide a methodology of the approach.  
  The FRMPs should provide clear information on the organisation of public participation 

and the active involvement of stakeholders.  

6   The  Netherlands  subsequently  commented  that  an  SEA  was  carried  out  on  the  draft  second  National  Water 
Plan  for  2016-2021  (document  titled  “PLANMER  NATIONAAL  WATERPLAN  2,  MINISTERIE  VAN 
INFRASTRUCTUUR  EN  MILIEU,  MINISTERIE  VAN  ECONOMISCHE  ZAKEN”,  dated  21  November 
2014). The draft FRMP’s (and RBMP’s) are part of this national Plan. The SEA was an independent process 
and –the Netherlands continue - should not be mixed with the (final) FRMP’s process. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                 
  The FRMPs should indicate if a Strategic Environmental Assessment was carried out for 

related plans or programmes whose measures the FRMPs adopt. 

  The  coordination  between  the  FRMPs  and  the  national  climate  change  adaptation 

strategy should be ensured or elaborated upon. 

14 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

The  Netherlands  has  reported  four  FRMPs.  Each  FRMP  covers  one  of  the  four  UoMs 
designated in the Netherlands. In addition, a national document was reported: this summarises 

the national objectives and common methodology used across the four UoMs. 

The  Netherlands  did  not  make  use  of  Article  13.3  of  the  Floods  Directive,  which  allowed 
Member  States  to  make  use  of  previous  flood  risk  management  plans  for  the  first  cycle 

(provided their content is equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

All four FRMPs in the Netherlands are assessed. 

Table 5 

UoMs covered by Dutch FRMPs 

UoM code 

NLEM 

NLMS 

NLRN 

NLSC 

UoM Name 

EMS 

MEUSE 

RHINE 

SCHELDT 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The  conclusions  of  the  PFRA  are  presented  in  all  four  FRMPs  assessed.  This  includes  a 

summary map showing areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFRs). All FRMPs assessed 
had  a  textual  description  which  includes  tables  listing  the  APSFRs.  The  Netherlands  applied 

Art. 13.1b and has thus decided to prepare flood hazard and risk maps rather than carrying out 
a PFRA under the FD.  

All  four  FRMPs  provide  links  to  detailed  flood  risk  maps  that  show  the  APSFRs: 
http://www.risicokaart.nl7. 

A reference to conveyance routes is found in all four FRMPs. In particular, conveyance (afvoer 
van  hoogwater)  is  mentioned  throughout  the  Rhine  FRMP  (NLRN)  and  the  Meuse  FRMP, 

which highlight that rivers need more space (so called Uiterwaarden) to allow the evacuation 
of water.8 

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

For each of the  assessed FRMPs, there is  a separate document on international  coordination, 
which  summarises  the  flood  risk  areas  identified  in  coordination  with  neighbouring  Member 
States9. While regular coordination is carried out in all four international UoMs, for the FRMP 
for  the  Ems  UoM,  a  joint  risk  assessment  with  Germany  concluded  that  coordination  could 

focus  on  the  main  channel  of  the  Ems  and  the  estuary  of  Ems-Dollard  (with  yearly  bilateral 
contacts), smaller water bodies did not pose risks.   

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

As noted above, the Netherlands applied Art. 13.1(b) of the Floods Directive and did not carry 
out a PFRA: The FRMPs indicate that flood risks were well known in all UoMs.10 

7   The maps itself are found on the page https://nederland.risicokaart.nl/risicokaart.html 
8   FRMP NLRN, p.43 and FRMP NLMS, p.24. 
9   Internationaal deel overstromingsrisicobeheerplan for UoM’s Ems, Rhine, Meuse, Schelde.  
10   FRMP NLRN, p.30 and similar statements in other FRMP.  

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2 

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

The flood hazard and flood risk maps are presented in all four FRMPs in overview maps for 
the  UoM,  showing  seawater  and  fluvial  flood  hazards  and  risks11.  Each  FRMP  has  a  map 
section  at  the  end  of  the  document  containing  these  maps.  In  none  of  the  FRMPs  do  the 

FHRMs  cover  pluvial  floods,  groundwater  floods,  floods  due  to  artificial  water  bearing 
infrastructure sources or floods from no specific sources. They do, however, include combined 

floods from seawater and fluvial sources.  

In addition, all four FRMPs provide links to the flood hazard and flood risk maps, on the web 
site www.risicokaart.nl, which is oriented towards providing public information. However, the 

link  is  to  the  main  page  and  the  FHRMs  are  difficult  to  find  on  this  website.  The  maps  are 
found on the page https://nederland.risicokaart.nl/risicokaart.html.  

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

Flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  maps  have  been  prepared  for  flood  risk  areas  shared  with  other 
Member  States12.  These  maps  are  available  in  the  international  documents  for  each  UoM13. 
The latter are separate documents that are part of the national FRMPs: the international part is 
called part A of each FRMP, the national part is called part B. However, the maps provided in 

the documents are of low resolution. 

Three of the four FRMPs (the exception being the FRMP for the Ems) coordinated mapping in 
shared flood risk areas with neighbouring Member States. Joint maps have been provided for 

the international parts of the FRMPs. International coordination took place in all four UoMs. 
For the Ems international UoM, the FRMP indicates that coordination between Germany and 

the  Netherlands  mainly  focused  on  the  Ems  River  and  its  estuary  of  the  Ems-Dollard.  The 
Netherlands and Germany concluded that no further regular coordination was required on the 

common smaller tributaries of the Ems, as common areas with flood risks are absent there, due 
to the nature of the small transboundary rivers and canals which do not cross the border. 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

In  all  the  FRMPs,  Flood  hazard  and  risk  maps  (FHRMs)  have  been  used  to  develop  the 
FRMPs. Based on the reporting sheets and the FRMPs assessed: 

11   FRMP NLRN, p.78 and following; FRMP NLMS, p.76 and following; FRMP NLEM, p.76 and following and 

FRMP NLSC, p.76 and following. 

12   Reporting sheets. 
13   Entitled Internationaal deel overstromingsrisicobeheerplan, the international part of the FRMP. 

17 

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

economic activities, assets)  

The  Netherlands  has  a  long-established  water  management,  with  a  regular  checking  of  the 
norms  and  standards  for  dykes.  The  preparation  of  FRMPs  resulted  in  the  identification  of 

several  streams  outside  low  risk  zones  that  do  not  have  dykes  (e.g.  in  Limburg,  part  of  the 
Meuse  UoM)  and  that  can  generate  significant  flood  risks:  this  was  identified  as  a  gap  and 
measures have been included in the FRMPs.14 

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. Neither 
the FRMPs nor the reporting sheets referred to changes.15 

2.4 

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

The  FHRM  assessment16  identified  the  following  areas  for  further  development  for  the 
Netherlands: 

  According to Art.6(5)(a) flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse consequences 
associated with flood scenario in terms of number of inhabitants affected. It appears that 
this  information  was  not  presented  on  all  the  maps  assessed  (even  though  habitable 

buildings have been reported in the area).  

  Only  fluvial  floods  have  been  mapped.  It  was  not  clear  if  the  other  sources  are  not 

considered as potential significant floods in the NL.  

Some  of  these  areas  for  further  development  are  explicitly  addressed  within  the  FRMPs 
assessed:17  

  Other flood sources are not considered as to pose significant risk.  

  The  map  sections  of  each  FRMP  contain  maps  showing  the  number  of  affected 
inhabitants/hectare, but not the total number of inhabitants affected. The total number of 
inhabitants affected has been given in the explanatory text of the flood risk maps. 

14   Reporting sheets of NLEM, NLSC, NLRN, NLME. 
15   Reporting sheets and FRMPs for NLEM, NLSC, NLRN, NLME. 
16   European  Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  –  Member  State  Report:  NL  – 

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

17   The FRMPs of NLEM, NLSC, NLRN, NLME.  

18 

 
 
 
                                                 
  The maps show floods from fluvial and seawater sources, as well as combined flooding 
from these two sources; other flood sources are not shown because they don’t present a 
significant risk.  

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following good practice was identified:  

  Each  of  the  FRMPs  contains  a  separate  document  on  international  coordination, 
indicating  how  the  Netherlands  has  coordinated  with  neighbouring  Member  States  on 
flood risk areas.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

The FRMPs present  seven common  general objectives set  at  national  level.  These objectives 

cover three themes: (1) protection against floods, (2) prevention of the consequences and (3) 
crisis management. Across these themes, the Netherlands has set the following seven common 

objectives (doelen): 

Protection against floods 

1.  The  Netherlands  will  continually  go  through  cycles  of  standardisation  and  testing  of 
flood  defences  and  will  introduce  measures  to  meet  the  protection  levels  in  legislation 
and regulations18;  

2.  The Netherlands will take measures where necessary to address flood risks along waters 

without embankments; 

3.  The  Netherlands  will  prepare  for  future  developments  that  are  important  for  protection 

against flooding;  

Prevention of the consequences 

4.  The Netherlands will limit the consequences of flooding via spatial planning choices;  
5.  The Netherlands prepares for future developments which are important for prevention of 

the consequences of flooding;  

Crisis management 

6.  Dutch crisis management will guarantee decisive and effective action before, during and 

after a flood disaster;  

7.  The Netherlands will prepare for future developments that are important for flood crisis 

management.  

The  FRMPs  provide  information  on  current  protection  levels  cited  in  the  first  objective.  A 

1/100-year  protection  level  is  required  for  flood  protection  infrastructure  in  the  Netherlands 
(and water bodies without dykes, or other protection works, are assessed to check if works are 

needed to ensure this level of protection). The FRMPs also refer to the safety standard to be 

18   The Netherlands subsequently underlined that the first step in the Dutch approach to flood risk management is 
the establishment of legal protection standards. Flood protection infrastructure is periodically checked to see if 
it meets the standards. If this is not the case, appropriate improvement measures are taken.  

20 

 
 
                                                 
achieved by 205019: the risk of fatalities due to flooding should be no higher than 1 in 100,000 
citizens per year.  

In addition, the Netherlands’ reporting sheets refer to the National Water Plan, which cites the 

safety  standards  such  as  the  one  described  above.  The  National  Water  Plan  calls  for  good 
protection  from  and  prevention  of  flooding  and  against  drought  as  well  as  achieving  good 

water quality and a healthy ecosystem as a basis for well-being and prosperity.   

The objectives set in the four FRMPs20: 

  aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods;  
  aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding21;  
 

refer to non-structural measures22.  

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

In the Netherlands, the FRMPs’ objectives are stated in general terms and do not indicate what 
they are trying to achieve (in a quantitative or measurable sense), where, when and how they 

are to be achieved. Nonetheless, the FRMPs also cite the national flood standards, such as the 
2050 safety standard: these overall targets are specific and measurable. 

The Netherlands has linked each of its measures to one of the seven specific FRMP objectives 

(see section 4).  

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

The objectives set in the Netherlands call for the prevention of the consequences of flooding. 
The  FRMPs  moreover  state  that  the  objectives  address  the  four  elements  cited  in  the  Floods 
Directive: human health, economic activity, environment and cultural heritage23 24.    

19   Set in 2015 under the Delta Programme: https://english.deltacommissaris.nl/delta-programme/delta-decisions  
20   These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 
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. 

23   FRMP Maas, p. 38; FRMP Rhine, p. 42.  
24   The Netherlands subsequently stated that health and economic activity have been explicitly named in national 
law  as  goals  for  flood  protection.  Moreover,  by  taking  measures  to  protect  lives  and  the  economy,  cultural 
heritage and the environment are automatically protected too. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

The  objectives  call  for  protection  to  reduce  flood  risks,  and  they  refer  to  the  national  safety 

standard  target  to  ensure  that  flood  related  infrastructure  protects  against  1/100  year  to 
1/10.000 floods for regional flood defences and 1/250 to 1/10.000 for primary flood defenses.  

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

While the FRMPs provide an overview of flood risk management in  the Netherland and  cite 

existing legislation and standards, neither the four FRMPs nor the reporting sheets submitted 
by the Netherlands provide information on the process for setting the FRMPs’ objectives.  

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practice was identified: 

  Common, national safety levels have been identified and are used to assess the safety of 
flood  protection  infrastructure  and  to  guarantee  the  same  level  of  safety  for  all 
inhabitants. 

The following areas for further development were identified:  

  The objectives in the FRMPs itself are not specific or measurable, although the FRMPs 

refer to other national flood targets, such as the national safety levels, that are.  

  The  information  on  these  earlier  plans  and  policies  is  limited  in  the  FRMPs  and  the 
FRMPs  themselves  do  not  describe  the  process  for  setting  objectives,  nor  the  links 
between  their  objectives  and  existing  policy  objectives  and  targets  for  flood  risk 

management in the Netherlands.    

22 

 
 
 
 
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

The  Netherlands  has  reported  116  aggregated  measures  and  no  individual  measures  (neither 
the  FRMPs  nor  the  reporting  sheets  define  aggregated25  measures)26.  The  Netherlands  has 
reported measures across all four aspects of flood risk management27, though the majority are 
for protection: 

  28 measures are for preparedness (24 % of the total 116 measures) 

  12 measures are for prevention (10 %) 

  68 are for protection (59 %) 

  eight measures are for recovery and review (7 %) 

While the number of measures reported per UoM ranges from 25 to 33 measures, each UoM 
has  seven  preparedness  measures,  three  prevention  measures  and  two  recovery  and  review 

measures:  consequently,  only  the  protection  measures  vary  across  the  four  UoMs  (see  Table 
A1 in Annex A for further details).  

The  Netherlands  is  well-known  as  a  low-lying  country  that  has  historically  placed  a  high 
priority initially on flood protection and later on flood risk management. The four FRMPs refer 

to  and  build  on  recent  and  ongoing  national  programmes  and  legislation  for  flood  risk 
management,  and  in  particular:  the  2007  Room  for  the  River  Programme28  (Ruimte  voor  de 
Rivier)  to  restore  flood  plains  and  other  natural  features  as  measures  against  flooding,  now 
nearing completion; the Delta Programme29 (first launched in 2008 and most recently updated 
in  2017)  to  protect  against  flooding  and  secure  freshwater  resources  in  the  face  of  expected 
climate change impacts.  Related to the Delta Programme, the Netherlands took several  Delta 
Decisions30  (proposed  in  2014  and  adopted  in  the  2015  Delta  Programme):  the  Decision  for 
Water Safety states that dykes and dunes should provide protection so that the risk of fatalities 

is no higher than 1 in 100,000 per year.   

25   The Reporting Guidance mentions “Measures can be reported as individual measures (recommended for major 
projects)  or  aggregated  measures,…”  and  also  notes  that  measures  may  be  comprised  of  “many  individual 
projects”. European Commission, Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC), 2013, pp. 54-58. 

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

27   See Annex B for the list of measure aspects and measure types.  
28   https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/english/  
29   https://www.government.nl/topics/delta-programme/introduction-to-the-delta-programme  
30   https://english.deltacommissaris.nl/delta-programme/delta-decisions  

23 

 
 
                                                 
It  appears that most of the measures in  the FRMPs are linked to  actions  decided under prior 
programmes  or  policies.  For  example,  most  of  the  measures  included  in  the  Meuse  FRMP 
originate  from  other  policies  and  plans,  including  the  Meuse  Works  Programme31,  the 
restoration  of  Stone  Cladding  on  the  Oosterschelde  and  the  Westerschelde  (under  the  Delta 
Programme)32 and the Room for the River Programme. The description of the measures in the 
FRMP indicates their original policies and programmes. 

4.1 

Cost of measures 

The  Netherlands  did  not  report  information  on  the  costs  of  individual  measure,  nor  on  the 

overall budgets for the FRMPs’ measures, nor is there any information on these in the FRMPs. 

4.2 

Funding of measures33 

The FRMPs provide an overview of key sources of funding, in particular for flood protection 
infrastructure. The management and maintenance of existing dykes is funded by taxes paid to 

the  regional  water  management  authorities  (waterschappen).  The  national  government 
manages flood protection infrastructure along the main rivers and the coast, providing funding 

from the general budget (approximately EUR 1 billion per year).  

The construction of new flood protection infrastructure is funded in more or less equal shares 
by  the  national  government  (via  the  Delta  Fund,  Deltafonds)  and  by  the  regional  water 

management  authorities  (waterschappen).  The  Delta  Fund  has  allocated  funding  until  2028. 
The FRMPs report that the Netherlands follow the principle that new investments can only be 

funded if the projects follow an integrated approach in the management of the flood risks, and 
take into consideration new safety standards, new technical insights and soil subsidence.  

31   https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/water/waterbeheer/bescherming-tegen-het-water/maatregelen-om-

overstromingen-te-voorkomen/maaswerken/  

32   https://deltaprogramma2018.deltacommissaris.nl/viewer/paragraph/1/2-deltaprogramma-/chapter/1-deltaplan-

waterveiligheid/paragraph/herstel-steenbekledingen-oosterschelde-en-westerschelde-en-
vooroeverbestortingen-zeeland  

33   The FRMPs of the respective UoMs, section 6.2 (Hoofdlijnen en prioriteiten).  

24 

 
 
                                                 
Table 6 

Funding of measures 

Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding  

Use of public budget (national level)  

Use of public budget (regional level)  

Use of public budget (local level)  

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

Private investment  

EU funds (generic)  

EU Structural funds  

EU Solidarity Fund  

EU Cohesion funds  

EU CAP funds  

International funds  

Source: FRMPs 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

Each  FRMP  describes  in  only  general  terms  what  the  measures  are  trying  to  achieve,  where 
they are to be achieved and how they are to be achieved. The FRMPs include indicators for the 

measures; however, in most cases these are “effort” indicators that record the completion of the 
measure  on  the  basis  of  indicators  (which  measures  are  associated  to  objectives),  but  do  not 

translate the completion  of measures into impacts  in  terms  of flood risk  reduction objectives 
(see examples of indicators below under “Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP”).  

In terms of location (see also Table A3 of Annex A), Netherlands has reported that measures 

will be carried out at UoM level, with some in two or three UoMs and many in all four UoMs.   

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

Table 7 

Location of measures  

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Water body level  

More detailed than water body 

Source: FRMPs 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.4  Measures and objectives 

In  its  reporting,  the  Netherlands  has  associated  each  measure  to  one  of  the  seven  common 

national objectives (see section 3 for the objectives): 

  63 measures, all for protection, address objective 1 on protection levels of flood defences 

(54 % of all measures across all aspects) 

  one  measure  for  protection  addresses  objective  2  on  unprotected  waters,  i.e.  currently 

without flood defences (1 % of all measures) 

 

four protection measures, one in each UoM, address objective 3 on preparing for future 
developments that will be important for protection (4 % of all measures) 

  eight  prevention  measures,  two  in  each  UoM,  address  objective  4  to  limit  the 

consequences of flooding via spatial planning (7 % of all measures)   

 

four prevention measures, one in each UoM, address objective 5 on future developments 

that will be important for prevention (4 % of all measures) 

  24  measures  (16  for  preparedness  and  eight  for  recovery  and  review  –  of  which  four 
preparedness and two recovery and review in each of the four UoMs) address objective 6 
on guaranteeing decisive and effective crisis management (21 % of all measures) 

  12  preparedness  measures,  three  in  each  UoM,  address  objective  7  on  future 

developments that are important for flood crisis management.  

For further details, please see Tables A5 and A6 in Annex A.   

As  the  three  themes  and  the  seven  common  national  objectives  are  not  specific  and 

measurable, it is not clear by how much the measures will contribute to their achievement. 

The  FRMPs  moreover  state  that  the  measures  are  designed  to  work  towards  the  new  safety 

standards set in the Netherlands for 2050, in particular by strengthening existing infrastructure 
and  building  new  flood  protection  infrastructure.  It  is  not  stated,  however,  if  the 
implementation  of  the  measures  in  the  four  FRMPs  will  by  themselves  achieve  this  target.34 
The FRMPs state that flood protection infrastructure has top priority and goes through a cycle 

of establishing safety standards, assessing the compliance to these standards and if necessary 
strengthening the infrastructure. The measures are directed towards this goal. 

34   The FRMPs of the respective UoMs, chpt 6.2 Hoofdlijnen en prioriteiten. 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

The  Netherlands  has  reported  information  on  the  location  of  all  measures  (see  Table  A4  of 

Annex A): 

  All  28 preparedness  measures will be undertaken across all four UoMs (i.e. at  national 

scale) 

  All 12 prevention measures will be undertaken across all four UoMs 

  All eight recovery and review measures will be undertaken across all four UoMs 

  The  great  majority  of  protection  measures  (52  of  the  68,  76  %)  are  also  undertaken 

across all four UoMs 

  7 protection measures (10 % of the 68 total) are undertaken in only one UoM, either the 

Meuse, Rhine or Scheldt 

  6 protection measures (9 % of the 68) are undertaken in both the Meuse and the Rhine 

UoMs 

 

three protection measures (4 %) are under in all three of these UoMs (Meuse, Rhine and 

Scheldt) 

The  FRMPs,  however,  provide  a  slightly  different  picture,  indicating  that  measures  are 
formulated  on  the  national  scale  and  will  be  implemented  in  the  specific  contexts  of  each 

UoM.  

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

The Netherlands has reported the priority for its 116 measures. Of these, nearly all – 108 out of 
116  (93  %)  –  are  reported  as  high  priority.  Four  protection  measures  (3  %  of  the  total)  are 

indicated  as  very  high  priority)  and  four  prevention  measures  are  indicated  as  moderate 
priority.   

The FRMPs indicate that the priority of measures is based upon the flood risks assessed, and 

measures  are  being  implemented  based  upon  the  severity  of  flood  risks.  If  a  flood  risk 
assessment  (i.e.  a  regular  check  against  legal  standards)  shows  that  if  flood  protection 

infrastructure  is  no  longer  compliant,  then  it  is  a  legal  priority  to  improve  it.  The  FRMPs 
mention that all measures are of priority35.   

35   The  Netherlands  clarified  subsequently  that  in  the  FRMPs  prevention  of  floods  has  the  utmost  priority.  All 
measures that concern this have received at least priority “high”. Flood standards score “very high”. There is 
only  one  measure  in  each  FRMP  qualified  as  “medium”:  a  “water  test”  of  spatial  planning  proposals  via  a 
consultative process. This prioritisation  has been done on  purpose and conscientiously  because all  measures 
are deemed important and all measures have to be carried out. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
It is reported in the FRMPs of the UoMs that a CBA has been elaborated by the government’s 
Central Planning Bureau (CPB) for the Room for the River Programme 10 years ago, working 

further on earlier work of the Delta Commission. This analysis was the basis, in combination 
with  individual  risks  (casualties,  group  risks)  for  the  decisions  on  prioritisation  of  measures. 
The  norms  for  regional  dykes  were  to  address  a  1/100  year  flood  or  more  stringent.36  The 
earlier  econometric  analysis  (CBA)  used  by  the  CPB  and  the  Delta  Commission  form,  in 

addition to individual risks (casualties, group risks), the basis for the 2014 Delta Decision on 
Water  Safety.  According  to  the  FRMPs,  the  prioritisation  of  protection  measures  was  based 

upon  this  decision.  It  is  not  clear,  however,  how  these  prior  analyses  influenced  the 
prioritisation of the FRMPs’ measures. 

The Netherlands did not report on the exact timetable of the measures, and this information is 

not  clearly  provided  in  the  FRMPs.  The  FRMPs  state  that  the  measures  (e.g.  flood 
infrastructure) are subjected to a cycle of assessment, reporting and compliance; however, the 

FRMPs do not specify the timing of this cycle. 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

The FRMPs indicate that there are four levels  of responsible authorities37: the national  water 
authority (Rijkwaterstaat, part of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment); the regional 

water  authorities  (Waterschappen);  the  provinces  and  municipalities.  In  addition,  the  safety 
regions38, managed by municipalities, play a key role.  

On protection measures: 

  The  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and  Environment  is  responsible  for  policy,  norms  and 

certain primary and regional dykes; 

  The regional water authorities are responsible for most primary and most regional dykes; 
  Provinces are responsible for water policy and norms in their territories. 

On prevention measures:  

  The Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment is responsible for policy; 
  The Ministry of Security and Justice has overall responsibility at national level for crisis 

management;  

36   The FRMPs of the respective UoMs, chpt 7.2. 
37   Chapter 3 of the FRMPs. 
38   The safety regions (veiligheidsregios) are cooperation structures between municipalities. There are 25 safety 
regions in the Netherlands. In case of a flood across several municipalities within a single safety region, the 
region  becomes  responsible  for  coordination  and  crisis  management.  The  mayor  of  the  largest  municipality 
acts as chairman of the safety region. 

28 

 
 
                                                 
  The provinces and municipalities are responsible for implementation in their territories, 

along with designated safety regions (veiligheidsregio’s). 

The  responsible  authorities  for  preparedness,  for  recovery  and  review  measures  are  the 
Rijkswaterstaat, the regional water authorities and the municipalities (also in their roles in the 

safety regions). 

A full overview of the responsible authorities is available under www.helpdeskwater.nl. 

In  its  reporting,  the  Netherlands  identifies  one  or  more  of  these  types  of  authorities  as 
responsible for the measures reported (see Table A9 in Annex A): 

  National authorities are responsible for 46 measures (40 % of the total); 

  National authorities and the provinces are jointly responsible for 12 measures (10 %), all 

for protection; 

  National authorities and the security regions, four measures (3 %), all for preparedness; 

  National authorities and the water authorities, 13 measures (11 %), all for protection; 

  National authorities, municipalities and the regional water authorities, four measures (3 

%), all for prevention; 

  National authorities, municipalities, water authorities and security regions, 24 measures 

(21 %); 

  National  authorities,  provinces,  municipalities  and  regional  water  authorities,  four 

measures (3 %), all for prevention; 

  Regional water authorities, 13 measures (11 %), all for protection. 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

The Netherlands reported the progress of its 116 measures: 

  8 of the 116 were reported as not started (7 %) – all are recovery and review measures; 
  35 as ongoing construction (30 %) – all are protection measures; 
  73  as  progress  ongoing  (63  %)  –  these  include  all  12  prevention  measures,  all  28 

preparedness measures and the remaining 33 protection measures. 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure 

has  been  implemented.  The  Netherlands  did  not  report  this  information  for  its  measures. 
Nonetheless, the reporting sheets indicate that the objectives for FRMPs and RBMPs are partly 

overlapping, which offers opportunities for synergies.  

29 

 
 
The FRMPs do not mention measures under other EU legislation. 

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

The  FRMPs  include  spatial  planning  and  land  use  measures.  An  example  of  a  spatial 
planning measure is  the  application of the ‘Water Check’ (Watertoets): an assessment of the 

implications of spatial plans for flood risk management in an early phase of their development. 

Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in all four FRMPs. These 
continue  the  approach  established  in  the  Netherlands  in  the  national  initiative,  Room  for  the 
River Programme, developed ten years ago and largely completed by 201639. Some measures 
in the Meuse (NLMS) and Rhine (NLRN) FRMPs were designed under this plan. An example 

of  such  a  measure  that  include  providing  more  space  for  the  river  is  the  measure  for 
broadening  of  the  area  between  the  dikes  of  the  Meuse  River  (Maasverruiming).  A  further 

measure  includes  creating  more  space  for  water  flow  within  the  floodplain  of  the  Meuse  by 
removing soil and creating channels.  

The FRMPs do not  include measures that specifically consider  nature  conservation, though 
work for Room for the River should support nature conservation. In addition, all FRMPs state 

in general terms that synergies exist between flood protection and nature in the implementation 
of measures, though specific details are not provided.40  

All four FRMPs assessed make a brief reference that they take into consideration navigation 

and port infrastructure. In general, it is stated that the policy on flood protection always uses 
an  integral  approach,  and  ports  and  navigation  are  a  part  of  this.  However,  no  specific 

measures were identified.  

No reference has been found in the FRMPs to dredging to increase the river channel capacity 
and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes. There is a measure in all FRMPs 

on  maintenance  of  the  river  channels  (Management  and  maintenance  of  the  riverbed)  which 
aims to guarantee a fluent evacuation of flood peaks.41 42 

39   See: https://www.ruimtevoorderivier.nl/english/  
40   The reporting sheets of the respective UoM, summary of the objectives. 
41   The FRMPs of the respective UoM, description of the measures, Annex 2.  
42   The Netherlands subsequently stated that dredging is carried out to maintain navigation depth and conveyance 
capacity,  but  not  for  flood  protection.  Nevertheless,  some  “Room  for  the  River”  measures  (deepening  the 
winter riverbed) could be considered as such. 

30 

 
 
                                                 
4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

Neither  the  FRMPs  nor  the  reporting  sheets  contain  a  reference  to  insurance  policy.43  The 
FRMPs  do  mention,  however,  that  the  government  covers  costs44  in  case  of  flood  damage 
during a disaster, though specific details are not provided.45 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

The reporting sheets indicate that many existing measures have already undergone a process of 

regular  monitoring  and  reporting.  The  FRMP  explains  that  regional  water  authorities  and 
national water authorities have to report on the progress of their tasks (once a year) and about 

the progress of large programmes (twice a year). For example, the Delta Commission makes a 
yearly  report  on  progress  under  the  Delta  Programme.  The  reporting  sheets  state  that  the 

Netherlands  will  make  use  of  these  existing  reports  for  the  Floods  Directive  reporting  to  the 
European Commission.46  

Reporting  is  done  based  upon  a  list  of  indicators  for  the  measures.  These  are  provided  in 
Annex 2 of each FRMP47. For example,  

  For  the  measure  to  manage  and  maintain  flood  protection  infrastructure  (Beheren  en 
onderhouden  -  B&O  keringen),  the  indicator  is:  Measure  developed  yes/no  and 
qualitative description; 

  For the measure on a programme to repair the stone protection of dykes in Zeeland, the 

indicator is the finalisation of the programme (yes/no). 

Information on a baseline is not found in the FRMPs48.  

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive49 

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

development of the second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD. 

43   FRMP NLEM; FRMP NLMS; FRMP NLRN; FRMP NLSC.  
44   Chapter 9.2 in the FRMPs. 
45   FRMP NLEM; FRMP NLMS; FRMP NLRN; FRMP NLSC. 
46   The reporting sheets of the respective UoM, summary of progress. 
47   Bijlage 2 Overzicht van maatregelen voor het verminderen van het overstromingsrisico. 
48   The  Netherlands  subsequently  commented  that  the  Floods  Directive  does  not  explicitly  require  the 

establishment of a baseline. 

49   FRMP NLEM, chpt 13.1 Afstemming met de Kaderrichtlijn Water; FRMP NLMS, chpt 13.1 Afstemming met 
de Kaderrichtlijn Water; FRMP NLRN, chpt 13.1 Afstemming met de Kaderrichtlijn Water and FRMP NLSC, 
chpt 13.1 Afstemming met de Kaderrichtlijn Water. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 8 

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

Integration of FRMP and RBMP  

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMPs and RBMPs  

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

The RBMP PoM includes win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the 
WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and NWRMs a 

Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance 
or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs  
Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included  

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

The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams 
and tidal barriers, have been adapted to take into account WFD Environmental Objectives a 
The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and porous 
pavements, have been considered to reduce urban flooding and also to contribute to the 
achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives  

Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD 

All UoMs

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The responsible authorities for the implementation of the WFD  and  the Floods Directive are 
the same in  all UoMs. Moreover, the  FRMPs indicate that synergies  exist between measures 
under the RBMPs and FRMPs50, in particular for spatial measures as well as NWRMs, such as 
measures related to Room for the River, under the FRMPs are especially valuable for synergies 

with environmental objectives under the WFD, without, however, going into more detail. The 
FRMPs  and  RBMPs  in  the  Netherlands  both  are  under  the  aegis  of  the  National  Water  Plan 

2016-2021,  which  calls  for  a  comprehensive  approach  for  water  management,  encompassing 
flooding, water quality and water use.  

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The FRMPs provide a clear indication of funding sources for the measures, even though 

the overall budget is not provided.  

  All measures are linked to one of the seven national objectives set out for the FRMPs. 

50   Chapter 13.1 Afstemming met de Kaderrichtlijn Water, in the respective FRMPs. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  The FRMPs include measures for spatial planning and room for the river, continuing the 

work of the Netherlands in these approaches to flood risk management.  

The following areas for further development were identified:  

  The FRMPs do not contain concrete information on costs of measures in the UoM.  
  Each  FRMP  describes  in  only  general  terms  what  the  measures  are  trying  to  achieve, 
where they are to be achieved and how they are to be achieved: consequently, while the 
measures are linked to the objectives, they are not specific or measurable in terms of a 

quantifiable contribution towards an objective.   

 

It  appears that many measures in the FRMPs are linked to actions under existing flood 
programmes, but the FRMPs do not clearly indicate these links.    

  The  FRMPs  provide  information  on  monitoring  for  existing  programmes,  but  do  not 
clearly explain how their measures will be monitored, nor indicate if a baseline is used. 

33 

 
 
 
 
5.   Consideration of climate change 

All FRMPs assessed have measures included that consider climate change.  

The FRMPs note that climate change scenarios were analysed by the Delta Commission, and 

indeed  the  Delta  Programme  was  launched  to  address  potential  climate  impacts.  The 
timeframes that were used are 2050 and 2100. Climate change scenarios included a slow and 

fast  climate change scenario and are based upon the  IPCC scenarios. The impacts  of climate 
change  were  examined  at  the  national  scale  for  all  UoMs51.  Based  on  the  scenarios,  it  is 
expected that extreme events will occur more frequently due to climate change. This affects the 
statistical calculation of recurrence times and affect the norms to which dykes have to adhere, 
implying more stringent requirements for dykes.52 The FRMPs do not indicate, however, if the 
main sources of flooding are expected to change under long term climate change scenarios.  

The  FRMPs  do  not  refer  to  the  national  Climate  Change  Adaption  Strategy53,  which  was 
adopted in 2016, after their publication.  

Several measures in the FRMPs specifically refer to climate change. One example is a measure 

for ‘Room for the River’ in the Meuse FRMP: increased peak levels of flooding due to climate 
change are considered in its design.  

The  FRMPs  moreover  underline  that  climate  considerations  are  implicit  in  their  overall 
approach, as:  

  Climate  change  is  taken  into  consideration  overall  in  Dutch  flood  risk  management 

policies, programmes and planning; 
  management is adaptive overall and 
 

there  is  a  cyclical  evaluation  of  norms  and  safety  levels,  and  safety  levels  are  re-
evaluated  regularly  to  cope  with  climate  change  (e.g.  rising  sea  level  and  increased 
frequencies of floods).54 

However,  the  assessed  documents  do  not  contain  details  on  how  these  considerations  are 
implemented, though it is clear that climate change is considered in other Dutch programmes 

and legislation for flood risk management.  

51   FRMP  NLEM,  Chpt.  4.5  Toekomstige  ontwikkelingen;  FRMP  NLMS,  Chpt.  4.5  Toekomstige 
ontwikkelingen;  FRMP  NLRN,  Chpt.  4.5  Toekomstige  ontwikkelingen  and  FRMP  NLSC,  Chpt.  4.5 
Toekomstige ontwikkelingen. 

52   FRMP NLEM, Chpt. 7.2; FRMP NLMS, Chpt. 7.2; FRMP NLRN, Chpt. 7.2 and FRMP NLSC, Chpt. 7.2. 
53   https://ruimtelijkeadaptatie.nl/english/nas/  
54   FRMP NLEM, Programme of Measures, Annex 2; FRMP NLMS, Programme of Measures, Annex 2; FRMP 

NLRN, Programme of Measures, Annex 2 and FRMP NLSC, Programme of Measures, Annex 2. 

34 

 
 
                                                 
5.1  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The  FRMPs  provide  an  overview  of  projected  climate  impacts,  indicate  that  climate  is 
considered in the overall approach to flood risk management and include measures that 
address climate change.  

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  Coordination between FRMPs and national climate change adaptation strategy appears to 

be in need of strengthening. 

35 

 
 
 
 
6.   Cost-benefit analysis 

The four FRMPs assessed refer to cost benefit as a criterion for the establishment of priorities 

for the selection of measures. It is not clear, however, if CBA was carried out specifically for 
the FRMPs: the plans in fact refer to the use of CBA of previous plans and programmes and 

details are lacking on the methodology and outcomes in the FRMP documents. 

The FRMPs note that the Central Planning Bureau carried out CBA for the 2008 Room for the 
River  Programme.  This  analysis  was  also  used  by  the  Delta  Commission.  These  earlier 

econometric  analyses  formed,  together  with  further  analysis,  the  basis  for  the  2014  Delta 
Decision on Water Safety (Deltabeslissing watersafety) to establish a 2050 goal to ensure that 

that the risk of fatalities due to flooding is not higher than 1 in 100,000 citizens per year. In the 
FRMPs, it is explained that the flood standards (including the new flood standard that the risk 

of fatalities due to flooding should be no higher than 1 in 100,000 citizens per year) have been 
based on CBA and that the flood standards are the basis for measures. 

It is unclear from the FRMPs or the reporting sheets whether and for which types of measures 
CBA was used. The FRMPs and reporting sheets also do not include whether CBA was used to 

assess measures with transnational effects, if any.  

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  While  the  Netherlands  undertook  detailed  CBA  for  prior  flood  programmes,  it  is  not 
clear  from  the  FRMPs,  or  the  reporting  sheets,  how  this  information  was  used  in  the 
FRMPs themselves.  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
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 Floods Directive have not changed. 
The Netherlands has not reported new information to WISE since 2014 55. 

7.2 

Public information and consultation56 

The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the four UoMs 
assessed  concerning  the  draft  FRMPs.  Information  on  how  the  consultation  was  actually 

carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section: 

Table 9 

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

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

All UoMs  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Other * 
Note: * “Other” in the Netherlands refers to the national government’s official legal journal. 

✔ 

The reporting sheets submitted by the Netherlands indicate that the FRMPs were available for 

consultation  at  local  authorities  and  via  the  website.  The  announcement  of  the  formal  public 
consultation  was  made  via  the  government’s  official  legal  journal  (the  Staatscourant)  and  in 
newspapers.  An  information  campaign  was  organised  via  two  web  sites:  “our  water” 

(www.onswater.nl),  which  covers  both  floods  and  water  management;  and  “risk  map” 
(www.risicokaart.nl), which provides information to the public on flood risks and other risks, 

including  hazardous  substances,  fires  and  aviation  accidents  and  also  provides  the  FHRMs 
(users can obtain information on local risks by entering their address).  

55   The Netherlands subsequently indicated that the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment (the name of the 
ministry at the time the FRMPs were adopted) is now the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management.   
56   FRMP  NLEM,  summary  of  the  consultation;  FRMP  NLMS,  summary  of  the  consultation;  FRMP  NLRN, 

summary of the consultation and FRMP NLSC, summary of the consultation. 

37 

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

Table 10 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet  

Via social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

Postal written comments 

Other 

All UoMs 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

According to the reporting sheets, written comments could be submitted via Internet for a six-
month period.  

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

Table 11 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions  

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

Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority 

Other 

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs  

✔ 

✔ 

The FRMPs were available for consultation with at local authorities and on the internet for a 
period of six months.57 

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

The  table  below  shows  the  groups  of  stakeholders  that  were  actively  involved  in  the 
development of the four FRMPs assessed: 

57   FRMP  NLEM,  summary  of  the  consultation;  FRMP  NLMS,  summary  of  the  consultation;  FRMP  NLRN, 

summary of the consultation and FRMP NLSC, summary of the consultation. 

38 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 12 

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  

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The Dutch reporting sheets note that the FRMPs were developed on the basis of earlier plans 

and  programmes  that  had  undergone  broad-based  consultations  with  the  public,  NGOs,  the 
private sector and government authorities. For this reason, government authorities were mainly 

involved in the actual development and drafting of the FRMPs. Consequently, it appears that 
the public, NGOs and the private sector were not actively involved in the drafting.58 

The  FRMPs  and  reporting  sheets  do  not  provide  details  on  how  public  authorities  or 
stakeholders were actively involved.59 

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The reporting sheets indicate only that adaptations to the FRMPs were made where necessary 
in  response  to  the  consultation.  The  reporting  sheets  state  that  the  comments  and  how  they 

were considered were summarised in a document for each plan (Nota van Antwoord), but these 
documents were not found.60  

58   FRMP  NLEM,  summary  of  the  consultation;  FRMP  NLMS,  summary  of  the  consultation;  FRMP  NLRN, 

summary of the consultation and FRMP NLSC, summary of the consultation. 

59   FRMP  NLEM,  summary  of  the  consultation;  FRMP  NLMS,  summary  of  the  consultation;  FRMP  NLRN, 

summary of the consultation and FRMP NLSC, summary of the consultation. 

60   FRMP  NLEM,  summary  of  the  consultation;  FRMP  NLMS,  summary  of  the  consultation;  FRMP  NLRN, 

summary of the consultation and FRMP NLSC, summary of the consultation. 

39 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

Neither  the  FRMPs  nor  the  reporting  sheets  indicate  if  an  SEA  was  carried  out  for  the 
FRMPs.61, 62 

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

governance 

The following good practice was identified: 

  Two  web  sites  were  created  to  raise  awareness  and  provide  public  information  on  the 

FRMPs and related flood information, including the FHRMs. 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The  FRMPs  indicate  that  the  public,  NGOs  and  the  private  sector  were  not  actively 
involved  in  their  preparation,  since  previous  flood  programmes  had  employed  broad 
consultation methods. 

  Neither  the  FRMPs  nor  the  reporting  sheets  indicate  if  an  SEA  was  carried  out  for  the 

FRMPs.  

61   FRMP NLEM; FRMP NLMS; FRMP NLRN and FRMP NLSC. 
62   The  Netherlands  subsequently  commented  that  an  SEA  was  carried  out  on  the  draft  second  National  Water 
Plan  for  2016-2021  (document  titled  “PLANMER  NATIONAAL  WATERPLAN  2,  MINISTERIE  VAN 
INFRASTRUCTUUR  EN  MILIEU,  MINISTERIE  VAN  ECONOMISCHE  ZAKEN”,  dated  21  November 
2014). The draft FRMP’s (and RBMP’s) are part of this national Plan. The SEA was an independent process 
and –the Netherlands continue - should not be mixed with the (final) FRMP’s process. 

40 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

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

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

Background & method 

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

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

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

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

  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 

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

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

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

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

  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive)63, 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 State assessors were asked to refer to the 
raw  data  when  conducting  the  assessment,  and  this  Annex  does  not  reflect  these 

observations. 

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

41 

 
 
                                                 
 

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

data sorted. 

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

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

categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The following table64 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 

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

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

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ........... 45 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect ............. 45 
Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A3: Location of implementation by measure aspect ....... 47 
Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A4: Location of implementation by UoM ....................... 48 
Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A5: Objectives by measure aspect ................................... 49 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A6: Objectives by measure aspect ................................... 50 
Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect .................... 51 
Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by UoM .................................... 52 
Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A9: Level of responsibility by measure aspect ................ 53 
Figure A10 - Visualisation of Table A10: Level of responsibility by UoM ............................ 54 
Figure A11 - Visualisation of Table A11: Progress of implementation by measure aspect .... 56 
Figure A12 - Visualisation of Table A12: Progress of implementation by UoM .................... 56 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ..................................................................................... 40 
Table A2 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM
.................................................................................................................................................. 41 
Table A3 - Location of implementation by measure aspect .................................................... 43 
Table A4 - Location of implementation by UoM .................................................................... 44 
Table A5 - Objectives by measure aspect ................................................................................ 46 
Table A6 - Objectives by UoM ................................................................................................ 47 
Table A7 - Category of priority by measure aspect ................................................................. 48 
Table A8 Category of priority by UoM ................................................................................... 49 
Table A9 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect ............................................................. 51 
Table A10 - Level of responsibility by UoM........................................................................... 52 
Table A11 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect .................................................. 53 
Table A12 – Progress of implementation by UoM .................................................................. 54 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
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 

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

Preparedness 

M41  M42  M43 
2 
2 
2 
2 

4 
4 
4 
4 

Prepared-
ness  
Total 
7 
7 
7 
7 

Prevention 

M21  M24 

Prevention 
Total 

Protection 

M31  M32  M33  M35 

Protection 
Total 

Recovery & 
review 
M51  M53 

1 
1 
1 
1 

1 
1 
1 
1 

NLEM 
NLMS 
NLRN 
NLSC 
Grand 
Total 
Average 
per UoM 
Notes: The codes used are explained in section 2 of this document. All measures are aggregated as the Netherlands did not report any individual 
measures. 

13 
21 
19 
15 

25 
33 
31 
27 

10 
12 
11 
11 

3 
4 
4 
3 

2 
2 
2 
2 

3 
3 
3 
3 

1 
1 
1 
1 

1 
1 
1 
1 

1 
2 
1 

4 
2 

116 

17 

29 

11 

68 

28 

12 

14 

16 

44 

7 

4 

2 

1 

1 

2 

4 

1 

3 

2 

1 

1 

2 

8 

4 

8 

4 

4 

6 

4 

4 

8 

0 
0 
116 
116 
116 
116 
25 - 33 
29 

Grand 
Total 

Recovery 
& review 
Total 
2 
2 
2 
2 

44 

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

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

Notes: 
All measures are aggregated as the Netherlands did not report any individual measures. 

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

Notes: 
All measures are aggregated as the Netherlands did not report any individual measures. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

The Netherlands did not report any information on cost in the reporting sheets.  

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report information on the following: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

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

Location of measures 

The location of each measure was determined by the river basin.  

Table A3 - Location of implementation by measure aspect 

Meuse 
(NLMS) 

Rhine 
(NLRN) 

Schelde 
(NLSC) 

Rhine 
(NLRN), 
Meuse 
(NLMS) 

Rhine (NLRN), 
Meuse (NLMS), 
Schelde (NLSC) 

Rhine (NLRN), 
Meuse (NLMS), 
Schelde 
(NLSC), Eems 
(NLEM) 

Grand 
Total 

Preparedness 

Prevention 

Protection 

4 

Recovery & 
Review 

Grand Total 

4 

2 

2 

1 

1 

6 

6 

3 

3 

28 

12 

52 

8 

28 

12 

68 

8 

100 

116 

46 

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

Table A4 - Location of implementation by UoM 

Meuse 
(NLMS) 

Rhine 
(NLRN) 

NLEM 
NLMS 
NLRN 
NLSC 
Grand 
Total 
Average 
per UoM 

4 

4 

1 

2 

2 

1 

Rhine 
(NLRN), 
Meuse 
(NLMS) 

Rhine 
(NLRN), 
Meuse 
(NLMS), 
Schelde 
(NLSC) 

3 
3 

6 

2 

1 
1 
1 

3 

1 

Rhine (NLRN), 
Meuse 
(NLMS), 
Schelde 
(NLSC), Eems 
(NLEM) 
25 
25 
25 
25 

100 

25 

Schelde 
(NLSC) 

Grand 
Total 

25 
33 
31 
27 

116 

29 

1 

1 

0 

47 

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

Geographic coverage 

The geographic coverage for each measure was “RBD”. 

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

in the textual part of the XML); 

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

is required); 

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

required). 

Objectives 

The  objectives  reported  for  each  measure  are  differentiated  by  the  objective  (Doel)  they 

correspond to. The table below presents the measures in terms of the seven common national 
objectives they address. 

These objectives are the following: 

1.  The Netherlands continually goes through cycles of standardization and testing of flood 
defences  and  introduces  measures  if  necessary  for  protection  levels  in  legislation  and 

regulations;  

48 

 
 
 
2.  The  Netherlands  will  take  measures  where  necessary  to  address  flood  risks  along 

unprotected waters;  

3.  The  Netherlands  will  prepare  for  future  developments  that  are  important  for  protection 

against flooding;  

4.  The Netherlands limits the consequences of flooding via spatial planning choices  
5.  The Netherlands prepares for future developments which are important for prevention of 

the consequences of flooding;  

6.  Dutch  crisis  management  guarantees  decisive  and  effective  action  before,  during  and 

after a (threatening) flood disaster;  

7.  The Netherlands will prepare for future developments that are important for flood crisis 

management.  

Table A5 - Objectives by measure aspect 

Objective 
1 

Objective 
2 

Objective 
3 

Objective 
4 

Objective 
5 

Objective 
6 

Objective 
7 

Grand 
Total 

Prevention 

8 

4 

Protection 

63 

1 

4 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

Grand 
Total 

63 

1 

4 

8 

4 

12 

68 

28 

8 

12 

12 

116 

16 

8 

24 

Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A5: Objectives by measure aspect 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A6 - Objectives by UoM 

Objective 
1 

Objective 
2 

Objective 
3 

Objective 
4 

Objective 
5 

Objective 
6 

Objective 
7 

Grand 
Total 

NLEM 

NLMS 

NLRN 

NLSC 

Grand 
Total 

Average 
per UoM 

12 

19 

18 

14 

63 

16 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

8 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

6 

6 

6 

6 

24 

6 

3 

3 

3 

3 

12 

3 

25 

33 

31 

27 

116 

29 

Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A6: Objectives by measure aspect 

Category of priority 

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

  Critical; 

  Very high; 

  High; 

  Moderate; 

  Low. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A7 - Category of priority by measure aspect 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

Grand Total 

4 

4 

8 

64 

28 

8 

108 

4 

4 

Notes: No measures were categorised as either low or critical. 

12 

68 

28 

8 

116 

Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A7: Category of priority by measure aspect 

Notes: No measures were categorised as either low or critical. 

Table A8 - Category of priority by UoM 

Moderate 

High 

Very high 

Grand Total 

NLEM 

NLMS 

NLRN 

NLSC 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

23 

31 

29 

25 

108 

27 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

Notes: No measures were categorised as either low or critical. 

25 

33 

31 

27 

116 

29 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8 - Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by UoM 

Timetable 

No information has been reported on the timetable in the reporting sheets.  

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).  

The Netherlands completed these fields for all measures. 288 different authorities were named, 

making a quantitative assessment of the name of authorities difficult. However, it appears that 
this field was filled out in a reasonably uniform manner.  

Note also that measures reported more than one responsible authority, so the total number of 

authorities were 2 448 (keeping in mind that many are responsible for more than one measure).  

The level of responsibility across measures was summarised in the following tables. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
Table A9 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

N 

N & P 

N & 
security 
region 

N and 
water 
board 

Water 
board 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

N, M, 
water 
board, & 
safety 
region 

N, M, 
& 
water 
board 

4 

N, P, 
M, & 
water 
board 

4 

12 

8 

13 

1 

4 

4 

16 

8 

24 

8 

4 

46 

12 

4 

13 

1 

116 

12 
68 

28 

8 

4 
34 

8 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedne
ss 
Recovery 
& Review 

Grand 
Total 

Notes: N = national P = province M = municipality 

Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A9: Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A10 - Level of responsibility by UoM 

N 

N & P 

N & 
security 
region 

N & 
water 

N, M & 
water 

board 

board 

N, M, 
waterboard, 
&security 
region 

N, P, 
M, & 
water 

board 

NLEM 

NLMS 

NLRN 

NLSC 

Grand 
Total 

Average 
per UoM 

8 

14 

14 

10 

46 

12 

3 

3 

3 

3 

12 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

8 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

Notes: N = national P = province M = municipality 

6 

6 

6 

6 

24 

6 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

Water 

board 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

3 

4 

3 

3 

13 

3 

25 

33 

31 

27 

116 

29 

1 

1 

0 

Figure A10  - Visualisation of Table 10: Level of responsibility by UoM 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

whose responses are analysed below; 

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

The Netherlands reported information  about the progress of implementation of the measures. 
The Progress of implementation was reported as65:  

  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 A11 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Not Started 

Ongoing Construction 

Progress ongoing 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

Grand Total 

8 

8 

35 

35 

12 

33 

28 

73 

12 

68 

28 

8 

116 

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

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

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure A11 - Visualisation of Table A11: Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Table A12 – Progress of implementation by UoM 

NLEM 

NLMS 

NLRN 

NLSC 

Grand Total 

Average per 
UoM 

Not started 

2 

2 

2 

2 

8 

2 

Ongoing 
construction 
6 

12 

10 

7 

35 

9 

Progress ongoing 

Grand Total 

17 

19 

19 

18 

73 

18 

25 

33 

31 

27 

116 

29 

Figure A12 - Visualisation of Table A12: Progress of implementation by UoM 

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

56 

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

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

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

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

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

but are not finalized. 

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

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

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

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

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

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

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

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

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

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license 
or  permit  has  been  issued;  the  regulation  has  been  adopted,  etc.).  If  the  measure 

involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
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). 

The  Netherlands  did  not  provide  information  about  ‘other  Community  Acts’  in  the  reporting 
sheets. Nevertheless, “Other Description” was reported by every measure. 

58 

 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures66 

M11 

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

No Action 

M21 

M22 

M23 

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

Prevention 

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

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

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

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

Protection 

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

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

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

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

M35 

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

Preparedness 

M41 

M42 

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 

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

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

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Recovery & Review 

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

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

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

Other 

Other 

M51 

M52 

M53 

M61 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)  

NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as 

NWRM,  by  encouraging  the  retention  of  water  within  a  catchment  and,  through  that, 
enhancing  the  natural  functioning  of  the  catchment.  The  catalogue  developed  in  the  NWRM 
project  represents  a  comprehensive  but  non-prescriptive  wide  range  of  measures;  other 

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

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

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

Table B2 

List of 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 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

60 

 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A07 Low till agriculture 

A08 Green cover 

A09 Early sowing 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream 
crossings 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

A10 Traditional terracing 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

F11 Urban forest parks 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U07 Soakaways 

U08 Infiltration Trenches 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

61