COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Estonia 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: Estonia, 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) 65 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Estonia 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) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. 

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

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

2.2 

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

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

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

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

3. 

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

3.2 

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

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

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

4.2 

Funding of measures .................................................................................................. 25 

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

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 ....................................................................................... 29 

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 ................................................... 32 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures ............. 33 

5.  Consideration of climate change ....................................................................................... 35 

5.1  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change ......... 36 

6.  Cost-benefit analysis.......................................................................................................... 37 

1 

 
6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ..................................................... 37 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation .  
 ........................................................................................................................................... 38 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................ 38 

7.2 

Public information and consultation .......................................................................... 38 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders .......................................................................... 40 

7.4 

7.5 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................ 42 

Strategic Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 42 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................ 42 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 43 

Background & method .......................................................................................................... 43 

Types of measures used in reporting ..................................................................................... 44 

List of tables & figures .......................................................................................................... 45 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................ 46 

Measure details: cost ............................................................................................................. 47 

Measure details: name & location ......................................................................................... 49 

Measure details: objectives ................................................................................................... 49 

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

Measure details: progress ...................................................................................................... 52 

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

Annex A2: Estonia’s structure of measure groups, measures and actions ............................... 55 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................... 57 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) ................................................. 58 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

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

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

3 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State 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  version  of  the  report  assesses  the  FRMPs  for  Estonia1.  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  FRMPs  as  per  Articles  7 
and 15 of the FD2: this reporting provides an overview of the plans and details on their 
measures. 

  The FRMPs:  Estonia has  three  Units of Management (UoMs) and it reported a FRMP 

for each UoM. All three FRMPs are covered in this assessment. 

In addition to the FRMPs, Estonia has published an Action Plan for 2016-20213: this was also 
covered in the assessment. 

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

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

3  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  –  an  Action  Plan  for  2016-2021  (Üleujutusohuga  seotud  riskide 

maandamiskavade meetmekava 2016-2021). 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview 

Figure 1 

Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

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

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

Estonia  is  divided  into  three  Units  of  Management  (UoMs),  which  correspond  to  the  River 
Basin Districts (RBDs) under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). There is one FRMP for 
each  UoM  –  West-Estonian  (EE1),  East-Estonian  (EE2)  and  Koiva  (EE3).  The  FRMPs  are 
managed  at  national  level,  as  are  the  River  Basin  Management  Plans  (RBMPs)  under  the 
WFD. As a result, the three FRMPs have similar structures and content.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
An FRMP has been developed for the Koiva UoM (EE3), even though no APSFRs have been 
identified. In the Koiva UoM (based on information obtained from the FRMP itself), the aim 
is  to  avoid  and  minimise  risks  from  potential  floods,  and  the  main  focus  is  on  measures  for 
sustaining and improving the natural water retention capacities of the landscape.  

In  addition  to  the  FRMPs,  an  Action  Plan  for  2016-2021  has  been  prepared  and  published, 
containing  more  detailed  information  about  measures.  The  Action  Plan  is  presented  as  an 
annex  in  all  the  FRMPs,  is  cited  in  the  text  of  the  FRMPs,  and  is  published  on  the  internet 
alongside the FRMPs. 

The FRMPs and the Action Plan were approved by the government on 7 January 2016. 

The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Estonia, 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) WISE4 – the FRMP as a PDF and 
the reporting sheet as an XML.  

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Estonia 

UoM 

EE1 

EE2 

EE3 
TOTAL 

Name 

WEST-
ESTONIAN 

EAST-ESTONIAN 

KOIVA 

Number of 
APSFRs 

XML reported 

PDF Reported 

15 

5 

0 
20 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

The FRMPs and the Action Plan are available from the following web page: 

  http://www.envir.ee/et/uleujutused  

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

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview of the assessment 

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

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

not met; 

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

  Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication 
of  the  approach  used  for  the  criterion.  Depending  on  the  comment  in  the  adjacent 
column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”; 

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

FRMP to address the criterion. 

Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives have been 
established  

Strong evidence 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong evidence  

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Strong evidence 

...to non-structural initiatives  Strong evidence  

7 

The three FRMPs all set out objectives. The 
FRMPs for the West-Estonian and East-
Estonian UoMs (EE1 and EE2) set two 
general objectives: to protect existing sites 
from flooding and to ban, or restrict, new 
buildings in flood risk areas. These two 
FRMPs, which contain APSFRs, as well as 
the FRMP for Koiva (EE3), which does not, 
set out further objectives.  

The first objective, as noted above, is to 
protect existing sites from flood. It is 
moreover stated in the FRMPs that the 
objectives have been developed in order to 
reduce or avoid the impacts of flooding on 
human health, natural environment, cultural 
heritage and economic activity.  

Among the more specific objectives, the 
FRMPs call for preventing flooding by 
reducing flood risk areas and preventing 
building in flood risk areas. 

As noted above, one of the general objectives 
for EE1 and EE2 is to restrict construction in 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

flood risk areas. One of the specific 
objectives is to ensure preparedness for 
flooding.  

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Strong evidence 

While human health is not specifically 
identified in the objectives, the FRMPs 
underline that the objectives have been 
developed in order to reduce or avoid the 
impacts of flooding on human health, natural 
environment, cultural heritage and economic 
activity. 

...economic activity  

Strong evidence 

See above under ‘human health’ 

...environment  

Strong evidence 

See above under ‘human health’ 

...cultural heritage  

Strong evidence 

See above under ‘human health’ 

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Some evidence  

Estonia’s FRMPs and Action Plan present a 
three-level system with 12 “measure groups” 
(defined and listed in the FRMPs and in the 
associated Action Plan), which in turn 
consist of 24 measures and 110 actions. 
Estonia, however, has only reported on the 
second level, the measures.  

Estonia has reported priorities for its 
measures (the second level of its three-part 
structure). The Action Plan moreover 
identifies APSFR-specific priorities for the 
majority of the 110 actions.  

The FRMPs provide information on the 
method for prioritisation of the actions: 
legally required actions are assigned high 
priority; for non-technical measures, higher 
priority is given to those that are related to 
protection of human life and health, in 
particular in densely populated areas, and to 
studies; for construction actions, cost-benefit 
analysis (CBA) is used.  

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

8 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...costs & benefits  

Some evidence  

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

...flood conveyance  

No evidence  

...water retention  

Strong evidence 

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD  

Some evidence  

...spatial planning/land use   Strong evidence 

The three FRMPs refer to CBA as a criterion 
for the establishment of priorities for the 
selection of actions, in particular for 
construction actions. Neither the 
methodology nor actual cost-benefit results, 
however, are presented in the FRMPs or the 
Action Plan. 

Both FHRMs and FRMPs provide 
information about probability scenarios of 
flooding events and also about the extent of 
floods accompanied with water depth 
estimates and indicate that this information 
was used in the development of measures. 

There is no evidence in the FRMPs whether 
flood conveyance routes have been taken 
into account or not. The PFRA report states 
that conveyance is not relevant for Estonia, 
as most floods in Estonia are slow fluvial 
floods, and consequently conveyance routes 
have not been described in the PFRA and 
FRMPs, and they have not been taken into 
account when planning the measures.5  

Natural Water Retention Measures 
(NWRMs) are included in the Action Plan 
and include actions in urban areas, such as 
green roofs and wetlands; in agricultural and 
forest lands.  

The FRMPs do not make a clear reference to 
the environmental objectives of the WFD 
(Article 4). Nevertheless, the Action Plan 
indicates whether each action is neutral, 
supporting or in conflict with Estonia’s 
RBMPs.  

In Estonia’s FRMPs, the first measure 
“block” sets out actions for "Limiting the 

5  Estonia clarified subsequently that all previous information in the PFRA and the FHRM was taken into account 
when planning the measures. For example, it was considered how and where floods occur. A short description 
of conveyance routes is available in the PFRA report. Further, Estonia stated that conveyance routes are more 
relevant for flash floods. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

establishment and construction of new 
objects in flood risk areas". This measure 
block includes actions for 1) spatial planning 
to take into consideration flood risks, 2) 
defining non-construction areas, and 3) 
initiating assessments for evaluation of flood 
risk prior to building or reconstruction of 
various installations. 

All three FRMPs contain a brief note that 
they take into account nature protection 
aspects. The Action Plan refers to 
biodiversity and indicates for all actions, 
whether they reduce flood-related risks to 
habitats (i.e. potential significant negative 
impacts on Natura 2000 areas) or protected 
species (potential reduction in area of 
habitats of protected species).  

All three FRMPs make a brief reference that 
they take into consideration navigation and 
port infrastructure. One action addresses 
pollution risks from ports in flood events.  

The FRMPs provide a chapter dedicated to 
climate change and how its impact is taken 
into account in planning the measures and 
actions. Measures are assessed for their 
sensitivity to climate change. The FRMPs, 
however, do not describe in detail the 
expected impacts of climate change on 
flooding events in Estonia and provide only a 
broad overview of shifts in importance of 
different flood sources. Moreover, climate 
change was not considered in the PFRA or 
the FHRMs. 

Although Estonia shares UoMs with 
neighbouring Latvia and Russia, the FRMPs 
do not describe coordination with Latvia or 
Russia on flood risk management. The 
FRMPs note that no flood risk areas are 
shared with neighbouring countries. 

...nature conservation  

Some evidence  

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

Some evidence  

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Strong evidence 

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

No evidence  

10 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Coordination ensured with 
WFD  

Some evidence  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Strong evidence 

As noted above, all actions have been 
assessed in terms of their compatibility with 
the RBMPs. The FRMPs do not explicitly 
explain, however, whether WFD objectives 
have been taken into account during the 
development of FRMP measures and actions. 

Estonia organised 25 public meetings and 
workshops on the FRMPs, and also prepared 
an online survey whose results provided 
input to the FRMPs. 

Good Practices 

The assessment identified the following good practices in the Estonian FRMPs. 

Table 3 

Good practices in the Estonian FRMPs 

Topic area 

Good practices identified 

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

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs.  

The Action Plan provides details on measures and actions: their 
location and responsible authorities and, for some, information on 
costs and deadlines. Many of the actions are specific and measurable.  

Most actions have been prioritised at the level of UoMs and APSFRs. 
The methodology for prioritisation has been described in the FRMPs. 

The FRMPs and the Action Plan include measures and actions for 
sustainable land-use and NWRMs. 

An FRMP has been developed for the Koiva UoM (EE3), even 
though no APSFRs have been identified: its aim is to avoid and 
minimise risks from future floods and the main focus is on measures 
for sustaining and improving the natural water retention abilities of 
the landscape. 

A measure for preventing post-flood pollution has been proposed. 

The Action Plan assesses each action for its compatibility with the 
RBMP. 

Climate change was addressed in the development of the FRMPs and 
the Action Plan: most importantly, the sensitivity of all actions to 
potential climate change was assessed. The methodology for this 
assessment is presented in the FRMPs.  

Use of CBA in the 
FRMPs.  

Cost benefit analysis is identified as a criterion for the prioritisation 
of construction actions, including NWRMs.  

Public participation.  

Several mechanisms have been used for involving stakeholders. In 

11 

 
 
 
Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Flood risk governance.  

total 25 workshops were held to present the FRMPs and gather 
feedback from stakeholders and the public. A survey was held to 
gather information on public awareness. A range of national and local 
government bodies provided input.  

Consultations on policy activities related to flood risk management, 
such as marine strategy and land management, were used to raise 
awareness and gather input on the FRMPs. 

The preparation of the FRMPs was coordinated with the preparation 
of the second RBMPs under the WFD via consultation with the 
Commission for River Basin Management on measures and actions 
(the Commission brings together government bodies, national experts 
and water service companies for coordination on the implementation 
of the WFD and RBMPs). Moreover, the Ministry of Environment 
was the lead competent authority for both documents. 

Coordination with local and national authorities took place as part of 
the development of the FRMPs.  

Areas for further development 

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

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Estonian FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas for further development identified 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

The FRMPs lack a detailed description of how the APSFRs and 
FHRMs have been used to prioritise objectives and/or measures.  

FHRMs have not been prepared for two of Estonia’s 20 APSFRs.  

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk.  

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

In cases of floods from multiple sources, the FRMPs do not indicate 
clearly how different flood sources have been considered and how 
their respective contributions to flood risk have been distinguished. 

The objectives are broad and are neither specific nor measurable.  

While some budget information is provided, it has not been broken 
down per UoM. Budget information has not been provided for 
construction measures. 

Since the objectives are not specific or measurable, it is not clear how 
and by how much the measures and their actions will contribute to 
their achievement. There are no indicators or baselines for 
determining progress.  

No indicators for evaluating the impact and progress of measures and 

12 

 
 
 
Topic area 

Areas for further development identified 

actions are described, and no baseline is established. 

There is no description in the FRMPs or Action Plans how the 
progress and impact of the measures and actions will be monitored 

Use of CBA in the 
FRMPs.  

The FRMPs do not describe the methodology for CBA, nor present 
the results. 

The work on CBA may not be complete, as the FRMPs call for 
additional and more detailed analysis. 

The FRMPs do not provide information on the specific comments and 
inputs received during consultation, nor on changes made in response 
to inputs from stakeholders or the public. 

The FRMPs are quite similar in content and do not describe in detail 
differences in flood risks across the UoMs and how such differences 
have influenced the programming of measures and actions.  

It appears that Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) were not 
carried out for the FRMPs.  

Public participation.  

Flood risk governance.  

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 specific and measurable to the extent 

possible and the FRMPs should describe the process for setting objectives.  

  FRMPs  should  provide  more  detailed  information  on  measure  costs  in  each  UoM. 
Developing indicators to measure progress in the implementation should be considered.  

  The  FRMPs  should  provide  more  UoM-specific  information.  Differences  among  the 
UoMs do not come out from the documents (except in case of EE3) – for example, how 
conditions in each UoM have influenced the selection of measures. 

  The FRMPs should describe the methodology used for CBA and present the results.  

  More detailed information should be provided on how the public and stakeholders were 

actively involved and how their inputs were considered.  

  SEAs should be considered for Estonia’s FRMPs. 

13 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Estonia  has  reported  three  FRMPs,  one  for  each  of  its  three  UoMs.  It  also  submitted  an 
accompanying document – an Action Plan6 – which provides information about the measures 
and actions planned across all three FRMPs. The Action Plan is presented as an annex in all 
the FRMPs, is referred to in the text of the FRMPs and published online alongside the FRMPs. 

Estonia  did  not  make  use  of  Article  13(3),  which  allowed  Member  States  to  use  flood  risk 
management plans finalised before December 2010 for the first cycle of the FD. 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

The assessment covered all three Estonian FRMPs: 

Table 5 

UoMs in Estonian FRMPs 

UoM code 

EE1 

EE2 

EE3 

UoM Name 

West-Estonian 

East-Estonian 

Koiva 

In addition, Estonia’s Action Plan has been taken into consideration in the assessment.  

6  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans  –  an  Action  Plan  for  2016-2021  (Üleujutusohuga  seotud  riskide 

maandamiskavade meetmekava 2016-2021). 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 three FRMPs, including in the FRMP for the 
Koiva  UoM  (EE3),  despite  the  fact  that  no  APSFRs  had  been  identified  there.  All  three 
FRMPs provide a textual description, including of the methodology employed in the previous 
steps and their  results. The two FRMPs for UoMs where APSFRs  were identified (EE1 and 
EE2) had a summary map showing these areas, including tables listing the APSFRs. Although 
two RBDs/UoMs (EE2 and EE3) are shared with neighbouring Member States, there are no 
international flood risk areas identified in these UoMs7. 

The  PFRA  considered  floods  from  fluvial,  pluvial,  groundwater  and  seawater  sources  and 
floods  from  artificial  water-bearing  infrastructure.  The  PFRA  also  considered  other  flood 
sources,  mainly  wind-related  flooding  on  large  lakes.  The  FRMPs  do  not  indicate  clearly, 
however,  how  different  flood  sources  might  act  in  combination  and,  in  such  cases,  their 
respective contributions to flood risk have not been distinguished in the APSFRs. 

Links to maps of the APSFRs have been provided as URLs in the FRMPs for EE1 and EE2: 
the  FRMPs  provide  a  link  to  the  page  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment8,  which  provides 
maps of the APSFRs and the FHRMs9.  

Conveyance  routes  have  been  acknowledged  in  the  FRMPs  as  part  of  PFRA  requirements 
under the Floods Directive but were not taken into account10. There are no further details in 
the FRMPs: instead, the PFRA report explains that information on flood conveyance routes is 
important in case of sudden rise of water level or water flows, where this information can be 
used to designate a vulnerable area. This is not the case for major floods in Estonia, which are 
mostly related to fluvial and seawater floods. Due to the local conditions, conveyance routes 
are clear and stable and the changes in water level take place slowly. Floodwater movements 
in  major  flood  areas  in  Estonia  have  not  been  sudden  and  abrupt,  both  rising  and  receding 
along river courses11. 

7   FRMP: EE1 page 11-14; FRMP: EE2 page 10-12; FRMP: EE3 page 9-10. 
8   http://www.envir.ee/et/uleujutusohuga-seotud-riskide-esialgne-hinnang  
9   The links are found on FRMP: EE1 page 11; FRMP: EE2 page 10; FRMP: EE3 page 9. 
10   Estonia stated subsequently that it omitted to mention  in the FRMP that conveyance routes were taken into 

account. 

11   FRMP:  EE1  page  11;  FRMP:  EE2  page  10;  FRMP:  EE3  page  9.  The  pages  have  references  to  the  PFRA 
report via  link  to  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  where  there  is  a  direct  link  to  the  document.  For  the  1st 
cycle  PFRA  information  is  on  https://www.envir.ee/et/uleujutusohuga-seotud-riskide-maandamiskavad-i-
tsukkel and for the 2nd cycle on. http://www.envir.ee/et/uleujutusohuga-seotud-riskide-esialgne-hinnang  

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

Although  two  RBDs/UoMs  (EE2,  East  Estonian,  and  EE3,  Koiva)  are  shared  with 
neighbouring Member States, no international flood risk areas identified and assigned for the 
FRMPs. The FRMPs do not indicate if the identification of flood risk areas was coordinated 
with neighbouring Member States12. 

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

All  three  FRMPs  explain  that  the  FHR  maps  were  prepared  for  flood  risk  areas  (APSFRs) 
assigned  previously  in  the  PFRA,  which  assessed  the  identified  areas  with  more  detail. 
However, further details are not provided13. 

2.2 

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

FHRMs  were  prepared  for  18  areas  located  in  the  EE1  (West-Estonian)  and  EE2  (East-
Estonian) UoMs, compared to the initially designated 20 APSFRs. Two flood risk areas, one 
in EE1 and one in EE2 have not yet been mapped for flood hazard and flood risk because of 
uncertainties in the determination of flood extents and probabilities.  

FHRMs  have  not  been  provided  in  any  of  the  FRMPs.  Instead  links  to  maps  have  been 
provided in all three FRMPs (even in the EE3 FRMP, although no APSFRs were designated 
there). Specifically, the FRMPs provide the link (URL)  of  the Ministry of the Environment, 
which  leads  to  direct  links  of  the  FHRMs  (the  maps  are  visible  on  the  GIS  application 
operated by the Estonian Land Board)14. The link to the location of the FHRMs provided in all 
of the FRMPs is: 

 

http://www.envir.ee/et/uleujutusohupiirkonna-ja-uleujutusohuga-seotud-riskipiirkonna-
kaardid  

12  FRMP: EE2 page 11-12. 
13  FRMP: EE1 page 15; FRMP: EE2 page 13; FRMP: EE3 page 11. 
14   FRMP: EE1 page 15, 16, 18; FRMP: EE2 page 13, 14, 15; FRMP: EE3 page 11. 

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

As  no  cross-border  flood  risk  areas were  identified,  cross-border  FHRMs  were  not  prepared 
for any of Estonia’s UoMs15. 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

In all the FRMPs, the FHRMs have been used to develop the FRMPs. Based on the reporting 
sheets and the FRMPs: 

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

economic activities, assets).  

  FHRMs have been used as a tool in the public participation process. 

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

  Measures have been defined based on the FHRM. 

Details  on  how  the  FHRMs  were  used  to  develop  FRMPs  are  rather  limited,  general  and 
scattered in the reporting sheets and the FRMPs. In general, all FRMPs refer in a standard text 
to the development of the FRMPs and its measures on the basis of FHRMs. For example: the 
development  of  the  measures  in  the  EE1  FRMP  was  based  on  the  FHRMs,  and  the  flood 
hazard  maps  were  based  on  flood  probability  scenarios.  Flood  risk  maps  describe  potential 
adverse effects (associated with population, economic activities, wastewater treatment plants 
etc.) together with these scenarios. In addition, the FRMPs and the reporting sheets mention 
that interested parties and the public were involved in the preparation of the FHRMs. Specific 
objectives on flood risk reduction have been set based on the pre-defined risk factors in major 
flood risk areas with the help of the FHRMs16. 

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

The  FRMP  assessment  looked  for  information  on  changes  in  the  identification  of  APSFRs 
since  December  2011  or  in  the  FHRMs  since  December  2013  indicated  in  the  FRMP:  no 
information concerning changes was found in the FRMPs. 

15   Reporting sheets: Summary of Coordination 
16   Reporting  sheets:  Summary  of  Objectives;  Reporting  sheets:  Summary  of  Consultation;  FRMP:  EE1  pages 

18, 41, 43, 54; FRMP: EE2 pages 15, 34, 35, 46; FRMP: EE3 pages 24, 35.  

17 

 
 
                                                 
2.4 

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

The FHRM assessment identified the following areas for further development for Estonia17: 

  For two areas, Järvakandi and Kohtla Järve, maps were not reported.  

 

 

It seems that Estonia only reported population at risk for low probability fluvial floods.  

It seems that there were no potentially affected protected areas in the UoMs, apart from 
public beaches and Natura 2000 sites.  

  Climate change was not included in the analysis.  

None  of  these  areas  for  further  development  are  explicitly  addressed  in  the  time  period 
between  publication  of  the  FHRMs  and  the  publication  of  the  FRMPs,  according  to  the 
FRMPs and the reporting sheets. Nonetheless, the following information has been found: 

  FHRMs have not yet been prepared for the two missing APSFRs, Järvakandi and Kohtla 
Järve,  due  to  ongoing  uncertainties  in  the  determination  of  flood  extents  and 
probabilities18.  

  The  FHRMs  now  include  information  on  population  at  risk  for  four  probabilities  of 

floods, including 10-year and 50-year floods19. 

  Concerning potentially affected protected areas in the UoMs apart from public beaches 
and  Natura 2000  sites,  the  FRMPs  clarify  that  the  FHRMs  also  show  cultural  heritage 
monuments  and  other  sensitive  objects  (kindergartens,  schools,  hospitals,  local 
government buildings, libraries, police stations, rescue stations)20. 

  The FHRMs have not been updated to consider climate change, and it is indicated that 

they will do so for the next cycle. 

17   Based on European Commission, Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps – Member State Report: 

EE – Estonia, 2014. Available at:  
  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/EE%20FHRM%20Report.pdf  

18   In  both  cases,  this  is  due  to  difficulties  in  mapping  a  combination  of  flood  sources:  for  Järvakandi,  floods 
could result from a combination of spring meltwater accompanied by two other factors: high groundwater and 
lack of capacity of the rainwater drainage system. For Kohtla-Järve, pluvial floods could be accompanied by 
problems with the rainwater drainage system.  

19   Estonia argues this has been the case since the maps were first produced and that the relevant information was 

duly reported to the European Commission. 

20   EE1 FRMP p.18 and EE2 FRMP p.15  

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The FRMPs lack a detailed description of how the APSFRs and the FHRMs have been 
used  to  prioritise  objectives  and/or  measures.  FHRMs  have  not  yet  been  prepared  for 
two of Estonia’s 20 APSFRs (Järvakandi and Kohtla Järve). 

  FHRMs  are  not  provided  in  the  body  of  the  FRMPs  or  as  annexes  for  illustration  and 
completeness,  though  the  plans  contain  internet  links  to  the  maps.  In  cases  of  floods 
from  multiple  sources,  the  FRMPs  do  not  indicate  clearly  how  different  flood  sources 
and their respective contributions to flood risk have been accounted for.  

19 

 
 
 
 
3.  Setting of Objectives 

3.1  Focus of objectives21 

The FRMPs for EE1 and EE2 both set out two general objectives:  

1.  Protect existing sites from flooding;  
2.  Ban or restrict construction of new buildings based on the nature of the site.  

Since  there  is  no  APSFRs  identified  in  EE3,  the  corresponding  FRMP  has  set  out  only  one 
general objective: prevent the emergence of any significant flood risk areas.  

All  three  FRMPs  contain  further  objectives,  which  are  linked  to  measures  and  expected 
results. This list, the same in all three FRMPs, has been divided into three groups:  

1.  Prevention:  Prevent  the  emergence  of  new  flood  risk  areas  (reducing  the  likelihood  of 

flood risk while taking into account potential climate change projections). 

2.  Prevention/avoidance:  

a)  Prevent  flooding  (reducing  flood  risks  in  risk  areas  and  thereby  the  impact  of 
flooding on human health, the natural environment, cultural heritage and economic 
activity);  
b) Protect against flooding and control flooding (reducing impacts of flooding via 
technical  measures  in  buildings  and  areas  in  order  to  protect  human  health,  the 
environment, cultural heritage and economic activity). 

3.  Preparedness:  Ensure  preparedness  for  flooding  (preparing mitigating  and  preventative 
measures,  including  shaping  behavioural  habits  to  raise  awareness  and  ensuring 
technical readiness for temporary protection measures).  

The FRMPs for EE1 and EE2 go on to emphasise the importance of specific sites when setting 
targets  and  determining  activities  related  to  the  objectives.  The  FRMPs  state  that  attention 
should  be  paid  to  sites  that  may  pose  significant  threat  to  human  life  and  health,  property 
and/or  the  natural  environment  as  a  result  of  flooding.  Elaboration  of  rules  for  construction 
planning and implementation in flood risk areas should be considered to prevent risks.  

Even though the flood risk management objectives defined in Estonia are rather general, it can 
be concluded that in the FRMPs22: 

21   Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  for Western Estonia  River Basin  (EE2) 2016-2021,  pages  28-29;  Flood  Risk 
Management Plan for Eastern Estonia River Basin (EE1) 2016-2021, pages 22-23; Flood Risk Management 
Plan in Koiva River Basin (EE3) 2016-2021, pages 12-13. 
22   These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 

20 

 
 
 
                                                 
  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods.  
  The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding23.  
  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented. 
  The objectives refer to non-structural measures24.  

3.2  Specific and measurable objectives 

In  Estonia,  the  objectives  are  neither  specific  nor  measurable.  Neither  the  general  nor  the 
specific  objectives  for  the  FRMPs  are  specific  in  terms  of  what  they  are  trying  to  achieve, 
where they are to be achieved, or when they are expected to be achieved.  

While in the FRMPs indicators are provided, they are associated to the measures rather than to 
the objectives.  

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

The  three  FRMPs  state  that  objectives  are  there  to  reduce  or  protect  against  the  impact  of 
flooding on human health, the natural environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

The objectives include the reduction of likelihood of flooding in flood risk areas (as well as 
prohibiting the creation of new risk areas).  

3.5  Process for setting the objectives  

The  FRMPs  do  not  clearly  outline  how  the  objectives  were  set.  While  the  FRMPs  refer  to 
coordination among government authorities (see section 7), it is not stated if this included the 
definition of objectives. Nor is information provided if the consultation of private stakeholders 
or the public encompassed the objectives. 

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

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

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

as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding  setting 

objectives 

The following good practice was identified:  

  An  FRMP  was  prepared  for  the  Koiva  UoM  (EE3)  despite  the  fact  no  APSFRs  were 
identified in this UoM: its aim is to avoid and minimise risks from future floods and the 
main  focus  is  on  measures  for  sustaining  and  improving  the  natural  water  retention 
abilities of the landscape.  

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The objectives are very broad and are neither specific nor measurable.  

  Little information is provided in the FRMPs on the process for setting objectives. 

22 

 
 
 
 
4.  Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

In  its  reporting  sheets,  Estonia  reported  70  aggregated25  measures  and  no  individual 
measures26. The number of measures per UoM is ranging from 22 (in EE3) to 24 (in EE1 and 
EE2).  All  three  UoMs  contain  measures  covering  the  four  aspects27:  protection;  prevention; 
preparedness; recovery and review.  

The  majority  of  the  measures  are  prevention  measures  (44  measures  or  around  63%  of  all 
measures  reported  in  Estonia)  followed  by  preparedness  (20  measures,  around  29%  of  the 
total).  There  are  three  protection  and  three  recovery  and  review  measures,  one  of  each  per 
UoM (each around 4% each of the total): all the protection measures are listed as measure type 
M31,  natural  flood  management28;  all  the  recovery  and  review  measures  are  listed  as  type 
M53, other recovery29. Please see Tables A1 and A2 and Figures A1 and A2 in Annex A for 
further detail on the information provided in Estonia’s reporting sheets. 

The data and numbers provided in the reporting sheets do not provide all the information on 
measures given in the FRMPs and the Action Plan. The latter documents describe a national 
approach for defining and structuring measures, organised on three levels: 

  At the first level, there are 12 “measure blocks” or “groups” (Meetmeplokid in Estonian) 

that serve a common target.  

  Under  these  measure  groups,  24  measures  have  been  identified:  Estonia’s  reporting 

sheets provide information at this, second level. 

  Under  the  measures,  Estonia’s  Action  Plan  identifies  110  actions,  each  a  concrete, 

specific activity.  

Please see Annex A2 for a more detailed overview of this structure. 

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   For details about all measure aspects and measure types, see Annex B. 
28   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. 

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

policies. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
4.1 

Cost of measures 

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

All UoMs 

Estimated budget for measures/actions (2015-2021) in EUR 
(construction actions not included) 
EUR 289 610 

Source: FRMPs 

In the each of the three FRMPs, only the total national budget for implementation of the non-
construction measures in Estonia is provided: the total cost of the planned measures is EUR 
289 610 over a period of 6 years (construction actions are not included). There are no separate 
budgets for UoMs or APSFRs.  

In its reporting sheets, Estonia provides cost estimates for 40 of its 70 measures (57 %): these 
costs – which refer to the second level of measures – vary between EUR 3 000 and EUR 69 
000,  with  the  majority  of  the  measures  being  in  the  range  EUR  20  000  -  50  000.  The  costs 
appear to be evenly distributed across measure aspects and UoMs (for more details see Tables 
A3 and A4 in Annex A). 

The Action Plan provides further detail, specifying cost estimates for 78 % of the actions (the 
third level of the measure hierarchy). For the remaining 22 % of the actions, costs are listed as 
unknown or zero (of these 22 %, for approximately 40 % the cost is listed as zero – most of 
these  are  administrative  actions  that  are  being  already  implemented  and  already  taken  into 
account  in  the  budgets  of  the  state,  local  governments  or  other  responsible  authority).  The 
highest cost of an action has been identified at approximately EUR 28 000.  

The  FRMPs  describe  the  methodology  for  the  cost  estimates:  these  are  based  on  the  hourly 
rates  of  working  time  of  officials  and  experts  of  relevant  professions.  Costs  of  construction 
works  should  be  based  on  the  expert  opinion  of  engineers  or  other  competent  experts.  For 
construction  actions,  it  is  noted  that  costs  will  vary  according  to  specific  location  and 
conditions  and  additional  studies  are  needed  to  plan  the  actions  in  detail.  The  costs  of 
construction  actions  are  usually  determined  by  the  known  average  price  range,  and  is 
presented  as  price  per  unit  (per  length  or  area  unit  of  an  object).  This  is  the  reason  why 
concrete costs of construction works have not been provided in the description of measures.  

The Action Plan identifies 65 out of the 110 individual actions as “obligatory” in that they are 
required and implemented under existing legislation or programmes; the other 45 actions are 
identified as “supportive/mitigating”. In particular, the costs for many obligatory measures are 
set  to  zero  as  they  are  related  to  ongoing  obligations  and  implementation  processes,  like 

24 

 
 
 
described above (38 actions out of 65, for example, 59 % of obligatory measures have a value 
“0”). 

The  costs  are  presented  for  administrative,  research  and  advisory  actions  of  measures  and 
mainly for these actions that are not obligatory. Time required for the operations has also been 
taken  into  consideration  in  the  calculations  of  costs,  and  is  based  on  expert  opinion.  The 
FRMPs do not describe any differences in the calculation methods of costs for different types 
of measures (prevention, protection, preparedness). 

4.2 

Funding of measures 

According  to  the  FRMPs  and  the  Action  Plan,  measures  are  being  financed  from  the  state 
budget,  local  government  budgets,  European  Union  and  private  sector  funds,  depending  on 
which  organisation  or  body  is  responsible.  Existing  and  potential  sources  of  funding  are 
identified for each measure (the FRMPs note that potential sources can change)30. 

Table 7 

Funding of measures 

Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding 

Use of public budget (national level) 

Use of public budget (regional level) 

Use of public budget (local level) 

Private investment 

EU funds (generic) 

EU Structural funds 

EU Solidarity Fund 

EU Cohesion funds 

EU CAP funds 

International funds 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

The  Action  Plan  provides  information  on  the  description  of  each  action,  its  location  (the 
APSFR or the UoM as a whole) and the responsible authorities. For many but not all actions, a 
completion date is provided.  

Consequently,  for  all  measures  and  actions  across  the  three  UoMs,  the  planning  documents 
provide a clear description of the measures and actions with regard to:  

30  FRMP: EE1 page 48; FRMP: EE2 page 40; FRMP: EE3 page 28: Action Plan 2016-2021 (xls) 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  What they are trying to achieve, 

  Where they are to be achieved, 

  How they are to be achieved.  

The planning documents do not, however, always provide clear information on: 

  By when the measures and actions are expected to be achieved. 

As noted above, the measures and actions indicate the following levels of location:  

Table 8 

Location of measures  

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Water body level  

All UoMs  

✔ 

✔ 

Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs 

The  location  of  the  measures  and  their  actions  is  in  most  cases  the  relevant  APSFR,  but  in 
some cases the whole UoM is designated: this is for actions in EE3, in particular31.  

4.4  Measures and objectives 

It is not clear how measures will contribute to the achievement of objectives, nor clear by how 
much they will contribute. It is also not clear whether the objectives will be achieved when all 
measures  are  completed.  The  expected  impacts  are  not  described  in  the  related  Action  Plan 
and  FRMPs  and  no  numerical  indicators  have  been  proposed,  therefore  the  actions’  impacts 
are  not  quantifiable.  In  the  FRMPs  quite  detailed  descriptions  of  actions  for  achieving  the 
objectives  are  given  in  table  format,  but  there  are  no  measurable  indicators  identified  for 
evaluating their progress.  

On the other hand, the objectives in the Action Plan are actually equivalent to the aspects of 
measures  (prevention,  preparedness  etc).  For  these  reasons,  it  is  not  possible  (based  on  the 

31  FRMP: EE1 page 44; FRMP: EE2 page 36; FRMP: EE3 page 25; Action Plan 2016-2021 (xls) 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
FRMPs and the Action Plan) to assess progress of the implementation of the management plan 
against its objectives32. 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

As noted above, the Action Plan identifies the location of actions: this is either the UoM or the 
APSFR level (the latter is designated only for actions in EE1 and EE2, the West-Estonian and 
East-Estonian UoMs, respectively)33. 

The  Action  Plan  identifies  the  geographic  coverage  of  actions  at  either  UoM  or  at  APSFR 
level for many measures in EE1 and EE234. 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

In the reporting sheets, Estonia indicated the priority of all measures: 83% of all the measures 
are categorised as high priority (measures of all aspects are classified at this level of priority) 
and  the  remaining  17  %  as  moderate  priority  (only  prevention  measures).  No  measures  are 
categorised in the other three categories for reporting: critical, very high or low priority. All 
UoMs  have  basically  the  same  proportion  (ranging  82-83%)  of  high  priority  measures 
compared to moderate priority measures (for details see Tables A5 and A6 in Annex A).  

Estonia’s FRMPs and Action Plan provide more detailed information at the level of actions, 
but also present a different scale of priority: there are three levels – high, moderate, and low 
priority  and,  in  addition  to  those  three  main  levels,  “risk  area  specific”,  meaning  that  the 
priority  can  only  be  estimated  on  at  risk  area  level.  Most  but  not  all  actions  are  assigned  a 
main level of priority: however, some actions are designated as “risk area specific”. Out of the 
total  of  44  construction  actions,  18  are  identified  as  “obligatory”  and  their  priority  is  set  as 
“high”. The remaining 26 construction actions are set as “supportive/mitigating” and for the 
majority  of  these,  their  level  of  priority  is  set  as  “risk  area  specific”  –  only  one  of  the 
“supportive/mitigating”  construction  actions  has  high  priority  and  two  have  no  priority  (not 
relevant in certain APSFR). This information in the Action Plan is in contrast with the text of 
FRMPs,  where  it  is  stated  that  the  priority  of  construction  actions  was  not  evaluated  in  the 
preparation of the FRMPs, as it may vary from location to location. 

According to the FRMPs, the prioritisation of actions associated to the measures has used the 
following principles:  

32   FRMP: EE1 page 28; FRMP: EE2 page 22; FRMP: EE3 page 12; FRMP, EE2, pages 28-29, 45-50 Action 

Plan 2016-2021 (xls) 

33   In  its  reporting  sheets,  however,  Estonia  indicated  the  location  of  all  measures  and  their  actions  as  the 

respective UoM. 

34   In its reporting sheets, however, Estonia indicated the geographic coverage for all measures as the UoM. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
1)  All actions based on legal acts and other actions that are already being implemented are 

automatically considered as of high priority.  

2)  Priority  assessment  for  non-technical  mitigating  actions  is  carried  out  at  operational 
level,  i.e.  either  at  APSFR  or  UoM  level  depending  on  the  action.  The  priority  level 
depends on the relevance of the action in the area concerned. The relevance is defined 
by control questions:  

a.  Does the action directly help to save people's lives, protect human health?  
b.  Does  the  action  directly  contribute  to  the  prevention  of  flood  risk  in  densely 

populated areas? 

c.  Is the action an important study/research whose output is important for the further 

implementation of other actions?  

3)  For  construction  actions,  priority  is  assessed  by  taking  into  account  CBA,  in  order  to 
avoid excessive costs of high priority construction actions. For construction actions, the 
ability  of  the  action  in  mitigating  the  negative  effects  of  flooding  has  been  taken  into 
account in particular. The prioritisation is carried out locally35. 

According  to  the  reporting  sheets,  Estonia  reported  information  about  the  timetable  of  all 
measures,  but  not  all  answers  referred  to  a  period  of  time  and  it  was  thus  not  possible  to 
meaningfully aggregate the information.  

In the FRMPs, completion dates are indicated for 46 out of 110 actions. The completion date 
for one administrative action has been set to be 2016. For the majority (27 actions out of the 
46, 59 %) the completion date is as 2018. For 18 actions (39 %), the completion date is 2021. 
For the actions where no completion date is indicated, some information is provided, such as: 
“continuous 
the  situation”  or  “when  preparing 
comprehensive, detailed or other plans”. 

implementation”,  or  “according 

to 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

The Action Plan states that the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of the Interior 
Affairs,  in  co-operation  with  other  ministries  and  local  municipalities,  will  co-ordinate  the 
identification of responsible authorities.  

The  FRMPs  indicate  that  most  measures  and  actions  have  more  than  one  responsible 
authority.  For  each  action,  there  will  be  a  main  authority  directly  responsible  for  the 
implementation of an action and for many, there will be additional authorities that support the 
main one. According to the Action Plan, in most cases the main authority is either at national 

35  FRMP: EE1 pages 50-51; FRMP: EE2 page 42; FRMP: EE3 page 31. 

28 

 
 
                                                 
level – a Ministry or a public authority under a Ministry – or at municipal level. In few cases 
the implementing authority is the owner. As examples:  

  Local municipalities are responsible for actions related to construction or restoration of 
public  water  supply  systems,  spatial  planning,  obligations  and  activities  under  the 
Building Act.  

  For  actions  for  the  implementation  of  the  operational  programme  for  preparedness  to 
emergency situations, each local municipality will be the main authority and the Rescue 
Board (a national body that coordinates of emergency work and response, including for 
fires, floods and snow storms36) will be the additional authority.  

  For actions for natural water retention measures such as buffer strips, in most cases the 
local municipality is the main authority and the land owner is the additional authority.  

  The Environmental Inspectorate is the main authority for actions related to supervision 
of  protection  of  environment  and  consequently  for  supervision  of  actions  to  address 
pollution  risks  from  industrial  plants  and  agriculture  during  floods.  The  Technical 
Supervision  Board  (which  develops  and  enforces  technical  safety  regulations37)  is 
named  as  the  additional  authority  for  an  action  to  oversee  the  storage  conditions  of 
chemicals and related licences.  

  The  Health  Board  is  the  main  authority  for  a  mapping  action  to  establish  and 
periodically  update  a  list  of  enterprises  in  each  APSFR  that  use,  process  or  produce 
hazardous chemicals. The Environmental Board is the authority that supports this action.  

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

According to the reporting sheets, Estonia reported the progress of all measures as ‘progress 
ongoing’.  While  the  FRMPs  and  the  Action  Plan  do  not  provide  detail  about  the  status  of 
measures and actions, the Action Plan indicates that 23 actions out of the 110 are continuous. 

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: however, Estonia did not provide information on this.  

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

In all three FRMPs, it is stated that FRMPs take into account spatial planning and land use. 
Indeed,  the  first  “measure  group”  defined  in  the  Estonian  FRMPs  involves  'limiting  the 
founding and construction of new objects in flood risk areas' and includes (at the second level) 

36     https://www.rescue.ee/  
37  https://www.tja.ee/en  

29 

 
 
                                                 
measures for 'planning with consideration of flood risk and natural water retention measures' 
and  'defining  areas  with  building  ban,  establishing  conditions  for  buildings  in  densely 
populated areas at flood risk, and ensuring water resistance in other flood risk areas'38.  

The  FRMPs  do  not  provide  information  if  the  framework  of  halting  or  controlling 
buildings/development in floodplains evolved since 2000. 

Natural  water  retention  measures  (NWRMs)  have  been  planned  in  all  three  FRMPs. 
NWRMs  and  their  use  are  generally  described  in  the  FRMPs,  although  their  actions  are 
defined  and  listed  more  explicitly  only  in  the  Action  Plan.  The  following  NWRM  measures 
have  been  identified  under  the  “measure  block”  defined  as  'Rainwater  dispersion  and 
implementation of natural water retention measures to improve ground infiltration':  

  The  implementation  of  NWRMs  in  densely  populated  areas  to  disperse  rainwater  and 
improve  infiltration  (the  actions  under  this  measure  include  building  green  roofs, 
rainwater harvesting, creation of infiltration trenches and basins, restoring and creating 
wetlands and improving water retention abilities of drainage systems);  

  The implementation of NWRMs in agricultural lands to disperse rainwater and improve 

infiltration;  

  The  implementation  of  NWRMs  in  forest  lands  to  disperse  rainwater  and  improve 

infiltration;  

  The  implementation  of  natural  hydromorphology  water  retention  measures  to  disperse 

rainwater and improve infiltration;  

  Maintenance of land improvement systems in order to ensure drainage of excess water.  

In the Action Plan an action for re-meandering and reconnection of oxbow lakes and similar 
features is described and evaluated.  

Measures  that  specifically  consider  nature  conservation.  All  three  FRMPs  make  a  brief 
reference that they take into account all relevant aspects, including nature protection aspects. 
The Action Plan refers in a generic manner to biodiversity39. However, further details are not 
available. 

38  FRMP: EE1 page 10, 41; FRMP: EE2 page 34; FRMP: EE3 page 24; Action Plan 2016-2021 (xls) 
39  FRMP: EE1 page 10; FRMP: EE2 page 9; FRMP: EE3 page 8; Action Plan 2016-2021 (xls) 

30 

 
 
                                                 
All three FRMPs make a brief reference that they take into consideration navigation and port 
infrastructure.  There  is  a  specific  action  for  the  prevention  of  flood-related  pollution 
originating from ports40. 

The FRMPs also refer to measures for dredging to increase the river channel capacity and its 
ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes. All three FRMPs mention dredging as a 
possible  action  in  the  second  measure  block,  under  a  measure  for  “The  implementation  of 
natural  hydromorphology  water  retention  measure  to  disperse  rainwater  and  improve 
infiltration”.  The  Action  Plan  includes  actions  presented  for  better  maintenance  of  drainage 
systems (e.g. dredging and removal of sediment and vegetation from water bodies in order to 
ensure better water flow in rivers). Dredging and cleaning of drainage systems in agricultural 
and  forest  areas  is  considered  to  be  an  obligatory  action,  while  removal  of  sediment  and 
vegetation  from  natural  water  bodies  needs  impact  and  efficiency  evaluations  prior  to 
implementation41. 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

No reference has been found in the FRMPs to insurance policies as a measure. Nevertheless, a 
rather brief a reference was found in the Action Plan under the measure of 'Ensuring the safety 
of  the  population  during  and  after  the  flood'  where  the  following  specific  action  has  been 
described:  Flood  relief  (e.g.  recovery  and/or  improvement  of  temporary  protection  facilities, 
street restoration, garbage disposal, etc.). It is stated that the action must be taken after every 
flood.  Under  possible  funding  sources,  insurance  companies  are  included  (along  with  state 
budget and owners)42. 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

There is no information provided in the FRMPs or their annexes how implementation of the 
planned  measures  will  be  monitored.  However,  the  reporting  sheets  state  that  activities  are 
planned to monitor the effectiveness of measures, and in the middle of the FRMP cycle, local 
authorities  will  provide  feedback  on  the  implementation  of  the  plan.  No  further  details  are 
provided as to the specific timing or the activities to be carried out43.  

Based  on  the  FRMPs  (including their  annexes) no  information  has  been  provided  whether  a 
baseline has been established against which progress will be monitored and assessed. 

40   FRMP: EE1 page 10; FRMP: EE2 page 9; FRMP: EE3 page 8. 
41  FRMP: EE1 page 28; FRMP: EE2 page 22; FRMP: EE3 page 13; Action Plan 2016-2021 (xls) 
42  Action Plan 2016-2021 (xls) 
43   Reporting sheets: Summary of the Progress 

31 

 
 
                                                 
4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  development  of  the  FRMPs  has  been  coordinated  with  the 
development of the second RBMPs of the WFD. 

Table 9 

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

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Integration of FRMPs and RBMPs into a single plan 

Joint consultation of draft FRMPs and RBMPs  

Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMPs and RBMPs  

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

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

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

The RBMP 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 

The FRMPs state that the parallel preparation of the FRMPs and RBMPs makes it possible to 
harmonise and synchronise planning of measures and to address potential conflicts.  

Coordination included consultation with the Commission for River Basin Management, which 
brings  together  government  bodies,  national  experts  and  water  service  companies  for 
coordination  on  the  implementation  of  the  WFD  and  RBMPs:  consultation  with  the 
Commission included the definition of measures and actions. The FRMPs were also prepared 
together  with  the  second  RBMPs  in  corresponding  RBDs/UoMs  and  the  Ministry  of 
Environment is the main competent authority for both. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  addition,  the  FRMPs  include  NWRMs  that  can  support  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  (see 
further description above).  

Furthermore,  the  Action  Plan  indicates,  for  each  FRMP  action,  whether  it  supports  the 
objectives  of  the  RBMP,  is  neutral  or  is  in  conflict  with  the  objectives  of  the  RBMP. 
Supportive actions are primarily those that preserve the natural environment, such as NWRMs 
and  related  work,  e.g.  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  NWRMs.  Neutral  actions  are  primarily 
related  to  life,  health  and  property.  Construction-engineering  actions  are  marked  as 
conflicting.  

Although,  the  Action  Plan  describes  actions  targeted  at  flood  risk  management  and  assesses 
their  compatibility  with  the  RBMPs,  it  does  not  explicitly  explain  whether  WFD  objectives 
have been taken into account in the development of the FRMP measures and actions44. 

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The Action Plan provides details on measures and actions: their location and responsible 
authorities and, for some, information  on costs and deadlines.  Many  of the actions are 
specific and measurable.  

  Most actions have been prioritised at the level of UoMs and APSFRs. The methodology 

for prioritisation has been described in the FRMPs. 

  The FRMPs and the Action Plan include measures and actions for sustainable land use 

and for implementing NWRMs. 

  The  preparation  of  the  FRMPs  was  coordinated  with  the  preparation  of  the  second 
RBMPs  under  the  WFD  via  consultation  with  the  Commission  for  River  Basin 
Management on measures and actions. Moreover, the Ministry of Environment was the 
main competent authority for both documents. 

  The Action Plan assesses each action for its compatibility with the RBMP.  

  A measure for preventing post-flood pollution has been proposed 

The following areas for further development were identified:  

  While some cost information is provided, it was not been broken down per UoM. Cost 

information has not been provided for construction measures.  

44  FRMP: EE1 page 7-8, 41, 54; FRMP: EE2 page 7-8, 34, 46; FRMP: EE3 page 6-7, 24, 35; Action Plan 2016-

2021 (xls). 

33 

 
 
                                                 
  Since the  defined  objectives  are  rather  generic  and  not  measurable,  it is  not  clear  how 
and by how much the measures and their actions will contribute to the achievement of 
objectives, nor is it clear whether the objectives will be achieved when all the measures 
are completed.  

  No  indicators  for  evaluating  the  impact  and  progress  of  measures  and  actions  are 

described, and no baseline is established.   

  There is no description in the FRMPs or Action Plan how the progress and impact of the 

measures and actions will be monitored.   

  The FRMPs and Estonia’s reporting sheets do not provide information about links of the 

measures and actions to other Community Acts. 

34 

 
 
 
 
5.  Consideration of climate change 

Estonia’s  FRMPs  each  include  a  chapter  dedicated  to  climate  change  and  how  its  impact  is 
taken  into  account,  including  at  the  PFRA  stage.  The  chapters  identify  documents  that  have 
assessed the impact of climate change to flooding and aquatic ecosystems in Estonia.  

The  climate-sensitivity  of  individual  actions  was  assessed  (see  section  4  and  Annex  A2  on 
Estonia’s structure of measure groups, measures and actions), and priority should be given to 
actions that are more flexible and adaptable to a changing climate (i.e. less climate sensitive). 
The results of the climate-sensitivity tests are presented in the Action Plan: each action is rated 
as either low, average or high.  

The  FRMPs  note  that  climate  sensitivity  was  assessed  more  thoroughly  for  construction 
actions.  Research,  administrative  and  advisory  actions  may  be  affected  by  projected  climate 
change,  but  in  the  analysis  these  actions  (and  their  results)  are  considered  as  low-climate-
sensitive  actions,  due  to  their  short-term  nature45.  Actions  assessed  with  a  high  category  of 
climate sensitivity include: improving flood protection of existing sewage treatment plants by 
constructing  protective  walls  or  elevating  the  surface  in  areas  prone  to  flooding,  improving 
protection  of  drinking  water  systems  (wells  and  bore  wells,  pumping  stations,  water  pipes) 
from  flooding  and  addressing  pollution  risks  to  drinking  water  during  flood  events.  In 
addition, NWRMs are usually categorised as of high climate sensitivity, as they are considered 
long-term  actions  in  the  FRMPs.  Accordingly,  that  means  their  implementation  requires 
consideration  of  projected  climate  change  until  their  active  lifespan  is  over  (until  the  year 
2100). In general, it is explained that actions which are recommended or assigned a long-term 
implementation period are usually associated with high climate sensitivity46. 

Actions  for  spatial  planning  and  land  use  are  generally  categorized  as  of  average  climate 
sensitivity, meaning that mostly they should not be directly affected by climate change, though 
indirect impacts may occur47. 

While the measures were assessed in terms of their climate sensitivity, it does not appear that 
any  measures  are  taken  specifically  to  address  the  impacts  of  climate  change.  The  FRMPs 
refer to the national Climate Change Adaption Strategy but note that the Draft Implementation 
Plan  of  the  Climate  Change  Adaption  Strategy  was  planned  to  be  ready  in  2016.  The 
Implementation  Plan  was  completed  and  approved  in  2017,  and  it  includes  measures 
specifically to address flood risk in the face of climate change – measures additional to those 

45   FRMP: EE1 page 30, 35, 36; FRMP: EE2 page 24, 28, 29; FRMP: EE3 page 14, 18-20. 
46   Action Plan 2016-2021 (xls) 
47   Action Plan 2016-2021 (xls) 

35 

 
 
                                                 
in  the  FRMPs  and  Action  Plan.  The  results  of  the  Implementation  Plan  will  be  taken  into 
account in the second cycle of the implementation of Floods Directive48.  

Concerning the timeframes of the climate change scenarios, climate change projections have 
been made for both short and long term (2030 and 2100). It is stated that with the help of the 
probability scenarios considered in the FHRMs and the climatic forecasts it will be possible to 
assure the corresponding actions to be as effective as possible in the future. It is emphasised 
that  it  will  be  necessary  to  take  into  account  the  long  expected  lifespan  of  construction 
actions49. 

The FRMPs include brief notes about changes in intensity and frequency of flood events as a 
consequence of climate change: they state that no major change in frequency is expected for 
flood events with potentially significant adverse impacts50. 

5.1  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Climate change was addressed in the development of the FRMPs and the Action Plan: 
most importantly, the sensitivity of all actions to potential climate change was assessed. 
The methodology for this assessment is presented in the FRMPs. 

48   FRMP: EE1 page 30; FRMP: EE2 page 24; FRMP: EE3 page 14.  
49   FRMP: EE1 page 37; FRMP: EE2 page 30; FRMP: EE3 page 20. 
50   FRMP EE1, EE2, EE3. Action Plan 2016-2021 (xls) 

36 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
6.  Cost-benefit analysis 

In the Action Plan, 44 actions out of 110 are totally or partially devoted to construction and 
engineering activities. Estonia’s FRMPs state that CBA was used in the prioritisation process 
of  actions,  specifically  for  construction  and  engineering  actions,  including  both  grey 
infrastructure and green infrastructure (NWRMs). It is stated that this is done in order to avoid 
excessive  costs.  The  FRMPs  mention  that  the  cost/benefit  based  priority  assessments  are 
carried out at the local level, but neither the methodology nor the results of the assessments are 
presented  in  the  FRMPs.  The  FRMPs  state  that  the  costs  of  construction  and  engineering 
actions are site and facility-specific. For this reason, the FRMPs state that an additional, more 
detailed analysis on their costs should be carried out. This indicates that the CBA results may 
need to be revised. 

The  FRMPs  also  state  that  the  costs  of  other  actions  –  such  as  actions  associated  with 
administrative  activities,  research  and  studies  –  are  evaluated  based  on  consideration  of 
resources  and  time  needed  to  complete  the  actions,  but  do  not  report  details  about  the 
methodologies for these evaluations.   

Based  on  the  available  information  in  the  FRMPs  and  Action  Plan,  it  is  not  possible  to 
evaluate whether multi-benefits have been taken into account or not in the CBA, nor whether 
transnational effects have been considered51. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following good practice was identified: 

  Cost  benefit  analysis  is  identified  as  a  criterion  for  the  prioritisation  of  construction 

actions, including for NWRMs.  

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The methodology for the CBA has not been described nor the results presented.  

51  FRMP EE1, EE2, EE3; Action Plan 2016-2021 (xls), reporting sheets for EE1, EE2, EE3. 

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.  Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

Based on Estonia’s reporting sheets, FRMPs and Action Plan, the Competent Authorities and 
Units  of  Management  identified  for  the  Floods  Directive  have  not  changed.  Documents 
submitted to the European Commission on the subject have not been updated since 2010. 

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

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

Table 10 

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

All UoMs assessed 

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

Public information boards, exhibitions and an online survey 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

For all three FRMPs assessed, most of the information was provided via internet, in particular 
via websites of the responsible authorities (primarily the relevant  ministries, also county and 
local governments). Public information boards were also used. Public displays (exhibitions) of 
the draft FRMPs were  organised in county centres (for each FRMP separately, in a location 
dependent  on  the  UoM  it  covers).  Also,  thematic  brochures  were  published  and  an  online 
awareness  survey  was  carried  out  to  draw  attention  to  the  development  of  the  FRMPs. 
Interested  parties  were  informed  by  direct  mailing.  Announcements  were  made  in  local  and 
national newspapers52. 

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

52   Reporting  sheets:  Summary  of  the  Consultation  FRMP:  EE1  page  54-55;  FRMP:  EE2  page  46-47;  FRMP: 

EE3 page 35-36. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 11 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet  

Digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

An online awareness survey 

Together with other public consultations 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

Many  of  the  information  mechanisms  were  also  used  for  the  consultation  itself.  The  survey 
covered awareness of how to act in the event of a flood event. It was online for 25 weeks: 273 
people responded, and the feedback was used in the preparation of the FRMPs. Draft FRMPs 
were available for six months, and written feedback and proposals were collected during this 
process.  

The Ministry of the Environment organised public displays (exhibitions) in each of Estonia’s 
15  county  centres;  these  also  provided  the  opportunity  for  the  public  to  ask  questions  and 
make proposals.  

A  total  of  25  meetings  and  workshops  were  held  with  interested  parties.  For  example,  three 
public meetings were organised in three locations where it was possible to ask questions and 
make proposals about all FRMPs as well as the Action Plan, no matter the location of debate. 
For some of the meetings, the agenda, presentations and lists of participants are available on 
internet.  In  the  course  of  some  meetings,  additional  information  was  requested  from  local 
authorities in important risk areas.  

Furthermore, the drafts were submitted for review and approval by the national Commission 
for River Basin Management, which brings together government bodies, national experts and 
water service companies (see also section 4).  

The  draft  FRMPs  were  also  discussed  during  the  public  consultation  on  the  national  marine 
strategy. In addition, the Rescue  Board carried out  public surveys on public preparedness  to 
emergency events, including also flooding (this was separate to the survey for the FRMP and 
was not related exclusively to the FRMP process). Information on the FRMPs was specifically 
included  in  public  consultations  on  the  introduction  of  national  land  improvement  plans 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
(which include activities such as digging and maintaining drainage ditches on agriculture and 
forest land and maintaining estuaries)53.  

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

Table 12 

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.)  

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Documents  were  available  for  examination  in  the  public  displays  in  county  governments, 
mentioned  above,  and  in  the  offices  of  the  Environment  Board.  Drafts  were  available  via 
Internet on the website of the Ministry of the Environment and on a dedicated thematic web 
page, provided by the authors of the FRMPs54. 

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

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

Table 13 

Groups of stakeholders  

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

Flood Warning / Defence Authorities  

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

53   Reporting  sheets:  Summary  of  the  Consultation  FRMP:  EE1  page  54-55;  FRMP:  EE2  page  46-47;  FRMP: 

EE3 page 35-36. National land improvement plans: 
http://www.pma.agri.ee/index.php?id=104&sub=355&sub2=424 
Public consultations for introducing land improvement plans (summaries of events): 
http://www.pma.agri.ee/docs/pics/VMK%20ja%20maandamiskavade%20avalik%20arutelu%20I%20Tallinn
%20230915.pdf  Public  correspondence  of  the  Rescue  Board,  regarding  approval  of  and  amendments  to 
FRMPs: 
https://adr.rescue.ee/paa/dokument/846820  Surveys  about  public  preparedness  on  the  website  of  Rescue 
Board: 
https://www.rescue.ee/et/kodanikule/elanikkonnakaitse/haedaolukorraks-valmisolek.html 

54   Reporting  sheets:  Summary  of  the  Consultation  FRMP:  EE1  page  54-55;  FRMP:  EE2  page  46-47;  FRMP: 

EE3 pages 35-36 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

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 assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

As noted above, the FRMPs were reviewed by the Commission for River Basin Management. 
In addition, the FRMPs specifically mention the participation of several government bodies in 
their  development:  the  Rescue  Board  (which  among  its  tasks  coordinates  inland  fire  and 
rescue  services),  the  Agricultural  Board  (responsible  for  the  planning  of  land  improvement 
systems) and local authorities are mentioned explicitly in the FRMPs.  

Detailed  information  about  the  participation  and  contribution  of  other  interested  parties, 
including private stakeholders and the public, is not provided in the FRMPs or the reporting 
sheets: for example, the specific stakeholders involved are not identified. Nor do the FRMPs 
provide a list of comments and proposals received from interested parties during the process, 
or information on how comments and proposals were addressed55 

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

Table 14 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders 

Regular exhibitions56 
Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Formation of alliances  

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

55   Reporting Sheets: Summary  of  the  Consultation  FRMP: EE1 page 54-55; FRMP:  EE2 page  46-47;  FRMP: 

EE3 page 35-36. 

56 Estonia clarified subsequently that documents were available to the public for examination for a period of 25 

weeks in county administration premises. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  main  mechanisms  for  the  active  involvement  of  stakeholders  were  the  public  meetings 
and workshops described above57. 

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The  FRMPs  do  not  describe  the  effects  of  the  involvement  of  various  stakeholders  –  for 
example,  there  is  no  summary  of  comments  received.  There  is  no  reference  to  other 
documents that could contain this information58. 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

The  FRMPs  do  not  provide  information  about  an  SEA  procedure,  nor  does  the  Ministry  of 
Environment’s  website,  and  no  information  was  found  on  the  web  portal  for  official 
announcements59. On this basis, it appears that an SEA was not carried out.  

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Several mechanisms have been used for involving stakeholders. In total, 25 workshops 
were held to present the FRMPs and gather feedback from stakeholders and the public. 
A survey was held to gather information on public awareness related to floods, and its 
results  were  used  in  the  FRMP.  A  range  of  national  and  local  government  bodies 
provided input.  

  Consultations on policy activities related to flood risk management, such as the marine 
strategy  and  land  management,  were  used  to  raise  awareness  and  gather  input  on  the 
FRMPs.  

  Coordination  with  local  and  national  authorities  took  place  via  the  Commission  for 
River Basin Management as well as direct involvement in the preparation of the FRMPs.  

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The FRMPs do not provide information on the inputs received during the consultation, 

nor on changes made in response to inputs from stakeholders or the public.  

 

It appears that SEAs have not been carried out for any of the FRMPs. 

57   Reporting Sheets: Summary of the Consultation FRMP: EE1 pages 54-55; FRMP: EE2 pages 46-47; FRMP: 

EE3 pages 35-36. 

58   FRMPs EE1, EE2, EE3 - chapter 7. Rescue Board, document registry, correspondence with the Ministry of 

Environment: https://adr.rescue.ee/paa/dokument/846820  

59   FRMPs EE1, EE2, EE3 Ministry of Environment, Flood risk web site, FRMPs: http://www.envir.ee/en/floods 

Portal for Official Announcements, https://www.ametlikudteadaanded.ee/avalik/otsing  

42 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures reported by Estonia 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 assessors 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)60, not 
all  fields  are  mandatory,  and,  as  such,  not  all  Member  States  reported  information  for  all 
fields.  

Some  of  the  fields  in  the  XMLs  were  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. In some cases, this resulted in thousands of different answer, or 
answers given in the national language.  

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

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

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

43 

 
 
                                                 
 

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 the example above), are categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The  following  table61    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 

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

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
List of tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures by measure aspect ...................................................... 47 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures by measure aspect .......................................................... 47 
Figure A3 – Visualisation of Table A3: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) ................................ 48 
Figure A4 – Visualisation of Table A4: Cost by UoM (EUR) ................................................ 49 
Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect .................... 51 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by UoM .................................... 51 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ..................................................................................... 46 
Table A2 - Total number of measures, per measure type and UoM, including duplicates ..... 46 
Table A3 – Cost by measure aspect (EUR) ............................................................................. 48 
Table A4 – Cost by UoM (EUR) ............................................................................................. 48 
Table A5 - Category of priority by measure aspect ................................................................. 50 
Table A6 - Category of priority by UoM ................................................................................. 51 

45 

 
 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1 - Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

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

Number of aggregated measures  

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

Total number of measures  

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

Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

(Min-Max) 

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

0 

0 

70 

70 

70 

70 

22-24 

23 

Table A2 - Total number of measures, per measure type and UoM, including duplicates 

Prevention 

Protection 

Total 

Total 

Preparedness 

Total 

M21  M22  M23  M24 

M31 

M41  M42  M43  M44 

Recovery & 
review 
M53 

Total  Other 

Grand 
Total 

EE1 

EE2 

EE3 

Grand Total 
Average per 
UoM 

2 

2 

2 

6 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

5 

5 

5 

15 

5 

7 

7 

6 

20 

7 

15 

15 

14 

44 

15 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

3 

3 

2 

8 

3 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

2 

2 

2 

6 

2 

7 

7 

6 

20 

7 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

24 

24 

22 

70 

23 

0 

0 

Note: All measures are aggregated as Estonia did not report any individual measures. 

46 

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

Figure A1 - Number of total measures by measure aspect 

Note: All measures are aggregated as Estonia did not report any individual measures. 

Figure A2 - Share of total measures by measure aspect 

Note: All measures are aggregated as Estonia did not report any individual measures. 

Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

47 

 
 
Estonia completed these fields for all measures. The same cost explanation was provided for 
all measures in the reporting sheets: ‘The costs are for administrative, research and advisory 
activities. Taken with the Civil Service 2015 document. The resources and time needed for 
the operation, which is converted into euros, are considered.’ 

Concerning cost, the highest was around EUR 69 000 (69k) and the lowest was nearly EUR 
3 000 (3k).  The remaining figures were categorised in the following tables. 

Table A3 – Cost by measure aspect (EUR) 

1-5k 

5-10k 

10-15k 

15-20k 

20-50k  over 50k 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
review 
Grand Total 

8 

8 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

9 

3 

3 

6 

3 

9 

12 

3 

3 

Cost 
unknown 

Grand 
Total 

27 

3 

30 

44 

3 

20 

3 

70 

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

Table A4 – Cost by UoM (EUR) 

1-5k 

5-10k 

10-15k 

15-20k 

20-50k 

over 50k 

EE1 

EE2 

EE3 

Grand 
Total 

3 

3 

2 

8 

1 

1 

2 

3 

3 

3 

9 

4 

4 

4 

12 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

2 

2 

6 

48 

Cost 
unknown 

Grand 
Total 

10 

10 

10 

30 

24 

24 

22 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Average 
per UoM 

3 

1 

3 

2 

4 

1 

10 

23 

Figure A4 – Visualisation of Table A4: Cost by UoM (EUR) 

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

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

Location of measures 

In the reporting sheets, Estonia reported the location of all measures as the respective UoM.  

Geographic coverage 

Similarly, Estonia reported the same geographic coverage for all measures: ‘RBD/UoM’. 

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to provide 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); 

49 

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

required). 

Objectives 

Estonia  reported  objectives  for  all  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets.  The  objectives  were 
generally ‘preventive’, ‘readiness’ or a combination of the two.   

Category of priority 

Estonia  provided  information  for  the  priority  of  all  measures.  The  following  categories  are 
used: 

  Critical; 

  Very high; 

  High; 

  Moderate; 

  Low. 

Table A5 - Category of priority by measure aspect 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

High 

32 

3 

20 

3 

58 

Moderate 

12 

12 

Grand Total 

44 

3 

20 

3 

70 

Note: No measures were categorised as critical, very high or low priority. 

50 

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

Note: No measures were categorised as critical, very high or low priority. 

Table A6 - Category of priority by UoM 

High 

Moderate 

Grand Total 

EE1 

EE2 

EE3 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

20 

20 

18 

58 

19 

4 

4 

4 

12 

4 

24 

24 

22 

70 

23 

Note: No measures were categorised as critical, very high or low priority. 

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

Note: No measures were categorised as critical, very high or low priority. 

51 

 
 
 
 
Timetable 

Estonia  reported  information  about  the  timetable  of  all  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets. 
However  not  all  answers  referred  to  a  period  of  time  and  it  was  thus  not  possible  to 
meaningfully aggregate the information.  

Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

  Name of the responsible authority;   

  Level of responsibility.  

Estonia completed these fields for all measures. However, as this was an open question the 
responses concerning responsible authority varied greatly and it was not possible to aggregate 
the information.  

The level of responsibility of the relevant actors falls in three categories: national, municipal 
and owner of the site. However, multiple levels were indicated for single measures leading to 
some double counting and making the meaningful aggregation of the information impossible. 

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

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

whose responses are analysed below; 

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

Information about the progress of implementation of the measures was reported as62:  

  COM (completed); 

  OGC (ongoing construction); 

  POG (progress ongoing); 

  NS (not started). 

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

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

52 

 
 
                                                 
Estonia reported the progress of all measures as ‘progress ongoing’. 

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

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

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

for starting the construction or building works have not started. 

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

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

started but are not finalized. 

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

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 

  Completed (COM) means an advisory service that has been implemented and has 
been  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. 

53 

 
 
  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 

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

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

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

not been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

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

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 

  Completed  (COM)  means  the  administrative  act  has  been  concluded  (e.g.  the 
license  or  permit  has  been  issued;  the  regulation  has  been  adopted,  etc.).  If  the 
measure involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only 
when all of them have been concluded. 

Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

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

  Any other information reported (optional field). 

Estonia did not provide information about ‘Other Community Acts’ in the reporting sheets.  

54 

 
 
 
 
Annex A2: Estonia’s structure of measure groups, measures and 

actions 

In its FRMPs and Action Plan, Estonia has set out a three-level structure of measure groups, 
measures and actions.  

At the first level, there are 12 Measure groups (or blocks – Meetmeplokid in Estonian):  

1.  Restriction of building new objects in APSFRs 
2.  Dispersal  of  rain  water  and  implementing  of  measures  for  enhancing  natural  means 

for rain water infiltration 

3.  Ensuring efficient performance of (rain) water collection systems 
4.  Ensuring good condition of dams 
5.  Avoiding post-flood pollution 
6.  Enhancing run-off, lowering the water level and preventing occurrence of high water 

levels by using constructional activities 

7.  Ensuring availability and installation of temporary protective barriers for APSFRs 
8.  Flood forecasts 
9.  Development and efficiency of evacuation plans 
10. Ensuring availability of vital services (emergency  medical aid, rescue services, food 

and water, electricity and transportation). 

11. Protection of objects with significance of cultural heritage from potential flood-related 

hazards 

12. Updating risk mitigation action plans 

At the second level, there are 24 Measures (Meetmed in Estonian). All 24 are listed for EE1, 
West  Estonian  UoM,  and  EE2,  East  Estonian  UoM;  only  22  are  listed  for  EE3,  the  Koiva 
UoM (which does not contain APSFRs). This is the level that Estonia has reported to WISE: 
Estonia reported 70 measures, the sum of the measures in the three UoMs.  

At the third level, 110 Actions (Tegevused in Estonian) have been identified.  

The approach is hierarchical: the 24 level measures in the Action Plan are each assigned to 
one of the 12 measure groups. The 110 actions are in turn grouped under the 24 measures. 
The figure on the next page presents this structure. 

55 

 
 
 
 
Figure A7 – Estonia’s structure of measure groups, measures and actions 

Level III. 110 actions 

Tegevus1 / Action 1 

Tegevus 2 / Action 2 

Tegevus 3 / Action 3 

... 

... 

Level II. 24 aggregated measures 

Level I. 12 measure groups 

Meede1 / Measure 1 

f
o
p
u
o
r
G
/
1
k
k
o
p
e
m
t
e
e
M

l

2
1

.
.
.

1
s
e
r
u
s
a
e
m

Meede 2 /  

Measure 2 

... 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 Types of flood risk management measures63 

M11 

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

No Action 

Prevention 

M21  Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone 

areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 

M22 

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

M23  Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of 

a flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc... 

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

M35 

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). 

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

Preparedness 

M41  Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or 

warning system 

M42 

M43 

M44 

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

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

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

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

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

57 

 
 
                                                 
Recovery & Review 

M51 

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

M52  Recovery and Review, Environmental recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (with several sub-

topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous materials containers) 

M53  Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance 

M61 

policies 

Other 

Other 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)  

NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as 
NWRM,  by  encouraging  the  retention  of  water  within  a  catchment  and,  through  that, 
enhancing the natural functioning of the catchment. The catalogue developed in the NWRM 
project  represents  a  comprehensive  but  non  prescriptive  wide  range  of  measures,  and  other 
measures,  or  similar  measures  called  by  a  different  name,  that  could  also  be  classified  as 
NWRM.  

To  ease  access  to  measures,  the  catalogue  of  measures  hereunder  is  sorted  by  the  primary 
land use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most 
of the measures however can be applied to more than one land use type. 

Table B2 List of NWRMs 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

A03 Crop rotation 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

F02 Maintenance of 
forest cover in headwater 
areas 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable surfaces 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

58 

 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A07 Low till agriculture 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

A08 Green cover 

A09 Early sowing 

A10 Traditional 
terracing 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

A13 Mulching 

F08 Appropriate design 
of roads and stream 
crossings 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

F11 Urban forest parks 

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 

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 

59