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

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

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

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

Good practices ....................................................................................................................... 12 

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

Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 14 

1. 

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

1.1  Reporting of the FRMP .............................................................................................. 15 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMP............................................................................................ 15 

2. 

Integration of previously reported information ............................................................... 17 

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment ................................ 17 

2.2 

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

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas ................................................... 19 

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk 
maps   .................................................................................................................................... 19 

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

3. 

Setting of Objectives ....................................................................................................... 21 

3.1 

Focus of objectives ..................................................................................................... 21 

3.2 

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

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ........................................... 22 

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

3.5 

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

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

4. 

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

4.1  Cost of measures ......................................................................................................... 23 

4.2 

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

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

4.4  Measures and objectives ............................................................................................. 27 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures ..................................................................... 28 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ........................................................................................... 28 

1 

 
4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ........................................... 29 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures .................................................................... 30 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ............................................................ 30 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ....................................................................................... 31 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding .................................................................. 32 

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

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive ................................................... 33 

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

5. 

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

5.1 

Specific measures planned to address climate change ............................................... 36 

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

6. 

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

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ..................................................... 38 

7.  Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation 
 ......................................................................................................................................... 39 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................. 39 

7.2 

Public information and consultation ........................................................................... 39 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders ........................................................................... 41 

7.4  Effects of consultation ................................................................................................ 41 

7.5 

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

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

Annex A: 

Supplementary tables and charts on measures .................................................... 43 

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

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

List of Annex A tables and figures........................................................................................ 45 

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

Measure details: cost ............................................................................................................. 48 

Measure details: name & location ......................................................................................... 48 

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

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

Measure details: progress ...................................................................................................... 54 

Measure details: other ........................................................................................................... 57 

2 

 
 
Annex B:  Definitions of measure types .............................................................................. 58 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) ................................................. 59 

3 

 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

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

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

4 

 
 
 
Introduction 

The  Floods  Directive  (FD)  (2007/60/EC)  requires  each  Member  State  (MS)  to  assess  its 
territory  for  significant  risk  from  flooding,  to  map  the  flood  extent,  identify  the  potential 
adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and 
economic activity in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this 
flood  risk.  By  the  end  of  2011,  Member  States  were  to  prepare  Preliminary  Flood  Risk 
Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of 
Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard & Risk Maps 
(FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were to prepare 
Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015.  

This  version of the report assesses the FRMP for  Lithuania1.  Its  structure follows a common 
assessment  template  used  for  all  Member  States.  The  report  draws  on  the  following  main 
sources:   

  Member  State  reporting  to  the  European  Commission  on  the  FRMP2  as  per  Articles  7 
and 15 of the FD: this reporting provides an overview of the plans and details on their 
measures. 

  Lithuania’s overarching FRMP: this document covers flood management in the country’s 

four Units of Management (UoMs): 

o  LT 1100 Nemunas 
o  LT2300 Venta 
o  LT3400 Lielupe 
o  LT4500 Dauguva 

  The  Water  Sector  Development  Programme  2017-2023  and  the  Action  Plan  of  Water 
Sector  Development  Programme  2017-2023:  in  Lithuania  the  FRMP  was  adopted  via 
these two legal acts. The assessment also included these two documents. 

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. 

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 

Lithuania  is  divided  into  four  Units  of  Management  (UoMs),  which  correspond  to  the  River 
Basin Districts (RBDs) under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Lithuania has produced 
a single FRMP to cover these four UoMs.  

The FRMP was not officially adopted in Lithuania. It is stated in the preamble of the FRMP 
that  it  is  a  supporting  document  for  two  legal  documents:  the  Water  Sector  Development 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Programme  2017-20233  and  the  Action  Plan  of  the  Water  Sector  Development  Programme 
2017-20234. These two legal acts contain information from the FRMP, though neither includes 
the FRMP as an annex or provides reference to the FRMP. 

Table  1  below  gives  an  overview  of  the  UoMs  in  Lithuania,  including  the  UoM  code,  the 
name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if the UoM reported all documents 
required  to  European  Environment  Agency’s  (EEA)  WISE5  –  the  FRMP  as  a  PDF  and  the 
reporting sheet as an XML.  

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Lithuania 

UoM 

LT1100 
LT2300 
LT3400 
LT4500 
TOTAL 

Names 

NEMUNAS 
VENTA 
LIELUPE 
DAUGUVA 

Number of 
APSFRs 
100 
11 
16 
2 
129 

XML Reported 

PDF Reported 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

At national level 

The  final  version  of  the  FRMP,  as  well  as  previous  versions,  can  be  downloaded  from  the 
following web page: 

 

http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=6d87deab-3ecc-412a-9b66-7fd6361f26ba 

3   Approved by the Government of Lithuania (Decree No. 88 of February 1, 2017). 
4   Approved  by  the  Minister  of  Environment  and  Minister  of  Agriculture  (Order  D1-375/3D-312  of  May  5, 

2017). 

5   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 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Overview of the assessment 

Table 2 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; 

  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 

Strong evidence 

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding 

No evidence 

...to non-structural initiatives  No evidence 

Lithuania has developed one FRMP covering 
all four UoM. Objectives are identical for all 
UoMs and have been coordinated at national 
level. In addition, objectives: 

are specific and measurable 

 
  have a quantitative target to achieve (e.g. 
no new buildings that are not flood proof 
shall be constructed in the medium 
probability flood zone) 

The FRMP identifies as the overall objective, 
the reduction of flood risk and of potential 
adverse consequences (the FRMP in addition 
sets 17 more specific objectives). 

Reduction in the likelihood of flooding is not 
specifically mentioned as part of the FRMP 
objectives. 

Non-structural initiatives are not specifically 
mentioned in the FRMP objectives. 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to... 

...human health 

Strong evidence 

The FRMP sets 10 objectives aiming to reduce 
flood risk to human health and the 

8 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...economic activity 

Strong evidence 

...environment 

Strong evidence 

...cultural heritage 

Strong evidence 

Measures have been... 

...identified 

Strong evidence 

...prioritised 

Strong evidence 

environment. Objectives are specific and 
measurable, with quantitative targets (e.g. no 
new buildings that are not flood proof shall be 
constructed in the medium probability flood 
zone). 

The FRMP sets five objectives aiming to 
reduce flood risk to economic activities. 

As above, the FRMP sets 10 objectives aiming 
to reduce flood risk to human health and the 
environment. 

The FRMP sets two objectives aiming to 
reduce flood risk to cultural heritage. 

Lithuania has reported measures under four 
aspects: Prevention (five measures for each 
UoM), Protection (two to six measures per 
UoM), Preparedness (five measures for each 
UoM), Recovery and review (one measure for 
each UoM). The number of measures per UoM 
ranges from 13 (LT4500 Dauguva) to 17 
(LT1100 Nemunas). 

The FRMP measures were assigned one of 
three priorities: very high, high or low priority. 
Priorities are set based on cost-benefit analysis 
(CBA). 

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

...costs & benefits 

Strong evidence 

...flood extent 

Strong evidence 

The selection and prioritisation of measures 
was based on Cost-Benefit Analysis. The 
FRMP provides description of costs and 
benefits for all groups of measures (e.g. 
preventive, preparation, recovery measures). 
The most detailed CBA was carried out for 
preventive (structural) measures. 

Flood extent and flood risk were the most 
important factors for identification and 
prioritisation of the measures. 

...flood conveyance 

Some evidence 

Lithuania has developed flood hazard and flood 
risk maps for all large and medium size rivers 

9 

 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...water retention 

Strong evidence 

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD 

Some evidence 

...spatial planning/land use 

Strong evidence 

...nature conservation 

Strong evidence 

of the country. These river segments are 
understood to be flood conveyance routes; 
however, flood conveyance is not explicitly 
stated in the FRMP. 

To increase natural water retention, the FRMP 
proposes a measure to plant new forests in 
specific sub-basins and drainage divide6 
between these sub-basins. This measure is 
implemented in sub-basins of two UoMs 
(LT2300 and LT1100). 

The WFD is briefly mentioned as contributing 
towards achievement of the flood management 
objectives, but no further information is 
provided whether environmental objectives of 
the WFD were explicitly considered. 

The FRMP emphasises the importance of the 
establishment of a flood zoning system. One of 
the FRMP’s measures foresees the drafting of 
provisions to regulate new construction in 
flood prone areas. 

Nature conservation issues were taken into 
account during the process of identification of 
protection measures. The location and type of 
dykes were selected considering environmental 
factors (migration of animals, protection of 
valuable vegetation and soil), and the 
incorporation of the dykes into natural 
landscape. Natural water retention measures 
(afforestation in selected sub basins and areas 
along the drainage divide), as well as Natura 
2000 territories were considered in the analysis 
of structural measures (protective dykes). 
Natura 2000 areas as well as national protected 
areas are presented in the interactive flood 
map. 

...navigation/port 
infrastructure 

No evidence 

Navigation/port infrastructure was not 
considered in the FRMP. 

6   A drainage divide is the line that separates neighbouring drainage (catchment) basins. 

10 

 
                                                
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...likely impact of climate 
change 

Some evidence 

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM 

Strong evidence 

Coordination ensured with 
WFD 

Some evidence 

It is briefly mentioned in the FRMP that 
measures were selected taking into account 
anticipated changes in climate and land use, but 
no further explanation is provided. A summary 
of climate change is reported in the reporting 
sheets: climate change scenarios are based on 
2021-2050 projections. The extent and 
magnitude of high probability floods (10% 
probability) is expected to decrease, however 
no significant changes are foreseen on the 
medium (1%) and low probability flood events 
(0.1%). Nonetheless, climate aspects are only 
briefly mentioned in the FRMP itself. 

Lithuania has exchanged information on 
preliminary flood risk assessment, flood hazard 
and flood risk maps and the FRMP with 
Latvian and Polish authorities. Methodological 
issues related to preliminary flood risk 
assessment, flood risk mapping and 
development of the FRMP were presented and 
discussed at meetings of the Lithuanian – 
Polish Transboundary Water Commission. 

Lithuania’s Environmental Protection Agency 
is the Competent Authority for implementation 
of both the Water Framework Directive and the 
Floods Directive and in principle coordinates 
planning and implementation of the two 
directives. The Flood Risk Management Plan 
and River Basin Management Plans were 
approved by the Government of Lithuania 
under the same official legislation: Water 
Sector Development Programme 2017-2023. 
However, it is not clear if this Programme 
effectively integrates the implementation of the 
plans. 

Active involvement of 
interested parties 

Some evidence 

Active involvement was weak, and mainly 
carried out via two public seminars. 

11 

 
 
Good practices 

The assessment identified the following good practices in the Lithuanian FRMP. 

Table 3 

Good practices in the Lithuanian FRMP 

Topic area 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMP. 

Good practices identified 

The FRMP integrates FHRMs and uses this information to identify 
measures and set priorities for the implementation. Furthermore, 
additional GIS information, created during development of the FRMP, 
is presented as additional layers on the Flood map enabling users to 
zoom to the area of interest and get information on inundation depth 
(flood hazard map), population affected, potential economic losses 
(flood risk map) and proposed measures. 

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk.  

Objectives are specific and measurable; some objectives have a 
quantitative target to achieve (e.g. no new buildings that are not flood 
proof shall be constructed in the medium probability flood zone).  

Objectives have been coordinated at national level among the UoMs. 

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

For protection measures (dykes and protection of roads) the FRMP 
provides detailed information on location, length of protective dykes in 
km and area protected in km2, population to be protected, envisaged 
flood damage reduction.  

A layer with detailed information on the planned measures is integrated 
in the national Flood map.  

Sustainable land-use practices, such as improvements in water 
retention, structural and non-structural approaches to reducing the 
likelihood and consequences of flooding, drafting legal provisions for 
the regulation of new construction in flood prone areas, revision of 
national legislation on flood damage compensation mechanisms, are 
included in the measures.  

Economic instruments for flood risk management, such as the 
promotion of insurance schemes, are included in the measures. 

CBA is used in the prioritisation of structural measures at national 
level, with an explanation of what is included in the calculation of 
costs.  

There is also a method to consider the multi-benefits of measures 
applied, i.e. benefits to objectives other than flood risk, e.g., 
environmental objectives, cultural heritage and public health. 

Use of CBA in the FRMP 
assessed.  

Areas for further development 

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

12 

 
 
Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Lithuanian FRMP 

Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Integration of previously 
reported information in 
the FRMPs. 

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

The interactive Flood map is not accessible via recent browsers as it 
uses outdated technology7. 

It is not clear how measures will contribute to the objectives, and by 
how much they would contribute. It is also not clear whether the 
objectives will be achieved when all measures are implemented. 

There are no indications if or how information on the progress of 
implementation will be provided. 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMP 
assessed.  

The FRMP does not provide a reference to the National Climate Change 
Adaptation Strategy. Climate change considerations are practically 
missing in the FRMP. 

Use of CBA in the FRMP 
assessed.  

Public participation.  

Flood risk governance.  

There is no mention of CBA in the FRMP. No CBA was carried out for 
non-structural measures; there was no consideration of CBA for 
transboundary effects. 

Efforts for public participation and stakeholder engagement were 
limited, focusing on only two public meetings. 
The Water Sector Development Programme 2017-20238 and the Action 
Plan of the Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023 did not 
undergo a public participation process.  

The FRMP was not officially adopted. It is stated in the preamble that 
the FRMP is a supporting document for the Water Sector Development 
Programme 2017-2023 and the Action Plan of the Water Sector 
Development Programme 2017-2023: The latter two documents are 
official legal acts. However, the FRMP is not annexed and not cited in 
the two legal acts. The Water Sector Development Programme 2017-
2023 contains only a small share of the provisions of the FRMP. 

The final FRMP is brief (it is one third the length of the version 
presented for public consultation) and does not include relevant 
technical information, such as on climate change or CBA. 

The SEA report of the FRMP is not available on the Lithuanian 
Environmental Protection Agency website dedicated to flood risk 
management.  

International issues in 
flood risk management.  

No information is provided whether coordination of the FRMP has been 
carried out with Lithuania’s third country neighbours: Belarus and 
Russia. 

7   The interactive Flood map requires installation of the Microsoft Silverlight plugin. Microsoft Silverlight is no 
longer supported in many web browsers: Not in Google Chrome since September 2015, and in Firefox since 
March 2017. There is no Silverlight plugin available for Microsoft Edge. 

8   Approved by the Government of Lithuania (Decree No. 88 of February 1, 2017). 

13 

 
 
                                                
Recommendations 

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

  The  full  FRMP  (including  annexes  with  all  relevant  technical  information)  should  be 
adopted or clearly referenced in legal documents such as the Water Sector Development 
Programme. 

 

It  will  be  important  to  ensure  that  FRMPs,  APSFRs,  and  FHRMs  are  continuously 
available to all concerned and the public in an accessible format, including digitally.   
  To be able to assess progress, the FRMP should clearly indicate how the measures will 

contribute to the objectives and by how much they would do so.  

  The second cycle FRMP should dedicate space to climate change issues and coordinate 

with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.  

  The  public  consultation  process  should  be  strengthened  and  greater  active  involvement 

of stakeholders ensured.  

 

Information  on  the  international  dimension  of  flood  risk  management  should  be 
strengthened in the FRMP. 

14 

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

assessment 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMP 

Lithuania  has  reported  one  FRMP  covering  the  four  UoMs  in  its  territory.  All  river  basin 
districts  and  UoMs  are  managed  at  national  level.  In  addition  to  the  PDF  of  the  FRMP,  two 
legal acts – the Water Sector Development Programme 2017-20239 and the Action Plan of the 
Water  Sector  Development  Programme  2017-202310  –  were  also  submitted.  Four  reporting 
sheets were submitted, although the summary text is the same for all. 

Lithuania  did  not  use  Art.  13.3  for  the  FRMP,  which  allows  Member  States  to  make  use  of 
previous flood risk management plans (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements 
set out in the Directive). 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMP 

This assessment reviewed three documents reported by Lithuania: 

  National FRMP (May 2017), which covers all four UoMs in Lithuania (see table below).  
  Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023.  
  Action Plan of the Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023. 

The national FRMP covers the following UoMs: 

Table 5 

UoMs in Lithuanian National FRMP 

UoM code 

LT1100 

LT2300 

LT3400 

LT4500 

UoM Name 

Nemunas 

Venta 

Lielupe 

Dauguva 

According to the EPA website dedicated to flood risk management11, the FRMP (version 1.5) 
was presented at public seminars in March 2015. The FRMP was then updated in July 2015 to 
take  into  consideration  the  recommendations  of  the  SEA  (version  1.6).  Based  on  the 
information on the EPA website, this should be regarded as the version of the FRMP after the 
public consultation. This version of the FRMP is 69 pages long. 

9   Approved by the Government of Lithuania (Decree No. 88 of February 1, 2017). 
10  Approved  by  the  Minister  of  Environment  and  Minister  of  Agriculture  (Order  D1-375/3D-312  of  May  5, 

2017). 

11  http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=6d87deab-3ecc-412a-9b66-7fd6361f26ba    

15 

 
 
                                                
The final version of the FRMP dated May 2017 was reduced to 21 pages with no explanation 
provided  for  the  reduction  in  pages.  This  final  version  of  the  FRMP  was  reported  to  the 
Commission and used in the assessment. Few provisions of this version were incorporated in 
the Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023 and the Action Plan of the Water Sector 
Development Programme 2017-2023. None of the legal acts include the FRMP as an annex or 
provide a reference to it. 

16 

 
 
 
2.  Integration of previously reported information  

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The PFRA conclusions  are presented in  the  FRMP in  the form of  a short textual description 
and small maps (differentiated by UoM)12. In the textual description, the FRMP provides a list 
of  river  segments  (54  rivers,  total  length  3  800  km)  and  coastlines  of  the  Baltic  Sea  and 
Curonian  Lagoon (255 km) that were identified as flood risk areas in  the PFRA. These river 
segments  cover  all  large  and  medium-sized  rivers  in  Lithuania13.  The  PFRA  does  not 
specifically refer to flood conveyance routes14.  

Flood  risk  areas  shared  with  other  Member  States  are  not  specifically  identified  in  the  plan, 
however  all  significant  transboundary  water  bodies  are  covered  by  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood 
Risk  maps.  Additional  information  on  preliminary  flood  risk  assessment  can  be  accessed  on 
the  web  page  of  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency  specifically  dedicated  to  flood  risk 
management15. The APSFR map is also available on the Lithuanian EPA webpage dedicated to 
flood  risk  management16,  although  the  FRMP  does  not  provide  specific  links  to  the  maps 
showing APSFR17.  

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

Information  on  the  preliminary  flood  risk  assessment  was  provided  to  Latvian  and  Polish 
competent  authorities.  Issues  related  to  the  preliminary  flood  risk  assessment  were  presented 
and discussed at the meetings of the Lithuanian – Polish Transboundary Water Commission18. 
The  FRMP  provides  no  information  whether  the  PFRA,  FHRM  or  FRMP  was  coordinated 
with  Belarus  or  Russia.  Lithuania  shares  with  Russia  lower  reach  of  Nemunas  River,  which 
accounts for the majority of historical floods in Lithuania. 

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

The  FRMP  provides  no  specific  information  on  which  ways  the  PFRA  was  used  for 
developing the flood hazard and flood risk maps19. 

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

The flood hazard and flood risk maps have been referenced in the FRMP. A description of the 
online,  interactive  flood  map  containing  FHRM  layers20,  illustrations  (screenshots)  and  a 

12  FRMP pp. 1, 14, Annex I 
13  FRMP p. 1 
14  http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=57ed5b04-d0bf-49b0-878b-28dc16ac8571   
15  http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=57ed5b04-d0bf-49b0-878b-28dc16ac8571  
16  http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=6d87deab-3ecc-412a-9b66-7fd6361f26ba   
17  FRMP p. 2 
18  FRMP pp. 14-15 
19  FRMP p. 1 

17 

 
                                                
description of flood risk and flood hazard maps are provided on the Lithuanian EPA webpage 
dedicated to flood risk management (and the maps can be accessed from this web page)21. The 
FRMP makes reference to this webpage22. 

This interactive map shows flood hazard and flood risk maps as separate layers, and includes 
fluvial  floods,  seawater  floods,  and  floods  from  artificial  water  bearing  structures  (e.g.  from 
reservoirs and impoundments, drainage systems), and shows the combined effects of more than 
one source of flooding shown. 

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

Rivers of the transboundary UoMs LT2300 Venta and LT3400 Lielupe originate in Lithuania 
and discharge to  Latvia. Flood hazard and flood risk maps were produced for the Lithuanian 
sections of all significant transboundary water bodies shared with Latvia (where river sections 
cover the border area, maps were prepared only  for the Lithuanian side). These water bodies 
were  identified  as  flood  risk  areas  in  the  PFRA.  Lithuania  also  shares  few  small  rivers  with 
Poland (UoM 1100 Nemunas): these rivers originate in Poland and flow to Lithuania. Due to 
their small size, transboundary Lithuanian-Polish rivers were not identified as being linked to 
flood  risk  areas.  Flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  maps  have  also  been  produced  for  large  and 
medium size transboundary rivers shared with the Russian Federation and Belarus.  

Information  on  flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  mapping  was  provided  to  Latvian  and  Polish 
competent  authorities,  and  issues  related  to  flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  mapping  were 
presented  and  discussed  at  the  meetings  of  the  Lithuanian  –  Polish  Transboundary  Water 
Commission23.  As  noted  above,  the  FRMP  provides  no  information  whether  there  was 
coordination with Belarus or Russia. 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

Flood hazard and risk maps (FHRMs) have been used to develop the FRMP:  

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

economic activities, assets)  

  The FHRMs have been used as a tool in the public participation process  
  Specific objectives on flood risk reduction have been defined based on the FHRM 
  Measure and locations have been defined based on the FHRM  

20  http://potvyniai.aplinka.lt however, it should be noted that this requires a website plugin, which is not always 

supported by updated browsers.  

21  http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=6d87deab-3ecc-412a-9b66-7fd6361f26ba  
22  FRMP p. 2 
23  FRMP pp. 1-3, p. 14, Annex 1 

18 

 
                                                                                                                                                    
The  FRMP  states  that  the  FHRMs  were  extensively  used  by  the  competent  authority  in  its 
development24.  In the FRMP, objectives and measures are set depending on the probability of 
a flood event. Flood risk maps were used to identify areas needing structural flood protection 
measures.  

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

Any changes in the identification of Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk or other Flood 
Risk  Areas  since  December  2011  should  be  reflected  in  the  FRMP.  However,  the  FRMP 
provides no information about such changes to the APSFRs or to the FHRMs since December 
2013. 

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

The following areas for further development were found in the 2014 assessment of Lithuania’s 
flood hazard and risk maps:  

(Water  Framework  Directive).  Lithuania  did  not 

  According  to  Article  6(5)(c)  of  the  Floods  Directive,  Member  States  should  report 
potentially  affected  protected  areas  identified  in  Annex  IV  (i)  (iii)  and  (v)  to  Directive 
2000/60/EC 
report  adverse 
consequences on the environment in the mapping of the risk from low probability floods.  
  According  to  Art  6(1),  Member  States  should  prepare  FHRMs  for  the  area  identified 
under  Art  5(1)  (APSFRs  Areas  Potential  Significant  Flood  Risk).  In  the  case  of 
Lithuania, it was difficult to check if all the APSFRs have been mapped.  

Information  in  these  two  areas  can  now  be  found  on  the  FHRMs  and  the  interactive  map 
viewer. 

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

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  FRMP  integrates  flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  maps  and  uses  this  information  to 

identify measures and set priorities for the implementation.  

  GIS  information  created  during  development  of  the  FRMP  is  presented  as  additional 
layers  on  the  Flood  map  enabling  users  to  zoom  to  the  area  of  interest  and  get 
information  on  key  details  such  as:  inundation  depth  (flood  hazard  map),  population 
affected, potential economic losses (flood risk map) and proposed measures. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

24  FRMP p. 4, 5, 7, 9. 

19 

 
                                                
  The FRMP provides no information on whether there was coordination with Belarus or 

Russia. 

20 

 
 
 
3.  Setting of Objectives 

3.1  Focus of objectives 

The  FRMP  sets  common  objectives  for  all  four  UoMs.  The  FRMP  identifies  as  the  overall 
goal,  the  reduction  of  flood  risk  and  of  potential  adverse  consequences.  The  FRMP  sets  17 
detailed objectives which are organised in three categories:  

1. Reduce flood risk to human health and the environment (10 objectives)  
2. Reduce flood risk to economic activities (five objectives) and  
3. Reduce flood risk to cultural heritage (two objectives).  

The  objectives  provided  in  the  FRMP  are  regarded  as  a  road  map,  and  specific  details  on 
“what”,  “where”,  “how”  and  “when”  are  provided  for  individual  measures.  All  the  FRMP 
objectives apply equally across all four UoMs.  

In terms of the categories set out in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods  
  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented  

The objectives in the FRMP do not include an aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding25, nor 
do they refer to non-structural measures26. 

3.2  Specific and measurable objectives 

In Lithuania, all 17 objectives are specific and many are measurable, and 12 objectives have a 
clear and quantitative target to achieve. The objectives, however, are not time bound: it is not 
clear when they are to be achieved and they do not relate to the FRMP cycle. Moreover, the 
objectives are not linked to measures (see section 4.4), and consequently it is not clear how the 
objectives will be achieved. 

Examples of measurable objectives are provided below: 

  Objective 10:  No new buildings for human habitation shall  be built  in  high probability 

flood zone (10% probability).  

  Objective  12:  No  new  buildings  that  are  not  flood  proof  shall  be  built  in  the  medium 

probability flood zone (1% probability). 

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

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

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

as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

21 

 
                                                
3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

In Lithuania’s FRMP, objectives specify the reduction of adverse consequences of floods on: 

  Human health and environment; 
  Economic activity; 
  Cultural heritage. 

The following examples demonstrate this:  

  Objective 3: No new significant pollution sources that may be hazardous to environment 
and public health shall be established in low probability flood zone (0.1% probability).  
  Objective  14:  Diversion  routes  are  prepared  for  major  roads  located  in  the  medium 

probability flood zone (1% probability).  

  Objective  16:  Increase  level  of  protection  for  cultural  heritage  units  located  in  flood 

hazard areas. 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding  

The objectives do not specifically address reducing the likelihood of flooding. 

3.5  Process for setting the objectives  

Lithuania has developed one national-scale FRMP covering all four UoMs. This has ensured 
that  the  objectives  have  been  coordinated  on  a  national  level  across  UoMs27.  As  public 
participation and stakeholder involvement were weak (see section 7), it appears that significant 
stakeholder  input  was  not  provided  for  the  objectives.  The  FRMP  does  not  specify  whether 
anticipated changes in climate were considered for setting the objectives (and little information 
is provided on climate change – see section 5).   

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Objectives are specific and measurable.  
  Some objectives have a quantitative target to achieve (e.g. no new buildings that are not 

flood proof shall be constructed in the medium probability flood zone)  

  Objectives have been coordinated at national level across the UoMs. 

27  List  of  comments  to  one  of  earlier  versions  of  the  FRMP  (not  reported, but  available  on  the  website  of  the 

EPA) indicates coordination with municipalities and relevant ministries. 

22 

 
 
                                                
4.  Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Lithuania has reported a total of 61 aggregated28 measures (and no individual measures)29. The 
number of measures per UoM ranges from 13 (LT4500 Dauguva) to 17 (LT1100 Nemunas)30.  

Lithuania has reported measures under the four main aspects of flood management:  

  Prevention and Preparedness (five measures for each aspect per UoM)  
  Protection (2-6 measures per UoM)  
  Recovery and review (one measure for each UoM)31.  

The most numerous type of measures – two to five measures per UoM, between 15% and 29% 
- are Measure Type 3432 for Protection.  

See Tables A2 and A3 and Figures A1 and A2 in Annex A for further information. 

It can be noted that the FRMP refers on several occasions to ‘ongoing’ measures. These have 
not been reported, and in general the FRMP provides relatively little information on them, as it 
focuses on new measures.  

4.1  Cost of measures 

Table 6 

Overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMP 

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

Costs for four measures across all 
four UoMs 

Source: Reporting sheets and FRMP 

60.7 m 

Lithuania provided information on the costs of three protection and one preparedness measures 
(7%  of  the  61  measures  reported).  In  addition,  Lithuania  reported  the  cost  of  six  measures 

28   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. 

29  No  information  was  found  in  the  FRMP  concerning  how  Lithuania  defined  aggregated  and  individual 

measures.  

30  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. 

31  See  Annex  B  for  the  list  of  all  measure  aspects  and  measure  types.  Lithuania  did  not  report  any  measures 

under the fifth aspect, “other”.  

32   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). 

23 

 
 
                                                
(10% of the total measures) as zero. For the measures with zero costs reported, an explanatory 
note  is  provided  that  costs  for  the  entire  Lithuanian  territory  are  reported  under  the  UoM 
LT1100 (it is believed that these costs were aggregated at national level and reported as zero to 
avoid double counting). 

The reported costs are investment costs (no operating expenses reported).  

The  majority  of  the  reported  costs  (€60.7  m)  are  provided  for  the  implementation  of  three 
protection measures (all three categorised as M34), as follows:  

  €26 970 700 (M34) – preliminary investment costs for flood protection measures for 20 

urbanised areas (in UoMs LT1100, LT2300 and LT3400)  

  €32 444 300 (M34) – preliminary investment costs for flood protection measures for 35 

urbanised areas (in UoMs LT1100 and LT3400)  

  €1 239 400 (M34) – preliminary investment costs for flood protection measures for four 

urban wastewater treatment plants (in UoM LT1100)  

Protection  measures  are  mostly  engineering  measures  and,  according  to  the  reported 
information33,  CBA  includes  investment,  operational  and  maintenance  costs,  and  land 
acquisition costs. However, LT has reported only investment costs. 

Costs  are  also  provided  for  one  preparedness  measure  under  type  M4334:  €49800  for 
preliminary costs for measures to increase publicity of flood hazard and risk maps, preparation 
of  flyers,  posters,  video,  public  information  (across  all  the  national  territory:  UoMs  LT1100, 
LT2300, LT3400, LT4500). 

The costs of prevention measures (Lithuania has reported 20) are considered to be covered by 
the existing budgets of state institutions responsible for the flood management policy, and no 
costs are reported for these measures35.  

4.2 

Funding of measures 

The FRMP briefly mentions that the programme of measures will be implemented using state 
budget,  municipal  allocations,  EU  funds  and  other  sources.  In  addition  to  the  FRMP, 
Lithuania’s  Water  Sector  Development  Programme  2017-202336  and  its  Action  plan  specify 

33  Reporting sheets “Summary of Cost/Benefit” 
34  Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public awareness or 

preparedness for flood events. 

35  Reporting sheets, Measure details: costs. 
36  The  Water  Sector  Development  Programme  2017-2023  was  adopted  by  the  Governmental  Resolution  in 

February 2017. It includes a summary of the FRMP.  

24 

 
                                                
that engineering measures (e.g. the construction of embankments) will be funded from the EU 
Cohesion fund37. 

Table 7 

Funding of measures 

Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding 

Use of public budget (national level) 

Use of public budget (regional level) 

Use of public budget (local level) 

Private investment 

EU funds (generic) 

EU Structural funds 

EU Solidarity Fund 

EU Cohesion funds 

EU CAP funds 

International funds 

Other 

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

The FRMP includes a clear and explicit presentation of most of the measures with regard to:  

  What they are trying to achieve, 
  Where they are to be achieved, 
  How they are to be achieved, and 
  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

Specific  details  for  some  of  the  measures  are  provided  in  the  Water  Sector  Development 
Programme 2017-2023:  

  For engineering measures, details include: location, description, area to be protected (in 
ha),  number  of  inhabitants  to  be  protected,  costs of  the  measures  and  anticipated  flood 
damage reduction.  

  For  road  segments  where  flood  risk  reduction  measures  involve  their  reconstruction, 
details include: municipality, road number, road category, length of the road segment and 
preliminary costs  

  For road segments that are impassable in the event of flood and where diversion routes 
are planned, details include: municipality, road number, road category, length of the road 
segment flooded during the medium probability flood event.  

37  FRMP p. 37 Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023, Action plan, pp. 24-28. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Descriptions for other measures are not specific. The Water Sector Development Programme 
2017-2023 provides a time line and specifies the authorities responsible for implementation for 
all the measures.  

Table 8 

Location of measures  

International 

National 

RBD/UoM 

Sub-basin 

APSFR or other specific risk area 

Water body level 

Other 

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023 (official legislation), EPA website 
dedicated to Flood Management. 

Engineering  measures  (flood  protection  by  dykes)  and  measures  related  to  transportation  are 
specific  to  an  exact  location  (UoM,  name  of  municipality,  location  name).  Also,  preliminary 
locations of the embankments and territories to be protected from flooding and a description of 
the measures is provided as a layer in the interactive Flood map38. 

38  Water  Sector  Development  Programme  2017-2023  (official  legislation),  EPA  website  dedicated  to  Flood 

Management. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Figure 2 

Screenshot  of  the  interactive  FHRM  with  description  of  proposed  structural 
measures  (flood  protection  dykes)  and  territory  protected  by  the  measure 

(marked in hatching) 

Source: Description of the FMHM on the Environmental Protection Agency’s website 
http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=6d87deab-3ecc-412a-9b66-7fd6361f26ba (interactive map 
is not accessible) 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

It  is  not  clear  in  the  FRMP  or  the  reporting  sheets  how  measures  will  contribute  to  the 
achievement of objectives, and by how much they will contribute. It is not clear whether the 
objectives will be achieved when all measures are completed.  

The  Water  Sector  Development  Programme  2017-2023  defines  four  flood  related  criteria 
(indicators) for the assessment of the implementation of the Programme:  

Inhabitants (%) protected from potential floods (1% occurrence probability) 

 
  Additional area protected from floods in hectares 
  Number of municipal plans for extreme situation management that are revised taking into 

account flood risk and flood hazard maps 

  Number of potentially hazardous installations that may cause pollution during the floods 

No indicators for monitoring of objectives and measures are provided in the FRMP. 

27 

 
 
In  general,  however,  the  FRMP  includes  information  on  the  measures  which  refers  to  their 
location (it can be the whole national territory or other more detailed locations), the time frame 
for implementation, the budget, and the responsible authority. The descriptions of the measures 
remain  rather  brief,  for  example:  “Carry  out  public  information  in  particular  local 
communities”;  or  “Provide  information  to  Hydro-meteorological  Survey  on  ice  jams  and 
inundated areas”.  

In the Water Sector Development Programme 2017-202339, flood risk management measures 
are  presented  in  a  standard  template  table  with  key  information  such  as  the  responsible 
institution,  period  of  implementation  (start,  end),  and  budget.  However,  the  Water  Sector 
Development  Programme  2017-2023  provides  details  only  for  protection  measures,  which 
cover two main types of activities:  

1. Engineering measures, such as flood protection by dykes  

2. Road segments where flood protection measures are needed.  

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

In the reporting sheets, Lithuania indicated: 

the location of all measures as the respective UoM  

 
  all measures as aggregated 
  geographic  coverage  of  55  measures  as  ‘national’.  No  information  on  geographic 

coverage is provided for six Protection measures (flood protection by dykes). 

The specific location of the Protection measures (flood protection by dykes) and transportation 
related measures are provided in  the Water Sector Development  Programme 2017-2023. The 
proposed location of the embankments, territories to be protected, descriptions of the measures 
including  draft  drawings  are  provided  as  a  layer  in  the  interactive  Flood  map  (as  shown  in 
Figure 2). 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

Lithuania has reported its measures as being of very high, high or low priority (consequently, 
no measures are of critical or moderate priority). Nearly all measures – 53 out of 61 (87%) are 
categorised as being of very high priority, with only three as high priority (5%) and five as low 
priority (8%). (See Tables A4 and A5 and Figures 3 and 4 in Annex A for further details.) 

All Prevention, Preparedness and Recovery & Review measures are categorised as very high 
priority.  Protection  measures  are  distributed  among  very  high  (nine  out  of  17  Protection 
measures, 53%), high (three measures, 18%) and low priority (five measures, 29%).  

39  Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023 (official legislation) Annexes 2, 3 and 4. 

28 

 
                                                
The four UoMs in  Lithuania have a similar number of high priority measures: 14 in  LT1100 
Nemunas, and 13 each in the other three UoMs. 

According to the information reported40, the selection and prioritisation of measures was based 
on cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and multicriteria analysis. Costs and benefits were assessed 
for all measures. The most detailed CBA was  carried out  for structural  Prevention measures. 
Multicriteria  analysis,  used  to  prioritise  the  measures,  included  two  variables  with  equal 
weight: 1) ratio of annual costs and annual benefits and 2) effect on public health (number of 
inhabitants likely to be protected), environment (number of IPPC41 installations protected) and 
cultural heritage (number of cultural heritage sites)42. 

The  timetable  for  the  implementation  of  the  measures  is  provided  in  the  Water  Sector 
Development Programme 2017-2023 and specifies the start and the end year: 

  Four measures of the 61 (7%) were to be started in 2017 and completed in 2018; 
  16 of the 61 measures (26%) will be started and completed in 2018; 
  12 measures (20%) were to be started in 2017 and completed in 2019; 
  One measure will be started and completed in 2019; 
  Four measures were to be started in 2017 and completed in 2021; 
  20 measures (33%) were to be started in 2017 and completed in 2023; 
  Four measures were to be started in 2017 and completed in 2023. 

There  does  not  seem  to  be  a  clear  relationship  between  the  timetable  and  the  priorities.  All 
prevention  measures  are  scheduled  early  in  the  Programme  implementation  (for  2019  or 
earlier), while the implementation period planned for most of protection measures is longer, up 
to 2023. There are no significant differences in timetable among the UoMs. All measures are 
reported as aggregated and with ‘national’ geographic coverage43. 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

Authorities responsible for the implementation of the measures can be grouped in three levels 
of responsibility:  

1.  National – covering national ministries / agencies, services and departments subordinated 

to the ministries,  

2.  Municipal  
3.  Shared – covering both National and Municipal authorities.  

40  Reporting sheet, section Summary of Cost/Benefit 
41  Installations regulated under the former Directive on integrated pollution prevention and control, incorporated 

in Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions.  

42  Reporting sheet section Summary of Cost/Benefit, FRMP pp. 8-10. 
43  Reporting sheets “Measure details: name & location” 

29 

 
                                                
Lithuania  reports  that  national  authorities  are  responsible  for  the  implementation  of  28 
measures  out  of  61  (46%),  and  municipalities  responsible  for  10  measures  (16%). 
Responsibilities are shared between national and municipal authorities for 23 measures (38%). 
Prevention, protection and preparedness measures fall into all three of these categories; review 
and recovery measures, however, are only a responsibility of national authorities. (See Tables 
A8 and A9 and Figures A7 and A8 in Annex A for further information.) 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

For the majority of the measures (50 out of 61, 82%) Lithuania has reported the progress as not 
started. Progress ongoing is reported for remaining 11 measures (18%). “Not started” progress 
was reported for all four recovery and review measures and approximately 80% of measures 
for  other  types  (preparedness,  protection  and  prevention).  (See  Tables  A10  and  A11  and 
Figures A9 and A10 in Annex A for further information.) 

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. Lithuania reported this information in the FRMP. However, only brief 
information is provided on ongoing measures that help to achieve objectives of the FRMP44: 

  Following  the  requirements  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (2000/60/EC),  River 
Basin District Management Plans are developed that aim to ensure good status of water 
bodies. 

  Following the requirements of the EIA Directive (85/337/EEC is cited45), environmental 

impact assessment is carried out. 

  Following  the  requirements  of  the  SEA  Directive  (2001/42/EC),  assessment  of 
consequences  to  the  environment  is  carried  out  before  the  adoption  of  plans  and 
programmes. 

  Following  the  requirements  of  Seveso  Directive  (95/82/EC  is  cited46),  plans  and 
prevention measures are developed for large accidents involving dangerous substances. 

No  information  was  found,  however,  on  the  specific  measures  taken  under  these  Directives, 
nor how they support flood risk management. 

Although  the  FRMP  does  not  refer  to  the  EU  Civil  Protection  Mechanisms,  the  following 
ongoing civil protection measures are listed in the FRMP Annex 3 (these ongoing measures are 
not included in the measures Lithuania has reported)47:  

44  FRMP p. 21 
45  The consolidated version is 2011/92/EU 
46  The FRMP does not cite the more recent Seveso III Directive, 2012/18/EU. 
47  Lithuania has not reported ongoing measures in the reporting sheets. 

30 

 
                                                
1.  Population alert and information system  
2.  Engineering flood protection measures (dykes, polders)  
3.  Flood forecasting  
4.  Measures to ensure safety of the hydrotechnical installations, such as dams, (inspection, 

removal of defects and deformations, organisation of repairs and reconstruction). 

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

Spatial  planning/land  use  measures  have  been  included  in  the  FRMP.  The  FRMP 
emphasises  the  importance  of  prevention  measures,  in  particular  flood  zoning  system.  One 
measure  (reported  under  M2148)  foresees  drafting  provisions  on  the  regulation  of  new 
construction in flood prone areas to be incorporated in the Law on Special Conditions on Use 
of Land and Forest. 

When  considering  the  current  framework  of  halting  or  controlling  buildings/development  in 
floodplains, it must be noted that up to now Lithuania has not had a clear policy on zoning in 
flood-prone areas and very limited regulation of development in these areas. This is recognised 
as an area for further development in the FRMP. A new Law on Special Conditions on Use of 
Land and Forest is under preparation. One of the FRMP preventive measures foresees drafting 
of provisions on regulation of new construction in flood prone areas to be incorporated in the 
Law. No details on the focus of the new regulation is yet available, although information in the 
FRMP  and  the  Water  Sector  Development  Programme  2017-2023  indicates  that  the  new 
regulation  should focus  on both  limiting development in  flood prone areas and  ensuring that 
such development is flood resilient49. 

Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in the FRMP.  The FRMP 
proposes a measure to plant new forests in specific sub-basins of two UoMs and the drainage 
divides of these sub-basins (LT2300 – Lielupe small tributaries sub-basin, LT1100 – Nevezis 
and Sesupe sub-basins). 

Nature  conservation  issues.  The  FRMP  measures  do  not  specifically  consider  nature 
conservation.  Nature  conservation  issues  were  taken  into  consideration  during  the  process  of 
selection of protection measures. The location and type of protective dykes was selected taking 
into account environmental requirements (taking into account location of the Natura 2000 sites, 
addressing the needs of animal migration and protection of valuable vegetation and soil) and 

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

such as land use planning policies or regulation. 

49   Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023 (official legislation), p. 24. The FRMP p. 6 provides a half 
page  description  on  the  needs  of  flood  zoning  system  and  additional  requirements  for  construction  of  flood 
resilient buildings. 

31 

 
                                                
paying  attention  at  incorporation  of  the  dykes  to  natural  landscape50.  No  specific  measures 
involving nature protection are included in the FRMP, however.  

The FRMP measures do not consider navigation and port infrastructure, nor the dredging of 
rivers to increase the river channel capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation 
purposes.   

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The  role  of  insurance  policies  is  discussed  in  the  FRMP,  with  regard  to  the  recovery  from 
flooding, preparedness/resilience to flood, although currently Lithuania has no flood insurance 
policy51. The FRMP recognises that the conditions of flood insurance available on the market 
do not allow all inhabitants and companies to benefit from insurance for buildings located in 
flood  prone  areas.  The  FRMP  states  that  a  proposal  for  the  improvement  of  flood  insurance 
policy  is  needed,  and  it  provides  general  principles:  flood  insurance  should  be  widely 
available, costs of insurance should reflect the flood resilience of the buildings protected, the 
insurance  model  should  encourage  people  to  buy  insurance,  and  where  possible  and  feasible 
the  insurance  model  should  encourage  investments  in  flood  risk  reduction  including 
improvement in flood resilience. The FRMP includes a measure to revise national legislation 
on flood damage compensation mechanisms52. 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

The FRMP provides two dates for monitoring progress of the implementation of measures: the 
end of 2018 and the end of 2021. The FRMP provides no further information on monitoring. 
Notably,  monitoring  provisions  do  not  indicate:  indicators  for  assessment  whether  measures 
have  been  implemented;  a  baseline  against  which  progress  will  be  monitored  and  assessed; 
arrangements  for  reporting  progress  at  each  level;  or  the  organisations  identified  as  being 
responsible for overseeing progress monitoring53. 

Three indicators have been identified (set in the Water Sector Development programme 2017-
2023) for monitoring progress in achieving flood risk management objectives:  

1.  Percent of inhabitants protected from potential 1% probability floods (0% in 2015, 17% 

in 2021 and 19% in 2023). 

2.  Area of additional territory protected from floods, ha (0 ha in 2015, 309 ha in 2021 and 

309 ha in 2023). 

50   FRMP p. 8. 
51  Consequently, the FRMP provides no information on environmental liability insurance related to flooding for 
potentially polluting sites and installations, nor does it provide information on estimating restoration costs in 
cases where potentially polluting sites and installations may be flooded. 

52  The FRMP p. 13 provides two paragraphs on the need of flood insurance policy and main principles for such a 

policy. It is not possible to elaborate on "voluntary flood insurance". 

53  FRMP p. 15. Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023 Action Plan (official legislation) pp. 24-28. 

32 

 
                                                
3.  Potentially hazardous facilities that may cause pollution in case of flooding (six in 2015, 

0 in 2021 and 0 in 2023). 

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 9 

Coordination  of  the  development  of  the  FRMP  with  the  development  of  the 
second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD  

Integration of FRMP and RBMP in a single plan 

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 included win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of 
the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and NWRMs a 

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

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

n/a 

n/a 

Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included  

✔ 

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

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

The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and 
porous pavements, have been considered to reduce urban flooding and also to 
contribute to the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives  

Notes: a Lithuania had not yet reported under the WFD at the time of this assessment. 

✔ 

The Lithuanian Environmental Protection Agency is appointed as the Competent Authority to 
implement  both  the  Water  Framework  Directive  and  the  Floods  Directive  and  aims  to 
coordinate the planning and implementation of the two Directives. The same department in the 
Lithuanian  EPA  was  responsible  for  the  development  of  the  RBMPs  and  the  FRMP:  this  is 
expected to strengthen coordination between the plans, the FRMP does not address this point. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measures from the Flood Risk Management Plan and the River Basin Management Plans were 
integrated into the Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023. The Programme “aims 
to  provide  systematic  approach  to  water  protection  issues  and  ensure  more  effective  use  of 
available  resources”54,  thus  implementation  of  the  FD  and  WFD  measures  is  regarded  as 
coordinated55. However, the Programme includes only limited text from each plan. Moreover, 
the FRMP provided no specific references to any measures that are common with the WFD.  

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  For  the  Protection  measures  (flood  protection  by  dykes  and  transportation)  the  FRMP 
provides detailed information on location, length of protective dykes and area protected, 
population to be protected, envisaged flood damage reduction.  

  A layer with detailed information on the planned measures is integrated in the national 

Flood map.  

  The  FRMP’s  measures  include  promotion  of  sustainable  land-use  practices,  such  as 
improvements  in  water  retention,  structural  and  non-structural  approaches  to  reducing 
the  likelihood  and  consequences  of  flooding,  drafting  legal  provisions  on  regulation  of 
new construction in flood prone areas, revision of national legislation on flood damage 
compensation mechanisms.  

  The  FRMP’s  measures  promote  economic  instruments  for  flood  risk  management, 

specifically actions to develop insurance. 

The following areas for further development were identified:  

 

It  is  not  clear  how  measures  will  contribute  to  the  objectives,  and  by  how  much  they 
contribute. It is also not clear whether the objectives will be achieved when all measures 
are implemented.  

  While  the  Lithuania’s  FRMP  and  RBMP  have  been  integrated  into  a  single  legal 
document,  the  Water  Sector  Development  Programme  2017-2023,  this  document 
contains only limited information from each plan. It is not clear to what extent the two 
plans are effectively integrated in terms of implementation.  

54  Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023. 
55  Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023. 

34 

 
 
 
                                                
5.  Consideration of climate change 

It  is  briefly  mentioned  in  the  FRMP  that  measures  were  selected  taking  into  consideration 
anticipated  changes  in  climate  and  land  use,  with  no  further  explanation.  Separately, 
Lithuania’s reporting sheets provide a summary on climate change56, including an overview of 
potential effects on future floods.  

Although  not  specifically  mentioned  in  the  context  of  climate  change,  the  FRMP  identifies 
several  ongoing  measures  that  are  currently  undertaken  and  in  part  address  climate  change, 
such as flood forecasting, public warning and an information system. The FRMP also identifies 
new measures that are intended to help address climate change effects. These include measures 
on public awareness raising, publicity of flood hazard and flood risk maps, and publications in 
media and internet portals are foreseen57.  

The National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy is not mentioned in the FRMP58. According 
to  Lithuania’s  reporting  sheets59,  climate  change  scenarios  are  based  on  2021-2050 
projections60. The reporting sheets refer to the A1B and B1 greenhouse gas emission scenarios 
of the IPCC61 and the use of the COSMO Climate Limited-area Model62 for the climate change 
projections.  Climate  change  modelling  results  for  2021-2050  show  temperature  increases 
during the cold season.  It is expected that precipitation will increase all over the country. As 
winters  will  become  warmer,  winters  with  thin  and  unsteady  snow  cover  will  become  more 
frequent,  less  water  will  accumulate  in  snow  cover  and  the  magnitude  of  spring  floods  is 
projected to decrease as compared to last half century. A slight increase in river discharge at 
the end of winter and beginning of spring may be expected in  western  Lithuania. The extent 
and magnitude of high probability floods (10% probability) is expected to decrease, however 
no  significant  changes  are  foreseen  for  the  medium  (1%)  and  low  probability  flood  events 
(0.1%).  It  is  not  anticipated  that  the  main  source  of  flooding  will  change  due  to  the  climate 
change63. 

56  Reporting sheets, section Summary of the Climate Change 
57  Annex 3 of the FRMP 
58  FRMP  and  reporting  sheets.  The  national  adaptation  strategy  is  part  of  the  National  Strategy  for  Climate 

Change Management Policy 2013-2050. See: http://www.am.lt/VI/index.php#a/12869.   

59  Reporting sheets, section Summary of the Climate Change. This information is not provided in FRMP. 
60  Reporting sheets, section Summary of the Climate Change. 
61  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change.  The  A1b  scenario  projects  a  world  of  rapid  economic  growth 
and  a  balance  between  fossil  and  non-fossil  energy  sources;  the  B1  scenario  foresees  a  world  in  which 
economic structures shift to services and the information economy, reductions in materials intensity and clean 
technologies. 
See: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=154   

62  https://www.clm-community.eu/   
63  Reporting sheets, section Summary of the Climate Change. 

35 

 
                                                
 
5.1 

Specific measures planned to address climate change 

Although  the  FRMP  notes  that  several  measures  address  climate  change  in  part,  it  does  not 
provide  information  on  measures  specifically  planned  to  address  expected  effects  of  climate 
change.  

The  FRMP  provides  a  description  of  four  non-structural  measures  that  are  currently 
implemented  in  Lithuania  and  that  could  potentially  be  considered  as  no-regret  measures: 
afforestation,  restoration  of  hydrological  regime  of  wetlands,  agri-environmental  measures 
(such  as  extensive  management  of  wetlands,  erosion  protection  measures,  tree  strips  in 
agricultural  fields)  and  the  establishment  of  ponds  for  collection  of  surface  water  runoff  in 
urban  territories.  A  new  measure  is  planned  on  afforestation  of  public  land  in  specific  sub-
basins64.  These  measures  can  be  considered  as  no-regret  measures  in  the  context  of  climate 
change. 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate 

change 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The  FRMP  does  not  provide  reference  to  the  National  Climate  Change  Adaptation 

Strategy and, more generally, climate change aspects are missing in the FRMP.  

64  FRMP p. 10, Action plan on Implementation of the Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023, p. 25. 

36 

 
 
 
                                                
6.   Cost-benefit analysis 

The  selection  and  prioritisation  of  measures  was  based  on  CBA  and  multicriteria  analysis, 
according  to  Lithuania’s  reporting  sheets.  Costs  and  benefits  were  assessed  for  all  measures 
(i.e.  across  the  four  aspects,  protection,  preventive,  preparation,  recovery  and  review 
measures).  

The most detailed CBA was carried out for protection measures (structural/grey infrastructure). 
The  cost  assessment  of  engineering  measures  covered  investment  costs  (e.g.  construction  of 
new dykes,  rising of  existing dykes, protection of roads), land purchase costs, reconstruction 
and  major  repair  costs,  operation  and  maintenance  costs.  Benefits  of  the  structural  measures 
were  envisaged  as  avoided  damage.  Discounting  was  used  to  calculate  annualised  costs  and 
benefits.  No  information  is  provided  whether  CBA  was  used  to  assess  the  transboundary 
effects of the measures. 

CBA and multicriteria analysis was applied to prioritise the measures65 at national level, with 
an explanation of what is included in the calculation of costs. 

A  method  to  consider  multi-benefits  of  measures  was  also  applied,  for  example  to  consider 
environmental objectives, cultural heritage and public health. It is not clear, however, whether 
other  multi-benefits,  such  as  contribution  towards  achievement  of  objectives  of  the  WFD  or 
other relevant policies, were considered66. 

A simpler approach was applied for the CBA of preparation and recovery measures. Costs of 
these  measures  were  compared  against  the  benefits  (avoided  damage).  According  to  the 
reporting  sheets,  it  was  assumed  that  preparation  and  recovery  measures  reduce  economic 
damage of floods by 20%.  

A CBA was not carried out for protection measures that do not involve grey infrastructure (e.g. 
afforestation, wetland restoration) due to methodological difficulties, i.e. a lack of information 
on effectiveness of the measures, combination with other measures, spatial extent, and lack of 
good examples of quantified benefits of the measures. No information is provided in the FRMP 
as to whether transboundary effects have been considered. 

It should be noted that this information comes from Lithuania’s reporting sheets and was not 
found in the FRMP. 

65  FRMP, reporting sheets. 
66  FRMP, reporting sheets, Summary of Cost/Benefit. 

37 

 
                                                
6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The use of CBA in the prioritisation of measures at national level with an explanation of 

what is included in the calculation of costs.  

  A method to  consider the multi-benefits  of measures  applied, i.e.  additional benefits  to 

the environment, cultural heritage and public health are considered.  

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The  FRMP  itself  does  not  provide  information  on  CBA,  though  Lithuania’s  reporting 

sheets do. 

  CBA was not carried out for non-structural measures;  
  No information is provided whether CBA was used to assess the transboundary effects of 

the measures.  

38 

 
 
 
7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1  Competent authorities 

Based on Lithuania’s FRMP and its reporting sheets, the Competent Authorities and the Units 
of Management identified for the Floods Directive have not changed. The list was submitted to 
the  European  Commission  in  2010  and  no  further  updates  have  been  made  since.  Lithuania 
uses  a  centralized  approach  for  flood  risk  management,  and  one  central  authority  (the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA) is responsible for management of all four UoMs. 

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

According  to  the  EPA  web  site  dedicated  to  flood  risk  management67,  the  first  draft  of  the 
FRMP  (version  1.0)  was  presented  to  the  public  in  August  2014.  After  a  round  of  written 
comments,  a  revised  Plan  (version  1.5)  was  presented  at  public  seminars  in  March  2015. 
Written  comments  could  be  provided  on  this  version.  The  FRMP  was  then  updated  in  July 
2015 to take into consideration the recommendations of the SEA (version 1.6). This version of 
the  FRMP  is  69  pages  long.  Based  on  the  information  on  the  EPA  website,  this  should  be 
regarded as the FRMP version after the public consultation.  

The  FRMP  was  incorporated  into  the  Water  Sector  Development  Programme  2017-2023, 
which  was  adopted  by  a  Governmental  Resolution  in  May  2017.  The  final  version  of  the 
FRMP was cut from 69 to 21 pages with no explanation for this provided. This version of the 
FRMP was reported to the Commission.  

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

Table 10 

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

All UoMs 

✔ 

Media (papers, TV, radio) 

Internet 

Digital social networking 

Printed material 

Direct mailing 

Invitations to stakeholders 

Local Authorities 

67  http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=6d87deab-3ecc-412a-9b66-7fd6361f26ba  

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Meetings 

Source: FRMP 

All UoMs 

✔ 

The  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  of  flood  risk  management  activities  via 
internet and two public seminars.  

In 2011, the EPA established a web page dedicated to flood management68 and since then has 
periodically updated information at occasional intervals (e.g. when a new document or report is 
published). The EPA flood management webpage provides information on national level, and 
information is not differentiated by UoM. The flood management web page provides brief and 
general introduction to the preliminary flood risk assessment, the flood hazard and flood risk 
maps, and the FRMP. The EPA has also updated the interactive Flood map, accessible through 
their  page,  and  included  additional  map  layers  displaying  information  about  the  proposed 
measures  such  as  spatial  coverage,  population  affected,  costs  of  the  measures.  However,  the 
interactive  Flood  map  is  not  accessible  via  recent  versions  of  internet  browsers  as  it  uses 
outdated  technology69.  The  EPA  web  site,  dedicated  to  flood  management,  provides 
information to the public about the consultation of the FRMP. 

The FRMP and reporting sheets70 state that news on activities related to flood risk assessment 
and  flood  risk  management  was  also  published  on  the  webpages  of  the  Ministry  of 
Environment and the Hydro-meteorological Survey71.  

Two  public  seminars  were  organised  to  present  the  FRMP.  The  seminars  were  held  in 
Jurbarkas and Kaunas (both in March 2015). No information on the number of participants and 
their organisations was found in the FRMP or the reporting sheets72.  

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

Table 11 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet 

Digital social networking 

Direct invitation 

Exhibitions 

Workshops, seminars or conferences 

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

68  http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=6d87deab-3ecc-412a-9b66-7fd6361f26ba  
69  The  interactive  Flood  map  requires  installation  of  Microsoft  Silverlight  plugin.  Microsoft  Silverlight  is  not 
supported in Google Chrome since September 2015 and in Firefox since March 2017. There is no Silverlight 
plugin available for Microsoft Edge as well. 

70  Reporting sheets “Summary of the Consultation”; FRMP p. 14 
71  Reporting sheets “Summary of the Consultation”; FRMP p. 14 
72  Reporting sheets “Summary of the Consultation”; FRMP, p. 14 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Telephone surveys 

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP 

Postal written comments 

Source: FRMP 

The public consultation on the FRMP was carried out following the two mechanisms indicated 
above: via internet and via the two public seminars organised in March 2015.  

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

Table 12 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable 

Direct mailing (e-mail) 

Direct mailing (post) 

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions 

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

Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority 

Source: FRMP 

All UoMs 

✔ 

Documents  for  public  consultation  were  available  for  download  from  the  EPA  website 
dedicated  to  flood  management.  There  is  no  indication  in  the  FRMP  that  other  means  were 
used to provide the documents for consultation.  

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders 

Neither  the  FRMP  nor  the  Lithuania’s  reporting  sheets  provide  any  information  on  which 
groups of stakeholders were involved in the development of the flood risk management plan73. 
In  addition,  neither  source  provides  any  information  on  the  mechanisms  that  were  used  to 
ensure the active involvement of stakeholders, other than the two public meetings mentioned 
above74.  

7.4  Effects of consultation 

The FRMP indicates that it was amended to take into account comments and recommendations 
from institutions, including those that have to be consulted according to the Law on Strategic 
Environmental  Assessment:  the  Ministry  of  Environment,  the  State  Protected  Areas  Service, 
the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Health.  

73  Reporting sheets “Summary of the Consultation”; FRMP p. 14, EPA website dedicated to flood management: 

http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=6d87deab-3ecc-412a-9b66-7fd6361f26ba  

74  Reporting sheet “Summary of the Consultation”; FRMP p. 14, EPA website dedicated to flood management: 

http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=6d87deab-3ecc-412a-9b66-7fd6361f26ba  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
The final version of the FRMP does not specify which comments and recommendations were 
taken into account in the plan. A table with a list of comments and answers to the comments is 
provided in the draft FRMP (versions 1.5 and 1.6, both available on the EPA webpage), and it 
indicates that the public consultation led to amendments to the plan75. 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

The  FRMP  underwent  an  SEA  procedure.  Potential  effects  of  the  proposed  measures  on 
environmental  components,  wildlife,  protected  areas  and  cultural  heritage  were  described. 
According  to  Lithuania’s  reporting  sheets,  the  FRMP  was  amended  to  minimise  adverse 
environmental  effects,  taking  into  account  remarks  from  key  government  bodies  involved  in 
the procedure: the Ministry of Environment, the State Protected Areas Service, the Ministry of 
Culture and the Ministry of Health76. 

The Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023 also underwent an SEA procedure and 
a public consultation procedure was formally implemented, under the SEA requirements. 

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

governance 

The following good practice was identified:  

  The national web site dedicated to flood management presents the PFRA, Flood Hazard 
and  Risk  mapping  and  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  and  was  used  for  the  public 
consultation.  

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The interactive Flood map is not accessible via modern internet browsers due to outdated 

technology.  

  Efforts  for  public  participation  and  stakeholder  engagement  were  limited,  focusing  on 
only two public meetings: insufficient efforts were made to ensure active involvement of 
stakeholders.  

 

It is stated in the preamble of the FRMP that the FRMP is a supporting document for the 
Water  Sector  Development  Programme  2017-2023  and  the  Action  Plan  of  the  Water 
Sector Development Programme 2017-2023. However, the FRMP is neither included as 
an  annex  nor  referenced  in  these  two  legal  acts.  Few  provisions  of  the  FRMP  are 
included in the Water Sector Development Programme 2017-2023.  

  The  SEA  report  of  the  FRMP  is  not  available  on  the  EPA  site  dedicated  to  flood  risk 

management.

75  Reporting sheets “Summary of the Consultation”; FRMP p. 14, EPA website dedicated to flood management: 

http://vanduo.gamta.lt/cms/index?rubricId=6d87deab-3ecc-412a-9b66-7fd6361f26ba  

76  Reporting sheets “Summary of the Flood Extent”. 

42 

 
                                                
Annex A: 

Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by Lithuania 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 
State 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)77, not 
all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all Memebr 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. 

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

43 

 
                                                
  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  on  the  name  of  the  Responsible  Authority,  above),  are 
categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The following table78 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’. 

Table A1 

Types of measures used in reporting 

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 

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

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

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
List of Annex A tables and figures 

Table A1  Types of measures used in reporting ..................................................................... 44 
Table A2  Number of measures reported in the reporting sheets ........................................... 46 
Table A3  Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, 
including duplicates ................................................................................................................. 46 
Table A4  Category of priority by measure aspect ................................................................. 49 
Table A5  Category of priority by UoM ................................................................................. 50 
Table A6  Timetable of implementation by measure aspect .................................................. 50 
Table A7  Timetable of implementation by UoM .................................................................. 51 
Table A8  Level of responsibility by measure aspect ............................................................. 52 
Table A9  Level of responsibility by UoM ............................................................................. 53 
Table A10 Progress of implementation by measure aspect ..................................................... 54 
Table A11 Progress of implementation by UoM ..................................................................... 55 

Figure A1  Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ............ 47 
Figure A2  Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect .............. 47 
Figure A3  Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by measure aspect ..................... 49 
Figure A4  Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by UoM ..................................... 50 
Figure A5  Visualisation of Table A6: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect ....... 51 
Figure A6  Visualisation of Table A7: Timetable of implementation by UoM ....................... 51 
Figure A7  Visualisation of Table A8: Level of responsibility by measure aspect ................. 53 
Figure A8  Visualisation of Table A9: Level of responsibility by UoM ................................. 53 
Figure A9  Visualisation of Table A10: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ....... 55 
Figure A10  Visualisation of Table A11: Progress of implementation by UoM ................... 55 

45 

 
 
Measures overview 

Table A2 

Number of measures reported in the reporting sheets 

Number of individual measures 

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

Number of aggregated measures 

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

Total number of measures 

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

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

(Min-Max) 

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

0 

0 

61 

61 

61 

61 

13-17 

15 

Table A3 

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

Preparedness 

Total 

Prevention 

Total 

Protection 

Total 

Recovery 
and review  Other 

M41 

M42 

M43 

M21 

M23 

M24 

M31 

M34 

M53 

LT1100 

LT2300 

LT3400 

LT4500 
Grand 
Total 
Average 
per UoM 

2 

2 

2 

2 

8 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

8 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

5 

5 

5 

5 

20 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

8 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

8 

2 

5 

5 

5 

5 

20 

5 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

5 

3 

4 

2 

14 

4 

6 

4 

5 

2 

17 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

0 

0 

Note: All measures are aggregated as Lithuania did not report any individual measures. Lithuania did not report any “other” measures. 

Grand 
Total 

17 

15 

16 

13 

61 

15 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The information in Table A3 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: 

Figure A1 

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

Note: All measures are aggregated as Lithuania did not report any individual measures. 
Lithuania did not report any “other” measures. 

Figure A2 

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

Note: All measures are aggregated as Lithuania did not report any individual measures. 
Lithuania did not report any “other” measures. 

47 

 
 
 
 
Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 
  Cost explanation (optional field). 

The  reported  information  on  costs  in  the  reporting  sheets  is  descriptive.  Lithuania  provided 
information  about  the  cost  and  an  accompanying  cost  explanation  only  for  10  measures.  For 
six of these measures the cost was reported as zero. For the other four measures the reported 
costs  vary  from  nearly  €50k  to  over  €32  m.  Given  the  small  number  of  measures  for  which 
costs were provided it was not meaningful to aggregate the information.  

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 

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

Geographic coverage 

Similarly, Lithuania reported in the reporting sheets the geographic coverage for 55 measures 
as ‘whole national’. For the remaining six measures no information was provided. 

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 

Lithuania did not report objectives for any measures in the reporting sheets.  

48 

 
 
Category of priority 

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

  Critical; 
  Very high; 
  High; 
  Moderate; 
  Low. 

Table A4 

Category of priority by measure aspect 

Very high 

High 

Low 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

20 

9 

20 

4 

53 

3 

3 

5 

5 

20 

17 

20 

4 

61 

Note: No measures were categorised as critical or moderate priority. 

Figure A3 

Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by measure aspect 

Note: No measures were categorised as critical or moderate priority. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A5 

Category of priority by UoM 

Very high 

High 

Low 

Grand Total 

LT1100 

LT2300 

LT3400 

LT4500 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

14 

13 

13 

13 

53 

13 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

2 

1 

2 

5 

1 

17 

15 

16 

13 

61 

15 

Note: No measures were categorised as critical or moderate priority.  

Figure A4 

Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by UoM 

Note: No measures were categorised as critical or moderate priority. 

Timetable 

Lithuania reported information about the timetable of all measures in the reporting sheets. 

Table A6 

Timetable of implementation by measure aspect 

2017-
2018 

2018 

2017-
2019 

12 

8 

4 

4 

4 

16 

12 

Preparedness 

Prevention 

4 

Protection 
Recovery & 
review 
Grand Total 

2019 

2017-
2021 
4 

2017-
2023 
8 

2018-
2021 

Grand 
Total 
20 

1 

1 

12 

20 

4 

4 

4 

20 

17 

4 

61 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A5 

Visualisation of Table A6: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect 

Table A7 

Timetable of implementation by UoM 

2018 

2019 

LT1100 
LT2300 
LT3400 
LT4500 
Grand Total 
Average per 
UoM 

4 
4 
4 
4 
16 

4 

1 

1 

0 

2017-
2018 
1 
1 
1 
1 
4 

1 

2017-
2019 
3 
3 
3 
3 
12 

3 

2017-
2021 
1 
1 
1 
1 
4 

1 

2017-
2023 
6 
5 
6 
3 
20 

5 

2018-
2021 
1 
1 
1 
1 
4 

1 

Grand 
Total 
17 
15 
16 
13 
61 

15 

Figure A6 

Visualisation of Table A7: Timetable of implementation by UoM 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 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).  

Lithuania  reported  the  responsible  authorities  for  all  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets. 
However, as this was an open question, the responses varied greatly. In addition, Lithuania did 
not report the level of responsibility for the measures. However, after examining the names of 
the  responsible  authorities,  it  appeared  that  the  authorities  can  be  grouped  in  three  levels  of 
responsibility:  

  National – covering national ministries or departments and services within ministries. 
  Municipal – covering municipalities. 
  Both – covering national ministries/services within ministries and municipalities. 

Table A8 

Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

National 

Municipal 

Both 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

4 

8 

12 

4 

28 

4 

2 

4 

10 

12 

7 

4 

23 

20 

17 

20 

4 

61 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure A7 

Visualisation of Table A8: Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

Table A9 

Level of responsibility by UoM 

LT1100 

LT2300 

LT3400 

LT4500 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

National 
8 

Municipal 
3 

7 

7 

6 

28 

7 

2 

3 

2 

10 

3 

Both 
6 

6 

6 

5 

23 

6 

Grand Total 
17 

15 

16 

13 

61 

15 

Figure A8 

Visualisation of Table A9: Level of responsibility by UoM 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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  Memebr  States  reported  and  whose  answers  are  not 
analysed here. 

Lithuania  reported  information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the  measures  in  the 
reporting sheets. The Progress of implementation was reported as79:  

  COM (completed); 
  OGC (ongoing construction); 
  POG (progress ongoing); 
  NS (not started). 

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

Table A10 

Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Progress ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

4 

3 

4 

11 

16 

14 

16 

4 

50 

20 

17 

20 

4 

61 

Note: Lithuania did not report any measures as being Completed or with Construction Ongoing 

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

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

54 

 
 
 
                                                
Figure A9 

Visualisation of Table A10: Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Note: Lithuania did not report any measures as being Completed or with Construction Ongoing 

Table A11 

Progress of implementation by UoM 

Progress ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

LT1100 

LT2300 

LT3400 

LT4500 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

3 

3 

3 

2 

11 

3 

14 

12 

13 

11 

50 

13 

17 

15 

16 

13 

61 

15 

Note: Lithuania did not report any measures as being Completed or with Construction Ongoing 

Figure A10  Visualisation of Table A11: Progress of implementation by UoM 

Note: Lithuania did not report any measures as being Completed or with Construction Ongoing 

55 

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

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

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

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

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

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

but are not finalized. 

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

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

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

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

  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 
instructions, etc.): 

involving  administrative  acts  (e.g. 

licenses,  permits,  regulations, 

  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 

56 

 
 
 
 
involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of 
them have been concluded. 

Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Other Community Acts associated to the measures reported (optional field); 
  Any other information reported (optional field). 

Lithuania  did  not  report  any  information  in  the  reporting  sheets  for  these  fields.

57 

 
 
Annex B:  Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures80 

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

M11 

Prevention 

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

M22 

areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 
Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to 
relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard 

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

M24 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

M35 

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 

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

M42 

M43 

M44 

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 

Recovery & Review 

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

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

58 

 
                                                
M51 

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

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

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

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

M61 

policies 

Other 
Other 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)  

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

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

Table B2 

List of NWRMs 

Agriculture 

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 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable 
surfaces 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

A07 Low till agriculture 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 

U07 Soakaways 

59 

 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

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 

Hydro Morphology 
features 

Urban 

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 

60