COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Denmark Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Denmark, 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) 60 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Denmark Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... 3 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 5 

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

Good practices .......................................................................................................................... 11 

Areas for further development .................................................................................................. 11 

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

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

1.1 

1.2 

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

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

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

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

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

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs..................... 18 

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

Areas  for further development  in  the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk 
maps ............................................................................................................................ 20 

Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information ............................................................................. 21 

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

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

3.5 

3.6 

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

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................ 22 

Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ........................................... 23 

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

Process for setting the objectives ................................................................................ 23 

Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ........ 24 

4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ........................................................... 25 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

4.4 

4.5 

4.6 

4.7 

4.8 

4.9 

4.10 

4.11 

Cost of measures ......................................................................................................... 26 

Funding of measures ................................................................................................... 27 

Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................. 27 

Measures and objectives ............................................................................................. 29 

Geographic coverage/scale of measures ..................................................................... 30 

Prioritisation of measures ........................................................................................... 30 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ........................................... 31 

Progress of implementation of measures .................................................................... 31 

Measures taken under other Community Acts ............................................................ 31 

Specific groups of measures ....................................................................................... 32 

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

1 

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

4.13 

4.14 

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

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

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

5.1 

5.2 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change .............................. 36 

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 

7.2 

7.3 

7.4 

7.5 

7.6 

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

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

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

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

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

Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................ 42 

Annex A: 

Supplementary tables and charts on measures .................................................... 44 

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

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

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

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

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

Measure details: name & location............................................................................................. 49 

Location of measures ................................................................................................................ 49 

Geographic coverage ................................................................................................................ 49 

Measure details: objectives ....................................................................................................... 49 

Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 50 

Category of priority................................................................................................................... 50 

Timetable .................................................................................................................................. 52 

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

Measure details: progress .......................................................................................................... 52 

Measure details: other ............................................................................................................... 55 

Annex B:  Definitions of measure types .............................................................................. 56 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) ..................................................... 57 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  Denmark1.  Its  structure  follows  a  common  assessment 
template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources: 

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

measures. 

  Selected  FRMPs:  Denmark  produced  FRMPs  for  two  of  its  Units  of  Management 
(UoMs)  and  20  FRMPs  for  municipalities  within  these  UoMs.  The  two  overarching 
UoM-level FRMPs were assessed. In addition, the assessment reviewed five of the 20 

municipal  FRMPs:  these  five  were  chosen  to  cover  different  UoMs,  different  flood 
types  and  different  approaches  in  terms  of  methods3.  The  following  FRMPs  were 
reviewed: 

o  Holstebro (DK1) 
o  Aabenraa (DK1) 
o  Odense  Fjord  (DK1,  prepared  jointly  by  the  municipalities  of  Odense, 

Kerteminde and Nordfyns) 

o  Slagelse (DK2) 
o  Hvidovre (DK2) 

2 

1   The present Member State assessment reports reflect the situation as reported by each Member State to  the 
Commission  in 2016 or 2017 and  with reference to FRMPs prepared earlier. The situation in the Member 
States 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. 
In particular, municipal FRMPs differed with regard to the use of CBA and the integration of climate change 
information,  as  the  UoM-level  FRMPs  revealed  differences  in  these  areas  among  the  municipal-level 
FRMPs. 

3 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 

Denmark is divided into four UoMs, which correspond to the River Basin Districts (RBDs) 
under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). However, APSFRs were identified only in two 

of  them  (DK1,  Jutland  and  Funen,  and  DK2,  Seeland)  and  FRMPs  were  prepared  only  for 
those two UoMs. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  Denmark,  the  national  government  is  responsible  for  the  PFRA,  APSFR  and  FHRM 
phases, whereas municipalities are responsible for the FRMP phase and thus were responsible 

for  elaborating  ‘municipal’  FRMPs.  For  Denmark  it  should  be  mentioned  that  all  of  the 
APSFRs identified are along the coast, except for one APSFR for fluvial flooding (Holstebro 

municipality in DK1). In DK1, Jutland and Funen, 10 municipalities contain APSFRs, either 
wholly or in part. Seven of these municipalities each prepared an FRMP, and three of these 

municipalities  collaborated  and  developed  a  common  FRMP  (Odense  Fjord):  consequently, 
eight  municipal-level  FRMPs  were  developed  in  DK1.  In  DK2,  Seeland,  12  municipalities 

are at risk of flooding; although two of those cooperated closely, each municipality developed 
its own plan, resulting in 12 municipal FRMPs in DK2.  

The national competent authority (Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark - MoEF) 
provided the municipalities with a guidance document for the development of their FRMPs4. 
Overall, the municipal FRMPs in both UoMs follow a similar approach, but there are some 

differences  concerning,  among  others,  the  objectives  they  formulated,  the  measures  they 
suggested and the public consultation processes. Moreover, some municipal FRMPs are of a 

more strategic nature (e.g. Slagelse in DK2), while others list measures, costs and benefits in 
detail (e.g. Odense Fjord in DK1). 

In  addition  to  the  municipal  plans,  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Food  of  Denmark 
prepared  two  overarching  FRMPs  –  one  for  each  UoM  with  APSFRs  identified,  DK1  and 

DK2. These plans contain a summary of the municipal FRMPs. 

The  municipal  FRMPs  were  approved  by  the  municipal  councils.  The  two  overarching 
FRMPs include a summary of the municipal FRMPs and were prepared to comply with the 

requirements of the Floods Directive. There was no approval of these overarching FRMPs at 
the national government level. 

This assessment reviewed five municipal FRMPs as well as the two overarching UoM-level 

plans (for more details about the selection see section 1). The table below gives an overview 
of  all  UoMs  in  Denmark,  including  the  UoM  code,  the  name,  and  the  number  of  APSFRs 
reported.  It  also  shows  if  all  documents  required  for  each  UoM  were  reported  to  European 
Environment  Agency’s  (EEA)  WISE5  –  the  FRMP  as  a  PDF  and  the  reporting  sheet  as  an 
XML.  Denmark,  however,  only  reported  the  two  summary  FRMPs  at  UoM  level,  not  the 

detailed municipal level plans. 

4   http://www.klimatilpasning.dk/media/826542/vejledning_risikostyringsplaner.pdf  
5  http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/603/deliveries?id=603&tab=deliveries&d-4014547-p=1&d-4014547-

o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Denmark 

Name 

JUTLAND AND 

FUNEN 

SEELAND 

BORNHOLM 

VIDAA KRUSAA 

DK1 

DK2 

DK3 

DK4 

TOTAL 

Number of 
APSFRs 

XML reported 

PDF Reported 

7 

3 

- 

- 

10 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

The FRMPs can be accessed as follows: 

  The 

two  UoM-level  FRMPs 

can  be  downloaded 

from 

the  webpage: 

http://kysterne.kyst.dk/risikostyringsplaner.html;  

  The  municipal  FRMPs  can  be  downloaded  through  links  available  in  the  UoM-level 

FRMPs. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Overview of the assessment 

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

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

was not met; 

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

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

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

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

FRMP to address the criterion. 

Table 2 

Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM  objectives  have  been 
established  

Strong evidence 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the  reduction  of  potential 
adverse consequences  

Strong evidence  

All but one of the 20 municipal FRMPs have 
formulated objectives: these include reducing 
the likelihood of flooding, reducing damages 
to existing assets and avoiding damages to 
new assets. The exception, the Holstebro 
municipal FRMP, does not contain a separate 
chapter on objectives, though it describes local 
risks and relevant measures to reduce the 
risks. 

Reduction or avoidance of damages is listed as 
an objective in all 20 municipal FRMPs, 
except that of Holstebro. 

...to  the  reduction  of  the 
likelihood of flooding  

Some evidence  

This is listed as an objective in most 
municipal FRMPs. 

...to non-structural initiatives  Some evidence  

Several municipalities indicate non-structural 
initiatives in their objectives, such as spatial 
planning to address flood risks or actions to 
raise the risk-awareness of citizens. 

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Some evidence  

While some municipal FRMPs state explicitly 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

in their objectives that they aim to protect all 
or some of the objectives human health, 
cultural heritage, the environment and/or 
economic activities, others do not explicitly do 
so (though they refer to these elements in the 
discussion of the suggested measures). 

...economic activity  

Some evidence  

See above 

...environment  

Some evidence  

See above 

...cultural heritage  

Some evidence  

See above 

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Some evidence  

...prioritised  

Some evidence  

Denmark has reported 28 measures across the 
two UoMs with APSFRs. The majority, but 
not all municipal FRMPs, have identified 
measures. 

Denmark has indicated priorities for all 28 
measures reported. The majority, but not all 
municipal FRMPs, have prioritised measures. 

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

...costs & benefits  

Some evidence  

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

...flood conveyance  

No evidence  

...water retention  

Some evidence  

Costs and benefits are only calculated in one 
municipality. Overall, there is little evidence 
on the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA). 

The flood extent is mapped in the flood risk 
and hazard maps. 

Flood conveyance routes are not mapped in 
the flood risk and hazard maps and not 
mentioned in the FRMPs. 

Most Danish municipalities are at risk of 
seawater flooding and have therefore not 
included NWRMs. One municipality assessed6 
that is at risk of fluvial flooding, mentions in 
its FRMP that the possibility for water 
retention measures upstream will be 
investigated.  

...environmental  objectives  No evidence  

The RBMPs for the implementation of the 

6  Denmark  subsequently  clarified  that  there  are  five  APSFRs  and  five  municipalities  at  risk  from  sea  and 

fluvial flooding: Randers, Vejle, Aabenraa, Odense and Køge. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

of the WFD  

...spatial planning/land use   Some evidence  

...nature conservation  

Some evidence  

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

Strong evidence  

...likely impact of climate 
change  

Strong evidence 

Coordination with other 
countries ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Some evidence  

Coordination ensured with 
WFD  

Some evidence  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Some evidence  

10 

WFD are mentioned as other relevant plans in 
conjunction with the FRMPs. But the FRMPs 
do not state that the WFD’s objectives have 
been considered. 

The overarching UoM-level FRMPs for both 
DK1 and DK2 include spatial planning 
measures. But such measures are considered 
in only some of the five municipal FRMPs 
assessed. 

The five municipal FRMPs assessed indicate 
that Natura 2000 areas were taken into 
account in the planning of measures. 
However, further details are not provided. 

Navigation and port infrastructure are 
considered in the FRMPs of municipalities 
whose territory contains such infrastructure. 

Climate change has been incorporated in the 
flood hazard and risk maps elaborated for the 
whole of Denmark. Most of the municipal 
FRMPs make a reference to the municipal 
climate change adaptation and mitigation 
plans, however, the coordination between the 
two types of plans is not clearly described. 

Denmark has only one UoM shared with 
another Member State, Vidaa Krusaa (DK4): 
no APSFRs were identified in DK4, and 
Denmark did not prepare an FRMP for its 
national UoM. However, Germany has shared 
information on work in its corresponding 
UoMs. 

The RBMPs for the implementation of the 
WFD are mentioned as relevant plans in 
conjunction with the FRMPs. But further 
details were not found on how far the 
implementation of both Directives is 
coordinated. 

All municipalities had a process whereby the 
public was informed, involving public 
meetings as well as the participation of 

 
 
 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

stakeholders in advisory groups. Most of the 
FRMPs assessed, however, do not specify 
how the input given by the public was further 
used in the elaboration of the FRMPs. 

Good practices 

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

Table 3 

Good practices in the Danish FRMPs 

Topic area 

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

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Public participation.  

Flood risk governance.  

Good practices identified 

While many municipal FRMPs do not provide information how 
implementation will be monitored, one municipality (Norddjurs) 
plans to have a public log where the public can follow the 
implementation of the measures. 

The measures in some (but not all) of the municipal FRMPs assessed 
are specific, also in terms of location, and measurable. For example, 
the FRMP for Odense Fjord describes for each measure, the goal of 
the measure, how it will be implemented, its criteria for success and 
its cost. 

All municipalities in Denmark have developed climate change 
mitigation and adaptation plans; almost all municipal FRMPs make a 
direct reference to those plans and state that the implications of 
climate change on flooding are considered. 

There was a broad involvement of stakeholders in the FRMP process 
via working groups. 

Neighbouring municipalities coordinated their FRMPs and three 
municipalities developed a joint FRMP. 

The development of FRMPs at municipal level gave local actors a 
leading role in planning. 

There was good cooperation between the national government and the 
municipalities that prepared FRMPs: the national government 
provided the FHRMs used by municipalities for their FRMPs and 
prepared a guidance document for the development of the FRMPs. 

Areas for further development 

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

assessed. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Danish FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas for further development identified 

Integration of previously 
reported information in 
the FRMPs. 

Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk.  

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

Pluvial flooding was not considered relevant in the PFRA (conducted 
at national level) and is therefore not addressed in four of the five 
municipal FRMPs assessed7. 
While the FHRMs were prepared at national level as well, at least one 
municipality developed in addition its own risk maps (Aabenraa in 
DK1): it found different conclusions (higher damage risks) compared 
to the national maps for the same area. 

The formulation of objectives varies among municipalities, and one 
municipal FRMP does not contain objectives.  

The prioritisation was carried out in different ways in different 
municipal FRMPs and the process remains unclear for many. 

Only one of the five FRMPs assessed provides information 
concerning the costs of the measures and their funding sources. 

The FRMPs assessed do not provide information about coordination 
with Denmark’s RBMPs. 

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

Although the FRMPs refer to municipal climate change mitigation 
and adaptation plans, they do not explain how those plans impacted 
the final selection of flood risk management objectives and measures. 

Use of CBA in the 
FRMPs assessed.  

There is no apparent coordination between the FRMPs and the 
national climate change adaptation strategy. 

Only two municipal FRMPs refer to CBA, and they do not indicate 
clearly if or how this was used in prioritisation. Where they present 
costs, these appear to only cover investment costs. It appears that only 
in one municipal FRMP was a kind of preliminary CBA used. 

Public participation.  

The FRMPs do not indicate how public and stakeholder input was 
taken into account in the plans. 

Flood risk governance.  

Each municipal FRMP is different, in particular as municipalities are 
in different stages (with some having produced detailed plans and 
others, less detailed and more strategic ones), even though there is a 
national guidance document on how to compile FRMPs.  

Moreover, despite national guidance, the process of development 
appears to have been different across the municipal FRMPs, and 
details are for the most part not provided.  

7  Denmark  subsequently  clarified  that  pluvial  flood  risk  had  been  assessed  by  Danish  municipalities  when 
preparing their individual  municipal climate adaptation plans in 2013. Following amendments to the Danish 
Planning  Act,  from  now  on  all  new  municipal  climate  plans  must  contain  guidelines  for  areas  that  may  be 
exposed to significant  flooding or erosion and requirements for setting  up preventive  measures to  safeguard 
against flooding or erosion when planning urban development, special technical facilities, or in case of altered 
land use, etc. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

Areas for further development identified 

Only one group of municipalities sharing APSFRs prepared a 
common FRMP; in other cases, municipalities sharing APSFRs 
prepared separate plans, potentially hindering coordination on shared 
flood risks.  

The FRMPs do not provide information about the coordination with 
the WFD or other Community Acts and what measures are taken also 
under those acts. 

There is no information if SEAs were carried out. 

Recommendations 

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

  The  FRMPs  should  provide  more  information  on  the  process  for  their  development8, 
including how the PFRA and FHRMs were used in the preparation of the FRMPs. 

  The  FRMPs  should  provide  more  details  about  the  costs  of  the  measures  and  the 

funding sources for the measures. 

  Further information should be provided on the prioritisation of measures, including the 
criteria  used9.  Cost  benefit  analysis  should  be  considered  for  measures  in  the  FRMPs 
that lend themselves to it10. 
Information  should  be  provided  in  all  FRMPs  about  the  mechanisms  to  be  used  to 
monitor the implementation of their measures11. 

 

8  Denmark  subsequently  informed  the  Commission  that  in  relation  to  the  revision  of  the  MoEF  publication 
"Guidelines  for  the  Preparation  of  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans",  and  in  the  course  of  the  preliminary 
meetings  for  revision  of  FRMPs,  the  MoEF  will  point  out  to  the  municipalities  that  information  on  the 
planning process and monitoring should be included in there. 

9  Denmark subsequently informed that in connection with the revision of the "Guidelines for the Preparation 
of Flood Risk Management Plans”, the MoEF will emphasise that more detailed information on this matter 
should be included in the revised version of the 2020/21 FRMPs. 

10  Denmark recalls that a cost-benefit-analysis is not mandatory under the FD. It is a question of subsidiarity, if 
the  Member  States  consider  CBA  at  the  level  of  the  FRMP  as  a  relevant  aspect.  In  Denmark’s  case,  the 
municipalities  decide  themselves  whether  they  apply  cost-benefit-analyses.  Most  municipalities  consider 
costs and benefits as part of the planning process for individual measures and that cost-benefit analyses may 
be found in other municipal plans and/or documents, serving as the basis for decisions to implement specific 
measures.  It  is  expected  during  the  update  of  the  FRMP  for  2020/21,  that  more  municipalities  will  have 
applied  cost-benefit-analyses.  Denmark  also  informed  the  Commission  that  during  the  revision  of  the 
“Guidelines for the Preparation of Flood Risk Management Plans”, the MoEF will consider whether adding 
a  more  detailed  section  on  cost  assessment  and  funding  options  might  be  useful  to  the  municipalities. 
Additionally,  in  the  autumn  of  2018  the  MoEF  will  publish  a  guide  to  the  sharing  of  costs  between 
stakeholders  in  coastal  protection  projects  implemented  under  section  1a  of  the  Danish  Coastal  Protection 
Act. 

11  Denmark informed subsequently that in connection with the revision of the “Guidelines for the Preparation 
of  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans”  the  MoEF  will  explore  with  the  municipalities  how  best  to  include 
additional information on monitoring in the revised FRMPs for 2020/21. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  On  Governance:  (1)  Ensuring  that  municipal  and  national  considerations  are 
synchronised would avoid potential differences between national and local conclusions. 
It would also be useful to evaluate whether the separate municipal plans have left any 

gaps  in  flood  risk  management  (2)  The  five  municipal  FRMPs  assessed  are  quite 
different in nature12. Some FRMPs are more strategic, with comparatively few details 
on  implementation,  while  others  describe  measures  in  detail.  The  merits  of  a  more 
uniform  approach  should  be  considered.  (3)  Stronger  collaboration  would  ensure 

effective  coordination  between  municipalities  in  addressing  common  flood  risks  such 
as seawater flooding, which might be aggravated by climate change13. 

  FRMPs should provide greater detail on the consideration of climate change, including 
in the selection and prioritisation of measures14. Coordination between the FRMPs and 
the national climate change adaptation strategy should be ensured or elaborated upon in 
the FRMPs. 

  The  FRMPs  should  provide  information  about  coordination  with  the  WFD  or  other 

relevant Community Acts15. 

  The FRMPs should provide detail how inputs received through public consultation and 

active involvement of stakeholders affected the development of the plans16. 
  Considerations should be given for SEAs to be carried out for the FRMPs17. 

12  Denmark  noted  that  municipalities  have  a  high  degree  of  freedom  when  preparing  FRMPs.  As  part  of  the 
preparation for the revision of the FRMPs for 2020/21, the MoEF will raise the topic with the municipalities, 
i.e. whether a certain standardisation of risk management plans  would facilitate the revision and provide a 
basis for comparisons and thus improve utilisation of plans across municipalities. 

13  Denmark  subsequently  informed  that  the  MoEF  will  discuss  with  the  municipalities  on  the  advantages  of 

preparing joint municipal FRMPs, where this would add value. 

14  Denmark  recalls  that  consideration  of  climate  change  is  not  mandatory  under  the  FD  for  the  first  cycle 

FRMPs. 

15  Denmark stated subsequently that prior to the revision of the “Guidelines for the Preparation of Flood Risk 
Management  Plans"  and  in  the  meetings  planned  in  connection  to  the  municipalities'  revision  of  their 
FRMPs in 2020/21, the MoEF will remind them that the content of the FRMPs must be coordinated with the 
Water Planning Action Program for the relevant river basin district - and that this should be stated explicitly 
in the revised FRMPs. Furthermore, a special coordination group has been set up under the auspices of the 
Ministry for the purpose of ensuring sharing of knowledge and for coordination of efforts under the WFD, 
the FD and other relevant Directives. 

16  Denmark  recalls  that  it  is  not  mandatory  according  to  Article  7  of  the  FD  to  explain  in  the  FRMP  how 

feedback from stakeholders was considered in the elaboration of the Plans. 

17  Denmark informed subsequently that the MoEF will remind the municipalities, in connection to the revision 
of  their  FRMPs  for  2020/21,  that  where  relevant  the  content  of  the  FRMPs  should  be  subject  to  an 
environmental impact assessment. 

14 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Denmark reported two FRMPs – one for each of its two UoMs containing APSFRs (DK1 and 

DK2).  These  two  plans  state  that  each  municipality  having  a  share  of  an  APSFR  had 
developed  their  own  flood  risk  management  plan,  expect  for  one  APSFR,  where  three 

municipalities developed one FRMP: in total, 20 municipal FRMPs were prepared. Although 
not reported, these plans can be found through links in the annexes of the UoM-level FRMPs. 

For  DK1,  eight  municipal  FRMPs  were  prepared  by  10  municipalities  (three  neighbouring 
municipalities prepared one common plan). For DK2, 12 municipal FRMPs were prepared by 

12 municipalities. 

Denmark 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 

The  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Food  of  Denmark  (the  national  competent  authority) 
provided  the  municipalities  with  a  guidance  document  on  how  to  develop  the  FRMPs18. 
Overall,  the  municipal  FRMPs  in  both  UoMs  follow  a  similar  approach,  but  there  are 

differences.  Some  municipal  FRMPs  are  of  a  more  strategic  nature  (e.g.  Slagelse  in  DK2), 
while  others  provide  greater  detail  on  measures,  costs  and  benefits  (e.g.  Odense  Fjord  in 
DK1). 

The  two  overarching  FRMPs  each  present  a  summary  of  information  from  the  municipal 

FRMPs within their territory. The assessment covers both these overarching FRMPs, which 
do not contain detailed information, and five municipal FRMPs: Holstebro (DK1), Aabenraa 
(DK1), Odense Fjord (DK1, developed jointly by the municipalities of Odense, Kerteminde 
and Nordfyns), Slagelse (DK2), and Hvidovre (DK2). The selection captured key differences 

among  the  municipal  FRMPs  concerning:  the  UoM  (DK1  or  DK2);  the  flood  type  (fluvial 
and seawater floods); if a form of CBA was undertaken or not; if the plan has a more strategic 

or more detailed approach; and if the plan explained how the municipal climate change plan 
and the FRMP were integrated. The table below provides an overview of these issues for the 

five municipal FRMPs chosen: 

18  http://www.klimatilpasning.dk/media/826542/vejledning_risikostyringsplaner.pdf  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 5 

Danish municipal FRMPs covered in the assessment 

UoM  Municipality 

Flood type 

CBA 

DK1 

Holstebro 

Fluvial 

Detailed/ strategic 
plan 

Climate Change plans 
& FRMPs 

Strategic 

Not explained in detail 

Detailed 

Explained in detail 

No 

Yes 

Seawater & 
Fluvial 

Seawater & 
Fluvial 

DK1 

Abenraa 

Odense, 
Nordfyn & 
Kerteminde 

Slagelse 

Hvidovre 

DK1 

DK2 

DK2 

Yes 

Detailed 

Explained in detail 

Seawater 

Seawater 

No 

No 

Strategic 

Detailed 

Some explanation 

Explained in detail 

The FRMPs can be found online as follows: 

  The 

two  UoM-level  FRMPs 

can  be  downloaded 

from 

the  webpage: 

http://kysterne.kyst.dk/risikostyringsplaner.html;  

  The  municipal  FRMPs  can  be  downloaded  through  links  available  in  the  UoM-level 
FRMPs.  The  five  municipal  FRMPs  assessed  in  this  report  can  be  accessed  via  the 
following links: 

o  Aabenraa: https://www.aabenraa.dk/borger/natur-og-
miljoe/vand/klimatilpasning/risikostyringsplan  
o  Holstebro: https://www.holstebro.dk/borger/natur-og-

miljoe/klimatilpasning/risikostyringsplan  

o  Odense Fjord (Odense, Nordfyn & Kerteminde): 
https://www.kerteminde.dk/borger/miljoe-og-
natur/klimatilpasning/risikostyringsplan-oversvoemmelse-fra-odense-fjord  

o  Hvidovre: https://www.hvidovre.dk/Politik/hoeringer-og-

afgoerelser/2015/11/risikostyringsplan  

o  Slagelse: https://www.slagelse.dk/media/7548560/Risikostyringsplan-For-

Oversvoemmelse-I-Udpegede-Omraader-I-Korsoer-A4.pdf  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Integration of previously reported information 

2.1 

Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The  conclusions  of  the  PRFA  are  presented  in  the  FRMPs  as  a  textual  description  and  a 

summary map showing the APSFRs (areas of potentially significant flood risk). In the PFRA, 
seven areas in DK1 (Jutland and Funen) and three areas in DK2 (Seeland) were identified as 
APSFRs. These areas are described textually in the FRMPs, marked in an overview map of 

Denmark, as well as presented in detailed maps. There are no APSFRs which are shared with 
other Member States19. 

Links  to  maps  of  the  APSFRs  have  been  provided  in  all  of  the  FRMPs  assessed.  All  links 
lead  to  a  national  GIS  system20,  but  are  zoomed  in  to  the  relevant  APSFR21.  All  assessed 
municipal FRMPs contain maps showing the area at risk from flooding22. 

Flood conveyance routes are not explicitly addressed in the FRMPs for DK1 and DK2. They 
are not addressed in the assessed municipal FRMPs either23. 

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

The Vidå-Kruså UoM (DK4) is the only UoM shared with another Member State, Germany. 

There were no flood risk areas identified in DK4 from the Danish side. The German side is 
made  up  of  two  UoMs,  the  Eider  (DE  9500)  and  the  Schlei  Trave  (DE9610):  both  contain 

APSFRs.  In  the  coordination  between  the  two  Member  States,  Germany  shared  draft 
assessments, maps and plans with Denmark24. 

19  FRMPs for DK1 and DK2, all assessed municipal FRMPs. 
20  http://miljoegis.mim.dk/spatialmap?&profile=oversvoem2 
21  Specific areas can be selected through the dropdown menu: 

http://miljoegis.mim.dk/spatialmap?profile=oversvoem2&sessionid=%7BA1F7067C-8B28-4C4B-9F2E-
2923C6931D03%7D  
Information  on  areas  at  risk  can  also  be  found  on  Denmark’s  climate  change  adaptation  web  page: 
http://www.klimatilpasning.dk/vaerktoejer/oversvoemmelseskort.aspx  
22  FRMP DK1: page 11&12; FRMP DK2: page 10&12; Municipal FRMPs 
23  FRMP for DK1 and DK2; municipal FRMPs and the maps provided by the national web-GIS system (see 

footnotes 5 and 6 above). 

24  Reporting sheets, section on "summary of coordination". 

17 

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

The  UoM-level  FRMPs  state  that  the  FHRMs  confirmed  the  findings  of  the  PFRA  and  no 
additional risk areas were identified. For the APSFRs identified in the PFRA, FHRMs were 
developed25. 

2.2 

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

FHRMs  have  been  provided  in  all  FRMPs  assessed,  these  maps  cover  fluvial  and  seawater 

floods.  The  UoM-level  FRMPs  for  DK1  and  DK2  are  overarching  documents  that  present 
FHRMs  as  examples  and  only  show  maps  for  100-year  floods  (with  2012  as  the  reference 

year  i.e.  based  on  driving  natural  forces  such  as  wind,  precipitation  and  natural  conditions 
such as land uplift for 2012). The links provided in the UoM-level plans for each APSFR lead 

to  more  detailed  maps  showing  other  flood  probabilities,  also  taking  into  account  future 
climate  change  impacts.  Similarly,  the  municipal  FRMPs  assessed  provide  examples  of 

FHRMs and links to more detailed FHRMs.  

Neither in the FRMPs assessed, nor in the national web-GIS, are there maps for groundwater 

floods or floods from artificial water bearing structures (according to the PFRA assessment, 
the  latter  are  not  relevant  for  Denmark;  information  was  not  found,  however,  to  indicate  if 
groundwater  floods  could  be  relevant26).  Pluvial  flooding  was  not  assessed  at  the  PFRA 
stage.  Nevertheless,  there  are  pluvial  flood  risk  maps  available  in  one  municipal  FRMP 

assessed, for the municipality of Aabenraa in DK1: The FRMP of Aabenraa also provides a 
local  map  showing  the  combined  effect  of  flooding  from  seawater,  fluvial  and  pluvial 
sources27. 

All links to the FHRMs provided in both the UoM-level and the municipal FRMPs lead to the 
national GIS system and pinpoint the relevant APSFR28. 

25  FRMPs of DK1 and DK2, maps of the national Web-Gis system (miljøgis). 
26  European  Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  Member  State  Report:  DK  – 

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

27  FRMPs  for  DK1  and  DK2;  Municipal  flood  risk  management  plan  Abenraa,  page  11  &  12: 
https://www.aabenraa.dk/media/2787544/risikostyringsplan-for-oversvoemmelser.pdf,  Other  municipal 
FRMPs.   

28  All APSFRs can be found here, specific areas can be selected through the dropdown menu, while different 
aspects 
side: 
selected 
http://miljoegis.mim.dk/spatialmap?profile=oversvoem2&sessionid=%7BA1F7067C-8B28-4C4B-9F2E-
2923C6931D03%7D  

covered  by  FHRMs 

the  menu  on 

left-hand 

can  be 

from 

the 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

As no APSFRs were identified in the only transboundary UoM of Denmark (DK4), there was 
no need to prepare maps for shared flood risk areas. 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

FHRMs have been used to develop the FRMPs assessed as follows: 

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

activities, assets);  

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

The  FHRMs  are  provided  by  the  Danish  government,  but  the  elaboration  of  FRMPs  is  the 

responsibility  of  the  municipalities  with  areas  at  flood  risk.  The  guidance  document  for 
FRMPs of the Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark called on municipalities to use 

the FHRMs in the preparation of their plans. Municipalities were free to decide which maps, 
provided by the ministry, they use for their FRMPs and how they use them. The UoM-level 

FRMPs  for  DK1  and  DK2  indicate  that  maps  were  used  in  some  municipalities  to  set 
priorities  (e.g.  protect  the  areas  with  the  highest  risk  for  losses  first)  and  to  set  flood  risk 

reduction targets  (e.g. any  buildings in  risk areas have to  have certain  installations above  a 
certain water level)29.  

The national guidance document also states that the FHRMs can be supplemented with local 
information:  in  at  least  one  case,  the  municipality  of  Aabenraa,  local  flood  risk  maps  were 

prepared  in  addition  to  the  national  FHRMs;  in  this  case,  the  local  flood  risk  maps  found 
greater flood risks than the national FHRM. 

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

The  FRMP  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. The 

municipal  FRMPs  do  not  mention  any  changes  APSFRs  or  FHRMs  (and  this  preliminary 
work undertaken at national level); however, as noted above, one municipal FRMP prepared 

local flood risk maps in addition to the national FHRMs. 

29  FRMPs for DK 1 and DK 2. Municipal FRMPs. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.4 

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

The  FHRM  assessment  had  identified  the  following  areas  for  further  development  for 
Denmark30: 

  According  to  Art.6(2),  APSFRs  shared  with  other  Member  States  shall  be  subject  to 
prior  exchange  of  information  between  the  countries  concerned.  The  information 

Denmark shared with Germany concerning their shared basin was not clear. 

 

 

It appears that flood extent was not shown in relation to probabilities. 

It appears that water depth was not to shown in relation to probabilities. 

  Population at risk from floods was shown just for coastal medium probability flooding. 

It was not clear whether any population is at risk considering other flood sources. 

  APSFRs  associated  with  pluvial  flooding  had  not  been  identified  or  subsequently 
mapped,  even  though  relatively  recent  events  had  shown  that  they  could  cause 

significant  damage  in  Denmark.  No  information  regarding  flood  sources  (pluvial, 
groundwater, and sewage) was reported by the authorities. 

  No potential adverse consequences on the environment were shown in the maps. 

None  of  these  areas  for  further  development  are  explicitly  addressed  within  the  FRMPs 
assessed  or  in  Denmark’s  reporting,  in  the  time  period  between  publication  of  the  FHRMs 

and the assessment of the FRMPs. Nonetheless, the following information has been found in 
the current FHRMs: 

  While  Denmark’s  FRMPs  state  that  there  are  regular  coordination  meetings  between 
Denmark and Germany and information on catchments is exchanged between the two 
Member States, the specific nature of these exchanges is not indicated. As noted above, 

Denmark has not identified any shared flood risk areas. 

  Flood  extent  is  shown  for  the  20-year,  100-year  and  1000-year  floods  (high,  medium 
and  low  probability  scenarios).  The  20-year  flood  extent  is  shown  for  the  years  2012 

and  2050  (this  future  scenario  includes  consideration  of  climate  change  impacts),  the 
100-year  flood  extent  is  shown  for  the  years  2012,  2050  and  2100  (the  two  future 
scenarios consider climate change), and the 1000-year flood extend is shown only for 

the year 2012.  

30  These  areas  for  further  development  were  identified  based  on  the  FHRM  assessment:  European 
Commission, Assessment of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps  – Member State Report: DK  – Denmark, 
February 2015. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/DK%20FHRM%20Report.pdf      

20 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Water depth is shown in relation to probabilities (20, 100 and 1000-year flood events). 

  Population at risk from flooding is also shown for inland flooding. 

  Pluvial flooding was not considered to be relevant for Denmark (at the national level) 
in the first cycle31. Risk of pluvial flooding was considered by some municipalities (i.e. 
in parts of the UoMs) in the form of an "overall preparedness for pluvial flooding and 
flooding from the sea".32 

  The  maps  show  protected  areas  (including  areas  protected  under  the  Ramsar 

Convention and Natura 2000 sites) which are affected by flooding33. 

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  There  appears  to  be  potential  for  improved  coordination  between  national  and  local 
levels: While the FHRMs were also prepared at national level, at least one municipality 
(Aabenraa in DK1), developed in addition its own municipal risk maps: it found greater 

flood risks (higher damage risks) compared to the national maps for the same area.  

3. Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

In  Denmark  each  municipality  affected  by  flooding  elaborated  an  FRMP.  For  one  APSFR, 
three municipalities elaborated one common FRMP. The FRMPs for DK1 and DK2 sum up 

the objectives set in each municipality’s FRMP. These objectives differ from municipality to 
municipality: 

31  Denmark  subsequently  clarified  that  pluvial  flood  risk  had  been  assessed  by  Danish  municipalities  when 
preparing their individual municipal climate adaptation plans in 2013. Following amendments to the Danish 
Planning Act, from now on all new municipal climate plans must contain guidelines for areas that may be 
exposed to significant flooding or erosion and requirements for setting up preventive measures to safeguard 
against  flooding  or  erosion  when  planning  urban  development,  special  technical  facilities,  or  in  case  of 
altered land use, etc. 

32  Denmark’s  online  GIS  system  includes  “Blue  Spots”  that  indicate  roads  that  could  be  affected  by  heavy 

rainfall. See for example: 
http://en.klimatilpasning.dk/media/297917/the_blue_spot_concept_report_181.pdf  The  mapping  of  Blue 
Spots on the national GIS does seem to equate to the preparation of pluvial hazard maps.  

33  National web-GIS (all APSFRs): 

http://miljoegis.mim.dk/spatialmap?profile=oversvoem2&sessionid=%7BA1F7067C-8B28-4C4B-9F2E-
2923C6931D03%7D and Abenraa municipality FRMP, p.11: 
https://www.aabenraa.dk/media/2787544/risikostyringsplan-for-oversvoemmelser.pdf  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
  An  objective  which  all  but  one  of  the  20  municipal  FRMPs  have  in  common  is  to 

reduce the adverse consequences of flooding. 

  One of the five municipal FRMPs assessed did not identify any objectives (Holstebro in 

DK1. No explanation for this was found). 

  Some municipalities aim to reduce the likelihood of flood risk (e.g. Køge in DK2). 

  Some  municipalities  set  objectives  to  reduce  damages  caused  by  flooding  (e.g. 

Aabenraa, Fredericia in DK1). 

  Several municipalities call for non-structural actions in their objectives, such as spatial 
planning (e.g. Aabenraa, Fredericia, Norddjurs in DK1) or improved cooperation with 
neighbouring municipalities. 

  Some municipalities specify in their objectives the flood risk level they use to plan their 
protection  measures  for  (e.g.  Aabenraa,  Solrød),  whereas  others  have  not  yet  defined 

the  level  of  protection  and  thus  only  set  preliminary  objectives  (e.g.  Copenhagen  in 
DK2). 

Consequently, from the FRMPs assessed, it can be concluded that34: 

  Nearly  all  municipal  FRMPs  have  objectives  that  aim  to  reduce  the  adverse 

consequences of floods;  

  Some municipal FRMPs have objectives aiming to reduce the likelihood of flooding35,  
  Some municipal FRMPs have objectives referring to non-structural measures36.  

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

In Denmark, the objectives are neither fully specific nor measurable. Four of the five FRMPs 
assessed provide information at which location and how they will be achieved, though there 

is a large variation among them concerning the level of detail. Some municipalities specify 
their  objectives  and  targets  for  pinpointed  location  such  as  a  street  or  a  facility,  explaining 

where  and  what  kind  of  measures  should  be  implemented  to  achieve  the  objectives  (e.g. 
Aabenraa, Norddjurs, Greve), while others remain more general (e.g. Copenhagen, Dragør). 
As noted above, one of the five FRMPs assessed, Holstebro, does not contain objectives. 

Across the five municipal FRMPs assessed, there are no quantitative targets specified. 

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. 

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

well as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
It is not mentioned when the objectives will be achieved. in the either FRMPs for DK1 and 
DK2, or in any of the municipal FRMPs assessed. 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

Among the five municipal FRMPs assessed, some state explicitly in the formulation of their 
objectives that they aim to reduce adverse consequences of floods on human health, cultural 

heritage,  the  environment  or  economic  activities  (e.g.  Vejle,  Aabenraa);  others  do  not 
explicitly  state  this  in  the  objectives  themselves,  but  mention  this  in  the justification  of  the 

suggested measures instead; e.g. the FRMP for Greve suggests to make the local wastewater 
treatment plant flood-safe to avoid disease, the FRMP for Solrød calls for an assessment of 

the negative consequences of flooding on nature areas to identify relevant measures. 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

As noted above, some FRMPs include objectives to reduce the likelihood of flooding. In their 

objectives,  some FRMPs call for improving infrastructure, such as sea dykes, to  reduce the 
likelihood of flooding; some FRMPs identify the level of protection to achieve (e.g. Solrød 

defined  a  protection  against  2.80  metre  sea  level  rise  for  its  infrastructure,  which  means 
protection against a 1000-year return interval event for some areas). 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives 

Each  Danish  municipality  at  risk  from  flooding  developed  its  own  FRMP,  but  several 

municipal FRMPs assessed state that they had coordinated with neighbouring municipalities 
(or  that  such  coordination  is  planned).  In  one  case,  three  municipalities  developed  a  joint 

FRMP  (Nordfyns,  Odense,  Kerteminde).  Hence,  there  is,  to  a  certain  extent,  local 
coordination;  however,  the  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  refer  to  national  coordination  in  the 

preparation of the FRMPs or the identification of their objectives.  

As noted in section 2, together with flood maps on the current flood risk, flood maps taking 
into consideration climate change were also developed by the national government. However, 

each municipality decided which maps to use for their flood risk management planning. 

The  municipal  FRMPs  mention  that  climate  change  was  considered:  Danish  municipalities 

had previously prepared climate adaptation plans that were taken into account in their FRMPs 
(see section 5 for further details).  

The  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  describe  whether  stakeholders  were  consulted  for  setting  the 

objectives of the FRMPs. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practice was identified: 

  Neighbouring  municipalities  coordinated  their  FRMPs  and  three  municipalities 

developed a joint FRMP. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Each municipal FRMP is different, even though there is a national guidance document 
on how to compile FRMPs. This might impede cooperation between municipalities. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Denmark reported 28 measures in total, 15 in DK1 and 13 in DK237. Denmark reported only 
aggregated38 measures, and no individual measures (the FRMPs and reporting sheets do not, 
however, provide a definition for aggregated measures). 

Measures are reported for each aspect39, with preparedness measures making up half of the 
total  (14  of  28  measures,  or  50  %),  followed  by  protection  measures  (8  of  28,  or  29  %), 
prevention measures (five of 28, or 18 %) and recovery and review measures (one, or 4 %). 

No “other” measures are reported. 

For DK1, Denmark reported two prevention measures (for measure types M2140 and M2341), 
six  protection  measures  (measure  types  M3142,  M3243,  M3544)  and  seven  preparedness 
measures (types M4145, M4246, M4347). For DK2, three prevention measures (types M21 and 

37  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. 

38  The  Reporting  Guidance  mentions  “Measures  can  be  reported  as  individual  measures  (recommended  for 
major  projects)  or  aggregated  measures,…”  and  also  notes  that  measures  may  be  comprised  of  “many 
individual projects”. European Commission, Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC), 2013, pp. 
54-58. 

39  See Annex B for the list of all measure aspects and measure types. 
40  Measures  to  prevent  the  location  of  new  or  additional  receptors  in  flood  prone  areas,  such  as  land  use 

planning policies or regulation. 

41  Measures to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a flood actions on buildings, 

public networks, etc. 

42  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 

43  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. 

44  Other measures to enhance protection against flooding, which may include flood defence asset maintenance 

programmes or policies. 

45  Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measures to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or warning system. 
46  Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measures to establish or enhance flood event 

institutional emergency response planning. 

47  Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measures to establish or enhance the public awareness or preparedness 

for flood events. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
M23), two protection measures (M31  and M35), seven preparedness  measures (M41, M42, 
M43) and one recovery & review measure (M5148) are reported.  

Please see Tables A2 and A3 and Figures A1 and A2 in Annex A for supplementary tables 

and charts on measures reported at the UoM-level. 

4.1 

Cost of measures 

Table 6 

Overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMPs 

Municipal FRMP 

Odense Fjord (DK1) 

Other four FRMPs assessed 

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

45-53 m 

n/a 

Source: FRMPs 

No information concerning the budget of the measures was provided in the reporting sheets 
and/or in the UoM-level FRMPs for DK1 and DK2.  

Among  the  five  municipal  FRMPs  assessed,  only  the  FRMP  for  Odense  Fjord  (developed 

jointly by the municipalities of Odense, Kerteminde and Nordfyns) provides an estimate of 
the cost of implementation of all measures: between DKK 45 and 53 m (approximately EUR 
6  –  7  m)49.  The  FRMP  for  Odense  Fjord  further  details  that  DKK  10  m  will  be  used  for 
common  projects,  the  remaining  money  for  projects  in  each  municipality;  for  sluices  and 

dykes  the  costs  in  Odense  will  be  between  DKK  27.1  and  30.6  m;  in  Kerteminde  around 
DKK 6 m; and in Nordfyns between DKK 1.75-6.75 m. A screening of the measures showed 

that  in  the  FRMP  for  Odense  Fjord,  mainly  construction  costs  or  costs  for  equipment  are 
considered, and not administrative costs to plan or establish measures or operational costs50. 

The FRMP for DK1 mentions that seven municipalities made some prioritisation of measures 
based on schedules or budgets, suggesting that other municipal FRMPs in this UoM prepared 

budgets.  In  the  FRMP  for  DK2,  it  is  not  mentioned  if  any  municipal  FRMPs  provide  a 
budget.  

48  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. 

49  For some measures, the cost is given as a range. 
50  FRMP DK1 and DK2, assessed municipal FRMPs. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.2 

Funding of measures 

Among  the  five  municipal  FRMPs  assessed,  information  about  the  funding  sources  of  the 

measures is provided only in the FRMP for Odense Fjord (DK1). The costs of infrastructure 
projects  (i.e.  for  constructing  or  reinforcing  dykes)  will  be  shared  between  those  which  are 

protected  by  the  infrastructure,  such  as  landowners.  Measures  like  monitoring  stations, 
actions for emergency services and dynamic mapping of storm floods will be shared between 
the municipalities51. 

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) 

Odense Fjord (DK1) 

✔ 

✔ 

Private investment 

EU funds (generic) 

EU Structural funds 

EU Solidarity Fund 

EU Cohesion funds 

EU CAP funds 

International funds 

Source: FRMPs 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

Some  but  not  all  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  include  a  clear  and  explicit  description  of  the 

measures with regard to:  

  What they are trying to achieve; 

  Where they are to be achieved; 

  How they are to be achieved; and 

  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

Both  UoM-level  FRMPs  (DK1  and  DK2)  note  differences  in  approach  among  municipal 
FRMPs.  In  DK1,  three  out  of  ten  affected  municipalities  elaborated  more  high-level  plans 

without  many  details,  while  other  municipalities  prepared  detailed  plans  specifying  the 

51  FRMP for Odense Fjord (municipalities Odense, Kerteminde and Nordfyns). 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
measures to be implemented, where and until when (e.g. DK1_Odense Fjord). The variation 
can be seen across the three FRMPs assessed for this UoM: 

 

In  Holstebro’s  (DK1)  municipal  FRMP,  the  measures  are  not  very  specific:  they 

include, for example, establishing flood-prevention provisions in local spatial plans and 
ensuring the free flow of water in the river to reduce flooding. Who will carry out the 

measure, when, where and what it will cost are not described.  

 

In  the  FRMP  of  Abenraa  (DK1)  the  description  of  measures  is  a  mix  of  general 

descriptions,  such  as  focusing  urban  development  in  areas  not  at  risk  from  flooding, 

with  concretely  described  measures  such  as  the  construction  of  a  sluice  or  pumping 
equipment in a specific location.  

 

In  the  FRMP  for  Odense  Fjord  (DK1,  municipalities  of  Odense,  Kerteminde  & 
Nordfyns), the measures are described in detail and include, as noted above, a budget 

estimate as well as measurable success criteria, which are related to the completion of 
the measure.  

In DK2, many of the plans do not  contain measurable and specific measures. For example, 

the UoM-level FRMP provides the following information: 

 

three  out  of  12  affected  municipalities  prepared  high-level  plans  that  do  not  contain 

detailed information on measures,  

 

the municipality of Copenhagen has not yet defined concrete measures (as a decision on 

the local flood risk safety level has not yet been taken),  

  another  municipality  has  only  suggested  measures  and  leaves  the  decision  on  which 

measures to implement up to land-owners.  

The same is also seen in the two FRMPs assessed in this UoM: 

 

In  Slagelse  (DK2),  the  measures  to  be  taken  by  the  municipality  are  described  on  a 

more  strategic  level:  examples  include  –  further  dialogue  with  landowners  and 
identification of possible measures in a given location. In contrast, measures to be taken 

by  the  power  supply  company  are  very  concrete  such  as  moving  of  electricity  feeder 
pillars to higher levels to reduce flood risks.  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 

In Hvidovre (DK2), it is described at which location measures should be implemented 

and  what  the  aim  of  those  measures  is,  but  the  municipality  is  still  in  the  phase  of 
defining what concrete measures have to be used to reach the specified aims52. 

In Denmark, primary FRMPs are developed at municipal level. Consequently, the location of 
the  measures  is  at  the  APSFR  level,  the  municipal  level  or  even  below,  at  the  level  of  an 
APSFR in each municipality53:  

Table 8 

Location of measures  

All five municipal FRMPs assessed 

International 

National 

RBD/UoM 

Sub-basin 

APSFR or other specific risk area 

Water body level 

Municipal level or municipal part of an APSFR 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

Some of the municipal FRMPs assessed indicate by how much the measures will contribute 
to the achievement of objectives. However, none of the plans assessed specifies whether the 

objectives will be achieved when all measures are completed.  

In DK1, all municipalities have specified measures in the areas of prevention, protection and 
preparedness  and  those  will  contribute  to  achieving  the  defined  objectives  –  with  the 

exception of one municipality, Holstebro, whose FRMP has not defined objectives, but only 
measures.  

In DK2, not all municipalities have defined measures in their municipal FRMPs. The UoM-
level FRMP reveals that most municipalities have defined their objectives for flooding from 

the  sea  or  from  a  river  in  terms  of  the  water  level  up  to  which  there  should  be  protection 
against  flooding.  The  suggested  infrastructure  measures  are  targeted  towards  this,  but  it 

remains unclear how much each measure or combination of measures will contribute to this 
target.  

52  FRMP DK1 and DK2, municipal FRMP Odense Fjord and the other assessed municipal FRMPs. 
53  FRMP DK1 and DK2, municipal FRMP Odense Fjord and the other assessed municipal FRMPs. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
For  objectives  that  refer  to  non-structural  initiatives,  such  as  better  cooperation  between 
neighbouring  municipalities,  it  is  not  clearly  stated  in  the  FRMPs  assessed  what  measures 

will be taken.  

Overall,  it  remains  unclear  from  the  provided  information  to  which  degree  the  defined 
objectives in each municipality will be achieved and when54. 

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

In its reporting sheets, Denmark indicated that the location of all measures was at the UoM 

level.  Based  on  information  in  the  FRMPs  assessed,  however,  almost  all  measures  are 
implemented on the municipal level. In addition, in some cases, neighbouring municipalities 

cooperate on measures across their territories. There is one municipality (Holstebro), which is 
at risk from river flooding and it plans to assess measures upstream from the municipality to 

avoid  flooding,  i.e.  beyond  the  municipal  territory.  The  issuance  of  emergency  warnings  is 
one exception: this is a national task undertaken by the Danish Meteorological Institute. 

In its reporting sheets, Denmark indicated  that the geographic coverage of the effects of all 
measures is the specific APSFR. Based on the FRMPs, most measures are expected to have a 

local  effect,  as  most  measures  are  implemented  at  municipal  level  and  address  seawater 
flooding. One exception are measures indicated in the FRMP prepared by the municipality of 

Holstebro, which is at risk from river flooding: some measures would have an impact outside 
municipal borders. 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

In  its  reporting  sheets,  Denmark  provided  information  about  the  prioritisation  of  the  28 

measures it reported. In DK1, three measures have critical priority, two very high, five high 
and five moderate priority. In DK2, two measures have critical, two very high, six high and 

three moderate priority. No measures were reported as low priority.  

Across both UoMs, all prevention measures have a high priority, and of the eight protection 
measures,  four  have  a  critical,  two  a  very  high  and  two  a  moderate  priority.  For  the  14 

preparedness  measures,  two  have  very  high,  six  high  and  six  moderate  priority.  The  single 
recovery  and  review  measure  has  critical  priority  (see  Tables  A4  and  A5  in  Annex  A  for 
more details)55.  

54  FRMP DK1 and DK2, assessed municipal FRMPs. 
55  Reporting sheets. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  UoM-level  FRMPs  do  not  provide  detailed  information  how  prioritisation  of  measures 
was made at this level, though the FRMP for DK1 mentions that seven municipalities made a 

prioritisation of measures based on schedules or budgets and two municipalities used CBA.   

The five municipal-level FRMPs assessed provide further information, though prioritisation 
was carried out in different ways in the different municipalities. Some municipalities did not 

yet  prioritise  measures  (e.g.  Holstebro,  DK1),  some  did  not  state  their  criteria  for 
prioritization. Some based their prioritization on assessments of the impacts of flooding (i.e. 

highest priority in areas where the highest risks are expected) or the relevance of the measure 
for  the  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation  plans  (e.g.  Aabenraa,  DK1),  while  others 

specified which geographic areas are prioritised for measures, though do not explain why.  

The municipal FRMPs assessed give no indication that CBA was used for prioritisation (see 
section 6 for further information)56. 

The FRMPs assessed do not provide any information about the timeline of the measures. 

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

For all the measures reported by Denmark, municipalities are indicated as the authorities with 
the responsibility for implementation.  

In the five municipal FRMPs assessed, specific stakeholders are identified as relevant for the 

implementation of measures: for example, fire brigades and police for emergency response; 
drinking  water  and  energy  providers  for  the  protection  of  their  infrastructure  and  services; 

private landowners affected by flooding for the co-financing of dykes. 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

According  to  the  information  reported  by  Denmark,  all  28  measures  are  under  ongoing 
progress or construction. The majority of the measures (22,79 %) are classified as ‘progress 
ongoing’ while only two prevention and four protection measures are classified as ‘ongoing 
construction’ (see Tables A6 and A7 in Annex A for more details)57.  

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  (such  as  the  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment  and 

56  FRMP DK1 and DK2, assessed municipal FRMPs. 
57  Reporting sheets. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Environmental Impact Assessment Directives, the Water Framework Directive or the Seveso 
Directive). According to the information reported by Denmark, no measures have been taken 

under other Community Acts. 

Several  municipal  FRMPs  mention  that  the  measures  specified  in  their  FRMPs  take  into 
account  the  municipal  climate  change  adaptation  plans  and  the  measures  specified  herein. 

Some municipalities (e.g. FRMP for Odense Fjord) also mention the river basin management 
plans  for  the  implementation  of  the  WFD  and  municipal  stormwater  management  plans 

tackling pluvial flooding.   

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

With regard to spatial planning/land use measures, Denmark has reported a measure in the 
category M2158, which covers land use measures, in both DK1 and DK2.    

The  municipal  FRMPs  assessed  specify  spatial  planning/land  use  measures.  Examples 

include:  

  allowing urban development only outside of flood risk areas (Køge FRMP, DK2),  

 

incorporating  flood-related  prevention  measures  in  local  spatial  plans  (Holstebro 

FRMP, DK1),  

  elaborating  a  holistic  plan  for  city  neighbourhoods  near  the  coast  (Fredericia  FRMP, 

DK1),  

  elaborating guidance documents to avoid the construction of any new building in flood-

risk areas (Slagelse FRMP, DK2), and  

  preparing an overall flood-risk plan addressing seawater flooding and flooding due to 

heavy rain (Solrød, DK2).  

The  FRMPs  assessed  do  not  indicate  if  the  framework  for  controlling  building  and 
development in floodplains has evolved since 200059. 

Natural  water  retention  measures  (NWRMs)  have  been  mentioned  in  one  of  the  five 

municipal FRMPs assessed. The FRMP for the municipality of Holstebro (in DK1) is at risk 
of river flooding and its FRMP considers the use of natural retention measures upstream, but 

it does not describe specific measures to be implemented. 

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

such as land use planning policies or regulation. 

59  Reporting sheets; municipal FRMPs. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Measures  that  specifically  consider  nature  conservation.  In  DK2,  in  some  municipal 
FRMPs, Natura 2000 plans and other nature plans are mentioned among plans which have to 

be considered for the implementation of flood measures; however, these references were not 
found for the municipal FRMPs in DK160. 

Some  of  the  FRMPs  assessed  state  that  they  shall  take  into  consideration  navigation  and 

port  infrastructure.  Ports  are  often  identified  as  areas  of  flood  risk  and  measures  are 
planned  to  protect  these  areas,  often  in  cooperation  with  stakeholders  related  to  port 
activities: this is seen, for example, in the municipal FRMPs of Aabenraa and Odense Fjord61.  

No  reference  has  been  found  in  the  five  FRMPs  assessed  to  dredging  to  increase  river 
channel  capacity  and  its  ability  to  convey  water  for  flood  alleviation  purposes.  Moreover, 

among  the  municipal  FRMPs  assessed,  this  would  be  only  relevant  for  the  municipality  of 
Holstebro (DK1), which is at risk of river flooding. Its FRMP includes a prevention measure 

for continued river flow and good maintenance of the river bed, but it is unclear if this would 
also involve dredging62. 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The role of insurance policies is discussed in two of the municipal FRMPs assessed: the plans 
for  Odense  Fjord  and  Holstebro  briefly  discuss  when  the  damages  would  be  eligible  for 
compensation  via  the  "Stormrådet"  (Danish  Storm  Council63),  a  kind  of  national  insurance 
mechanism. However, there are no further details concerning the types of insurance available 

for flood risks in Denmark. 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

According to the UoM-level FRMPs, monitoring of progress falls under the responsibility of 
the municipality and is handled differently in the municipalities.  

In  DK1,  most  of  the  municipal  FRMPs  provide  some  information  about  monitoring. 

Municipalities  mention  project  groups  for  progress  monitoring,  yearly  and  half-yearly 
progress-reporting, internal monitoring routines and public access to progress reports64. One 

60  FRMP DK1 and DK2, municipal FRMPs. 
61  FRMP DK1 and DK2, municipal FRMPs. 
62  FRMP DK1, municipal FRMPs. 
63  https://www.danishstormcouncil.dk/artikler/danishstormcouncil/about-the-danish-storm-council/what-is-the-

danish-storm-council/  

64  FRMPs DK1 and DK2, municipal FRMPs. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
municipality (Norddjurs) plans a public log where the public can follow the implementation 
of measures. 

In  DK2,  information  about  monitoring  progress  is  provided  only  for  three  of  the  12 

municipalities.  In  these  municipalities,  progress  will  be  monitored  "in  combination  with  a 
revision of the flood risk management  plan", "following the municipal routines" or through 

yearly public reporting (e.g. Greve municipality).  

However,  there  is  no  information  if  a  baseline  has  been  established  against  which  progress 
will be monitored and assessed, in either DK1 or DK2. 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 

The table below shows, based on information available, how the development of the FRMPs 

has been coordinated with the development of the second RBMPs of the WFD.  

Table 9 

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

second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD  

All FRMPs assessed 

Integration of FRMPs and RBMPs into joint documents 

Joint consultation of draft FRMPs and RBMPs 

Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMPs and RBMPs 

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 FRMPs 

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 

34 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

Some  of  the  municipal  FRMPs  assessed  list  the  river  basin  management  plans  and  related 
local  plans65, which specify  measures to  be taken to  implement  the WFD,  among  the other 
plans relevant for the implementation of the Floods Directive (e.g. in the municipal FRMP for 

Odense  Fjord).  Therefore,  it  appears  that  at  least  in  some  municipalities,  work  under  the 
RBMPs was considered in the preparation of the FRMPs66. However, based on the available 
information,  it  is  not  possible  to  determine  how  the  development  of  the  FRMPs  was 
coordinated with the WFD. 

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  While many municipal FRMPs do not provide details on monitoring of implementation, 
some do and one municipality (Norddjurs) plans to have a public log where the public 
can follow the implementation of measures.  

  The measures in some but not all of the municipal FRMPs assessed are specific, also in 
terms of location, and measurable. For example, the FRMP for Odense Fjord describes 
for each measure, its goal, how it will be implemented, its success criteria and its cost.  

The following areas for further development were identified:  

  The prioritisation process remains unclear for all the FRMPs assessed.  

  Based  on  the  information  available  in  the  FRMPs  assessed,  it  was  not  possible  to 

determine how the FRMPs were coordinated with the RBMPs. 

  Only one of the five FRMPs assessed provides information concerning the costs of the 

measures and their funding sources.  

65  Vandplaner and vandhandleplaner, respectively. 
66  FRMPs DK1 and DK2, municipal FRMPs. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5. Consideration of climate change 

The Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark has developed flood maps for scenarios 

with low, medium and high probability, with and without climate change scenarios, for use in 
the development of the FRMPs. In addition, all municipal FMRPs except from Hedensted in 

DK1 cite the municipal climate change mitigation and adaptation plans as relevant planning 
documents for implementing the Floods Directive. Most municipal FRMPs also mention that 

they will consider climate change in the implementation of their measures. However, neither 
the UoM-level FRMPs nor the five municipal FRMPs assessed make reference to the national 
climate change adaptation strategy67, in relation to the flood risk management measures68. 

The timeframes for the climate change scenarios considered in the national flood risk maps 
are  2050  and  2100,  with  2012  as  the  basis  year69.  However,  neither  the  FRMPs  nor 
Denmark’s reporting sheets provide information if a shift in the occurrence of extreme events 
and changes  in  numerical  recurrence times or  changes in  the main sources of  flooding will 

take place under the long term climate change scenarios. 

5.1 

Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change 

Several municipal FRMPs mention that the risk of flooding in the context of future climate 

change, is considered in  municipal spatial planning. All Danish municipalities have climate 
change  mitigation  and  adaptation  plans,  and  in  one  of  the  assessed  municipal  FRMPs 

(DK2_Slagelse) it is stated that by elaborating the climate change mitigation and adaptation 
plan the municipality became  aware of potential flood problems in  one  part of its territory. 

Another  municipality  (DK1_Holstebro)  states  that  in  spatial  planning  and  building 
applications,  climate  change  must  be  considered70.  In  the  municipal  FRMP  of  Abenraa 
(DK1), it is  stated that some measures were designated high priority  for  implementation  as 
they were derived from the municipal climate change mitigation and adaptation plan. 

The  UoM-level  FRMPs  list  several  examples  where  climate  change  is  considered  in 

municipalities  when  planning  flood  defence  measures,  including  structural  measures  (e.g. 
DK1:  Holstebro,  Abenraa;  DK2:  Copenhagen,  Brøndby,  Vallensbæk,  Ishøy,  Slagelse). 

67  Available  at:  http://en.klimatilpasning.dk/media/5322/klimatilpasningsstrategi_uk_web.pdf  Danish  strategy 

for adaptation to a changing climate. 
68  FRMP DK1 and DK2, municipal FRMPs. 
69  State GIS-system (miljøgis): 

http://miljoegis.mim.dk/spatialmap?profile=oversvoem2&sessionid=%7B8F7FC331-4D6F-44DE-92DC-
D44930E762BA%7D   

70  FRMP for DK1 and DK2, municipal FRMPs. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Further details are not provided, and the documents do not indicate whether any of these are 
"no regret measures"71. 

5.2  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practice was identified: 

  All  municipalities  in  Denmark  have  developed  climate  change  mitigation  and 
adaptation  plans;  almost  all  municipal  FRMPs  make  a  direct  reference  to  those  plans 

and  state  that  the  implications  of  climate  change  on  flooding  are  considered.  In  the 
municipal FRMP of Abenraa (DK1), some measures were designated high priority for 

implementation as they were derived from the municipal climate change mitigation and 
adaptation plan.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Most FRMPs did not provide details how the climate change mitigation and adaptation 
plans impacted the final selection of flood risk management objectives and measures. 

  No  apparent  coordination  between  the  FRMPs  and  the  national  climate  change 

adaptation strategy. 

71  FRMP DK 1 and DK2, municipal FRMPs. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6. Cost-benefit analysis 

The UoM-level FRMP for DK1 states that two municipalities used CBA for the prioritisation 

of measures. The UoM-level FRMP for DK2 does not mention any application of CBA. 

A  screening  of  all  the  municipal  FRMPs  for  DK1  revealed  that  the  municipal  FRMP  for 
Aabenraa included calculations of damages and the FRMP for Odense Fjord (prepared jointly 

by the municipalities of Odense, Kerteminde and Nordfyns) provides maps showing potential 
damage from flooding. However, these two FRMPs state that this information was not used 

for the prioritisation of measures. 

In the municipal FRMP for Odense Fjord, costs were calculated for all proposed measures. In 

the  municipal  FRMP  for  Aabenraa,  costs  for  a  levee  and  some  technical  infrastructure 
(pumps and sluices) were calculated. In both cases, only investment costs appear to have been 

considered. 

There is some information to indicate that multiple benefits were considered. Some municipal 
FRMPs  both  in  DK1  and  DK2  mention  that  measures  should  be  selected  if  they  have 

recreation  benefits  in  addition  to  flood  risk  reduction  effects  (e.g.  DK1:  Aabenraa,  DK2: 
Køge,  Brøndby,  Ishøj),  but  there  is  no  information  available  to  indicate  if  they  considered 
such benefits when prioritizing their measures72. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Only two municipal FRMPs refer to  CBA, and  they do not  indicate clearly if or how 
this  was  used  in  prioritisation.  Where  they  present  costs,  these  appear  to  only  cover 

investment costs. 

72  FRMP for DK1 and DK2, municipal FRMPs. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

The  FRMPs  assessed  and  the  information  provided  in  the  reported  sheets  do  not  indicate 
changes to the Competent Authorities and the Units of Management identified for the Floods 

Directive. No updates have been reported to the European Commission regarding this matter 
since 2010.  

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed,  based  on 

information  in  the  UoM-level  FRMPs  concerning  the  draft  FRMPs  (information  how  the 
consultation was actually carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the 

rest of the section): 

Table 10 

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

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digitial social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

DK1 and DK2 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

The municipalities were responsible for public information and consultation for their FRMPs, 

and the specific mechanisms employed vary  among municipalities. The  UoM-level  FRMPs 
are  essentially  summaries  of  the  municipal-level  plans,  and  no  public  information  and 

consultation was carried out for these higher-level documents. 

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

Table 11 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet 

Via digital social networking  

39 

DK1 and DK2 

✔ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Direct invitation 

Exhibitions 

Workshops, seminars or conferences 

Telephone surveys 

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP 

Source: FRMPs 

DK1 and DK2 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The UoM-level FRMPs state that the municipalities provided the plans online, had a public 
consultation  phase  (mostly  six  months)  and  organised  at  least  one  public  meeting.  Some 

municipalities  (e.g.  DK1:  Hedensted,  Norddjurs,  Randers;  DK2:  all  except  Hvidovre  and 
Copenhagen)  established  working  groups  which  brought  together  stakeholders  such  as 

neighbouring municipalities, landowners affected by flood risks or measures, and companies 
such  as  water  service  companies,  to  work  on  special  aspects  of  the  FRMP  (e.g.  DK1: 

Hedensted and Vejle; DK2: Vallensbæk, Brondby, Slagelse).  

The five municipal FRMPs assessed do not describe how the feedback from the consultation 
was received, i.e. if in written or oral form or both, and how the feedback was taken further in 
the elaboration of the plans73. 

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

Table 12 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable 

Direct mailing (e-mail) 

Direct mailing (post) 

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions 

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

Source: FRMPs 

DK1 and DK2 

✔ 

All municipalities provided the documents online, but the FRMPs assessed do not mention if 
other ways were used to distribute them74. 

73  FRMP for DK1 and DK2. 
74  FRMPs DK1 and DK2, municipal FRMPs. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

The  table  below  shows  the  groups  of  stakeholders  that  have  been  actively  involved  in  the 

development of the FRMPs, based on information in the UoM-level FRMPs: 

Table 13 

Groups of stakeholders actively involved in the development of the FRMPs 

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

DK1 
✔ 

DK2 
✔ 

Drainage Authorities 

Emergency services 

Water supply and sanitation 

Agriculture / farmers 

Energy / hydropower 

Navigation / ports 

Fisheries / aquaculture 

Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) 

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

Consumer Groups 

Local / Regional authorities 

Academia / Research Institutions 

Affected landowners 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

In  addition,  landowners  and  neighbouring  municipalities  were  actively  involved  in  both 

UoMs,  the  Danish  railroad  company  was  involved  in  the  FRMPs  for  DK1  and  the 
Copenhagen Airport in the FRMPs for DK2.  

The involvement of stakeholder groups varies from municipality to municipality, depending 

which  stakeholders  were  considered  as  relevant  and  which  were  interested.  Most  of  the 
municipalities involved a range of actors from public agencies and the private sector in  the 

consultation  process.  It  remains  unclear  if  NGOs  or  consumer  groups  were  involved,  most 
plans talk about "interest groups" which were involved75. Moreover, the municipal FRMPs do 
not  specify  how  exactly  different  stakeholders  were  involved  in  the  process,  so  it  remains 
unclear if all were actively involved.  

The  table  below  shows  the  mechanisms  used  to  ensure  the  active  involvement  of 
stakeholders, based on information in the UoM-level FRMPs: 

75  FRMPs DK1 and DK2, chapter 7 and 8. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 14 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders  

Regular exhibitions 

Establishment of advisory groups 

Involvement in drafting 

Workshops and technical meetings 

Formation of alliances 

Information days 

DK1 and DK2 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

The mechanisms to involve stakeholders varied from municipality to municipality. As noted 

above,  some  municipalities  established  working  groups  with  stakeholders.  The  UoM-level 
FRMPs state that relevant actors were involved in the drafting of the FRMPs, but it remains 

unclear how this was done in detail and if this can be considered as an "active involvement". 
In  the  FRMPs  the  following  terms  were  used  to  describe  the  involvement  of  stakeholders: 

asked stakeholders for input (Holstebro), created a working group with stakeholders from the 
local  area  (Herdensted),  developed  the  plan  in  cooperation  with  (some  listed)  stakeholders 
(Solrød, Ishøj, Vallensbæk, Brondby)76.  

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

It  is  not  described  in  detail  how  the  received  feedback  from  the  stakeholder  meetings  was 

further  considered  in  the  process  of  developing  the  municipal  FRMPs.  According  to  the 
UoM-level FRMPs, for at least one municipality in DK1 as well as one municipality in DK2, 
public consultation did not result in any changes in the FRMPs77. 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

Neither  the  UoM-level  FRMPs  nor  the  municipal  FRMPs  assessed  indicate  if  an  SEA  was 

carried out for the plans. 

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practice was identified: 

  Danish municipalities involved a broad range of stakeholders in the FRMP consultation 

process via working groups. 

76  FRMPs DK1 and DK2, chapter 7 and 8. 
77  FRMPs DK1 and DK2, chapter 7 and 8. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The following areas for further development were identified: 

 

It  is  unclear  how  the  input  of  the  stakeholders  was  used  in  the  development  of  the 
FRMPs.  

  There is no information if SEAs were carried out. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex A: 

Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

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

sheets.  These  tables  and  charts  were  used  for  the  preparation  of  section  4  on  measures.  It 
should  be  noted  that  the  reporting  sheets  of  Denmark  provide  information  at  UoM  level, 

while  the  assessment  in  the  previous  sections  considered  also  the  FRMPs  developed  at 
municipal level. 

Background & method 

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

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

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

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

  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation; 

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

  Measure  details:  authorities  –  Name  of  responsible  authority  & 

level  of 

responsibility; 

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

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

  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive)78, not 
all  fields  are  mandatory,  and,  as  such,  not  all    Member  States  reported  information  for  all 
fields.  

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

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

answers, or answers given in the national language.   

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

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

44 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  A  first  filter  is  applied  to  identify  how  many  different  answers  were  given.  If  a  high 
number of different answers are given, Member States assessors were asked to refer to 
the  raw  data  when  conducting  the  assessment,  and  this  Annex  does  not  reflect  these 

observations. 

 

If  a  manageable  number  of  answers  are  given,  obvious  categories  are  identified,  and 

raw data sorted. 

  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  table79  is  used  in  the  reporting  on  the  types  of  measures.  Each  type  of 
measures is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. 

Table A1 

Types of measures used in reporting 

NO ACTION 
M11: No Action 

PREVENTION 
M21: Avoidance 

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 

79  Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

  Table A1 Types of measures used in reporting .................................................................. 49 
  Table A2 Number of measures reported in the reporting sheets ........................................ 51 
  Table  A3  Total  number  of  measures  (aggregated  and  individual)  per  measure  type  and 
UoM, including duplicates .................................................................................................. 51 
  Table A4 Category of priority by measure aspect .............................................................. 54 
  Table A5 Category of priority by UoM .............................................................................. 55 
  Table A6 Progress of implementation by measure aspect .................................................. 57 
  Table A7 Progress of implementation by UoM .................................................................. 58 

  Figure A1 Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ........ 52 
  Figure A2 Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect .......... 52 
  Figure A3 Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by measure aspect ................. 55 
  Figure A4 Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by UoM ................................. 56 
  Figure A5 Visualisation of Table A6: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ..... 57 
  Figure A6 Visualisation of Table A7: Progress of implementation by UoM ..................... 58 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A2 

Number of measures reported in the reporting sheets 

Number of individual measures 

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

Number of aggregated measures  

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

Total number of measures  

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

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

(Min-Max) 

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

0 

0 

28 

28 

28 

28 

13-15 

14 

Table A3 

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

Prevention 

Total 

Protection 

Total 

Preparedness 

Recovery 
& review  Total 

Total 

M21  M23 

M31 

M32  M35 

M41 

M42  M43 

M51 

Other  Grand 
Total 

DK1 

DK2 

Grand Total 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

3 

2 

3 

5 

3 

1 

4 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

6 

2 

8 

2 

2 

4 

Average per UoM 
Note: All measures are aggregated as Denmark did not report any individual measures. 

1 

3 

2 

4 

2 

2 

1 

2 

3 

3 

6 

3 

2 

2 

4 

2 

7 

7 

14 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

15 

13 

28 

14 

47 

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

Figure A1 

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

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

Figure A2 

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

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

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

Information about costs was not provided 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 

Information  about  the  location  was  provided  for  all  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets,  the 
location is indicated as the respective River Basin District (RBD) i.e. UoM.  

Geographic coverage 

Information about the geographic coverage of the impact was provided for all measures in the 
reporting sheets, the geographic coverage is indicated as the different APSFRs. However, as 

this was an open question, a large number of different responses were provided and it was not 
possible to aggregate the information.  

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

in the textual part of the XML); 

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

‘timetable’ is required); 

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

required). 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Objectives 

The  Guidance  Document  indicates  that  for  each  measure,  an  “Explanation  of  how  the 
measure contributes to the objectives” can be provided (this is an optional field).  

Information  was  provided  about  the  objectives  of  all  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets  of 
Denmark, however as this was an open question a large number of different responses were 

provided and aggregation was not possible.  

Category of priority 

Denmark provided information for the priority of all measures. The following categories are 

used in the reporting sheet: 

  Critical; 

  Very high; 

  High; 

  Moderate; 

  Low. 

Table A4 

Category of priority by measure aspect 

Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

4 

1 

5 

2 

2 

4 

5 

6 

11 

2 

6 

8 

5 

8 

14 

1 

28 

Note: Denmark did not report any measures of low priority. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A3 

Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by measure aspect 

Note: Denmark did not report any measures of low priority. 

Table A5 

Category of priority by UoM 

Critical 

Very high 

High 

Moderate 

Grand Total 

DK1 

DK2 

Grand Total 

3 

2 

5 

2 

2 

4 

5 

6 

11 

Average per UoM 
Note: Denmark did not report any measures of low priority. 

3 

2 

6 

5 

3 

8 

4 

15 

13 

28 

14 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A4 

Visualisation of Table A5: Category of priority by UoM 

Note: Denmark did not report any measures of low priority. 

Timetable 

Information about the timetable of the measures was not provided 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).  

Information about the responsible authorities was provided for all measures in the reporting 
sheets – these are different municipal authorities. The level of responsibility for all measures 

is municipal. 

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

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

whose responses are analysed below; 

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

52 

 
 
 
 
 
Denmark  reported  information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the  measures.  The 
progress of implementation was reported as80:  

  COM (completed); 

  OGC (ongoing construction); 

  POG (progress ongoing); 

  NS (not started). 

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

Table A6 

Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Ongoing construction 

Progress ongoing 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

2 

4 

6 

3 

4 

14 

1 

22 

5 

8 

14 

1 

28 

Note: Denmark did not report any measures that are ‘completed’ or ‘not started’. 

Figure A5 

Visualisation of Table A6: Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Note: Denmark did not report any measures that are ‘completed’ or ‘not started’. 

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

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

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A7 

Progress of implementation by UoM 

Ongoing construction 

Progress ongoing 

Grand Total 

DK1 

DK2 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

4 

2 

6 

3 

11 

11 

22 

11 

15 

13 

28 

14 

Note: Denmark did not report any measures that are ‘completed’ or ‘not started’. 

Figure A6 

Visualisation of Table A7: Progress of implementation by UoM 

Note: Denmark did not report any measures that are ‘completed’ or ‘not started’. 

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. 

54 

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

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

For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

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

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

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

contracted or started and is being developed at the moment. 

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

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

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

not been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

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

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

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). 

Information about these fields was not provided in the reporting sheets. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex B:  Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures81 

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 

M31 

M32 

M33 

M34 

M35 

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

Protection 

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

Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures involving physical interventions to regulate flows, such 
as the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line 
storage areas or development of existing flow regulation rules), and which have a significant impact 
on the hydrological regime. 

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

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

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

Preparedness 

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

warning system 

M42 

M43 

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 

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

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

56 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
M44 

M51 

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

Recovery & Review 

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

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

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

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

M61 

policies 

Other 

Other 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)  

NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as 
NWRM,  by  encouraging  the  retention  of  water  within  a  catchment  and,  through  that, 

enhancing the natural functioning of the catchment. The catalogue developed in the NWRM 
project  represents  a  comprehensive  but  non  prescriptive  wide  range  of  measures,  and  other 

measures,  or  similar  measures  called  by  a  different  name,  that  could  also  be  classified  as 
NWRM.  

To  ease  access  to  measures,  the  catalogue  of  measures  hereunder  is  sorted  by  the  primary 
land use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most 

of the measures however can be applied to more than one land use type. 

Table B2 

List of NWRMs 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

A03 Crop rotation 

F02 Maintenance of 
forest cover in headwater 
areas 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

A04 Strip cropping 
along contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

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 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
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 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features 

Urban 

U07 Soakaways 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

58