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

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

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

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

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

Good Practices........................................................................................................................ 12 

Areas for further development ............................................................................................... 13 

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

1. 

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

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

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

2. 

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

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

2.2 

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

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

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

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

3. 

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

3.1 

3.2 

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

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................. 20 

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

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

3.5 

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

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ........ 23 

4. 

 Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ........................................................ 24 

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

4.2 

Funding of measures ................................................................................................... 26 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................. 26 

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

1 

 
 
4.5  Geographic coverage ................................................................................................... 28 

4.6 

Prioritisation and timetable of measures ..................................................................... 28 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ............................................ 30 

4.8 

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

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

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

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

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 types of measures to address climate change ................................................ 35 

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 ...................................................... 37 

7. 

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

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

7.2 

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

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

7.4 

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 .......................................................... 44 

Background & method ........................................................................................................... 44 

Types of measures used in reporting ...................................................................................... 45 

List of Annex A tables & figures ........................................................................................... 46 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................. 47 

Measure details: cost .............................................................................................................. 49 

Cost......................................................................................................................................... 49 

Cost explanation ..................................................................................................................... 51 

2 

 
 
 
Measure details: name & location .......................................................................................... 51 

Location of measures ............................................................................................................. 51 

Geographic coverage .............................................................................................................. 51 

Measure details: objectives .................................................................................................... 51 

Measure details: authorities .................................................................................................... 54 

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

Measure details: other ............................................................................................................ 59 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types ..................................................................................... 60 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) .................................................. 61 

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 to assess its territory for 

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

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

Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of 
Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard & Risk Maps 
(FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were to prepare 

Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015.  

This  report  assesses  the  FRMPs  for  Finland1.  Its  structure  follows  a  common  assessment 
template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources:   

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

measures. 

•  Selected FRMPs: as 16 FRMPs were prepared in Finland, the assessment has focused on 
five plans. The FRMPs  for assessment were chosen to  cover a broad range of Units of 
Management  (UoMs)  and  geographical  conditions,  including  flood  types,  as  well  as 
plans covered in previous assessments3. The following FRMPs were reviewed: 

o  FRMPs covering coastal areas: in FIVHA2, Kymijoki-Gulf of Finland, the FRMP 

for the Hamina and Kotka coastal area;  

o  FRMPs covering inland river catchments: in FIVHA3, Kokemäenjoki-Archipelago 
Sea-Bothnian  Sea,  the  FRMP  for  the  Kokemäenjoki  catchment;  in  FIVHA4, 
Oulujoki-Iijoki, the Kalajoki catchment; and in FIVHA5, Kemijoki, the Kemijoki 

catchment; 

o  One international UoM shared with Sweden: FIVHA6 Tornionjoki.  

2 

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

3   Finland’s plans follow broadly similar methodologies, so this was not used as a criterion for selection, as in 
other  Member  States.  Nonetheless,  as  Finland  noted  subsequently,  the  choice  of  FRMPs  can  influence  the 
results of the assessment: for example, FRMPs covering coastal areas will not include all measure types (as 
indicated  in  section  4,  Hamina  and  Kotka  coastal  FRMP  did  not  include  natural  water  retention  measures, 
NWRMs).  

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 

Finland is divided into eight UoMs, which correspond to the eight river basin districts (RBDs) 
designated under the Water Framework Directive. Finland, however, reported FRMPs only for 

six of these UoMs. For the two remaining UoMs (i.e. Åland (FIWDA) and Vuoksi (FIVHA1)), 
the flood risk assessment process  did  not  result in APSFRs and development  of FRMPs was 

not required. Within the six UoMs with identified APSFRs (21 in total), 16 FRMPs have been 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
prepared: five in Kymijoki-Gulf of Finland (FIVHA2), six in Kokemäenjoki-Archipelago Sea-
Bothnian Sea (FIVHA3), two in Oulujoki-Iijoki (FIVHA4), one in Kemijoki (FIVHA5), one in 

Tornionjoki (FIVHA6) and one in Ivalojoki (FIVHA7).  

The  FRMPs  follow  a  broadly  similar  approach.  The  biggest  differences  are  found  in  the 

geographic  coverage  of  the  FRMPs.  Inland  FRMPs  cover  watersheds  that  include  one  or 
several APSFRs, while in coastal areas, the FRMPs cover the exact area of the APSFRs. 

The  Finnish  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Forestry  approved  all  FRMPs  on  the  18December 
2015. 

The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Finland, including the UoM code, the name, 
and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if the UoM reported all documents required 
to the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE4 – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting 
sheet  as  an  XML.  The  table  does  not  show  if  hyperlinks  to  national  websites  were  reported, 

even if these national websites contain the FRMP. 

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Finland 

UoM 

Name 

Number of APSFRs  XML Reported 

PDF Reported 

FIVHA1 

VUOKSI 

KYMIJOKI-GULF OF 
FINLAND 
KOKEMÄENJOKI-
ARCHIPELAGO SEA – 
BOTHNIAN SEA 
OULUJOKI-IIJOKI 
KEMIJOKI 
TORNIONJOKI 
TENO, NÄÄTÄMÖKJOKI 
AND PAATSJOKI 
ÅLAND 

FIVHA2 

FIVHA3 

FIVHA4 
FIVHA5 
FIVHA6 

FIVHA7 

FIWDA 
TOTAL 

Overview of the assessment 

- 

6 

8 

2 
3 
1 

1 

- 
21 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

No 
6 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

No 
6 

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

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

not met; 

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

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

o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
  Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication 
of  the  approach  used  for  the  criterion.  Depending  on  the  comment  in  the  adjacent 

column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”;  

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

FRMP to address the criterion. 

Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives have been 
established  

Strong evidence 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong evidence  

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Some evidence  

...to non-structural initiatives   Strong evidence  

All five FRMPs assessed include a list of 
established objectives that relate to reducing 
flood risk, avoiding adverse consequences of 
flooding and improving preparedness to 
flooding. 

This aspect is specified in the definition of 
objectives in all five FRMPs assessed. The 
objectives relate to, for example, avoiding and 
reducing adverse consequences to human 
health and safety, the environmental and 
cultural heritage. An important aspect is 
maintaining vital services within society.  

Two of the five FRMPs assessed contain 
objectives that aim to reduce the likelihood of 
flooding.  

This aspect is specified in the definition of 
objectives in all five FRMPs assessed. Non-
structural objectives are related to, for example, 
increasing public awareness of floods as well 
as information and warning systems. They are 
also related to land-use planning, directing site 
selection of industry and vital services away 
from flood-risk areas.  

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Strong evidence  

...economic activity  

Strong evidence 

This aspect is specified in the definition of 
objectives in all five FRMPs assessed. The 
objectives refer to avoiding damage to human 
dwellings and maintaining vital services like 
health services and water supply.  

This aspect is specified in the definition of 
objectives in all five FRMPs assessed. The 

8 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...environment  

Strong evidence 

...cultural heritage  

Strong evidence 

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Strong evidence  

objectives refer to maintaining vital services 
like electricity and important road and rail 
connections.  

This aspect is specified in the definition of 
objectives in all five FRMPs assessed. The 
objectives refer to avoiding long-lasting or 
widespread damage to the environment, for 
example by directing site selection of industries 
away from flood risk areas.  

This aspect is specified in the definition of 
objectives in all five FRMPs assessed. The 
objectives refer to avoiding irreparable damage 
to cultural heritage. 

All five FRMPs assessed include a set of 
measures, including ongoing measures and new 
measures. In total across all FRMPs and UoMs, 
Finland reported 412 individual measures and 
no aggregated measures. 

Prioritisation was carried out using multi-
criteria decision analysis (MCDA) based on a 
series of criteria that varied somewhat across 
the FRMPs assessed. One criterion common to 
four out of the five FRMPs was the 
effectiveness to reduce the likelihood of floods 
and their damaging consequences. Three of the 
five FRMPs included as criteria achieving the 
objectives of flood risk management and the 
costs and benefits of the measures. Two 
FRMPs assessed included the compatibility of 
measures with river basin management and 
with environmental impact assessment in 
prioritisation. (One FRMP did not specify 
prioritisation criteria5.) 

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

...costs & benefits  

Strong evidence  

All the FRMPs assessment include a 
description of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) 
methods used. A CBA was conducted for the 

5  Finland  subsequently  clarified  that  in  general  MCDA  was  used,  following  the  same  prioritisation  principles 

across the FRMPs. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

proposed measures. In practice, CBA was used 
for flood protection infrastructure measures. 
For those non-market or continuous measures 
whose monetary valuation is difficult to 
estimate, the benefits were assessed via Multi-
Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). 

The flood extent is described in a specified 
section of the FRMPs for each APSFR. The 
description is based on long-term hydrological 
data, data on dams and regulation of water 
level, and information on historical flooding.  
According to the information reported, flood 
extent has been used to define the measures. 

Conveyance routes were addressed in the 
PFRA. Information was not found in the five 
FRMPs assessed on how flood conveyance was 
addressed in the measures, though the FRMP 
of the Kokemäenjoki catchment area (part of 
FIVHA3) contains two measures that specify 
dredging, one for a river and another for an 
estuary, for the purpose of flood conveyance. 

Natural water retention measures are included 
in all FRMPs assessed except the plan for the 
Hamina and Kotka Coastal area (FIVHA2). 
The measures include studying the potential of 
natural retention in the catchment area, 
promoting wetlands as well as flood meadows 
or forests in land use planning, and a measure 
targeted to actors in agriculture and forestry to 
promote natural water retention capacity.  

All FRMPs assessed describe in a separate 
section what effects the planned measures have 
on the environmental objectives of the WFD. 
The impact of flood risk management measures 
on the achievement of water management 
objectives has been assessed using a five-level 
scale: very positive, positive, neutral, negative, 
very negative.  

All FRMPs assessed include a specific land use 
planning measure to take floods into account in 
land use planning. The measure should ensure, 
for example, that flood risk is taken into 

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

...flood conveyance  

Some evidence  

...water retention  

Strong evidence  

...environmental objectives 
of the WFD  

Strong evidence  

...spatial planning/land use   Strong evidence  

10 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...nature conservation  

Some evidence  

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

Some evidence  

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Some evidence  

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Strong evidence  

Coordination ensured with 
WFD  

Strong evidence  

account in new city plans, key services are 
located outside low probability flood risk areas, 
and flood risks are taken into account in road 
and rail projects.  

Although none of the five FRMPs assessed had 
measures that specifically involved nature 
conservation, all plans assessed include an 
analysis of the effects on biodiversity or Natura 
2000 in their assessment of measures. 

Ports and navigation have been considered in 
the impact assessment of the measures in one 
FRMP assessed (Hamina and Kotka FRMP in 
FIVHA2). In other FRMPs, navigation does 
not have a significant role6. 

FRMPs include a systematic assessment of the 
adaptability of measures to changing climate 
conditions, but no measures are specifically 
designed to advance adaptation to the changing 
climate during this planning period7. 

The one FRMP assessed (Tornionjoki, 
FIVHA6) that includes an international border 
has clearly documented coordination with the 
Swedish authorities. Flood maps have been 
prepared together. Both FRMPs have several 
common objectives and a Swedish organisation 
is taking part in the work of Tornionjoki flood 
group. 

All FRMPs assessed have a similar procedure 
of coordination with the respective River Basin 
Management Plan (RBMP) under the WFD. 
The same authority has been responsible for the 
preparation of both FRMPs and RBMPs, and 
the consultation processes of these plans have 
occurred at the same time. The planning 
principle has been that the measures in one 
plan should not significantly threaten the 
objectives and positive impacts of the other 

6  Finland clarified subsequently that there is no commercial inland waterway traffic except in the Vuoksi river 

basin, where however no APSFR exists. 

7  Finland  remarked  subsequently  that  climate  change  adaptation  and  specific  measures  are  included  in  other 
processes, such as the Climate Change Act and the National Strategy for Adaptation. These processes will be 
described in the second FRMPs. 

11 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Some evidence  

plan. The impact of flood risk management 
measures on the achievement of water 
management objectives has been assessed 
using a five-level scale. 

The establishment of flood groups has ensured 
active involvement of certain parties, but not 
all flood groups included representatives of 
NGOs or industry. Stakeholders were also 
involved in the assessment of measures in 
workshops. 

Good Practices 

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

Table 3 

Good practices in the Finnish FRMPs 

Topic area 

Integration of previously 
reported information in 
the FRMPs. 

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk. 

Good practices identified 

Each of the five FRMPs assessed has a chapter on the PFRA and the 
descriptions in the FRMPs of this process are clear. 

In the PFRA, additional flood risk areas were identified that were not 
considered significant; these were, however, included in mapping. 

The purpose of the flood hazard and risk maps is clearly explained in 
the FRMPs, and the methodology for PFRA is well described. 

The FRMPs assessed moreover describe how the FHRMs were used in 
their preparation. 

All objectives contain specific and measurable elements: for example, 
all five FRMPs assessed define clearly the geographic coverage where 
the objectives are to be achieved (for example, a specific APSFR or the 
whole catchment area). 

The objective-setting process was well coordinated both at national and 
regional levels, and international coordination took place in the 
Tornionjoki international UoM (FIVHA6); moreover, stakeholders 
were involved in objective setting. 

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

All FRMPs assessed had an impact assessment process with a sound 
method that was used to select the combination of measures. Multi-
objective assessment methodology was used, following guidance from 
the Finnish Environment Institute. 

All FRMPs assessed contained clear information on the geographic 
location, timetable and responsibilities related to the planned measures. 

Three of the five FRMPs assessed the link between measures and 
objectives. 

12 

 
 
 
The FRMPs include spatial planning measures and national water 
retention measures (NWRMs). 

The impact of flood risk management measures on the achievement of 
water management objectives has been assessed using a five level scale: 
very positive, positive, neutral, negative and very negative. 

The FRMPs assessed set out a clear monitoring process for the 
implementation of measures, based on a national approach. 

All FRMPs assessed include a systematic assessment of the adaptability 
of measures to changing climate conditions. 

The CBA had a broad scope and accommodated the fact that not all 
effects can be measured in monetary terms. 

In all FRMPs assessed, the public was informed of the different phases 
of the planning process using different media. 

The plans were presented in various occasions for the public and for 
stakeholders in all FRMPs assessed. The work of the “flood groups” 
was effective in integrating the views of stakeholders in the plans. 

All FRMPs assessed underwent a Strategic Environmental Assessment 
(SEA) procedure, and the SEA hearings were carried out in connection 
with the hearings of the FRMPs. The SEA reports are included in the 
FRMPs as annexes. 

The Finnish-Swedish Transboundary River Commission had an expert 
member in the flood group and was actively involved in the drafting of 
the FRMP of Tornionjoki UoM (FIVHA6). 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed. 

Use of CBA in the 
FRMPs assessed. 

Public participation. 

Flood risk governance. 

International issues in 
flood risk management. 

Areas for further development 

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

assessed. 

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Finnish FRMPs 

Topic area 

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk.  

Planning/implementation 
of measures and their 
prioritisation for the 

Areas for further development identified 
None of the FRMPs set a time frame for the achievement of objectives8. 

The FRMPs assessed do not contain an analysis whether the objectives 
will be met with the planned measures. 

One FRMP does not specify prioritisation methods or criteria. 

8  Finland clarified subsequently that the Finish FRMPs are not binding with regard to the actual implementation 
of measures. Therefore it is difficult to set timetables for completing the measures, or achieving the objectives. 
However, a plan with a time frame for meeting the objectives exists and during implementation of measures 
these  will  be  monitored  and  cross-checked  with  the  objectives  related  to  the  measure  in  question.  More 
emphasis on how to evaluate achievement of the objectives based on the implementation and effectiveness of 
the measures will be given in the second cycle. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
achievement of objectives.  

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Use of CBA in the 
FRMPs assessed.  

Public participation.  

None of the five FRMPs assessed refer to Finland’s national policy 
documents on adaptation.  

CBA was carried out only for flood protection infrastructure measures9. 

Not all FRMPs assessed had involved NGOs, fisheries or industry in an 
active role in the drafting process; however, not all stakeholders may be 
relevant in all FRMPs. Nature protection NGOs are included as 
permanent experts in the Flood Groups of the Kemijoki catchment area 
(in FIVHA5) and the Tornionjoki UoM (FIVHA6). Certain industry 
representatives are included in all Flood Groups except in Tornionjoki. 

Despite there being description of consultation results and statements 
that the results were taken into account, not all FRMPs included a 
description of how the consultation results were taken into account in 
the final drafting of the plan. 

Recommendations 

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

  To  support  the  assessment  of  progress,  a  clear  time  frame  should  be  set  for  the 

achievement of objectives.  

  The plans should establish a stronger connection between the objectives and measures. It 
should be considered whether the planned measures are sufficient to reach the objectives.  

  Next to considering climate change as a prioritisation criterion, coordination between the 
FRMPs and national policy documents on climate change adaptation should be pursued. 

  A broader set of interested parties should be actively involved in the preparation of the 
FRMPs,  including  for  example  representatives  of  nature  protection  NGOs,  fisheries  as 
well as relevant industry. A description of how the consultation results were taken into 

account in the final drafting of the plan would add to ownership of the Plans. 

9  Finland noted subsequently that the second cycle of implementation of the FD it will be easier to “monetise 
measures” for cost information of measures implemented during of first cycle will be available for using. Still, 
Finland reckons that not all measures will lend themselves to monetising and other types of analyses might be 
used. 

14 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Finland reported 16 FRMPs for six of its eight UoMs (for two UoMs, no FRMPs were reported 
and were not needed as no APSFRs were designated). Most FRMPs are prepared at sub-UoM 

level, each covering one or more APSFRs in the sub-UoM/UoM, though one (FIVHA6) covers 
an  entire  UoM  with  one  APSFR.  Finland  did  not  make  use  of  Art.  13(3)  of  the  Floods 
Directive, 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 FRMPs 

The  assessment  covered  five  of  Finland’s  16  FRMPs.  In  Finland,  the  basic  approach  for  the 
preparation  of  the  FRMPs  was  similar  throughout  the  country,  linked  to  national  guidance 

documents and a national coordination group (which supports the work of regional authorities 
and  flood  groups)  for  flood  risk  management.  Thus,  the  biggest  differences  are  found  in  the 

geographic  coverage  of  the  FRMPs.  The  five  FRMPs  assessed  were  selected  to  cover  both 
river drainage areas and coastal areas, different numbers of APSFRs and an international UoM. 

The assessment covers the following five FRMPs: 

  FRMPs covering coastal areas: in FIVHA2, Kymijoki-Gulf of Finland, the FRMP for the 

Hamina and Kotka coastal area;  

  FRMPs  covering  river  drainage  areas:  in  FIVHA4,  Oulujoki-Iijoki,  the  Kalajoki 
in  FIVHA3, 
catchment; 
Kokemäenjoki-Archipelago  Sea-Bothnian  Sea,  the  FRMP  for  the  Kokemäenjoki 

the  Kemijoki  catchment;  and 

in  FIVHA5,  Kemijoki, 

catchment; 

  One international UoM shared with Sweden: FIVHA6, Tornionjoki.  

The table below lists the FRMPs assessed by UoM in which they are found.  

Table 5 

Finnish FRMPs assessed 

UoM code 

FIVHA2 

FIVHA3 

FIVHA4 

FIVHA5 

FIVHA6 

UoM Name and FRMP assessed 

Kymijoki-Gulf of Finland: Hamina and Kotka coastal area 

Kokemäenjoki-Archipelago Sea-Bothnian Sea: Kokemäenjoki catchment 

Oulujoki-Iijoki: Kalajoki catchment 

Kemijoki: Kemijoki catchment 
Tornionjoki10 

10  The FRMP covers the whole area of the UoM within Finland. 

15 

 
 
 
                                                 
2. 

 Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

In all five FRMPs assessed, the conclusions of the PRFA are provided in a textual description 
and  summary  maps  of  the  APSFRs  are  presented  in  the  FRMPs.  Moreover,  all  five  FRMPs 

assessed  provide  a  clear  description  of  the  PFRA  process.  All  FRMPs  assessed  include 
information  on  other  flood  risk  areas  than  the  ones  defined  as  APSFRs  (these  are  flood  risk 

areas  that  were  identified  in  the  PFRA  but  were  not  judged  as  significant),  but  only 
Kokemäenjoki (part of FIVHA3) and Kalajoki (part of FIVHA4) FRMPs show them on maps. 

In  addition,  links  to  detailed maps of the APSFRs have been provided  as URLs in  all of the 
FRMPs assessed.   

It appears that conveyance routes were taken into account in the PFRA: the reporting sheets of 

all  FRMPs  mention  that  conveyance  routes  were  considered,  but  specific  details  were  not 
provided. 

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

The only international UoM analysed in detail is Tornionjoki (FIVHA6), shared with Sweden, 
with  an  APSFR  shared  on  both  sides  of  the  border.  In  this  catchment,  flood  maps  were 

elaborated in co-operation with Swedish authorities. In the FRMP summary, it is indicated that 
the  Finnish-Swedish  Transboundary  River  Commission  and  the  Swedish  authority  MSB 

(Swedish  Civil  Contingencies  Agency)  gave  their  written  opinions  on  the  designation  of  the 
APSFR.  Moreover,  in  the  FRMP  it  is  explained that  a  joint  Interreg  IV  A  project,  “Detailed 
inundation planning in the lower part of Tornio River”, carried out from 2009-2012, estimated 

flood  risk.  A  specific  coordination  body  was  not  formed  for  the  FRMP;  rather,  coordination 
work  was  carried  out  by  the  authorities  of  both  regions  and  via  the  Finnish-Swedish 

Transboundary River Commission. 

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

FHRMs  were  produced  (Kemijoki  and  Tornionjoki  drainage  areas)  for  each  APSFR,  which 

were in turn based on the PFRA. The identified risk areas and their limits remained the same. 

2.2 

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

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  all  include  a  description  of  the  FHRMs  as  well  as  links  to  the 

detailed maps. In the inland FRMPs assessed (four of the five), the maps cover fluvial floods. 
Seawater  flood  maps  are  presented  for  the  one  coastal  area  assessed,  the  Hamina  and  Kotka 

coastal area (FIVHA2) (fluvial flood maps were not prepared for this APSFR). 

16 

 
 
In  none  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  do  the  FHRMs  cover  pluvial  floods,  groundwater  floods  or 
floods from no specific sources or more than one source of flooding.  

The detailed maps are provided as annexes to the FRMPs. They are either included in the main 
FRMP file – Hamina and Kotka coastal area FRMP in FIVHA2 and Kokemäenjoki catchment 

area FRMP (part of FIVHA3) – or available on a webpage as follows:  

  Flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  maps  for  the  whole  country  are  available  on  a  common 

map service11   

  Kalajoki  FRMP  (part  of  FIVHA4):  fluvial  flood  hazard  maps  are  available  in  an 

annex12 

  Kemijoki (part of FIVHA5): fluvial flood hazard and risk maps are found in annex 813  
  Tornionjoki (FIVHA6): fluvial flood hazard and risk maps are found in Annex 614 

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

The assessment covered one transboundary UoM: FHRMs were prepared for flood risk areas 
shared with Sweden in the Tornionjoki drainage area (FIVHA6). These maps were elaborated 

in the above-mentioned Interreg IV A project.  

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

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

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

activities, assets).  

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

  Specific objectives on flood risk reduction were defined based on the FHRMs. 

  Measure types and locations were defined based on the FHRMs.  

All five FRMPs assessed describe (using common wording) how the maps form the basis for 

planning, objective setting and planning of measures. The definition of measures was made on 
the basis of the objectives set via the FHRMs; these maps were later used in the more detailed 

planning of measures. The five FRMPs also state that the maps were provided as material for 

11  http://www.environment.fi/floodmaps 
12  http://www.ymparisto.fi/fi-

FI/Vesi/Tulviin_varautuminen/Tulvariskien_hallinta/Tulvariskien_hallinnan_suunnittelu/Tulvariskien_hallinta
suunnitelmat/Kalajoen_vesistoalueen_tulvariskien_hall%2831236%29 

13  http://www.ymparisto.fi/fi-

FI/Vesi/Tulviin_varautuminen/Tulvariskien_hallinta/Tulvariskien_hallinnan_suunnittelu/Tulvariskien_hallinta
suunnitelmat/Kemijoen_vesistoalueen_tulvariskien_hall%2829318%29 

14  http://www.ymparisto.fi/fi-

FI/Vesi/Tulviin_varautuminen/Tulvariskien_hallinta/Tulvariskien_hallinnan_suunnittelu/Tulvariskien_hallinta
suunnitelmat/Tornionjoen_vesistoalueen_tulvariskien_h%2829319%29 

17 

 
 
                                                 
the public participation process, but none provide an explanation on how they were specifically 
used in the public meetings or stakeholder workshops.  

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

No changes to the identification of APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas since December 2011 
were  reported  in  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  and  no  changes  have  been  made  in  the  FHRMs 

since December 2013 either. 

2.4 

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

The  following  areas  for  further  development  were  identified  in  the  2014  assessment  of 
Finland’s FHRMs15:  

  Flood  hazard  maps  for  dam  breaks  are  separate  layers  and  APSFRs  related  to  water 

bearing infrastructure had not been mapped yet.  

  According  to  Art.  6.3  of  the  Floods  Directive,  the  flood  hazard  maps  should  cover  the 
geographical  areas  which  could  be  flooded  according  to  the  following  scenarios:  low 

probability,  medium  probability  (likely  return  period  around  100  years)  and  high 
probability, where appropriate. Finland considered 50 years as a high, 100 years medium 

and 1000 years as a low probability scenario.  

  Finnish  authorities  had  indicated  that  the  development  of  pluvial  flood  maps  was 

ongoing.  

  Links to national FHRMs were not available at the time for all UoMs.  

The  areas  for  further  development  identified  have  not  been  explicitly  discussed  in  the  2015 

FRMPs assessed, but three of the four topics are presented in detail in all the FRMPs: 

  There  is  separate  legislation  for  dam  safety,  which  has  been  addressed  in  all  FRMPs 
assessed.  Flood  hazard  maps  for  dam  breaks  have  been  made  for  all  class  1  dams  as 

required  by  the  Dam  Safety  Act.  They  are  available  in  the  flood  map  service  as  a 
separate layer.  

  Flood hazard maps are available for all FRMPs assessed for the likely return periods of 
20,  50,  100,  250  and  1000  years.  Some  areas  have  also  maps  for  more  frequent  return 

periods.  
Links  to  national  FHRMs  are  now  available  for  all  UoMs.  These  links  lead  to  a 

Geographic Information System (GIS) flood map service, where summary maps can also 
be produced. 

15  European  Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  –  Member  State  Report:  FI  – 

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

18 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
In  contrast,  no  pluvial  flood  maps  are  found  in  the  FRMPs  assessed  because  no  pluvial 
APSFRs were designated16  17. The  FRMP for Tornionjoki drainage area (FIVHA6) indicates 
that risk assessment for those incidents is the responsibility of cities and municipalities unless 
it affects the seawater or fluvial floods18.  

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following good practices have been identified:  

  Each of the five FRMPs assessed has a chapter on the PFRA and the descriptions in the 

FRMPs of this process are clear.  

 

In  the  PFRA,  additional  flood  risk  areas  were  identified  that  were  not  considered 
significant; these were, however, included in mapping. 

  The purpose of the  flood hazard and risk  maps is clearly  explained in  the FRMPs, and 

the methodology behind them is well described. 

  FRMPs assessed moreover describe how the FHRMs were used in their preparation, and 

this included setting priorities and objectives and informing the public 

16  Finland clarified subsequently that no pluvial APSFRs were assigned during the first cycle of implementation 
of the FD, which is why no pluvial maps were prepared. For the second cycle, a general pluvial flood map has 
been prepared and will be mentioned in the FRMPs. 

17 Finland subsequently noted that the management of pluvial flood risk is the responsibility of municipalities and 
should  significant  pluvial  flood  risk  areas  be  identified,  then  pluvial  FRMPs  will  be  drawn  up  by 
municipalities. Clarifications about responsibilities and estimated pluvial flood risk in the target area could be 
added to the second FRMPs. 

18  Finland added that this is case for the whole of Finland and responsibilities will be clarified better in all second 

FRMPs. 

19 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

All five FRMPs assessed have objectives that aim to reduce the adverse consequences of flood 

risk, for example for major roads and housing. In all FRMPs assessed, there are objectives that 
refer  to  non-structural  measures,  and  there  are  also  objectives  that  refer  to  measures  to  be 

implemented.  Two  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  (Kokemäenjoki  catchment  (part  of  FIVHA3)  and 
Kalajoki catchment area (part of FIVHA4)) include objectives aiming to reduce the likelihood 

of flood risk. 

Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed19: 

  The  objectives  aim  to  reduce  the  adverse  consequences  of  floods  in  all  the  FRMPs 

assessed;  

  The  objectives  aim  to  reduce  the  likelihood  of  flooding20,  for  two  of  the  five  FRMPs 

assessed; 

  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented for all FRMPs assessed;  
  The objectives refer to non-structural measures21, for all five FRMPs assessed. 

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

In Finland, all objectives set  by the FRMPs contain specific and measurable elements.  Some 

objectives set quantitative targets to be achieved (e.g. number of flooded dwellings, economic 
damage  from  floods,  and  number  of  days  key  services  are  disrupted  by  floods)  and  clear 

locations where the objectives will be achieved (e.g. which APSFR). It is clear how some of 
the  objectives  will  be  achieved  (e.g.  by  specifying  measures)  but  there  is  no  information  by 

when.  

The FRMPs assessed include quantifiable objectives which cover all dwellings or sites hard to 
evacuate.  For  example,  in  the  FRMP  of  Kokemäenjoki  catchment  area  (part  of  FIVHA3)  an 

objective  is  set  that  all  permanent  housing  in  the  flood  risk  area  is  protected  from  floods  or 
preparedness  to  floods  is  such  that  the  health  and  safety  of  people  are  not  compromised. 

However, the number of dwellings is not mentioned. Specific, numeric objectives are rare. One 
example is found in the FRMP of Hamina and Kotka coastal area (part of FIVHA2) there is an 

objective setting the maximum hours of power, heat, water and telecommunication loss due to 
floods.  

19  These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 
20  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. 

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

as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

20 

 
 
                                                 
In  terms  of  the  location  where  the  objectives  will  be  achieved,  the  FRMPs  for  Tornionjoki 
catchment  area  (FIVHA6),  Kokemäenjoki  catchment  area  (part  of  FIVHA3)  and  Kemijoki 

catchment  area  (part  of  FIVHA5)  define  objectives  separately  for  the  APSFRs  and  for  the 
whole catchment area.  

For  all FRMPs  assessed, some objectives are  clearly  linked to  measures  that show how they 

will be achieved, but this is not true for all objectives. For example, for the objective “Flood 
Risk  Management  measures  are  not  in  conflict  with  the  environmental  objectives  of  water 
resources management”, the FRMP does not make it clear how it will be achieved (FRMP for 

Tornionjoki catchment area, FIVHA6).  

None of the FRMPs set a timeframe for the achievement of objectives. The only reference to a 
timeframe is found in the FRMP of the Kalajoki catchment (part of FIVHA4), where three top 

priority objectives refer to 2018: the population is safe, flood peaks do not increase in spite of 
the  climate  change  and  authorities  function  in  a  coordinated  manner.  It  is  not  clear  whether 

these top priority objectives are to be achieved by 2018 or they will be revised in 2018. 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

For all five FRMPs assessed, objectives cover the following elements: 

  number of dwellings flooded; 

  adverse consequences of floods on human health; 

  adverse consequences of floods on cultural heritage; 

  adverse consequences of floods on the environment; 

  adverse consequences on economic activity. 

The  objectives  do  not  specify  a  reduction  of  any  of  these  consequences  as  such,  but  rather 

define  target  levels.  For  example,  the  objectives  do  not  specify  the  reduction  of  number  of 
deaths  but  refer  to  the  health  and  safety  of  the  population:  health  and  safety  must  not  be 

compromised. In the FRMPs of Kalajoki catchment area (part of FIVHA4), Hamina and Kotka 
Coastal  area  (part  of  FIVHA2),  Kemijoki  catchment  area  (part  of  FIVHA5)  and  Tornionjoki 

catchment  area  (FIVHAS6),  the  objectives  are  classified  into  categories  "Health  and  safety", 
"Essential  services",  "Environment",  and  "Cultural  heritage".  This  has  enabled  the  setting  of 

specific objectives for these topics. Kokemäenjoki FRMP (part of FIVHA3) also covers these 
topics but puts more emphasis on safety.  

Examples of objectives across the five FRMPs assessed include the following:  

21 

 
 
  Number of dwellings flooded: "There are no residential buildings in the area covered by 
the rare flood (1 / 100a) (or the buildings are protected so that the health and safety of 

people are not compromised)." (Tornionjoki FRMP, FIVHA6)). 

  Human health: "During extremely rare floods (1 / 250a) the safety of permanent residents 

is guaranteed" (Hamina and Kotka coastal area in FIVHA2)).  

  Cultural heritage: "Buildings and flooding vulnerable structures of nationally significant 
constructed cultural environments do not incur irreparable damage in any flood situation. 

New built libraries, archives and museums are protected in a very rare (1 / 250a) flood." 
(Kalajoki catchment area, part of FIVHA4)).  

  Environment:  "The  extremely  rare  flood  (1  /  250a)  does  not  cause  long-lasting  or 
widespread  damage  to  the  environment  (e.g.  use  of  industrial  plants  or  the  storage  of 

chemicals  by  these  and  other  operators  and  use  of  wastewater  treatment  plants  do  not 
endanger the environment)." (Hamina and Kotka Coastal Area in FIVHA2)).  

  Economic  activity:  "Distribution  of  heat  and  electricity  functions  maintained  in  a  very 
rare flood situation (1 / 250a). Significant traffic connections are secured in a very rare 

flood situation (1 / 250a)." (Tornionjoki FRMP, FIVHA6)). 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

In  the  FRMP  of  Kokemäenjoki  catchment  (part  of  FIVHA3),  an  objective  to  reduce  the 
likelihood of flooding refers to increasing the retention of water and ice upstream of flood risk 

areas.  In  the  FRMP  of  Kalajoki  catchment  (part  of  FIVHA4),  an  objective  is  expressed 
regarding climate change: "the peak water levels or water flow will not increase in spite of the 

climate  change"  (in  this  case,  no  specific  measure  is  defined  in  the  objectives  section  of  the 
plan).  

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

Overall in Finland, the process for setting the objectives ensured that: 

  Objectives  have  been  coordinated  at  national  or  regional  level  in  all  five  FRMPs 

assessed. 

  The  objectives  were  discussed  with  stakeholders  before  their  establishment  in  all  five 

FRMPs assessed. 

In addition, in one of the five FRMP assessed, the potential effects of climate change on the 
risk of flooding have been taken into account. 

In  all  FRMPs  assessed,  the  objectives  were  coordinated  at  a  regional  level  in  flood  groups 

(groups  formed  to  coordinate  co-operation  in  each  region),  which  have  representatives  from 
authorities  of  the  region.  A  national  coordination  group  for  flood  risk  management  provided 

22 

 
 
overall guidance, but it was emphasised that regional features should be taken into account in 
objective setting (summary of FRMP from Kalajoki catchment area, part of FIVHA4)). In the 

case  of  the  Tornionjoki  FRMP(FIVHA6),  an  international  UoM  shared  with  Sweden,  the 
objectives were coordinated between the authorities of the two countries.  

In all FRMPs assessed the draft objectives were discussed with stakeholders before they were 

accepted in the flood groups. 

Only  one  of  the  assessed  FRMPs  includes  an  explicit  mention  of  the  effects  of  the  climate 

change in its objectives: the plan for the Kalajoki catchment area (part of FIVHA4) includes an 
objective (noted above) that the flood peak should not increase with climate change.”   

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practices have been identified: 

  All  objectives  contain at  least  some specific and measurable elements: for example, all 
five  FRMPs  assessed  define  clearly  the  location  where  the  objectives  will  be  achieved 
(for example, a specific APSFR or the whole catchment area).  

  The process  for setting  objectives was well coordinated both  at  a national  and regional 
level,  and  international  coordination  took  place  for  the  Tornionjoki  FRMP  (FIVHA6); 
moreover, stakeholders have been involved in objective setting.  

The following area for further development has been identified: 

  None of the FRMPs set a time frame for the achievement of objectives.  

23 

 
 
 
 
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Across all of Finland’s UoMs and FRMPs (6 UoMs, 16 FRMPs), a total of 412 measures are 
reported22. Some of the national  measures are assigned to  more than one  measure type23. To 
compare  the  number  of  measures  by  type,  a  total  count  is  used  that  includes  each  time  a 
measure is allocated to a measure type24: this total is 455 measures. 

All measures are individual as Finland did not report any aggregated25 measures. The average 
number of measures per UoM is 76, with a range between 17 and 196 measures per UoM (see 
Table A1 in Annex A for details26)  

In the classification system used for the Floods Directive, the measure types are grouped into 
the four main aspects27: prevention, protection, preparedness, recovery and review. In Finland, 
measures for all four aspects are found in all six UoMs. For all six UoMs reported, in terms of 

the number of measures associated, protection measures are in the majority, with 142 measures 
(31 % of the 455 total). These are followed by Preparedness (127 measures, 28 %), Prevention 

(98 measures, 22 %) and Recovery (88 measures, 19 %) (see Annex A for details).  

Please see Annex A for supplementary tables and charts on measures for this and subsequent 

questions in this section. 

4.1 

Cost of measures 

Finland reported cost information for less than half of the measures28. Estimated one-off (i.e. 
investment) costs are provided for 99 measures. (In addition, reporting sheets provide “actual” 

one-off costs for 24 measures: these refer for the most part to costs incurred before the start of 
the FRMP).  

22  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. 

23  See Annex B for the list of measure types. 
24  This approach implies double-counting. 
25   The Reporting Guidance mentions “Measures can be reported as individual measures (recommended for major 
projects)  or  aggregated  measures,…”  and  also  notes  that  measures  may  be  comprised  of  “many  individual 
projects”. European Commission, Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC), 2013, pp. 54-58. 

26  Please also note, as explained in section 1, that Finland reported its measures by UoM, not by FRMP, and in 

some UoMs more than one FRMP was prepared.  

27  See Annex B. Finland did not identify any measures in the “other” category listed in this annex.  
28  Finland  subsequently  noted  that  total  costs  are  available,  but  they  were  not  considered  certain  enough  for 

reporting. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
The  table  below  sums  the  estimated  one-off  costs  provided  for  99  measures:  it  provides  a 
partial view of the budget: 

Table 6 

Estimated one-off costs for certain measures 

Estimated one-off costs of planned measure/s (2015-2021) in EUR 
(based on 99 measures) 

FIVHA2 

FIVHA3 

FIVHA4 

FIVHA5 

FIVHA6 

FIVHA7 

21 225 000 

67 289 500 

4 060 000 

376 000 000 

150 000 

4 145 000 

Source: Reporting sheet 

The information  in  the table, while based on incomplete reporting, nonetheless indicates that 
the budget amounts vary significantly across UoMs. The largest overall budget is for FIVHA5, 
which  includes  construction  costs  for  a  large  reservoir29.  The  second  largest  budgets  are  for 
FIVHA3  and  FIVHA2,  which  respectively  cover  six  and  eight  APSFRs  and  most  of  the 

population in Finland. The measures in these UoMs include several flood protection structures 
as  well  as  geological  studies.  FIVHA6  has  the  smallest  budget,  and  the  smallest  number  of 

measures (17 measures).  

Looking  across  all  of  Finland’s  measures,  protection  measures  make  up  the  largest  share  of 

measures  with  reported  costs  (a  total  of  49  measures,  or  49  %  of  all  measures  with  costs 
reported).  Most  measures  were  reported  as  having  a  cost  between  EUR  10  000  and  EUR  50 

000: 19 protection measures (39 % of protection measures with reported costs), 21 prevention 
measures (84 % of prevention measures with reported costs), 17 preparedness measures (85 % 

of preparedness measures with reported costs), and four recovery & review measures (80 % of 
recovery & review measures with reported costs). See Table A3 and Figure A3 in Annex A for 

details. 

Many measures have no budget allocated, as they are planned to be carried out as part of the 
normal  work  of  municipal  or  regional  authorities.  This  work  may  include  planning, 

instructions,  permitting  processes  and  land  use  planning.  The  costs  that  are  assumed  to  be 
carried by landowners as a part of their own regular activities or legal obligations are also not 

budgeted. 

These  figures  are  based  on  Finland’s  reporting  of  one-off  project  costs.  For  some  measures, 

there is also information in the reporting sheets on budgeted annual expenses and expenditure 
to date. 

29  The project is costly and also controversial due to its potential impacts on nearby natural values. 

25 

 
 
 
                                                 
4.2 

Funding of measures 

While  Finland’s  reporting  sheets  do  not  provide  information  on  funding,  the  five  FRMPs 
assessed do contain some information: all refer to the use of regional and local public budgets, 

but do not specify other funding sources (see the table below). It is believed that national funds 
will  be  used  for  some  larger  construction  projects,  but  this  is  not  clearly  specified  in  the 

FRMPs. According to the information reported by Finland, the costs of private actors are not 
budgeted. 

Table 7 

Funding of measures 

Hamina and 
Kotka FRMP 
in FIVHA2 

Kokemäenj
oki FRMP 
in FIVHA3 

Kalajoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA4 

Kemijoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA5 

Tornionjoki 
FRMP, 
FIVHA6 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

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  

Source: FRMPs 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

All five FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of the measures with regard 
to:  

  What they are trying to achieve; 

  Where they are to be achieved; 

  How they are to be achieved; and 

  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  all  five  FRMPs  assessed,  most  measures  are  clearly  described  in  terms  of  the  target  area, 
their  schedule  and  the  responsible  authority  for  each.  In  the  FRMPs  of  Kokemäenjoki 

catchment area (part of FIVHA3), Kemijoki catchment area (part of FIVHA5) and Tornionjoki 
UoM (FIVHA6), this information was provided in summary tables30. 

The five FRMPs assessed provide detail on the location of measures, specifying four possible 

levels of location: RBD/UoM, sub-basin, APSFR, or a single water body (see the table below). 

Table 8 

Location of measures  

Hamina and 
Kotka 
FRMP in 
FIVHA2 

Koke-
mäenjoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA3 

Kalajoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA4 

Kemijoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA5 

Tornionjoki 
FRMP 
FIVHA6 

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

✔ 

Water body level  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

In  three  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  there  is  information  indicating  how  measures  will 

contribute  to  the  achievement  of  objectives.  None  of  the  FRMPs  assessed,  however,  specify 
how much each measure will contribute, nor whether the objectives will be achieved when all 

measures are completed.  

In  the  FRMPs  of  Tornionjoki  UoM  (FIVHA6),  Kokemäenjoki  catchment  area  (in  FIVHA3) 
and Kemijoki catchment area (in FIVHA5) there is a description for each measure for which 

objectives  they  contribute  to  and  what  flood  protection  benefits  they  bring.  In  the  FRMP 
(Annex  10)  of  Kokemäenjoki  catchment  area,  there  is  an  analysis  whether  each  measure 

contributes  to  the  objectives  directly  or  indirectly  through  flood  protection  benefits.  For 
example,  improved  flood  risk  maps  contribute  indirectly  to  the  public  safety  objective.  An 

assessment of the flood protection benefits of each measure are also presented (Annex 9). In 
the FRMP of Hamina and Kotka coastal area (part of FIVHA2), no reference to objectives is 

made in the description of measures. There is a table on objectives in this FRMP, but only a 
few examples of measures are given for each objective. In the section on the implementation of 

measures, it is  said  that "it is  estimated that the objectives set  will be met  using the outlined 

30  In chapters on “Summary and implementation”. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
measures". In the FRMP of Kalajoki catchment area (part of FIVHA4), there is an assessment 
whether the objectives will be met but no clear connection to single measures is made. In the 

description of measures no connection to objectives is made. 

4.5  Geographic coverage 

In  Finland’s  reporting  sheets,  all  measures  indicated  the  UoM  as  the  location.  The  reporting 
sheets referred to the APSFRs as the geographic coverage of the measures, with 151 measures 

spanning more than one APSFR and the others, only one APSFR.  

As noted above, Finland’s FRMPs provide further detail on the location of measures. Most of 
the measures are at the level of the APSFR or municipalities within it. The differences between 

FRMPs  assessed  are  mainly  related  to  the  nature  of  the  planning  area:  while  three  FRMPs 
cover more than one APSFR, the Hamina and Kotka coastal area covers a single APSFR and 

the Tornionjoki FRMP (FIVHA6) covers a whole UoM. 

4.6 

Prioritisation and timetable of measures 

According to data that Finland has reported for all 16 FRMPs, no measures were categorised as 

critical. The vast majority of measures are categorised as of very high priority: 316 of 455 (69 
%). High priority measures represent only 35 of 454 (8 %); moderate priority measures, 62 of 

455 (14 %); and low priority measures, 42 (9 %).  

The  number  of  very  high  priority  measures  is  distributed  rather  evenly  across  the  measure 

aspects: prevention (86), protection (92) and preparedness (85) – in each case, just under 30 % 
of  the  316  very  high  priority  measures.  The  recovery  and  review  category  has  the  lowest 

number (53) of very high priority measures, 17 % of the total.  Looking within each measure 
aspect, however, 88 % of prevention measures are of very high priority, compared with about 

65 % for protection and preparedness measures and 60 % for recovery and review measures. 
(See Table A5 and Figure A5 of Annex A for further information). 

All  UoMs  have  the  highest  number  of  measures  categorised  as  very  high  priority,  but  in 

FIVHA3 and FIVHA4 the highest share of measures is classified in this category: 156 of 196 
measures  and  42  of  50  measures,  respectively,  about  80  %  for  each.  In  contrast,  in  the  four 

other UoMs, the share of this category is around 50 %. (See Table A6 and Figure A6 of Annex 
A for further information.) 

Four of the five FRMPs assessed provide information on how priorities were set. 

The  FRMPs  of  the  Tornionjoki  UoM  (FIVHA6)  and  the  Kokemäenjoki  catchment  (part  of 

FIVHA3) list the following six criteria used in prioritisation:  

28 

 
 
  achieving targets set for flood risk management;  

  measures other than constructing flood protection structures;  

 

the  effectiveness  of  the  various  measures  to  reduce  the  likelihood  of  floods  and  their 

damaging consequences;  

 

the costs and benefits of the measures;  

  compatibility of measures with river basin management; and  

  environmental impact assessments.  

In the FRMP of Kemijoki catchment area (in FIVHA5), only three main criteria were used in 
prioritisation:  

  achieving the objectives of flood risk management;  

 

the  effectiveness  of  the  various  measures  to  reduce  the  likelihood  of  floods  and  their 

damaging consequences; and  

 

the costs and benefits of the measures.  

In the FRMP of Hamina and Kotka coastal area (part of FIVHA2), priority was given to those 
measures that were considered the most efficient in flood risk management. Information about 

the prioritisation of the measures was not found in the FRMP of the Kalajoki catchment area 
(part  of  FIVHA4).  Information  provided  on  climate  change  (see  section  5)  indicates  that 

versatility  to  address  possible  future  climate  impacts  was  considered  in  the  selection  process 
across Finland.  

All  five  FRMPs  assessed  provide  information  on  their  timetable  of  measures.  Many  of  the 

measures  (for  example  measures  related  to  land  use  planning  and  self-preparedness)  are 
continuous,  with  no  end  date.  For  other  measures,  the  time  of  completing  the  work  is  given 

either  as  an  exact  year  or  estimate  of  duration  time  (years  of  number  of  planning  periods). 
Most measures will be completed during the first planning period (2016-2021).  

There  is  a  difference  among  the  time  periods  presented  across  the  FRMPs  assessed:  while 

FRMPs  for  Kemijoki  (in  FIVHA5)  and  Tornionjoki  (FIVHA6)  catchment  areas  extend  the 
timetable to up to three planning periods for their investment measures (i.e. to 2027 and even 

2031),  the  FRMPs  of  Hamina  and  Kotka  coastal  area  (part  of  FIVHA2)  and  Kokemäenjoki 
catchment area (part of FIVHA3) only cover the end of the first planning period (2021). The 

FRMP  of  Kalajoki  catchment  area  (part  of  FIVHA4)  has  two  investment  measures  with 
timetables that go respectively for 6 and 12 years. 

Finland reported information to WISE on the timetables of measures: dates are given for when 

a measure is proposed and when it is estimated to be completed. 

29 

 
 
4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

Finland reported information on the authorities, but named 288 different authorities, making a 
quantitative assessment difficult. For many measures, more than one responsible authority was 

reported,  creating  double  counting  and  making  the  aggregation  of  the  data  difficult.  Overall, 
most measures reported municipal and regional authorities as the responsible authorities, with 

municipalities responsible for the highest  number of measures. Some measures reported also 
national or UoM authorities as the responsible authorities. Regional authorities appear to play a 

more  significant  role  dealing  with  protection  and  preparedness  measures  compared  to  other 
types of measures.  

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

For  all  16  FRMPs  reported,  a  little  more  than  a  half  of  the  measures  are  reported  in  the 

category of progress on-going (235 of 454 measures, 52 %) and a little less than a half have not 
been  started  (211  of  454  measures,  47%).  Few  measures  are  reported  as  completed  (seven 
measures, 1.5 %) or under construction (one measure, 0.2 %).31  

Among measures not started, 35 of 98 prevention measures (36 %) are in this category, 81 of 
141  protection  measures  (57  %),  62  of  127  preparedness  measures  (49  %)  and  33  of  88 

recovery and review measures (38 %). (See Table A7 and Figure A7 in Annex A.) 

For FIVHA2 and FIVHA3, the majority have not been started: 88 of 154 measures in FIVHA2 

(57  %)  and  104  of  195  measures  in  FIVHA3  (53  %).  In  the  other  UoMs,  a  majority  of 
measures  have  progress  ongoing,  and  the  vast  majority  of  the  measures  of  FIVHA6  and 

FIVHA7 have progress ongoing: 16 of 18 and 15 or 17, respectively, just under 90 % for each. 
(see Table A8 and Figure A8 in Annex A for details). 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

Finland has not reported any measures that have been implemented under other EU legislation. 

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

With  regard  to  spatial  planning/land  use  measures,  all  FRMPs  assessed  report  a  similar 

measure,  under  which  floods  will  be  taken  into  account  in  land-use  planning.  There  is  no 
information, however, whether the framework for land-use planning has evolved since 2000.  

Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in four of the five FRMPs 

assessed.  This  kind  of  a  measure  was  not  included  in  the  FRMP  of  the  Hamina  and  Kotka 

31  Please note that the total used here is 454 measures, as one measure was reported as both completed and not 

started and was excluded from the analysis. 

30 

 
 
                                                 
Coastal  Area  (part  of  FIVHA2),  which  focused  on  seawater  flooding.  The  FRMPs  of 
Tornionjoki  UoM  (FIVHA6)  and  Kemijoki  catchment  area  (in  FIVHA5)  each  include  a 
measure  targeted  to  actors  in  agriculture  and  forestry32  and  another  measure  studying  the 
potential of natural retention in the catchment area33. In the FRMP of Kalajoki catchment area, 
for  example,  one  measure  is  called  “natural  temporary  storage”  and  it  includes  promoting 
wetlands (NWRM measure type N0234) as well as flood meadows (NWRM A01) and forests 
(NWRM F14) in land use planning.  

The  five  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  include  any  specific  measures  targeted  to  nature 

conservation – however, all five FRMPs assessed address the effects of other flood measures 
on biodiversity or on Natura 2000 sites in their impact assessments.  

Navigation  and  port  infrastructure  have  been  considered  in  the  impact  assessment  of  the 

measures  for  Hamina  and  Kotka  coastal  area.  However,  there  are  no  measures  specifically 
targeting these.  

References  to  dredging  measures  are  found  only  in  some  of  the  FRMPs  assessed.  In  the 

FRMP of Kokemäenjoki catchment area there are two measures related to dredging: “dredging 
of existing river channels in the centre of Pori”, and “Mowing and dredging of the estuary of 
the Kokemäki river in the Pihlavanlahti Bay”35.  

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The  role  of  insurance  policies  is  discussed  in  all  five  FRMPs  assessed,  with  regard  to  the 
recovery from flooding, preparedness/resilience to flood or other issues; however, only three of 
the five include measures that address insurance.  

In the FRMPs of Tornionjoki (FIVHA6), Kemijoki catchment area (in FIVHA5) and Hamina 

and  Kotka  (in  FIVHA2),  coastal  area  insurance  is  discussed  in  connection  with  the  measure 
“self-preparedness  of  land  owners”.  It  includes  awareness  raising  on  insurance  among  other 

topics.  In  the  other  FRMPs,  insurance  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  a  legislative  change: 
previously, the state paid compensation of flood damages, and from the beginning of 2014 it is 

covered by private insurance in the whole of Finland. 

With regard to the type of insurance available or to be developed for potential flooding areas, 
insurance  is  available  for  domestic  properties,  home  contents,  and  small  businesses. 

32  These  measures  cover  the  following  NWRM  measure  types:  A01,  meadows  and  pastures;  N02,  wetland 
restoration and management; F02, Maintenance of forest cover in headwater areas; F14, Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests.  

33  These measures cover the following NWRM measure types: N01, basins and ponds; N02, wetland restoration 

and management; and N13, Restoration of natural infiltration to groundwater.    

34  See Annex B for NWRM measure types. 
35  The mowing refers to management of reeds and seagrasses. 

31 

 
 
                                                 
Compensation for loss of agricultural crops is now also based on private insurance (starting in 
2016). 

With regard to flood insurance for properties in flood risk areas, and in particular in high flood 

risk  areas,  insurance  may  not  be  available.  Insurance  rules  may  vary,  but  usually  they  cover 
only rare floods occurring once in 50 years or less frequently. More frequently occurring flood 
damage compensation may not be available36.  

The  available  information  suggests  that  insurance  is  not  conditional  on  making  at  risk 

properties  (domestic,  industrial)  as  flood  resilient  as  possible  on  sites  at  risk  of  major,  rare 
floods.  The  available  information  suggests  that  environmental  liability  insurance  does  not 

cover the restoration costs arising from flooding of potentially polluting sites and installations 
and that ecosystem  services are not  considered  in estimating restoration costs in  cases where 

potentially polluting sites and installations may be flooded.   

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

In each area, the Competent Authority undertakes monitoring in cooperation with flood groups 
that  have  representatives  of  public  bodies  and  private  stakeholders.  Information  on  each 

measure  is  provided  in  a  national  flood  information  portal  for  public  authorities.  Indicators 
have been defined for the monitoring of the implementation of the measures. Most indicators 

describe the progress of the measures, for example in terms of the number of flood-protected 
residents.  Implementation  progress  will  be  reviewed  regularly:  the  reporting  sheets  for  the 

Kokemäenjoki  and  Kemijoki  FRMPs  refer  to  annual  monitoring,  though  the  other  reporting 
sheets do not specify the intervals. 

In  at  least  three  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed,  a  baseline  has  been  established  against  which 
progress  will  be  monitored  and  assessed.  In  the  FRMPs  for  Kalajoki  (part  of  FIVHA4), 

Kemijoki  (in  FIVHA5)  and  Tornionjoki  (FIVHA6),  a  baseline  has  been  established  for  each 
measure, and it is presented in the section where the measures are described. For example, the 

baseline  for  the  measure  self-preparedness  of  inhabitants  that  inhabitants  know  poorly  their 
responsibilities  in  flood  protection  (Kalajoki);  the  baseline  for  the  measure  construction  of 

flood walls for Rovaniemi is that there are no flood walls in that location; the baseline for the 
development of a flood-proof sewerage network is that a part of the sewerage network in the 

flood risk area is located in the area of elevated flood risk and some of the sewage pumping 
stations may have to be shut down by floods. In the FRMPs of Hamina and Kotka coastal area 

(part of FIVHA2) and Kokemäenjoki catchment area (part of FIVHA3), no information on the 
baseline was found. 

36  Subsequently  Finland  stated  that  insurance  conditions  are  company-specific,  but  more  or  less  comparable. 
Indeed, if a rare flood occurs for the second time at the same place, it is still possible to get compensation, as 
long as the likelihood of the flood event is estimated at around 1/50 or less frequent. 

32 

 
 
                                                 
4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 

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

Table 9 

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

second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD  

All FRMPs assessed 

Integration of FRMP and RBMP  

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP  

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

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

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

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

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

Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included  

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

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

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

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

All FRMPs assessed have a similar procedure of coordinating the FRMP with the RBMPs of 
the  WFD.  The  same  authority  has  been  responsible  for  the  preparation  of  both  FRMPs  and 

RBMPs,  and  the  consultation  processes  of  these  plans  have  occurred  at  the  same  time.  The 
planning principle has been that the measures in one plan should not significantly threaten the 

objectives  and  positive  impacts  of  the  other  plan.  The  impact  of  flood  risk  management 
measures on the achievement of water management objectives has been assessed using a five 

level scale: very positive, positive, neutral, negative and very negative. 

In its reporting under the WFD, Finland indicates that in all RBDs, the objectives of the Floods 

Directive  were  considered  in  the  preparation  of  the  RBMPs.  Finland  also  indicates  that  the 
PoMs  for  all  RBDs  included  win-win  measures  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the 

WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and NWRMs. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  All  FRMPs  assessed  had  an  impact  assessment  process  with  a  sound  method  that  was 
used  to  select  the  combination  of  measures.  Multi-objective  assessment  methodology 
was used, following guidance from the Finnish Environment Institute.  

  All  FRMPs  assessed  contained  clear  information  on  the  geographic  location,  timetable 

and responsibilities related to the planned measures.  

  Three of the five FRMPs assessed the link between measures and objectives. 

  The  FRMPs  assessed  include  measures  that  address  spatial  planning  and  natural  water 

retention. 

  The  impact  of  flood  risk  management  measures  on  the  achievement  of  water 
management  objectives  has  been  assessed  using  a    five  level  scale:  very  positive, 

positive, neutral, negative and very negative. 

  All  the  FRMPs  assessed  establish  a  clear  process  for  monitoring  the  progress  of  their 

measures, based on a national approach.   

The following areas for further development were identified:  

  All  FRMPs  assessed  lacked  a  description  of  how  much  the  measures  contribute  to  the 
achievement of objectives, and most FRMPs did not contain a description of whether the 

objectives will be met when all measures are implemented. 

  One  FRMP  (for  the  Kalajoki  catchment  area,  part  of  FIVHA4)  did  not  specify 

prioritisation methods or criteria. 

34 

 
 
 
5.   Consideration of climate change 

All  five  FRMPs  assessed  include  a  systematic  analysis  of  the  adaptability  of  measures  to 

changing  climate  conditions.  One  FRMP,  Kalajoki  catchment  area  (part  of  FIVHA4),  has 
included  adaptation  to  climate  change  among  its  objectives  (see  section  3  above).  Climate 

change has  been considered in  the process  to  assess and select  the measures, where versatile 
measures are preferred. 

If floods are anticipated to increase due to climate change, this will be taken into account in the 
second planning period for FRMPs. 

The timeframes for the climate change scenarios that have been considered are from 50 to 100 

years. Four of the five FRMPs assessed (all except Hamina and Kotka coastal area) provide a 
reference to  a shift  in the occurrence of extreme events  and changes in  numerical  recurrence 

times. The shift mentioned is from spring floods to summer/autumn and/or winter floods. This 
is related to the reduction of snow and ice cover due to climate change. The main sources of 

flooding are not expected to change under the long-term climate change scenarios.  

Despite these elements, none of the five FRMPs assessed make reference to Finland’s national 

adaptation  policy  documents:  Finland  established  a  National  Adaptation  Strategy  in  2005; 
following  an  evaluation  of  the  Strategy  in  2013,  it  was  updated  in  2014  by  the  National 
Climate Change Adaptation Plan 202237.  

5.1 

Specific types of measures to address climate change  

As noted above, Finland did not identify specific types of measures to address climate change 
– rather, the approach has been to select versatile measures.  

The  adaptability  of  different  measures  to  the  changing  climate  was  assessed.  Most  measures 

are  well  adapted  to  the  changing  climate.  For  example,  in  the  Kemijoki  catchment  area  all 
structural measures planned are considered to be well adapted to a changing climate. 

Concerning  the  non-structural  measures  planned,  the  Kemijoki  FRMP  states  that  land-use 
planning  is  a  long-term  flexible  measure  which  helps  to  adapt  new  activities  to  changing 

climate conditions. In the FRMPs of Tornionjoki and Kemijoki catchment areas, the land use 
planning  measure  includes  updating  the  lowest  allowed  building  sites38  to  take  into  account 
climate change impacts on flood levels. 

37  For further information, see: http://mmm.fi/en/national-climate-change-adaptation-plan 
38  To avoid building on sites at low elevations that are at risk of flooding. 

35 

 
 
                                                 
5.2  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practice was identified: 

  All FRMPs assessed include a systematic assessment of the adaptability of measures to 
changing  climate  conditions.  The  FRMPs  considered  climate  change  scenarios  (for  50 
and 100 years). 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  None  of  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  refer  to  Finland’s  national  policy  documents  on 

adaptation. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
6.   Cost-benefit analysis 
A  CBA  was  used  in  the  prioritisation  and  planning  of  measures  in  all  five  of  the  FRMPs 

assessed. CBA was conducted for the proposed measures at the appropriate level of accuracy 
in those cases where the economic benefits or cost data were available.  

The  comparison  of  the  benefit  of  the  measures  relative  to  the  cost  was  described  either  as  a 
repayment period (how long it would take to pay the cost of the investment with the benefits it 

produces)  or  as  a  net  amount,  for  those  measures  where  information  was  available  for  both 
costs  and  benefits.  The  cost  estimates  included  the  design  and  construction  costs  of  the 
measure  as  well  as  the  present  value  of  service  and  maintenance  costs.  The  timeframe  used 

was the life cycle of the measure and the discount rate used was 3.5 %. If it was possible to 
estimate  the  benefits  of  a  measure  in  monetary  terms,  a  corresponding  expected  value  of 

annual benefit was estimated for flood risk management. The benefit of flood risk management 
was estimated based on the value of avoided flood damage.  

The  cost-benefit  assessment  was  used  for  flood  protection  infrastructure  projects  (i.e.  grey 
measures),  for  example  construction  of  flood  walls.  The  flood  protection  benefits  were 

estimated  in  terms  of  avoided  flood  damage.  Other  benefits  were  not  included  in  the  cost 
benefit  analysis,  but  the  flood  control  benefits  of  each  measure  were  assessed  separately. 

However, the cost-benefit method did not consider multi-benefits. 

For  those  non-market  or  continuous  measures  whose  monetary  valuation  is  difficult  to 

estimate, the benefits were assessed as part of the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). 
For this reason, it was not possible to assess all the measures using a similar method, and in 

these cases only the costs were estimated in Euros. 

CBA was used to assess measures with transboundary effects for one measure in the FRMP for 

Tornionjoki  catchment  area, the only  FRMP assessed with  cross-border aspects: this was for 
the raising of flood protection walls on Suensaari (an island in the city of Tornio on the Finnish 

side of the border just across from Haparanda in Sweden), a joint measure with Sweden. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The  CBA  had  a  broad  scope  and  accommodated  the  fact  that  not  all  effects  could  be 

measured in monetary terms.   

The following area for further development was identified: 

  CBA  was  carried  out  only  for  some  measures  where  information  was  available  and 

exclusively for flood protection infrastructure measures. 

37 

 
 
 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

No updates to the Competent Authorities and/or UoMs identified for the Floods Directive have 
been  submitted  to  the  European  Commission  since  2011.  The  five  FRMPs  assessed  did  not 

indicate any changes to the Competent Authorities. 

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

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

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

Table 10 

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

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking 

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

Hamina and 
Kotka 
FRMP in 
FIVHA2 

Kokemäenj
oki FRMP 
in FIVHA3 

Kalajoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA4 

Kemijoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA5 

Tornionjok
i FRMP, 
FIVHA6 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

All  FRMPs  assessed  used  multiple  media  for  reaching  the  public  and  stakeholders.  The 
traditional media used was newspapers and press releases. All FRMPs assessed except for the 

Kalajoki catchment area reported having used social media, but the type  of social media was 
not further specified. The meetings were both public meetings organised to inform people and 

talks in seminars and other events. 

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

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 11 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Hamina and 
Kotka in 
FIVHA2 

Kokemäen-
joki FRMP 
in FIVHA3 

Kalajoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA4 

Kemijoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA5 

Tornionjok
i FRMP, 
FIVHA6 

Via Internet  

Via digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

A mail survey 

A survey in a public meeting 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Workshops  were  organised  to  involve  stakeholders  outside  flood  groups.  Public  consultation 

was carried out via internet or in public meetings. The summaries of FRMPs of Kokemäenjoki, 
Kemijoki and Tornionjoki report having used discussions in social media in consultation, but 

the  extent  of  discussions  or  the  type  of  social  media  used  is  not  specified.  A  national 
consultation web site, www.otakantaa.fi, was used for public comments. 

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

Table 12 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions  

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

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

For all five FRMPs assessed, the documents were available in the municipalities, and after the 
naming of the flood groups on 22December 2011, on their internet pages. All FRMPs assessed 

had similar information. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

As  part  of  the  overall  consultation,  authorities  should  encourage  the  active  involvement  of 
stakeholders.  The  table  below  shows  the  groups  of  stakeholders  that  have  been  actively 

involved in the development of the five FRMPs assessed: 

Table 13 

Groups of stakeholders  

Hamina and 
Kotka FRMP 
in FIVHA2 

Kokemäenjo
ki FRMP in 
FIVHA3 

Kalajoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA4 

Kemijoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA5 

Tornionjoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA6 

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

Flood Warning / Defence Authorities  

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  

Navigation / ports  

Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business (Industry, 
Commerce, Services) 

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

Consumer Groups  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Local / Regional authorities  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Academia / Research Institutions  

Finnish-Swedish Transboundary 
River Commission 

Source: FRMPs 

In all FRMPs assessed, flood groups with representatives of regional and local authorities and 
emergency  services  were  consulted.  Other  stakeholders  involved  in  the  consultation  in  some 

FRMPs were the port authorities in the Hamina and Kotka coastal area and permanent experts 
in  the  Kemijoki  and  Tornionjoki  catchment  areas.  The  permanent  experts  in  the  Kemijoki 

catchment area include experts from a hydropower company, the regional nature conservation 
NGO,  and  the  regional  water  protection  association.  In  Tornionjoki  catchment  area,  the 

permanent  experts  include  the  Finnish-Swedish  Transboundary  River  Commission  and  a 
regional  nature  conservation  NGO.  These  groups  were  actively  involved  in  the  drafting  and 

assessing of the plans. Stakeholders were also  involved in  the assessment of the measures in 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
workshops, but this is  considered as consultation, rather than active involvement. Temporary 
experts  were  invited  to  be  heard  and  give  advice  on  certain  questions  in  the  meetings  of  the 

flood groups but there is no further information on who they were.  

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

Table 14 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Workshops and technical meetings 

Formation of alliances  

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

The  active  involvement  of  stakeholders  was  in  the  form  of  acting  as  members  or  permanent 

experts in  the flood groups. Permanent  experts  have the right  to  take part in  the discussions, 
but they have no official decision-making power. 

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

Three of the five FRMPs assessed included information on the effects of consultation on the 

plans. The table below provides an overview of effects of consultation for these FRMPs: 

Table 15 

Overview of the effects of consultation 

Kokemäenj
oki FRMP 
in FIVHA3 

Kalajoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA4 

Kemijoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA5 

Tornionjoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA6 

✔ 

✔ 

Hamina 
and Kotka 
FRMP in 
FIVHA2 

✔ 

Changes to selection of 
measures 

Adjustment to specific 
measures 

Addition of new information 

Changes to the methodology 
used 

Commitment to further 
research 

Commitment to action in the 
next FRMP  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hamina 
and Kotka 
FRMP in 
FIVHA2 

Kokemäenj
oki FRMP 
in FIVHA3 

Kalajoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA4 

Kemijoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA5 

Tornionjoki 
FRMP in 
FIVHA6 

A summary of measures was 
added 

✔ 

The consultation had an 
effect on which measures 
would be given top priority 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

The  FRMPs  of  Kokemäenjoki  and  Kemijoki  catchment  areas  included  a  description  of  the 
main  points  in  comments  received  but  did  not  include  a  summary  of  how  consultation  was 

taken into account in the plan. The FRMP of Hamina and Kotka Coastal area did not include 
any  explicit  description  of  how  consultation  results  were  taken  into  account  in  the  plan,  but 

there is a detailed description of comments, and at least a part of them have been taking into 
account  in  the  final  plan.  For  example,  the  City  of  Hamina  requested  that  a  museum  bridge 

should be taken into account in the planning of one measure, and text regarding the measure 
had  been  added.  Also,  a  clear  summary  of  measures  had  been  added  upon  request.  In  the 

FRMP  of  Kalajoki  catchment  area,  the  consultation  resulted  in  giving  more  attention  to  the 
development of approaches for the regulation of the water level in water bodies during the first 

planning period. In addition, it became clear that self-preparedness of residents and awareness 
raising  is  the  most  important  flood  risk  management  measure  and  it  should  be  given  highest 

priority.  In the  FRMP for Tornionjoki  catchment area,  assessment of impacts  on fishery was 
added to the assessment of measures, and new information was added in the SEA report. 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

All  FRMPs  assessed  underwent  an  SEA  procedure,  and  its  hearings  was  carried  out  in 

connection with  the hearings of the  FRMPs.  The SEA reports  are included in  the  FRMPs as 
annexes.  The  SEA  processes  were  led  by  consultants  and,  according  to  the  SEA  reports, 

carried out with sound methodology.   

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  public  has  been  informed  of  the  different  phases  of  the  planning  process  using 

different media in all FRMPs assessed.  

  The  plans  were  presented  in  various  occasions  to  the  public  and  to  stakeholders  in  all 
FRMPs assessed. The work of the flood groups integrated the views of stakeholders in 

the preparation of the plans, including drafting. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  The  Finnish-Swedish  Transboundary  River  Commission  had  an  expert  member  in  the 
flood group and was actively involved in the drafting of the FRMP of Tornionjoki UoM 

(FIVHA6). 

  All FRMPs assessed underwent a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) procedure, 
and  the  SEA  hearings  were  carried  out  in  connection  with  the  hearings  of  the  FRMPs. 

The SEA reports are included in the FRMPs as annexes.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Not  all  FRMPs  assessed  involved  NGOs,  fisheries  or  industry  in  an  active  role  in  the 
drafting process via the flood groups (however not all stakeholders may be relevant in all 
FRMPs). Despite there being description of consultation results and statements that the 

results  were taken into account,  not  all  FRMPs assessed included a description  of how 
the consultation results were taken into account in the final drafting of the plan. 

43 

 
 
 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

This  Annex  gives  an  overview  of  the  data  on  measures  reported  by  Finland  in  the  reporting 

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

Background & method 

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

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

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

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

•  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 

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

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

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

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

•  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive)39, not 
all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields.  

Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers  – for example, 
progress  is  measured  via  the  categories  set  out  in  the  Reporting  Guidance.  This  means  that 

producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort.  For many fields, however, a 
free  data  format  was  used.  For  some  Member  States,  this  resulted  in  thousands  of  different 

answer, or answers given in the national language.  

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

  A first filter is done 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. 

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

44 

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

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

categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The following table40  is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures 
is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. 

NO ACTION 
M11: No Action 

PREVENTION 
M21: Avoidance 
M22: Removal or relocation 
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 

PREPAREDNESS 
M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning 
M42: Emergency response planning 
M43: Public Awareness 
M44: Other preparedness 

RECOVERY & REVIEW 
M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery 
M52: Environmental recovery 
M53: Other recovery  

OTHER MEASURES 
M61: Other measures 

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

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

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Table A1:  Total number of measures ...................................................................................... 47 
Table A2: Total number of measures (aggregated and individual), per type and UoM, including 
duplicates   ............................................................................................................................... 47 
Table A3: One-off cost estimates by measure aspect .............................................................. 49 
Table A4: One-off cost estimates by UoM .............................................................................. 50 
Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect .................................................................. 52 
Table A6: Category of priority by UoM .................................................................................. 53 
Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ...................................................... 56 
Table A8: Progress of implementation by UoM ...................................................................... 57 

Figure A1: Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ............ 48 
Figure A2: Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect .............. 48 
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A3: One-off cost estimates by measure aspect ................. 50 
Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A4: One-off cost estimates by UoM ................................. 51 
Figure A5: Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect ..................... 53 
Figure A6: Visualisation of Table A6: Category of priority by UoM ..................................... 54 
Figure A7: Visualisation of Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ......... 56 
Figure A8: Visualisation of Table A8: Progress of implementation by UoM ......................... 57 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1:  Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

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

Number of aggregated measures  

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

Total number of measures  

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

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

(Min-Max) 

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

Table A2: Total number of measures (aggregated and individual), per type and UoM, including duplicates 

Preparedness 

Total 

Prevention 

Total 

Protection 

Recovery and review 

Total 

412 

455 

0 

0 

412 

455 

17 - 196 

76 

Total 

Other  Grand 
Total 

13 

11 
13 
6 
2 
2 
2 

12 
7 
4 
1 
1 
1 

M21  M22  M23  M24 

M41  M42  M43  M44 
16 
16 
5 

FIVHA2  10 
FIVHA3  13 
2 
FIVHA4 
1 
FIVHA5 
1 
FIVHA6 
FIVHA7 
1 
Grand 
Total 
Average 
per UoM 
Note: See Types of measures, above, and Annex B for the codes used. The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. All 

154 
196 
50 
20 
18 
17 

M31  M32  M33  M35 
30 
30 
6 
2 
2 
1 

M51  M52  M53 
4 
29 
2 
14 
2 
2 
1 
3 
1 
3 
1 
3 

45 
62 
18 
7 
5 
5 

18 
59 
7 
5 
5 
4 

3 
15 
2 
2 
2 
2 

49 
49 
17 
4 
4 
4 

5 
16 
2 
1 
1 
1 

10 
15 
3 
2 
2 
1 

14 
23 
6 
3 
2 
4 

42 
26 
8 
4 
4 
4 

1 
2 
3 
1 
1 

9 
10 
4 

7 
3 
1 

127 

142 

455 

24 

98 

16 

26 

11 

54 

11 

23 

76 

37 

28 

21 

26 

36 

26 

13 

33 

52 

71 

88 

12 

15 

0 

0 

8 

4 

6 

4 

2 

6 

1 

9 

5 

6 

4 

2 

9 

2 

4 

measures are individual as Finland did not report any aggregated measures. 

47 

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

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

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 
All measures are individual as Finland did not report any aggregated measures. 

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

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 
All measures are individual as Finland did not report any aggregated measures. 

48 

 
 
 
Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

•  Cost (optional field); 

•  Cost explanation (optional field). 

Cost 

Finland provided cost  estimates in  various ways: an  estimated  one-off cost  was  given for 99 
measures,  annual  cost  estimates  for  25  measures,  actual  costs  for  21  measures,  and  actual 

annual costs for 24 measures. 

The figure below shows the information reported for estimated one-off costs, as this category 
was the most straightforward to aggregate and compare. The highest amount was 370,000,000 

EUR while the lowest was 3,000 EUR (both for protection measures). 

Table A3: One-off cost estimates by measure aspect  

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

Grand Total 

<10 000 
10 000- 
50 000 
50 001- 
100 000 
100 001- 
500 000 
>500 001 

 Total 

21 

 2 

2 

25 

1 

19 

17 

7 

5 

49 

1 

17 

2 

20 

4 

1 

5 

2 

61 

21 

9 

6 

99 

49 

 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A3: One-off cost estimates by measure aspect  

Table A4: One-off cost estimates by UoM 

<10 000 

10 000- 
50 000 

50 001-100 
000 

100 001-500 
000 

>500 001 

Total 

FIVHA2 

FIVHA3 

FIVHA4 

FIVHA5 

FIVHA6 

FIVHA7 

Total 

Average 
per UoM 

1 

9 

1 

11 

2 

18 

31 

2 

1 

52 

9 

3 

3 

1 

7 

1 

1 

10 

3 

3 

2 

19 

3 

27 

58 

5 

3 

1 

5 

99 

28 

4 

5 

1 

10 

2 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A4: One-off cost estimates by UoM 

FIVHA2

1 

18 

4 

3 

1 

FIVHA3

9 

31 

5 

3 

10 

2 

3 

FIVHA4

FIVHA5

FIVHA6

3 

1 

1 

2 

FIVHA7

1 

1 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

<10 000

10 000-50 000

50 001-100 000

100 001-500 000

>500 001

Cost explanation 

In the reporting sheet, 261 measures had information for cost explanation. It seems that many 
of  these  explanations  also  include  some  numerical  information,  but  a  quantitative  analysis  is 

not possible.  

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

•  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

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

Location of measures 

The location of the measures was indicated as the UoM. 

Geographic coverage 

Geographic  coverage  was  determined  by  APSFRs  for  all  measures,  with  151  measures 
spanning more than one APSFR.  

Measure details: objectives 

This section provides information on: 

51 

 
 
 
  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 

Finland reported objectives for all measures in the reporting sheets. The objectives seem to be 

variations on standard answers, but with 170 different objectives, it is not possible to quantify 
them.  

Category of priority 

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

•  Critical; 

•  Very high; 

•  High; 

•  Moderate; 

•  Low. 

Table A5: Category of priority by measure aspect  

Low 

Moderate 

High 

Very high 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & Review 

Grand Total 

2 

19 

8 

13 

42 

7 

18 

20 

17 

62 

3 

13 

14 

5 

35 

86 

92 

85 

53 

316 

98 

142 

127 

88 

455 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 
No measures were categorised as critical. 

52 

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

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 
No measures were categorised as critical. 

Table A6: Category of priority by UoM  

Low 

Moderate 

High 

Very high 

Grand Total 

FIVHA2 

FIVHA3 

FIVHA4 

FIVHA5 

FIVHA6 

FIVHA7 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

36 

2 

4 

42 

7 

23 

12 

3 

9 

8 

7 

62 

10 

8 

26 

1 

35 

6 

87 

156 

42 

11 

10 

10 

316 

53 

154 

196 

50 

20 

18 

17 

455 

76 

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

No measures were categorised as critical. 

53 

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

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

No measures were categorised as critical. 

Timetable 

In the reporting sheets, Finland has reported information about the timetable of all measures. 

However, the information given does not seem to refer to a projected timeline, rather, dates are 
given  for  previous  milestones  (e.g.  public  consultations)  suggesting  there  might  have  been  a 

misunderstanding of the reporting template. Nonetheless, information about timetables for the 
implementation of the measures are reported in the FRMPs, as explained in section 4. 

Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to provide 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).  

Finland completed these fields for all measures. 288 different authorities were named, making 
a quantitative assessment of the name of authorities difficult. Note also that measures reported 

more  than  one  responsible  authority,  creating  some  double  counting  and  making  the 
aggregation of the data difficult. Overall, the most measures reported municipal and regional 

authorities  as  the  responsible  authorities,  some  measures  reported  also  national  or  UoM 
authorities as the responsible authorities.  

54 

 
 
Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

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

whose responses are analysed below 

  Progress description of the implementation of measures (optional field) – this is an open 

text question whose answers are not analysed here. 

The progress of implementation was reported as41: 

  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.  

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

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

55 

 
 
                                                 
Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect  

Not Started 

On Going 
Construction 

Progress On 
Going 

Completed 

Grand Total 

Prevention  

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

35 

81 

62 

33 

Grand Total 

211 

1 

1 

62 

57 

61 

55 

235 

1 

2 

4 

7 

98 

141 

127 

88 

454 

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

The  original  data  reports  one  measure  as  both  completed  and  not  started,  this  measure  was 
excluded  from  the  analysis,  hence  only  454  measures  are  analysed  for  the  progress  of 

implementation.  

Figure A7: Visualisation of Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect  

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. 
The  original  data  reports  one  measure  as  both  completed  and  not  started:  this  measure  was 
excluded  from  the  analysis,  hence  only  454  measures  are  analysed  for  the  progress  of 

implementation. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A8: Progress of implementation by UoM  

Not started 

Ongoing 
construction 

FIVHA2 

FIVHA3 

FIVHA4 

FIVHA5 

FIVHA6 

FIVHA7 

Grand Total 
Average per 
UoM 

88 

104 

11 

4 

2 

2 

211 

35 

1 

1 

<1 

Progress 
ongoing 
64 

90 

34 

16 

16 

15 

235 

39 

Completed 

Grand Total 

2 

5 

7 

1 

154 

195 

50 

20 

18 

17 

454 

76 

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

The  original  data  reports  one  measure  as  both  completed  and  not  started:  this  measure  was 
excluded  from  the  analysis,  hence  only  454  measures  are  analysed  for  the  progress  of 

implementation. 

Figure A8: Visualisation of Table A8: Progress of implementation by UoM  

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

The  original  data  reports  one  measure  as  both  completed  and  not  started,  this  measure  was 
excluded  from  the  analysis,  hence  only  454  measures  are  analysed  for  the  progress  of 

implementation. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 finalised. 

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

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

  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. 

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

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

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

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

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

  Progress on-going (POG) means an administrative file has been opened and at least a 
first  administrative  action  has  been  taken  (e.g.  requirement  to  an  operator  to  provide 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
information  to  renew  the  licensing,  request  of  a  permit  by  an  operator,  internal 
consultation of draft regulations, etc.). If the measure involves more than one file, the 
opening of one would mean already “ongoing”. 

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

Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

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

•  Any other information reported (optional field). 

Finland  did  not  provide  information  about  ‘other  Community  Acts’  in  the  reporting  sheets.  
Nevertheless,  it reported information  for almost all measures under “Other Description”, this 

information could not be aggregated in categories. 

59 

 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures42 

M11 

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

No Action 

Prevention 

M21 

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

M22 

Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to relocate 

receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard 

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

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

M24 

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 

M31  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. 

M32  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. 

M33 

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. 

M34 

Protection, Surface Water Management, Measures involving physical interventions to reduce surface 

water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing artificial 
drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). 

M35  Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may include 

flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies 

Preparedness 

M41 

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

warning system 

M42 

Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or 

enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning 

M43 

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

M44  Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events 

to reduce adverse consequences 

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

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

60 

 
 
                                                 
Recovery & Review 

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

Individual and societal recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure, etc), 

Health and mental health supporting actions, incl. managing stress Disaster financial assistance (grants, 
tax), incl. disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, Temporary or permanent 

relocation, Other 

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

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

M53 

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

M61 

policies 

Other 

Other 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)  

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

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

measures, or similar measures called by a different name, 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-
naturalisation   

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams   

U05 Channels and rills   

U06 Filter Strips   

61 

 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A07 Low till agriculture   

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving   

A08 Green cover   

A09 Early sowing   

A10 Traditional 
terracing   

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming   

A12 Reduced stocking 
density   

A13 Mulching 

F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream 
crossings   

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds   

F10 Coarse woody debris   

F11 Urban forest parks   

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features   

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation   

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers   

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation   

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection   

U07 Soakaways   

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches   

U09 Rain Gardens   

U10 Detention Basins   

U11 Retention Ponds  

F12 Trees in Urban areas  

N12 Lake restoration  

U12 Infiltration basins   

F13 Peak flow control 
structures   

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater   

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests   

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas  

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

62