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

Table of contents .......................................................................................................................... 1 

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

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

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

Overview of the assessment ..................................................................................................... 8 

Good Practices........................................................................................................................ 14 

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

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 16 

1. 

 Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment .......................... 17 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ............................................................................................. 17 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs .......................................................................................... 17 

2. 

 Integration of previously reported information ................................................................. 19 

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment................................. 19 

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps in the FRMPs ...................................... 20 

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas .................................................... 22 

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the FHRMs .................... 23 

2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information. ....................................................................................... 25 

3. 

 Setting of Objectives ......................................................................................................... 26 

3.1 

3.2 

Focus of objectives ...................................................................................................... 26 

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................. 27 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ............................................ 27 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding .............................. 28 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ................................................................................ 28 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ........ 28 

4. 

 Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ........................................................ 30 

4.1  Cost of measures ......................................................................................................... 30 

4.2 

Funding of measures ................................................................................................... 32 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................. 34 

4.4  Measures and objectives.............................................................................................. 35 

1 

 
 
4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures ..................................................................... 36 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ............................................................................................ 36 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ............................................ 38 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures .................................................................... 38 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ............................................................ 39 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ........................................................................................ 39 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding ................................................................... 41 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ....................................................... 41 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive .................................................... 42 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures .............. 44 

5. 

 Consideration of climate change ....................................................................................... 46 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change .............................. 46 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change .......... 47 

6. 

 Cost-benefit analysis.......................................................................................................... 49 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ...................................................... 50 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation51 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................. 51 

7.2 

Public information and consultation ........................................................................... 51 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders ........................................................................... 54 

7.4 

7.5 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................. 56 

Strategic Environmental Assessment .......................................................................... 57 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................. 57 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures .......................................................... 58 

Background & method ........................................................................................................... 58 

Types of measures used in reporting ...................................................................................... 59 

List of Annex A tables & figures ........................................................................................... 60 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................. 61 

Measure details: cost .............................................................................................................. 66 

Measure details: name & location .......................................................................................... 68 

Measure details: objectives .................................................................................................... 71 

Measure details: authorities .................................................................................................... 76 

2 

 
 
Measure details: progress ....................................................................................................... 78 

Measure details: other ............................................................................................................ 81 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types ..................................................................................... 82 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) .................................................. 83 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

APSFR 
CBA 
EEA 
FD 
FHRM 
FRMP 
KTM 
NGO 
NWRM 
PFRA 
RBD 
RBMP 
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 
Key Type of Measures 
Non-Governmental Organisation 
Natural Water Retention Measures 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 
River Basin District 
River Basin Management Plan 
Unit of Management 
Water Framework Directive 
Water Information System for Europe 

4 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State 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 Strategies assessed by the end of 2015.  

This report assesses the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) for the United Kingdom1. Its 
structure follows a common assessment template used for all Member States. The report draws 

on two main sources:   

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

  Selected FRMPs: due to the high number of FRMPs prepared in the UK (36 in total), the 
assessment has focused on a selected set of plans/strategies, chosen to cover a range of 

methodological  approaches,  the  UK’s  administrative  structure  and  different  Units  of 
Management  (UoMs).  The  following  FRMPs  were  reviewed  in  England,  Northern 

Ireland and Wales, where the plans assessed were prepared at the level of the UoMs: 

o  UK02 Solway Tweed (English part of the UoM); 
o  UK09 Severn (jointly managed by England and Wales); 
o  UKGBNIIENB Neagh Bann (Northern Ireland). 

In  Scotland,  where  Flood  Risk  Management  Strategies  were  prepared  at  a  sub-UoM 
level,  the  following  strategies  (as  opposed  to  plans)  were  assessed  out  of  a  total  of  14 

FRM Strategies (which 14 are included in the total of 36):  

o  UK01 Clyde and Loch Lomond (Scottish part of the UoM);  
o  UK02 Solway (Scottish part of the UoM);  

2  

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

5 

 
 
                                                 
Overview 

Figure 1 

Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) as presented in the 2012 River Basins Management 

Plan assessment reports 

The UK is divided into 16 UoMs. For England, Wales and Northern Ireland these correspond 

to  the  River  Basin  Districts  (RBDs)  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  and  each 
has an FRMP.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At the time of the assessment, the UK had reported a total of 36 FRMPs (no FRMP has been 
reported  for  Gibraltar3,  UKGI17).  In  England,  Wales  and  Northern  Ireland,  the  FRMPs  are 
prepared at  UoM level.  Wales also  prepared  an  additional 8  FRMPs  at  the level  of the  Lead 
Local Flood Authorities (LLFA). In Scotland, 14 Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMSs) 

were  prepared  by  Local  Plan  Districts,  which  relate  to  river  catchments  as  well  as  to 
administrative areas. These Strategies were reported to Water Information System for Europe 
(WISE) as Flood Risk Management Strategies assessed and are included in the assessment4, 5.  

Two  of  the  Scottish  Local  Plan  Districts  are  within  the  Solway  Tweed  UoM  (UK02)  that  is 

shared and jointly managed with England. One FRMP was prepared for the area of the UoM in 
England and two strategies for the two Local Plan Districts in Scotland. Two UoMs are located 

in  both  England  and  Wales  (UK11  –  Dee  and  UK09  –  Severn):  these  UoMs  are  jointly 
managed and a single FRMP was prepared for each UoM. 

The  approaches  for  the  FRMPs  differ  between  Scotland,  Northern  Ireland,  and  England  and 
Wales). However, the approach within each of these four jurisdictions is the same, for example 

the  same  wording  is  used  within  the  introductory  chapters  of  the  FRMPs.  In  England  the 
competent  authority  for  the  FD  is  the  Environment  Agency6;  in  Wales,  Natural  Resources 
Wales (NRW); in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural 
Development  (DARD);  and  in  Scotland,  the  Scottish  Environment  Protection  Agency 
(SEPA)7.  

The Scottish FRMSs were published by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) 

and  indicate  that  they  were  approved  by  Scottish  Ministers.  Information  on  the  approval  of 
English, Welsh and Northern Irish FRMPs was not found.   

The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in the UK, including the UoM code, the name, 
and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if the UK reported all documents for each 
UoM to the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE8 – the FRMP(s) as a PDF and the 
reporting sheet as an XML.  

3   No  APSFRs  are  reported  in  Gibraltar  and,  consequently,  an  FRMP  is  not  required.  The  UK  did,  however, 
prepare FRMPs for other UoMs without APSFRs: UK03 (Northumbria), UK08 (South west) and UK11 (Dee). 
4   The  Local  Plan  Districts  in  Scotland  also  prepared  local  “Flood  Risk  Management  Plans”,  which  provide 
further  detail.  The  UK,  however,  did  not  report  these  Plans  to  WISE.  The  assessment  focused  on  the 
Strategies, which were reported; the Plans were reviewed for selected information.  

5   The Scottish EPA (SEPA) stated subsequently that having complementary FRM Strategies and Local FRMPs 
is  a  requirement  of  the  Flood  Risk  Management  (Scotland)  Act  2009.  The  FRM  Strategy  satisfies  the 
requirements of the FRMP under the FD. The Local FRMPs were published six months later (22 June 2016). 
6   In England and Wales there are Lead Local Flood Authorities, which have certain powers to manage flood risk 

from surface water, ‘ordinary watercourses’ (non-main rivers) and groundwater.  

7   Supported by the Local Plan Districts, mentioned above.  
8   http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/603/deliveries?id=603&tab=deliveries&d-4014547-p=1&d-4014547-

o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

7 

 
 
                                                 
Names 

Number of APSFRs 

XML Reported 

PDF 
Reported 

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in UK 

UoM 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

SCOTLAND 

SOLWAY TWEED 

NORTHUMBRIA 

HUMBER 

ANGLIAN 

THAMES 

SOUTH EAST 

SOUTH WEST 

SEVERN 

WESTERN WALES 

DEE 

NORTH WEST 

UKGBNIIENB 

NEAGH BANN 

UKGBNIIENW 

NORTH WESTERN 

UKGBNINE 

NORTH EASTERN 

UKGI17 

TOTAL 

GIBRALTAR  

206 

37 

- 

3 

1 

2 

1 

- 

7 

2 

- 

2 

9 

3 

8 

- 

281 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

The FRMPs can be downloaded via the following websites: 

  For England and Wales (UK02 to UK12): 

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/flood-risk-management-strategies  assessed-

frmps-2015-to-2021 
risk/developing-flood-risk-management-strategies assessed/?lang=en  

https://naturalresources.wales/flooding/managing-flood-

and 

  For  the  Flood  Risk  Management  Strategies  prepared  in  Scotland  (UK01  and  part  of 

UK02): http://apps.sepa.org.uk/FRMStrategies/ 
In  addition,  the  local  flood  plans  linked  to  the  Strategies  can  be  downloaded  from 

another page on the Scottish EPA web site: 
https://www.sepa.org.uk/environment/water/flooding/local-frm-plans/  

  Northern Ireland (UKGBNIIENB, UKGBNIIENW and UKGBNINE): 

https://www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/publications/flood-risk-management-plans 

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; 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  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 

The five FRMPs assessed include a list of 
established objectives. In the FRMP for Neagh 
Bann, UKGBNIIENB, the objectives refer to 
the whole UoM; and in the Welsh part of the 
Severn, UK09 FRMP, objectives refer to all the 
Welsh part of the UoM. There are also 
objectives set in the Local FRMPs for Wales 
that are specific to the local area. 

For the other FRMPs assessed – for Scotland 
(UK01), Solway Tweed (UK02, shared 
between Scotland and England) –as well as for 
the English part of UK09, each objective is 
assigned to a specific location: catchment, 
water body or town.  

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong evidence 

In all five FRMPs, the objectives aim to reduce 
the adverse consequences of floods.  

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Some evidence 

In all five FRMPs assessed, the objectives 
include the reduction of flood risk, a term 
which includes, at least by definition, the 
likelihood of flooding9. In one of the five 
FRMPs assessed, for the Neagh Bann UoM 
(UKGBNIINB), moreover, one of the main 
objectives is to reduce the likelihood of 
flooding. For the other FRMPs assessed, there 
do not appear to be objectives specifically 
referring to the reduction of the likelihood of 

9   The UK subsequently clarified that in discussing flooding in the UK, the word ‘risk’ is used for, and is widely 
understood to be, likelihood by consequence. This is also stated in the beginning of each of the FRMPs. The 
wording of objectives within the FRM strategies is focused on the overall reduction of flood risk, rather than 
flood  likelihood.  Some  actions  will  result  in  a  reduced  likelihood  but  have  not  been  explicitly  captured  as 
such. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

flooding.  

...to non-structural initiatives   Some evidence  

This aspect is specified in the definition of 
objectives in some of the FRMPs assessed. An 
example includes improving awareness in 
catchments which react rapidly to rainfall: this 
is an objective in two FRMPs (Neagh Bann, 
UKGBNIINB, and Severn, UK09).10 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Strong evidence  

In three of the five FRMPs assessed, the 
objectives refer to addressing human health, 
economic activity and the environment 
(including cultural heritage). In the two 
Scottish strategies assessed, specific objectives 
refer to residential and non-residential 
properties, transport, community facilities, and 
risks to people, for example, which represent 
economic activity and human health. 

...economic activity  

Strong evidence  

See ‘human health’ above. 

...environment  

Strong evidence  

See ‘human health’ above. For the two Scottish 
strategies assessed, environment is not 
addressed directly in the objectives.  

...cultural heritage  

Some evidence  

See ‘human health’ above.  

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

The United Kingdom has reported 9 055 
individual measures and 336 aggregated 
measures, for a total of 9 391 measures. The 
lowest numbers of measures are in the 
Northern Irish UoMs (from 27 to 42 each) and 
the highest number is in the Scotland UoM 
(UK01), 2 337 measures. The measures 
reported cover prevention (2 978 in all UoMs 

10   SEPA subsequently highlighted that in the Scottish FRM strategies, non-structural initiatives are not specified 

via the objectives, but were a mandatory consideration in the development of all measures. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...prioritised  

Some evidence  

reported), protection (3 359), preparedness 
(3 266) and recovery and review (146) as well 
as "other" (363)11. 

The UK has reported priorities for about 60 % 
of measures. Measures have been prioritised in 
the English, Scottish and Northern Irish 
FRMPs assessed. For the Western Wales UoM 
(UK10), no priorities were reported, and no 
priorities were reported for a high proportion of 
measures in three other UoMs.  

The FRMPs assessed do not provide detailed 
information on how priorities were set. 

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

...costs & benefits  

Some evidence  

...flood extent  

Strong evidence 

...flood conveyance  

Some evidence  

The FRMPs refer to cost benefit assessment as 
a criterion for the establishment of priorities for 
the selection of measures. With the exception 
of the Scottish strategies, further details were 
not reported, nor was evidence of such 
assessments provided.12 

Historic flooding and flooding extents are 
described in the FRMPs. 

In the two Scottish strategies assessed, 
conveyance routes are discussed in the 
description of measures and their potential 
impacts. There is no clear information whether 
conveyance routes have been taken into 
account for objectives and measures in the 
English, Welsh or Northern Irish FRMPs 
assessed13. 

...water retention  

Some evidence  

Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) 

11   As  some  measures  were  reported  for  more  than  one  measure  type,  there  is  some  double-counting  in  these 

figures.  

12   Northern Ireland and SEPA clarified subsequently that detailed Benefit Cost appraisal is generally undertaken 
at a  Measure (scheme) level.  The FRMPs  were  undertaken at a ‘strategic’ level  where full, detailed Benefit 
Cost appraisal would not have been done. 

13   Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales subsequently informed that almost all modelling  of flood 
risk  uses  2D  techniques  for  assessing  floodplains.  Overland  conveyance  routes  are  therefore  inherently  and 
objectively included in the risk analysis and so they are automatically a part of the flood envelope, although 
they  are  not  referred  to  explicitly.  In  terms  of  FRMP  measures,  conveyance  is  not  a  term  that  is  used, 
particularly when talking to the public, but it forms an underlying part of the overall risk from flooding, used 
to identify particular measures. 

11 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD  

Some evidence  

...spatial planning/land use   Strong evidence  

...nature conservation  

Strong evidence  

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

Some evidence  

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Strong evidence  

have been planned in four of the five FRMPs 
assessed, though they are promoted in all the 
FRMPs.  

The FRMPs assessed refer to the necessity of 
coordination between the FRMPs and River 
Basin Management Plan (RBMPs), and the 
obligation to foster the achievement of the 
WFD objectives, which often leads to the 
selection of sustainable solutions. The WFD 
was considered in objective-setting for the 
English and Welsh FRMPs assessed. The WFD 
was considered in the commentary of the 
specific measures where relevant in the 
Scottish strategies assessed14. It was unclear if 
this is the case for the Neagh Bann FRMP 
assessed. 

All five FRMPs assessed include references to 
land use, as well as measures to align with 
planning policies to prevent further damages. 

All five FRMPs assessed refer to biodiversity 
and coordination with biodiversity authorities 
or partnerships.15 

The only plan that appears to consider ports 
and navigation in the consideration of measures 
is the Scottish Solway plan (in the Scottish part 
of UK02, Solway Tweed)16. 

The FRMPs assessed refer to climate change 
scenarios. The timeframes considered for 
climate change scenarios vary for the different 
FRMPs in the UK. Measures related to climate 
change are described in the FRMPs for 

14   SEPA clarified subsequently by providing an example: Solway Action ID 140190006 “This flood protection 
scheme  is  proposed  for  the  Black  Stank  (water  body  ID  10483).  The  physical  condition  of  this  river  is 
identified by river basin management planning to be at less than good status. Future works could improve the 
condition of the river or degrade it. Opportunities to improve the condition of the river should be considered 
by coordinating with river basin management planning.” UK02 Solway Scottish part, p. 363. 

15   SEPA  subsequently  clarified,  explaining  that  all  relevant  measures  included  specific  commentary  regarding 
important  environmental  sites  (e.g.  Solway  Action  ID  140230005  “Natural  flood  management  actions  can 
have a positive impact by restoring and enhancing natural habitats. There are no international or national level 
environmental designations that are likely to be impacted by this action”). 

16   Northern Ireland noted subsequently that UKGBNIIENB has only one outlet to the sea on a beach coastline, 

the catchment is primarily inland so has no port or harbour considerations. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

England (UK02 and UK09) and include 
incorporating climate change allowances into 
flood risk management works and identifying 
where working with natural processes can help 
improve resilience to climate change. In 
Northern Ireland, the Neagh Bann 
(UKGBNIIENB) FRMP indicates that 
preventative measures take account of climate 
change, and the Scottish strategies assessed 
refer to measures to study flood risk and any 
changes in the future due to climate change. 

One of the five FRMPs assessed, for the Neagh 
Bann UoM (UKGBNIIENB), is for part of an 
international UoM. It is indicated that there is 
coordination with the Republic of Ireland on all 
technical matters and proposed flood 
mitigation measures. However, it has not been 
specified in the FRMP whether flood risk areas 
have been coordinated and there are no maps 
showing areas of shared flood risk with the 
Republic of Ireland17. 

There is evidence of coordination of the 
FRMPs with the RBMPs under the WFD, in 
Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and 
Wales. In the Scottish strategies assessed, it is 
reported that the Scottish EPA is leading the 
delivery of RBMPs and FRMS and has worked 
to ensure that there is integration and 
coordination between them. 

During the drafting process of all the FRMPs 
assessed, working groups were established with 
public institutions. 

Coordination also extended to a range of 
stakeholders, including via advisory councils at 
different levels, include UoMs, catchments and 

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Some evidence  

Coordination ensured with 
WFD  

Strong evidence  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Strong evidence  

17   Northern Ireland (UKNI) subsequently informed that for UKGBNIIENB, the catchment drains from Republic 
of  Ireland  (RoI)  into  Northern  Ireland.  While  the  catchment  is  a  very  large  shared  catchment,  there  are  no 
shared APSFRs. Consultation between the jurisdictions has been ‘strong’ with Northern Ireland represented on 
RoI FD Steering and Working groups and formal meetings of respective competent authorities. Collaboration 
between  UKNI  and  RoI  was  extensive  in  developing  Flood  Mapping  –  a  key  element  of  the  Directive  and 
underpinning the FRMPs. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

coastal areas. 

Good Practices 

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

Table 3 

Good practices in the UK’s FRMPs 

Topic area 

Objectives 

Good practices identified 

The objectives are specific in terms of what they are trying to achieve 
and where. Measures have been linked with the objectives. 

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

Many measures are clear in terms of their geographic location and 
coverage, responsible authority, general timetable.  

Promotion of sustainable land use practices has been planned in all of 
the FRMPs assessed.  

Climate change 

Public consultation  

In some of the FRMPs, economic instruments for flood risk 
management such as insurance has been supported.  

The UK provides cost estimates for a large number of measures across 
all of its UoMs in the reporting sheets. 

All five FRMPs consider climate change scenarios, though the 
timeframes vary across the UK. 

The development of further studies to identify the effects of climate 
change is part of the measures planned in some of the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Extensive coordination with local authorities and authorities from 
other departments (than those responsible for floods) was carried out 
in preparation of the FRMPs assessed, these included governmental 
departments, Non-Governmental Ogranisations (NGOs), utilities, 
transport, agriculture and professional institutes. 

In the five FRMPs assessed, mechanisms for the active involvement of 
stakeholders covered different levels (UoM level as well as that of 
catchments) and included a range of advisory groups. 

Flood risk governance  

There is evidence of coordination of the FRMPs with the RBMPs 
under the WFD for all FRMPs assessed.  

Areas for further development 

The  assessment  identified  the  following  areas  for  further  development  in  the  UK  FRMPs 

assessed. 

14 

 
 
 
 
Table 4 

Areas for further development in the UK’s FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas identified for further development  

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs 

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk  

There is no clear information whether conveyance routes have been 
taken into account and how they are used to set objectives and 
measures, in the English, Welsh or Northern Irish FRMPs assessed18. 
Only the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP and the Scottish 
strategies provides information about the conclusions from the 
PFRAs or how they were used in the development of FHRMs. 

Not all of the FRMPs assessed provide summary maps of or links to 
the FHRMs. Some of the internet links to FHRMs provided in the 
FRMPs assessed are no longer working. 

While some objectives could be measured, none have a quantitative 
target to achieve and in general the objectives are only descriptive. 
The Scottish FRM strategies, however, do provide indicators that can 
be used to measure progress towards objectives for each target area. 

Detailed information on what has been considered during the process 
of establishing the objectives is lacking in the FRMPs assessed19.  

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

The method to demonstrate by how much a measure will contribute to 
the objectives is unclear or lacking. For example, a baseline has not 
been established for all FRMPs (Scottish FRM strategies were the 
exception), against which progress will be monitored and assessed. 

It is unclear how measures were prioritised in the English FRMPs. 
(For the FRMPs in Scotland and Northern Ireland, this information is 
provided in separate technical documents20, 21).  
The overall budget per UoM is not provided for the UoMs assessed 
with the exception of the UKGBNIIENB FRMP. For a significant 
proportion of the total measures across all UoMs in the United 
Kingdom did not report costs in WISE (38 %). It is indicated in the 
FRMPs that measures do not all have secured funding and are not 
guaranteed to be implemented22 23.  

Consideration of climate 

Even though different climate change scenarios were considered, 

18   Environment  Agency  and  NRW  informed  subsequently  that  almost  all  modelling  of  flood  risk  uses  2D 
techniques  for  assessing  floodplains.  Overland  conveyance  routes  are  therefore  inherently  and  objectively 
included in the risk analysis and so they are automatically a part of the flood envelope, although they are not 
referred  to  explicitly.  In  terms  of  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  measures,  conveyance  is  not  a  term  that  is 
used, particularly when talking to the public, but it forms an underlying part of the overall risk from flooding, 
used to identify particular measures. 

19   SEPA subsequently informed that a great amount of detail behind this work is captured in separate technical 

documents, not in the FRM strategies themselves.  

20   UKNI  subsequently  stated  that  methodologies  for  prioritisation  of  schemes  and  community  resilience 

engagement are available, but not included in the FRMPs. 

21   SEPA subsequently stated that there was a great amount of detail behind this work which is captured within 

separate technical documents, not in the FRM strategies themselves. 

22   SEPA  subsequently  stated  that  funding  and  delivery  responsibility  is  expressly  excluded  from  the  FRM 

strategies and contained within the complementary Local FRMPs. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

change in the FRMPs 
assessed  

Areas identified for further development  

there is a lack of detail on shifts in the occurrence of extreme events 
and changes in numerical recurrence times or on whether the main 
sources of flooding will change under the long-term climate change 
scenarios24. 
Coordination between FRMPs and climate change adaptation 
strategies appears not to be systematic. 

Use of cost-benefit 
analysis in the FRMPs 
assessed 

For the FRMPs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, there is no 
explanation of what is included in the calculation of cost benefit 
analysis and for what measures it was undertaken for25. .  

Recommendations 

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

  Ensure that FRMPs, PFRAs/APSFRs and FHRMs refer to each other as appropriate and 
that  they  are  continuously  available  to  all  concerned  and  the  public  in  an  accessible 

format, including digitally. 

  To be able to assess progress, the achievement of the objectives of the FRMPs should be 

measurable to the greatest extent possible.  

  The  methodology  for  assessing  measures  in  terms  of  costs  and  benefits  as  well  as  its 

application and results of this analysis should be presented.  

  The prioritisation of the measures should be better documented, including the process.  

 

In all FRMPs, the estimated cost should be reported for measures and an explanation of 

how  a  lack  of  funding  may  impact  the  implementation  of  the  measures  should  be 
provided.  

  Climate  change  should  be  considered  more  deeply  in  the  second  cycle,  including  how 
sources of flooding may change in the future, and changes in extreme events, as well as 

better  integration  with  and  references  to  the  National  Climate  Change  Adaptation 
Strategy.  

23   UKNI subsequently highlighted it may not be possible to guarantee funding over the FRMPs’ timeframe. For 
flood alleviation schemes for example, detailed assessments are required at feasibility stage before funding can 
be secured.  

24   The UK recalled subsequently that assessment of impacts of climate change was not mandatory for the first 

cycle of implementation of the FD. 

25   UKNI subsequently stated that NI FRMPs were developed at a strategic level so for many proposed measures 

in the FRMPs, full benefit cost assessments would not have been done. 

16 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

The UK has reported 36 FRMPs in total: 14 FRMPs for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 
each covering a single UoM; an additional eight separate FRMPs prepared at the level of the 
Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) in Wales26; and 14 Flood Risk Management Strategies 
for Scotland, covering sub-areas within UoM UK01 (Scotland) and UK02 (Solway Tweed)27. 
(When  this  report  refers  to  “the  FRMPs  assessed”,  it  includes  the  two  Scottish  strategies 
reviewed under this exercise.) The UK has not yet reported an FRMP for Gibraltar (UKGI17).  

The UK did not make use of Article 13.3 of the FD, which allows Member States to make use 
of previous flood risk management strategies assessed (provided their content is equivalent to 

the requirements set out in the Directive). 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

The approaches  for  FRMPs between Scotland,  Northern  Ireland,  and England  and Wales are 
different28. For example, Scotland did not prepare its strategies at UoM level but rather at the 
level  of  local  catchment  areas  and  areas  of  management29.  The  structure  and  content  of  the 
FRMPs  across  the  jurisdictions  differ.  Therefore,  a  subset  of  UoMs  and  FRMPs  have  been 
selected for assessment with the aim to cover the four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom and 

thus  the  different  methodological  approaches  taken.  The  UoMs  and  FRMPs  covered  by  the 
assessment are:  

26   NRW subsequently clarified that there are eight separate  LLFA  FRMPs covering surface  water produced in 

Wales, six of which were part of the Severn FRMP and two part of the Western Wales FRMP. 

27   Scotland  also  produced  14  Plans  which  supplement  the  Flood  Risk  Management  Strategies,  setting  out 
prioritised actions to tackle flooding. These local Flood Risk Management Plans were not reported to WISE 
but those for Clyde and Loch Lomond and Solway were reviewed in this assessment for specific information. 
28   The UK noted subsequently that each jurisdiction has its own governmental arrangements, structures, funding 
for  flood  risk  management  and  therefore  different  approaches.  These  different  approaches  are  carefully  co-
ordinated  and  are  consistent  with  good  flood  risk  management  across  the  UK  and  between  the  competent 
authorities  within  shared  RBDs.  A  UK  co-ordination  group  meets  every  two  months  to  discuss  these 
arrangements  and  the  respective  competent  authorities  have  their  own  governance  arrangements  in  place  to 
ensure  consistency  and  compliance  with  the  Directive.  For  example,  there  is  a  statutory  Cross  Border 
Advisory  Group  between  England  and  Wales,  which  co-ordinates  arrangements  in  respect  of  our  shared 
RBDs. 

29   SEPA subsequently clarified that the reason for this is that the ‘Scotland’ RBD is not a single major catchment 
and that it contains a number of hydrologically discrete large catchments, and these have been used to shape 
the strategies. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 5 

FRMPs and UoMs covered in the assessment 

UoM code 

UoM Name and FRMP assessed 

UK01 

UK02 

UK02 

UK09 

Clyde and Loch Lomond (C&LL, part of UK01 in Scotland); 

Solway (in the Scottish part of UK02); 

Solway Tweed (for the English Part of UK02) 

Severn (jointly managed by England and Wales) 

UKGBNIIENB 

Neagh Bann (Northern Ireland) 

The FRMP for Solway  Tweed (English  part) states that there are no known  significant  cross 
border flood risk issues along the main rivers between England and Scotland30, 31.  

30   UK02 (English part) FRMP, p.23. 
31   SEPA subsequently clarified that although Solway and Tweed are cross-border with England, in reality, due to 
the nature of the tributary watercourses, there is relatively little ‘cross-border risk’, therefore it is not a major 
issue. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

Each  of  the  FRMPs  refers  to  the  PFRAs  in  the  introductory  sections  to  the  FRMPs32.  (The 
United Kingdom applied Art. 13(1)(b) in England and Wales: under this provision, the UK did 
not  undertake  PFRAs  in  England  and  Wales,  using  FHRMs  prepared  before  December 
201033.)    The  conclusions  of  the  PFRAs  are  discussed  in  detail  only  in  the  Neagh  Bann 
(UKGBNIIENB) FRMP (in Section 5), where the conclusions for each Significant Flood Risk 
Area  (SFRA)34  are  discussed.  Maps  of  the  APSFRs  are  provided  in  some  of  the  FRMPs 
assessed as follows:  

  The  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  FRMP  provides  a  map  of  Significant  Flood  Risk 

Areas (SFRA) across Northern Ireland and lists the ones relevant to Neagh Bann.  

  A Flood Risk Area map is shown in the Severn (UK09) FRMP. 
  No Flood Risk Areas are shown in the UK02 (Solway Tweed – English part) FRMP35.  
 

In  the  Scottish  FRMS  (Clyde  and  Loch  Lomond,  UK01,  and  Solway,  UK02)  the 
Potentially Vulnerable Areas36 are shown on a map for each Local Plan District area37.  

Links to maps of the APSFRs are not provided in the FRMPs assessed.   

There was little information provided within the FRMPs themselves about whether conveyance 
routes have been taken into account in the PFRAs and the FRMPs38. In the Scottish strategies 
assessed  (Clyde  and  Loch  Lomond  in  UK01  and  Solway  in  UK02),  conveyance  routes  are 

32   E.g.  UKGBNIIENB  p.  45;  Scottish  FRMSs  (UK01  and  UK02  Solway)  p.  2;  and  UK02  (English  part)  in 

Section 7. 

33   European Commission, Assessment of data and information reported by Member States on their PFRAs and 
identification  of  Areas  of  Potentially  Significant  Flood  Risk  under  the  FD:  Member  State  Report  United 
Kingdom, 2015. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/PFRA %20Report %20- %20UK.pdf   
34   UKGBNIIENB  FRMP  p.45  “The  principle  objective  of  the  PFRA  was  to  identify  those  geographical  areas 
where  ‘potential  significant  flood  risk  exists  or  might  be  likely  to  occur’.  The  identification  of  these  areas, 
known as Significant Flood Risk Areas (SFRAs)”. 

35 The UK subsequently noted that this is due to no FRAs having been identified in the Solway Tweed – English 

part. 

36   UK01 and UK02 FRMS, Page 2 “Based on the National Flood Risk Assessment, SEPA identified areas where 
flooding was considered to be nationally significant. These areas are based on catchment units as it is within 
the  context  of  the  wider  catchment  that  flooding  can  be  best  understood  and  managed.  These  nationally 
significant catchments are referred to as Potentially Vulnerable Areas. In Scotland, 243 Potentially Vulnerable 
Areas were identified.” 

37   UKGBNIIENB  FRMP  pp.48-49;  UK09  FRMP,  Part  A,  p.51;  UK02  (English  part)  FRMP,  Part  A,  p.20); 

UK01 and UK02 FRMS, Figure 2 on Page 15. 

38   Environment  Agency  and  NRW  subsequently  informed  that  almost  all  modelling  of  flood  risk  uses  2D 
techniques  for  assessing  floodplains.  Overland  conveyance  routes  are  therefore  inherently  and  objectively 
included in the risk analysis and so they are automatically a part of the flood envelope, although they are not 
referred to explicitly. In  terms of  FRMP  measures,  conveyance is not a term that is used, particularly  when 
talking  to  the  public,  but  it  forms  an  underlying  part  of  the  overall  risk  from  flooding,  used  to  identify 
particular measures. 

19 

 
 
                                                 
discussed  in  the  description  of  measures  and  their  potential  impacts.  In  the  Neagh  Bann 
(UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, conveyance routes are only briefly mentioned in the context of flood 

risk maps. One of the measures in the UK09 FRMP is to “Assess conveyance requirements and 
implement  maintenance”.  There  is  no  reference  to  conveyance  routes  in  the  UK02  (English 
part) FRMP39. 

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) is an international UoM shared with the Republic of Ireland. It 

is indicated that there is coordination with the Republic of Ireland on all technical matters and 
proposed flood mitigation measures. The FRMP does not indicate whether cross-border flood 
risk areas were identified40 41. 

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

In  Section  4.1  of  the  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  FRMP,  an  overview  of  the  PFRAs  was 

provided,  along  with  a  summary  of  where  further  identification  of  new  flood  risk  areas  was 
undertaken.  In  Section  1.3  of  the  Scottish  FRM  strategies,  the  link  between  National  Flood 

Risk  Assessment,  APSFRs  and  FHRMs  is  set  out.  There  is  no  information  provided  in  the 
English  or  Welsh  FRMPs  assessed  on  how  the  PFRAs  were  developed  and  used  for  the 

development of FHRMs, nor if there were changes in the flood risk mapping as a result of the 
PFRAs.  

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps in the FRMPs 

Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs)  are presented only in some of the FRMPs assessed42:  

 

 

In  the  Scottish  FRMPs  (Clyde  and  Loch  Lomond  in  UK01  and  Solway  in  UK02),  no 
flood risk maps are reproduced43.  
In Section 5 of the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP there are detailed flood extent 
maps presented for fluvial and seawater floods.  

39   UK01 and UK02 Solway FRMS, Section 2; UKGBNIIENB FRMP, p.24; UK09 FRMP, Part B. 
40   UKGBNIIENB FRMP, p.63. 
41   NI subsequently informed that for UKGBNIIENB, the catchment drains from Republic of Ireland (RoI) into 
Northern  Ireland.  While  the  catchment  is  a  very  large  shared  catchment,  there  are  no  shared  APSFRs. 
Consultation  between  the  jurisdictions  has  been  ‘strong’  with  Northern  Ireland  represented  on  RoI  FD 
Steering and Working groups and formal meetings of respective competent authorities. Collaboration between 
NI and RoI was extensive in developing Flood Mapping – a key element of the Directive and underpinning the 
FRMPs. 

42   UKGBNIIENB FRMP, p. 17; UK09 FRMP, Part A, p.9; UK02 (Solway Tweed - English part), Part A, p. 20; 

Scottish FRMSs (UK01 and UK02 Solway), p.3. 

43   SEPA  subsequently  clarified  that  the  reason  maps  were  not  reproduced  within  the  FRMPs  was  that  flood 
hazard  maps  with  national coverage, for a  range  of likelihoods, were available on SEPA’s  website allowing 
users to zoom in and view detail at catchment level. 

20 

 
 
                                                 
 

In the English FRMPs assessed (Solway Tweed for the English part of UK02 and Severn 

for UK09, Severn, shared with Wales), flood risk maps have been reproduced for fluvial, 
seawater  floods  and  floods  from  artificial  water  bearing  infrastructure.  The  maps  and 

statistics contained in the Solway Tweed and Severn FRMPs are said to be based on the 
Updated  Flood  Map  for  Surface  Water  (UMfSW)  published  in  December  2013,  but 

surface water flooding maps are not contained within the FRMP.  

None of the FRMPs assessed presents FHRMs that cover groundwater floods. 

Links  to  the  FHRMs  are  provided  in  all  five  of  the  FRMPs  assessed.  However,  some  of  the 
links provided are no longer working44. The working links are: 

  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  and  other  UoMs  in  Northern  Ireland:  http://dfi-
ni.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fd6c0a01b07840269a50a2f596b3

daf6  

  Severn (UK09) and UK02 (Solway Tweed - English part) and other UoMs in England 
and Wales: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-districts-flood-risk-
maps and https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/   

  Scottish FRMSs (Clyde and Loch Lomond, UK01, and Solway, UK02): 

http://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmap/map.htm     

2.2.1 Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

In  all  the  FRMPs,  FHRMs  have  been  used  to  develop  the  FRMPs45.  Based  on  the  reporting 
sheets and the FRMPs assessed: 

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

activities, assets);  

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

  Measures have been defined based on the FHRM.  

The  approaches  vary  across  the  five  FRMPs  assessed.  In  the  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB) 

FRMP, it is noted that flood maps were made available for public information and a publicity 
campaign was run to make the public aware of them. Whilst the flood risk maps are publicly 

available  in  rest  of  the  UK,  the  other  FRMPs  do  not  detail  how  the  maps  were  used  in  the 
public consultation process. In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, it is stated that flood 

maps were designed to enable flooding agencies, infrastructure providers and others to manage 

44   The  UK  clarified  subsequently  that  due  to  reorganisation  the  links  changed  and  provided  new  links.  The 

European Commission makes public the relevant internet links on: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/links.htm  

45   The  UK  applied  Art.  13(1)(b)  for  the  PFRA  stage  in  England  and  Wales,  as  noted  above.  The  UK  did  not 

apply Art. 13(2) for the FHRM stage.  

21 

 
 
                                                 
 
their work to reduce flood risk; encourage people living and working in areas prone to flooding 
to take appropriate action; and to inform anyone applying for planning permission if flooding 
is likely to be a material consideration46.  

In the English FRMPs (Solway Tweed for the English part of UK02 and Severn, UK09) it is 

stated that in developing the proposed measures, conclusions were drawn from hazard and risk 
maps which help to identify risks and opportunities. In the Scottish strategies assessed (Clyde 

and  Loch  Lomond  in  UK01  and  Solway  in  the  Scottish  part  of  UK02),  it  is  stated  that  the 
FHRMs  helped  inform  the  selection  of  measures  to  manage  flood  risk  in  Potentially 
Vulnerable  Areas47.  Target  areas  within  the  Potentially  Vulnerable  Areas  have  been  set  to 
focus  measures.  A  qualifier  is  included  which  states  that  the  target  areas  do  not  necessarily 
correspond to areas at risk in the flood mapping48, 49. 

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 FRMPs. It is 
not clear from the information provided in the FRMPs whether there have been any changes on 
the  identification  of  APSFRs  since  December  201150.  There  is  also  very  little  information 
about whether there have been any changes to the FHRMs since December 2013. However, the 

Scottish strategies assessed (Solway in the Scottish part of UK02 and Clyde and Loch Lomond 
in UK01) do indicate that flood hazard and flood risk maps were developed by SEPA between 
2012 and 201451. 

46   The NI authorities recounted subsequently that they followed the FD process. They took the information they 
had developed out of strategic & historic flood mapping and from the PFRA assessment, they focused effort 
and resource on the APSFRs derived from PFRA stage to generate greater detail in mapping, modelling and in 
producing objectives and measures for the FRMPs which would have the most beneficial effects on reducing 
flood  risk.  Examples  of  good  practice,  in  terms  of  development  control  and  emergency  planning  were 
reinforced throughout the Plans.  

47   SEPA subsequently recounted that each completed stage and new understanding and evidence had driven the 

next. 

48   UKGBNIIENB  FRMP,  p.55;  UK02  Solway  Tweed  -  English  part  and  UK09  FRMPs,  Part  A,  p.53;  UK02 

Solway - Scottish part and UK01 FRMS, p. 2. 

49   SEPA  subsequently  explained  that  “this  qualifier  was  included  to  indicate  that  the  entirety  of  the  identified 
target  area  is  not  at  risk  of  flooding  –  it  encompasses  the  flooding  but  is  buffered  to  include  a  sensible 
boundary area and avoid an overly specific targeting zone, given the strategic nature of the mapping driving 
the targeting”. This statement appears to not have caused specific concern to partners / public. 

50   SEPA  subsequently  explained  that  there  are  some  areas  that  were  considered  as  Candidate  Potentially 
Vulnerable  Areas.  This  is  explained  in  the  FRMP  as  follows:  “area  was  not  originally  identified  as  a 
Potentially Vulnerable Area in 2011. However, updated information on flood risk from the new hazard maps 
identified that this area should be regarded as a candidate Potentially Vulnerable Area due to the risk to people 
and properties.” UK01 Clyde and Loch Lomond FRMP – p. 332. 

51   UK02 Solway - Scottish part and UK01 FRMS, p. 2. 

22 

 
 
                                                 
2.4 

Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the 
FHRMs 

The FHRM assessment52 identified the following areas for further development for the UK: 

  Scenarios,  Article  6(3):  According  to  Art.  6(3),  flood  hazard  maps  shall  cover  the 
geographical areas which could be flooded according to three scenarios: floods with low 

probability,  medium  probability  and  high  probability,  where  appropriate.  Some  UoMs 
(e.g. UK_02_England, UK03, UK06 and UK12) did not report the maps for floods with a 

medium probability scenario.  

  Hazards  elements  -  Water  depth/level:  According  to  Art.  6(4)(b)  Member  States  shall 
report  for  each  probability  scenario  the  flood  extent  and  the  water  depth  or  level,  as 

appropriate.  Several  UoMs  (e.g.  UK04,  UK06  and  UK07)  did  not  show  the  water 
depth/level in the FHRMs.  

  Adverse consequences - Type of economic activity: According to Art. 6(5)(b) flood risk 
maps  shall  show  the  potential  adverse  consequences  associated  with  flood  scenario  in 

terms  of  type  of  economic  activity.  Most  of  the  UoMs  in  the  UK  (UK_02_England, 
UK03,  UK04,  UK06,  UK07,  UK12  and  UKGBNIIENB)  did  not  show  the  type  of 

economic activities in their FHRMs.  

  Adverse consequences - industrial installation and WFD areas: According to Art. 6(5)(c) 
flood  risk  maps  shall  show  the  potential  adverse  consequences  associated  with  a  flood 
scenario in terms of location of Industrial Emissions Directive installations. Most of the 

UoMs  in  the  UK  (UK_02_England,  UK_02_Scotland,  UK03,  UK04,  UK06,  UK07, 
UK12 and  UKGBNIIENB) did  not  show the location of industrial installations in  their 

FHRMs.  

  Consequences on the environment – it appears that no potential adverse consequences on 
the environment were shown in the maps, in particular for low and medium probability 
fluvial floods.  

While these areas for further development  identified in  the earlier  assessment of the FHRMs 
are  not  explicitly  addressed  within  the  FRMPs  assessed  or  the  reporting,  a  review  of  the 

FHRMs has found the following: 

  For  all the  FRMPs assessed, maps for floods  with  a medium  probability  scenario were 
found. This also included Solway Tweed, for the English part of UK02, which had not 

previously, therefore this area for further development appears to have been addressed.  

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

UK - United Kingdom, December 2014. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/UK %20FHRM %20Report.pdf  

23 

 
 
                                                 
 
  The  FHRMs  were  not  reproduced  or  described  within  the  FRMPs,  but  from  a  brief 
review of the mapping in the external links53, it can be concluded that progress has been 
made towards addressing hazard elements and adverse consequences:   

o  For  Northern  Ireland,  links  to  PDF  documents  are  given  in  each  area,  which 
include  risk  maps  of  these  scenarios  (low,  medium  and  high  probability) 

containing data on the estimated number of inhabitants likely to be affected, the 
cost, as well as mapping environmentally sensitive sites nearby which could be 

at  risk.  The  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  FRMP  explains  that  flood  risk 
indicators  were  generated  within  1km  grid  squares  to  assess  the  potential 
adverse consequences on the environment (not reproduced within the FRMP)54. 
No information on water depths was available.  

o  For  England  and  Wales,  in  the  “detailed”  map  view,  flood  depths  (in 
millimetres) are available for each flood risk category for surface water flooding 

and  for  four  flood  risk  scenarios  (very  low  to  high  probability).  No 
consequences of flooding were available. In the English FRMPs it is explained 
that  a  computer  model  was  used  to  estimate  the  likelihood  of  flooding  from 

rivers and the sea, and can be used in conjunction with receptor data to estimate 
the  consequences.  A  summary  of  flood  risk  to  the  natural  and  historic 

environment across is provided in a table.  

o  For Scotland, data is shown on the map to show extent, such as the numbers of 
inhabitants  at  risk,  economic  and  community  activities  at  risk,  and  the 
environmental sites at risk for each likelihood level (low/medium/high). Water 

depths are also given for each likelihood.  

o  For  Scotland,  data  on  the  map  shows  the  environmental  sites  (which  includes 

IPPC sites) at risk for each likelihood level.  

Consequently,  the  majority  though  not  all  of  the  previously  identified  areas  for  further 

development have been addressed in the time period between publication of the FHRMs and 
the assessment of the FRMPs. 

53   FRMPs assessed and external map links:  

  Northern Ireland: 
http://dfi-ni.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fd6c0a01b07840269a50a2f596b3daf6   
  England and Wales: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/river-basin-districts-flood-risk-maps  
  Scotland: http://apps.sepa.org.uk/FRMStrategies/  

54  NI  subsequently  clarified  that  the  FRMPs  were  developed  at  a  strategic  level  i.e.  there  was  little  detail  on 
specific  measures  or  their  particular,  site-specific  impacts  on  the  environment  or  on  sites  of  environmental 
designation. NI further stated that environmental documents which accompanied the NI FRMPs fully covered 
the strategic assessment of the likely impacts of the types of physical measures proposed, on the environment 
and on sites of environmental designation.  

24 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs 
regarding integration of previously reported information55. 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  There is  no clear information whether conveyance routes have been taken into account 
and  how  they  are  used  to  set  objectives  and  measures,  in  the  English,  Welsh  and 
Northern Irish FRMPs assessed56. 

  Only  the  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  FRMP  and  the  Scottish  strategies  provides 
information  about  the  conclusions  from  the  PFRAs  or  how  they  were  used  in  the 

development of FHRMs. 

55   The NI authorities recounted subsequently that they followed good practice in the whole logical FD process. 
They took the information they had developed out of strategic & historic flood mapping and from the PFRA 
assessment,  they  focused  effort  and  resource  on  the  APSFRs  derived  from  PFRA  stage  to  generate  greater 
detail in mapping, modelling and in producing objectives and measures for the FRMPs which would have the 
most beneficial effects on reducing flood risk. Examples of good practice, in terms of development control and 
emergency  planning  were  reinforced  throughout  the  Plans.  Similarly,  SEPA  recounted  how  each  completed 
stage and new understanding and evidence had driven the next. 

56   Environment  Agency  and  NRW  informed  subsequently  that  almost  all  modelling  of  flood  risk  uses  2D 
techniques  for  assessing  floodplains.  Overland  conveyance  routes  are  therefore  inherently  and  objectively 
included in the risk analysis and so they are automatically a part of the flood envelope, although they are not 
referred  to  explicitly.  In  terms  of  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  measures,  conveyance  is  not  a  term  that  is 
used, particularly when talking to the public, but it forms an underlying part of the overall risk from flooding, 
used to identify particular measures. 

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

The focus of the objectives varies across the five FRMPs assessed:  

  Objectives  in  the  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  FRMP  are  split  into  economic,  human 
health and social, and environmental objectives. The objectives are defined under these 
themes  and  are  broken  down  further  (with  slightly  more  detail  in  the  appendix)  and 

include, as examples, reducing economic damages to properties, reducing the risk to life 
and  raising  awareness  of  the  consequences  of  flood  risk  and  mitigating  the  impact  on 

 

priority species and habitats. The Appendix also links the objectives with the measures.  
In  the  FRMPs  for  the  Severn  (UK09)57  and  Solway  Tweed  (English  part  of  UK02), 
objectives  are  categorised  as  environmental,  economic  or  social  (people  and 
communities).  Objectives  aim  to  minimise  impacts  of  flooding,  reduce  flood  risk,  and 

enhance the natural environment where possible. More detailed objectives have been set 
for  each  catchment  (sub-basin)  in  the  UoMs.  Some  examples  of  objectives  include: 

improving awareness in catchments which react rapidly to rainfall, reducing flood risk to 
residential  properties  and  maintaining  and  enhancing  habitats  through  flood  risk 

management activities.  

 

In the Scottish strategies assessed – Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01) and Solway (in 

the  Scottish  part  of  UK02)  –  there  were  two  general  objectives:  "avoid  an  overall 
increase in flood risk” and “reduce overall flood risk”. There are more objectives that are 

linked to the target areas such as “Reduce the economic damages and risk to people from 
surface water flooding in Erskine”, “Reduce the risk of flooding from the Gotter Water 

and  River  Gryfe  to  residential  properties  in  Quarriers  Village”  or  “Accept  the  current 
standard  of  protection  offered  by  the  Portpatrick  Flood  Protection  Scheme”.  In  the 

Scottish  strategies,  the  objectives  include  references  to  residential  and  non-residential 
properties,  transport,  community  facilities,  and  risks  to  people.  Environment  is  not 

addressed  directly  in  the  objectives,  but  it  is  dealt  with  in  the  commentary  for  all  the 
relevant measures which are linked to the objectives. All the objectives are clearly linked 
to the measures58. 

Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed59: 

57   Separate objectives are developed for the English and Welsh parts of the UoM. 
58   UKGBNIIENB FRMP, Appendix H; UK09 FRMP, Part A, Table 8.1 on p.57, Part B, section 4; UK02 Solway 
Tweed FRMP, Part A, Table 10 on p.75, Part B, section 4;  Scottish FRMSs (UK01 and UK02 Scottish part), 
Section 2, p.17. 

59   These categories are included in Art. 7 of the FD. 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. 

26 

 
 
                                                 
 

 

 

In all five FRMPs, the objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods.  

In some of the FRMPs, the objectives refer to measures that will be implemented.  
In some of the FRMPs, the objectives refer to non-structural measures60.  

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

Overall, it is indicated where the objectives will be achieved and how; while some objectives 

are  measurable,  none  have  a  quantitative  target  to  achieve.  Moreover,  the  FRMPs  are  not 
specific in terms of the timescales for the achievement of objectives.  

In  the  FRMPs  assessed,  all  the  objectives  refer  to  a  location.  For  the  English  FRMPs  and 
Scottish Strategies assessed, the objectives are assigned to a specific catchment, water body or 

town specific level. An example objective is "To reduce the risk to life, health and wellbeing". 
The  FRMP  for  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  in  Northern  Ireland,  on  the  other  hand,  only 

applies objectives for the whole UoM. The same is true for the Welsh objectives in the UK09 
FRMP;  there  are,  however,  objectives  set  in  the  Local  FRMPs  that  are  specific  to  the  local 
area61.  

Only  the  Scottish  FRM  strategies  provide  indicators  from  which  the  objectives  can  be 

measured  for  each  target  area  (e.g.  Avoid  an  overall  increase  in  flood  risk:  3  900  residential 
properties;  900  non-residential  properties  and  8  600  people62).  Whilst  the  objectives  of  the 
other FRMPs assessed are only descriptive in  form,  each objective has  measures linked with 

them in the FRMPs. The majority of the measures are specific in what they will achieve. For 
example:  “Target  resources  to  reduce  the  risk  of  flooding  to  communities  with  the  highest 

flood risk”. However, there do not appear to be any specific numerical targets for achievement 
in  any  of  the  UoMs.  Generic  timelines  for  delivery  of  measures  against  the  objectives  are 
provided  in  each  of  the  FRMPs  e.g.  ongoing  or  2015-202163;  however,  the  FRMPs  do  not 
specify that the objectives are to be achieved by this date64. 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

The  FRMPs  have  been  set  to  reduce  the  adverse  consequences  from  floods,  namely:  the 

number  of  fatalities  and  dwellings  flooded,  the  adverse  consequences  on  human  health, 

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

as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

61   e.g. Cardiff FRMP p.20 
62   SEPA subsequently informed that target areas have been set to focus actions; these areas do not necessarily 
correspond to areas at risk in SEPA’s flood map. Indeed, in some cases the target areas encompass adjacent 
areas, which are not at risk. 

63   UK01 FRMS Section 2; UK09 FRMP Part C. 
64   The  UK  stated  subsequently  that  it  is  difficult  to  always  be  specific  with  deadlines  for  achievement  of 
objectives  and  measures  which  are  very  influenced  by  various  factors  over  the  6-year  cycle,  e.g.  change  in 
priority, available funding etc. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
cultural  heritage,  the  environment  and  economic  activities.  Objectives  refer  to  reductions  in 
economic, social and environmental impacts in each of the UoMs assessed.  

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

In  all  five  FRMPs  assessed,  the  objectives  include  the  reduction  of  flood  risk,  a  term  which 
includes the likelihood of flooding65. In the Neagh Bann FRMP, one of the main objectives is 
to reduce the likelihood of flooding66. For the other FRMPs assessed there do not appear to be 
objectives that specifically refer to reducing the likelihood of flooding67.  

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

The  objectives  were  generally  established  by  the  authorities  for  England,  Northern  Ireland, 

Scotland  and  Wales,  such  as  the  Environment  Agency  in  England  and  the  Scottish 
Environmental Protection Agency. The  FRMPs generally do not  contain a lot of information 

on what has been considered in establishing the objectives. The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) 
FRMP  states  that  the  draft  objectives  were  consulted  with  stakeholders  as  part  of  the 
consultations  on  the  draft  FRMP68.  It  was  explained  in  the  reporting  sheets  that  SEPA  set 
initial  objectives  based  on  the  evidence  on  the  causes  and  impacts  of  flooding69.  The  initial 
objectives  were  then  refined  following  engagement  with  local  authorities  and  other 
stakeholders70.  In  the  Scottish  FRMPs  assessed,  objectives  were  set  for  all  APSFRs  and  at  a 
regional scale. 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The  objectives  are  specific  in  terms  of  what  they  are  trying  to  achieve  and  where. 

Measures have been linked with the objectives.  

The following areas for further development were identified: 

65   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. 

66   UKGBNIIENB FRMP pp.31 
67   The  UK  subsequently  clarified  that  in  discussing  flooding  in  the  United  Kingdom,  the  word  ‘risk’  is  used 
which is widely understood to be likelihood by consequence. This is also stated in the beginning of each of the 
FRMPs. The wording of objectives within the FRM strategies in Scotland is focused on the overall reduction 
of flood risk, rather than flood likelihood. Some actions will result in a reduced likelihood but have not been 
explicitly captured as such. 
68   UKGBNIIENB FRMP, p.20. 
69   Scottish reporting sheets. 
70   Scottish reporting sheets and Scottish FRMS (UK01 and UK02 Solway - Scottish part), p.3. 

28 

 
 
                                                 
  While some objectives could be measured, none have a quantitative target to achieve and 
in general the objectives are only descriptive (e.g. target resources to reduce the risk of 
flooding  to  communities  with  the  highest  flood  risk).  The  Scottish  FRM  strategies 

however  do  provide  indicators  that  can  be  used  to  measure  progress  towards  the 
objectives for each target area. 

 

Information  on  what  has  been  considered  during  the  process  of  establishing  the 
objectives is lacking for most FRMPs assessed71. 

71   SEPA subsequently highlighted that there is some information in the reporting sheets which shows that SEPA 
set initial objectives based on the evidence on the causes and impacts of flooding. They also highlighted that 
there is a great amount of detail behind this work which is captured within separate technical documents, not 
in the FRM strategies themselves.  

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

The United Kingdom has indicated, across all 15 UoMs that have reported72, 9 055 individual 
measures  and  336  aggregated73  measures74.  The  total  number  of  measures  in  the  UK  is  thus 
9 391. The FRMPs do not explain how individual and aggregated measures are defined.  

Some of the measures are assigned to more than one measure type75. To compare the number 
of measures by type, a total count of the measures is used, which includes each time a measure 

is allocated to a measure type (this involves double-counting): this total is 9 888 measures. 

The range in number of measures reported for each UoM goes from 27 to 2 337 measures. The 

lowest numbers of measures are in the Northern Irish UoMs (from 27 to  42) and the highest 
numbers  are  in  UK01  Scotland  (2  337,  24  %  of  all  measures  reported  for  the  UK)76.  The 
measures reported cover all four aspects as well as “no action” and other measures77, with the 
most measures being prevention, protection and preparedness measures. More specifically, the 

aspects covered are: no action (44 measures or around 0.4 % of the total); prevention (2 978 
measures or about 30 % of the total); protection (3 359 measures or around 34 % of the total); 

preparedness (3 266 measures or around 33 % of the total); recovery and review (146 measures 
or around 1.5 % of the total) and other (95 measures or nearly 1 % of the total). Prevention, 

protection and preparedness measures are planned in all UoMs, while recovery and review, no 
action and other measures are not found in some of the UoMs. All measure types are covered.  

Please see Annex A for supplementary tables and charts on measures for this and subsequent 
questions in this section. 

4.1 

Cost of measures 

Table 6 

Estimated overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMPs 

UKGBNIIENB 

144 844 000 

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

72   The UK has not reported for Gibraltar as there were no APSFRs identified. 
73   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. 

74   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. 

75   See Annex B for the list of all measure aspects and measure types. 
76   NI  subsequently  highlighted  that  the  number  of  measures  relate  to  the  level  of  risk  and  the  level  of  detail 

within the plan, direct comparisons therefore should not be made. 
77   See Annex B for the list of all measure aspects and measure types.  

30 

 
 
 
                                                 
Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs 

Only one of the five FRMPs assessed, Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB), presented an overview of 
the total costs of measures78 – shown in the table above. In Scotland this detail is contained in 
the Local FRMPs79.  

In its reporting sheets, the UK provided information on the costs of 6 110 measures (or around 
62 % of all measures reported) across all the UoMs. Three measures were reported as having 

been included in other programmes, one measure was reported as “NIL” for costs. The highest 
cost for a measure was between £350 m and £750 m. The majority of the measures for which 

this information is provided cost less than GBP 100 000 (about EUR 115 000) or between GBP 
100  000  and  500  000  (about  EUR  575  000).  The  highest  costs  are  reported  for  protection 
measures and measures in the three Northern Irish UoMs80 (for further details see Tables A5 
and A6 in Annex A). 

Among the five FRMPs assessed, the plan for the Neagh Bann UoM (UKGBNIIENB) was the 
only one to present overall cost forecast or budget for the measures planned:  

  The  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  FRMP  in  Northern  Ireland  reported  the  costs  by 
measure  aspect:  GBP  3  m  for  prevention  measures  (approximately  EUR  3.4  m),  GBP 

137.6 m for protection measures (approximately EUR 155 m) and GBP 4.2 m (EUR 4.8 
m)  for  preparedness  –  thus  totalling  around  GBP  144.8  m,  about  EUR  164  m.  This 

equates to 95 % of all costs going to protection measures, 2 % for prevention measures 
and 3 % for preparedness measures.  

  The Flood Risk Management Strategy for Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01 Scotland) 

does not provide cost information8182. 

  The  English  strategies  assessed,  Solway  (UK09)  FRMP  and  the  Solway  Tweed  FRMP 
(UK02 - English part), reported that their measures do not all have secured funding and 
are  not  guaranteed  to  be  implemented.  Money  is  allocated  to  Risk  Management 

78   NI subsequently highlighted that this relates to the level of detail within the plan. 
79   SEPA subsequently clarified that this is the remit of the Local FRMPs and not the FRM Strategies. 
80   Reporting sheets. 
81   Scotland subsequently highlighted that cost information is beyond the scope of the Scottish strategies. 
82   Some  cost  information  (e.g.  investment  by  Scottish  Water  to  reduce  flooding)  may  be  found  in  the  Local 

Flood Risk Management Plans; these Plans however were not reported to WISE.  

31 

 
 
                                                 
Authorities83  based  on  government  policy  that  gives  the  highest  priority  to  the  areas  at 
highest risk84. 

The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP provided a detailed breakdown of the costs within 
the measure aspects, which included:  

  Prevention:  costs  of  Rivers  Agency’s  liaison  with  planning  authorities  regarding  new 
development:  these  are  the  estimated  costs  for  the  provision  of  flood  risk  management 
advice to the government and local councils; 

  Protection:  costs  of  measures  in  Rivers  Agency’s  Capital  Works  Programme;  costs 
associated with Rivers Agency’s proposed operation of the Homeowner Flood Protection 

Grant  Scheme;  costs  associated  with  Stakeholder  Groups  formed  to  address  the 
requirements  of  the  FD;  costs  associated  with  drainage  maintenance;  costs  associated 

with  drainage  and  flood  risk  management  activities  by  “Transport  Northern  Ireland”; 
costs associated with drainage and flood risk management activities by “Northern Ireland 

Water”;  costs  associated  with  drainage  and  flood  risk  management  activities  in  the 
Northern  Ireland  Department  of  Regional  Development  (DRD)  ‘Living  with  Water’ 

Programme; 

  Preparedness:  costs  associated  with  Rivers  Agency’s  provision  of  Emergency  Planning 

Expertise, Flood Warning, Informing and Awareness activities85. 

4.2 

Funding of measures 

Measures are proposed to be funded as follows:  

  The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP mentions funding sources, which include: the 
Rivers  Agency  of  Northern  Ireland,  Transport  Northern  Ireland  and  Northern  Ireland 
Water86. A Homeowner Flood Protection Grant Scheme was planned to be introduced by 
the  regional  government,  which  would  improve  the  ability  of  householders  and 
communities to enhance their property’s resistance to flooding through the provision of 

individual property protection measures (operated by the Rivers Agency).  

83   UK09 FRMP Glossary: “Organisations that have a key role in flood and coastal erosion risk management as 
defined by the Act. These are the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales, lead local flood authorities, 
district councils where there is no unitary authority, internal drainage boards, water companies, and highways 
authorities.” 

84   UKGBNIIENB FRMP, p.289; Clyde and Loch Lomond LFRMP (UK01), p.6; UK09 FRMP, Part A, p.8 and 

UK02 (Solway Tweed - English part) FRMP, Part A, p.16. 

85   UKGBNIIENB FRMP, pp.283-289. 
86   UKNI subsequently highlighted it may not be possible to guarantee funding over FRMP timeframe. For flood 
alleviation schemes for example, detailed assessments are required at feasibility stage before funding can be 
secured.  NI  FRMPs  were  developed  at  a  strategic  level  so  for  many  proposed  measures  in  the  FRMPs,  full 
benefit cost assessments would not have been done. 

32 

 
 
                                                 
  For  Clyde  and  Loch  Lomond  (in  UK01,  Scotland),  the  FRMP  describes  key  funding 
streams.  Local  authorities  receive  a  funding  settlement  from  the  Scottish  Government. 
Local  authorities  may  then  contribute  funding  to  jointly  deliver  actions  with  partners 

such as National Park Authorities, Scottish Water, other Local Authorities, infrastructure 
providers and many others. A joint initiative between SEPA and the Met Office receives 

funding  from  the  UK Government.  Private investment  also  comes from  Scottish  Water 
for its own actions.  

  For Solway (in the Scottish part of UK02), the Flood Risk Management Plan also notes 
that local authorities and the Scottish EPA receive a funding settlement from the Scottish 

Government. Private investment also comes from Scottish Water and Network Rail.  

  For  the  Severn  (UK09)  FRMP,  measures  carried  out  by  Risk  Management  Authorities 
are  funded  by  the  Department  of  Environment  Food  and  Rural  Affairs  (DEFRA)  in 
England  and  by  the  Welsh  Government  in  Wales.  Similarly,  the  funding  in  Solway 
Tweed (UK02 - English part) comes from DEFRA87. 

This information is summarised in the following table. 

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  

Local action groups 

UK01 
C&LL 

UK02 
Solway 

UK02 
Solway 
Tweed 

UK09 
Severn 

UKGBNIIENB 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

87   UKGBNIIENB FRMP, p.268, 283-289; Clyde and Loch Lomond LFRMP (UK01), pp.28-30; Solway LFRMP 

(UK02 Scottish part), p.11; UK09 FRMP, Part A, p.8 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

Only some of the FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of the measures with 

regard to:  

  What they are trying to achieve, 

  Where they are to be achieved, 

  How they are to be achieved, and 

  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP in Northern Ireland, measures for flood risk areas 
are described in general terms under the headings of preparedness, prevention and protection. 
The information provided is not sufficient to be measurable and no indicators are set out88. The 
measures are listed in an appendix against the FRMP’s objectives89.  

In  the  FRMPs  for  Severn  (UK09)  and  Solway  Tweed  (UK02  -  English  part)  FRMPs  in 
England,  the  measures  are  listed  at  a  UoM  level  and  catchment  level.  There  is  a  brief 

description  of  the  measures  and  timeline  which  generally  links  to  the  planning  cycle.  The 
responsible parties for the measures are identified. There is no linkage to specific objectives, 

just to the three broad categories of objectives (as noted in section 3, three broad categories for 
objectives are given: environmental, economic or social)90.  

In the Scottish strategies assessed (Clyde and Loch Lomond in UK01 and Solway in UK02), 
measures  or  actions  are  linked  to  the  objectives.  Each  action  has  an  indicative  delivery 

timescale.  There  are  indicators  identified  with  the  Potentially  Vulnerable  Areas,  which  are 
linked to the measures via the objective identifier code. The responsible bodies for individual 

measures (referred to as  delivery leads) are identified and overview descriptions of how they 
will be achieved are provided.  

For each UoM the measures are specific to a geographical area, as summarised below: 

Table 8 

Location of measures  

UK01 
C&LL 

UK02 
Solway 

UK02 Solway 
Tweed 

UK09 
Severn 

UKGBNIIENB 

International  

National  

88   NI  subsequently  clarified  that  there  was  an  additional  document  produced  called  “Summary  of  measures  in 

Northern Ireland flood risk management plans” available on the departmental website at: 
https://www.infrastructure-ni.gov.uk/publications/flood-risk-management-plans.  

89   UKGBNIIENB FRMP, Appendix H. 
90   UK09 Severn and UK02 Solway Tweed (English part), Part C, Annex 1. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
UK01 
C&LL 

UK02 
Solway 

UK02 Solway 
Tweed 

UK09 
Severn 

UKGBNIIENB 

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk 
area  

Water body level  

Local Plan District areas  

LLFA areas 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

The  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  FRMP  has  nine  Significant  Flood  Risk  Areas  (SFRAs) 
where  the  measures  have  been  defined  to  specific  geographical  areas  and  water  bodies  are 

named.  There  are  also  seven  different  types  of  regional  measures  e.g.  Rivers  Agency 
Watercourse Inspection and Maintenance, which are not specific to a geographic location.  

In the FRMPs for the Severn (UK09) and Solway Tweed (UK02 English part), many measures 
are  specific  to  a  catchment  or  smaller  areas  such  as  Lead  Local  Flood  Authorities  (LLFA) 
areas  or  defined  key  communities.  There  are  some  actions  which  apply  across  the  whole 

Severn RBD.  

In the strategies for Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01) and Solway (in UK02, Scottish part), 

measures referred to as actions, are specific to areas at different scales. There are measures for 
the Local Plan District areas and measures specific to the Potentially Vulnerable Areas within 
them91. 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

In  its  reporting  sheets,  the  UK  indicated  2  299  different  objectives  for  the  UoMs  in  the 
reporting  sheets,  for  6  079  different  measures.  It  has  not  been  possible  to  aggregate  this 

information.  

All  the  FRMPs  assessed  link  their  measures  to  their  objectives.  The  best  example  is  in  the 

Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  FRMP,  where  the  detailed  objectives  have  been  linked  to  the 
measures. This is done in a matrix style where a few objectives can be linked to a few different 

measures.  In  the  Scottish  strategies  the  objectives  are  also  linked  with  the  measures  both 
descriptively  and  with  referencing.  For  all  other  FRMPs  assessed,  the  measures  were  only 
linked with the general objectives. However, there is no information on how and by how much 

the  measures  will  contribute  to  the  objectives,  or  that  the  objectives  will  be  achieved  by  a 

91   UKGBNIIENB FRMP, p.273; UK09 FRMP and UK02 FRMP (English part), Part B, p.76,  p.19, p.37; UK01 

Solway and Clyde and Loch Lomond FRMS, p.20. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
certain  set  of  measures.  In  the  UK  reporting  sheets,  the  measures  are  reported  against 
objectives for some of the Solway Tweed (UK02, English part) measures and Severn (UK09) 
measures and for all of the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) measures92.  

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

In  its  reporting  sheets,  the  UK  has  reported  the  location  of  measures  for  the  majority  of 
measures.  For  the  Solway  Tweed  (UK02,  English  part),  Severn  (UK09)  and  Neagh  Bann 

(UKGBNIIENB), the level of location ranges from RBD, WFD catchments, flood risk areas, to 
local areas or specific place names. In the reporting, location is not provided for measures in 

the strategy for Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01), and information for some measures in the 
Severn (UK09) is missing.  

The  UK  reported  information  about  the  geographic  coverage  of  all  measures.  This  has  been 
classified  into  the  following  categories:  APSFR;  Catchment;  UoM;  Lead  Local  Flood 

Authority  (LLFA)  Area;  Local  including  towns/cities/boroughs/communities  and  other  local 
areas; Strategic place;  and Other for information that could not be categorised. Across all 15 
UoMs reported the geographic coverage for almost one-third of measures is at APSFR level (3 

076  out  of  9  888  measures,  31  %),  followed  by  local  areas  (2  493  measures,  25  %).  The 
coverage of 1 471 measures is the LLFA area (15 %), that of 1 162 is the catchment area (12 

%), and 370 measures (4 %), the UoM. Finally, 172 measures have a coverage of a strategic 
place (2 %), and the coverage of 1 144 measures appears falls into the “other” category (12 %).    

Preparedness  and  prevention  measures  are  mainly  attributed  to  APSFR,  and  protection 
measures mainly have a coverage of local areas93.  

For more details see Tables A7 and A8 in Annex A. 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

Across all UoMs, the UK reported information to WISE about the priority of 6 117 measures 
(62 % of the total). The majority of the measures reported are categorised as of either moderate 
priority (2 524 measures out of the 6 117, 41 % of the total) and high (2 265 measures, 37 %) 
priority, especially for prevention and protection measures.  

The Humber (UK04) UoM has the highest proportion of critical priority measures of all UoMs 

(91). The Humber (UK04) also has the most very high priority measures (189), followed by the 
Thames UoM, UK06 (128). For the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) UoM, there are no measures 

with very high or critical priorities. 

92   FRMP documents; reporting sheets “Measure details: objectives”. 
93   Reporting sheets ‘Measure details: names and location’. 

36 

 
 
                                                 
The category of priority was not reported for the Scotland UoM (UK01) or the Western Wales 
UoM (UK10); a high proportion were not reported for Solway Tweed (UK02, including both 

Scottish  and  English  parts):  (88  %  of  measures  in  this  UoM).  This  is  the  case  also  for  the 
Severn UoM, UK09 (50 %), and the Dee UoM, UK11 (76 %)94. For further details see Tables 
A9 and A10 in Annex A. For measures where the priority was not reported, the UK reported 
the timetable of implementation (see next page). 

In  some  cases,  the  FRMPs  provide  further  information  on  priorities:  although  priorities  for 
measures were not reported to WISE for the Scotland UoM (UK01), national and local priority 

rankings are provided in the Scottish FRM Strategies. 

The FRMPs assessed and the reporting sheets provide information on how priorities where set. 

In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, there is no methodology section95. For each flood 
risk  area,  however,  there  is  an  overview  of  the  flooding  history,  identification  of  potentially 

significant flood sources, and a flood risk assessment. Then the flood mitigation measures are 
proposed. Each scheme on the Department’s Capital Works Programme is assessed against the 
four  criteria96:  degree  of  protection  /  risk  of  failure,  economics,  special  consideration  and 
financial control. A score was assigned to each scheme and the criteria are then weighted and 

scored to determine the final priority score of each individual scheme. 

The  Severn  (UK09)  FRMP  details  how  prioritisation  is  done  for  measures  in  Wales,  but  not 

those  in  England.  In  Wales,  prioritisation  is  carried  out  for  all  measures  across  UoM,  taking 
into account the risk calculation from the Communities at Risk Register, a tool that considers a 

number of factors to  give an indication of  where the most vulnerable  communities at  risk of 
flooding  from  main  rivers  and  the  sea  are  located  across  Wales.  Other  factors  such  as  cost-

benefit analysis are also considered (see section 6 for further details).  

In  England,  Risk  Management  Authorities  (RMAs)  prioritise  public  investment  in  flood  and 

coastal risk management works based on DEFRA policy and Environment Agency guidance. 
No methodology is provided in the FRMPs assessed and there are no links to external guidance 

or methodologies.  

The  Scottish  strategies  do  not  provide  the  methodology  for  how  measures  have  been 

prioritised. The strategies note that prioritisation was based on funding assumptions about the 
funds that can be provided by the Scottish Government and the capacity of local authorities to 

94   Reporting sheets. 
95   UKNI  subsequently  stated  that  methodologies  for  prioritisation  of  schemes  and  community  resilience 

engagement are available, but not included in the FRMPs. 

96   Section 7.1.4.1 of the FRMP. 

37 

 
 
                                                 
deliver97. In the reporting sheets, it is explained that to prioritise measures, SEPA considered 
the  following  criteria:  flood  risk,  technical  complexity,  potential  economic  benefit,  and  non-

monetary  impacts  on  the  community  and  the  environment.  In  addition,  local  authorities 
provided additional evidence and identified local factors that might alter the order of delivery.  

The UK provided information about the timetable of all measures in its reporting sheets. The 
majority of the measures (5 558, 56 % of the total) are due to  be implemented in  the period 

2015-2021, with  protection measures most frequently (1 942) within this time frame, closely 
followed  by  prevention  and  preparedness  measures.  The  second  period  reported  most 

frequently is 2010-2045, with 1 813 measures in total (18 % of the total), most of which are 
preparedness  measures.  A  significant  proportion  of  the  measures  have  been  implemented 

before  2015 (763, 8 % of the total), especially for the Anglian UoM, UK05 (412 measures), 
and  the  Thames  UoM,  UK06  (173).  In  the  Clyde  and  Loch  Lomond  UoM,  UK01,  and  the 

Solway  UoM  (UK02  –  Scottish  part)  the  majority  of  measures  are  indicated  for  the  period 
2010-204598. For details, see Tables A11 and A12 in Annex A. 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

In the reporting sheets, the UK gives information about the level of responsible authority for 8 
746 measures (around 88 % of all measures), 1 142 being left with no information. The largest 

share  of  the  measures  reported  are  the  responsibility  of  the  Environment  Agency  (3  458 
measures out of 8 746, 40 %), which is responsible for flood management in England, with the 

main  focus  being  protection  measures.  The  second  largest  responsibility  is  with  the  local 
authorities, again with their main focus on protection measures. The Lead Local Flood Areas 

are  responsible  for  the  majority  of  recovery  and  review  measures.  The  smallest  number  of 
measures  (263  measures,  3  %)  are  assigned  to  the  ‘individual’  level  of  responsibility.  For 

further details see Tables A13 and A14 in Annex A. 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

In the reporting sheets, the UK gives information about the progress of implementation for all 
measures.  The  majority  of  measures  are  classified  as  ongoing  (5  674  out  of  9  888,  57  %), 
followed by those not started (3 870, 39 %). Across the UK, 90 measures (1 %) were reported 

to  be  undergoing  construction  and  254  (3  %)  have  been  completed.  For  further  details  see 
Tables A15 and A16 in Annex A. 

97   UK02 Solway (Scottish part) FRMS, p.3, p.10, p.374. 
98   Reporting sheets. 

38 

 
 
                                                 
4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

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

been  implemented:  the  UK  did  not,  however,  report  on  this.  Nor  did  the  FRMPs  provide 
information on measures taken under other Community Acts.   

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

With regard to spatial planning/land use measures, measures are indicated in four of the five 
FRMPs assessed:  

  For both the Solway Tweed (UK02, English part) and Severn (UK09) UoMs, measures 
under  types  M21  (preventing  new  receptors)99  and  M22  (removing  receptors)100  are 
reported. Measures under the M21 category for the Severn include: “Work with others to 
avoid  inappropriate  development”,  which  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Environment 

Agency.  No  details  could  be  found  on  M22  measures  in  the  Severn  FRMP  or  spatial 
planning and land use measures in the Solway Tweed FRMP.  

  For the Scotland UoM (UK01), 215 M21 measures are reported. Both FRMPs assessed, 
Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01) and Solway (in UK02) contain measures for spatial 
planning.  Separately,  the  local  strategies  each  have  an  annex  which  details  the 
measures at a national level under land use planning policies101.  

In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) UoM in Northern Ireland, no spatial planning or land use 
measures  are  identified  in  the  reporting  sheets.  However,  in  the  FRMP  it  is  highlighted  that 

planning  and  flood  risk  is  a  regional  prevention  measure  and  that  a  new  planning  policy 
statement  was  adopted  which  encourages  a  precautionary  approach  to  development,  with  the 

aim of preventing development that may be at risk of flooding or that may increase the risk. 
The  reporting  sheets  also  highlight  that  Northern  Ireland  has  had  strict  planning  policies  in 

place  to  prevent  inappropriate  development  that  may  increase  the  risk  of  flooding  since  the 
introduction of a planning policy statement, “Planning and Flood Risk” in 2006: the continued 

strict application of the planning policy and the new policy are expected to prevent increased 
flood risk from new developments in the future.102 

There is no information whether the spatial planning framework has evolved since 2000.  

99   Measures to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas, such as land use planning 

policies or regulation. 

100  Measures to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of 

flooding and/or of lower hazard. 

101  UK02 Solway Tweed FRMP, Part C; UK09 FRMP, Part C; UK01 FRMS, Annex 2. 
102  NI noted subsequently that Northern Ireland has taken a  very  strong approach to development planning and 

flood risk since the 1970s. 

39 

 
 
                                                 
Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in some, but not all, of the 
five FRMPs assessed.  

In  the  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  FRMP,  there  is  information  on  natural  flood  risk 
management measures that  will be considered in the options appraisals  for the flood studies. 

Proposed  measure  may  include  upstream  flood  storage,  removal  of  existing  flood  banks  to 
reconnect rivers with their natural flood plains (N03103), removing existing culverts to restore 
natural river channels and the creation of wider and more environmentally sensitive two-stage 
channels (N08104).  

One  of  the  Welsh  national  measures  is  to  “seek  opportunities  and  influence  others  to  utilise 
natural flood risk management measures where appropriate.” Many of the measures identified 

in  the  Severn  (UK09)  FRMP  involve  natural  flood  management  and  runoff  and  catchment 
management (M31 type measures). Among other actions, sustainable urban drainage systems 

(SuDS)  protocols  are  promoted.  No  natural  flood  management  measures  have  been  found  in 
the Solway Tweed FRMP (UK02, English part).  

For  Clyde  and  Loch  Lomond  (in  UK01),  the  strategy  reports  that  natural  flood  management 
actions were recommended in areas where they could contribute to the management of flood 

risk.  Natural  flood  management  studies  (i.e.  pilot  studies)  have  been  identified  for  three 
potentially vulnerable areas105. There are also some measures which involve implementation, 
such as “Native woodland planting in the upper catchment…The woodland will help to slow 
and  reduce  runoff  into  the  river  which  could  reduce  the  impact  from  high  likelihood 
flooding.”106  Natural  flood  risk  management  studies  have  also  been  proposed  for  Solway  (in 
UK02), such as  a study  to  reduce the  risk of river flooding to  residential and non-residential 

properties in Ecclefechan. 

Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. All five FRMPs assessed refer to 

biodiversity  and  coordination  with  biodiversity  authorities  or  partnerships.  The  Neagh  Bann 
(UKGBNIIENB) FRMP refers to the protection of priority species and habitats in one of the 

environmental objectives. In the Solway Tweed FRMP (UK02, English part), a coastal process 
and  strategy  study  is  recommended  to  consider  the  internationally  designated  sites  in 

Moricambe Bay in the managed realignment of flood defences. In the Clyde and Loch Lomond 
(in  UK01)  strategy,  biodiversity  and  habitats  are  mentioned  in  the  section  of  the  measure 
descriptions which summarises the environmental impacts107. 

103  According to the categories in Annex B, N03 NWRM is: Floodplain restoration and management. 
104  According to the categories in Annex B, N08 NWRM is: Riverbed material renaturalisation.   
105  UKGBNIIENB FRMP, p.29; UK01 FRMP, Part B, p.17, Part C; UK01 FRMS, p.3, p.20. 
106  UK01 Clyde and Loch Lomond FRMP, p.31. 
107  UKGBNIIENB FRMP, p.333; UK09 FRMP Part B p.27; UK02 FRMP (English part) Part B p.27. 

40 

 
 
                                                 
The  only  FRMP  that  appears  to  consider  navigation  and  port  infrastructure  in  the 
consideration  of  measures  is  the  Solway  Tweed  (UK02,  English  part),  with  the  measure 

“Promote  a  flood  risk  and  coastal  adaptation  study  for  Port  Carlisle  and  access  road  to  raise 
awareness and encourage individual property flood defences if appropriate”108.  

No  reference  has  been  found  in  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  to  dredging  to  increase  the  river 
channel capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes.  

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The role of insurance policies is discussed in two of the five FRPMs assessed, with regard to 

the recovery from flooding, preparedness/resilience to flood or other issues. The Neagh Bann 
(UKGBNIIENB)  FRMP  includes  a  measure  “to  work  with  the  insurance  industry  to  assist 

them in introducing ‘FloodRe’ to Northern  Ireland to help address long term flood insurance 
affordability  issues.”  The  Severn  (UK09)  FRMP  includes  measures  to  help  the  insurance 

industry  to  be  prepared  by  understanding  the  flood  risk  assessments  and  to  improve 
communications  with  the  insurance  industry109.  The  other  three  FRMPs  assessed  do  not 
include measures relating to insurance policies. 

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  provide  information  about  the  types  of  insurance  currently 
available for potential flooding areas. 

The  Neagh  Bann  FRMP  includes  a  measure  with  another  type  of  economic  instrument:  A 
Homeowner  Flood  Protection  Grant  Scheme.  This  is  intended  to  improve  the  ability  of 

householders and communities to enhance the resistance of property to flooding, through the 
provision  of  individual  property  protection  measures  (this  would  be  operated  by  the  Rivers 

Agency). 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

The Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP states that progress will be monitored annually and 
reported to the European Commission. In the Scottish strategies, it is stated that the lead local 
authorities will provide an interim report on the progress of delivering the measures between 
two and three  years after its publication, and a final report will be prepared at the end of the 
first  planning  cycle.  In  the  FRMPs  for  Solway  Tweed  (UK02,  English  part)  and  Severn 

(UK09), it is stated that in England, the Environment Agency will report progress annually to 

108  FRMP Part C Page 7. 
109  UK09 FRMP Part C. 

41 

 
 
                                                 
the  relevant  Regional  Flood  and  Coastal  Committees;  the  Environment  Agency  and  Natural 
Resources Wales will review the FRMP every six years110. 

A baseline does not appear to have been set in the FRMPs assessed from which progress could 
be  monitored.  However,  in  the  Scottish  strategies  the  appraisal  baseline  is  defined  as  “the 
existing level of flood risk under the current flood risk management regime”111. 

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 under the WFD. 

Table 9 

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

FRMPs 

UKGBNII
ENB 

UK01 

C&LL 

UK09 

Severn 

UK02 
Solway 
Tweed 

UK02 
Solway 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Integration of FRMP and RBMP into 
a single document 

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and 
RBMP 

Coordination between authorities 
responsible for developing FRMP 
and RBMP 

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

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

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

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

110  UKGBNIIENB FRMP p. 293; UK01 FRMSs p. 10; UK09 FRMP, Part A p.65. 
111  UK02 Solway Scottish Part,  P.363. SEPA further clarified that the current objective indicators, and national 

risk figures have been included in all FRM strategies, providing a baseline.  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
FRMPs 

UKGBNII
ENB 

UK01 

C&LL 

UK09 

Severn 

UK02 
Solway 
Tweed 

UK02 
Solway 

Natural water retention and green 
infrastructure measures have been 
included 

Consistent and compliant application 
of WFD Article 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 
Objectives112 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD 

The FRMPs assessed refer to the necessity of coordination between the FRMPs and RBMPs, 

and the obligation to foster the achievement of the WFD objectives, which often leads to the 
selection of sustainable solutions, like NWRMs including SuDS. NWRMs measures and SuDs 

measures are proposed in some but not all of the FRMPs. The boundaries of the UoMs match 
those of the RBDs, and the same catchment (sub-basin) boundaries are utilised in the FRMPs 

as well as the RBMPs.  

In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, it is reported that there is continued engagement 
between  the  Rivers  Agency  for  Northern  Ireland,  the  competent  authority  for  the  FD  and 
Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), the competent authority for the WFD, through 

an  interdepartmental  steering  group  and  local  Flood  Forums.  In  addition,  this  FRMP  has  an 
objective  “To  support  the  objectives  of  the  WFD  and  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  good 

ecological potential/status for water bodies”.  

112  SEPA  clarified  subsequently  that  this  is  covered  by  the  Surface  Water  Management  Plan  Actions  (glossary 
definition “A plan that takes an integrated approach to drainage accounting for all aspects of urban drainage 
systems  and  produces  long  term  and  sustainable  actions.  The  aim  is  to  ensure  that  during  a  flood  the  flows 
created  can  be  managed  in  a  way  that  will  cause  minimum  harm  to  people,  buildings,  the  environment  and 
business.”) 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  the  Severn  (UK09)  FRMP,  it  is  reported  that  the  Environment  Agency  and  Natural 
Resources Wales lead on the development of both FRMPs and RBMPs. The FRMP measures 

are linked to RBMP and the WFD objectives, so that, according to the FRMP, the Environment 
Agency  and  Natural  Resources  Wales  know  where  flood  risk  projects  contribute  to 

environment  outcomes.  The  WFD  was  also  considered  in  the  objective  setting  in  Severn 
(UK09) and Solway Tweed (UK02, English part) FRMPs.  

In  the  Clyde  and  Loch  Lomond  (UK01)  and  Solway  (UK02,  Scottish  part)  strategies,  it  is 
reported  that  the  Scottish  EPA  is  leading  the  delivery  of  the  RBMPs  and  the  Flood  Risk 

Management  Strategies  and  has  worked  to  ensure  integration  and  coordination  between 
them113.  

The UK has associated the measures in the FRMPs to the Key Type of Measures (KTM) of the 
RBMPs. KTM codes are provided for three UoMs (UK09 – Severn, UK10 - Western Wales, 

and UK11 – Dee). For UK09, measures under the following KTM codes are indicated:  

  KTM6  –  Improving  hydromorphological  conditions  of  water  bodies  other  than 

longitudinal continuity  

  KTM7 – Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows 

  KTM14 – Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty 

  KTM23 – Natural water retention measures 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Measures  are  clear  in  terms  of  their  geographic  location  and  coverage,  responsible 

authority, general timetable.  

  Promotion of sustainable land use practices and natural flood risk management has been 

planned in all of the FRMPs.  

 

In  some  of  the  FRMPs,  economic  instruments  for  flood  risk  management  such  as 
insurance has been supported.  

  There  is  evidence  of  coordination  between  the  FRMPs  and  the  RBMPs  for  all  of  the 

UoMs assessed.  

  The UK provides cost estimations for a large number of measures across all of its UoMs 

in the reporting sheets. 

113  UKGBNIIENB FRMP, p.21, p.31; UK09 FRMP Part A p.15, p.57; UK02 FRMP (English part) Part A p.75; 

UK01 FRMS, p.8. 

44 

 
 
                                                 
The following areas for further development were identified:  

  The method to demonstrate by how much a measure will contribute to the objectives in 
unclear  or  lacking.  For  example,  a  baseline  has  not  been  established  for  all  FRMPs 

(Scottish FRM strategies were the exception), against which progress will be monitored 
and assessed.  

 

It is unclear how measures were prioritised in the English FRMPs.  

  The overall budget per UoM is not provided for the UoMs assessed, with the exception 
of the UKGBNIIENB FRMP114. A significant proportion of the total measures across all 
UoMs in the United Kingdom did not have reported costs (38 %). It is indicated that in 

the FRMPs that measures do not all have secured funding and are not guaranteed to be 
implemented.  

114  Reporting costs in the Scottish strategies are presented separately in the Local FRMPs 

45 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.   Consideration of climate change 

Climate change was considered in all five FRMPs assessed.  

Only one of the five FRMPs assessed refer to a national Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. 
In Northern Ireland, the FRMP for Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) refers to the Northern Ireland 
Climate  Change  Adaptation  Programme115,  published  early  in  2014,  in  their  FRMP  and 
provides  links,  however  these  no  longer  work.  No  reference  was  found  in  the  Scottish 

strategies assessed, for Clyde and Loch Lomond (in UK01) and Solway (in the Scottish part of 
UK02).  The  other  two  FRMPs  assessed  (Solway  Tweed,  UK02,  and  Severn,  UK09)  discuss 

climate change adaptation but have not made specific reference to a national Climate Change 
Adaptation Strategy in their FRMPs116. 

All five FRMPs consider climate change scenarios, though the timeframes vary across the UK. 
In Northern Ireland, climate change flood hazard maps illustrate the estimated flood plains for 

the years 2030 and 2100 and are based on the best available predictions for the meteorological 
conditions and sea levels for that time. The Scottish strategies and the FRMPs for the English 

part of the Solway Tweed (UK02) and for the Severn (UK09) refer to a 2080 scenario from the 
UK  Climate  Projections  (UKCP09)  and  the  UK  Climate  Impacts  Programme  (UKCIP) 

respectively. The  FRMP for the Solway Tweed (UK02, English part) provides further detail, 
considering scenarios from 1990 to 2025, 2026 to 2050, 2051 to 2080 and 2081 to 2115117. 

All strategies assessed refer to an increase in heavy rain or greater extremes in weather which 
may lead to more frequent and severe flooding in the future, but no information is provided in 

relation to changes in numerical recurrence times. No detail was found in the FRMPs assessed 
how  the  main  sources  of  flooding  are  expected  to  change  under  long  term  climate  change 

scenarios. 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change 

Measures  related  to  climate  change  are  described  in  the  FRMPs  for  England:  the  Solway 

Tweed (English part of UK02) and Severn (UK09) strategies assessed mention incorporating 
allowances  for  climate  change  into  flood  risk  management  works  and  identifying  where 

working  with  natural  processes  can  help  improve  resilience  to  climate  change.  In  Northern 
Ireland,  the  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  FRMP  states  that  preventative  measures  take 

account of climate change. The Scottish strategies assessed (Clyde and Loch Lomond in UK01 

115  Department of Environment (2014) Northern Ireland Climate Change Adaptation Programme: 

https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/publications/northern-ireland-climate-change-adaptation-programme 

116  UKGBNIIENB – FRMP page 41; UK02 FRMP Part A Page 38. 
117  UKGBNIIENB  –  Summary  document  and  FRMP  (p.59);  UK01  and  UK02  (Scotland)  –  FRMS;  UK02 

(England) – FRMP Part A p. 39; UK09 - FRMP Part A. 

46 

 
 
                                                 
and Solway in UK02) refer to measures to study flood risk and any changes in the future due to 
climate change118. 

Climate  change  was  not  explicitly  indicated  for  other  measures  in  the  FRMPs  assessed.  For 
instance, there is no information to suggest that climate change was considered with regard to 

measures to reduce pollution risk in flood prone areas, spatial planning or land use measures. 

Reference to  the consideration of climate change in  economic instruments was not  found for 

the majority of the FRMPs assessed. However, the Severn FRMP (UK09) refers to a measure 
that  involves  working  with  the  insurance  industry  to  make  the  best  use  of  risk  information 

under a changing climate. As mentioned in section 4, the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP 
includes  a  measure  “to  work  with  the  insurance  industry  to  assist  them  in  introducing 

‘FloodRe’  to  Northern  Ireland  to  help  address  long  term  flood  insurance  affordability 
issues”119. 

The majority of the FRMPs assessed do not mention climate change with regard to structural 
measures.  The  Severn  FRMP  (UK09),  however,  includes  measures  that  incorporate  climate 

change into flood risk management works such as including additional provision during design 
and construction to address climate change (e.g. larger wall foundations). In addition, several 

UK09 measures  refer to  raising defences in certain  areas in  response to  climate change.  The 
measures in this FRMP also include identifying where working with natural processes can help 
improve  resilience  to  climate  change120.  While  this  may  be  a  no-regret  measure,  neither  this 
nor the other FRMPs assessed refer specifically to ‘no-regret’ measures.  

One  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  mentions  climate  change  as  an  argument  for  increased 
operational  measures  associated  with  existing  flood  defences:  the  Severn  FRMP  (UK09) 

includes  measures  that  incorporate  climate  change  implications  in  areas  including  culvert 
inspection, asset maintenance regimes and raising outfalls121. 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning 

climate change 

The following good practices were identified: 

  All five FRMPs consider climate change scenarios, though the timeframes vary across 

the UK. 

118  UK02  (England)  and  UK09  -  FRMPs  part  C;  UKGBNIIENB  –  FRMP  section  3.2.1;  UK01  and  UK02 

(Scotland) – FRMS, Section 2. 

119  UK09 – FRMP Part C page 54 and 80. 
120  UK09 FRMP – Part C p.10. 
121  UK09 – FRMP Part C. Page 66, 104. 

47 

 
 
                                                 
  The development of further studies to identify the effects of climate change is part of 

the measures planned in some of the FRMPs assessed.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Even  though  different  climate  change  scenarios  were  considered,  the  FRMPs  do  not 
provide  details  on  possible  shifts  in  the  occurrence  of  extreme  events  and  changes  in 

numerical recurrence times or whether the main sources of flooding will change under 
the long-term climate change scenarios.  

  Coordination  between  FRMPs  and  the  climate  change  adaptation  strategies  does  not 

appear to be systematic. 

48 

 
 
 
 
6.   Cost-benefit analysis 

Cost-benefit  analysis  (CBA)  appears  to  have  been  used  in  the  prioritisation  and  planning  of 

measures for some of the FRMPs assessed, but only limited details are provided:  

 

In the Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB) FRMP, it is briefly mentioned that maintenance and 

capital  programmes  are  evaluated  using  cost-benefit  criteria  prior  to  inclusion  in  the 
annual works programme; further information is not provided.  

  For Wales, the FRMP for the Severn, UK09, explains that the prioritisation of measures 
is  done  at  a  Wales-wide  level  and  considers  CBA.  It  is  also  stated  that  all  large  flood 
alleviation schemes in Wales are appraised to assess options and to understand the costs 

and benefits, which is done in accordance with Treasury guidance.  

  For England, it is not clear if CBA was used (UK02 Solway Tweed and UK09 Severn – 
English  parts):  no  methodology  is  provided  in  the  FRMPs  and  there  are  no  links  to 
external guidance or methodologies.  

  The Scottish reporting sheets explain that measures were prioritised based on criteria that 
includes potential economic benefits, and non-monetary impacts on the community and 

the  environment.  It  is  noted  in  the  Scottish  strategies  that  the  measures  have  been 
appraised  for  their  costs  and  benefits  to  ensure  the  right  combinations  of  measures  are 

identified  and  prioritised.  The  Benefit  Cost  Ratio  is  reported  for  some  schemes  in  the 
FRM  strategies122.  Further  detail  is  said  to  be  found  in  the  Strategic  Appraisal 
Methodology on the SEPA website. However, no link is provided and the methodology 
could not be found123 124.   

It  is  unclear  from  the  FRMPs  assessed  for  which  types  of  measures  CBA  has  been  used. 
Multiple  benefits  are  mentioned  as  a  concept  in  two  of  the  FRMPs  assessed,  but  there  is  no 

information on how it has been implemented or if it has been included in CBA: for example, in 
the  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  FRMP,  multiple  benefits  and  partnership  working/funding 

for  the  implementation  of  natural  flood  management  measures  is  highlighted;  the  Severn 
(UK09) FRMP states that actions under its framework should provide multiple benefits. 

122  The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is defined as “A benefit cost ratio summarises the overall value for money of an 
action  or  project.  It  is  expressed  as  the  ratio  of  benefits  to  costs  (both  expressed  as  present  value  monetary 
values). A ratio of greater than 1:1 indicates that the economic benefits associated with an action are greater 
than the  economic costs of implementation;  therefore this is taken as the threshold of  economic  viability. It 
should be acknowledged that it is not always possible to accurately estimate economic values for all elements 
of benefit, and BCR is just one a number of techniques used in appraisal.” UK02 Solway Scottish part, p. 363. 

123  UKGBNIIENB FRMP p. 273; UK09 FRMP p.14; UK02 Solway FRMS p.3, p.374. 
124  SEPA subsequently clarified that the document was previously available but was taken down as second cycle 

approaches were developed, and it ceased to be current or representative. 

49 

 
 
                                                 
The Neagh Bann UoM (UKGBNIIENB) is an international UoM shared with the Republic of 
Ireland. However, no information was found in the FRMP whether a CBA was used to assess 

measures with transnational effects. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  For the FRMPs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, there is no explanation of what 
is included in the cost benefit analysis and for what measures it was undertaken for125.   

125  UKNI subsequently stated that NI FRMPs were developed at a strategic level so for many proposed measures 

in the FRMPs, full benefit cost assessments would not have been done. 

50 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

Based  on  the  FRMPs  and  the  information  provided  in  the  reporting  sheets,  the  Competent 
Authorities and the Units of Management identified for the FD have not changed. The United 

Kingdom has not reported new information on Competent Authorities to WISE since 2010.  

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

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

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

Table 10 

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

UKGBNIIE
NB 

UK02 
Solway 

UK01 
C&LL 

UK02 
Solway 
Tweed 

UK09 
Severn 

Media (papers, TV, radio) 

Internet 

Digital social networking 

Printed material 

Direct mailing 

Invitations to stakeholders 

Local Authorities 

Meetings 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The  consultation  in  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  appears  to  have  been  carried  out  in  a  similar 

manner, using online webpages and engagement at a local level. The details of the means of 
informing public were as follows:  

For Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB), local television, radio and newspapers were used, as well as 
direct  invitations  to  stakeholders.  Information  about  the  consultation  was  advertised  in 

newspapers as well as online, on the websites of DARD and Rivers Agency. The PFRAs were 
made available for public consideration and a publicity campaign was run over local television, 
radio and newspapers to make the public aware of flood maps126.  

126  UKGBNIIENB - Flood Risk Management Plan Summary. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  the  Scottish  strategies,  consultation  was  held  through  Local  Advisory  Groups  and 
stakeholders  were  invited  to  provide  advice.  Advertisements  were  placed  in  a  number  of 

national and local publications, notices were placed on social media, and promotional materials 
and support were provided to local authorities for community events127.  

In  England  and  Wales,  the  consultation  was  also  held  by  local  authorities  and  there  was  a 
dedicated  webpage128  for  the  consultation.  The  consultation  was  promoted  through  social 
media with a series of tweets at the launch, mid and end of the consultation period. An email 
was also sent out at the launch, during the middle and at the end of consultation to stakeholders 

to encourage them to respond to the consultations. The consultation was mentioned in various 
newsletters  including  the  National  Flood  Forum129  and  a  newsletter  for  Regional  Flood  and 
Coastal Committees (RFCCs)130 131. 

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

Table 11 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

UKGBNIIE
NB 

UK02 
Solway 

UK01 
C&LL 

UK02 
Solway 
Tweed 

UK09 
Severn 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Via Internet 

Digital social networking 

Direct invitation 

Exhibitions 

Workshops, seminars or 
conferences 

Telephone surveys 

Direct involvement in drafting 
FRMP 

Source: FRMPs 

The  main  mechanism  for  carrying  out  the  actual  consultation  was  via  the  internet  and  direct 
invitation  for  comments  from  stakeholders.  In  Northern  Ireland,  details  of  the  consultation 

were advertised on DARD’s website and stakeholders were invited to provide comments for a 

127  FRMS p.4; UK01 - Flood Risk Management Plan Summary. 
128  https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-flood-risk-management-plans and 

https://naturalresources.wales/guidance-and-advice/environmental-topics/consultations/our-own-consultations-
closed/consultation-on-draft-flood-risk-management-plans-for-wales/?lang=en  

129  As  an  independent  charity  whose  aim  is  to  enable  people  to  take  control  of  their  own  flooding  concerns. 

https://nationalfloodforum.org.uk/  

130  A committee established by the Environment Agency under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 that 
brings together members appointed by Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) and independent members with 
relevant  experience.  The  Environment  Agency  must  consult  with  RFCCs  about  flood  and  coastal  risk 
management work in their region and take their comments into consideration.  

131  UK09 Severn - Flood Risk Management Plan Summary. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
six-month  consultation  period  (22  December  2014  -  22  June  2015).  The  timing  of  the 
consultation  was  coordinated  with  the  Northern  Ireland  Environment  Agency’s  public 

consultation on its second Draft RBMP under the WFD, to encourage and provide an efficient 
method for parties with a common interest in the objectives of both Directives. 

In Scotland, the primary route for consultation was via an online hub that enabled the public to 
find  information  on  flood  risk  management  planning  using  a  postcode  search  or  interactive 

map. Paper copies of the draft documents were  also  made available. The consultation  period 
lasted six months (December 2014 and June 2015). 

In  England  and  Wales,  a  three-month  public  consultation  took  place  from  10  October  2014 
until  31  January  2015.  A  wide  range  of  engagement  activities  were  carried  out  at  a  national 

level to promote the FRMP consultation. A number of workshops were held before and during 
the consultation period, with organisations from a range of sectors, to discuss the consultations. 

The consultation was on the agenda at a number of national meetings and events. In England 
several workshops covered both the RBMPs and the FRMPs (e.g. Modified waters workshop, 

National  liaison  panel  workshop  (also  covering  river  basin  management  strategies  assessed) 
and estuaries and coasts sub-group. 

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.)  

Paper copies at the main office of 
the competent authority 

UKGBNII
ENB 

UK02 
Solway 

UK01 
C&LL 

UK02 
Solway 
Tweed 

UK09 
Severn 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

The  main  way  documents  were  provided,  was  to  make  them  available  to  download  via  the 
consultation  webpages  and  printed  copies  were  available  on  request.  Paper  copies  do  not 
appear to have been made available in the English and Welsh UoMs assessed.  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

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

development of the five FRMPs assessed: 

Table 13 

Groups of stakeholders  

UKGBNI
IENB 

UK02 
Solway 

UK01 
C&LL 

UK02 
Solway 
Tweed 

UK09 
Severn 

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

Flood Warning / Defence Authorities 

Drainage Authorities 

Emergency services 

Water supply and sanitation 

Agriculture / farmers 

Energy / hydropower 

Navigation / ports 

Fisheries / aquaculture 

Private business (Industry, Commerce, 
Services) 

NGO's including nature protection, social 
issues (e.g. children, housing) 

Consumer Groups 

Local / Regional authorities 

Academia / Research Institutions 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Not all the stakeholders consulted are listed in the English and Welsh FRMPs assessed, but the 
strategies  assessed  indicate  that  meetings  were  held  with  local  groups  (e.g.  Local  Authority 

Flood  Risk  Management  Capacity  Building  Programme  and  the  Local  Government 
Association  coastal  special  interest  group)  and  with  the  water  industry  (e.g.  water  Industry 

sector  workshop  in  2015).  The  Neagh  Bann  (UKGBNIIENB)  FRMP  contains  a  list  of 
stakeholders consulted, which includes a range of governmental departments, NGOs, utilities, 

transport,  agriculture  and  professional  institutes  (e.g.  Institute  of  Civil  Engineers).  For 
Scotland, the stakeholders consulted were part of the Local Advisory Groups, which included 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
representatives from a range of sectors, including government agencies, local authorities, non-
government organisations, utility companies and land and asset managers132.  

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 

UKGBNIIE
NB 

UK02 
Solway 

UK01 
C&LL 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory 
groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Emails and meetings 

Formation of alliances  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

UK02 
Solway 
Tweed 

✔ 

UK09 
Severn 

✔ 

✔ 

In Northern Ireland, a consultation network was set up to ensure all relevant stakeholders had 
an  opportunity  to  participate  in  discussion  and  exchange  of  information  and  views  in  the 

preparation  of  the  FRMP.  Within  this  network  there  were  three  main  groups:  a  FD  Steering 
Group, a FD Stakeholder Group, and Flood Forum groups for each RBD.  

In the Scottish strategies assessed, it is described how two public consultations were held by 
SEPA,  the  first  on  a  general  approach  to  planning  and  the  second  held  jointly  with  local 

authorities  on  understanding  flooding  in  priority  areas  and  the  objectives  needed  to  manage 
flooding.  The  Scottish  Strategies  have  benefited  from  local  advisory  groups,  which  include 

representatives  from  a  variety  of  sectors  including  government  agencies,  local  authorities, 
NGO’s, utility companies and land managers. There is also a cross border advisory group.  

For England and Wales, the approach to promote the consultation locally was predominately 
via  meetings  with  stakeholders.  Natural  Resources  Wales  and  the  Environment  Agency  also 

promoted  the  consultation  locally  through  periodic  Strategic  Partnership  meetings  between 
July  2014  -  January  2015,  and  through  representation  at  the  Regional  Flood  and  Coastal 
Committee meetings133. 

132  UK01  Solway  Tweed  and  UK09  Severn  -  FRMPs  Summary;  UKGBNIIENB  FRMP,  Appendix  A;  UK02 

Solway and UK01 Clyde and Loch Lomond, FRMS p.4. 

133  UKGBNIIENB  FRMP,  Section  4.3,  p.60;  UK02  Solway  and  UK01  Clyde  and  Loch  Lomond,  FRMS  p.4; 

UK01 Solway Tweed and UK09 Severn - FRMPs Summary. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The table below shows the effects of consultation: 

Table 15 

Effects of consultation 

FRMP 

UKGBN
IIENB 

UK02 
Solway 

UK01 
C&LL 

UK09 
Severn 

UK02 
Solway 
Tweed 

Changes to selection of measures 

Adjustment to specific measures 

Addition of new information 

Changes to the methodology used 

Commitment to further research 

Commitment to action in the next FRMP cycle 

No information/details 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

An  overview  of  the  changes  made  to  the  FRMPs  assessed  as  a  result  of  consultation  is  not 

consistently provided. One FRMP, for Neagh Bann (UKGBNIIENB), provides a summary of 
the changes in an appendix. Examples include:  

  Plan objectives were revised to make it clear the cost of flood damage to infrastructure 

was included in the objective to reduce economic losses.  

  The Plan was revised to ensure that the linkages between the various flood management 

groups and programmes were more clearly defined.  

  The  Plan  was  updated  to  include  details  of  the  current  position  in  relation  to  potential 
contribution  that  NFM  measures  could  make  within  the  sustainable  catchment  based 
approach to flood risk management134.  

  The  Plan  was  revised  to  ensure  that  all  of  the  important  elements  and  benefits  of 

community emergency planning are more fully described.  

For  the  ten  English  and  Welsh  FRMPs,  a  separate  document  with  the  responses  to  the 
consultation was produced that covered all UoMs, one for England135 and one for Wales136. A 
summary of the consultation responses covering the whole of Scotland was published137. 

134  Appendix B of UKGBNIIENB FRMP. 
135  English consultation: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/501489/LIT_10408_draft_FRM
Ps_summary_response.pdf 

136  Welsh consultation - http://naturalresources.wales/media/4408/dfrmp-consultation-response.pdf  
137  Scottish consultation - https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/163414/consultation_digest.pdf  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

All the FRMPs assessed underwent a strategic environmental assessment to assess significant 

environmental  effects  of  the  flood  risk  management  measures.  The  Strategic  Environmental 
Assessments were published in an environmental report and were consulted with the public.  

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding 

Governance 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Extensive  coordination  with  local  authorities  and  authorities  from  other  departments 
(than those responsible for floods) was carried out in preparation of the FRMPs assessed, 

these  included  governmental  departments,  NGOs,  utilities,  transport,  agriculture  and 
professional institutes. 

 

In  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  mechanisms  for  the  active  involvement  of  stakeholders 
covered different levels (UoM level as well as that of catchments) and included a range 

of advisory groups.  

57 

 
 
 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

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

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

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

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

  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 

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

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

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

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

  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the FD)138, not all fields are 
mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States  reported information for all fields.  

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

58 

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

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

categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The following table139 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 

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

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

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect, part 1 
(UoMs with over 401 measures) ................................................................................................ 65 
Figure A2 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect, part 2 
(UoMs with up to 401 measures) ............................................................................................... 65 
Figure A3 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect ............... 66 
Figure A4 – Visualisation of Table A5: Cost (in GBP) per measure aspect ............................. 67 
Figure A5 – Visualisation of Table A6: Cost (in GBP) per UoM ............................................. 68 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A7: Geographic coverage of the measures by measure 
aspect.......................................................................................................................................... 70 
Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A8: Geographic coverage of the measures by UoM .......... 71 
Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A9: Category of priority by measure aspect ...................... 73 
Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A10: Category of priority by UoM .................................... 74 
Figure A10 – Visualisation of Table A11: Timetable per measure aspect ................................ 75 
Figure A11 - Visualisation of Table A12: Timetable per UoM ................................................. 76 
Figure A12 - Visualisation of Table A13: Level of responsibility by measure aspect .............. 77 
Figure A13 - Visualisation of Table A14: Level of responsibility by UoM .............................. 78 
Figure A14 - Visualisation of Table A15: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ...... 79 
Figure A15 - Visualisation of Table A16: Progress of implementation by UoM ...................... 80 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ....................................................................................... 61 
Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM .................................. 62 
Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM ................................. 63 
Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, 
including duplicates ................................................................................................................... 64 
Table A5 – Cost (in GBP) per measure aspect .......................................................................... 66 
Table A6 – Cost (in GBP) per UoM .......................................................................................... 67 
Table A7 – Geographic coverage of the measures by measure aspect ...................................... 69 
Table A8 - Geographic coverage of the measures by UoM ....................................................... 70 
Table A9 - Category of priority by measure aspect ................................................................... 72 
Table A10 - Category of priority by UoM ................................................................................. 73 
Table A11 – Timetable per measure aspect ............................................................................... 74 
Table A12 – Timetable per UoM ............................................................................................... 75 
Table A13 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect ............................................................. 76 
Table A14 - Level of responsibility by UoM............................................................................. 77 
Table A15 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect .................................................... 79 
Table A16 – Progress of implementation by UoM .................................................................... 79 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
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 

9 055 

9 530 

336 

358 

9 391 

9 888 

27 - 
2 337 

659 

61 

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

No 
action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

M11  M21  M22  M23  M24  M31  M32  M33  M34  M35  M41  M42  M43  M44  M51  M52  M53  M61 

211 

300 

369 

224 

470 

2 

7 

11 

61 

47 

252 

7 

20 

63 

1 

2 

16 

21 

29 

4 

2 

215 

40 

110 

35 

132 

1 

28 

58 

1 

4 

6 

16 

444 

76 

18 

137 

287 

181 

12 

76 

315 

104 

13 

13 

4 

3 

24 

17 

140 

81 

5 

57 

34 

2 

1 

57 

36 

5 

1 

1 

2 

12 

35 

21 

33 

3 

17 

16 

3 

2 

15 

1 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

UKGBNIIENB 

UKGBNIIENW 

UKGBNINE 

98 

16 

28 

217 

126 

100 

105 

220 

87 

15 

4 

10 

28 

59 

77 

19 

33 

38 

1 

102 

45 

21 

13 

11 

3 

65 

9 

80 

191 

86 

5 

56 

69 

65 

19 

58 

75 

2 

44 

22 

74 

8 

50 

132 

142 

28 

16 

40 

14 

23 

38 

95 

9 

24 

19 

2 

10 

90 

12 

83 

61 

10 

29 

53 

51 

183 

147 

7 

7 

7 

8 

1 

10 

7 

3 

2 

19 

26 

68 

5 

3 

107 

1 

4 

49 

123 

25 

18 

30 

1 

Grand Total 

43 

624 

81 

486 

1 676 

425 

160 

1 163 

524 

1 003 

962 

498 

1 149 

518 

30 

Average per 
UoM 

3 

42 

5 

32 

112 

28 

11 

78 

35 

67 

64 

33 

77 

35 

2 

23 

2 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

62 

Other  Grand 
Total 

5 

6 

43 

6 

19 

8 

4 

2 337 

440 

164 

935 

1 113 

1 592 

226 

689 

1 044 

363 

91 

486 

22 

13 

15 

91 

9 530 

6 

635 

3 

10 

6 

26 

11 

9 

6 

1 

2 

74 

5 

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

No action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review  Other 

M11  M21  M22  M23  M24  M31  M32  M33  M34  M35  M41  M42  M43  M44  M51  M52  M53  M61 

Grand Total 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK12 

UKGBNIIENB 

UKGBNIIENW 

UKGBNINE 

Grand Total 

1 

1 

1 

1 

10 

13 

1 

2 

5 

1 

1 

1 

18 

1 

8 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

9 

3 

17 

10 

2 

3 

1 

1 

8 

1 

1 

3 

3 

4 

4 

3 

11 

4 

3 

7 

2 

3 

3 

5 

3 

35 

13 

23 

40 

8 

6 

34 

27 

Average per UoM 
1 
Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

<1 

<1 

3 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

4 

2 

4 

9 

3 

5 

3 

3 

25 

7 

7 

2 

2 

2 

9 

1 

24 

2 

48 

3 

6 

1 

14 

4 

9 

2 

3 

39 

3 

1 

9 

14 

4 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

28 

2 

5 

<1 

5 

<1 

2 

3 

3 

1 

9 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 

3 

79 

77 

11 

97 

38 

1 

20 

14 

14 

4 

<1 

358 

30 

63 

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

  Prevention 

No action 

Aggr. 

Indiv. 

l
a
t
o
T

Protection 

Aggr. 

Indiv. 

l
a
t
o
T

Preparedness 

Aggr. 

Indiv. 

l
a
t
o
T

613 

613 

1 063 

1 063 

Recovery & 
review 

Aggr. 

Indiv. 

l
a
t
o
T

Other 

Aggr. 

Indiv. 

Aggr. 

Indiv. 

661 

124 

31 

324 

390 

594 

20 

128 

438 

105 

13 

39 

1 

1 

42 

10 

4 

32 

15 

2 

2 

2 

l
a
t
o
T

661 

124 

32 

325 

390 

636 

30 

132 

470 

120 

13 

39 

2 

2 

2 

36 

36 

5 

1 

1 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

UKGBNIIE
NB 

UKGBNIIE
NW 

UKGBNIN
E 

Grand 
Total 

Average 
per UoM 

96 

73 

377 

537 

377 

137 

383 

244 

86 

26 

96 

73 

379 

540 

398 

149 

386 

264 

87 

26 

8 

49 

4 

40 

18 

277 

278 

22 

28 

11 

215 

57 

203 

172 

499 

40 

149 

342 

172 

51 

163 

13 

21 

14 

21 

4 

5 

1 

215 

57 

203 

172 

507 

89 

153 

382 

190 

51 

163 

11 

4 

6 

2 

3 

21 

12 

3 

20 

1 

1 

6 

8 

7 

3 

25 

14 

43 

18 

9 

11 

1 

3 

3 

25 

14 

49 

22 

9 

16 

4 

1 

3 

6 

4 

5 

4 

5 

6 

43 

6 

19 

8 

2 

2 

  Gran
l
a
t
o
T

d 
Total 

5 

6 

2 337 

440 

165 

938 

1 116 

45  1 671 

8 

19 

303 

700 

8 

1 141 

401 

91 

4 

4 

487 

42 

27 

29 

1 

43 

44 

111 

2 867 

2 978 

84 

3 275 

3 359 

139 

3127 

3 266 

19 

127 

146 

4 

91 

95  9 888 

<1 

3 

3 

7 

191 

199 

6 

218 

224 

9 

208 

218 

1 

8 

10 

<1 

6 

6 

659 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The information in Table A4 is visualised in the following figures: 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect, part 1 

(UoMs with over 401 measures) 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Figure A2 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect, part 2 

(UoMs with up to 401 measures) 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

65 

 
 
Figure A3 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

Cost  explanation:  1 102 different answers were  given. No  cost  explanation:  3 778 measures, 
and 1 924 measures were given as “N/A”, “unknown”, or “TBC” (or variations thereof). 

Cost was given for 6 110 measures. Three measures were reported as having been included in 
other programmes, one measure was reported as “NIL”. The highest was between £350 m and 
£750 m.  The remaining figures were categorised below: 

Table A5 – Cost (in GBP) per measure aspect 

/
k
0
1
<

m
u
n
n
a

k
0
0
1
<

o
t

K
0
0
1

K
0
0
5

No Action 

Prevention 

Protection 

17 

1 385 

1 022 

22 

275 

745 

M
0
1

o
t

M
5

2 

31 

83 

M
0
2

o
t

M
0
1

1 

26 

109 

M
0
2
>

o
N

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
i

l
a
t
o
T
d
n
a
r
G

1 

44 

1 165 

2 978 

13 

867 

3 359 

M
1

o
t

K
0
0
5

41 

242 

M
5

o
t

M
1

1 

55 

278 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/
k
0
1
<

m
u
n
n
a

k
0
0
1
<

o
t

K
0
0
1

K
0
0
5

M
1

o
t

K
0
0
5

M
5

o
t

M
1

M
0
1

o
t

M
5

M
0
2

o
t

M
0
1

M
0
2
>

o
N

n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
i

l
a
t
o
T
d
n
a
r
G

Preparedness 

12 

1 264 

166 

15 

46 

12 

15 

1736 

3 266 

Recovery & 
Review 

Other 

120 

69 

11 

14 

1 

2 

2 

Grand Total 

12 

3 877 

1 233 

299 

384 

128 

12 

1 

146 

95 

13 

3782 

9 888 

9 

160 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. Please note that 12 
measures reported costs per annum, while the other measures reported total costs.  

Figure A4 – Visualisation of Table A5: Cost (in GBP) per measure aspect 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. Please note that 12 
measures reported costs per annum, while the other measures reported total costs. 

Table A6 – Cost (in GBP) per UoM 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

/
k
0
1
<

m
u
n
n
a

k
0
0
1
<

o
t

K
0
0
1

K
0
0
5

o
t

K
0
0
5

M
1

o
t

M
1

M
5

o
t

M
5

M
0
1

o
t

M
0
1

M
0
2

M
0
2
>

o
N

a
m
r
o
f
n
i

n
o
i
t

d
n
a
r
G

l
a
t
o
T

35 

150 

550 

739 

11 

8 

183 

196 

1 

4 

80 

59 

4 

2 

61 

70 

67 

1 

41 

22 

23 

30 

2 337  2 337 

389 

440 

165 

938 

1 116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/
k
0
1
<

m
u
n
n
a

k
0
0
1
<

o
t

K
0
0
1

K
0
0
5

o
t

K
0
0
5

M
1

o
t

M
1

M
5

o
t

M
5

M
0
1

o
t

M
0
1

M
0
2

M
0
2
>

o
N

a
m
r
o
f
n
i

n
o
i
t

d
n
a
r
G

l
a
t
o
T

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

UKGBNIIENB 

UKGBNIIENW 

UKGBNINE 

8 

1 

3 

1 190 

146 

516 

377 

162 

5 

6 

1 

225 

66 

107 

112 

22 

282 

6 

8 

7 

58 

27 

24 

27 

17 

6 

2 

1 

94 

39 

43 

23 

22 

10 

4 

5 

35 

10 

4 

13 

1 

1 

69 

12 

6 

15 

3 

2 

1 671 

303 

700 

1 141 

401 

91 

487 

42 

27 

29 

3 

574 

401 

69 

3 

2 

4 

4 

4 

5 

Grand Total 

12 

3 877 

1 233 

299 

384 

128 

160 

13 

3 782  9 888 

Average per UoM 
Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. Please note that 12 

659 

258 

252 

11 

20 

82 

26 

1 

9 

1 

measures reported costs per annum, while the other measures reported total costs. 

Figure A5 – Visualisation of Table A6: Cost (in GBP) per UoM 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. Please note that 12 
measures reported costs per annum, while the other measures reported total costs. 

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report information on the following: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

68 

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

Location of measures 

The UK has provided the location of measures in the reporting sheets for all 9 888 measures, 
however, this was an open question, and as such, the level of detail varied with 2 588 different 

responses were given. It is thus not practical to aggregate the information. 

Geographic coverage 

The  UK  has  given  information  for  all  measures  concerning  the  Geographic  Coverage  of  the 

measures in the reporting sheets. For those measures for which no information was provided, 
information on the Location of Measures was used to determine Geographic Coverage.  

The  following  categories  were  used  to  signify  the  areas  in  which  the  Measures  are 
implemented: 

  APSFR: Areas of Potential Significant Risk; 

  Catchment; 

  UoM; 

  LLFA Area; 

  Local, including towns/cities/boroughs/communities and other local areas; 

  Strategic place; 

  Other.  

Table A7 – Geographic coverage of the measures by measure aspect 

Strategic 
place 
3 

41 

73 

43 

3 

9 

No action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 
Recovery & 
review 
Other 

Catchment  APSFR 

1 

293 

539 

305 

17 

7 

1 

855 

873 

1 322 

12 

13 

LLFA 
Area 
6 

653 

250 

453 

69 

40 

Local 

UoM 

Other 

22 

698 

998 

747 

21 

7 

10 

107 

134 

110 

9 

1 

331 

492 

286 

15 

19 

Grand 
Total 
44 

2 978 

3 359 

3 266 

146 

95 

Grand Total 

172 

1 162 

3 076 

1 471 

2 493 

370 

1 144 

9 888 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. LLFA: Lead Local 

Flood Authority 

69 

 
 
 
 
Figure  A6  -  Visualisation  of  Table  A7:  Geographic  coverage  of  the  measures  by  measure 

aspect 

Other

9 

7 

13 

40 

7 

19 

Strategic place

Recovery & review

3 

17 

12 

69 

21 

9 

15 

Preparedness

43 

305 

1322 

453 

747 

110 

286 

Protection

73 

539 

873 

250 

998 

134 

492 

Prevention

41 

293 

855 

No action

3 

1 

1 

6 

653 

22 

698 

107 

331 

10 

1 

Catchment

APSFR

LLFA Area

Local

UoM

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. LLFA: Lead Local 
Flood Authority 

Table A8 - Geographic coverage of the measures by UoM 

Strategic 
place 

Catchment  APSFR 

LLFA 
Area 

Local 

UoM 

Other 

4 

8 

9 

120 

13 

12 

2 

10 

116 

415 

355 

78 

14 

82 

27 

4 

65 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

UKGBNIIENB 

UKGBNIIENW 

UKGBNINE 

59 

34 

12 

150 

221 

274 

106 

368 

677 

401 

87 

104 

29 

225 

91 

818 

25 

57 

201 

25 

2 278 

373 

1 

255 

89 

2 

10 

32 

17 

19 

5 

4 

24 

23 

30 

25 

100 

63 

4 

62 

10 

10 

10 

Grand 
Total 

2 337 

440 

165 

938 

1 116 

1 671 

303 

700 

18 

116 

416 

96 

31 

81 

169 

1 141 

217 

401 

91 

487 

42 

27 

29 

Grand Total 

172 

1 162 

3 076 

1 471 

2 493 

370 

1 144 

9 888 

Average per 
UoM 

11 

77 

205 

98 

166 

25 

76 

659 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. LLFA: Lead Local 

Flood Authority 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A8: Geographic coverage of the measures by UoM 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. LLFA: Lead Local 

Flood Authority 

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

in the textual part of the XML); 

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

is required); 

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

required). 

Objectives 

The Guidance Document indicates that for each measure, an “Explanation of how the measure 

contributes  to  the  objectives”  can  be  provided  (this  is  an  optional  field).  The  UK  reported  2 
299  different  objectives  for  the  UoMs  in  the  reporting  sheets,  for  6  079  different  measures. 

Consequently, it was not possible to aggregate the information.  

The following UoMs did not provide information: 

 

for every measure: UK02; UK05; UK06; UK09; UK11 and UK12; 

  any information on objectives: UK01; UK10 and UKGBNIIENW. 

71 

 
 
Category of priority 

The UK provided information for the priority of most of its measures in the reporting sheets. 
The following categories are used: 

  Critical; 

  Very high; 

  High; 

  Moderate; 

  Low. 

The following UoMs did not provide information:  

 

 

for some measures: UK02; UK09; UK11 and UKGBNIIENB; 

for any measures: UK01 and UK10. 

Table A9 - Category of priority by measure aspect 

High  Moderate 

Low 

No 
information 

No Action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & Review 

Other 

Critical 

10 

75 

69 

40 

13 

2 

Very 
high 
1 

118 

250 

159 

13 

15 

12 

704 

931 

527 

56 

35 

16 

779 

1 011 

642 

46 

30 

Grand 
Total 
44 

2 978 

3 359 

3 266 

146 

95 

1 165 

858 

1 735 

12 

1 

5 

137 

240 

163 

6 

12 

563 

Grand Total 

209 

556 

2 265 

2 524 

3 771 

9 888 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

72 

 
 
 
 
Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A9: Category of priority by measure aspect 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Table A10 - Category of priority by UoM 

Critical  Very high 

High  Moderate 

Low 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

UKGBNIIENB 

UKGBNIIENW 

UKGBNINE 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

3 

91 

30 

22 

29 

24 

10 

5 

189 

61 

128 

44 

80 

49 

10 

24 

307 

560 

591 

92 

287 

225 

1 

119 

18 

11 

20 

35 

38 

313 

398 

775 

108 

246 

241 

21 

328 

13 

3 

5 

209 

14 

556 

37 

2 265 

151 

2 524 

168 

6 

95 

38 

67 

155 

30 

63 

42 

40 

10 

13 

4 

563 

38 

No 
information 

2 337 

389 

574 

401 

69 

1 

Grand 
Total 

2 337 

440 

165 

938 

1 116 

1 671 

303 

700 

1 141 

401 

91 

487 

42 

27 

29 

3 771 

251 

9 888 

659 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A9 - Visualisation of Table A10: Category of priority by UoM 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Timetable 

Information  on  the  timetable  is  given  for  nearly  all  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets.  The 
responses have been categorised as follows:  

Table A11 – Timetable per measure aspect 

2010-
2045 

256 

362 

No Action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

1 195 

Recovery & Review 

Other 

Pre 2015 

17 

274 

269 

162 

32 

9 

2015 - 
2021 

26 

1 769 

1 942 

1 638 

109 

74 

2016-
2021 

2021 - 
2027 

2039 +  Other 

477 

242 

50 

67 

253 

134 

2 

3 

77 

60 

27 

2 

5 

1 

58 

231 

60 

1 

4 

Grand 
Total 

44 

2 978 

3 359 

3 266 

146 

95 

Grand Total 

171 
Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

5 558 

1 813 

763 

769 

459 

355 

9 888 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A10 – Visualisation of Table A11: Timetable per measure aspect 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Table A12 – Timetable per UoM 

2021 - 
2027 

2039 + 

Other 

2016-
2021 

684 

85 

2010-
2045 

1 525 

288 

Pre 2015 

2015 - 
2021 

4 

6 

22 

412 

173 

65 

27 

21 

33 

33 

155 

781 

577 

1 234 

212 

654 

1 091 

384 

91 

315 

9 

12 

10 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

UKGBNIIENB 

UKGBNIIENW 

UKGBNINE 

Grand Total 

1 813 

763 

5 558 

769 

Average per 
UoM 

121 

51 

371 

51 

14 

4 

80 

96 

56 

23 

17 

19 

13 

137 

459 

31 

Grand 
Total 

2 337 

440 

165 

938 

1 116 

1 671 

303 

700 

1 141 

401 

91 

487 

42 

27 

29 

3 

14 

147 

1 

6 

128 

16 

52 

17 

61 

3 

1 

4 

4 

2 

33 

15 

19 

171 

11 

355 

9 888 

24 

1236 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A11 - Visualisation of Table A12: Timetable per UoM 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

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

The UK reported the level of responsibility for all measures.  

Table A13 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

Environment 

Agency 

Individual 

Local 

National 

Other 

No Action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & Review 

Other 

10 

856 

1 644 

860 

38 

50 

263 

32 

1 263 

1 482 

1 021 

96 

45 

708 

86 

866 

2 

151 

147 

256 

12 

Grand 

Total 

44 

2 978 

3 359 

3 266 

146 

95 

Grand Total 

3 458 

263 

3 939 

1 660 

568 

9 888 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type.  

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A12 - Visualisation of Table A13: Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type.  

Table A14 - Level of responsibility by UoM 

Environment 
Agency 

Individual 

Local 

National 

Other 

224 

39 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

39 

93 

469 

742 

682 

196 

556 

316 

22 

343 

UKGBNIIENB 

UKGBNIIENW 

UKGBNINE 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

3 458 

231 

263 

18 

1 048 

167 

68 

457 

343 

978 

98 

144 

496 

137 

1 

1 

1 

3 939 

263 

1 065 

195 

321 

1 

30 

24 

24 

1 660 

111 

4 

12 

31 

11 

9 

8 

400 

69 

7 

11 

2 

4 

568 

38 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Grand 
Total 

2 337 

440 

165 

938 

1 116 

1 671 

303 

700 

1 141 

401 

91 

487 

42 

27 

29 

9 888 

659 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A13 - Visualisation of Table A14: Level of responsibility by UoM 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

whose responses are analysed below; 

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

UK reported information about the progress of implementation of the measures. The Progress 
of implementation was reported as140:  

  COM (completed); 

  OGC (ongoing construction); 

  POG (progress ongoing); 

  NS (not started). 

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

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

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

78 

 
 
                                                 
 
Table A15 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Completed 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress 
ongoing 

Not Started 

No Action 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & Review 

Other 

2 

98 

97 

46 

9 

2 

Grand Total 

254 

15 

49 

26 

90 

38 

1 480 

1 704 

2 311 

90 

51 

4 

1 385 

1 509 

883 

47 

42 

Grand 
Total 

44 

2 978 

3 359 

3 266 

146 

95 

5 674 

3 870 

9 888 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Figure A14 - Visualisation of Table A15: Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Table A16 – Progress of implementation by UoM 

Completed 

Ongoing 
Construction 

UK01 

UK02 

UK03 

UK04 

UK05 

UK06 

UK07 

UK08 

UK09 

UK10 

UK11 

UK12 

10 

140 

41 

12 

12 

15 

16 

6 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

8 

12 

6 

9 

2 

38 

79 

Progress 
Ongoing 

1 724 

344 

99 

354 

516 

978 

163 

403 

598 

158 

48 

246 

Not Started 

Grand Total 

609 

95 

65 

573 

452 

640 

122 

276 

526 

189 

37 

240 

2 337 

440 

165 

938 

1 116 

1 671 

303 

700 

1 141 

401 

91 

487 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Completed 

Ongoing 
Construction 

Progress 
Ongoing 

Not Started 

Grand Total 

UKGBNIIENB 

1 

UKGBNIIENW 

UKGBNINE 

Grand Total 

Average per 
UoM 

254 

17 

6 

2 

90 

6 

19 

7 

17 

5 674 

378 

22 

14 

10 

3 870 

258 

42 

27 

29 

9 888 

659 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

Figure A15 - Visualisation of Table A16: Progress of implementation by UoM 

Note: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 

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

Document on the FD. 

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

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

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

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

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

but are not finalized. 

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

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

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

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
provided any advisory session yet. 

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

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

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

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

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

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

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

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

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

Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

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

  Any other information reported (optional field). 

In  the  reporting  sheets,  the  UK  did  not  provide  information  on  Other  Community  Acts.  The 
UK did report information for ‘any other information’ for 6 022 measures. Within that number, 

there are 4 903 different answers.   

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures141 

No Action 

M11 

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

M21 

M22 

M23 

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

Prevention 

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

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

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

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

Protection 

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

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

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

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

M35 

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

Preparedness 

M41 

M42 

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

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

M43  Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public awareness 

or preparedness for flood events 

M44 

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

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

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

82 

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

Recovery & Review 

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

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

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

Other 

Other 

M52 

M53 

M61 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)  

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

NWRM,  by  encouraging  the  retention  of  water  within  a  catchment  and,  through  that, 
enhancing  the  natural  functioning  of  the  catchment.  The  catalogue  developed  in  the  NWRM 

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

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

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

Table B2 

List of NWRMs 

Agriculture 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

F02 Maintenance of forest 
cover in headwater areas 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

A03 Crop rotation 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable surfaces 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A07 Low till agriculture 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

A08 Green cover 

F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream 
crossings 

A09 Early sowing 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

A10 Traditional 
terracing 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

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 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

84