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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. 

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

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

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

2. 

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

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

2.2 

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

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

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

2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information ........................................................................................ 18 

3. 

 Setting of Objectives ........................................................................................................ 19 

3.1 

Focus of objectives ...................................................................................................... 19 

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................. 19 

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

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding .............................. 20 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ................................................................................ 20 

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

4. 

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

4.1  Cost of measures ......................................................................................................... 21 

4.2 

Funding of measures ................................................................................................... 21 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................. 22 

1 

 
 
 
4.4  Measures and objectives.............................................................................................. 23 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures ..................................................................... 23 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ............................................................................................ 23 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ............................................ 24 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures .................................................................... 25 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ............................................................ 25 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ........................................................................................ 25 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding ................................................................... 26 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ....................................................... 26 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive .................................................... 27 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures .............. 28 

5. 

 Consideration of climate change ...................................................................................... 30 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change .............................. 30 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change .......... 30 

6. Cost-benefit analysis ............................................................................................................. 32 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ...................................................... 32 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation .  
 ........................................................................................................................................... 34 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................. 34 

7.2 

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

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders ........................................................................... 36 

7.4 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................. 38 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment .......................................................................... 38 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................. 38 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 39 

Background & method ........................................................................................................... 39 

Types of measures used in reporting ...................................................................................... 40 

List of Annex A tables & figures ........................................................................................... 41 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................. 42 

Measure details: cost .............................................................................................................. 43 

Measure details: name & location .......................................................................................... 43 

2 

 
 
 
Measure details: objectives .................................................................................................... 44 

Measure details: authorities .................................................................................................... 46 

Measure details: progress ....................................................................................................... 46 

Measure details: other ............................................................................................................ 48 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................... 49 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) .................................................. 50 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

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

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

4 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

This  report  assesses  the  FRMPs  for  Malta1.  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:  One  single  FRMP  was  assessed,  covering  Malta’s  one  Unit  of 

Management (UoM)3. 

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

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

3  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview 

Figure 1 

Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

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

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

Malta has designated a single unit of management (UoM) under the Floods Directive, covering 

the whole country. Malta’s UoM corresponds to its single river basin district (RBD) designated 
under the Water Framework Directive (WFD).  

For its Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP), Malta reported a single document covering the 

whole  UoM:  this  document  is  Malta’s  Second  Water  Catchment  Management  Plan,  which 
provides  the  second  river  basin  management  plan  (RBMP)  under  the  WFD  and  contains  the 
FRMP. While this plan focuses on the requirements of the WFD, several passages in the main 
text of the Second Water Catchment Management Plan mention floods, and flood measures are 

included in  the programme of measures;  the main text  on floods, however, is  part of a short 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex4 to the main document5. In this report, the Annex in the Water Catchment Management 
Plan related to floods is nonetheless referred to as Malta’s FRMP and also as the Plan, whereas 

passages  in  the  main  text  of  the  Water  Catchment  Management  Plan  relevant  for  the  Floods 
Directive are referred to as ‘the main sections of the Water Catchment Management Plan’ or as 

a specific chapter of the Water Catchment Management Plan. 

Information on the approval and legal status of the Water Catchment Plan was not found in the 
Plan itself or the web sites where the Plan can be downloaded (see below)6.  

The table below gives an overview of the UoM in Malta, including the UoM code, the name, 

and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if all documents required for the UoM were 
submitted  to  European  Environment  Agency’s  (EEA)  WISE7  –  the  FRMP  as  a  PDF  and  the 
reporting sheet as an XML.   

Table 1 

Overview of UoM in Malta 

UoM 

MTMALTA 

TOTAL 

Name 

Malta 

Number of APSFRs 

XML Reported 

PDF Reported 

4 

4 

Yes 

Yes 

The Water Catchment Management Plan and the FRMP can be downloaded from the following 

web pages: 

  http://www.energywateragency.gov.mt/water-framework-directive/  

  https://era.org.mt/en/Pages/Water-Catchment-Management-Plan.aspx  

Overview of the assessment 

The table below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMP. 
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. 

4  The Annex is titled, Management Plans for Extreme Events, and covers floods as well as water scarcity and 

droughts. 

5  Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  first  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  has  also  been  reproduced  as  a 

separate document and is publicly available on the Agency’s website: 
https://www.energywateragency.gov.mt/water-framework-directive/   

6  Malta  informed  subsequently  that  the  first  FRMP,  together  with  the  second  River  Basin  Management  Plan, 

were formally adopted on 16 February 2016. 

7  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 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  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 FRMP 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives have been 
established  

Strong evidence 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences  

No evidence  

Malta’s Plan sets out three objectives, which 
are in turn closely related to undertake 
specific activities – for example, to develop 
water level monitoring facilities. 

The objectives do not refer to a reduction in 
potential adverse consequences, though this 
appears to be an unstated goal (the Maltese 
FRMP is partly based on the National Floods 
Relief Project, which had the objective "to 
avert increases in risks to life and property 
and control damages caused by uncontrolled 
surface water runoff")8. 

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Strong evidence  

One of the three objectives is to reduce the 
likelihood of flooding in ‘at risk’ catchments.  

...to non-structural initiatives   Strong evidence  

The objectives include the development of 
modelling and monitoring. 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences9 to...   

...human health  

No evidence  

The objectives do not refer to the reduction of 
potential adverse consequences. 

...economic activity  

No evidence 

See above under human health 

8  Malta subsequently informed that measures related to the reduction of adverse consequences from flood risk 
were the focus of the National Flood Relief Project (NFRP). Malta explained that the implementation of this 
project led to the successful reduction of adverse consequences through a number of infrastructural measures 
in the lower parts of the catchments. The first FRMP complements and builds upon the objectives of the NFRP 
and  focuses  on  the  implementation  of  upstream  measures  to  reduce  the  occurrence  of  storm  water  runoff 
further downstream. Therefore, the objectives of the NFRP, of averting increases in risks to life and property 
and control damages caused by uncontrolled surface water runoff, are inherent in the first FRMP. 

9  Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  measures  within  the  first  FRMP,  both  directly  and  indirectly,  aim  to 
address  the  objectives  of  the  Floods  Directive  to  reduce  potential  adverse  consequences  to  human  health, 
economic activity, environment and cultural heritage. It was also confirmed that the primary objective for the 
development of the first FRMP was to reduce such potential adverse consequences. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...environment  

No evidence 

See above under human health 

...cultural heritage  

No evidence 

See above under human health 

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Some evidence  

The Plan includes 10 measures to address 
flood risk, including both ongoing and new 
measures. 

Malta has reported to WISE the priorities of 
its 10 measures. However, the FRMP itself 
does not provide information on priorities, 
nor an indication how they were set, though it 
does set out a timetable for the 10 measures10. 

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

...costs & benefits  

Some evidence  

...flood extent  

Some evidence  

...flood conveyance  

Some evidence  

It is mentioned that a cost benefit assessment 
has been performed, but no details on the 
method or its role regarding floods measures 
are provided11. 

It is mentioned that the FRMP is based on a 
modelling exercise, taking into account 
conveyance routes as well as the extent and 
depth of the floods12. 

It is mentioned that the FRMP is based on a 
modelling exercise, taking into account 
conveyance routes as well as the extent and 
depth of the floods. 

10  Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  comprehensive  approach  to  the  reduction  of  flood  risk  adopted  in  the 
first  FRMP  considers  all  10  measures  proposed  in  the  plan  to  be  equally  important  for  the  successful 
achievement of its objectives. Nonetheless, the measures proposed in the first FRMP are prioritised in terms of 
order  of  implementation,  given  that  some  measures  build  upon  the  implementation  of  other  supporting 
measures. 

11  Malta subsequently informed that the economic assessment of the measures proposed in the first FRMP was 
carried out in conjunction with the measures proposed under the second RBMP. This since the measures in the 
first  FRMP are complimentary to the  measures  within the  second RBMP, and therefore a holistic economic 
assessment was considered to be more relevant. 

12  Malta subsequently informed that the modelling exercise referred to in the first FRMP was developed as part 
of  the  NFRP.  Flood  modelling  within  the  NFRP  was  specifically  developed  for  the  context  of  the  Maltese 
islands, which are characterised by short term (less than two hours) urban flooding resulting from uncontrolled 
storm  water runoff (primarily occurring  within built-up sections of the river beds of dry rivers). Within this 
context, the modelling exercise identified those streets (conveyance routes) where the depth of the storm water 
runoff could pose an adverse risk to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. It 
is noted that the identification of the flood risk areas was based on the water level derived from the modelling 
exercise produced as part of the NFRP. Areas with a water depth above 30cm were considered as significant 
flood risk areas. In this regard the modelling exercise carried out as part of the NFRP considers the objectives 
for the management of flood risk as outlined in Article 7. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...water retention  

Strong evidence  

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD  

Strong evidence  

...spatial planning/land use   Some evidence 

...nature conservation  

No evidence 

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

No evidence 

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Some evidence  

The Plan includes a measure for the 
assessment of sustainable urban drainage 
systems (SuDs) and natural water retention 
measures (NWRMs) and a follow-up measure 
for their implementation. 

Malta’s FRMP is integrated into its RBMP, 
and it is stated that work on floods was 
developed in parallel and are closely 
coordinated with work on the WFD. It is 
stated in the reporting sheets that the floods 
occurring in Malta do not affect the 
environmental objectives of the WFD. 

The Plan does not explicitly refer to spatial 
planning or land use as a measure in relation 
to floods, though the integration of a measure 
on sustainable urban drainage systems into 
planning is mentioned.  

The Plan does not refer to nature conservation 
in relation to floods13. 

While Malta’s overall plan refers to shipping 
in several sections, this is not in relation to 
floods.14 

The Water Catchment Management Plan 
includes a section on climate change that 
briefly discusses potential impacts in terms of 
seawater flooding and pluvial flooding (heavy 
rainfall events). A climate check of all 
measures, including those in the FRMP, is 
presented. It is indicated that four of the 10 
FRMP measures are "aimed at reducing 
climate change impacts on the occurrence of 
flooding".  

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 

Not relevant  

No other countries are bordering Malta’s 
UoM/RBD. 

13  Malta subsequently informed that in the context of floods in Malta, nature conservation is not relevant, given 
that all flooding occurs in urban areas. Nonetheless, the first FRMP includes measure RWH6 which focuses 
on  the  rehabilitation  of  existing  rainwater  harvesting  structures  in  valleys  not  only  for  the  augmentation  of 
natural  water  resource  retention  but  also  for  the  conservation  and  protection  of  ecosystems  which  thrive  in 
these areas. 

14  There are no navigable rivers on the islands. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

RBD/UoM  

Coordination ensured with 
WFD  

Strong evidence  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Some evidence  

Both the FRMP and the 2nd RBMP were 
developed in parallel and closely coordinated. 
Some measures are listed under both the 
FRMP and the RBMP Programme of 
Measures. 

The FRMP provides little information on 
mechanisms for the active involvement of 
interested parties specifically regarding 
floods, though it does note that meetings were 
held with stakeholders regarding one measure 
on sustainable urban drainage systems. 
General information about the involvement of 
stakeholders in the common process for the 
RBMP and FRMP is provided in the main 
sections of the Water Catchment 
Management Plan. 

Good Practices 

The following good practices were identified: 

Table 3 

Good practices in the Maltese FRMP 

Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk 

One of Malta’s objectives sets a specific target (for upstream storage 
and infiltration capacity). 

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

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Flood risk governance 

The description of measures includes an identification of 
stakeholders that will be involved in the implementation of 
measures. 

Identified measures that support climate change adaptation and 
reference to Malta’s national Climate Change Adaptation Strategy 
(not in the FRMP though). 

Malta prepared a single Plan that integrates its RBMP and FRMP, 
including measures for floods management in the overall programme 
of measures. 

11 

 
 
 
 
Areas for further development 

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

Table 4 Areas for further development in the Maltese FRMP 

Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

The integration of 
previously reported 
information in the FRMPs. 

The setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk. 

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

The FRMP does not describe how the PFRA was used in the 
development of the FHRMs, nor how these maps were used for the 
preparation of the plan itself, including its objectives and 
measures15.  
It is not clear if the map of catchments that previously experienced 
flooding, provided in the FRMP, shows the APSFRs. Links to 
FHRMs are not provided in the Plan16.  
Malta’s objectives do not specify the reduction in adverse 
consequences of flooding (the reduction of likelihood of flooding is 
specified). 
For none of the objectives is there an explicit timeframe.17 
The FRMP does not contain information on the cost of flood risk 
mitigation measures: Information on the costs of some but not all of 
these measures is included in chapter 11 of the Water Catchment 
Management Plan. 

While the institutional body to monitor implementation of measures 
is identified, the FRMP does not contain information on the 
methodology or indicators for monitoring18. 
The FRMP does not provide a methodology to explain the 
prioritisation of measures reported by Malta to WISE. 

While the FRMP provides some specific information on measures, 

15  Malta subsequently informed that the development of the PFRA and FHRM was based on previously existing 
information. The National Flood Relief Project (NFRP) provided the basis for the preliminary assessment of 
the areas with a potentially significant flood risk and also the development of the flood hazard and flood risk 
maps.  Infrastructure  measures  to  address  the  specific  flooding  problems  within  each  of  the  flood  risk  areas 
identified in the FHRM were carried out as part of the NFRP. These measures were not included in the first 
FRMP given that all planned measures were completed prior to the completion of the FRMP. Subsequently, 
the first FRMP adopted a catchment-based approach where the flood management measures proposed in the 
plan are applicable for all of the Maltese islands. The plan also includes measure FLD1 on the modelling of 
the impact of the infrastructure measures carried out as part of the NFRP on the flood hazard and risk areas to 
identify the residual flood risk impact in these catchments.  

16  Malta 

informed  subsequently 

that 

links 

to  the  FHRMs  are  provided  on  the  Agency’s  website. 

https://www.energywateragency.gov.mt/water-framework-directive/ 

17   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  timeframe  is  the  implementation  of  the  second  RBMP,  hence  up  to 

2021. 

18  Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  implementation  of  the  measures  proposed  in  the  first  FRMP  is 
monitored through the Inter-Ministerial committee on water, which oversees the implementation of the water 
related Directives and ensures the integration of the  measures with WFD principles and objectives. Progress 
on the implementation of the measures is evaluated through specific indicators developed during the meetings 
of the Inter-Ministerial committee on water. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

for the most part this is not sufficient to measure their 
implementation and results. The location and coverage of all 
measures is given as the catchment, including for measures that will 
need to be carried out in specific locations. 

An analysis of costs and benefits of measures with regard to their 
flood mitigation/risk reduction potential was not used in the 
selection or planning of FRMP measures. 

The public consultation is only briefly described in the Maltese 
FRMP, which refers to the consultation for the Water Catchment 
Management Plan as a whole; although the overall consultation for 
the Water Catchment Management Plan also covered floods, the 
detailed information on consultation and active involvement of 
stakeholders in the main document only refers to WFD issues. 
Consequently, information is not provided on which groups were 
actively involved regarding floods measures, nor the effects of the 
consultation on the FRMP.19 

The single Plan, i.e. the Water Catchment Management Plan, 
mainly targets the requirements of the WFD; although it also 
addresses obligations under the Floods Directive, its dual role is 
nevertheless not clearly articulated. 

The use of cost-benefit 
analysis in the FRMPs 
assessed. 

Public consultation. 

Flood risk governance 

Recommendations 

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

  To be able to assess progress, objectives should have an explicit timeframe. What appear to 
be  now  implicit  links  between  measures  and  objectives  should  become  explicit  in  the 
second cycle. 

  Objectives should explicitly include reducing the adverse consequences of floods. 

  The  FRMP/Water  Catchment  Management  Plan  should  provide  information  on  the 
estimated cost of all flood risk mitigation measures, their prioritisation and the methods for 

prioritisation; the mechanisms and indicators for monitoring their implementation. 

  The  methodology  for  assessing  of  flood  risk  mitigation  measures  in  terms  of  costs  and 

benefits should be presented in the FRMP/the Water Catchment Management Plan.. 

19  Malta informed subsequently that because the first FRMP and second RBMP were developed in parallel and 
both plans contain complimentary measures, the public consultation process of the first FRMP was carried out 
jointly with that of the second RBMP. Moreover, from a public and stakeholder perspective, flooding in the 
context of the Maltese islands is a marginal issue (given that the Directive is being applied to a context where 
storm  water  temporarily  flows  in  major  roads  which  were  built  along  dry  valley  beds)  and  stakeholders  are 
more interested in more pressing issues such as water scarcity and drought. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                 
  The FRMP/Water Catchment Management Plan. should provide more detailed information 
on  the  active  involvement  of  stakeholders.  It  is  important  to  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. 

14 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

There is one single UoM in Malta, covering the whole country.  

Malta did not make use of Article 13.3 of the Floods Directive, which allowed Member States 
to  make  use  of  previous  flood  risk  management  plans  for  the  first  (provided  their  content  is 

equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

Malta reported one FRMP (UoM Code: MTMALTA, UoM Name: Malta), which is integrated 
as a part of Malta’s Second Water Catchment Management Plan20: this plan was assessed. 

Table 5 

UoM assessed in Malta 

UoM code 

MTMALTA 

UoM Name 

Malta 

20  The FRMP is part of an annex to the Second Water Catchment Management Plan, titled Management Plans 

for Extreme Events. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The conclusions of the PRFA are briefly presented in the FRMP21. This includes a summary 
map showing ‘catchments that experienced previous surface water flooding’. It is not explicitly 
stated  if  the  map  shows  areas  of  potential  significant  flood  risk  (APSFRs).22  The  FRMP 
provides a textual description of the methodology employed and the results of previous steps.   

No links to web-based maps of the APSFRs were provided, however.  

While the FRMP does not refer explicitly to conveyance routes, it explains that floods in Malta 
are the result of storm events during which the dry valley channels adopt their natural function 

as  a  storm  water  ‘culvert’,  conveying  ‘…uncontrolled  surface  water  for  a  very  short  period 
(less than 2 hours)… throughout the urban areas… for eventual discharge at the coastal zone’.  

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

As an island country, Malta does not have any neighbouring Member States. 

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

The FRMP explains that a modelling exercise carried out as part of the National Flood Relief 
Project  (NFRP)  provided  the  basis  for  the  preparation  of  flood  risk  and  hazard  maps23.  The 
objective of this project was to avert increases in risks to life and property and control damages 
caused  by  uncontrolled  surface  water  runoff  in  the  four  priority  catchment  basins  of  Msida, 

Gzira, Qormi and Marsaskala. The modelling exercise provided information on the extent and 
depth  of the floods based upon a one in  five-year event  storm  scenario and this provides the 

basis for the information presented in the Flood Hazard Maps.  

21  Management Plans for Extreme Events, Section 3.2. 
22   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  map  shown  in  Section  3.2  of  the  first  FRMP  illustrates  the  extent  of 
catchments  which  had previously experienced temporary flooding  from  uncontrolled storm  water  runoff but 
does not distinguish whether flooding within these catchments was significant or not. The catchments which 
contain areas with a potential significant flood risk are: Marsa Catchment, Birkirkara-Msida Catchment, Gzira 
Catchment and Marsaskala Catchment. It is noted that  the  identification of  the  flood risk areas  within these 
four catchments was based on the  water level derived from the modelling exercise carried out as part of the 
NFRP. Areas with a water depth above 30cm were considered as significant flood risk areas. 

23   Management Plans for Extreme Events Section 3.3. 

16 

 
 
                                                 
The FRMP does not, however, explicitly describe how the PFRA was used in the development 
of the FHRMs.24 

2.2 

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

The FRMP presents an example map of a ‘Flood Risk Area’, but otherwise does not provide a 
presentation of flood hazard and flood risk maps25 26.  

While the FRMP does not provide links to the FHRMs, these can be found on one of the web 
pages providing the Plan: https://www.energywateragency.gov.mt/water-framework-directive/.   

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

There are no shared flood risk areas with other Member States.  

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

The  FRMP  does  not  indicate  how  the  FHRM  were  used  for  the  development  of  flood 
management objectives, measures or other elements of the FRMP.27 

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

The  assessment  looked  for  information  on  changes  in  the  identification  of  APSFRs  or  since 

December  2011,  or  in  the  FHRMs  since  December  2013,  indicated  in  the  FRMP.  No 
references to changes were found in Malta’s Plan. 

24   Malta subsequently informed that the development of the PFRA and FHRM was based on previously existing 
information.  The  NFRP  provided  the  basis  for  the  preliminary  assessment  of  the  areas  with  a  potentially 
significant flood risk and also the development of the flood hazard and flood risk maps. 

25   Management Plans for Extreme Events, Fig. 7. 
26   Malta subsequently informed that the existing information made available through the NFRP was utilised in 
order to develop the FHRMs. A re-evaluation of the existing FHRMs is currently being undertaken as part of 
the PFRA. 

27   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  development  of  the  FHRM  was  based  on  the  already  existing 
information provided through the NFRP. The NFRP included an extensive hydrological modelling exercise to 
identify the best suite of infrastructure measures which needed to be adopted to mitigate flood risk in a number 
of  flood  prone  areas.  These  measures  were  implemented  through  the  NFRP  prior  to  the  completion  of  the 
FRMP and therefore were not included in the first FRMP.  
The  measures  proposed  in  the  first    FRMP  continue  to  build  on  the  infrastructure  measures  implemented 
through the NFRP and also adopt a wider approach to flood management in Malta. Whereas the focus of the 
NFRP  was  to  avert  the  immediate  risk  of  storm  water  runoff  in  the  low  lying  urban  areas  through 
infrastructural measures, the first FRMP adopts a catchment scale approach where the management of storm 
water  runoff  is  considered  at  the  catchment  scale,  whilst  also  considering  the  potential  utilisation  of  these 
waters. The flood management objectives of the measures proposed in the first FRMP are specified in Section 
3.4 of the Plan. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
2.4 

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

There is no information about Malta in the earlier assessment as the country was late with the 

reporting of the FHRMs. 

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The  FRMP  does  not  describe  how  the  PFRA  was  used  in  the  development  of  the 
FHRMs, nor how these maps were used for the preparation of the plan itself, including 

its objectives and measures.  

 

It is not clear if the map of catchments that previously experienced flooding, provided in 

the FRMP, shows the APSFRs. Links to FHRMs are not provided in the Plan.  

18 

 
 
 
 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

The Maltese flood risk objectives28 refer to: 

  The development of a modelling framework; 

  Focus  on  the  reduction  of  the  likelihood  of  flooding  in  identified  ‘at  risk’  catchments 
through  the  adoption  of  upstream  water  management  measures  such  as  Rainwater 
Harvesting and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems; 

  The introduction of water level monitoring facilities. 

These objectives apply to the FRMPs assessed. Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed29: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding30 
  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented  
  The objectives refer to non-structural measures31  

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

Malta’s  FRMP  sets  a  target  related  to  its  second  objective:  the  development  of  1.5  m  cubic 
metres  of  upstream  storage  and  infiltration  capacity32.  The  other  two  objectives  refer  to 
specific  activities. Consequently,  all three objectives are measurable. None of the objectives, 
however, set a timeframe.33 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

The  objectives  do  not  refer  to  the  reduction  in  adverse  consequences  from  floods,  though  it 

appears  to  be  an  unstated  goal  as  the  Maltese  FRMP  refers  to  the  National  Floods  Relief 
Project34, which had the objective "to avert increases in risks to life and property and control 
damages caused by uncontrolled surface water runoff"35. There is no reference, however, to the 

28   Management Plans for Extreme Events, Section 3.4. 
29   These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 
30  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. 

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

as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

32   Management Plans for Extreme Events, Section 3.4. 
33   Malta subsequently informed that the achievement of the objectives of the first FRMP is inherently tied to the 
implementation  of  the  Water  Catchment  Management  Plan  and  its  measures.  The  implementation  timetable 
for the measures is that of the Plan (i.e. until 2021).  

34   https://mtip.gov.mt/en/Pages/WASD/PROJECTS/Rainwater-Flood-Relief-Project.aspx   
35   Malta subsequently informed that the measures within the first FRMP, both directly and indirectly, address the 
objectives  of  the  Floods  Directive  to  reduce  potential  adverse  consequences  to  human  health,  economic 

19 

 
 
                                                 
components  set  out  in  Article  7(2)  of  the  Floods  Directive  (human  health,  environment, 
cultural heritage and economic activity).  

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

The  second  objective  calls  for  the  reduction  of  the  likelihood  of  flooding.  Consequently,  the 
objectives also address flood risk. 36 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

There is no information provided on the process Malta followed to set the objectives, neither 
what was considered when setting the objectives nor the bodies involved.37 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practice was identified: 

  One  of  Malta’s  objectives  sets  a  specific  target  (for  upstream  storage  and  infiltration 

capacity). 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  Malta’s objectives do not specify the reduction in adverse consequences of flooding. 

  None of the objectives sets a timeframe.  

activity,  environment  and  cultural  heritage.  It  was  also  confirmed  that  the  primary  objective  for  the 
development of the first FRMP was to reduce such potential adverse consequences. 

36   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. 

37   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  process  followed  for  the  establishing  of  flood  management  objectives 
involved  a  two  staged  process  whereby  in  the  first  part  the  focus  was  to  avert  the  immediate  risk  of  storm 
water runoff in low lying urban areas through the implementation of infrastructural measures. These measures 
were completed through the NFRP prior to the development of the first FRMP and therefore were not included 
in the plan.  
The  second  stage  focused  on  the  development  of  a  more  resilient  catchment  scale  approach  to  flood  risk 
aversion through the following objectives: 

  The development of a modelling framework for the comprehensive assessment of the risk to flooding 

in all water catchment areas in the Maltese islands; 

  The adoption of upstream water management measures such as rainwater harvesting and sustainable 

urban drainage systems; 

  The introduction of water level monitoring facilities to optimise the monitoring of flood events 
  The  above  objectives  guided  the  development  of  the  establishment  of  the  flood  management 

objectives of the first FRMP. 

20 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Malta reported 10 individual measures and no aggregated38 measures39. In terms of the aspects 
of flood risk management, Malta reported five prevention measures, all under EU measure type 
M2440;  four preparedness  measures  (two  each  for  EU measure types M4141 and M4442); and 
one “no action” measure43. 

Malta’s FRMP also indicates 10 measures, but these are presented in a different categorisation 
– direct, indirect and supporting measures – whose links with Malta’s reporting is not clear for 

all measures.  

4.1 

Cost of measures 

 Although the FRMP does not report the costs of flood risk mitigation measures, information 
on  the  costs  of  some  of  these  measures  is  included  in  chapter  11  of  the  Water  Catchment 

Management  Plan:  this  the  case  in  particular  for  measures  that  address  both  the  Floods 
Directive and the Water Framework Directive (e.g. measure GWM4, Development of managed 

aquifer recharge schemes). 

4.2 

Funding of measures 

The RBMP lists funding sources for the flood management measures. These include: national 

resources,  EU  structural  funds  (the  Cohesion  Fund,  ERDF  and  specifically  the  INTERREG 
Programme  are  indicated)  as  well  as  the  EU  LIFE  Programme  and  the  EU  Horizon  2020 
Programme.44 

38   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. 

39   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. 

40   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...). 

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

system. 

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

reduce adverse consequences. 

43   Malta subsequently informed that the “no action” measure in the FRMP (measure FLD1), should be classified 
as  measure  type  M24  (Prevention,  Other  prevention,  Other  measure  to  enhance  flood  risk  prevention  (may 
include,  flood  risk  modelling  and  assessment,  flood  vulnerability  assessment,  maintenance  programmes  or 
policies etc...), it was misreported on WISE.    

44   Second Water Catchment Plan, table 11.7, pp. 514-518. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
Table 6 Funding of measures 

Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding  

Use of public budget (national level)  

Use of public budget (regional level)  

Use of public budget (local level)  

Private investment  

EU funds (generic)  

EU Structural funds  

EU Solidarity Fund  

EU Cohesion funds  

EU CAP funds  

International funds  

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Other *  
Notes: Other in Malta includes: EU LIFE Programme, EU Horizon 2020 Programme. 

✔ 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

Malta’s FRMP provides a description of each measure45 with brief information on:  

  What they are trying to achieve, 

  How they are to be achieved, and 

  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

For  all  measures,  the  location  is  indicated  as  the  entire  Water  Catchment  District  (i.e.  the 

whole UoM), even for measures which are expected to be carried out in specific locations (e.g. 
implementation  of  Sustainable  Urban  Drainage  Systems  and  Natural  Water  Retention 
Measures).46 

The measures in the FRMP are only partly specific or measurable.47 

45   Section 3.5 
46   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  Flood  Management  in  Malta  is  carried  out  at  the  river  basin  scale  and 
therefore  all the  measures are applicable for the entire Malta River Basin District. This  holistic approach to 
flood management also ensures better integration with the implementation of the RBMP and the achievement 
of the WFD objectives.  
For specific measures, such as FLD4  – Implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and Natural 
Water  Retention  Measures  and  RWH6  –  Rehabilitation  of  existing  rainwater  harvesting  dam  structures  in 
valleys the actual location of where these measures shall be implemented will be determined throughout the 
implementation of the measures. 

47   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  measurable  indicators  for  each  of  the  measures  (where  applicable)  in  the 
first FRMP were set by the Inter-ministerial Committee on Water during the meetings on the implementation 
of the measures planned as part of the Water Framework and Floods Directives. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.4  Measures and objectives 

The  descriptions  of  the  measures  do  not  provide  clear  links  to  the  FRMP’s  objectives48. 
Nonetheless, as explained in section 3, some of Malta’s objectives refer to specific initiatives, 
such as modelling and  monitoring. Consequently,  although it is  not  stated it can be assumed 

that completion of the first measure in the FRMP, on modelling, should achieve the objective 
to develop a modelling framework (see section 3)49.  

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

Malta  reported  that  the  location  of  all  ten  measures  and  their  geographic  coverage  is  at 

UoM/national  level.  As  noted  above,  this  includes  measures  that  would  appear  to  be  carried 
out in more specific locations.  

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

Malta has reported on the prioritisation of its measures: 

  One of the ten measures (for preparedness) is indicated as critical priority.  

  Five  measures  are  indicated  as  high  priority:  two  prevention  measures,  preparedness 

measures and the one no action measure.  

  Four  measures  are  indicated  of  moderate  priority,  three  for  prevention  and  one  for 

preparedness.  

While  the  main  sections  of  the  Water  Catchment  Management  Plan  refer  briefly  to  the 

prioritisation of its WFD measures, no indication was found on the method for prioritising the 
floods  measures.50  The  Plan  does,  however,  set  out  a  timetable  for  the  implementation  start 

48   Section 3.5. 
49   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  each  of  management  objectives  of  the  first  FRMP  is  linked  to  flood 

management measures: 
Objective 1: Development of a modelling framework for the comprehensive assessment of the risk to flooding 
in all water catchment areas on the Maltese islands (Measures FLD1 and FLD2).  
Objective 2: Increase the adoption of upstream water management measures such as rainwater harvesting and 
sustainable urban drainage systems (Measures FLD3, FLD4, RWH1, RWH6, GWM4). 
Objective 3: Introduce water level monitoring facilities to optimise the monitoring of flood events (Measures 
GVN1, RWH2, MDM1). 

50   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  comprehensive  approach  to  the  reduction  of  flood  risk  adopted  in  the 
first  FRMP  considers  all  10  measures  proposed  in  the  plan  to  be  equally  important  for  the  successful 
achievement  of  its  objectives.  Nonetheless,  Malta  notes  that  the  measures  proposed  in  the  first  FRMP  are 
prioritised  in  terms  of  order of  implementation  given  that  some  measures  build  upon  the  implementation  of 
other supporting measures. 

23 

 
 
                                                 
dates  of  the  measures  (and  states  that  the  implementation  of  the  respective  measures  is 
envisaged to be staggered over the six-year catchment management cycle)51: 

  One measure in 2016; 

  Five measures in 2017; 

  Two measures in 2018; 

  One measure each in 2019 and 2020. 

The  detailed  description  of  the  measures  includes  an  estimation  of  completion  dates  of  the 

measures  (one  each  by  2017,  2018  and  2019,  while  for  seven  measures  the  implementation 
will be continued throughout the second catchment planning period).52 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

In its reporting to WISE, Malta indicated the same responsible authority for all measures, i.e. 
the Energy and Water Agency (EWA)53, which is an authority at the national level. 

In  the  FRMP,  in  contrast,  another  government  agency  is  listed  for  each  measure  as  the  lead 
entity  responsible  for  implementation,  the  Sustainable  Energy  and  Water  Conservation  Unit 
(SEWCU)54 55. The FRMP also indicates for each measure stakeholders that would need to be 
involved  in  the  process,  without  indicating  their  specific  roles  or  responsibilities56.  For 
example,  the  measure  "Modelling  the  impact  of  the  National  Flood  Relief  Project  on  flood 
hazard and risk in identified catchments" has the following information regarding stakeholder 
participation: 

  The Policy Development Directorate (PDD-MTI) within the Ministry for Transport and 

Infrastructure (MTI); 

  The Environment and Resources Authority (ERA); 

  The Eco-Gozo Regional Development Directorate within the Ministry for Gozo (MGoz); 

  The Planning Authority (PA); 

  The  Marine,  Storm  Water  and  Valley  Management  Unit  (MSWVMU)  within  the 

Ministry for Transport and Infrastructure (MTI); 

51   Section 3.6. 
52   Section 3.5. 
53   https://www.energywateragency.gov.mt/water/  
54   https://energy.gov.mt/mt/Pages/sewcu.aspx  
55   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  Sustainable  Energy  and  Water  Conservation  Unit  (SEWCU)  legally 
changed its name to the Energy and Water Agency (EWA) as established by Subsidiary Legislation 497.08. 
Any reference to SEWCU should therefore be construed as a reference to the EWA. 
http://justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=12154&l=1 

56   Section 3.5. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
  Transport Malta (TM);  

  The Civil Protection Department (CPD);  

  Local Councils. 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

Malta has reported on the process of implementation of all its measures. All ten measures are 

classified as an ongoing process.  

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure 
has  been  implemented:  Malta  has  not  provided  such  information,  however,  in  its  reporting 
sheets.57  

In  Malta’s  Plan,  all  ten measures  listed  for  floods  are  also  found  in  the  main  sections  of  the 
Water Catchment Management Plan among the measures for the WFD58.  

The FRMP does not refer to other Community Acts, and it does not appear that any of the ten 

floods measures are linked to, among others, the Seveso or the EIA Directives.  

4.10  Specific groups of measures59 

None  of  the  ten  measures  explicitly  refers  to  spatial  planning  or  land  use  actions  for 
addressing  flood  risks.  One  measure  (FLD3)  includes  spatial  planning  aspects:  specifically, 
developing  guidance  at  the  national  and  local  level  for  better  adoption  of  Sustainable  Urban 
Drainage Systems in planning60. 

The  FRMP  has  two  measures  for  natural  water  retention,  one  for  an  assessment  of 
‘Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and Natural Water Retention Measures to mitigate flood 

57   Malta subsequently informed  that reporting on other  Community  Acts under  which the  measures have been 
implemented was optional and that it was up to the Member States to decide whether such reporting was of 
relevance to the measures being implemented. 

58   Second Water Catchment Plan, Table 9.3, p. 429; FRMP Annex  
59   Section 3.5 
60   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  Measure  FLD3  –  Comprehensive  assessment  for  the  inclusion  of 
Sustainable  Urban  Drainage  Systems  and  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  to  Mitigate  Flood  Hazard  and 
Risk  will  seek  the  development  of  a  master  plan  identifying  the  potential  inclusion  of  Sustainable  Urban 
Drainage  Systems  and  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures  in  the  urban  and  rural  framework  of  the  Maltese 
islands. This masterplan will identify how such measures can be undertaken on a national level. Furthermore, 
this  measure,  in  collaboration  with  the  Planning  Authority,  will  develop  a  planning  guidance  document  to 
better guide the adoption and inclusion of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems at the local planning scale.  
Malta  moreover  noted  that  the  first  FRMP  is  also  aligned  with  the  objectives  of  the  Strategic  Plan  for 
Environment and Development on the promotion and adoption of sustainable drainage systems to reduce the 
volume of rainwater runoff and the promotion of rainwater harvesting. 

25 

 
 
                                                 
hazard  and  risk’  (FLD3)  and  another  for  their  implementation  (FLD4).  The  description  does 
not indicate, however, which types of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems or NWRMs are to 
be considered61. 

None of the measures in the FRMP specifically considers nature conservation, and this is not 
indicated as an issue considered in preparing the plan.62 

No  floods  measures  specifically  consider  ports  and  navigation  (the  main  sections  of  the 

Water Catchment Management Plan addresses shipping in its WFD measures, however there 
are no navigable rivers).  

No reference has been found in the FRMP assessed to dredging to increase the river channel 
capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes: based on the description 

of Malta’s surface waters and flood risks, this is not relevant.  

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The role of insurance policies is not discussed in the Maltese FRMP.  

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

In its reporting sheets, Malta states that an Inter-Ministerial Committee on Water (IMC) will be 
established  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  both  WFD  and  floods  measures.  While  the 

responsibilities of the Committee are outlined, it is not explained how the progress is measured 
or evaluated.63 

The  main    sections  of  the  Water  Catchment  Management  Plan  note  that  an  initial  Inter-

Ministerial  Committee  on  Water  was  set  up  for  the  first  RBMP.  For  the  new  Plan,  the 

61   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  identification  of  the  SUDS  or  NWRMs  to  be  considered  will  be 
identified  “during  the  implementation  of  the  measure”  and  that  different  methods  might  be  applicable 
depending on the location. 

62   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  context  of  floods  within  Malta  is  not  relevant  in  terms  of  nature 
conservation  given  that  all  flooding  occurs  in  urban  areas.  Nonetheless  the  first  FRMP  includes  measure 
RWH6 which focuses on the rehabilitation of existing rainwater harvesting structures in valleys not only for 
the  augmentation  of  natural  water  resource  retention  but  also  for  the  conservation  and  protection  of 
ecosystems which thrive in these areas. 

63   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  implementation  of  the  measures  proposed  in  the  first  FRMP  is 
monitored through the Inter-Ministerial committee on water, which oversees the implementation of the water 
related directives and ensures the integration of the measures with WFD principles and objectives. Progress on 
the implementation of the measures is evaluated through specific indicators developed during the meetings of 
the Inter-Ministerial committee on water. 

26 

 
 
                                                 
Committee will establish sub-committees that will work with local entities and stakeholders; it 
is not specified, however, if a sub-committee will focus on floods64 65.  

Neither the reporting sheets nor the FRMP indicate that a baseline has been established against 
which progress will be monitored and assessed66.  

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  development  of  the  FRMP  has  been  coordinated  with  the 
development of the second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD. 

Table 7 

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

second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD  

MTMALTA 

Integration of FRMP and RBMP 

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP 

Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP 

Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD 
The objectives of the Floods Directive were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a 

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

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

Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance 
or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs67 

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 infrastructure68 

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 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

64   Second Water Catchment Plan, Section 14, pp. 547-8. 
65   Malta subsequently informed that for the time being, due to the marginal importance of floods in Malta, the 
IMC  has  not  considered  necessary  to  establish  a  sub-committee  specifically  focusing  on  floods.  This  is  an 
option which however can be considered by the Committee throughout the implementation of the first FRMP 
depending on the challenges encountered and specific topics being considered. Tthe tasks of the IMC on water 
include:  i)  the  overall  review  of  the  progress  and  implementation  of  the  measures;  ii)  the  establishment  of 
(where  relevant)  of  Key  Performance  indicators;  iii)  the  monitoring  of  the  progress  made  towards  the 
achievement  of  the  Key  Performance  Indicators  and  iv)  Proposing  administrative  measures  and  solutions  to 
address any issues arising during the implementation of the measures. 

66   Malta  informed  subsequently  that  everything  produced  as part  of  the  implementation  of  the  FD  (i.e.  PFRA, 
APSFR, FHRMs and FRPM) constitutes a baseline by which progress towards the achievement of the flood 
management objectives can be assessed. 

67   Malta subsequently informed that  measures related to flood risk activities  which require permitting (such as 

dredging) are not relevant to Malta’s context. 

68   Malta subsequently informed that measures related to the application of Article 7 of the WFD are not relevant 

to Malta’s context. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 Objectives69 
Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD 

MTMALTA 

✔ 

Malta produced a single document covering the whole UoM: This document is Malta’s Second 

Water Catchment Management Plan, which provides the second River Basin Management Plan 
(RBMP) under the WFD - and the first FRMP. Several sections in the main text of the second 

Water  Catchment  Management  Plan  mention  floods,  and  flood  measures  are  included  in  the 
programme of measures for the Water Catchment Management Plan. Some measures identified 

in  the  FRMP  are  also  relevant  for  the  RBMP  (e.g.  measures  for  rainwater  harvesting, 
groundwater  management  and  governance).  The  main  text  on  floods,  however,  is  part  of  a 

short  Annex  to  the  main  document.  It  is  stated  that  the  development  of  the  FRMP  has  been 
closely coordinated with the implementation of the WFD. 

All ten FRMP measures are part of the second RBMP/the WFD’s PoM. 

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  description  of  measures  includes  an  identification  of  stakeholders  that  will  be 

involved in their implementation of measures. 

  The  single  Plan  for  the  RBMP  and  FRMP  integrates  measures  for  floods  management 

with measures under the WFD.  

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The  FRMP  does  not  contain  information  on  the  cost  of  measures;  information  on  the 
costs of some but not all flood management relevant measures is provided in chapter 11 

of the Water Catchment Management Plan. 

  While  the  institutional  body  to  monitor  implementation  of  measures  is  identified,  the 
FRMP does not contain information on the methodology or indicators for monitoring. 

69   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  coordinated  development  and  implementation  of  the  first  FRMP  and 
second RBMP will ensure that, where applicable, the use of SUDS is coordinated in such a way to favour the 
achievement of the environmental objectives of the WFD. The utilisation of SUDS in Malta’s context needs to 
be considered comprehensively within the objectives of the second RBMP given that they contribute towards 
increased infiltration and hence contribute towards the achievement of the good quantitative status objectives 
of  the  WFD.  It  is  also  clarified  that  the  planned  adoption  of  SUDS  will  not  involve  the  construction  of 
wetlands. 

28 

 
 
 
                                                 
  The  FRMP  does  not  provide  a  methodology  to  explain  the  prioritisation  of  measures 

reported by Malta to WISE. 

  While the FRMP provides some specific information on measures, for the most part this 

may prove insufficient to measure their implementation and results.70  

70   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  specific  location  where  the  measures  will  be  implemented  shall  be 

identified during the implementation phase. 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.   Consideration of climate change 

The main text  of the Second Water Catchment  Management Plan discusses potential climate 
change impacts71: an increase in heavy rainfall events leading to flooding is foreseen; a change 
in  storm  surges  is  not  anticipated72;  sea-level  rise  is  expected  as  a  long-term  change,  though 
trends since 1961 have varied.   

The  Second  Water  Catchment  Management  Plan  refers  to  Malta’s  national  Climate  Change 
Adaptation Strategy, published in May 201273, stating for example that the monitoring of the 
implementation of measures will track integration with this as well as other plans74. The FRMP 
Annex, however, does not cite this Strategy75. 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change 

Malta’s  reporting  sheets  state  that  four  of  the  ten  measures  are  "aimed  at  reducing  climate 

change impacts on the occurrence of flooding" (this information is also found in chapter 12 of 
the Water Catchment Management Plan, though not in the Annex/FRMP). These are:  

  The  implementation  of  Sustainable  Urban  Drainage  Systems  and  Natural  Water 

Retention Measures.76  

  Survey of the status of existing rainwater runoff harvesting infrastructure, identification 
of  potential  users  of  rainwater  harvested  in  these  infrastructures,  undertaking  of 
rehabilitation  works  and  development  of  a  management  framework  to  ensure  the 
effective use of harvested rainwater runoff.77  

  Rehabilitation of existing rainwater harvesting dam structures in valleys.78  
  Development  of  Managed  Aquifer  Recharge  schemes  for  aquifer  management 

purposes.79  

5.2  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practices were identified: 

71   Section 12 of the Water Catchment Management Plan, p. 523. 
72   The Plan cites a 2013 EEA assessment that forecasts a decrease in storm surges in the Mediterranean. 
73https://www.gov.mt/en/Government/Publications/Documents/MSDEC/National%20Adaptation%20Strategy.pdf 
74   Second Water Catchment Management Plan, p. 547. 
75   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  National  Climate  Change  Adaptation  Strategy  is  by  extension  also 
applicable  to  the  first  FRMP  since  the  first  FRMP  and  second  RBMP  were  developed  concurrently  and 
therefore should be considered as an integrated plan. 

76   Maltese measure number FLD4. 
77   Maltese measure number RWH1. 
78   Maltese measure number RWH6. 
79   Maltese measure number GWM4. 

30 

 
 
                                                 
  Malta’s  overall  Plan  provides  a  brief  overview  of  expected  climate  impacts  for  flood 

events. 

  Malta  has  identified  measures  that  support  climate  change  adaptation  (though  this  is 
specified in  the reporting sheets  and in  chapter  12 of the Water Catchment  Management 
Plan, not the Annex/FRMP itself). 

31 

 
 
 
 
6. Cost-benefit analysis 

It  is  unclear  whether  and  how  a  cost-benefit  analysis  was  used  in  selecting,  prioritising  and 
planning of flood protection measures in Malta80.  

Malta’s reporting sheets state that a "comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits of the 
measures" was carried out in the frame of the second RBMP. No further details are provided 

the  FRMP  itself.  As  noted  in  section  4,  information  on  the  costs  of  some  but  not  all  flood 
measures is included in chapter 11 of the Water Catchment Management Plan (this is the case 
in particular for measures listed under both the FRMP and the RBMP PoM).81 82.   

It appears that benefits of flood protection measures have not been calculated. In section 11.4 

of the Water Catchment Management Plan, where the flood measures are discussed along with 
RBMP  measures,  it  is  stated  that  ‘...(the  assessed)  measures  have  other  social  and  economic 

benefits that have not been included in this analysis, such as reducing the damage from storm 
water runoff and the prevention of loss of lives from flood events…’. 

It  is  thus  unclear  whether  and  for  which  types  of  flood  measures  cost-benefit  or  cost-

effectiveness analysis has been used. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following area for further development was identified: 

80   Malta subsequently informed that the economic assessment of the measures proposed in the first FRMP was 
carried out in conjunction with the measures proposed under the second RBMP. Since the measures in the first 
FRMP  are  complimentary  to  the  measures  within  the  second  RBMP,  a  holistic  economic  assessment  was 
considered to be more relevant. The identification and prioritisation of all the measures in the RBMP and the 
FRMP was undertaken by means of a cost-benefit assessment covering: 

  Capital expenditure; 
  Operational costs; 
  Potential revenues and cost savings; 
  Externality elements as valued primarily through emissions and resource costs. 

Malta  moreover  noted  that  it  is  to  be  appreciated  that  the  above  elements,  though  exhaustive  from  an 
analytical point of view, cannot capture all the potential benefits from the implementation of the measures. In 
effect,  all  measures  considered  in  the  RBMP  feature  positive  net  effects  except  for  those  having  a  strong 
innovative and demonstration value, which are  however still worth implementing from a policy perspective. 
Finally, since the funds available were sufficient to cover the implementation of all measures assessed for the 
purpose for the first FRMP, the decision was taken to include all measures in the implementation programme.  

81   Second Water Catchment Management Plan, section 11.2, pp. 500-522. 
82   Malta informed subsequently that it does not have any rivers in the classical sense and therefore there are no 
surface  waters  which  can  contribute  to  the  development  of  floods  arising  from  fluvial  flooding  due  to  their 
physical characteristics: The length of the water courses ranges from 0.6km to 1.7km, whereas the depth of the 
channels  ranges  from  1cm  to  25cm.  These  three  water  courses  reported  in  the  second  RBMP  are  not 
significant in terms of flooding due to their very small and intermittent flows, but are considered in the Plan in 
terms of their ecological importance. 

32 

 
 
                                                 
 

It is not clear whether or how an analysis of costs and benefits was used in the selection 

or planning of FRMP measures. 

33 

 
 
 
 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

There were no updates made to the Competent Authorities or the Unit of Management. Malta 
has not reported any changes to the competent  authority’s roles and responsibilities in WISE 

since 2012. 

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  concerning  the 
draft  FRMP.  Information  on  how  the  consultation  was  actually  carried  out  and  which 

stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section:  

Table 8 

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

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking 

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

MTMALTA 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

The  public  consultation  process  supporting  the  development  of  the  first  Flood  Risk 

Management  Plan  was  undertaken  within  the  development  framework  of  the  second  Water 
Catchment Management Plan, meaning the consultation on the FRMP was integrated into the 
consultation on the RBMP.  

The  draft  Water  Catchment  Management  Plan  was  available  via  Internet.  While  other 

information activities were carried out for the Plan as a whole, it is not clear if these included 
the FRMP83.  

The  FRMP  itself84  and  Malta’s  reporting  sheets  refer  to  information  meetings  on  the 
application  of  Sustainable  Urban  Drainage  Systems  (SUDS):  these  were  organised  for  the 

83   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  flood  issues  were  discussed  and  measures  were  developed  with  the 

contribution of interested stakeholders, despite the specific context of floods in the case of Malta. 

84   Management Plan for Extreme Events, section 3.7. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
public  and  stakeholders  by 
E2STORMED. 

the  Local  Councils  Association  under  an  EU  project, 

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

Table 9 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet  

Via digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

Postal written comments 

MTMALTA 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

As  noted  above,  information  meetings  were  held  on  Sustainable  Urban  Drainage  Systems.  It 
can be noted that the main text of the Second Water Catchment Management Plan provides a 

description of several consultation meetings with stakeholders on the WFD aspects of the Plan; 
however, issues and measures for flood management are not mentioned in these pages85, 86. 

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

Table 10 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable 87 
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 

Source: FRMP 

MTMALTA 

✔ 

85   Second Water Catchment Management Plan, section 13, pp. 534-546. 
86   Malta  subsequently  added  that  the  consultation  process  was  further  supported  by  the  Local  Councils 
Association through the  E2STORMED project (Improvement of energy efficiency in the  water cycle  by the 
use  of  innovative  storm  water  management  in  smart  Mediterranean  cities).  In  these  consultation  meetings, 
issues and measures for flood management were discussed in the light of water scarcity and the promotion of 
natural water retention measures given that water scarcity and the lack of naturally available water resources is 
a more pertinent topic to stakeholders. 

87   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  the  first  FRMP,  together  with  the  second  RBMP  was  available  for 

downloading on the Agency’s website throughout the whole consultation process. 

35 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
As  noted  above,  a  web  page  was  created  to  provide  documents  and  information  for  the 
consultation  of  the  Second  Water  Catchment  Management  Plan.  Specific  information 
regarding the FRMP was not found at the time of the assessment.88  

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

The  table  below  shows  the  groups  of  stakeholders  that  have  been  actively  involved  in  and 
reported to WISE specifically for the development of the FRMP:89 

Table 11 

Groups of stakeholders  

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

Flood Warning / Defence Authorities  

MTMALTA 

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  

Navigation / ports  

Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) 

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

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

✔ 

88   Malta subsequently informed that the fully integrated first FRMP and second RBMP were made available for 
downloading as one plan from the Agency’s website throughout the public consultation process. Moreover, a 
separate document specifically focusing on the management of extreme events (which includes both drought 
and flood events) is also available for downloading from the Agency’s website. This is also in view of the high 
relevance  of  Water  Scarcity  and  Droughts  to  the  Maltese  context.  It  is  furthermore  noted  that  the 
administrative arrangements relevant to the second RBMP also apply to the FRMP. 

89   Malta  subsequently  informed  that  as  part  of  the  combined  WFD-FD-consultation  process,  the  groups  of 

stakeholders that were involved included: 

  Civil Protection Authorities such as Government department responsible for emergency planning and 

coordination of response actions (Civil Protection Department);  

  Flood Warning / Defence Authorities (Marine, Storm Water and Valley Management Unit within the 

Ministry for Transport, Infrastructure and Capital Projects); 
  Drainage Authorities (Environment and Resources Authority);  
  Water Supply and Sanitation (Water Services Corporation and the Superintendence of Public Health);  
  Agriculture / farmers (Agricultural Department within the Ministry for Sustainable Development, the 

Environment and Climate Change);  

  Energy / Hydropower (Energy Directorate within the Energy and Water Agency);  
  Navigation / ports (Transport Malta);  
  Local / Regional Authorities (Local Councils Association);  
  Academia / Research Institutions (University of Malta). 

36 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Source: FRMP 

As  noted  above,  meetings  were  held  on  SUDS  with  the  Local  Councils  Association.  The 
FRMP does not indicate the specific stakeholders involved, however.  

While  the  main  sections  of  the  Water  Catchment  Management  Plan  describe  detailed 

discussions  with  groups  of  stakeholders  on  key  aspects  of  the  RBMP,  issues  related  to  the 
FRMP are not mentioned among the topics addressed90 91.  

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

Table 12 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Workshops and technical meetings 

Formation of alliances  

Information days 

Source: FRMP 

MTMALTA 

✔ 

Though, as noted above, the main sections of the Water Catchment Management Plan describe 
the  involvement  of  stakeholders,  the  only  information  found  in  the  FRMP  and  Malta’s 

reporting sheets on involvement related to floods issues concerns the meetings on SUDS.  

90   Second Water Catchment Management Plan, section 13, pp. 534-546. 
91   Malta subsequently informed that flood management was included in the range of topics on which discussions 
with stakeholders were pursued. Discussions on flood related topics focused more on measures to improve the 
existing water storage infrastructure and the enabling of natural and artificial recharge. This enabled a broader 
integration of flood management measures in the second RBMP since most of the identified measures have a 
dual function – that of mitigating flood risk and also addressing water scarcity and drought through increasing 
water  storage  for  eventual  use  and  increasing  infiltration  to  groundwater.  For  example,  measures  related  to 
rainwater  harvesting  infrastructure  are  primarily  considered  in  terms  of  water  storage  and  its  use,  whilst 
SUDSs and NWRMs are considered in terms of increasing recharge to groundwater. Hence, consultation on 
flood  management  was  undertaken  within  a  context  of  Integrated  Water  Resource  Management  where  the 
multi-beneficial impact of measures was considered. In this regard, the main emphasis of stakeholders was on 
water scarcity mitigation, which is understandable, given that this is the main challenge of Malta. 

37 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.4 

Effects of consultation 

There  is  no  information  in  the  FRMP  or  the  reporting  sheets  on  the  effects  of  the 
consultation92. 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

Malta’s  reporting  under  the  WFD  indicated  that  no  SEA  procedure  was  carried  out  for  the 
Second Water Catchment Plan93.  

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practice was identified: 

  Malta organised stakeholder meetings for one of the measures to be carried out under the 

FRMP, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Public  consultation  is  only  briefly  described  in  the  Maltese  FRMP,  which  refers  to  the 
consultation for the Water Catchment Management Plan as a whole; although the overall 

consultation  for  the  Water  Catchment  Management  Plan  covered  floods,  the  detailed 
information  on  consultation  and  active  involvement  of  stakeholders  in  the  main 
document  only  refers  to  WFD  issues.  Consequently,  information  is  not  provided  on 

which groups were actually actively involved regarding floods measures, nor the effects 
of the consultation on the FRMP. 

92   Malta subsequently explained that during the public consultation exercise stakeholders were more interested in 
measures  alleviating  the  impact  of  water  scarcity.  Hence,  stakeholders  gave  more  attention  to  the  storage 
capacity  of  water  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  eventual  use  of  the  water  than  from  its  flood  mitigation 
function and similarly placed more emphasis on the recharge augmentation functions of SUDSs and NWRMs. 
As a result of the stakeholder consultation exercise it was decided to integrate the Drought Risk and the Flood 
Risk Management Plans. 

93   Malta subsequently informed that with regards to the SEA Directive, an SEA screening exercise on the second 
RBMP was undertaken in 2015. The results of this screening exercise confirmed that an SEA is not required 
because the second RBMP is unlikely to lead to additional significant environmental effects over and above 
those positive effects which were defined and assessed in the SEA which was carried out for the first RBMP. 
In addition, the main measures foreseen under the second RBMP were assessed under the SEA process carried 
out  for  the  Operational  Programme  for  Malta,  under  which  all  these  main  measures  are  identified.  Malta 
further  noted  that  the  above  conclusion  was  communicated  during  the  public  consultation  process,  and  is 
publicly available: https://era.org.mt/en/Documents/SEA_Screening_second_RBMP.pdf  

38 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

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

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

Background & method 

This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans 
(FRMPs). The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the 

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

States for each FRMP, and are split into the following sections: 

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

  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 

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

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

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

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

  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive)94, 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. 

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

39 

 
 
                                                 
  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 table95 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 

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

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

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1: Number of total measures by measure aspect ....................................................... 43 
Figure A2: Visualisation of Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect ..................... 45 
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by UoM ..................................... 45 

Table A1: Total number of measures ....................................................................................... 42 
Table A2:  Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM ................................ 42 
Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect .................................................................. 44 
Table A4: Category of priority by UoM .................................................................................. 45 

41 

 
 
 
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 

10 

10 

0 

0 

10 

10 

0 

10 

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

No action 

M11 

1 

Total 

1 

Prevention 

M24 

5 

Total 

5 

Preparedness 

M41 

2 

M44 

2 

Total 

Grand Total 

4 

10 

MTMALTA 

Grand Total 

5 
Notes: All measures are individual measures as Malta did not report any aggregated measures. Measure codes and aspects are described above.

10 

2 

1 

5 

2 

1 

4 

42 

 
 
 
 
The information in Table A2 is visualised in Figure A1 below: 

Figure A1: Number of total measures by measure aspect  

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

Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

Information on cost was not provided in the reporting sheets for any of the measures in Malta.  

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report information on the following: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

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

Location of measures 

Malta reported the same location (the entire RBD of Malta) for all measures i.e. the UoM. 

Geographic coverage 

43 

 
 
 
 
Malta reported the same geographic coverage (the entire RBD of Malta) for all measures i.e. 
national coverage. 

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 

Malta did not provide information about the objectives of the measures in the reporting sheets. 

Category of priority 

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

  Critical; 

  Very high; 

  High; 

  Moderate; 

  Low. 

Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect 

Critical 

High 

Moderate 

Grand Total 

No action 

Prevention 

Preparedness 

Grand Total 

1 

1 

3 

1 

4 

1 

5 

4 

10 

1 

2 

2 

5 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A2: Visualisation of Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect 

Preparedness

1 

Prevention

2 

No action

1 

3 

2 

1 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Critical

High Moderate

Table A4: Category of priority by UoM 

Critical 

High 

Moderate 

Grand Total 

MTMALTA 

Grand Total 

1 

1 

5 

5 

4 

4 

10 

10 

Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by UoM 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Timetable 

Malta did not report any information about the timetable of measures. 

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).  

Malta  reported  the  same  responsible  authority  for  all  measures,  i.e.  the  Energy  and  Water 

Agency (EWA), which is an authority at the national level.  

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. 

The Progress of implementation was reported as96:  

  COM (completed); 

  OGC (ongoing construction); 

  POG (progress ongoing); 

  NS (not started). 

Malta indicated the progress of all measures as ‘progress ongoing’ in the reporting sheet. 

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

Document on the Floods Directive: 

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

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

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

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

46 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
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 finalised. 

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

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

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

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

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

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

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

not been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

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

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

47 

 
 
 
 
 
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). 

Malta did not provide information for any of these fields in the reporting sheets. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures97 

No Action 

M11 

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

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). 

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

Preparedness 

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

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

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

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

M21 

M22 

M23 

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

M35 

M41 

M42 

M43 

M44 

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

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

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Recovery & Review 

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

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

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

Other 

Other 

M51 

M52 

M53 

M61 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) 

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

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

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

NWRM.  

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

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

Table B2 

List of NWRMs 

Agriculture 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

F02 Maintenance of forest 
cover in headwater areas 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

A03 Crop rotation 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable 
surfaces 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

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 

50 

 
 
 
 
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 

U07 Soakaways 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

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 

51