Version of 20 March 2017
Support for the Update of the Floods Directive's
Reporting Schemas and Guidance
Concept Paper
for Discussion of the WGF Sub-group on
Reporting
16-17 March 2017, Bucharest
1.
Introduction and Objectives
The objective of this exercise is to update the Floods Directive’s (FD) reporting tools
(reporting guidance, electronic schemas and quality assurance specifications) for the
purpose of the next cycle of reporting associated with the Preliminary Flood Risk
Assessment/Areas of Potentially Significant Flood Risk (PFRAs/APSFRs), Flood Hazard and
Flood Risk Maps (FHRMs) and Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs). The Commission
has been through the process of updating the WFD Reporting Guidance and Tools for the
WFD and therefore has this process and the lessons learned from it in mind for informing the
update of the FD reporting tools. In addition, understanding and implementing the lessons
learned from the first cycle of reporting the FD is also a key driver for this exercise.
Two key lessons learned from reporting under the FD (completed for the PFRAs/APSFRs,
FHRMs and currently in progress for the FRMPs) are reflected in the requirements of the
Commission for this work, namely to: develop more of an “options to choose from” approach
in the updated reporting schemas, and: to give greater emphasis to data reporting rather than
text based reporting (without eliminating the latter if considered necessary). The assessment
of reporting of the first cycle of the FD, has produced lessons learnt from the reporting and
assessment of PFRA and APSFR and from the reporting and assessment of FHRM. Lessons
learnt will be reviewed, translated and incorporated into the revised schemas and guidance.
The exercise has been divided into two main tasks:
Task 1: Support for the development of an updated reporting guidance
1
Version of 20 March 2017
The delivery of this task is framed within a series of key meetings to be held with the Working
Group on Floods Sub-group on Reporting (Sub-WGF on R) with review of the draft package
of reporting tools by the CIS SCG in early November 2017, prior to submission for
endorsement by the WDs in December.
Based on the work done so far and on the discussions that will take place within the SubWGF on R, the updated CIS Guidance Document will be produced which will replace the
existing Guidance Document Number 29 and will set the framework for the reporting and for
describing the updated schemas.
Task 2: Development of the reporting schemas and specification for quality assurance
procedures
The necessary reporting schemas will be developed using a UML development tool that
includes documentation features and links to database development (such as Enterprise
Architect). The starting point for the reporting schemas, in terms of content, will be the
schemas that were developed for the 2016 reporting. The approach will be similar to that
adopted for the Water Framework Directive in 2016, with limited recourse to text fields and
bearing in mind the need to maximise the possibilities of automatic extraction and processing
of the information.
The purpose of this document is to provide the background for discussion at the 1 st Technical
Meeting of the Sub-WGF on R to be held in Bucharest on the 16th and 17th of March. The
focus of this paper is on: summarising the proposed approach to the project; presenting some
limited examples of possible updates to the reporting elements (principally the schemas)
based on the lessons learnt; identifying data needs, and; considering some key discussion
questions for the meeting.
2.
Summary of proposed approach
2.1
Task 1: Support for the development of an updated reporting guidance
2.1.1
Step 1: Review Guidance Document 29 in light of lessons learned
A review of Guidance Document 29 (and its relevant support documents) will be undertaken
on a schema element by schema element basis taking account of specific lessons learned
(for PFRAs/APSFRs, FHRMs). The outcome of the review will be a set of proposed changes
to each schema element. This review process has started (see Section 3).
2
Version of 20 March 2017
2.1.2
Step 2: Review of end-user needs
This sub-task will involve a review of how the European Commission and European
Environment Agency (EEA) will want to use the information provided. In particular, it will be
important to understand whether there were any significant gaps in the assessments that
need to be addressed in subsequent cycles. Part of this process will include the compilation of
a list of products that can be derived from the information provided.
The WFD Reporting Guidance, for certain schema elements, provides tables of the products
that arise from the reporting of data and information from MS including the sources of detailed
information and aggregation rules. Similar outputs have been produced for elements of the
FD (see Section 4) and these will be updated as part of this project.
2.1.3
Step 3: Development of document - A Review of Floods Directive
Reporting
The reviews carried out under Steps 1 and 2 will be used to compile the above report which
will provide an overall assessment of the phase 1 reporting including a summary of the
lessons learnt along with proposed changes relevant to the reporting guidance, electronic
schemas and quality assurance elements. This will inform the development of an early draft of
the updated Guidance document (including the electronic schemas).
2.1.4
Step 4: Development of revised reporting guidance
An early draft of the updated Guidance document will be prepared for discussion at the twoday technical meeting in May 2017 (see schedule below). Following this meeting, a new draft
of the Guidance will be developed, taking into account consolidated comments, in time for
further discussion in September. The structure of the individual chapters of the updated
Guidance Document will follow the format of the current WFD Reporting Guidance. A key
point to note is the importance that will be placed on the description of the schema elements
(see Section 3 below). A first draft of the updated Guidance Document will be sent out to the
Commission for written comment over the summer (2017) in order that the third Sub-WGF on
Reporting meeting in September can focus on any contentious issues.
Task 1 Deliverables:

Discussion document forming the basis of the 1st meeting to be held in
Bucharest

Documents for Sub-WGF on R (2nd, 3rd and final meetings)

Documents for SCG

Documents to be sent to WDs
3
Version of 20 March 2017

2.2
Updated Guidance document on reporting for the Floods Directive
Task 2: Development of the reporting schemas and specification for
quality assurance procedures
This task will focus on defining the quality checks that will need to be included within the initial
design of the schemas. Similarly, there will need to be consultation during the development of
the guidance to ensure that the requirements for addressing any gaps and updating of the
schemas can be modelled.
The reporting schemas to be produced will be designed to reduce the reporting burden on
Member States (MS), facilitate the processing and extraction of information and facilitate the
assessment and comparison among MS on the implementation of the Directive, using best
practices and lessons learnt from the similar process carried out for the development of the
reporting schemas for the WFD.
2.2.1
Data modelling: development of reporting schemas
After initial drafts of the schemas (schema sketches) have been created and agreed at the
meeting in May, the initial design will be translated into a UML conceptual model. The tool to
be used for this is e.g. Enterprise Architect. The schemas developed will be aligned, as far as
possible, with the requirements of INSPIRE.
2.2.2
Specification for quality assurance procedures
A QA processes will be developed (similar to that developed under Reportnet for WFD and EPRTR) that generates instant messages as preliminary checks from which Member States are
advised of errors in the data reported.
During data modelling, the quality requirements that the data has to fulfil will be agreed. Some
of the requirements will be encoded as part of the data model and derived as simple type
constraints (“This field contains a Datetime”), value constraints (“the value for this date must
be in the range between 2016 and 2020”) or existence constraints (“This value may not be
null”). There will be additional quality constraints to these that will also need to be accounted
for.
4
Version of 20 March 2017
Task 2 Deliverables:
Specifications for automatic quality assurance routines.
Updated electronic schemas (UML model, XML and GML schemas).
2.3
Work programme
Table 2.1 below provides a summary of meetings, milestones and deliverables.
Table 2.1
Meetings
Meetings, Milestones and deliverables
Deliverables/milestones
Date
Start
Mid-February 2017
Discussion Document sent to SubWGF on R
10 March 2017
Sub-WGF on R – 1st Meeting
(Bucharest)
16-17 March 2017
Early draft of updated Guidance
document – basis for the extended
2nd meeting of the Sub-group on
Reporting
Sub-WGF on R – 2nd meeting, extended
& technical (Brussels)
Middle of May 2017
30-31 May 2017
First draft of updated Guidance
Middle to end of June 2017
Document sent to European
Commission/Sub-WGF on R for
written comment
Second draft of Guidance
Middle of August 2017
Document accounting for
Commission//Sub-WGF on R
comments
Sub-WGF on R – 3rd Meeting and
6 September 2017
possible Interim Meeting with the
European Commission (Brussels)
Final draft of updated Guidance
End of September 2017
Document, draft schemas and
specifications for automatic QA/QC
routines sent to Commission and
Sub-WGF on R
Sub-WGF on R – Final Meeting
(Estonia)
Agreement/finalisation of the
Guidance document, schemas and
specifications for automatic QA/QC
5
Week of 16-20 October 2017
(17 October 2017 TBC)
Version of 20 March 2017
Meetings
Deliverables/milestones
Date
routines
Finalised reporting tools provided
prior to CIS SCG Meeting
CIS SCG Meeting (Brussels)
End of October 2017
9-10 November 2017
Package of Reporting Tools sent to
WD
WD Meeting (Estonia)
End of November 2017
4-5 December 2017
Final draft of Package of Reporting
Tools with Commission
Final Meeting with Commission
January 2018
February 2018
Final Package of Tools
6
March 2018
Version of 20 March 2017
3.
Review of selected elements of original
guidance in light of lessons learned
3.1
Introduction
As part of the Task 1 review, all the schema elements will be evaluated in light of the lessons
learned from the first cycle of reporting and where appropriate, modifications will be proposed
which will be supported by concomitant modifications within the guidance document. For the
purpose of this discussion paper, some examples have been selected to illustrate how certain
schema elements might be changed to provide greater clarity and to facilitate the process of
future assessment of reporting. At this stage, these are examples only for further discussion.
3.2
PFRA/APSFR
3.2.1
Example 1 - Review ‘data not available’ option
One of the lessons learned from the first cycle for PFRA/APSFR related to situations where
information was not available or readily derivable for past floods that occurred before 22
December 2011. A shown in the schema sketch below taken from the User Guide1, summary
text with a description could be provided for each event. The detailed and structured data on
flood events specified in the schema included, source (mandatory), mechanism and
characteristics and adverse consequences of flooding. The location, data, duration and other
statistics of the flood events were also required.
1
Maidens, J., Mette, W. and Bastholm, A. (2013) A User Guide to the Floods Directive Reporting
Schemas. Report to the European Commission DG Environment – Technical Support in relation to
the implementation of the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC).
7
Version of 20 March 2017
As specified in the Reporting Guidance2 where data is not available or readily derivable for
past floods that occurred before the 22 nd of December 2011, summary text with a description
shall be provided for each event. A total of 18,153 historic flood events were reported: 15,660
with data on the flood event, 2,493 with no data. However, in many cases the textual
description of the flood event (which was required when the “no data” option was used)
contained the detail requested for each event. In terms of obtaining statistical information on
historic flood events at the EU level and the subsequent assessment reporting against the
requirements of the Floods Directive, it would have been more efficient if all flood event data
could have been reported using the structure and elements defined in the schema.
It was recommended that for any future reporting on flood events that the “no-data”
option is no longer used by MS and should be replaced by the structured information
requested in the schema: in most cases at least some of the required information
seems to be available.
Only a relatively simple adaptation to the Schema is required in this case with some additional
guidance text required for the revised reporting guidance.
3.2.2
Example 2 – Clarification on assessment of risk based on historical
floods
Article 4.2 of the Directive states that the assessment of potential flood risks should include 4:
2
European Commission (2013) Guidance Document No.29, A compilation of reporting sheets adopted
by Water Directors Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC)
8
Version of 20 March 2017

a description of the floods which have occurred in the past and which had significant
adverse impacts on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic
activity and for which the likelihood of similar future events is still relevant
(Article 4.2.b). This description was to be summarised by Member States in schema
element “PastAdverseConsequences”.

a description of the significant floods which have occurred in the past, where
significant adverse consequences of similar future events might be envisaged
(Article 4.2.c). This description was to be summarised in schema element
“SignificantAdverseConsequences”.

an assessment of the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human
health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity Article 4.2.d) taking
into account as far as possible issues such as topography, the position of the
watercourses and their general hydrological and geo-morphological characteristics,
including floodplains as natural retention areas, the effectiveness of existing manmade flood defence infrastructures, the position of populated areas, areas of
economic activity and long-term developments including impacts of climate change
on the occurrence of floods. This assessment was to be summarised in schema
element “PotentialAdverseConsequences”.
It became apparent during the assessment of the PFRAs that the meaning and the
differences between the first 2 bullet points (Article 4.2b and 4.2c) were not clear to those
reporting and also to those undertaking the checking and assessments of MS reports.
It was recommended that for any future reporting on these elements that a clear
understanding is reached as to what is meant by the respective Article and what is
expected to be reported for these elements.
Possible changes to the schema “PastAdverseConsequences” (see above) are shown below.
The example Schema sketch is in the format of the schema sketches used within the WFD
reporting guidance document. As mentioned in Section 2.1.4, the description of the schema
elements will be an important component of the guidance. The schema sketch includes: the
respective schema element name; the field type or facet of the element (such as string length,
up to a certain number of characters but restricted e.g. from 3 to 42, or an enumeration list,
closed questions yes/no/partial); some guidance regarding the schema element (for
example, whether it is required, conditional or optional, its multiplicity by means of the
minimum and maximum occurrence – minOccur and maxOccur, any related or supporting
information that should also be reported and the content of enumeration lists), and; a brief
description of any associated quality checks.
9
Version of 20 March 2017
Schema element: PastAdverseConsequences
Field type/facets/relationship: Yes/No (significant and still relevant) for each impact under an
Enumeration list (impact): human health, environment, cultural heritage, economic activity.
Enumeration list (conveyance routes): for example: River/stream channels, land drainage ditches,
roads/pathways, natural floodplain, etc.
Guidance on Completion of this element: Required: A description of floods which have
occurred in the past and which had significant adverse impact on human health, the environment,
cultural heritage and economic activity and for which the likelihood of similar future events is still
relevant, including their flood extent and conveyance routes and an assessment of the adverse
impacts they have entailed.
Quality Checks within Schema element check: significant adverse impact must be reported. A
valid option must be selected from each enumeration list. More than one option can be selected.
Quality Cross-Schema check: clearly distinguish between SignificantAdverseConsequences
schema.
Within the text of the revised reporting guidance document, a clear explanation of the
difference between the requirements of Article 4.2b and 4.2c will be provided to eliminate any
ambiguity.
3.3
FHRMs
3.3.1
Example 1 - Sources of flooding
The lessons learned from the reporting and assessment of the flood hazard and flood risk
mapping identified a number of recommendations for future reporting. One key finding was
the need to provide more clarity on the sources of flooding included within the national maps.
The FloodHazardMaps elements of the FHRM schema should contain the data related to the
content of the national maps that can be used with the visualisation of the maps at the
European scale on the WISE Floods Viewer. Member States (MS) should report the sources
of floods associated with the maps. However, this was not always the case with certain
Member States not reporting the source of floods for its maps. In another example, one MS
stated that only fluvial maps were being reported even though it subsequently became
apparent that the maps showed no specific sources and were for flooding in general (the
maps were produced from the assessment of all relevant sources - fluvial, pluvial, seawater
and floods from artificial water bearing infrastructure, in the mapped areas).
It was therefore recommended that the source(s) of flood associated with the reported
national maps should be clearly reported. Where maps depict combined sources of flood this
should be clearly indicated (by providing another option in the enumeration list within the
reporting schema) with the specific sources that have been assessed and combined in the
map.
10
Version of 20 March 2017
The schema sketch provided in the User Guide to the Floods Reporting Schemas is provided
below.
The enumeration list Values A11 to A17 refers to fluvial, pluvial, groundwater, sea water,
artificial water-bearing infrastructure, other (can include tsunamis) and no data available on
the source of flooding respectively. Therefore addition of “A12 specific maps” and “A13
Combined maps” with associated explanatory text provided within the schema and within the
text of the guidance document would provide a relatively straightforward solution.
3.3.2
Example 2 - Methods for calculating return periods and/or probabilities
of flooding
Member States were required to report summary information on the methods used in the
preparation of their maps (this was to be reported in the FHRM schema). This information was
used in the checking and assessment of methods and has been summarised in individual
Member State reports and compiled in an EU Overview Report. The assessment was
undertaken through answering questions provided in on-line templates and summarises were
provided as to whether the questions could be answered using the information reported by
Member States in the summary elements of the schema.
One particular question was: “How were return periods and/or probabilities of flooding
calculated, for example, what was the length of measurement series used in the
calculations?” Around 30% of Member States provided no information or the information was
unclear.
In this example, the use of an enumeration list would have facilitated clearer responses from
Member States. An outline of a revised schema sketch for this element is provided below
including such an enumeration list.
11
Version of 20 March 2017
Schema element: ReturnperiondandprobabiltiesApproach
Field type/facets/relationship: ReturnperiondandprobabiltiesApproach_Enum:
Expert judgement
Historical data
Statistical analysis
Modelling
Hydrological rainfall-runoff models
No information
Guidance on Completion of this element: Required: If ‘no information’ is selected justification
must be provided (see Section <> of this guidance).
Quality Checks within Schema element check: Approach must be reported. A valid option must be
selected from the enumeration list. More than one option can be selected.
3.3.3
Example 3 - Summary of methodologies
As stated above, Member States were required to report summary information on the methods used in
the preparation of their maps as reported in the FHRM schema (see below).
12
Version of 20 March 2017
As shown in the annotation section within the above schema, a summary is required (of less than
10,000 characters) of the methods used to identify, assess and calculate:

flooding extent (including resolution of digital terrain models);

flooding probabilities (including information as to why particular probabilities have been
selected) or return periods;

depths or water levels;

velocities or flows (where appropriate);

models used, datasets, uncertainties, if and if so how, climate change has been taking into
account in the mapping (article 6)

Resolution of models used for the presentation of hazard maps

Conveyance routes
Note that it is suggested adding Resolution of models (including both vertical resolution/accuracy and
horizontal resolution i.e. grid size) and Conveyance routes to this list which could also be included as
separate elements to be included in the flood hazard maps. It would perhaps be clearer to separate
each of these elements (the bullet points above) into separate schema elements with linkages to key
reference documents as illustrated below.
Schema element: methodsandmodelsapproachReference
Field type/facets/relationship: ReferenceType
Guidance on Completion of this element: Required. Provide references or hyperlinks to the
documents and sections where relevant information relating to the modelling approaches used to
produce the flood hazard maps can be found. Guidance on what should be included in this
document is provided in Section <> of this guidance document.
3.4
Flood Risk Management Plans
One of the key recommendations from the lessons learned in previous phases of Floods Directive
reporting has been to move away from the use of ‘Summary text’ and replace it with a series of specific
reporting requirements with enumeration lists. ‘Summary text’ reporting has been used extensively in
the first cycle reporting of the FRMPs and while the effectiveness of this reporting has yet to be tested
in a full assessment exercise (this is planned for 2017).
As an example, the reporting of information on ‘Objectives (Article 7(2).’ The current summary text
reporting is as follows:
13
Version of 20 March 2017
A summary (< 20.000 characters) of the objectives referred to under Article 7(2), including a
description of how the objectives relate to impacts on human health, the environment, cultural
heritage and economic activity, the process for developing objectives and selecting and
prioritising measures to achieve the stated objectives. (Article 7(2), Annex Part A.I.3
A selection of some draft assessment questions with their expected type of response are summarised
in the Table 3.1 below also with an indication of the possible implications for future reporting.
14
Version of 20 March 2017
Table 3.1
Examples of draft assessment questions and sub-questions for
Objectives with the types of response expected and possible implications for future
reporting
Type of response
Assessment questions and subquestions (draft)
Implications for
future
reporting
Y/N (Count) by target area
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
Y/N
Have objectives been established for the
Y/N (Count) by target area
Y/N
management of flood risk (Article 7.2) for
areas covered by Article 13.1.b?
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
Have objectives been established for the
management of flood risk (Article 7.2) for
identified areas of potential significant flood
risk (Article 5.1)?
Have objectives been established to
reduce the adverse consequences of
flooding?
Y/N (Count) by target area
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
Y/N
If yes, generally, are objectives specific and
measurable?
Y/N
If yes, at which level have they been
Text
Enumeration list
Y/N (Count) by target area
Y/N
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
for all sub-
[for all sub-questions]
questions]
established?
Have objectives been established in terms
of type of consequence?
Reduction in number of fatalities
Reduction in the number of dwellings
flooded
Reduction of the adverse consequences on
human health
Reduction of the adverse consequences on
cultural heritage
Reduction of the adverse consequences on
the environment
Reduction of the adverse consequences on
economic activity
Reduction of any other adverse
Y/N
consequences
If yes, generally, are objectives specific and
Text
measurable?
If yes, at which level have they been
established?
15
Enumeration list
Version of 20 March 2017
Type of response
Assessment questions and subquestions (draft)
Implications for
future
reporting
Have objectives been established in terms
Y/N (Count) by target area
Y/N [for all sub-
of reducing the likelihood of flooding?
(UoM/RBD/APSFR) [for all
sub-questions]
questions]
such as planned increase/improvement in
natural water retention
through land use and spatial planning
through climate change mitigation policies
at national level
through removal or relocation of sensitive
receptors from flood prone areas
Other
If yes, generally, are objectives specific and
measurable?
Y/N
If yes, at which level have they been
established?
Text
Enumeration list
Have objectives been established in terms
of prevention?
Y/N (Count) by target area
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
Y/N
If yes, generally, are objectives specific and
measurable?
Y/N
If yes, at which level have they been
established?
Text
Enumeration list
Y/N (Count) by target area
Y/N
Have objectives been established in terms
of protection?
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
If yes, generally, are objectives specific and
Y/N
measurable?
If yes, at which level have they been
established?
Text
Enumeration list
Have objectives been established in terms
of degree of preparedness?
Y/N (Count) by target area
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
Y/N
If yes, generally, are objectives specific and
Y/N
measurable?
If yes, at which level have they been
Text
Enumeration list
Have objectives been established in terms
of recovery and review?
Y/N (Count) by target area
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
Y/N
If yes, generally, are objectives specific and
Y/N
established?
16
Version of 20 March 2017
Type of response
Assessment questions and subquestions (draft)
Implications for
future
reporting
measurable?
If yes, at which level have they been
established?
Text
Enumeration list
The majority of the potential implications for future reporting are for the inclusion of Y/N options with
associated enumeration lists for the level at which Objectives have been established and for the groups
of stakeholders that could have been consulted about the FRMPs.
The possible enumeration list for levels could include:

Member State

UoM

Risk Areas
The possible enumeration list for stakeholders could include:

Civil Protection Authorities

Flood Warning/ Defence Authorities

Drainage Authorities

Emergency services

Water supply and sanitation

Agriculture/farmers

Energy/hydropower

Navigation/ports

Fisheries/aquaculture

Industry

NGO's /nature protection

Consumer Groups

Local/Regional authorities

Academia/Research Institutions

Other
17
Version of 20 March 2017
The process for the review of each element could proceed in a similar fashion.
18
Version of 20 March 2017
4.
Data needs
4.1
What information is required and how will it be used by the
Commission?
A key role of the Commission is to check compliance with EU legislation. The Commission
uses the information provided by Member States to carry out a compliance assessment and
to ensure that the Floods Directive is being applied consistently throughout the EU.
In order to be able to undertake compliance checking, the European Commission requires
information that enables it to:

Ensure data are plausible;

Ensure data are consistent;

Conduct cross-references and cross-checks on data (especially in International River
Basins); and,

Ensure Directives have been implemented in a comparable way.
The Commission also seeks information on the state of the environment and trends including
on flooding (usually in cooperation with EEA), and on implementation of measures and
objectives set to allow it to determine whether existing policies are adequately protecting the
environment and European citizens and could play a role in relation to assessment on
whether funds are adequately distributed. It also requires certain information at European
level to create a European-wide picture to inform the public.
Three main questions usually relate to the reported data and information:

Are the reports complete (provision of mandatory fields) and clear (values in code lists
correct and numeric/character values in correct minimum/maximum ranges)?

Are the reports understandable (sense check)?

Are the reports compliant
o
with regard to key issues (compliance checking) involving for some issues the
use of appropriate indicators?
o
after in-depth assessment?
In addition, there are other potential users of information related to the implementation of the
Floods Directive, such as JRC, the EEA, DG ECHO and DG REGIO. As outlined in the
concept paper on reporting, information for other uses may be asked for, with the consent
19
Version of 20 March 2017
from the Member States, going beyond compliance checking purposes for the Floods
Directive. With a view of streamlining reporting on, for instance, State of the Environment
reports by the European Environment Agency with reporting for the Floods Directive, some
additional optional information may be asked for.
Further, it is clear from the questionnaire based report on Flood Risk Management in the EU
between 2009 and 2015 that the Member States (and consequently the EU) have developed
substantial experience in flood risk management. Through the CIS process (cf WGF work
program 2016-18) and other processes (e.g. the Disaster Risk Management Knowledge
Centre, the Community of Users), the Commission sets out to:
improve the knowledge base on flood risk management in particular and disaster risk
management in general;
-
facilitate the sharing of knowledge, good practice and information;
-
coordinate and support flood risk management in Member States.
In addition, a number of major policy developments have recently taken place at European
and global level, which reinforce the policy importance of improving our understanding of flood
risk management in the EU and in MSs:
-
The European Commission is contributing to the implementation of the UN Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction by providing a better understanding of disaster risks
in its geographical region and contributing to a disaster risk informed approach in the EU. For
the implementation of the Sendai framework set out in a 'Sendai Action Plan' , the European
Commission aims to build disaster risk knowledge across all EU policies;
-
By reinforcing policies fostering a risk management approach, the European
Commission is contributing to the implementation of other global agreements such as the
Paris Agreement on climate change, the New Urban Agenda and the overarching 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development;
-
Disaster resilience and disaster risk management aspects are both underlined as
critical to poverty reduction and enablers of sustainable development in the EU's strategy for
implementing the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and meeting the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
4.2
Products from reported data and information developed to date
The Commission has developed a number of products using the data and information
provided by the Member States (Table 4.1). Further products will be developed as a result of
the assessment of the information provided on the flood risk management plans. These
20
Version of 20 March 2017
products are contained within the reports produced by the Commission, and also in WISE
hosted by the EEA. The table below identifies the products developed as a result of the
reporting on Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) and Identification of Areas of
Potentially Significant Flood Risk (APSFR), and on flood risk mapping.
The content of the reports on the flood risk management plans is still being developed. The
table below will be amended once this work is complete.
21
Version of 20 March 2017
Table 4.1
No.
Name of Product
Type of
Product
Scale of
information
1
The application of
Article 4, 13.1(a)
Map
EU/MS
and 13.1(b) of the
Floods Directive
2
Overview of the
application of the
different Articles
Table
MS/UoM
Products developed from information provided to date
Detail of information displayed
Aggregation rule
Source of information
The application of Article 4,
13.1(a) and 13.1(b) of the Floods
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
Directive in the Units of
Management of Member States
UoM level
MS; Article Applied; Units of
Management; Type of Flood
where a distinction is made
No aggregation
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
Column chart showing the
number of Member States for
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
which each source of flooding
(Fluvial, Pluvial, Groundwater,
UoM level
relating to the
(Source, Mechanism,
assessment of
Flood Risk under
Characteristic as specified by the
Member State) ; Identification of
the Floods Directive
instances where no specific flood
types were reported and it is
assumed that the relevant Article
is applied to all flood types
3
Sources of flooding
reported at the
Article level
Graph
EU
Seawater, Artificial Water Bearing
Infrastructure, Other, and No Data
Available)
22
Version of 20 March 2017
4
Number of reported
historic flood events
Graph
MS
by Member States
Bar chart showing the number of
historic flood events reported by
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
MS, and indicating the number
UoM level
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
where information on the type and
consequences of flooding is
available, and is not available,
5
Time periods of
reported historic
Graph
EU
flood events
Bar chart showing the number of
flood events that have occurred in
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
the EU in time periods: Before
1800; 1800s; 1900-1949; 1950-
UoM level
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
1999; 2000 onwards
6
Source-
Graph
EU
characteristicmechanism of
Bar chart showing the sources,
Aggregation on the basis of
Report on PFRA &
mechanisms and characteristics
of historic flood events
the information reported at
UoM level
APFSR
Bar chart showing the sources,
mechanisms and characteristics
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
of future flood events
UoM level
historic flood events
7
Sourcecharacteristicmechanism of
Graph
EU
potential future flood
events
23
Version of 20 March 2017
8
Summary of the
sources of floods
Table
MS
A table showing the sources of
floods considered in the
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
considered in the
assessment of flood risk. It
UoM level
assessment of flood
risk
identifies for each type of flood
risk whether it has been: included;
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
it is not considered as significant;
excluded; not yet included; no
information/not clear. 17 sources
of flood are included.
9
Criteria used to
define historical
Table
MS
A table providing textual
information on the criteria used to
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
significant floods
and the reasons for
define historical significant floods
and the reasons for not including
UoM level
not including some
types of flood that
some types of flood that occurred
in the past
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
occurred in the past
10
Methods and criteria
Table
MS
A table providing textual
Aggregation on the basis of
Report on PFRA &
used to identify
potentially
information on the methods and
criteria used to identify potentially
the information reported at
UoM level
APFSR
significant future
floods and the
significant future floods and the
reasons for not including some
reasons for not
including some
types of potential future floods
types of potential
future floods
24
Version of 20 March 2017
11
Types of flood
considered but
Table
MS
Table showing for each MS which
types for flood have been:
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
assessed as not
assessed as being significant;
UoM level
being significant,
and the reasons
assessed as not being significant;
where no information / not clear;
given for that
assessment
the type of flooding is not
applicable for the whole MS;
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
where the type of flooding is not
yet considered (Article 13.1 (b)
applied). Summary text for the
reasons provided for that
assessment is included.
12
Types of flood that
were not considered
at all, and why
Table
MS
Table showing for each MS which
types of flood have not
considered at all, have partially
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
UoM level
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
A bar chart showing the adverse
consequences of historic flood
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
events
UoM level
not been considered at all, where
it is not clear whether they have
not been considered at all, or
where consideration is not
required (Article 13.1 (b) applied).
Summary text providing an
explanation is included.
13
Adverse
consequences of
historic flood events
Graph
EU
25
Version of 20 March 2017
14
Adverse
consequences of
Graph
EU
A bar chart showing the adverse
consequences of potential future
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
flood events
UoM level
A textual table summarising the
main criteria used by each MS to
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
main criteria used to
define an adverse
define an adverse consequence.
The table shows where
UoM level
consequence
information is not reported, where
expert judgement/qualitative
potential future flood
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
events
15
Summarising
overview of the
Table
MS
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
criteria have been used or where
quantitative criteria are used. In
the latter two cases a short
summary of the approach used is
provided.
16
Summarising
overview of the
Table
MS
A textual table summarising by
MS where: no adverse
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
consequences
excluded and the
consequences are excluded,
adverse consequences are
UoM level
reasons why
excluded and the reasons for
exclusion. It is also shown where
no data was provided.
26
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
Version of 20 March 2017
17
Summarising
overview of the
Table
MS
Textual table showing, by MS,
whether the methods used to
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
methods used to
identify and quantify potential
UoM level
identify and quantify
potential future
future adverse consequences and
impacts were expert
adverse
consequences and
judgement/qualitative or
quantitative methods and
impacts
summarising these methods
used. It is also shown where no
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
methods were reported.
18
19
Summary of the
Table
MS
Table illustrating whether MS
Aggregation on the basis of
Report on PFRA &
long term
developments
have considered climate change,
development of settlements,
the information reported at
UoM level
APFSR
considered by
Member States in
development of infrastructure
and/or socio-economic
the assessment of
flood risk
developments in the assessment
of flood risk
Column chart showing the
number of international UoMs per
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
MS
UoM level
Textual table showing different
mechanisms of international co-
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
coordination for
addressing flood
ordination, the MSs that
participate in each type of
UoM level
risk management in
mechanism and the number of
international UoMs
UoMs within that MS to which the
mechanism applies.
Number of
international UoMs
Graph
MS
per MS
20
Mechanisms of
international
Table
MS
27
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
Version of 20 March 2017
21
Number of reported
Areas of Potential
Graph
MS
Bar chart showing the number of
reported Areas of Potential
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Significant Flood Risk
UoM level
Bar chart showing the sourcecharacteristic-mechanism of
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
floods associated with Areas of
Potential Significant Flood Risk
UoM level
Bar chart showing the potential
Aggregation on the basis of
Report on PFRA &
consequences of
floods associated
adverse consequences of floods
associated with Areas of Potential
the information reported at
UoM level
APFSR
with Areas of
Potential Significant
Significant Flood Risk
Significant Flood
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
Risk
22
Sourcecharacteristic-
Graph
EU
mechanism of
floods associated
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
with Areas of
Potential Significant
Flood Risk
23
Potential adverse
Graph
EU
Flood Risk
28
Version of 20 March 2017
24
Comparison of
source of historic
Table
MS
Table showing for each MS
whether the source of flood risk
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
floods reported and
was: reported as a historic flood
UoM level
the flood sources
associated with
and associated with APSFR; NOT
reported as a historic flood or as
Areas of Potential
Significant Flood
being associated with APSFR;
reported as a historic flood but not
Risk
as being associated with APSFR;
or reported as being associated
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
with APSFR but not as a historic
flood
25
26
Summary of
consequences that
Graph
MS
Bar chart showing the percentage
of reported APSFRs in a MS
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
were reported as
being not applicable
where health, environmental,
cultural and economic
UoM level
to Areas of Potential
Significant Flood
consequences were considered
(or at least reported) to be not
Risk
applicable
Overview of the
Table
MS
Report on PFRA &
APFSR
Textual table showing the number
Aggregation on the basis of
Report on PFRA &
reported number of
the Areas of
of APSFRs in each MS by the
different sources, mechanisms
the information reported at
UoM level
APFSR
Potential Significant
Flood Risk from
and characteristics defined in the
MS,
different types of
flood
29
Version of 20 March 2017
27
Comparison of the
APSFR codes
Table
MS
Comparison of the APSFR
reported under Article 5 and
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
reported in the
associated with the application of
UoM level
preparation of Flood
APSFR schema,
LinksToMS schema
Articles 4 and 13.1.a (APSFR
schema), in the links to national
and the FHRM
schema
maps schema (LinkToMS
schema) and the Flood Hazard
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Risk Maps schema (FHRM
schema)
28
Table showing for each source of
flooding whether it has been
•
Data reported to
WISE in the FHRM schema
Report on
methodologies used in
for which flood
maps have been
shown on a FHRM for each UoM,
a Specific map or a Combined
at UoM level on the sources
of floods included in flood
preparation of Flood
Hazard and Flood Risk
prepared by
Member States
map
hazard and flood risk maps;
Maps
Summary of
sources of flooding
Table
MS
•
Sources described
in the methodological
summary information
reported in the FHRM
schema at UoM level; and,
•
Flood sources
found on the checked
examples of maps on
national servers accessed
via links reported in the
LinkToMS schema.
30
Version of 20 March 2017
29
30
Summary of
scenarios mapped
Table
MS
Summarises the numeric values
of the probabilities used by
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
for fluvial flooding
Member States for each of the
UoM level
preparation of Flood
with associated
expressions of
scenarios mapped for fluvial
flooding. Allows for variation in
probabilities
the UoMs.
Number of Member
States applying
Graph
EU
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Bar chart showing number of
Member States applying different
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
different expression
of probabilities
expression of probabilities (return
periods in years and percentage
UoM level
preparation of Flood
Hazard and Flood Risk
(return periods in
probability of occurrence) for the
years and
percentage
different probability scenarios for
fluvial flooding
Maps
probability of
occurrence) for the
different probability
scenarios for fluvial
flooding
31
Elements included
in the hazard maps
of fluvial flooding
Table
MS
Table showing the scenarios
Aggregation on the basis of
Report on
specified in Art 6(4) of the Floods
Directive, and which MSs have
the information reported at
UoM level
methodologies used in
preparation of Flood
included them in flood risk maps,
or not
31
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Version of 20 March 2017
32
33
Number of Member
States including the
Graph
EU
Bar chart showing the scenarios
specified in Art 6(4) of the Floods
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
different elements in
Directive, and the number of MSs
UoM level
preparation of Flood
their hazard maps
for fluvial flooding
that have included them in flood
risk maps.
Summary of
approaches used in
the calculation of
Table
MS
Summary table identifying which
MSs have used Expert
judgement, Historical data,
return periods and
probabilities for
Statistical analysis, Modelling,
Hydrological rainfall-runoff models
fluvial floods
and Hydrological studies in the
calculation of return periods and
probabilities for fluvial floods. It
also shows which MSs provided
no information.
32
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
UoM level
Report on
methodologies used in
preparation of Flood
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Version of 20 March 2017
34
Main approaches
and considerations
Table
MS
Summary table identifying the
approach MSs have used to
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
for determination of
determine the scale of maps
UoM level
preparation of Flood
the scale of maps
created. The approaches detailed
in the table are: maps zoom-able
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
from national to street level; to
raise public awareness; for
overview of flooding; for spatial
planning; minimal accuracy
specified in Regulations. The
table also shows where no
information on this aspect
reported to WISE, not reported
and fluvial floods are not mapped
35
Summary of the
scales of flood
maps prepared by
Table
MS
Summary of the scales of flood
maps prepared by Member States
Derived from examples of
national maps accessed by
the links provided by
Report on
methodologies used in
preparation of Flood
Member States in the
Hazard and Flood Risk
LinkToMS schema
Maps
Summarises the horizontal and
vertical resolution of the maps
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
used for the
preparation of
and DEMs reported by Member
States as being used in preparing
UoM level
preparation of Flood
Hazard and Flood Risk
hazard maps from
their hazard maps for fluvial
fluvial floods
flooding
Member States
36
Summary of
resolution of models
Table
MS
33
Maps
Version of 20 March 2017
37
Summary of
Member States
Table
MS
Summarises the reported
information on if, and how, flood
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
where existing flood
defences have been taken into
UoM level
preparation of Flood
defences were
taken into account
account by Member States in
preparing flood hazard and flood
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
risk maps
38
Summary of
Member States
Table
MS
Summarises the reported
information on whether such
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
where existing
infrastructure or
infrastructure and buildings have
been taken into account in the
UoM level
preparation of Flood
Hazard and Flood Risk
buildings were
preparation of hazard maps for
taken into account
in the mapping of
fluvial flooding.
Maps
fluvial floods
39
Summary of
scenarios mapped
Table
MS
Summarises the probabilities
used by Member States (note that
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
for pluvial flooding
there may be differences between
UoM level
preparation of Flood
with associated
expressions of
UoMs within the Member State)
for each of the scenarios mapped
probabilities
for pluvial flooding
34
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Version of 20 March 2017
40
Number of Member
States applying
Graph
EU
Bar chart showing the number of
Member States applying different
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
different
expressions of probabilities for
UoM level
preparation of Flood
expressions of
probabilities for the
the three probability scenarios for
pluvial flooding
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
three probability
scenarios for pluvial
flooding
41
Elements included
in the hazard maps
Table
MS
Summarises by MS the hazard
elements for each of the mapped
Reported methodological
information at UoM level
Report on
methodologies used in
flooding scenarios for pluvial
and also from a qualitative
preparation of Flood
flooding.
check of a sub-sample of
the Member States’ maps
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Bar chart summarising the
Number of Member States
including the different elements in
Reported methodological
information at UoM level
and also from a qualitative
Report on
methodologies used in
preparation of Flood
their hazard maps
their hazard maps for pluvial
check of a sub-sample of
Hazard and Flood Risk
for pluvial flooding
flooding
the Member States’ maps
Maps
Summarises the probabilities
used by Member States for each
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
of the scenarios mapped for sea
water flooding
UoM level
preparation of Flood
Hazard and Flood Risk
of pluvial flooding
42
43
Number of Member
States including the
different elements in
Summary of
scenarios mapped
for sea water
flooding with
Graph
Table
EU
MS
associated
expressions of
Maps
probabilities
35
Version of 20 March 2017
44
Number of Member
States applying
Graph
EU
Bar chart showing the number of
Member States applying different
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
different
expressions of probabilities for
UoM level
preparation of Flood
expressions of
probabilities for the
the three different probability
scenarios for sea water flooding
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
three different
probability
scenarios for sea
water flooding
45
Elements included
in the hazard maps
Table
MS
Summarises by Member State the
hazard elements for each of the
Reported methodological
information at UoM level
Report on
methodologies used in
mapped scenarios for sea water
flooding (either specifically or in
and also from a qualitative
check of a sub-sample of
preparation of Flood
Hazard and Flood Risk
combination with other sources).
the Member States’ maps
Maps
Bar chart showing the number of
Member States including the
Reported methodological
information at UoM level
Report on
methodologies used in
different elements in
different elements in their hazard
and also from a qualitative
preparation of Flood
their hazard maps
for sea water
maps for sea water flooding
check of a sub-sample of
the Member States’ maps
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Summarises the horizontal and
vertical resolution of the maps
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
used for the
preparation of
and DEMs reported by MSs as
being used in preparing their
UoM level
preparation of Flood
Hazard and Flood Risk
hazard maps for
hazard maps for sea water
sea water floods
flooding
of sea water
flooding
46
Number of Member
States including the
Graph
EU
flooding
47
Summary of
resolution of models
Table
MS
36
Maps
Version of 20 March 2017
48
Summary of
scenarios mapped
Table
MS
Summarises the probabilities
used by Member States for each
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
for groundwater
of the scenarios mapped for
UoM level
preparation of Flood
flooding with
associated
groundwater flooding
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
expressions of
probabilities
49
Approaches used in
mapping floods from
artificial water
Table
MS
Summarises the approaches
used in mapping floods from
artificial water bearing
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
UoM level
Report on
methodologies used in
preparation of Flood
bearing
infrastructure. Identifies whether
Hazard and Flood Risk
infrastructure
the following is included: Source;
Flood Extent; Water Depth/Level
Maps
and Water Flow Velocities
50
Overview of
elements used in
Graph
EU
mapping the
Summarises the hazard elements
used in hazard maps for different
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
sources of flooding
UoM level
preparation of Flood
hazards from
different sources of
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
flooding
51
Number of
inhabitants
Graph
MS
Bar chart showing the number of
inhabitants potentially affected by
Calculated from the values
provided by Member States
Report on
methodologies used in
medium probability fluvial floods
at Member State level
(in the FHRM schema
uploaded to WISE) at UoM
preparation of Flood
Hazard and Flood Risk
probability fluvial
level with the maps that are
Maps
floods at Member
State level
to be visualised on a
European scale flood map.
potentially affected
by medium
37
Version of 20 March 2017
52
Minimum, average
and maximum
Table
MS
Data table showing the minimum,
average and maximum number of
Calculated from the values
provided by Member States
Report on
methodologies used in
number of
potentially affected inhabitants
(in the FHRM schema
preparation of Flood
potentially affected
inhabitants across
across the APSFR or Units of
Management in Member States
uploaded to WISE) at UoM
level with the maps that are
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
the APSFR or Units
of Management in
from medium probability fluvial
floods
to be visualised on a
European scale flood map.
Data table showing the Number of
Aggregation on the basis of
Report on
management within
a Member State
units of management within a
Member State where the potential
the information reported at
UoM level
methodologies used in
preparation of Flood
where the potential
adverse
adverse consequences on
economic activity have been
consequences on
economic activity
included in mapping the risk from
medium probability floods.
have been included
Categories are: Property,
in mapping the risk
from medium
Infrastructure, Rural Land Use,
Economic Activity,
Other
probability floods
(all sources
economic
Member States from
medium probability
fluvial floods
53
Number of units of
Table
MS
considered).
38
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Version of 20 March 2017
54
Number of IED
installations
Table
MS
Summarises the number of
IED/IPPC installations reported by
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
reported by Member
Member States to represent a
UoM level
preparation of Flood
States to be
affected by low and
potential source of pollution from
medium and low probability floods
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
medium probability
fluvial floods
55
Number of units of
management within
Member States
Table
MS
Number of units of management
within Member States where the
potential adverse consequences
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
UoM level
Report on
methodologies used in
preparation of Flood
where the potential
on the environment (Water Body
Hazard and Flood Risk
adverse
consequences on
Status, Protected Areas, Pollution
Sources, Other environment)
Maps
the environment
have been included
have been included in the
mapping of the risk from medium
in the mapping of
the risk from
probability floods
medium probability
floods (all sources
considered)
39
Version of 20 March 2017
56
Number of units of
management within
Table
MS
Number of units of management
within Member States where the
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
Member States
potential adverse consequences
UoM level
preparation of Flood
where the potential
adverse
on the environment (Water Body
Status, Protected Areas, Pollution
consequences on
the environment
Sources, Other environment)
have been included in the
have been included
in the mapping of
mapping of the risk from low
probability floods
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
the risk from low
probability floods
(all sources
considered)
57
Number of units of
management within
Table
MS
Number of units of management
within Member States where
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
Member States
where there are
there are reported potential
adverse consequences on the
UoM level
preparation of Flood
Hazard and Flood Risk
reported potential
different types of Protected Areas
adverse
consequences on
(Article 7 Abstraction for drinking
water, Bathing, Birds, Habitats,
the different types of
Protected Areas
Nitrates, UWWT, European
Other, WFD Water Body status,
from medium
probability fluvial
National, Local) from medium
probability fluvial floods
floods
40
Maps
Version of 20 March 2017
58
Number of units of
management within
Table
MS
Number of units of management
within a Member States where the
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
a Member States
potential adverse consequences
UoM level
preparation of Flood
where the potential
adverse
on cultural heritage (Cultural
Heritage (generic); Cultural
consequences on
cultural heritage
Assets; Landscape; Other cultural
heritage) have been reported with
have been reported
with medium
medium probability flood maps
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
probability flood
maps
59
Summary of
justifications
Table
MS
reported by Member
States for the use of
Table summarising the
justifications reported by Member
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
States for the use of Article 6.6 by
justification
UoM level
preparation of Flood
Hazard and Flood Risk
Article 6.6
60
Summary of
Maps
Table
MS
Table summarising the
Aggregation on the basis of
Report on
justifications
reported by Member
justifications reported by Member
States for the use of Article 6.7 by
the information reported at
UoM level
methodologies used in
preparation of Flood
States for the use of
Article 6.7
justification
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
41
Version of 20 March 2017
61
Summary of the
prior exchange of
Table
MS
Table showing the number of
national river basins shared with
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
information on the
another Member State and the
UoM level
preparation of Flood
preparation of flood
maps between
number where information was
exchanged
Member States
sharing flood risk
areas
42
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Version of 20 March 2017
62
Summary of
Member States who
Table
MS
Table showing how the MSs took
climate change into account in the
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
took climate change
preparation of flood risk maps.
UoM level
preparation of Flood
into account in their
preparation of flood
Includes: climate change has
been taken into account in
hazard and flood
risk maps
preparing maps; Climate change
trend scenarios have been
obtained from international
research programmes; Climate
change trend scenarios have
been obtained from the national
research programmes; Flood
hazard scenarios are based on
modelling of changes in flood
hazard in relation to climate
change; Flood hazard scenarios
included trend analysis of
historical data of hydrological and
meteorological observations;
Flood hazard scenarios included
a statistical assessment of
historical climate data
43
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Version of 20 March 2017
63
Overview of the
types of flood
Table
MS
Table showing the number of
UoMs within the Member States
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
associated with
where the type of flood has been
UoM level
preparation of Flood
Areas of Potential
Significant Flood
associated with APSFR identified
under Article 5
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Risk identified under
Article 5 of the
Floods Directive
64
Summary of
methodologies used
Table
MS
Textual table giving a summary of
the methodologies used to assess
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
to assess the
the potential adverse
UoM level
preparation of Flood
potential adverse
consequences to
consequences to human health
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
human health
65
Summary of
methodologies and
Table
MS
Textual table giving a summary of
methodologies and economic
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
economic aspects
aspects used to assess the
UoM level
preparation of Flood
used to assess the
potential adverse
potential adverse consequences
to economic activity
consequences to
economic activity
44
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Version of 20 March 2017
66
Summary of
methodologies used
Table
MS
Textual table giving a summary of
methodologies used to assess the
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
to assess the
potential adverse consequences
UoM level
preparation of Flood
potential adverse
consequences on
on industrial installations
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
industrial
installations
67
Summary of
methodologies and
approaches used to
Table
MS
Textual table giving a summary of
methodologies and approaches
used to assess the potential
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
UoM level
Report on
methodologies used in
preparation of Flood
assess the potential
adverse consequences on
Hazard and Flood Risk
adverse
consequences on
Protected Areas
Maps
Protected Areas
68
Summary of
methodologies used
Table
MS
Textual table giving a summary of
methodologies used to assess the
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Report on
methodologies used in
to assess the
potential adverse consequences
UoM level
preparation of Flood
potential adverse
consequences on
on cultural heritage and other
potential receptors
cultural heritage and
other potential
receptors
45
Hazard and Flood Risk
Maps
Version of 20 March 2017
69
Summary of
administrative
Table
MS
arrangements
Table showing the administrative
arrangements in each MS for the
Aggregation on the basis of
the information reported at
Cited and updated in
the EU Overview report
implementation of the FD and
UoM level
on PFRAs.
GIS layer including all
UoMs
Basis for WISE map
viewer which is
identifying where the same CAs
are used for the implementation
of the WFD
68
Spatial reference
layer of UoMs
GIS layer
UoM
Mapping of all UoMs
currently being updated
69
Spatial reference
GIS layer
UoM
Mapping of all CAs
GIS layer including all CAs
layer of Competent
Authorities
Basis for WISE map
viewer which is
currently being updated
1. Notes: The first reports on the application of PFRA & APFSR and Flood Risk Maps included tables on the use of Article 13 transition
arrangements. These have been omitted from this table as they will not apply after 2018.
2. The first report on PFRA and APFSR also included a section relating to the specific application of the Directive in two Member
States. The tables and maps included there have been omitted from this table.
46
Version of 20 March 2017
4.3
What information has been previously collected and not used?
The Reporting Guidance identified spatial data that should be reported to enable to include
information on the Floods Directive map viewer. Whilst some spatial data requirements are
yet to be implemented (see Table 4.2) it should be noted that work is currently in progress to
update the map viewer.
Table 4.2
Spatial data requirements that have not yet been implemented in the map
viewer
Spatial Data Requested
Reporting
Obligation
PFRA
Maps of the river basin district or unit of management at the appropriate scale including
the borders of the river basins, sub-basins and, where existing, coastal areas, showing
topography and land use (NB: Most of this information should already be available in
WISE, and additional information shall be made available via WISE to complete the
information.)
PFRA
Location of past significant floods or where potential future significant floods could
occur (the format of how information can be provided is flexible, such as by simple x/y
coordinates, or the geographic location of an urban area or other area affected by the
flood (i.e. not precisely define a flood location, but provide a general location (e.g.
centroid) of the town or other area that was flooded, or stretches of rivers /coastal
areas, recognising that not all Member States may have available or readily derivable
geo-referenced information on all past floods in electronic format)
APSFR
Maps of the entire territory of each RBD or Unit of Management, indicating which of the
following options that have been applied for areas that:
– Have been assessed for potential flood risk in accordance with Article 4 and 5, or,
– Have been subject to an assessment and identified as an APSFR in accordance with
Article 13.1(a), or,
– Where, in accordance with Article 13.1(b), a decision has been taken to undertake
flood mapping and to prepare a flood risk management plan, in accordance with
Chapters III and IV, without undertaking any such assessment.
APSFR
Maps of RBD/UoM indicating areas with potential significant flood risk. (APSFR can be
indicated as entire or stretches of river/coastal areas, areas, polygons, entire river
basins. When presented to the public in WISE, it will be presented in a transparent
manner together with the information reported above, on the possible use of Article
13.1(b)).
47
Version of 20 March 2017
A more detailed exercise will be carried out in the coming weeks to analyse in detail, which
schema elements have not been used in the assessment of reporting, or in the production of
any maps, tables and graphs to support the assessment, and for other EU purposes.
4.4
Additional information that could have been included to enhance the
first assessment
As identified in Section 3, following the assessment of information reported by the Member
States, lessons learned have been identified, inter alia, issues that have arisen due to
inconsistencies in the data (dealt with in Section 3 of this document) and where the provision
of additional data would have facilitated the assessment. Those areas where the provision of
additional data would have enhanced the assessment are summarised in the sections below.
It should be noted, that the assessment of the information provided on the FRMPs will begin
in the coming weeks, and that further information needs are likely to arise as a result of that
assessment. A similar, lessons learned report will be prepared and taken account of in future
work on the Reporting Guidance. Note that some of the additional information identified below
particularly in relation to representation of sources of flooding within flood hazard mapping
has already been covered in some of the examples provided in Section 3 of this document.
4.4.1
PFRA and APSFR
Explicit reporting of what Member States did not include under the
requirements of the Floods Directive
It was often not clear as to which types of flood were excluded by the MSs from the scope of
the Directive and hence not included in the preliminary assessment of flood risk. Some
Member States considered that all types of relevant floods should be included, whereas
others have not, but without any explanation of why. For example, floods from sewerage
systems are excluded from the requirements of the Floods Directive. Seven Member States
explicitly stated that flooding from sewerage systems was excluded. It was not clear whether
the other Member States have excluded this source or not. Information on which types of
flood were excluded and why certain flood types have been excluded should be requested
directly from Member States.
Member States were required to report on the sources of flooding associated with potential
future flood events and also with the identified Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk
(APSFR). In addition, the mechanisms and characteristics of flooding could be reported on a
voluntary basis. Of the 10,274 future flood events reported (from 11 MS) 0.1% were reported
without a source of flooding, 12% without a mechanism and 16% without a characteristic of
flooding. In terms of the 4830 APSFR reported from 22 MS, 0.2% were reported without a
source of flooding, 11% without a mechanism and 14% without a characteristic of flooding. As
information on all 3 aspects of flood types would be required in terms of managing flood risk it
48
Version of 20 March 2017
is recommended that for any further reporting on potential future flood and ASPFR that all 3
aspects are made mandatory.
Explicit reporting of what was not assessed in the Preliminary Flood
Risk Assessment
Article 4 requires the assessment of certain aspects when undertaking a Preliminary Flood
Risk Assessment based on available or readily derivable information. The majority of these
aspects were considered in the majority of Member States reporting on a Preliminary Flood
Risk Assessment. The aspects most commonly not considered included the effectiveness of
man-made flood defences (8 Member States); conveyance routes of historical floods (5
Member States); geomorphological characteristics (5 Member States); and areas of economic
activity (5 Member States). The reasons for the exclusion of particular aspects were often not
reported or made clear. It is recommended that reasons for exclusion of any aspect is fully
explained in any subsequent reporting under the Floods Directive.
Reporting of methodologies used in the Preliminary Flood Risk
Assessment and identification of Areas of Potential Significant Flood
Risk
The methods associated with defining significant floods (historic and potential future) and
significant adverse consequences were often superficially reported to WISE and often there
were no more detailed methodological reports available. A more detailed understanding of the
methods used by Member States would be required to make a more quantitative comparison
of implementation of the Directive across the EU. The relevant methodological documents
should be requested from Member States particularly when the assessment of flood hazard
and flood risk maps is undertaken during the next phase of checking the implementation of
the Directive. In addition, specific targeted questions based enumeration lists could be
implemented in the schema.
4.4.2
Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps
Identification of source of flood associated with the maps for which links
are provided in the LinkToMS schema
At the present time, the category of the map (e.g. Low Probability Hazard, Medium Probability
Hazard) for which a link is provided is reported in the LinKToMS. It was often unclear on the
accessed national maps as to the source of flood presented on the maps. An objective of the
assessment was to check that all sources of flood associated with the APSFR reported in
2010 had been mapped. This task would be made easier if the sources of floods depicted on
the linked maps were also reported in the LinkToMS XML. It is recommended that the
source(s) of flood associated with the linked maps is also reported in the LinkToMS schema.
49
Version of 20 March 2017
Explanation of process of undertaking PFRA, identifying APSFR and
mapping of flood hazard and flood risk
The checking and assessment of flood hazard and flood risk maps revealed some gaps in the
information required to understand what has been undertaken by Member States. It was often
not clear whether specific sources of floods are depicted on separate maps or GIS layers or
are combined in maps where no specific sources are presented. It was also generally not
clear from the reported information: why certain sources have not been mapped even though
they were associated with APSFR; which APSFR have not been mapped and why; which
APSFR have been merged and why. It is recommended that the decision process and links
between the required stages of the Floods Directive are clearly explained by Member States.
This could be achieved through the development of targeted questions.
Reporting of flood risk areas shared with other Member States
Article 6.2 requires that the preparation of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps for areas
identified under Article 5 (areas of potential significant flood risk) which are shared with other
Member States should be subject to prior exchange of information between the Member
States concerned. There are 128 RBDs designated in the EU, of which 49 are international. If
each national part of an international RBD is counted separately, the total number of RBDs is
170, of which 91 have an international component where the assessment of flood risk should
be coordinated. It was often not clear how many significant flood risk areas are shared
between Member States and whether there had been exchange of information on all of them.
It is recommended that Member States are asked to identify and report which APSFR and
other risk areas are shared with other Member States (and other countries) and provide
details on how information is exchanged with the relevant countries.
Areas of APSFR
There are large differences between the numbers of APSFR identified and reported by
Member States: 1 in Hungary (the Danube RBD) and nearly 3000 in Croatia. The numbers of
potentially affected inhabitants are requested for each APSFR in the FHRM schema. There
are also large differences in these numbers: 4.5 million in Hungary and an average of 50 in
Croatia. Information on the respective areas of the APSFR would help in the interpretation of
these large differences in the numbers of APSFR and the scale of some of the reported
potential adverse consequences. Whilst it is acknowledged that the areas can be derived from
the GIS files of the APSFR, it is recommended that the area of each APSFR is provided in
any subsequent update of the reporting of Article 5.
50
Version of 20 March 2017
5.
Discussion Questions
As the meeting unfolds there will be plenty of opportunity for Member States to discuss issues
and provide comments on the proposed methodology and the way forward with the project. A
number of discussion questions will also be raised during the meeting to gauge further opinion
(recognising that the discussions during the presentations may have already covered some of
these questions) and to provoke more feedback from MS during the meeting. Examples of
such questions are provided below:

Was the reporting guidance clear? Were any major issues encountered in using the
reporting guidance?

Were there any particular areas of ambiguity that would benefit from further
explanation?
6.

Were there any issues with understanding and following the QA steps in the process?

Did the WISE/ReportNet system function properly when reporting? Were any issues
encountered with ReportNet and the Central Data Repository?

If you encountered any problems, did these lead to delays to reporting?

What areas of reporting were the most time and resource intensive?

Are there any products that would be useful to the MSs that are not currently
produced?

Do you have any suggestions to improve the reporting process for the next cycle?
Next Steps
The next step will be to undertake a more comprehensive review of the schema elements and
guidance in light of the lessons learned and the feedback from this meeting with a view to
developing an early draft of the reporting guidance and schemas in time for the extended
meeting in May.
51
Version of 20 March 2017
In parallel, a more detailed exercise will be carried out over the coming weeks to analyse
whether any particular schema elements have not been used in the assessment of MSs'
reporting, or in the production of any maps, tables and graphs to support the assessment, and
for other EU purposes. Also a list of products based on the anticipated table of contents of the
EU overview report for the FRMPs will be compiled.
52