COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Latvia 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: Latvia, 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) 76 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Latvia Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 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 .................................................................................................... 8 

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

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

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

1. 

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

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ............................................................................................ 14 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs ......................................................................................... 14 

2. 

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

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

2.2 

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

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

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk 
maps   .................................................................................................................................... 17 

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 

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

3.2 

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

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

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding ............................. 21 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ............................................................................... 21 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ....... 21 

4. 

 Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ....................................................... 22 

4.1  Cost of measures ........................................................................................................ 22 

4.2 

Funding of measures .................................................................................................. 23 

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

1 

 
 
 
4.4  Measures and objectives............................................................................................. 25 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures .................................................................... 25 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ........................................................................................... 26 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ........................................... 26 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures ................................................................... 27 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ........................................................... 27 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ....................................................................................... 27 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding .................................................................. 28 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ...................................................... 28 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive ................................................... 30 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures ............. 31 

5. 

 Consideration of climate change ...................................................................................... 33 

5.1 

Specific types of measures to address expected effects of climate change ................ 33 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change ......... 33 

6. Cost-benefit analysis ............................................................................................................. 34 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ..................................................... 34 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation . 
 ........................................................................................................................................... 35 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................ 35 

7.2 

Public information and consultation .......................................................................... 35 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders .......................................................................... 37 

7.4 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................ 39 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 39 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................ 39 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 41 

Background & method .......................................................................................................... 41 

Types of measures used in reporting ..................................................................................... 42 

List of Annex A tables & figures .......................................................................................... 43 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................ 44 

Measure details: cost ............................................................................................................. 46 

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

2 

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

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

Measure details: progress ...................................................................................................... 53 

Measure details: other ........................................................................................................... 56 

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

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

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  version  of  the  report  assesses  the  FRMPs  for  Latvia1.  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 

  Latvia  has  four  Units  of  Management  (UoMs)  for  which  four  FRMPs  have  been 

developed and reported. All the FRMPs reported are assessed. 

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

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview 

Figure 1 

Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

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

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)  

Latvia is divided into four Units of Management (UoMs), which correspond to the River Basin 
Districts  (RBDs)  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD).  Flood  Risk  Management 
Plans (FRMPs) have been approved and reported for all UoMs. The approach for preparing the 

6 

LVVUBALVLUBALVLVGUBALVDUBARUBYRULT1100EE1EE2LT3400LT2300EE1EE3EE1LT4500050100kmGulfofRigaBalticSea 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FRMPs  is  similar  in  each  UoM,  based  on  work  developed  by  the  Latvian  Environmental 
Geology and Meteorology Centre (LEGMC).  

In  total,  25  Areas  of  Potentially  Significant  Floods  Risk  (APSFRs)  have  been  assigned.  An 
overview of the UoMs is shown in the table below. The delineation of the APSFRs, originally 
submitted in 2012, has not changed since.  

The FRMPs for Latvia were formally adopted by the Minister of Environmental Protection and 
Regional Development Order. The FRMPs were adopted together with the RBMPs: 

  FRMP for Daugava River basin district was adopted by Order No. 335 on 17/11/2015 

  FRMPs for Gauja, Lielupe and Venta RBP by Order No.378 on 22/12/2015. Order No. 

378 later was amended by Order No. 160 on 14/06/2016. 

The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Latvia, including the UoM code, the name, 
and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if the UoM reported all documents required 
to  European  Environment  Agency’s  (EEA)  WISE3  –  the  FRMP  as  a  PDF  and  the  reporting 
sheet as an XML.  

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Latvia 

UoM 

Name 

LVDUBA 

LVGUBA 

LVLUBA 

LVVUBA 

TOTAL 

DAUGAVA 

GAUJA 

LIELUPE 

VENTA 

Number of 
APSFRs 

10 

2 

5 

8 

25 

XML reported 

PDF Reported 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

4 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
94 

The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web page: 

  https://www.meteo.lv/lapas/vide/udens/udens-apsaimniekosana-/upju-baseinu-

apsaimniekosanas-plani-/upju-baseinu-apsaimniekosanas-plani?&id=1107&nid=424

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

o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

4  Two PDFs per UoM except for LVVUBA for which three PDFs were submitted, including one with corrected 

data.  

7 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
Overview of the assessment 

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

The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: 

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

not met; 

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

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

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

FRMP to address the criterion. 

Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives have 
been established  

Strong 
evidence 

All four FRMPs have defined objectives. One overall objective 
is defined and four to five specific objectives per UoM.  

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of 
potential adverse 
consequences  

Strong 
evidence  

The overall objective of each FRMP is to reduce adverse 
consequences of floods on human health, environment, cultural 
heritage and economic activities. Further objectives also aim to 
reduce the adverse consequences of floods. 

...to the reduction of 
the likelihood of 
flooding  

Some 
evidence  

An objective in one of the four FRMPs aims to reduce the risk 
of floods in areas that are protected with hydro-technical 
constructions (for example dams).  

...to non-structural 
initiatives  

Strong 
evidence  

The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of 
floods and refer to measures that will be implemented, 
including non-structural measures (flood forecasting and 
raising awareness of flooding). 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Strong 
evidence 

In addition to the overall objective, more detailed objectives 
refer to the reduction of adverse consequences in densely 
populated areas and to providing inhabitants with early 
warning of floods. 

...economic activity 

Strong 
evidence 

In addition to the overall objective, more detailed objectives 
refer to the reduction of adverse consequences to public 
infrastructure specifically and to economic activities in general. 

8 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...environment 

…cultural heritage 

Some 
evidence 

Some 
evidence 

The overall objective refers to the reduction of adverse 
consequences for environment.  

The overall objective refers to the reduction of adverse 
consequences for cultural heritage sites. 

Measures have been...  

...identified  

...prioritised  

Strong 
evidence  

Strong 
evidence  

Measures have been identified, there is a separate chapter in all 
FRMPs where all measures are listed. The following types of 
measures are identified: prevention, preparedness and 
protection 

Measures have been prioritised into three categories (high, 
moderate and low). Prioritisation was based on the following 
criteria: 1) the number of inhabitants, 2) roads of great 
importance, 3) hydroelectric power stations, 4) polder protected 
areas, 5) polluting facilities (waste water treatment plants, 
contaminated and potentially polluted sites), 6) specially 
protected nature territories (Natura 2000), 7) agricultural land 
areas, 8) drinking water abstraction points in flood risk areas. 
The detailed information on the prioritisation process results 
are not reported.  

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

...costs & benefits  

No evidence   CBA was not used  

...flood extent  

...flood conveyance  

...water retention  

Strong 
evidence  

Strong 
evidence  

Some 
evidence  

Flood hazard maps are available for all four FRMPs and 
provide information for each probability scenario (10 %, 1 % 
and 0.5 %) 

The route of the flood conveyance depends on the level of 
water during the flood and the surface terrain. The flood 
conveyance routes have been modelled for the three flood 
scenarios (10 %, 1 % and 0.5 %) 

The FRMPs for LVDUBA (Daugava UoM) and LVLUBA 
(Lielupe UoM) include two measures (one in each UoM) that 
foresee the possibility of Natural Water Retention Measures. 
The measure in the Daugava FRMP aims to reduce flood risk 
for the Plavinas city urban areas. The Lielupe FRMP has a 
measure aimed to reduce flood risk in residential areas5. 

...environ-mental 
objectives of the WFD  

Some 
evidence  

Latvia coordinated the preparation of its FRMPs and RBMPs, 
and the FRMPs considered the objectives of the WFD. 

5 

Information is based on the FRMP for LVDUBA (measure 1.15) and FRMP for LVLUBA (measure 1.6). 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...spatial planning/land 
use  

Some 
evidence  

...nature conservation   Some 

evidence  

No measures specifically address spatial planning or land use; 
however, since 1997 national legislation includes restrictions 
on buildings and development in floodplains: there is a ban on 
the construction in floodplains with a 10 % probability of 
flooding; and planning documents for spatial planning must 
take into account areas of high risk, including areas of flood 
risk. 

The FRMPs indicate that nature conservation is considered in 
the development of the measures, but there are no specific 
nature conservation measures defined. 

...navigation/ port 
infrastructure  

No evidence   The FRMPs do not indicate that ports and navigation have been 

considered in the development of the measures or in specific 
measures, because inland navigation does not exist in Latvia, 
except in Riga and Jurmala cities, where port infrastructures 
are not exposed to flood risk. 

...likely impact of 
climate change  

Coordination with 
other countries 
ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

No evidence   Impacts of climate change were not taken into account in the 

first FRMPs and will be included in the second FRMPs. 

Some 
evidence  

The FRMPs provided some information on exchange of 
information with Lithuania and with Estonia regarding cross-
border UoMs; however, no information was provided on 
coordination with bordering third countries (i.e. Belarus and 
Russia).  

Coordination 
ensured with WFD  

Strong 
evidence  

The FRMPs and RBMPs are developed by the same Competent 
Authority, coordinated by one responsible Ministry, and the 
WFD’s objectives were considered in preparing the FRMPs. 

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Some 
evidence  

State institutions, local governments, non-governmental 
organisations as well as the private sector and other 
stakeholders were involved via Consultative Councils for each 
UoM. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
Good Practices 

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

Table 3 

Good practices in the Latvian FRMPs 

Topic area 

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

Public participation  

Good practices identified 

Measures are prioritised, taking into account eight criteria.  

The measures are measurable: the description of the measures 
provides information on what it is planned to achieve; where the 
measure will be implemented; how the measure will be achieved; 
and the time of execution of the measure (years). This description 
indicates if measures will be implemented at national, RBD/UoM, 
APSFR or water body level.  

The measures are linked to the objectives: each measure refers to a 
sub-objective whose achievement it will contribute to. 

In 2014, a local government survey was carried out on flood risks, 
planned measures and non-traditional solutions to reduce the risk of 
flood. The results of the survey were used in the development of 
FRMPs.  

Consultative Councils were established in each UoM and provided a 
forum for the active involvement of stakeholders. Environmental 
non-governmental organisations, state institutions (Ministry of 
Economics, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health and the 
Ministry for Environmental Protection and Regional Development, 
MEPRD) and planning regions and municipalities are represented in 
the Consultative Council for each UoM.  

Comments received from the public consultation of the RBMPs and 
the FRMPs were summarised in a single document, available on the 
LEGMC homepage.  

All the FRMPs underwent an SEA procedure. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
Areas for further development 

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

assessed. 

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Latvian FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

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

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

The link to the flood risk information system is incorrect for three of 
the four FRMPs6. 

While the FRMPs contain objectives that are specific (in the sense of 
identifying specific locations), the objectives are not measurable. 
Only one objective, related to hydro-technical installations, refers to 
the reduction of the likelihood of flooding7. 
Costs appear not to be estimated for all measures8, nor the sources of 
funding for most of the measures9. 
There is a reference for each measure to which sub-objective the 
measure refers, but for the objectives themselves measurable 
parameters are not set. Overall, it is not possible to assess by how 
much the measures will contribute to the achieving of objectives and 
it is not possible to assess whether the objectives will be achieved.  

A baseline against which progress of FRMPs can be monitored and 
assessed has not been specified. 

Impacts of climate change were not taken into account in the 
FRMPs10. 

Use of cost-benefit analysis 
(CBA) in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Although a methodology for CBA was developed11 (via a national 
project "Development of criteria and methodology for flood risk 
reduction measures"12) the FRMPs do not present its results.  

International issues in flood  No information is provided in Latvia’s FRMPs, or in the reporting 

6  Latvia  subsequently  stated  that  the  Flood  Information  System  is  under  development  and  this  resulted  in 

incorrect links for the FRMPs. 

7  Latvia subsequently noted that specific objectives for the management of flood risk, as well as the baseline for 

progress monitoring of measures. will be elaborated for the second FRMPs. 

8    The total estimated budget is about EUR 203 m based on information subsequently provided by Latvia. 
9  Latvia subsequently clarified that the indicated costs of measures are provisional. The calculation of possible 
costs  was  based  on  the  results  of  feasibility  studies  and  market  value.  Further,  FRMPs  do  not  provide  an 
overall budget because of unknown possible funding sources. 

10  Latvia subsequently clarified that impacts of climate change will be assessed in the second FRMPs. 
11  Latvia  subsequently informed that the  “Methodology of flood impact assessment and damage calculation in 
Latvia”  has  been  developed  and  the  socio-economical  flood  risk  has  been  calculated  for  the  APSFRs  in 
GUBA, LUBA & VUBA (for DUBA this will be done in the second FRMPs). Both the methodology and the 
criteria for the assessment of flood reduction measures will be included in the second Preliminary Flood Risk 
Assessment Report. 

12  Link  to  the  project  report:  http://www.varam.gov.lv/lat/publ/petijumi/petijumi_vide/?doc=15514  (the  project 

was funded by national sources) 

12 

 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

risk management.  

Areas identified for further development 
sheets, regarding coordination with non-EU countries13. 

Recommendations 

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

 

Information on flood risk management should be continuously available to all concerned 

and the public in an accessible format, including digitally. 

  Whereas the measures are linked to sub-objectives, to be able to assess progress towards 
achieving  the  objectives  these  should  be  measurable  too,  to  the  extent  possible.  A 
baseline established against which progress of the FRMPs can be monitored has not been 

specified. 

  Sources of funding for measures should be specified.  

  A methodology for assessing measures in terms of costs and benefits should be presented 

and applied whenever feasible, and its results should be provided.  

  Climate change impacts should be considered, including coordination with the National 
Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (already during the development stage of the latter).  

  Further  information  on  coordination  with  both  Member  States  and  non-EU  countries 

should be provided. 

13  Latvia subsequently informed that the Daugava river basin district covers the territories of Latvia, Belarus and 
Russia; a minor part is located also in Lithuania. There is an intergovernmental agreement between the Latvian 
Republic  and  the  Russian  Federation  on  cooperation  in  the  field  of  environmental  protection,  signed  on 
20/12/2010  (https://likumi.lv/ta/lv/starptautiskie-ligumi/id/748).  There  is  an  intergovernmental  agreement 
between Latvia and the Republic of Belarus on cooperation in the field of environmental protection, signed on 
21/02/1994  (https://likumi.lv/ta/lv/starptautiskie-ligumi/id/153).  Relevant  ministries  in  Latvia  and 
the 
Republic  of  Belarus  are  currently  discussing  possibilities  to  agree  on  bilateral  cooperation  within  the 
Daugava/Zapadnaja Dvina river basin, which may include cooperation in the area of flood risks.  

13 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Latvia has four Units of Management (UoMs) for which four FRMPs have been developed and 
reported. Latvia 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 main competent  authority for implementation of the Floods Directive is the Ministry for 
Environmental  Protection  and  Regional  Development  (MEPRD).  Other  institutions  are  in 

charge of the practical implementation of the Directive: notably, the FRMPs were prepared by 
the  Latvian  Environment,  Geology  and  Meteorology  Centre  (LEGMC),  a  state-owned 
organisation.  Consequently,  the  approach  for  the  preparation  of  the  FRMPs  was  similar 
throughout the country. 

All four reported FRMPs have been assessed. These FRMPs cover Latvia’s four UoMs:  

Table 5 

UoMs in Latvian FRMPs 

UoM code 

LVDUBA 

LVGUBA 

LVLUBA 

LVVUBA 

UoM Name 

Daugava 

Gauja 

Lielupe 

Venta 

The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web page: 

  https://www.meteo.lv/lapas/vide/udens/udens-apsaimniekosana-/upju-baseinu-

apsaimniekosanas-plani-/upju-baseinu-apsaimniekosanas-plani?&id=1107&nid=424 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

According  to  the  PFRA  and  FHRM  assessments,  Latvia  applied  Art.  13.1(a),  which  allows 

Member States to not undertake the PFRA if they have already undertaken a risk assessment 
prior to  2010 which has  concluded that an area  is  identified as an APSFR. The FRMPs note 

however that the risk assessment was carried out in 2007, but do not specifically refer to the 
application  of  Art.  13.1(a).  The  conclusions  of  the  pre-existing  flood  risk  assessment  are 
presented in all four Flood Risk Management Plans assessed14.  

The FRMPs contain two maps - a PFRA map showing the areas of potential significant flood 
risk  (APSFRs)  and  a  map  presenting  the  separately  designated  flood  risk  areas  of  national 

importance. The maps that are included in the FRMP are maps at a high scale (1: 250 000) and 
do not  show detailed information15. APSFRs are the territories that were assigned during the 
preliminary flood risk assessment process in 2007. Flood risk areas of national importance are 
priority flood risk areas where flood protection measures or in-depth research are to be carried 

out first. 

The  FRMPs  provide  a  link  for  the  detailed  maps  (http://pludi.meteo.lv/floris/);  however,  this 
web  page  only  provides  complete  information  for  the  Daugava  FRMP.  For  the  other  three 

RBDs/UoMs – Gauja, Lielupe and Venta – detailed information can be found at a separate web 
page16,  the  Flood  risk  information  system  platform,  however  this  is  not  indicated  in  these 
FRMPs (this platform also provides detailed information for the Daugava UoM).  

Conveyance routes have been taken into account in the PFRA in all the FRMPs assessed. They 
have been modelled under three flood scenarios: floods with a probability 10 % (once per 10 

years),  1  %  (once  per  100  years)  and  0.5  %  (once  per  200  years),  they  are  presented  for  all 
UoMs17. 

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

No shared flood risk areas with neighbouring countries have been identified, according to the 

four FRMPs.  

14  Found in Chapter II of each FRMP. 
15  Detailed  information  can  be  found  at  on  online  tool,  the  flood  risk  information  system  platform: 

http://syke.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f60441869a654c298a2d3b150ea7dc1c.  

16  The flood risk information system platform indicated in the previous footnote.  
17  Information available on the flood risk information system.  

15 

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

In the preparation of the FHR maps, the findings of the PFRA were used: the areas designated 
as potential flood risk areas in the PFRA are the basis of the areas that have been modelled in 
detail and are presented in maps to be found on Flood risk information system platform18. 

2.2 

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

The flood hazard and flood risk maps have been presented in all FRMPs assessed. There is a 
problem with  the quality of the  flood hazard and flood risk maps presented in  the  flood risk 

management plans: it is difficult to read the legends and to read the information in the maps. 
Detailed maps can be found online on the flood risk information system platform cited above.  

As indicated above, a link is provided in all four FRMPs to the flood risk information system 

platform, but this web page only provides detailed information on the Daugava RBD. This may 
relate  to  the  process  of  developing  the  FHRMs,  as  the  FRMPs  indicate  that  maps  were  first 

developed  for  the  Daugava  FRMP  as  a  pilot  project  and  then  for  the  other  three  RBDs.  The 
flood risk information system platform cited above provides detailed maps for the other three 

FRMPs.  

Floods from fluvial, pluvial sources, as well as the sea have been identified. In addition, floods 
from  artificial  water bearing infrastructure sources19 and floods with  the  combined effects  of 
more than one sources of flooding have been identified. Floods from groundwater and floods 
with no specific sources have not been identified in the UoMs assessed20.  

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

Flood hazard and flood risk maps have been prepared for flood risk areas only for the territory 

of  Latvia.  There  are  no  shared  flood  risk  areas  with  neighbouring  countries  identified, 
according to the four FRMPs. 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

The process of FRMP development is described in the Introduction section of FRMPs. Article 

II  (“Results  of  the  flood  risk  initial  assessment  and  other  researches”)  includes  previously 
reported information as well as new information about territories at risk of flooding. 

18  Information source: reporting sheets, FRMPs, Flood risk information system platform. 
19  Areas  at  risk  of  flooding  that  are  of  national  importance  have  been  designated  for  three  hydropower  plant 

reservoirs on the Daugava River. 

20  Information  source:  reporting  sheets,  FRMPs,  Flood  risk  information  system  platform,  website  of  the 

responsible authority LEGMC www.meteo.lv  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In all the FRMPs, flood hazard and risk maps (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 have been defined based on the FHRM; 

  Measure types and locations have been defined based on the FHRM. 

In  the  public  participation  process,  the  FHRMs  were  available  during  public  hearings.  The 
FHRMs were used to define specific objectives and measures21.  

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

Any  changes  in  the  identification  of  Areas  of  Potential  Significant  Flood  Risk  (APSFRs)  or 

other Flood  Risk  Areas since December 2011 should be reflected in  the FRMP. The  Latvian 
FRMPs  do  not  describe  any  such  changes.  Nor  do  the  FRMPs  describe  changes  on  the 

preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps since December 2013. 

2.4 

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

The  following  areas  for  further  development  were  identified  in  the  earlier  assessment  of  the 
flood hazard and risk maps22:  

  Three APSFRs were reported to be associated with artificial water bearing infrastructure, 
but the Latvian Authorities confirmed that hazard of floods arising from artificial water 
bearing infrastructure have not been mapped. 

  According  to  Art.6(2)  of  the  Floods  Directive,  the  preparation  of  FHRMs  for  areas 
identified under Art.5 which are shared with other Member State shall be subject to prior 

exchange of information between Member States concerned. All four UoMs in Latvia are 

21  In the FRMPs, the chapter "Introduction" states - "measures that have to be taken in order to achieve the set 
objectives  have  been  defined  on  the  basis  of  the  FHRMs"  (same  text  in  all  FRMPs).  There  is  a  separate 
chapter, 1.5 "Flood risk information system platform" (in all FRPMs), where there is detail on the cartographic 
information that can be found on the Flood risk information system platform for all four RBDs. Then there is a 
long  section,  IV  "Flood  hazard  and  risk  maps"  (in  all  FRMPs),  where  there  is  description  of  all  flood  risk 
areas; this description is based on information from the maps. 

22  European  Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  –  Member  State  Report:  LV  – 

Latvia, November 2014. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/LV%20FHRM%20Report.pdf  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
cross-border UoMs. Ventas and Lielupes UoMs share flood risk areas with neighbouring 
countries,  however  none  are  not  identified  as  significant.  It  was  not  clear  whether 

information was exchanged with the other interested Member States.  

  According to  Art.  6(4)(b), Member States shall report for each probability  scenario the 
flood  extent  and  the  water  depths  or  level,  as  appropriate.  At  the  time  of  the  FHRM 

assessment,,flood  hazard  maps  were  only  available  for  one  RBD  (LVDUBA  – 
Daugava)23.  According  to  the  information  reported,  both  water  depth/level  and  water 
flow have been assessed, but these have not been shown on the publicly available map 
used for the assessment.  

  According to Art.6(5)(b), flood risk maps shall show the potential adverse consequences 
associated  with  flood  scenarios  in  terms  of  type  of  economic  activity.  As  reported  in 

WISE,  affected  economic  activities  and  potential  economic  loss  were  assessed  and 
modelling  of  risk  to  economic  activity  was  carried  out,  but  they  are  not  shown  in  the 

maps.  

  Climate change has not been included in the analysis.  

The following points describe the way each of the areas for further development above have 
been addressed, based on information available24: 

  As  noted  above,  flooding  from  artificial  water  bearing  infrastructure  sources  has  now 

been included in the FHRMs available online.  

 

In the reporting sheet provided by Latvia, in the chapter on "Summary of Coordination", 
information  is  provided  on  exchange  of  information  between  Latvia  and  Lithuania 

regarding  their  cross-border  UoMs:  LVLUBA  (Lielupe)  and  LVVUBA  (Venta)  in 
Latvia.  The  reporting  sheet  states  that  no  cross-border  APSFRs  have  been  identified. 

This  was  also  clarified  for  the  FHRM  assessment,  according  to  the  final  FHRM  report 
for Latvia25. (The information provided in the FRMPs and reporting sheets also indicates 
that projects  in  Latvia would  not  impact  flood hazards and risks  in  Lithuania, which is 
upstream in both cross-border UoMs.)  

 

In  the  flood  hazard  maps  now  available  for  all  four  UoMs,  it  is  possible  to  obtain 

information for each probability scenario (10 %, 1 % and 0,5 %).  

 

In the flood risk information system platform, information on economic activities is now 

included.  

23   Latvia subsequently informed that as of 2016 FHRM are available for all four RBDs. 
24  Information  sources:  reporting  sheets,  FRMPs,  Flood  risk  information  system  platform,  recommendations 

from previous assessments. 

25  Background to the PFRA European Overview – UC10508, Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps 

Member State Report: LV – Latvia, 21 November 2012. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/LV%20FHRM%20Report.pdf  

18 

 
 
 
                                                 
  The  reporting  sheets  provided  by  Latvia  (for  all  four  FRMPs)  indicate  that  climate 

change will be considered in the preparation of the second FRMPs. 

In summary, the first four of the five areas for further development have been addressed; the 

fifth area for further development, the consideration of climate change, has not been addressed 
yet.  

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

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  The  FRMPs  contain  some  errors.  For  example,  there  are  typing  errors  in  the  texts:  in 

some cases, the wrong rivers are named26.  

  The link to the flood risk information system is incorrect for three of the four FRMPs27. 

26  Latvia took note and will correct the typographical errors. 
27  Latvia  subsequently  stated  that  the  Flood  Information  System  is  under  development  and  this  resulted  in 

incorrect links for the FRMPs. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

The four  FRMPs  contain essentially the same objectives.  These objectives aim to  reduce the 

adverse consequences of floods, refer to measures that will be implemented and refer to non-
structural measures (flood forecasting and raising awareness of flooding). 

The overall objective for each FRMP is to28: Reduce adverse consequences of floods on human 
health,  environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic  activities,  including  the  reduction  of 
potential surface water pollution and of erosion processes along the sea, rivers and lake shores.  

Further sub-objectives of all the FRMPs are to:  

1.  Reduce  coastal  erosion  and  flood  threat  to  densely  populated  areas,  by  minimising  the 

risk for inhabitants and public infrastructure.  

2.  Reduce the risk of floods in  areas  that are protected with  hydro-technical facilities (for 
example  dams)  and  the  adjacent  areas  as  well  as  in  the  adjacent  areas  of  regulated 

sections of slowly flowing plain rivers.  

3.  Ensure  the  maximum  flow  capacity  during  spring  floods  in  order  to  reduce  the  risk  to 

safety of inhabitants (only for Daugava FRMP).  

4.  Provide responsible authorities with information in advance (before the flood) on flood 
risks and inform inhabitants about the flood risk by developing a Flood Risk Information 
System and improving the early warning system.  

5.  Development of surface runoff and rainwater drainage systems to prevent flooding from 

heavy rain floods and spring floods.  

For  the  first  three  objectives,  each  FRMP  specifies  the  areas  that  the  objectives  apply  to. 
Consequently, in all four FRMPs29: 

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

28  In all four FRMPs, the objectives are defined in chapter V. 
29  These categories are included in Art.7 of the Floods Directive. 
30  The assessment adopts the generally accepted definition of risk as a product of consequence times likelihood, 

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

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

as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

20 

 
 
                                                 
3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

For  each  further  objective  (as  listed  above),  the  location  is  identified,  specifically,  the 

APSFR(s)  concerned.  Further  details  are  not  provided.  Instead,  the  FRMPs  provide  specific 
and measurable information for measures. 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

In the FRMPs assessed, objectives refer to reducing risks to inhabitants and to infrastructure. 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

There  is  one  objective  that  addresses  reduction  of  the  likelihood  of  flooding,  for  hydro-

technical infrastructure on the Daugava. 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

The  FRMPs  do  not  provide  information  on  coordination  during  the  process  of  setting  of  the 
objectives. The FRMPs overall were discussed during public hearings which took place within 

the  frame  of  the  strategic  EIA  process.  The  draft  plans  were  discussed  also  during  the  RBD 
Consultative Board meetings. The same approach was used for all FRMPs. 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  While the FRMPs contain objectives that are specific (in the sense of identifying specific 

locations), they are not measurable. 

  Only  one  objective,  related  to  hydro-technical  installations,  addresses  reduction  of  the 

likelihood of flooding. 

21 

 
 
 
 
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

According  to  the  information  that  Latvia  has  reported  to  WISE,  there  are  81  individual 
measures  and  15  aggregated32  measures  across  its  four  UoMs,  so  a  total  of  96  measures33. 
While  Latvia  reported  both  individual  and  aggregated  measures,  definitions  for  these 

categories were not found in the FRMPs. 

Across all four UoMs, there are 50 measures for prevention, 38 measures for protection, and 
eight measures for preparedness34. Latvia did not report any measures for recovery and review.  

Please  see  Tables  A1  to  A4  and  Figures  A1  and  A2  in  Annex  A  for  further  details  on  the 
measures reported. 

The total reported number of measures in the reporting sheet does not correspond to the total 

number of measures that are listed in the FRMPs (their chapter 5). In the reporting sheet, there 
are  altogether  96  measures,  but  in  all  four  FRMPs,  101  measures35.  It  is  not  possible  to 
compare the lists because only measure codes are available in the reporting sheet - these do not 
correspond to the codes of measures that are listed in the FRMPs. 

4.1 

Cost of measures 

Table 6 

Estimated overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMPs 

UoM code 

Estimated budget of planned measures (2015-2021) in EUR36 

LVDUBA (Daugava) 

LVGUBA (Gauja) 

LVLUBA (Lielupe) 

LVVUBA (Venta) 

33 m 

17 m 

15 m 

31 m 

32 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. 

33  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. 

34  See Annex B for the list of measure aspects and types.   
35  Latvia subsequently stated that corrections will be made in the second FRMPs. 
36 The estimates in the table are Commission’s calculations based on the FRMPs. Latvia subsequently provided 

the following estimates, totalling EUR 203 m: 
LVDUBA (Daugava) ~ EUR 139 m 
LVGUBA (Gauja) ~ EUR 18 m 
LVLUBA (Lielupe) ~ EUR 26 m 
LVVUBA (Venta) ~ EUR 20 m 

22 

 
 
                                                 
 
Note: Latvia provided information about costs and cost explanations for 87 of the 96 measures 
reported. 

In its reporting  sheets,  Latvia provided the costs  for 87 of the 96 measures  reported (see the 
table above). On this basis, the total budget is at least €96 m37. As noted, not all measures are 
covered  (please  see  Tables  A5  and  A6  and  Figures  A3  and  A4  in  Annex  A  for  further 

information). 

In  Latvia’s  FRMPs,  costs  are  provided  for  most  measures38.  The  highest  cost  measure,  over 
€40  m  is  to  be  implemented  in  Riga  to  protect  inhabitants  in  lower  parts  of  the  city  that  are 

affected from floods, "Construction of protection dams, reconstruction of water passages under 
the  roads,  reconstruction  of  roads".  The  lowest  cost  reported  was  €5 000  per  UoM  (for  an 

assessment of the necessity of flood protection measures in a polder area). 

4.2 

Funding of measures 

In each FRMP, the sources of funding are specified for two kinds of measures only. Sources of 
funding are provided for the "integration of ice flood model in flood risk information system" 
measure and for the "maintenance of hydropower plant hydro-technical facilities" measure.  

The information is summarised in the table below. 

Table 7 

Funding of measures 

Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding  

Use of public budget (national level)  

Use of public budget (regional level)  

Use of public budget (local level)  

Private investment  

EU funds (generic)  

EU Structural funds  

EU Solidarity Fund  

EU Cohesion funds39 

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

37   EUR 203 m based on information subsequently provided by Latvia. 
38  The information provided in the FRMPs differs somewhat from the information reported: The total budget in 
the  FRMPs  is  about  €140  m.  Costs  are  provided  in  the  FRMPs  for  the  majority,  but  not  all  measures.  The 
FRMPs state that both investment and operating costs are included. Information was not found which costs – 
i.e.  investment  costs,  operating  costs  or  both  –  are  included  in  the  data  provided  by  Latvia  in  its  reporting 
sheets (shown in the table on this page).  

39   Latvia subsequently noted that source of funding for most of measures will be EU Cohesion funds; the FRMP 

only refers to the responsible authority. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EU CAP funds  

International funds  

European Social Fund 

Source: Reporting sheets and FRMPs 

All UoMs 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

All FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of the measures with regard to40:  

  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. 

The measures are measurable, the description of the measures provide the information - what it 
is planned to achieve; where the measure will be implemented, location; description of how the 

measure will be achieved, and also the time of execution of the measure is indicated (years). 

The following information is provided regarding the level of implementation of the measures: 

Table 8 

Location of measures  

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Water body level  

More detailed than water body 

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

From the list  of measures presented in  the  FRMPs, it is  clear how (by  which  measures) it is 
planned to achieve each sub-objective. There is a reference for each measure to a specific sub-
objective. However, it is not possible to assess by how much the measures will contribute to 
the achieving of the sub-objectives, and it is not possible to assess whether the sub-objectives 

will be achieved. 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

Each of the four FRMPs include one measure at national scale; all other measures are indicated 
at  UoM  scale.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  many  measures  indicated  in  the  FRMPs  as 

40  Sources: Project report "Development of criteria and methodology for flood risk reduction measures", 2015, 

http://www.varam.gov.lv/lat/publ/petijumi/petijumi_vide/?doc=15514 ; reporting sheets; FRMPs. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
being at UoM scale appear to be water body specific, as the water body code is indicated in the 
description of the measure.  

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

Latvia provided information for the priority of all measures. The following categories are used 
in  the  FRMPs41:  high,  moderate  and  low.  Latvia  reported  the  same  categories  to  WISE,  and 
thus did not report any measures of very high or critical priority.  

Based on the information in Latvia’s reporting sheets (see Tables A7 and A8 and Figures A5 

and  A6  in  Annex  A),  48  measures  are  of  high  priority  (50  %  of  all  measures),  20  are  of 
moderate priority (21 %) and 28 are of low priority (29 %).   

Prioritisation for all four FRMPs was carried out on the basis of criteria developed in a national 
project on the "Development of criteria and methodology for flood risk reduction measures"42. 
The criteria were based on the presence of the following in flood risk areas:  

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 

6. 
7. 
8. 

the number of inhabitants,  
roads of great importance,  
hydroelectric power stations,  

polder protected areas,  
polluting  facilities  (waste  water  treatment  plants,  contaminated  and  potentially 

polluted sites),  
specially protected nature territories (Natura 2000),  

agricultural land areas,  
drinking water uptake points.  

One FRMP, for LVDUVA (Daugava), describes how the criteria for prioritisation were used43. 
For  the  other  three  UoMs,  the  FRMPs  do  not  provide  such  detail  but  mention  that  the 

prioritisation process took place.  

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

Latvia  provided  the  names  of  the  responsible  authorities  for  the  96  measures  indicated  in  its 
reporting sheets: these are national, regional and municipal authorities. Of these 96 measures, 

national authorities are responsible for 50 measures (52 % of the total); regional authorities for 

41  FRMPs, chapter V, tables in sub chapter 5.1 and 5.2, column "priority". 
42  Link  to  the  project  report:  http://www.varam.gov.lv/lat/publ/petijumi/petijumi_vide/?doc=15514  (the  project 

was funded by national sources). 

43  This  information  is  available  in  the  report  from  the  project  "Development  of  criteria  and  methodology  for 

flood risk reduction measures", chapter 4. 

26 

 
 
                                                 
13  measures  (14  %);  municipal  authorities  for  11  (11  %);  a  combination  of  these  levels  for 
seven measures (7 %); and no authority is indicated for 15 measures (16 %).  

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

Latvia  reported  the  timetable  for  all  measures  in  its  reporting  sheets  (see  Table  A9  and  A10 

and Figures A7 and A8 in Annex A). Four timeframes are identified: 2016, 2017, 2016-2018 
and  2016-2021.  For  the  first  timeframe,  the  period  up  to  2016,  four  measures  are  to  be 

implemented  (4  %  of  all  measures);  the  same  number  in  the  second  timeframe,  2017;  one 
measure in  2018;  83 measures in  the period 2016-2021 (86  %); and four measures are to  be 

carried out continuously.  

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

Member States were asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has 
been implemented: Latvia has reported this information for nine measures; however, it appears 

that  in  all  nine  cases,  Latvia  reported  national  legislation  (on  civil  protection  and  on 
hydroelectric power plant safety) rather than EU legislation44.  

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

With  regard  to  spatial  planning  and  land  use,  it  appears  that  there  are  no  measures  that 

address  this  in  Latvia’s  four  FRMPs.  According  to  Latvia’s  reporting  sheets,  the  legislative 
framework  for  spatial  planning  and  land  use  has  evolved  since  2000.  Buildings  and  other 

developments  in  floodplains  are  restricted  by  the  legal  acts  for  spatial  planning:  national 
legislation  sets  a  ban  on  the  construction  of  river  floodplains  and  floodplains  with  a  10  % 

probability  of  flooding.  National  legislation  stipulates  that  planning  documents  for  spatial 
planning  must  take  into  account  areas  of  high  risk,  including  areas  of  flood  risk.  In  areas  of 

flood  risk,  the  municipality  may  impose  specific  requirements  for  construction  and 
environmental infrastructure45. 

Two of Latvia’s FRMPs include natural water retention measures (NWRMs): a measure in 
LVDUBA  (Daugava)  aims  to  reduce  flood  risk  for  the  Plavinas  city  urban  areas46;  and  a 
measure in  LUVLUBA  (Lielupe) aims to  reduce flooding in  residential  areas adjacent  to  the 
Lielupe  River47.  While  the  brief  descriptions  of  both  measures  indicate  that  NWRMs  are 
foreseen, further details are not provided.  

44  This information is based on the reporting sheets. 
45  Reporting sheets; “Law on buffer zones” (Aizsargjoslu likums) adopted on 11.03.1997, as amended. 
46  Measure code 1.15 in the Daugava FRMP.  
47  Measure code 1.16 in the Lielupe FRMP. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
The four FRMPs indicate that nature conservation has been considered in the development of 
the measures, but no specific nature conservation measures have been defined.  

The  four  FRMPs  do  not  indicate  that  navigation  and  port  infrastructure  have  been 

considered in the development of the measures or in the specific measures. No reference has 
been found in the FRMPs to dredging48, except for one measure in the Lielupes FRMP, which 
includes  dredging  and  is  expected  to  result  in  reduced  flood  risk  in  Jurmala  and  at  the  same 
time contribute to yacht waterway maintenance.  

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

Insurance  policies  are  not  included  among  the  measures  in  the  four  FRPMs.  The  FRMPs  do 

not  mention  if  insurance  is  available  or  is  to  be  developed  for  potential  flooding  areas, 
however, the potential costs to insurance companies are mentioned in a description of previous 

flooding  cases  (the  FRMPs  note  that  losses  from  Latvia’s  2013  floods  were  approximately  
€9  m,  though  costs  to  insurance  companies  are  not  specified).  No  information  was  found 

whether  insurance  is  conditional  on  making  at  risk  properties  (domestic,  industrial)  as  flood 
resilient  as  possible,  nor  if  environmental  liability  insurance  covers  restoration  costs  arising 

from  flooding  of  potentially  polluting  sites  and  installations  (consequently,  the  role  of 
ecosystem services in restoration costs is not discussed).   

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

In  its  reporting  sheets,  Latvia  indicated  the  progress  of  implementation  for  measures.  Latvia 

reported that progress is ongoing for 17 measures (18 % of the total), but the great majority of 
measures, 79 of 96 (82 %) were reported as not started.  

There are no specific measurable targets set in order to assess the exact progress for ongoing 
measures. General dates are indicated, as for example for regular measures such as the annual 

maintenance  of  hydroelectrical  power  plants.  The  FRMPs  do  not  identify  organisations 
responsible for overseeing the monitoring49. 

A  baseline  against  which  the  FRMPs’  progress  will  be  monitored  and  assessed  has  not  been 

established. However, it can be noted that an assessment was prepared for the development of 
water  use  trends,  for  the  "baseline  scenario"  for  Latvia’s  RBMPs.  In  the  baseline  scenario, 

48  Information is based on the FRMPs and reporting sheets. 
49  Latvia  subsequently  informed  that  its  national  legislation  establishes  that  LEGMC’s  functions  include 
coordination  of  the  implementation  of  the  programme  of  measures,  compilation  of  information  on  the 
measures  undertaken  and  effectiveness  analysis  of  the  measures.  Moreover,  SEA  procedures  require 
monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  planning  documents;  the  implementation  of  FRMP  measures  will  be 
assessed following requirements set in the SEA report. 

28 

 
 
                                                 
trends in relation to hydro-morphological pressures were assessed. Without regulation of land 
moisture and protection against flooding, intensive agricultural development is not possible in 

Latvia. 

29 

 
 
 
 
4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  development  of  the  FRMP  has  been  coordinated  with  the 

development of the second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD. 

Table 9 

Coordination of the development of the FRMPs with the development of the 

second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD  

DaugavaL
VDUBA 

Gauja 
LVGUBA 

Lielupe 
LVLUBA 

Venta 
LVVUBA 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Integration of FRMP and RBMP in a single document 

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination between authorities responsible for developing 
FRMP and RBMP  

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

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

Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in 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 4.7 and 
designation of heavily modified water bodies with measures 
taken under the FD e.g. flood defence infrastructure  

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

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

The  WFD  applies  to  the  same  management  units  as  the  FD;  the  FRMPs  and  RBMPs  are 
developed by same Competent Authority, coordinated by one responsible Ministry; the FRMPs 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and  RBMPs  have  the  same  time  frame50.  While  the  FRMPs  do  not  specifically  refer  to  Art. 
4(7) of the WFD, the RBMPs, in their discussion of this provision, refer to the FRMPs.  

In its reporting under the WFD, Latvia indicated that the objectives of the Floods Directive had 

not been considered in its river basin management plan. According to the information reported, 
there were no specific win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD. 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  measures  are  prioritised,  taking  into  account  eight  criteria  (developed  within  the 
frames of the project "Development of criteria and methodology for flood risk reduction 
measures").  

  The  measures  are  measurable,  the  description  of  the  measures  provides  information  on 
what it is planned to achieve; where the measure will be implemented, location; how the 
measure will be achieved, and the time of execution and timetable of each measure. This 

description indicates if measures will be implemented at national, RBD/UoM, APSFR or 
water body level. 

  The measures are linked to the objectives: each measure refers to a sub-objective whose 

achievement it will contribute to. 

The following areas for further development were identified:  

•  Whereas costs for the majority of the measures are provided, the FRMPs do not provide 
overall budgets51, either per UoM or per APSFR, and the calculation method for costs is 
not  reported  in  the  FRMPs.  The  sources  of  funding  are  not  specified  for  most  of  the 
measures.  

•  There is a reference for each measure to which sub-objective the measure refers to, but 
for  the  objectives  themselves  measurable  parameters  are  not  set.  Overall,  it  is  not 
possible  to  assess  by  how  much  the  measures  will  contribute  to  the  achievement  of 

objectives and it is not possible to assess whether the objectives will be achieved (due in 
part to the fact that the objectives are not measurable).  

•  A baseline  established against which progress  of the FRMPs  can be monitored has not 

been specified.  

50  Reporting sheets. 
51 EUR 203 m based on information subsequently provided by Latvia. 

31 

 
 
                                                 
•  The total reported number of measures in the reporting sheet does not correspond to the 
total number of measures that are listed in the FRMPs (their chapter 5). In the reporting 
sheet, there are all together 96 measures, but in all four FRPMs - 101 measures. It is not 

possible to compare the lists because only measure codes are available in the reporting 
sheet - these do not correspond to the codes of measures that are listed in the FRMPs52.  

52  Latvia subsequently stated that it will make corrections in the second FRMPs. 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.   Consideration of climate change 

Measures  to  address  the  expected  effects  of  climate  change  on  the  likelihood  and  potential 

adverse  consequences  of  flooding  have  not  been  included  in  the  four  FRMPs.  Latvia’s 
reporting sheets state that impacts of climate change were not taken into account in the FRMPs 

and that they will be addressed in the second cycle. 

According to the reporting sheets, studies of climate change impacts in Latvia have shown that 
extreme atmospheric precipitation events are increasing, particularly during the winter period. 

Anomalies  in  runoff  have  been  observed  during  the  winter  season.  In  coming  years,  an 
increase in the frequency of storms and wind speed during storms is projected in coastal areas 

and  a  decrease  in  the  period  that  rivers  are  covered  by  ice.  Changes  in  air  temperature  and 
precipitation  in  the  future  could  affect  the  seasonal  distribution  of  river  runoff,  potentially 

decreasing  the  risk  of  spring  floods.  However,  the  projected  increase  in  the  frequency  and 
intensity  of  storms  could  increase  coastal  erosion  and  flooding  of  coastal  areas.  The  FRMPs 

and the reporting sheets do not, however, identify specific climate change scenarios.  

There is no reference to the national Climate Change Adaption Strategy in the FRMPs: indeed, 

Latvia’s National Adaptation Strategy has not been approved yet, despite initial indications it 
would be approved by the national government in mid-201753; information on approval plans 
were not found in February 2018. 

5.1 

Specific types of measures to address expected effects of climate 
change 

No measures in Latvia’s FRMPs refer to climate change. 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning 

climate change 

The following area for further development was identified: 

 

Impacts of climate change were not taken into account in the FRMPs54.  

  No  apparent  coordination  with  the  national  climate  change  adaptation  strategy  that  is 

under development. 

53 https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries/latvia (accessed November 2018) 
54  Latvia subsequently stated that climate change will be addressed in the second FRMPs. 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
6. Cost-benefit analysis 

Latvia’s reporting sheets indicate that a CBA methodology was prepared (within the frame of a 

national  project,  "Development  of  criteria  and  methodology  for  flood  risk  reduction 
measures"55). Two indicators from the methodology that was developed for the identification 
and  preparation  of  measures  could  be  applied  to  characterise  flood  protection  structures: 
"protected population" (number of inhabitants); and "protected infrastructure and its value". In 

the methodology, it is stated that in order to employ the indicator "protected infrastructure and 
its value", further research work and calculations are needed.  

The FRMPs refer to the use of a CBA methodology but do not provide the results56. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Although a methodology for CBA was developed57 (via a national project "Development 
of  criteria  and  methodology  for  flood  risk  reduction  measures"58),  the  FRMPs  do  not 
provide details on its results.  

55  Link to the project report: http://www.varam.gov.lv/lat/publ/petijumi/petijumi_vide/?doc=15514  
56  Latvia  subsequently  informed  that  for  the  prioritisation  of  measures  all  eight  indicators  developed  in  the 

methodology were used to evaluate measures. 

57  Latvia  subsequently informed that the  “Methodology of flood impact assessment and damage calculation in 
Latvia”  has  been  developed  and  the  socio-economical  flood  risk  has  been  calculated  for  the  APSFRs  in 
GUBA, LUBA & VUBA (for DUBA this will be done in the second FRMPs). Both the methodology and the 
criteria for the assessment of flood reduction measures will be included in the second Preliminary Flood Risk 
Assessment Report. 

58  Link  to  the  project  report:  http://www.varam.gov.lv/lat/publ/petijumi/petijumi_vide/?doc=15514  (the  project 

was funded by national sources). 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

Based  on  Latvia’s  FRMPs  and  its  reporting  sheets,  the  Competent  Authorities  and  Units  of 
Management  identified  for  the  Floods  Directive  have  not  changed  compared.  Documents 

submitted to the European Commission on the subject have not been updated since 2011.  

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

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

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking 

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

The draft plans of the Flood Risk Management Plans were released for the public consultation 
on March 6, 2015. They were placed on the LEGMC website, which, according to the Water 

Management Law, is developing both the RBMPs and the FRMPs. The announcement of the 
launch of a public consultation on the FRMP was also posted on the website of the Ministry of 

Environmental  Protection  and  Regional  Development  (MEPRD),  which  coordinates  both  the 
management  of  the  RBMPs  and  the  FRMPs.  Information  about  the  public  consultations  was 

also sent to the Consultative Councils of the RBDs, described below (in addition, River Basin 
Consultative Councils have been established for all four RBDs).  

Input to the four FRMPs also occurred via a 2014 study on “Substantial  Water Management 
Issues in Latvian River Basins”: for this study, a local government survey was carried out on 

the  significant  risks  in  the  areas  of  use  and  protection  of  water  in  municipalities.  The 
questionnaire included questions about flood risks in the municipality, planned measures and 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
non-traditional solutions to reduce the risk of flood. The results of the survey were used in the 
development of FRMPs. In addition, consultations were held with the municipalities that had 

contacted  the  LEGMC  and  the  MEPRD  in  connection  with  flood  damage  and  planning 
regions59.  

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

Table 11 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet  

Digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

All four FRMPs describe the overall procedure regarding the information to and consultation 
of interested  parties and  the public. The plans and other documents reviewed do not  provide 

information about the number of individuals that contributed to the internet consultation or that 
participated in workshops and seminars. There is, however, a summary of comments received 

provided  for  all  FRMPs  in  table  format.  The  table  in  each  FRMP  lists  all  questions  and 
remarks  received  during  the  public  consultation  process  and  the  responses  of  the  FRMP 

developers.  This  Summary  reports  on  comments  received  concerning  both  FRMPs  and 
RBMPs60. Altogether (for all four RBMPs and four FRMPs), five public institutions have sent 
their comments to the plan developers61. 

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

The information on how documents for the consultation were provided was not provided in the 

reporting  sheets  or  the  FRMPs.  From  the  publicly  available  information  on  the  LEGMC 

59  Reporting sheets and information from website of LEGMC 
60  Latvia  informed  that  no  proposals  from  stakeholders  were  received  regarding  win-win  measures  during  the 

preparation of the RBMPs. 

61  Reporting sheets and information from website of LEGMC Summary reports on comments received: 

https://www.meteo.lv/fs/CKFinderJava/userfiles/files/Sabiedriskas_apsp_apkopojums_Gauja_Lielupe_Venta.
pdf   
https://www.meteo.lv/fs/CKFinderJava/userfiles/files/Vide/Udens/Ud_apsaimn/UBA%20plani/Sabiedriskas_a
psp_apkopojums_Daugava.pdf  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
website  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  documents  for  consultation  were  available  in  PDF  file 
format and they were downloadable. 

Table 12 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

All UoMs 

✔ 

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 

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

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

Table 13 

Groups of stakeholders  

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

Flood Warning / Defence Authorities62 

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  

Navigation / ports  

Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) 

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

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

62   Latvia  subsequently  informed  that  the  LEGMC,  responsible  for  the  preparation  of  the  FRMP,  is  also  the 

authority responsible for flood warnings. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Active  involvement  of  stakeholder  took  place  mainly  through  the  Consultative  Councils, 
bodies  in  each  RBD/UoM  that  bring  together  state  institutions,  local  governments,  non-

governmental  organisations  as  well  as  the  private  sector  and  other  interest  groups  in  matters 
related  to  the  achievement  of  environmental  quality  and  flood  risk  objectives  in  each 

RBD/UoM. The main function of the Councils is to evaluate the RBMPs and FRMPs and their 
programmes  of  measures  in  accordance  with  the  public  interest  and  provide  opinions  and 

recommendations for their further development to LEGMC. Environmental non-governmental 
organisations,  state  institutions  (Ministry  of  Economics,  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Ministry  of 

Health  and  MEPRD)  and  planning  regions  and  municipalities  are  represented  in  the  four 
Consultative Councils. The private sector representatives involved in the Consultative Councils 
come from the drainage, water, agriculture and energy sector63.  

Separately, negotiations took place with the Ministry of Agriculture, which is the responsible 
authority for implementation of flood risk management measures in rural areas64. 

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  

Information days 

All UoMs 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

As noted above, the Consultative Councils provided the main venue for the active involvement 
of stakeholders. 

63  Latvia subsequently identified the Regional Environment Boards and regional authorities and municipalities as 
the main stakeholders that were involved in the development of the FRMPs. Stakeholder involvement will be 
described in detail in the second FRMPs. 

64  Reporting sheets and information from website of LEGMC 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The table below shows the effects of consultation: 

Table 15 

Effects of consultation 

Changes to selection of measures 

Adjustment to specific measures 

Addition of new information 

Changes to the methodology used 

Commitment to further research 

All UoMs 

✔ 

Commitment to action in the next FRMP cycle 

Comments and results of the consultation "were considered in the formulation of the plan" 

Source: FRMPs 

Comments  that  were  received  during  public  consultation  regarding  FRMPs  concerned 
clarifications,  but  they  did  not  call  for  essential  changes  in  the  plans.  The  strategic 

environmental assessment process did not identify the need for major changes in FRMPs. The 
comments  received  from  the  public  consultation  of  the  RBMPs  and  the  FRMPs  were 
summarised in a single document (for all four FRMPs) available on the LEGMC homepage65.  

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

An SEA procedure was applied to all FRMPs. The procedure was carried out jointly with the 
RBMPs’  SEA  procedure.  The  SEA  reports  for  both  –  RBMPs  and  the  FRMPs  –  are 
summarised in one document for each RBD/UoM66. 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding 

Governance 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Consultative Councils were established in each UoM and provided a forum for the active 
involvement  of  stakeholders.  Environmental  non-governmental  organisations,  state 

institutions (Ministry of Economics, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health and the 
Ministry  for  Environmental  Protection  and  Regional  Development,  MEPRD)  and 

65  Available at: 

https://www.meteo.lv/fs/CKFinderJava/userfiles/files/Vide/Udens/Ud_apsaimn/UBA%20plani/Info_zinojums
_UBAP_PP_210916.pdf  

66  Reporting sheets and information from website of LEGMC 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
planning regions and municipalities are represented in the Consultative Council for each 
UoM. 

 

In 2014, a local government survey was carried out on flood risks, planned measures and 

non-traditional  solutions  to  reduce  the  risk  of  flooding.  The  results  of  the  survey  were 
used in the development of the FRMPs.  

  Comments  received  from  the  public  consultation  of  the  RBMPs  and  the  FRMPs  were 

summarised in a single document, available on the LEGMC homepage67  

  All the FRMPs underwent an SEA procedure.  

67  Available at:  

https://www.meteo.lv/fs/CKFinderJava/userfiles/files/Vide/Udens/Ud_apsaimn/UBA%20plani/Info_zino 
jums_UBAP_PP_210916.pdf    

40 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

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

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

Background & method 

This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans 

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

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

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

  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 

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

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

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

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

  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive)68, not 
all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields.  

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

free  data  format  was  used.  For  some  Member  States,  this  resulted  in  thousands  of  different 
answers, often 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  State  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. 

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

41 

 
 
                                                 
  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  no  obvious  categories  can  be  defined  based  on  other  available 
information  (as  in  the  example  above  on  the  name  of  the  responsible  authorities),  are 

categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The following table69 is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures 
is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. 

NO ACTION 

M11: No Action 

PREVENTION 

M21: Avoidance 

PREPAREDNESS 

M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning 

M42: Emergency response planning 

M43: Public Awareness 

M44: Other preparedness 

RECOVERY & REVIEW 

M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery 

M22: Removal or relocation 

M52: Environmental recovery 

M23: Reduction 

M24: Other prevention 

PROTECTION 

M31: Natural flood management 

M32: Flow regulation 

M33: Coastal and floodplain works 

M34: Surface Water Management 

M35: other protection 

M53: Other recovery  

OTHER MEASURES 

M61: Other measures 

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

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

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1: Number of total measures (individual and aggregated) by measure aspect .......... 46 
Figure A2: Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect .............. 46 
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) .................................. 47 
Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A6: Cost by UoM (EUR) .................................................. 48 
Figure A5: Visualisation of Table A7: Category of Priority by measure aspect ..................... 49 
Figure A6: Visualisation of Table A8: Category of Priority by UoM ..................................... 50 
Figure A7: Visualisation of Table A9: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect ....... 51 
Figure A8: Visualisation of Table A10: Timetable of implementation by UoM .................... 51 
Figure A9: Visualisation of Table A11: Level of Responsible Authority by measure aspect . 52 
Figure A10: Visualisation of Table A12: Level of Responsible Authority by UoM............... 53 
Figure A11: Visualisation of Table A13: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ..... 54 
Figure A12: Visualisation of Table A14: Progress of implementation by UoM ..................... 55 

Table A1: Total number of measures ....................................................................................... 44 
Table A2: Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM ................................ 44 
Table A3: Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM ................................. 45 
Table A4: Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, 
including duplicates ................................................................................................................. 45 
Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) ............................................................................... 47 
Table A6: Cost by UoM (EUR) ............................................................................................... 47 
Table A7: Category of Priority by measure aspect .................................................................. 49 
Table A8: Category of Priority by UoM .................................................................................. 50 
Table A9: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect ................................................... 50 
Table A10: Timetable of implementation by UoM ................................................................. 51 
Table A11: Level of Responsible Authority by measure aspect.............................................. 52 
Table A12: Level of Responsible Authority by UoM ............................................................. 52 
Table A13: Progress of implementation by measure aspect .................................................... 54 
Table A14: Progress of implementation by UoM .................................................................... 54 

43 

 
 
 
 
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 

81 

81 

15 

15 

96 

96 

Min 3 - 30 

24 

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

Prevention 

M24 

Protection 

Preparedness 

M41 

M42 

LVDUBA 

LVGUBA 

LVLUBA 

LVVUBA 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

2 

2 

2 

1 

7 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

M44 

1 

1 

0 

Recovery & 
Review 

Other 

Grand Total 

4 

4 

4 

3 

15 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Note:  See  Types  of  measures  (above)  and  Annex  B  for  the  codes  used.  No  aggregated  measures  were  reported  for  the  categories  Protection, 
Recovery and Review or Other.   

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A3: Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM  

Prevention 

Protection 

M23 

M24 

M32  M33  M34  M35 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

Other 

Grand Total 

LVDUBA 

LVGUBA 

LVLUBA 

LVVUBA 

Grand Total 

12 

5 

1 

20 

38 

1 

1 

3 

5 

11 

2 

13 

3 

11 

1 

15 

6 

6 

3 

1 

4 

0 

0 

0 

27 

11 

13 

30 

81 

Average per UoM 

2 
Note: See Types of measures (above) and Annex B for the codes used. No individual measures were reported for the categories Preparedness, 
Recovery and Review or Other. 

20 

10 

1 

3 

4 

1 

0 

0 

0 

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

Prevention 

Aggregated 
2 
2 
2 
1 

Individual 
13 
6 
1 
23 

7 

2 

43 

1 

Prevention 
Total 

15 
8 
3 
24 

50 

13 

Protection 

Individual 
14 
5 
12 
7 

38 

10 

Protection 
Total 

14 
5 
12 
7 

38 

10 

LVDUBA 
LVGUBA 
LVLUBA 
LVVUBA 
Grand 
Total 
Average 
per UoM 

Aggregated 
2 
2 
2 
2 

8 

2 

Recovery 
& Review 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

31 
15 
17 
33 

96 

24 

2 
2 
2 
2 

8 

2 

Preparedness  Preparedness 

Total 

Note: See Types of measures (above) and Annex B for the codes used. No measures were reported for the categories Recovery and Review or 
Other. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The information in Table A4 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below. 

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

Note: No measures were reported for the categories Recovery and Review or Other. 

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

Note: No measures were reported for the categories Recovery and Review or Other. 

Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field) 

  Cost explanation (optional field) 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Latvia  provided  information  about  costs  and  cost  explanations  for  87  of  the  96  measures 
reported. For cost explanation a large number of different responses was provided, and it was 
thus not practical to aggregate the information. 

The highest reported cost was over €40 m and the lowest cost reported was €5 000. The data 
reported are summarised in the following tables. 

Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) 

0-100k 

100-
500k 

500k-
1M 

1-5M 

5-10M 

10-50M 

No 
information 

Grand 
Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Grand Total 

2 

3 

5 

24 

5 

4 
33 

4 

7 

11 

14 

15 

29 

2 

4 

6 

3 

3 

4 

1 

4 
9 

50 

38 

8 
96 

Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A5: Cost by measure aspect (EUR) 

Table A6: Cost by UoM (EUR) 

0-100k 

LVVUBA 

LVLUBA 

LVGUBA 

LVDUBA 
Grand 
Total 
Average 
per UoM 

2 

1 

2 

5 

1 

100-
500k 

17 

6 

6 

4 

33 

8 

500k-
1M 

4 

3 

4 

11 

3 

1-5M 

5-10M 

10-50M 

No 
information 

Grand 
Total 

1 

1 

1 

3 

6 

2 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

9 

2 

33 

17 

15 

31 

96 

24 

8 

5 

5 

11 

29 

7 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A4: Visualisation of Table 6: Cost by UoM (EUR) 

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field) 

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

Location of measures 

Latvia reported the location of all measures; however, this was an open question, and as such, 
the level of detail varies, and a large number of different responses was given. It was thus not 
practical to aggregate the information.  

Geographic coverage 

Latvia reported the geographic coverage of only 14 measures in the reporting sheets. Given the 
small  number  of  responses  and  the  variety  of  answers  it  was  not  practical  to  aggregate  the 
information.  

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

in the textual part of the XML)  

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

is required) 

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

required) 

48 

 
 
 
 
Objectives 

Latvia  reported  the  objectives  of  all  measures;  however,  this  was  an  open  question,  and  as 
such, a large number of  different  responses was  given.  It  was  thus  not  practical  to  aggregate 
the information.  

Category of priority 

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

  High 

  Moderate 

  Low 

Table A7: Category of Priority by measure aspect  

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Grand Total 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

Grand Total 

21 

19 

8 

48 

6 

14 

20 

23 

5 

28 

50 

38 

8 

96 

Note: No measures were reported as critical or very high priority. 

Figure A5: Visualisation of Table A7: Category of Priority by measure aspect 

Note: No measures were reported as critical or very high priority. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A8: Category of Priority by UoM  

High 

Moderate 

LVVUBA 

LVLUBA 

LVGUBA 

LVDUBA 

Grand Total 

13 

12 

6 

17 

48 

5 

4 

4 

7 

20 

Low 

15 

1 

5 

7 

28 

Average per UoM 

11 
Note: No measures were reported as critical or very high priority. 

19 

8 

Grand Total 

33 

17 

15 

31 

96 

38 

Figure A6: Visualisation of Table A8: Category of Priority by UoM  

Note: No measures were reported as critical or very high priority. 

Timetable 

Latvia  reported  the  timetable  of  all  measures.  The  information  was  summarised  in  the 
following tables. 

Table A9: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect  

2016 

2017 

2016-2018 

2016-2021  Continuously 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Grand Total 

4 

4 

4 

4 

1 

1 

41 

38 

4 

83 

4 

4 

Grand 
Total 
50 

38 

8 

96 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A7: Visualisation of Table A9: Timetable of implementation by measure aspect  

Table A10: Timetable of implementation by UoM 

2016 

2017 

2016-2018 

2016-2021  Continuously 

LVVUBA 

LVLUBA 

LVGUBA 

LVDUBA 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

31 

15 

13 

24 

83 

21 

1 

1 

0 

4 

4 

1 

Grand 
Total 
33 

17 

15 

31 

96 

24 

Figure A8: Visualisation of Table A10: Timetable of implementation by UoM  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

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

Latvia reported the names of the responsible authorities for the majority of the measures. 
However, for this open question, a large number of different responses were given, and it was 
not practical to aggregate the information.  

The information about the level of responsible authorities was summarised in the following 
tables. 

Table A11: Level of Responsible Authority by measure aspect  

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Grand Total 

N 

26 

18 

6 

50 

R 

5 

8 

13 

M 

3 

8 

11 

N, R 

N, R, 
M 

R, M 

1 

1 

2 

3 

3 

2 

2 

No 
information 
15 

Grand 
Total 
50 

38 

8 

96 

15 

N=National, R=Regional and M=Municipal Authority. 

Figure A9: Visualisation of Table A11: Level of Responsible Authority by measure aspect  

N=National, R=Regional and M=Municipal Authority. 

Table A12: Level of Responsible Authority by UoM  

LVDUBA 
LVGUBA 
LVLUBA 
LVVUBA 
Grand Total 
Average per UoM 

N 

18 
8 
10 
14 
50 
13 

R 

3 
6 
1 
3 
13 
3 

M 

7 
1 
2 
1 
11 
3 

N, R 

N, R, M  R, M 

No 
information 

1 

1 

2 
1 

1 

2 

3 
1 

15 
15 
4 

1 

1 

2 
1 

52 

Grand 
Total 
31 
15 
17 
33 
96 
24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
N=National, R=Regional and M=Municipal Authority. 

Figure A10: Visualisation of Table A12: Level of Responsible Authority by UoM  

N=National, R=Regional and M=Municipal Authority. 

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

whose responses are analysed below 

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

text question whose answers are not analysed here. 

The progress of implementation was reported as70: 

  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.  

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

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

53 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table A13: Progress of implementation by measure aspect  

Progress ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Grand Total 

7 

6 

4 

17 

43 

32 

4 

79 

No measures were reported as completed or ongoing construction. 

50 

38 

8 

96 

Figure A11: Visualisation of Table A13: Progress of implementation by measure aspect  

Note: No measures were reported as completed or ongoing construction. 

Table A14: Progress of implementation by UoM  

Progress ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

LVDUBA 

LVGUBA 

LVLUBA 

LVVUBA 

Grand Total 

11 

2 

3 

1 

17 

20 

13 

14 

32 

79 

Average per UoM 

4 
Note: No measures were reported as completed or ongoing construction. 

20 

31 

15 

17 

33 

96 

24 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A12: Visualisation of Table A14: Progress of implementation by UoM  

Note: No measures were reported as completed or ongoing construction. 

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

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

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

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

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

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

but are not finalized. 

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

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

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

provided any advisory session yet. 

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

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

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

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

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

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

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

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

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

Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to provide information on: 

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

  Any other information reported (optional field) 

Latvia reported additional information only for eight measures, where it mainly referred to 
budget and cost issues.  

For nine measures, in the field “Community Acts” Latvia reported ‘Civil Protection Law’ as an 
associated  act  and  for  five  measures  –  ‘Law  "On  the  Safety  of  Hydrotechnical  Structures  of 
Hydroelectric Power Plants"’ as an associated act. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures71 

M11 

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

No Action 

Prevention 

M21 

M22 

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

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

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. 

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

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

M33 

M34 

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

flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies 

Preparedness 

M41 

M42 

M43 

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

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

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

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

to reduce adverse consequences 

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

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

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Recovery & Review 

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

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

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

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

M53 

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

M61 

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 
A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

Forest 
F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 
F02 Maintenance of forest 
cover in headwater areas 

Hydro Morphology 
N01 Basins and ponds 

Urban 
U01 Green Roofs 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

A03 Crop rotation 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable surfaces 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 
N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
Agriculture 
A07 Low till agriculture 

Forest 
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 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

Hydro Morphology 
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 
N12 Lake restoration 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

Urban 
U07 Soakaways 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

U12 Infiltration basins 

59