COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Croatia Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework (2000/60/EC) Directive 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: Croatia, 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) 69 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Croatia Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  on the implementation of the Water Framework (2000/60/EC) Directive 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) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 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 ......................... 15 

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

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

2. 

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

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

2.2 

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

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

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

3. 

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

3.1 

3.2 

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

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

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

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding ............................. 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 ........................................................................................................ 23 

4.2 

Funding of measures .................................................................................................. 25 

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

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

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures .................................................................... 27 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.6 

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

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ........................................... 28 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures ................................................................... 29 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ........................................................... 29 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ....................................................................................... 29 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding .................................................................. 33 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ...................................................... 33 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive ................................................... 34 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures ............. 35 

5. Consideration of climate change ........................................................................................... 36 

5.1  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change ......... 37 

6. 

 Cost-benefit analysis......................................................................................................... 38 

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

7. 

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

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

7.2 

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

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

7.4 

7.5 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................ 42 

Strategic Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 43 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................ 44 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 45 

Background & method .......................................................................................................... 45 

Types of measures used in reporting ..................................................................................... 46 

List of Annex A tables & figures .......................................................................................... 47 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................ 48 

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

Measure details: name & location ......................................................................................... 50 

Measure details: objectives ................................................................................................... 50 

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

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

2 

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

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

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

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

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

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

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 

The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State to assess its territory for 
significant  risk  from  flooding,  to  map  the  flood  extent,  identify  the  potential  adverse 

consequences  of  future  floods  for  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and 
economic activity in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this 

flood  risk.  By  the  end  of  2011,  Member  States  were  to  prepare  Preliminary  Flood  Risk 
Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of 

Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard & Risk Maps 
(FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were to prepare 

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

This report assesses the FRMPs for Croatia1. It assesses the FRMPs and MS reporting to the 
European Commission in 2016. 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 should provide an overview of the plans and details on 

their measures; 

  Croatia’s  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan:  Croatia  reported  one  national  FRMP  for  the 

country’s two Units of Management (UoMs).  

2  

1   The  present  Member  State  assessment  report  reflects  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) as presented in the 2012 RBMP assessment reports 

Croatia  has  designated  two  Units  of  Management  (UoMs)  under  the  Floods  Directive:  the 

Danube (HRC) and the  Adriatic (HRJ). These two UoMs correspond to  the two River Basin 
Districts (RBDs) designated under the Water Framework Directive (WFD).  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Croatia  has  integrated  its  national  FRMP3  under  the  Floods  Directive  into  its  national  River 
Basin  Management  Plan  2016-2021,  prepared  under  the  WFD4.  This  national  FRMP  covers 
both Croatian UoMs.  

The  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Croatia  approved  the  national  River  Basin  Management 
Plan 2016-2021 (and consequently, the FRMP as part of it) in 6th of July 2016. 

The table below gives an overview of UoMs in Croatia, including the UoM codes, the name, 

and  the  number  of  APSFRs  reported.  It  also  shows  if  all  documents  required  for  each  UoM 
were submitted to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE5 – the FRMP as a PDF and 
the  reporting  sheet  as  an  XML.  Across  the  two  UoMs,  a  total  of  2  976  Areas  of  Potentially 
Significant Floods Risk (APSFRs) have been identified.  

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Croatia 

UoM 

HRC 

HRJ 

Name 

Number of APSFRs  XML reported 

DANUBE 

ADRIATIC 

2 058 

918 

Yes 

Yes 

PDF Reported 
Yes6 
Yes 

The FRMP can be downloaded (as part of Croatia’s RBMP) from the following web page: 

  http://www.voda.hr/hr/plan-upravljanja-vodnim-podrucjima  

3   Plan upravljanja rizicima od poplava in Croatian.  
4   The FRMP is a section of about 50 pages in the overall document of over 500 pages. 
5   https://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/603/deliveries?id=603&tab=deliveries&d-4014547-p=1&d-4014547-

o=2&d-4014547-s=3     

6   Croatia uploaded its national RBMP, which includes the single FRMP for both UoMs. 

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 FRMP 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives have 
been established  

Strong evidence 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of 
potential adverse 
consequences  

Some evidence  

The FRMP has set two overall objectives and also 
presents two aims for flood protection. The objectives 
call for: (1) a complete and harmonised water regime 
vis-à-vis international objectives; and (2) integrating 
water management to protect people and material 
goods from floods and other harmful effects of water. 
The aims refer to flood protection levels to be attained 
in 2023 and 2038.  

The FRMP states that the objectives aim to reduce 
adverse impacts of floods on people, valuable assets 
and property and on the aquatic and terrestrial 
environments. 

...to the reduction of the 
likelihood of flooding  

Some evidence  

The objectives include targets for Croatia’s flood 
protection systems.  

...to non-structural 
initiatives  

No evidence  

The objectives do not refer to non-structural initiatives 
(however, the measures do). 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Some evidence  

The objectives are intended to reduce adverse impacts 
of floods on the health and safety of people. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...economic activity  

Some evidence  

...environment  

Some evidence  

...cultural heritage  

No evidence  

The objectives are intended to reduce adverse impacts 
on valuable assets and property.  

The FRMP indicates that the objectives are aimed, 
among others, to protect the aquatic and terrestrial 
environment; the objectives also refer to the ecological 
status of waters.  

The objectives do not include a reference to cultural 
heritage (however, some of the measures do). 

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence   The FRMP has identified 54 measures, of which 53 are 
national measures (applicable for both UoMs) and one 
that is valid only for the coast and only in the Adriatic 
UoM (HRJ). Croatia has reported these measures to 
WISE by UoM, so its reporting presents 107 measures, 
53 in each UoM plus one only in the Adriatic UoM. 
The FRMP states that each measure will be 
implemented through a series of activities and projects: 
consequently, one measure is equivalent to several 
activities or projects. 

...prioritised  

Some evidence  

Croatia has reported all measures as ‘moderate’ priority 
(except four protection measures for which no category 
is provided). However, it is not clear how the priority 
of measures was established7.  

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

...costs & benefits  

No evidence  

The FRMP indicates that a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) 
was not made during the development of the FRMP. 
According to the plan, CBA will be implemented for 
the next planning cycle (2022 to 2027). The FRMP also 
notes that some CBA elements will be carried out at 
project level. 

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

FRMP indicates that flood extent has been identified 

7   Croatia subsequently informed that the prioritisation of structural measures was carried out under the “Multi-
annual programme for the construction of regulation and protection water facilities and amelioration facilities” 
(Official Gazette/OG 117/15). It was further clarified that the prioritisation of non-structural measures was not 
carried out because, due to their diversity and potential parallel implementation, the need for their prioritising 
was not evident. Croatia reasoned that there could be a risk for the slowing down of implementation of other 
measures if, for some reason, problems occurred in the implementation of an individual measure (presumably 
a non-structural one) with a higher priority. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...flood conveyance  

No evidence  

for the Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
(APSFRs).  

The FRMP does not mention conveyance routes (and 
the prior assessment of Croatia’s PFRA did not find a 
reference to conveyance routes either). 

...water retention  

...environmental 
objectives of the WFD  

Strong evidence   The FRMP takes natural water retention account. The 
plan sets out several natural water retention measures 
(NWRMs), referring among others to floodplains and 
alluvial forests and to awareness raising on natural 
water retention measures.  

Strong evidence   The FRMP’s objectives refer to the ecological status of 

...spatial planning/land 
use  

Strong evidence  

water and the plan includes win-win and no-regret 
measures such as NWRMs. 

Several measures address spatial planning and land use, 
such as to include NWRMs in spatial planning 
documents and to raise awareness of land-use 
restrictions for flood-prone areas. 

...nature conservation  

Strong evidence   The FRMP includes measures that address nature 

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

Some evidence  

conservation, including nature protection in the 
maintenance of water courses and for water works, as 
well as measures to address flood management issues 
in administrative activities connected to forestry and 
hunting.  

Little evidence was found that navigation and port 
infrastructure have been taken into consideration. 
There is a short mention of it in the body of the FRMP, 
but no reference was found in the measures8.  

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Strong evidence   The FMRP has taken into account climate change, 

indicating potential changes in flood risks and citing 
Croatia’s national climate adaptation strategy in 
preparation. Several measures will address climate 
change, including one to analyse its impacts on flood 
risks and then possibility to amend the program of 
FRMP measures with climate change adaptation 
measures. Another measure refers to climate risks in 
relation to flood management and biodiversity, and 

8   Croatia stated subsequently that this part of the Flood Risk Management Plan will be reinforced in the second 

cycle. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

third refers to wider public participation with regard to 
the implementation of FRMP, including in relation to 
climate change. 

Strong evidence   The reporting sheets and the FRMP indicate that 

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Coordination ensured 
with WFD  

Some evidence  

Croatia has cooperated on flood risk management via 
the international commissions for the Danube and Sava 
basins and also via bilateral contacts with neighbouring 
Member States and third countries. 

The FRMP was developed along with the RBMP and is 
part of it; the overall plan is coordinated by Croatia’s 
water management authority, Hrvatske vode. Part A of 
the 2016-2021 RBMP states that flood risk 
management is fully integrated with other water 
management activities (thus with the RBMP too) and 
that the FRMP is an integral part of the RBMP. 
Nonetheless, the FRMP provides few details on the 
coordination itself9.  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Strong evidence   The FRMP indicates that a range of stakeholders were 
actively involved via round tables; however, it appears 
that this took place during the Strategic Environmental 
Assessment of the plan and not during the WFD 
consultation period10. 

Good Practices 

The assessment identified the following good practices in the Croatian FRMP assessed. 

Table 3 

Good practices in the Croatian FRMP 

Topic area 

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

Good practices identified 

The FRMP includes measures for spatial planning and land use and for 
natural water retention. Moreover, several measures address nature 
conservation.  

The Plan sets out an approach for monitoring the implementation of 
measures, including indicators.   

9   Croatia subsequently noted that 153 measures from the RBMP relate to flood protection. 
10   Croatia subsequently noted that the Report on the consultation with the  interested public on the draft River 

Basin Management Plan was published here: 
http://www.voda.hr/sites/default/files/izvjesce_o_provedenom_savjetovanju_sa_zainteresiranom_javnoscu_o_
nacrtu_plana_upravljanja_vodnim_podrucjima_2016._-_2021.pdf  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Consideration of 
climate change in the 
FRMPs assessed  

The FRMP presents potential impacts of climate change on flooding and 
its preparation considered the national climate change Adaptation Strategy 
and Action Plan, which were under development at the time.  

The FRMP includes measures to study potential impacts of climate change 
and incorporate them as well as carry out awareness-raising on climate 
change and floods. 

Public participation  

Several methods of consultation were used – from written submissions to a 
dedicated round table consultation.  

A report annexed to the RBMP/FRMP clearly presents how public and 
stakeholder comments were taken into consideration. 

International issues in 
flood risk management.  

During the process of FRMP development, cross-border consultations on 
FRMP (and associated FHRMs) took place through bilateral commissions 
with neighbouring states.  

Areas for further development 

The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Croatian FRMP 

assessed. 

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Croatian FRMP 

Topic area 
Setting of objectives for the 
management of flood risk.  

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

Areas identified for further development 

The FRMP presents both main objectives and also strategic aims. The 
main objectives are not specific or measurable.   

While a budget is provided for infrastructure measures, this comes from 
a pre-existing plan and it does not reflect the FRMP’s planning period; 
there is no budget information for other types of measures.  

The FRMP does not link measures to objectives, which are for the most 
part very general. 

The measures are lacking information on location and geographical 
coverage. The FRMP does not explain how the nationally set measures 
will address the differences between Croatia’s UoMs. 

Croatia has reported moderate priority for almost all its measures, and 
the FRMP provides no information on prioritisation of measures (the 
FRMP states that 71 % of investments are going to areas considered as 
having very high and high potential risk of flooding, implying that some 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Use of CBA in the FRMPs 
assessed.  
Public participation.  

Flood risk governance.  

form of prioritisation was carried out). 

The FRMP does not indicate a baseline for monitoring the 
implementation of measures11. 

Croatia did not carry out an analysis of the costs and benefits (CBA) of 
its measures. 
The FRMP provides little detail on the steps for public consultation and 
the active involvement of stakeholders. The FRMP and reporting sheets 
provide information on active involvement of stakeholders that took 
place during the consultation on the Strategic Environmental Assessment 
of the RBMP/FRMP and not during the six-month WFD consultation 
period. 

The FRMP (a small part of Croatia’s RBMP) and its measures (each 
represents a series of actions and projects), do not provide detail on how 
differences in geography and flood risks will be addressed, both within 
and across Croatia’s two UoMs. Despite the FRMP and RBMP being 
parts of the same document, there is little information on how the two 
Plans were coordinated. 

Recommendations 

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

  Objectives  should  be  clearly  presented  and  should  be  specific  and  measurable  to  the 
extent possible. To be able to assess progress, measures should be clearly linked to the 

objectives.  The  FRMP  should  indicate  the  baseline  against  which  progress  can  be 
monitored. 

  The FRMP should provide further information on coordination between the FRMP and 

RBMP. 

  Croatia’s flood risk management planning should better address any differences in flood 
management issues between the country’s two UoMs, either within a single plan or via 
separate plans for each UoM.  

11   Croatia  subsequently  clarified  that  the  “Multi-annual  programme  for  the  construction  of  regulation  and 
protection water facilities and amelioration facilities” (OG 117/15), which was adopted before the River Basin 
Management Plan 2016-2021 (OG 66/16) (and consequently also before the FRMP), is currently being revised 
and that in the future it will fully be integrated into the framework of flood risk management under the Floods 
Directive.  According  to  Croatia,  structural  measures  that  are  both  in  the  “Multi-annual  programme”  and 
FRMP provide the monitoring baseline. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  The  FRMP  should  explain  the  prioritisation  of  measures  and  incorporate  wherever 
possible  an  analysis  of  the  costs  and  benefits  of  measures  and  use  the  results  for  the 
selection and prioritisation of measures. 

  The  next  FRMP  should  integrate  the  ongoing  studies  of  potential  impacts  of  climate 

change. 

  The FRMP should provide information on the costs and funding sources of all measures.  

  The FRMP should provide further details on the approach to public consultation and the 

active involvement of stakeholders.  

14 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Croatia  has  reported  one  nationwide  FRMP  covering  both  of  Croatia’s  UoMs.  The  national 
FRMP is part of the national River Basin Management Plan12 (the main body of FRMP – Part 
D of the RBMP, makes up only a small part of the overall document, approximately 50 pages 
out  of  the  567  in  total).  Several  sections  of  the  Plan  -  Section  A  on  the  Water  Management 

Framework;  B,  the  Executive  Summary;  and  E,  the  Documentation  Register  –  relate  to  both 
the RBMP and the FRMP. 

Croatia  did  not  make  use  of  Article  13.3  of  the  Floods  Directive,  which  allowed  Member 

States to make use of previous flood risk management plans for the first cycle (provided their 
content is equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

In Croatia, the one national FRMP was assessed; the two UoM reporting sheets were consulted 
for additional information.  

Table 5 

UoMs in Croatian National FRMP 

UoM code 

HRC 

HRJ 

UoM Name 

DANUBE 

ADRIATIC 

12   The RBMP is available on the web site of Hrvatske vode:  

http://www.voda.hr/sites/default/files/plan_upravljanja_vodnim_podrucjima_2016._-_2021_0.pdf 

  The RBMP can also be accessed via EEA’s CDR: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/hr/eu/frmp/  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The  conclusions  of  the  preliminary  flood  risk  assessment  (PRFA)  are  presented  in  Croatia’s 

national FRMP. This includes a summary map showing areas of potential significant flood risk 
(APSFRs). The FRMP also contains a short textual description and a summary map showing 

flood  risk  areas  shared  with  other  Member  States  in  international  UoMs.  The  FRMP  has  a 
graph  and  table  representing  the  total  surface  of  the  APSFRs’  areas  (2  823  km2)  and  the 
percentage  of  areas  shared  with  other  Member  States  and  third  countries  (about  8  %  of  the 
area, mostly in the Danube UoM, HRC)13.  

Several  maps  are  provided  within  the  FRMP  (and  thus  in  PDF  format);  in  addition,  high 

resolution  online  maps  are  available  on  the  web  site  of  Hrvatske  vode,  the  national  water 
management authority. The FRMP provides the link to the maps: http://korp.voda.hr/14.  

The  FRMP  does  not  mention  conveyance  routes  (and  a  prior  assessment  did  not  find  a 
reference to conveyance routes in Croatia’s PFRA15).  

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

Cooperation and cross-border consultation on the FMRP is mentioned on several instances in 

the  FRMP;  however,  there  is  no  information  specifically  on  cooperation  at  the  PFRA  stage. 
The FRMP16 states that flood risk management of shared flood risk areas will be managed in 
accordance with Croatia’s international agreements17,18.  

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

13   FRMP 2016-2021, Sl. D4, p. 486. 
14   Three main categories of maps are presented: preliminary flood risk assessment (PFRA) maps, flood hazard 
maps,  and  flood  risk  maps.  It  should  be  noted  that  high  resolution  maps  were  not  available  during  the 
RBMP/FRMP  public  consultation  process  (only  low  resolution  maps  in  the  body  of  the  document  were 
available). 

15   European Commission, Assessment of data and information reported by Member States on their Preliminary 
Flood  Risk  Assessments  and  identification  of  Areas  of  Potentially  Significant  Flood  Risk  under  the  Floods 
Directive – Member State Report: [HR] - [Croatia]. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/pfra_reports/PFRA%20Report%20-%20HR.pdf 

16   FRMP p. 486. 
17   International  FRMPs  were  prepared  under  both  the  Danube  and  Sava  River  processes.  For  example,  an 
international FRMP for the Sava River Basin (a sub-basin of the Danube) was published in December 2014, at 
the same time as the FRMP for the Danube international basin. Croatia participates in coordination for both 
international basins. The FRMP does not, however, provide details on coordination within these processes. 
18   Croatia informed subsequently that the PFRA was presented to Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina at bilateral 
meetings.  This  element  is  included  in  the  PFRA  at  the  levels  of  the  International  Commission  for  the 
Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) and the Sava Commission. Hungary and Serbia are members of the 
ICPDR, while Serbia is also a member of the Sava Commission. The FRMP, as part of the RBMP, was subject 
to  the  procedure  according  to  the  Convention  on  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  in  a  Transboundary 
Context (Espoo Convention) with all neighbouring countries. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
According  to  the  FRMP,  the  preparation  of  the  flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  maps  (FHRMs) 
used the PFRA as a basis along with further data from flood observations19.  

2.2 

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

The FRMP provides summary flood hazard and flood risk maps. The FRMP indicates that the 
FHRMs  cover  pluvial  floods,  seawater  floods,  floods  from  artificial  water  bearing  structures 

and floods from no specific sources, as well as the combined effects of more than one source 
of flooding. There is no indication whether groundwater floods were taken into account20. 

Links  to  the  flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  maps  are  provided  in  the  FRMP.  The  maps  are 
available  on  the  web  site  of  Hrvatske  vode,  where  they  can  be  visualised  on  an  online  GIS 

platform,  available  via  the  following  web  pages:  http://korp.voda.hr/  (main  page)  and 
http://www.voda.hr/hr/plan-upravljanja-vodnim-podrucjima21.   

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

Flood  hazard  and  flood  risk  maps  have  been  prepared  for  flood  risk  areas  shared  with  other 

Member  States.  The  FRMP  and  the  reporting  sheets  state  that  consultations  were  held  with 
neighbouring  countries,  that  maps  were  presented,  and  comments  incorporated  into  the  final 
maps22. 

19   FRMP 2016-2021, p.487-497.  
20   Subsequently  Croatia  noted  that  the  issues  of  groundwater  and  surface  waters  and  the  determination  of  the 
accurate  source  of  floods  in  karstic  areas  (which  cover  a  major  part  of  Croatia)  are  very  complex,  if  not 
impossible.  For  this  reason,  the  manifestations  of  this  complex  phenomenon  on  the  surface  were  taken  into 
account (although, in most cases, it also means significant flows into the ground), so it can be stated that the 
most important phenomena of groundwater flows were taken into consideration in the karstic parts of Croatia. 
In the alluvial parts of Croatia, however, the phenomenon of floods caused by groundwater was generally not 
taken into account. 

21   At the time of the assessment, the maps were also available directly at the following link: 

http://voda.giscloud.com/map/321490/karta-opasnosti-od-poplava-po-vjerojatnosti-poplavljivanja.  

22  Cross-border  coordination  has  been  described  in  the  reporting  sheets  HRC/HRJ  under  Summary  of 

Coordination. Cross-border consultation is also mentioned in the FRMP.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

The  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  provides  the  results  of  the  FHRMs  in  table  and  graphic 
format23. The assessment of potential damages24 was performed based on these maps as well. 

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

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

December 2011, or in the FHRMs since December 2013, indicated in the FRMP. There is no 
information  in  the  FRMP  that  the  APSFRs  have  changed  since  201325.  However,  the  FRMP 
states  that  Flood  Hazard  Maps  were  updated  with  information  obtained  from  floods 
observations since 201326. 

2.4 

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

The FHRM assessment27 identified the following areas for further development in Croatia: 

  There  are  appear  to  be  numerous  APSFRs  crossing  borders  with  Serbia  (HRC)  and 
Bosnia and Herzegovina (both HRC and HRJ). The reporting did not specify how they 

are being coordinated; 

  It  was  not  clear  how  the  hazard  elements  will  be  shown  on  the  map  for  the  low 
probability scenario without assigning a probability (information was not provided on the 
probability of low-probability floods28); 

  According  to  Article  6(5)(c)  of  the  Floods  Directive,  Member  States  should  report 
potentially  affected  protected  areas:  in  particular,  drinking  water  abstraction  areas, 

recreational  and  bathing  waters  and  areas  for  the  protection  of  habitats  and  species 
including Natura 2000 sites29. No potential adverse consequences on the environment are 
shown in the maps.   

23   See for example Table D.4, Table D.5, Figure D14 
24   Section D, ch. 2.3  
25   Croatia subsequently confirmed that APSFRs did not change. 
26   FRMP 2016-2021, p.480. 
27   European  Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  –  Member  State  Report:  HR  – 

Croatia, March 2015. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/HR%20FHRM%20Report.pdf   

28   Croatia subsequently explained that traditionally, the low probability scenario of occurrence is considered the 
1/1000  event  probability  (flood  protection  of  major  cities),  and  this  probability  was  generally  used  for 
hydrological processing in the development of maps. Absence of details about the low probability scenario on 
the published maps is believed to make the maps easier understandable to the public. For expert applications 
information can be obtained upon request from the competent body, i.e. Hrvatske vode. 

29   Croatia subsequently stated that additional sites will be included in the next cycle. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
  Climate change was not been included in the analysis.30  
  The FHRMs were apparently not considered as finalised.  

Based on the FRMP and Croatia’s reporting sheets, some but not all of these areas for further 
development have been addressed:  

  The FHRMs have been finalised, though as noted above, they were subsequently updated 

to take into account recent flood information. 

  The FHRMs indicate protected areas and the potential adverse consequences of flooding 

for the environment. 

  The FRMP refers to  coordination of cross-border APSFRs with neighbouring countries 

but does not provide details on the process31. 

Nevertheless, 

  The  maps  show  events  for  three  categories:  for  low,  medium  and  high  probability  of 

occurrence, a definition of the low-probability scenario was not found. 

  Climate change impacts and vulnerabilities have not been addressed in the FHRMs. 

Consequently, while the maps have been finalised and now indicate protected areas, it appears 
that other areas for further development identified in the prior assessment, including a lack of 

treatment of climate change and an indication of the definition of the low-probability scenario, 
have not been addressed yet.  

30   Croatia subsequently clarified that at the time when the maps were developed, there was no reliable regional 
model of climate change, and no reliable results could be obtained based on available data, so Croatia decided 
not  to  incorporate  climate  change  impacts  and  vulnerabities  into  the  maps.  At  the  end  of  2017,  a  national 
climate  change  adaptation  strategy  project  was  completed  within  which  a  reliable  regional  model  was 
developed  and  there  is  an  ongoing  project  of  Hrvatske  vode  to  interpret  these  results  for  purposes  of  water 
management, including flood risk management. 

31   Croatia subsequently clarified that the PFRA  was presented to Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina at bilateral 
meetings. It is included in the PFRA at the  levels of the  International  Commission for  the Protection of the 
Danube  River  (ICPDR)  and  the  Sava  Commission.  Hungary  and  Serbia  are  members  of  the  ICPDR,  while 
Serbia  is  also  a  member  of  the  Sava  Commission.  The  FRMP  as  part  of  the  RBMP  was  subject  to  the 
information and consultation  procedure according to the Espoo Convention  with all  neighbouring countries. 
Supporting documents can be found at: http://www.voda.hr/hr/plan-upravljanja-vodnim-podrucjima.   

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

Croatia’s FRMP presents two main objectives:  

  Achieving  a  complete  and  harmonised  water  regime  with  respect  to  international 

obligations; 

  Integrating  water  management  to  protect  people  and  material  goods  from  floods  and 
other forms of harmful effects of water: i.e., to achieve economically justified levels of 

protection of population, material goods and other values, encouraging the preservation 
and improvement of the ecological status of water and floodplains to create preconditions 
for further economic development32.   

It  also  states  that  the  objectives  of  flood  risk  management  are  primarily  aimed  at  "reducing 

adverse impacts of flood events on the health and safety of people, on valuable assets and on 
property and on the water and terrestrial environment".  

An additional focus  is  the setting of two strategic aims  for Croatia’s flood protection system 
for waters of category I and II33. These aims are the following: 

  Achieving a level of 87 % flood protection before the end of year 2023; 

  Achieving a level of 100 % of flood protection before the end of year 2038. 

These targets are actually set outside of the FRMP timeline (2016-2021) and therefore it is not 

clear how they relate to the FRMP. Moreover, definition of these aims was not found.  

Consequently, in the FRMP assessed34: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods; and 
  The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding35. 

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

The main objectives of the FRMP are neither specific nor measurable.  

32   RBMP/FRMP, p. 500-501. 
33   Waters  of  category  I:  interstate  waters,  coastal  waters,  other  larger  water  and  canals,  and  torrent  waters  of 

greater power; waters of category II: all other surface water. 
34   These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 
35   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. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  two  strategic  aims  also  included  in  the  FRMP  appear  to  be  specific  and  measurable  – 
however, the FRMP does not clearly define these aims.  

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

In  the  FRMP  assessed,  the  objectives  include  a  reference  to  the  reduction  of  the  adverse 

consequences of floods on human health, cultural heritage and the environment.  

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding (though they do not address this topic 
directly). 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

The FRMP does  not  provide details  on the process  followed for setting the objectives36. The 
objectives were presented for public and stakeholder comment as part of the FRMP, and along 
with the RBMP (see section 7).  

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The  FRMP  presents  both  main  objectives  and  also  strategic  aims.  The  main  objectives 

are not specific or measurable. The strategic aims need clearer definition. 

36   Croatia subsequently clarified that the objectives were taken from the Water Act (OG 153/09, 63/11, 130/11, 
56/13, 14/14 and 46/18), into which EU water Directives were transposed, and from the Water Management 
Strategy (OG 91/08). 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Croatia has reported 107 aggregated37 measures and no individual measures (see Annex A)38. 
The measures cover the four aspects of flood risk management39:  

  Prevention (20 measures, 19 % of all measures) 

  Protection (nine measures, 8 %) 

  Preparedness (43 measures, 39 %) 

  Recovery and review (two measures, 2 %) 

In  addition,  Croatia  reported  34  “other”  measures,  representing  32  %  of  the  total  number  of 
measures reported40. 

The  measures  are  almost  evenly  divided  between  Croatia’s  two  UoMs:  53  measures  for  the 
Danube (HRC) and 54 for the Adriatic (HRJ). 

It should be noted that Croatia’s FRMP presents a different number of measures: a total of 54 

measures across the country, of which 53 cover both UoMs and one measure is implemented 
only in the Adriatic UoM (HRJ)41. In effect, Croatia has reported the same measures set out in 
the FRMP but did so on a UoM rather than a national basis.  

All  54  measures  from  the  FRMP  are  ‘aggregated’  measures.  There  is  no  definition  of 
"aggregated"  in  the  FRMP.  Nonetheless,  the  FRMP  states  that  each  measure  will  be 
implemented  through  a  series  of  activities  and  projects.  Croatia  has  a  varied  geography:  the 

Danube  UoM  includes  the  Pannonian  plain  and  hilly  and  mountainous  terrain,  while  the 
Adriatic UoM contains the Dinaric Alps, a generally narrow coastal area and a high number of 

37   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. 

38   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. 

39   See Annex B for the list of measure aspects and measure types 
40   It appears that these ‘other’ measures each cover more than one aspect.  
41   Measure N26, measure code HRJ_5_2_26: "Development of flood risk management concept for  areas under 

sea influence". 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
islands.  The  FRMP’s  measures,  almost  all  at  national  level,  do  not  provide  detail  on  this 
diversity and the differences in flood risks that arise42.  

Croatia’s FRMP identifies the EU measure types (see Annex B) for its 54 measures; however, 

it also presents the measures in terms of the following four national categories:  

  Measures to improve Flood Risk Management (16 measures)  

  Implementing measures to reduce the risk of flooding (19 measures)  

  Strengthening  capacity  and  implementation  of  preventive  preparatory  actions,  direct 
measures  of  regular  and  extraordinary43  flood  defense,  and  actions  after  the  end  of 
regular flood defence (11 measures)  

  Measures for reduction of flood risks by involving the public (eight measures)  

4.1 

Cost of measures 

The FRMP provides some information on costs for physical infrastructure measures; the time 
periods presented do not correspond to the FRMP (2016 to 2021).  

42   Croatia subsequently informed that the measures are spatially distributed, i.e. the location for each structural 
measure under the “Multi-annual programme for the construction of regulation and protection water facilities 
and amelioration facilities” is known. 

  Non-structural measures mostly relate to both river basin districts (UoMs); however, their implementation is 

different in individual UoMs. E.g.: 
• M 11, 25, 29 –water bodies according to the Water Framework Directive; 
• M 6, 32 – public water estate;  
• M 30 – flood protection water facilities; 
• SM2 – protected areas according to the Water Framework Directive; 
•  M  9  –  regulation  and  protection  water  facilities  are  defined  under  the  “Main  Implementation  Flood 
Protection Plan”, Attachment 1, etc.; 
•  management  of  waters,  water  estate  and  water  management  facilities  (M  40)  is  implemented  according  to 
annual programmes that include specificities of each individual location and that are harmonised with a body 
competent for nature protection.  
Some of the measures are included in the RBMP 2016-2021 in accordance with the requirements of the Water 
Framework Directive and they are related to specific water bodies. 

43   Croatia’s “National Flood Defence Plan” (OG 84/210) defines extraordinary flood defense measures as those 

taken “at extremely high water levels”. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Table 6 

Estimated overall budget of infrastructure construction measures in HRK 

UoM code 

Estimated overall budget of infrastructure construction measures in HRK 

Danube (HRC) 

Adriatic (HRJ) 

2013 – 17: 1 732.24 million 
2018 – 22: 1 505.17 million 
2013 – 17: 594.29 million 
2018 – 22: 782.32 million 

Source: FRMP 

The FRMP provides estimated preliminary costs of construction for physical infrastructure for 
water regulation and safety as well as for drainage44. The FRMP takes this information from 
the  ‘Multi-annual  Program  for  the  Construction  of  Water  Structures  for  Regulation  and 
Protection  and  Structures  for  Amelioration’45  (based  on  the  Croatia’s  Water  Act),  and  the 
information  is  for  two  time  periods  that  do  not  correspond  to  the  FRMP  cycle  (2016-2021): 
2013-2017 and 2018-202246. The following investment costs for infrastructure construction are 
presented in the FRMP:  

Period 2013 – 2017:  

  UoM Danube total (HRC): 1 731.24 m HRK  

  Costs by sub-basin –  

o  Drava and Danube (HRC 1/2): 553.30 m HRK  
o  Sava (HRC 2/2): 1 177.94 m HRK 

  UoM Adriatic (HRJ): 594.29 m HRK 

  National total (HRC + HRJ): 2 325.53 m HRK 

Period 2018 – 2022: 

  UoM Danube total (HRC): 1 505.17 UoM m HRK 

Costs by sub-basin –  

o  Sub-basin Drava and Danube (HRC 1/2): 880.41 m HRK 
o  Sub-basin Sava (HRC 2/2): 624.77 m HRK 

  Adriatic (HRJ): 782.32 m HRK 

o  Total HRC + HRJ= 2 287.49 m HRK 

44   FRMP 2016-2021, Tab.D.9, p.526. 
45   Multi-annual Program for the Construction of Water Structures for Regulation and Protection and Structures 

for Amelioration: http://www.voda.hr/hr/visegodisnji-programi-gradnje 

46   Croatia  subsequently  clarified  that  the  “Multi-annual  programme  for  the  construction  of  regulation  and 
protection  water  facilities  and  amelioration  facilities”  (OG  117/15)  was  adopted  before  the  River  Basin 
Management Plan 2016 - 2021 (OG 66/16). The programme is currently being revised so that in the future it 
will be fully integrated into the new framework of flood risk management according to the Floods Directive. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
As noted, these costs refer to infrastructure construction and thus are likely to fall mainly under 
prevention, though the FRMP does not specify the breakdown by measure aspect.. 

4.2 

Funding of measures 

The FRMP indicates that Hrvatske vode will provide the main source of funding for measures. 

Hrvatske vode revenues in turn come mainly from water charges. There are four types:  

1.  Water  contributions  (Vodni  doprinosi):  paid  by  any  legal  or  physical  person  who  is 
responsible for a building (e.g. investor) for which a construction permit is issued47;  
2.  Compensations  for  water  regulation  (Naknada  za  uređenje  voda):  paid  by  all  legal  or 

physical persons who own a real-estate; 

3.  Compensations for water use (Naknada za korištenje voda): paid by all legal or physical 

persons who use water (surface or ground water) for various purposes;  

4.  Compensations  for  water  protection  (Naknada  za  zaštitu  voda):  paid  by  all  legal  or 
physical persons who discharge water in sewers, septic tanks, collection pits or land or 

coastal waters.  

Revenues from these water charges (in particular the second type listed above) will be used to 

finance  the  construction  of  flood  protection  infrastructure,  along  with  possible  co-financing 
from the state budget and other sources. The FRMP notes that other sources of financing can 

include:  

  Hrvatske  vode  resources  from  the  national  budget  (i.e.  separate  from  the  revenue  from 

charges); 

  A potential loan from the Development Bank of the Council of Europe; 

  EU funds, including for cross-border co-operation programmes; 

  Other available domestic and European sources of funding (including EU Funds and the 

Development Bank of the Council of Europe). 

Consequently, the following sources of funding are identified: 

47   Or an application for an illegally built building to be made legal. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 funds48  
EU CAP funds  

International funds * 

Other: water charges 

Both UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Notes:  *  International  funds  refer  to  a  loan  from  the  Development  Bank  of  the  Council  of 
Europe 

The FRMP specifies49 that 71 % of investments will go to areas which are considered at very 
high and high preliminary risk of flooding (according to the FHRMs). 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

Croatia’s FRMP does not include a clear and explicit description of the measures with regard 
to50:  

  What they are trying to achieve, 
  Where they are to be achieved51, 
  How they are to be achieved, and 

  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

In general, measures lack information on the objectives which they are trying to achieve, cost 
and  explanation  of  costs.  (As  noted  above,  the  FRMP  states  that  the  measures  will  be 

implemented via more detailed activities and projects.) 

48   Croatia added subsequently that also the Cohesion Fund will be utilised. 
49   RBMP/FRMP, p. 511. 
50  Croatia  subsequently  informed  that  the  programme  for  “management  of  waters,  water  estate  and  water 
management facilities (preventive flood protection)” changes every year and that it is implemented wherever it 
is  necessary.  In  addition,  there  are  several  competent  bodies  for  some  measures,  so  it  is  difficult  to  say  in 
advance how the measures will be implemented. On top there are different deadlines for the implementation of 
individual measures. Reporting problems are cited too. Croatia concludes that efforts will be made to present 
and report the measures part more clearly in the next Flood Risk Management Plan. 
51   Croatia clarified subsequently that the legislative measures apply to the entire country. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
For  all  measures,  the  location  is  given  as  both  UoMs.  In  addition,  the  following  specific 
information is provided on the location of measures52: 

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 

Other 

Both UoMs  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

It is not clear how measures will contribute to the achievement of objectives, nor clear by how 

much they will contribute to a specific objective. It is also not clear whether is it foreseen that 
the objectives will be achieved when all measures are completed, as the objectives themselves 

are not specific or measurable. Moreover, the FRMP does not link the measures to individual 
objectives.  

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

Croatia  has  reported  that  location  of  all  107  measures  to  be  in  one  of  the  two  UoMs.  The 
FRMP instead states that 53 of the 54 measures  presented are considered to  be implemented 
nationwide (and the 54th, in the Adriatic UoM, HRJ).  

Croatia did not provide information about the geographic coverage of the expected effects of 
any of the measures in the reporting sheets. 

As  noted  above,  the  measures  are  to  be  implemented  through  more  detailed  activities  and 

projects, many of which are likely to take place in specific locations.  

52   As noted above, Croatia’s measures each represent a series of activities and projects, which could take place at 

specific locations. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

Croatia  has  indicated  that  103  of  the  107  measures  reported  in  WISE  are  of  moderate 
priority53,  and  did  not  provide  information  on  the  remaining  four  measures  (as  explained 
above, Croatia’s FRMP refers to 54 measures)54.  

The FRMP and the reporting sheets do not provide information about the priority of measures. 
Nonetheless,  the  FRMP  states  that  measures  will  be  implemented  according  to  the  Multi-

annual  Programme  for  the  Construction  of  Water  Structures  for  Regulation  and  Protection 
and  Structures  for  Amelioration55;  measures  will  be  amended  in  accordance  with  the  RBMP 
(of which the FRMP is part), including based on the funds available56. In addition, the FRMP 
states  that  the  priority  of  measures  will  be  influenced  by  the  upcoming  national  Climate 
Change Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan57. 

Croatia did not provide information about the timetable of the measures in the reporting sheets. 
As mentioned above, the FRMP sets out construction costs for infrastructure measures in two 

periods: 2013-2017 and 2018-2022. The FRMP does not provide cost information for measures 
that do not involve construction of infrastructure (e.g. awareness-raising measures, modelling, 

improvement of early-warning systems). 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

Croatia indicated the authorities responsible for measures reported. Hrvatske vode, the national 
water management authority, is responsible for the great majority of measures, often together 

with other bodies, as many measures fall under the responsibility of multiple authorities:  

  Hrvatske vode is the sole authority for 44 % of measures, including all prevention and all 

recovery and review measures;  

  Hrvatske  vode  together  with  local  authorities  are  responsible  for  3  %  of  measures  (all 

preparedness measures);  

  Hrvatske  vode  together  with  other  national  agencies  are  responsible  for  13  %  of 
measures (mainly for preparedness): the other national agencies listed include, depending 

on  the  measure,  the  State  Administration  for  Protection  and  Rescue,  the  State 

53   Member States had a five-point scale for reporting priority to WISE: critical; very high; high; moderate and 

low. 

54   Croatia subsequently informed that there had been a problem in reporting this information.  
55   Croatia  subsequently  noted  that  the  prioritisation  of  structural  measures  was  carried  out  under  the  Multi-

annual programme (OG 117/15). 

56   FRMP 2016-2021, p512. 
57   FRMP 2016-2021, p503-504, p512. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Hydrometeorological  Institute,  the  Croatian  Electricity  Company  and  the  Croatian 
Environmental and Nature Agencies; 

  Hrvatske  vode 

together  with  national  ministries  (ministries  for  water,  nature, 

environment,  spatial  planning  and  culture  are  mentioned)  are  responsible  for  17  %  of 
measures (mainly other measures);  

  Hrvatske vode together with waterusers are responsible for 2 % of measures (all “other” 

measures);  

  National ministries for water and energy are responsible for 4 % of measures;  

  Finally, for 17 % of the measures, there are other combinations of the authorities listed 

above. 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

Croatia  reported  information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  all  measures.  Almost 

two-thirds of measures are reported as 'progress ongoing' (64 %), with the remainder reported 
as  'not  started'  (36  %).  All  prevention  and  recovery  and  review  measures  are  indicated  as 

progress ongoing; the other aspects have measures in both categories.  

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure 
has been implemented: Croatia did not provide any information about other Community Acts 
associated with the measures in the reporting sheets.  

The RBMP (of which FRMP is part) briefly mentions the Seveso Directive and EIA Directive 

(within the RBMP part, describing an obligation of the Ministry of Environment and Energy), 
but there is no reference to measures under these Directives58.  

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

With  regard  to  spatial  planning/land  use  measures,  the  following  types  of  measures  are 

included in the FRMP:  

  FRMP measure no. 159: Continuation of activities on the formalisation and introduction 
of a special level  of protection and  conservation of natural  retention  and  wetland areas 

58   Croatia  subsequently  noted  that  in  the  part  related  to  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  of  the  RBMP  2016-
2021,  there  are  planned  measures  according  to  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  Nitrates  Directive,  Birds 
Directive,  Habitats  Directive,  Drinking  Water  Directive,  Urban  Wastewater  Treatment  Directive,  etc. 
However, it should be noted that these measures are primarily related to water quality management (as part of 
the RBMP) and not to flood risk management. 

59   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...). 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
and boundaries of the water quality of a given area in the preparation of spatial planning 
documents; 

  FRMP  measure  no.  2260:  Adjustment  of  the  Programme  of  Measures  for  flood  risk 

management with Spatial Planning Documentation. 

  FRMP measure no. 4761: Establishment of regular public education system on issues of 
understanding the needs of land-use restrictions and restriction of other activities in flood 
prone areas. 

Other relevant measures include the continuation of the registration of public water resources 

in land registers (measure 2). The FRMP and the reporting sheets do not, however, contain an 
overview  of  the  framework  for  halting  or  controlling  buildings/development-in  floodplains 

since 2000.  

The  FRMP  also  includes  several  Natural  water  retention  measures  (NWRMs).  These 

include measure no. 1,  which includes water  retention and wetland  areas in  spatial  planning. 
Other examples of NWRMs include the following62:  

  Measure no. 1763: Encourage the selection of technical solutions that ensure preservation, 
renovation and expansion of the areas that have the potential to retain flood water, such 
as natural retention, marshes and inundation areas. 

  Measure  no.  2064:  Encourage  the  selection  of  technical  solutions  at  the  sites  of  former 
floodplains  that  apply  the  concept  of  the  continuation  of  the  construction  of  lowland 

retentions for large water discharges to protect against flooding of the downstream area. 
  Measure  no.  2165:  Encourage  the  selection  of  technical  solutions  that  enable  existing 
lowland retentions to be used primarily as meadows and pastures or for the restoration of 

alluvial forests. 

  Measure no. 2466: Identification, preparation of the protection program and management 
plan of registered floodplain and retention areas, with identification, protection program 
and management plan of areas that could be used for natural water retention if necessary. 

60   M22: Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to relocate 

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

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

awareness or preparedness for flood events. 

62   FRMP 2016-2021, p.504-517. 
63   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...). 

64   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...). 

65   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...). 

66   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 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Measure  no.  SM267:  A  set  of  administrative  and  technical  activities  related  to  flood 
management  issues  connected  with  biodiversity,  ecological  networks  and  protected 
areas. 

  FRMP measure no. 4668: Establishment of a system of regular public education on issues 
of  understanding  the  concept  of  natural  retention  of  flood  waters,  retention  areas,  the 

need to preserve and extend natural retention in flood areas: wetlands and forests. 

In addition, Croatia’s reporting sheet refers to ecosystem services in the context of taking such 
services into consideration during flood extent control as part of ecosystem-based disaster risk 

reduction. 

Several  measures  in  the  FRMP  specifically  consider  nature  conservation.  This  includes 

measure no. 1, described above (under land use and spatial planning) and measures 24, 46 and 
SM2, described above under NWRMs. Other examples include the following:  

  FRMP  measure  no.  1069:  Improving  the  process  of  obtaining  necessary  conditions  of 
nature  protection  for  regular  maintenance  of  watercourses,  water  resources  and  water 
works. 

  FRMP measure no. MS170. (This measure is specifically oriented towards consideration 
to biodiversity, ecological network and protected areas): While harmonising operational 
flood protection plans with the National Protection and Rescue Directorate, as much as 
possible to put emphasis on the Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (biodiversity, 

ecological networks, nature protection). 

  FRMP  measure  no.  3471:  Amend  management  plans  of  flood  defence  systems  and 
operational plans of flood defence (the main implementation plan of flood defence and 

implementation  plans  of  flood  defence  for  defended  areas),  which  includes  alignment 
with the RBMP among elements to address; 

  FRMP measure SM472: (a complex measure of mostly administrative activities related to 

flood management issues connected with forestry and hunting).  

infiltration, etc and including in-channel, floodplain works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural 
systems to help slow flow and store water. 

67   No EU measure type is provided. 
68   M43:  Preparedness,  Public  Awareness  and  Preparedness,  Measure  to  establish  or  enhance  the  public 

awareness or preparedness for flood events. 

69   M61: other 
70   No EU measure type is provided. 
71   M42:  Preparedness,  Emergency  Event  Response  Planning  /  Contingency  planning, Measure  to  establish  or 

enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning. 

72   No EU measure type is provided. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
The  FRMP  does  not  include  measures  that  consider  or  refer  to  navigation  and  port 
infrastructure.  

No reference has been found in the FRMP assessed to measures for  dredging to increase the 
river channel capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes73.  

73   Croatia noted subsequently that dredging is not considered environmentally friendly and is therefore avoided. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The role of insurance policies is not discussed in the FRMP. In the reporting sheets, insurance 

is mentioned in terms of recovery after a flood but no details are provided. Neither the FRMP 
nor the reporting sheets  provide information on the type/s of insurance currently available or 

envisaged for flood risk areas. 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

The  FRMP  has  very  limited  information  on  monitoring.  According  to  Croatia’s  reporting 
sheets,  monitoring  of  the  effectiveness  and  impact  of  the  implementation  of  measures  is  the 

responsibility  of  Hrvatske  vode,  which  should  report  on  implementation  of  the  RBMP  and 
FRMP: 

  after the first half of the planning period; 
  in the "Summary of Significant Water Management Issues”74; and 
  in the next FRMP and RBMP (i.e. the River Basin Management Plan 2022-2027)  

This reporting will be based on a set of indicators agreed among the institutions responsible for 

the implementation of the measures. It is not clear if reporting on flood measures is separate 
from  or  integrated  with  reporting  on  RBMP/WFD  measures.  Moreover,  it  is  noted  that,  for 

example:  

  Implementation  of  infrastructure  measures  also  follows  the  monitoring  established  for 
the  implementation  of  the  'Multi-annual  Programme  for  the  Construction  of  Water 
Structures for Regulation and Protection and Structures for Amelioration ',  

  For monitoring of both the RBMP/FRMP and the Multi-Annual Programme of measures, 
a  special  indicator  system  has  been  developed,  agreed  with  the  reporting  needs  of 
institutions  involved  in  co-financing  the  realization  of  these  two  programmes).  The 

performance  indicators  are  identified  at  programme  level  and  project  level  and  for 
individual activities75.  

74   Intermediate  step  in  the  preparation  of  draft  RBMP/FRMP  is  the  drafting  of  the  document  "Summary  of 
Significant Water Management Issues" under the provisions of Article 39 of the national Water Act. Report is 
prepared by Hrvatske vode and given  to the  Ministry of  Agriculture. The last  such report was  prepared and 
published on the website of the Croatian Water in February 2015. 

75   FRMP,  limited  information  on  p.  512-514.  Reporting  sheets  (HRC/HRJ),  section  Summary  of  the  Progress. 
More on indicators found in the document Multi-annual Program for the Construction of Water Structures for 
Regulation and Protection and Structures for Amelioration 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
There  is  no  information  in  the  FRMP  on  a  baseline  against  which  the  progress  will  be 
monitored76.  

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  

Integration of FRMP and RBMP  

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD  
The objectives of the Floods Directive were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a 
Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMP  

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

Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance 

or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs  

Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included  

Consistent and compliant application of WFD Article 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 

Both UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The FRMP provides information on the coordination and interconnections between the RBMP 
and  the  FRMP.  The  two  plans  were  developed  together  as  one  document  by  the  same 
organisation, Hrvatske vode, which is responsible for the implementation of both77. Part A of 
the common document, which provides the Water Management Framework, states that flood 
risk management is fully integrated with other water management activities (thus also with the 
RBMP)78. Part B, the Executive Summary, and Part E, the Documentation Register, are shared 

76   Croatia subsequently clarified that the monitoring baseline  for structural measures is contained in the Multi-
annual programme for the construction of regulation and protection water facilities and amelioration facilities. 

77   FMRP (opening remarks and throughout the text), HRC/HRJ reporting sheets (Summary of Development) 
78   RBMP 2016-2021, text box in section A, ch. 3, p. 15. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
common  sections  as  well.  Still,  it  is  difficult  to  assess  the  level  of  coordination  between  the 
two Plans as there is no clear information in the text79.  

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  FRMP  includes  measures  for  spatial  planning  and  land  use  and  for  natural  water 

retention, and several measures address nature conservation.  

  The Plan sets out an approach for monitoring the implementation of measures, including 

indicators.   

The following areas for further development were identified:  

  While  a  budget  is  provided  for  infrastructure  measures,  this  comes  from  a  pre-existing 
plan and it does not reflect the FRMP’s planning period; there is no budget information 
for other types of measures.  

  The FRMP does not link measures to objectives (the objectives are for the most part very 

general). 

  The measures are lacking information on location and geographical coverage. The FRMP 
does  not  explain  how  the  nationally  set  measures  will  address  the  differences  between 

Croatia’s UoMs. 

  Whereas the FRMP states that 71 % of investments are going to areas with very high and 
high  potential  risk  of  flooding  (implying  that  some  form  of  prioritisation  was  carried 
out), Croatia has  reported moderate priority  for  almost  all its  measures,  and the FRMP 

provides no information on prioritisation of measures.  

  The  FRMP  does  not  indicate  a  baseline  for  monitoring  the  implementation  progress  of 

measures. 

79   Croatia  subsequently  clarified  that  153  measures  from  part  “C”  of  the  RBMP  2016-2021  document 
(effectively those are RBMP measures) “relate to activity of flood protection”. In addition, Croatia stated that 
those measures are harmonised with programmes of other authorities (i.e. the authority competent for nature 
protection;  with  the  interested  public  through  provision  of  information  and  through  environmental  impact 
assessment studies). 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5. Consideration of climate change 

The FRMP indicates that climate change will affect hydrological conditions in Croatia and that 

its consequences on flooding should be further explored.  

The FRMP takes into account results in the 'Sixth National Communication of the Republic of 
Croatia under the United Nation Framework Convention on the Climate Change (UNFCCC)' 

which considered climate change projections for several scenarios to near future (2011-2040), 
middle of century (2041-2070) and end of century (2071-2099)80. The FRMP refers to possible 
shifts in the occurrence of extreme events and changes in numerical time frames; in addition, 
the  FRMP  presents  trends  for  temperature  change  in  the  last  100+  years  and  also  a  textual 
review of temporal wet and dry periods81. The FRMP states that changes in the frequency and 
quantity of precipitation events over an annual period will have consequences for flood hazards 

and  risks.  These  trends  include:  less  summer  precipitation;  less  precipitation  in  the  central, 
mountainous part of Croatia and southern Adriatic and trends of higher precipitation in eastern 

areas;  changes  in  dry  and  wet  weather  periods  by  location  and  season;  a  steady  trend  of  sea 
level rise)82. 

The FRMP refers to the on going development of Croatia’s national climate change adaptation 
strategy83  and  states  that  in  due  time  it  will  be  necessary  to  incorporate  measures  related  to 
flooding from the strategy into the FRMP (a time frame is not specified)84. 

Three  measures  in  the  FRMP  call  for  further  study  and  awareness-raising  related  to  climate 
change. Measure no. 2785 calls for further analysis of the impact of climate change in terms of 
flood  protection  and  then  possibly  to  amend  the  FRMP  programme  of  measures  by  adding 
climate  change  adaptation  measures.  Similarly,  a  call  for  attention  to  the  adverse  effects  of 
climate change is  also  given within measure no.  SM286  in  relation  to  flood management and 
biodiversity,  ecological  networks  and  protected  areas  (the  measure  refers  specifically  to  the 

design of the protection program and management plan of floodplain and retention areas and 
an elaboration of a concept of seawater flood control). Measure no. 4287 involves wider public 

80   FRMP 2016-2021, footnotes 133 and 134.  
81   FRMP 2016-2021, p.502-503.  
82   FRMP 2016-2021, p.504. 
83   https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries/croatia (visited November 2018) 
84   FRMP 2016-2021, p.503-504, p.517, p.524. The most recent draft of the Strategy, which as of May 2018 had 

not been approved yet by the Government, is available at: http://prilagodba-klimi.hr/dokumenti/  

85   EU measure type M61: other: Analysis of climate change impacts on the concepts of protection from harmful 
water  activities  and  flood  risk  management  and  amendment  of  a  Programme  of  FRMP  measures  with 
measures of climate change adaptation.  
86   No type designation has been provided.  
87   M43:  Preparedness,  Public  Awareness  and  Preparedness,  Measure  to  establish  or  enhance  the  public 

awareness or preparedness for flood events. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
participation in the implementation of the FRMP, especially due to effects of climate change, 
i.e. due to projected changes of water cycle patterns. Although measures no. 27, SM2 and 42 

call  for  awareness  of  climate  change,  none  of  measures  was  designed  to  actually  take  into 
account the impacts of climate change88.  

The FRMP89 also indicates that Hrvatske vode is in the process of submitting project proposals 
for  EU  structural  funds  which  will  address,  among  other  things,  the  safety  level  of  existing 
flood infrastructure works to  take into  account  future floods  challenges  especially in  light  of 
climate change90. The FRMP moreover refers to extreme weather events as the main reason to 
continue with construction and measures to improve flood infrastructure safety in the future91.  

5.1  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The FRMP presents potential impacts of climate change on flooding and its preparation 
considered  the  national  climate  change  Adaptation  Strategy  (and  Action  Plan),  which 
was under development at the time.  

  The  FRMP  includes  measures  to  study  potential  impacts  of  climate  change  and 

incorporate them, including in awareness-raising on floods.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  None  of  the  FRMP  measures  were  designed  to  take  into  account  impacts  of  climate 

change. 

88   Croatia subsequently noted that, at the time the Plan was developed, there was no reliable regional model of 
climate change and no reliable results could be obtained based on available data. At the end of 2017, a project 
was  completed  within  which  a  reliable  regional  model  was  developed,  and  there  is  an  ongoing  project  that 
should  interpret  these  results  for  purposes  of  water  management,  including  flood  risk  management.  Also, 
climate change is considered in the feasibility studies. 

89   FRMP 2016-2021, p.517. 
90   FRMP 2016-2021, p.517 (point II). 
91   FRMP 2016-2021, p.524. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6.   Cost-benefit analysis 

Croatia’s  reporting  sheets  state  that  CBA  was  not  used  in  the  development  of  the  FRMP. 

Furthermore,  the  reporting  sheet  and  the  Economic  Analysis  (a  background  study  to 
RBMP/FRMP) specify that a CBA will be implemented for the next planning cycle (2022 to 

2027). Until then, some CBA elements are going to be used at the level of projects undertaken 
under measures92. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Croatia did not carry out an analysis of costs and benefits for its FRMP measures.  

92   Croatia subsequently clarified that, considering the manner in which flood defence is financed in Croatia, the 
cost-benefit analyses (CBA) means a detailed analysis of all costs of infrastructure development, operation and 
maintenance and costs of operational flood defence - and also of environmental and resource costs (ERC). As 
a  step  in  this  direction,  the  model  NACER  was  developed,  which  is  a  methodology  for  the  assessment  of 
potential flood damages. Croatia further clarified that CBA is planned within the revision of the Multi-annual 
programme  for  the  construction  of  regulation  and  protection  water  facilities  and  amelioration  facilities  (OG 
117/15). Moreover, CBAs are carried out within feasibility studies. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

Until  2017,  the  competent  authority  for  the  FRMP  was  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  the 
main  implementing  body,  Hrvatske  vode,  was  under  the  umbrella  of  this  ministry.  In  2017 
Hrvatske vode was moved to go under the Ministry of Environment and Energy93. However, as 
of May 2018, Croatia had not reported new information to WISE since 2014.   

7.2 

Public information and consultation  

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

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

Table 10 

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

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking   
Printed material94  
Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

Both UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

It  should  be  noted  that  these  information  activities  and  all  information  on  consultation  and 
active involvement refer to the joint consultation of the RBMP and FRMP.  

The table below shows how the actual consultation on RBMP/FRMP was carried out: 

Table 11 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet 

Digital social networking 

Direct invitation 

Both UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

93   Ministry of Environment and Energy was previously (until 2017) called Ministry of Environmental Protection 

and Nature. 

94   Croatia subsequently informed that the draft River Basin Management Plan was available for public inspection 

in printed form at the headquarters of all Water Management Departments of Hrvatske vode. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
Exhibitions 

Workshops, seminars or conferences 

Telephone surveys 
Direct involvement in drafting FRMP95 
Postal written comments96 

Source: FRMP 

Both UoMs 

✔ 

According  to  information  in  the  FRMP  and  the  reporting  sheets,  public  consultation  was 
coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Water Management97. According to 
the  reporting  sheets  (as  well  as  Croatia’s  reporting  under  the  WFD),  the  consultation  on  the 

RBMP and FRMP lasted for six months, from April to October 2015.  

The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided98: 

Table 12 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions  

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

Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority 

Source: FRMP 

Both UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

Some  complaints  were  made  concerning  the  availability  of  documents.  According  to  some 
stakeholders99, not  all background data and studies were publicly available during the public 
consultation  process:  they  were  made  available  only  upon  request  and  one  needed  to  know 
exactly  what  to  look  for100.  Another  contention  is  that  the  maps  were  presented  in  the 

95   Croatia subsequently informed that Hrvatske vode cooperated with several institutions during the development 
of  the  draft  FRMP,  for  example  to  develop  supporting  studies  (e.g.  on  seawater  floods  and  modelling  for 
assessment of potential flood damages) which were published on the website of Hrvatske vode at: 
http://www.voda.hr/hr/registar-dokumentacije 

96   Croatia  subsequently informed this possibility  was provided, as  well as paper copies in  competent authority 

offices. 

97   Since 2017 Directorate for Water Management has been moved from Ministry of Agriculture to Ministry of 

environment and Energy. 

98   Croatia subsequently noted that distribution of paper copies by any means was not considered as appropriate 

due to the large volume of the document. 

99   Croatia subsequently noted that distribution of paper copies by any means was not considered as appropriate 

due to the large volume of the document. 

100  Croatia  subsequently  clarified  that  in  some  cases,  parts  of  the  supporting  studies  were  integrated  into  the 
document before the studies were fully completed. All supporting studies have been made publicly available at 
the link: http://www.voda.hr/hr/registar-dokumentacije.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
documents  in  low  definition,  making  it  difficult  to  see  the  exact  delineation  of  water  bodies 
and  their  designated  status  (this  includes  flood  risk  maps),  while  electronic  high  resolution 
versions were not available at the time of consultation101.  

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

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

Table 13 

Groups of stakeholders  

Both UoMs  

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

Flood Warning / Defence Authorities  

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  
Navigation / ports102  
Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) 

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

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

Meteorological Institute 

Climate Change Office 
Geological Institute103 
Agrarian Insurance Body 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMP 

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

101  Croatia  subsequently  clarified  that  it  was  not  physically  possible  to  show  detailed  maps  within  the  printed 
document. The maps are available on the internet as WEB-GIS at: http://korp.voda.hr/. The data and overview 
maps in .pdf format can be obtained upon request from Hrvatske vode. The maps are also available as WMS 
services and published on NIPP Inspire. 

102  Croatia subsequently informed that stakeholders from navigation/ports were included. 
103  Croatia  informed  subsequently  that  the  Croatian  Geological  Survey,  Faculty  of  Mining,  Geology  and 
Petroleum Engineering and Faculty of Geotehnical Engineering of the University of Zagreb were included in 
the  development  of  the  River  Basin  Management  Plan  2016  –  2021  (which  includes  the  FRMP)  on  the 
processing and development of all chapters related to groundwater. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 14 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders 

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  
Involvement in drafting104  

Workshops and technical meetings 

Formation of alliances  

Information days 

Source: FRMP 

Both UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

A  set  of  meetings,  referred  to  as  round  table  consultations,  took  place  for  the  RBMP  and 

FRMP.  The  consultations  were  relevant  for  the  preparation  of  the  River  Basin  Management 
Plan  and  for  the  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan.  The  FRMP  does  not,  however,  provide 

information  regarding  the  nature  of  the  consultation  (for  example  whether  it  involved  the 
public  or  focused  on  key  stakeholders),  how  many  participants  were  present,  where  it  took 

place or when. Moreover, based on information in the reporting sheets, it appears that active 
involvement  of  stakeholders  took  place  mainly  during  the  consultation  on  the  Strategic 

Environmental  Assessment  of  the  RBMP/FRMP  and  not  during  the  six-month  consultation 
period. However, some of the stakeholders' comments are included in the published report on 
consultations105.  

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The table below shows the effects of consultation: 

Table 15 

Effects of the consultation 

Changes to selection of measures 

Adjustment to specific measures 

Addition of new information 

Changes to the methodology used 

Commitment to further research 

Commitment to action in the next FRMP 

Both UoMs 

✔ 
✔ 
✔ 
✔ 
✔ 

104 Croatia informed subsequently that Hrvatske vode cooperated with several institutions during the development 
of the draft FRMP for the development of supporting studies (marine floods, model for assessment of potential 
flood  damages) 
link: 
http://www.voda.hr/hr/registar-dokumentacije.  

the  website  of  Hrvatske  vode 

that  were  published  on 

the 

105  Hrvatske  vode  web  page  has  a  link  to  the  official  report  (unfortunately  with  no  place  and  date  or  the 
participants’  list(s)  of  the  consultation):  'Report  on  the  consultations  with  the  interested  public'  (Izvješće  o 
savjetovanju sa zainteresiranom javnošću), see: 
http://www.voda.hr/sites/default/files/izvjesce_o_provedenom_savjetovanju_sa_zainteresiranom_javnoscu_o_
nacrtu_plana_upravljanja_vodnim_podrucjima_2016._-_2021.pdf  

at 

42 

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

Source: FRMP 

Both UoMs 

Hrvatske vode’s web page has a link to the official report “Report on the consultations with the 

interested public” (covering the consultation of the SEA and RBMP/FRMP), although there is 
no  date  or  information  as  to  where  the  consultations  were  carried  out106.  The  majority  of 
consultation  suggestions  (i.e.  requests  for  changes  to  selection  of  measures,  adjustment  to 
specific  measures,  addition  of  new  information,  changes  to  the  methodology  used  or 

commitment  to  further  research,  etc.)  were  fully  or  partially  accepted,  although  there  were  a 
number  of  suggestions  that  were  not  accepted.  According  to  the  report,  the  dedicated  round 

table  consultation  mentioned  above  resulted  in  additions  and  clarifications  to  the  plan  and 
some measures were adjusted to suggestions.  

Since many of the comments received were very precise, it is not possible to summarise them 

here, but some comments (in particular from civil society and NGOs) criticised the absence of 
the openness of the process.  

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

A  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment  was  carried  out  for  Croatia’s  combined  RBMP  and 
FRMP.  

The draft Strategic Environmental Impact Study and the draft RBMP and FRMP were open for 

public consultation for 30 days, (the legal minimum for SEA procedures according to Croatian 
law)  in  the  period  21  January  and  19  February  2016107.  In  this  period  the  documents  were 
physically  available  at  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  were  available  for  download  on  the 
internet  pages  of  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Hrvatske  vode.  A  public  presentation  and 

roundtable discussion took place on 10 February 2016.  

Cross-border  consultations  were  held  as  part  of  the  SEA:  these  were  initiated  in  January 
2016108  with  neighbouring  Member  States  and  countries.  The  FRMP  indicates  that  written 

106  Ibid 
107  Notice on Public Consultation on Strategic Environmental Impact Study for the River Basin Management Plan 

for the period 2016-2021 and the Draft River Basin Management Plan for the period 2016-2021: 
http://www.voda.hr/sites/default/files/obavijest_o_javnoj_raspravi_za_nacrt_plana_upravljanja_vodnim_podr
ucjima_za_razdoblje_2016._-_2021.pdf  

108  Based on the Opinion of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nature, received on January 5, 2016. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
comments were received from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary, Italy and Montenegro, and a 
meeting held with Bosnia and Herzegovina109. 

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Several  methods  of  consultation  were  used  –  from  written  submissions  (using  various 

mediums) to a dedicated round table consultation.  

  A  report  annexed  to  the  RBMP/FRMP  clearly  presents  how  public  consultations  were 

taken into consideration.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The FRMP provides relatively little detail on the steps for public consultation and on the 
active  involvement  of  stakeholders.  The  FRMP  and  reporting  sheets  refer  to  active 
the  Strategic 
involvement 

took  place  mainly  during 

the  consultation  on 

that 

Environmental  Assessment  of  the  RBMP/FRMP  and  not  during  the  six-month 
consultation period. 

109  FRMP 2016-2021 (p.486, p. 501, p.519). 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

This  Annex  gives  an  overview  of  the  data  on  measures  provided  by  Croatia  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 assessor to complete the questions on the 
Flood measures. The data are extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by MS 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)110, not 
all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all MS reported information for all fields.  

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

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

answers, or answers given in the national language.   

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

  A  first  filter  is  applied  to  identify  how  many  different  answers  were  given.  If  a  high 
number of different answers are given, MS 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. 

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

45 

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

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

categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The following table111 is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures 
is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. 

NO ACTION 
M11: No Action 

PREVENTION 
M21: Avoidance 
M22: Removal or relocation 
M23: Reduction 
M24: Other prevention 

PROTECTION 
M31: Natural flood management 
M32: Flow regulation 
M33: Coastal and floodplain works 
M34: Surface Water Management 
M35: other protection 

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

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

OTHER MEASURES 
M61: Other measures 

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

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

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ........... 48 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect ............. 48 
Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect .................... 50 
Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by UoM .................................... 51 
Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A5: Level of responsibility by measure aspect ................ 52 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A6: Level of responsibility by UoM ................................ 53 
Figure A7 - Visualisation of Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ........ 54 
Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table A8: Progress of implementation by UoM ........................ 55 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ..................................................................................... 47 
Table A2 – Total number of measures per measure type and UoM ........................................ 47 
Table A3 - Category of priority by measure aspect ................................................................. 50 
Table A4 - Category of priority by UoM ................................................................................. 50 
Table A5 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect ............................................................. 52 
Table A6 - Level of responsibility by UoM............................................................................. 52 
Table A7 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect .................................................... 54 
Table A8– Progress of implementation by UoM ..................................................................... 54 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1 - Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

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

Number of aggregated measures  

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

Total number of measures  

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

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

(Min-Max) 

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

Table A2 – Total number of measures per measure type and UoM 

Prevention 

M21  M24 

Total 

3 

3 

7 

7 

10 

10 

HRC 

HRJ 

Protection 

Total 

Preparedness 

Total 

M31  M32  M35 
1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

M41  M42  M43  M44 

4 

5 

5 

5 

2 

2 

7 

7 

7 

7 

21 

21 

Grand Total 
Average per UoM 
Note: Croatia did not report individual measures, so only aggregated measures are represented in the table.  

5 
2.5 

9 
4.5 

14 
7 

20 
10 

10 
5 

14 
7 

14 
7 

42 
21 

6 
3 

2 
1 

2 
1 

4 
2 

48 

Recovery 
& review 
M53 
1 

1 

2 
1 

0 

0 

107 

107 

107 

107 

53-54 

54 

Total 

1 

1 

2 
1 

Other 

M61 
17 

17 

34 
17 

Total 

Grand 
Total 

17 

17 

34 
17 

53 

54 

107 
54 

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

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

Note: All measures are aggregated as Croatia did not report any individual measures. 

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

Note: All measures are aggregated as Croatia did not report any individual measures. 

Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
Croatia did not provide any information about the costs of the measures in the reporting sheets.  

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report information on the following: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

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

Location of measures 

Croatia provided information about the location of all measures, the location is indicated as the 

respective UoM of each measure. 

Geographic coverage 

Croatia did not provide information about the geographic coverage of the effects of any of the 

measures in the reporting sheets. 

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

in the textual part of the XML); 

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

is required); 

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

required). 

Objectives 

Croatia  did  not  provide  information  about  the  objectives  of  the  measures  in  the  reporting 

sheets. 

Category of priority 

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

  Critical; 

  Very high; 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
  High; 

  Moderate; 

  Low. 

Table A3 - Category of priority by measure aspect 

Moderate 

No information 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Other 

Grand Total 

20 

5 

42 

2 

34 

103 

4 

4 

20 

9 

42 

2 

34 

107 

Note: Croatia did not classify any of the measures as critical, very high, high or low priority. 

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

Note: Croatia did not classify any of the measures as critical, very high, high or low priority. 

Table A4 - Category of priority by UoM 

HRC 

HRJ 

Grand Total 
Average per UoM 

Moderate 
51 

52 

103 
51.5 

No information 
2 

Grand Total 
53 

2 

4 
2 

54 

107 
53.5 

Note: Croatia did not classify any of the measures as critical, very high, high or low priority. 

51 

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

Timetable 

Croatia did  not  provide any information about  the timetable  of the measures in  the reporting 
sheets. 

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).  

Croatia  provided  the  names  of  responsible  authorities  for  all  measures.  The  majority  of  the 
measures  fall  in  the  responsibility  of  multiple  authorities,  often  the  Water  Management 
Authority (WMA) in combination with other actors. Overall, the responsible authorities can be 
grouped in the following authorities: 

  WMA: Water Management Authority in Croatia (Hrvatske vode); 

  WMA & local authorities: WMA and the local authority units (‘JLS’); 

  WMA & national agencies: WMA and various state-level agencies or institutions such as 
State  Administration  for  Protection  and  Rescue,  State  Hydrometeorological  Institute, 

Croatian  Electricity  Company  and  the  Croatian  Environmental  and  Nature  Agencies 
(‘HOAP’); 

  WMA  &  national  ministries:  WMA  and  various  national  ministries  such  as  those 

responsible for water, nature, environment, spatial planning and culture; 

  WMA & users; 

  National ministries: for example, the ministries responsible for water and energy; 

  Multiple: different combinations of the authorities listed above. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Croatia did not report the level of responsibility of the authorities responsible for the measures, 
but it provided their names for all the measures. 

Table A5 - Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

WMA 

WMA & 
local 
authorities 

WMA & 
national 
agencies 

WMA & 
national 
ministries 

WMA & 
users 

National 
ministries 

Multiple 

Grand 
Total 

Prevention 
Protection 

Preparedness 
Recovery & 
review 
Other 

20 
7 

14 

2 

4 

4 

12 

2 

2 

2 

14 

2 

4 

20 
9 

42 

2 

34 

10 

8 

47 

Grand Total 
Note:  WMA  refers  to  Hrvatske  vode,  the  national  water  management  authority.  “Multiple 
authorities” are believed to refer to more than two authorities.  

107 

14 

18 

18 

2 

4 

4 

Figure A5 - Visualisation of Table A5: Level of responsibility by measure aspect 

Table A6 - Level of responsibility by UoM 

WMA 

23 
24 

47 

23.5 

HRC 
HRJ 
Grand 
Total 
Average 
per UoM 

WMA & 
local 
authorities 
2 
2 

WMA & 
national 
agencies 
7 
7 

WMA & 
national 
ministries 
9 
9 

4 

2 

14 

7 

18 

9 

WMA & 
users 

National 
ministries 

Multiple 

Grand 
Total 

1 
1 

2 

1 

2 
2 

4 

2 

9 
9 

18 

9 

53 
54 

107 

53.5 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A6: Level of responsibility by UoM 

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

whose responses are analysed below; 

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

Croatia  reported  information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the  measures.  The 
Progress of implementation was reported as112:  

  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.  

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

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

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Table A7 – Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Prevention 

Protection 
Preparedness 
Recovery & review 
Other 

Progress ongoing 
20 

Not started 

Grand Total 
20 

4 
26 
2 
16 

5 
16 

18 

9 
42 
2 
34 

Grand Total 

107 
Note: Croatia did not report any measures as ‘completed’ or ‘ongoing construction’. 

68 

39 

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

Note: Croatia did not report any measures as ‘completed’ or ‘ongoing construction’. 

Table A8– Progress of implementation by UoM 

HRC 
HRJ 

Progress ongoing 
34 
34 

Not started 
19 
20 

Grand Total 
53 
54 

Grand Total 
Average per UoM 

107 
53.5 
Note: Croatia did not report any measures as ‘completed’ or ‘ongoing construction’. 

39 
19.5 

68 
34 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A8 - Visualisation of Table 8: Progress of implementation by UoM 

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. 

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

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  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). 

Croatia  did  not  provide  any  information  about  other  Community  Acts  associated  with  the 
measures in the reporting sheets.  

Croatia  did  provide  ‘other  information’  for  all  of  the  measures.  However,  this  was  an  open 
question and a large number of different answers were provided, making the aggregation of the 
information impractical. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures113 

M11 

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

No Action 

Prevention 

M21 

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

M22  Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to relocate 

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

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

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

M24 

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

Protection 

M31 

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

M32  Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures involving physical interventions to regulate flows, such as 

the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line 
storage areas or development of existing flow regulation rules), and which have a significant impact on 
the hydrological regime. 

M33 

M34 

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

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

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

flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies 

Preparedness 

M41 

M42 

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 

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

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

58 

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

to reduce adverse consequences 

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;  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 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A01 Meadows and 

F01 Forest riparian 

pastures 

buffers 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

F02 Maintenance of forest 
cover in headwater areas 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

A03 Crop rotation 

F03 Afforestation of 

reservoir catchments 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 

management 

U03 Permeable surfaces 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

N05 Stream bed re-

naturalization 

U05 Channels and rills 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 

N06 Restoration and 

U06 Filter Strips 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

forestry 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

F08 Appropriate design of 

roads and stream 
crossings 

F09 Sediment capture 

ponds 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

F11 Urban forest parks 

A07 Low till agriculture 

A08 Green cover 

A09 Early sowing 

A10 Traditional 
terracing 

A11 Controlled traffic 

farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 

density 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

N07 Reconnection of 

oxbow lakes and similar 
features 

U07 Soakaways 

N08 Riverbed material 

U08 Infiltration 

renaturalisation 

Trenches 

N09 Removal of dams 

and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 

riverbank protection 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 

structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 

groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

60