(Doc . WGF7-6-NL-Final Report_FRMP Workshop- Annex)

Annex A: Questionnaires and Analysis of Responses

Analysis of responses

Eleven questionnaires (attached below) have been analysed, from the following countries and persons:

  • Finland (Keskisarja Ville);
  • Germany (Jacobus Hofstede);
  • Germany (Martin Socher);
  • Ireland (Mark Adamson);
  • Italy (Lombardi Giusy);
  • Latvian (Iveta Teibe);
  • Luxembourg (Christine Bastian);
  • Norway (Brent C Braskerud);
  • Austria (Drago Pleschko);
  • Sweden (Barbro Naslund-Landenmark);
  • Slovenia (Darko Anzeljc).

We would like to share the results of the Questionnaires with you. Attached you will find the answers of the questionnaires. Below you will find a short description of some of the answers on the questions 5 and 6 of the Questionnaires. Those questions relate to “problems concerning the implementation of the FRMPs and the issues to be discussed during the FRMP workshop”.

As a result of the questionnaires we would like to include in the programme two additional issues, namely:

  • Required legislation and resources;
  • Communication tools experts, politics and public.

During the Teleconference we would like to discuss with you whether to include the following issue:

  • Scope and frameworks for monitoring the implementation.

Some of the answers to question 5 and 6:

Question 5: “What kind of problems did you meet or do you expect to meet in the elaboration of the FRMPs?”:

  • Prioritize measures;
  • Adaptation of existing plans in FRMP;
  • Required resources;
  • Co-ordination in international river basin commissions alone / or additionally in cross-border river commissions.
  • Make the plans operational - within the country and as well between neighbouring countries;
  • Participation process and start;
  • Different preparation schedule (within the limits of the directive) and roles of different authorities (local, regional, international) may cause slight challenges;
  • Establishing homogeneous criteria;
  • Availability and coverage of data i.r.t. monitoring networks.

Question 6: “What other issues would you like to discuss during the international conference”:

  • The contents of the reporting sheets for FRMPs (focus on the procedure);
  • Relation and communication tools between expertises/technical level and “non expert” /”politic” level;
  • Communication to the public;
  • Get to know about the experiences from other countries, exchange views, problems and finding solutions;
  • How to give the plans the information needed to make them worth wile doing!;
  • Co-operation between neighbouring countries;
  • Checking criteria for FRMPs.

Questionnaires

WG-F: Questionnaire on the Status of Flood Risk Management Plans - Finland

1)What is the status of the FRMPs in your country?

a) We have completed our FRMPs (or will submit existing plans - with small

modifications - as FRMPs);

b) We are currently working on the elaboration of the FRMPs;

c) We are at the start-up of the elaboration of the FRMPs.

You are welcome to elaborate on the answer you have provided:

c) We have just finished the preparation of the legislation. The general contents and the preparation steps of the FRMPs are described in the legislation. In addition, a roadmap (or similar) for the preparation of the FRMPs will probably be drafted. The legislation is in political discussion at the moment.

The existing plans of some critical flood risk river basins can and will be used with some modifications when writing the FRMPs before 2015.

2)Are their already examples available of the FRMPs, e.g. pilot FRMPs?

If so, you are most welcome to send us a digital copy or let us know the website where we can find these examples.

We are just polishing a pilot FRMP in Finland. It's the FRMP of the river Kokemäenjoki, which is the 4th biggest river basin in Finland. It's famous for serious winter floods. The plan will be presented in the conference in Maastricht.

3)If you are in the start-up fase of the elaboration, can you indicate a (provisional) time schedule for the elaboration of the FRMPs?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4)What are the lessons learned during the elaboration of the FRMPs so far?

If possible, categorize these lessons according to the three themes of the conference

(I: Scope and detail, II: National process design, III: International process design)

I: The FRMP should be a kind of general plan, which refers to local and regional planning that should be done.

The minimization of the total damages on the whole river basin area during a serious flood and a description of the needed flood protection measures are crucial issues to be handled in the FRMP.

A high level and accurate planning and modelling are needed because the proposed measures in the FRMP can be arguable. The different users of water resources (hydro power etc.) must be taken into consideration in cost-effective analysis.

II: The most important users of water resources (for example power companies which are responsible for regulation of lakes) in addition to state and municipality authorities from different parts of the river basin must be part of the flood risk group that steers the preparation of FRMPs.

5)What kind of problems did you meet or do you expect to meet in the elaboration of the FRMPs?

If possible, categorize these problems according to the three themes of the conference

(I: Scope and detail, II: National process design, III: International process design)

II: Minimization of total damages, selection of measures and priority order of measures can be challenging issues. Thus, there has already been a lot of discussion about roles and powers of flood risk groups that will steer the preparation on FRMPs.

III: Not expecting problems, but different preparation schedule (within the limits of the directive) and roles of different authorities (local, regional, international) may cause slight challenges.

WG-F: Questionnaire on the Status of Flood Risk Management Plans – Germany Hofstede

1)What is the status of the FRMPs in your country?

FRMPs should be established on the basis of the outcomes of the PFRA and the flood hazard and flood risk maps. It may be premature to start dealing in detail with FRMPs at this stage. It is foreseen that reporting sheets for the maps and FRMPs will be adopted in may 2010 by the water Directors.

2)Are their already examples available of the FRMPs, e.g. pilot FRMPs?

Complete FRMPs conform the prescriptions of the Directive are not available, although coastal FRM is being implemented in all North Sea States for centuries. As an example, the master plan “integrated coastal defence management in Schleswig-Holstein” is attached. FRMPs should build on the existing concepts and continue and upgrade these strategies, for example with regards to climate change.

3)If you are in the start-up fase of the elaboration, can you indicate a (provisional) time schedule for the elaboration of the FRMPs?

See remark to question 1.

4)What are the lessons learned during the elaboration of the FRMPs so far?

Existing coastal plans in the North Sea region should be adapted to the prescriptions of the Directive. It should be clarified whether or not it may be more effective to fulfil the reporting requirements than to use Article 13.

5)What kind of problems did you meet or do you expect to meet in the elaboration of the FRMPs?

With respect to information and participation (Art. 10) the question arises, where does the participation (consultation) start? Formally, it may be enough to perform consultation only for the FRMPs. The PFRA and the maps (Art. 4, 5 and 6) only need to be published. However, already the delineation of the APSFR (Art. 5) may have consequences for the affected (people living in that area). Hence, should the consultation process already start at this point? This would have serious consequences for the reporting deadlines (Art. 4 and 5).

6)What other issues would you like to discuss during the international conference?

If possible, categorize these issues according to the three themes of the conference

(I: Scope and detail, II: National process design, III: International process design).

One main topic for discussion in Maastricht is, to my opinion, the contents of the reporting sheets for FRMPs. It should be secured that (as depicted in the Directive) the MS are responsible for the determination of goals and measures in order to achieve tailor-made and locally accepted solutions. Hence, reporting sheets should not focus too much on the contents but on the procedure to establish FRMPs.

7)Do you have any other comments or suggestions?

With respect to the methods of discussion in the parallel sessions, I would prefer the “World café” and the “position line”.

A.WG-F: Questionnaire on the Status of Flood Risk Management Plans - Germany- Martin Socher

1)What is the status of the FRMPs in your country?

All different possibilities are currently coevolving in Germany, i.e. the flood action plan for the Neckar catchment is currently under preparation, other catchments prepare pilots. Existing and finalised plans i.e. for a subunit of the MainRiver are ready to be submitted. Along the ElbeRiver and the Rhine a number of plans, concepts and action plan exist, some of them can be considered as a basis for FRMPs. Within EU project SAWA a FRMP will be prepared for the Wandse a tributary to the Alster in Hamburg.

2)Are there already examples available of the FRMPs?

If there are examples please send us a digital version or let us know the website where we can find these examples.

The Flood Action Plan Main is currently under re-elaboration

For the Upper German Elbe Catchment a broad range of flood protection concepts (FPC) exist:

A detailed and comprehensive website giving all FPC can be found under:

A FRMP for the “Weisse Elster” is currently in a preparatory phase as part of INTERREG project LABEL.

3)If you are in the start-up phase of the elaboration, what are the intentions for the elaboration of the FRMPs?

In Germany the elaboration of FRMPs takes place according to the following principles:

  • Different authorities on Länder and regional levels are responsible for the various elements of flood risk management. To achieve a common interdisciplinary flood risk management, extensive coordination is foreseen;
  • To ensure the implementation of the measures of flood risk management scheduled in the FRMP, all responsible and interested parties must be actively involved;
  • FRMP shall be built on the existing flood protection concepts and continue and upgrade these strategies.

4)What are the lessons learned during the elaboration of the FRMPs so far?

If possible, categorize these lessons according to the three themes of the conference

(I: Scope and detail, II: National process design, III: International process design)

The very core of German FRMPs is the risk management for floods originating from surface waters including storm surges. So far it is quite unclear which scientific basis is available and applicable for the broad range of floods which are proposed in preliminary Commission papers. Further clarification is needed about reporting formats, scales and degree of details.

5)What kind of problems did you meet or do you expect to meet in the elaboration of the FRMPs?

If possible, categorize these problems according to the three themes of the conference

(I: Scope and detail, II: National process design, III: International process design)

The adaptation of existing flood protection concepts into the requirements of the flood risk management directive is the major challenge for the work in the years ahead. It is widely accepted, that the preparation of the FRMPs and the implementation of concrete measures should have the highest priority in the regional process instead of spending significant time for reporting.

6)What other issues would you like to discuss during the international conference?

If possible, categorize these issues according to the three themes of the conference

(I: Scope and detail, II: National process design, III: International process design)

  • Reporting for Article 13;
  • Strategic frame for climate change and adaptation;
  • Checking criteria for FRMPs;
  • Coordination in shared river basins and the formal role of river basin commissions;
  • Scope and frame of monitoring.

7)Do you have any other comments or suggestions?

Chapter 4 of “Contents of the FRMPs” of the “Dutch Dummy” of a Flood Risk Management Plan describes the way in which progress in implementing the plan will be monitored. It is to emphasise that monitoring of the realisation process is not mentioned in the floods directive.

WG-F: Questionnaire on the Status of Flood Risk Management Plans - Italy

1)What is the status of the FRMPs in your country?

Italy has just completed the hydraulic and geological risk land planning allowing the floods, landslides and avalanches risk management.

As far as floods are concerned, the River Basin Hydro-geological Plans provided the following results:

  • Hazard and risk management maps showing all scenarios provided by the directive 2007/60/CE;
  • Provisions regarding land use in “high risk” and “high hazard” areas to prevent the increasing or generation of risk;
  • Priority actions for risk reduction, identified according to the degree of risk;
  • Budgeted expenses for all the actions identified and required.

Regarding early warning systems, Italy has already implemented a National Early Warning System, managed by the Department of Civil Protection and regions through the “Centri Funzionali – Centres for Forecasting and Surveillance” network.

These centres, focusing on prevention and preparedness, provide local and national authorities with forecast and survey of meteo-hydrologic events. Main activities are:

  • Elaboration of meteorologic bulletins;
  • Elaboration of hydrogeological bulletins;
  • Emission of meteo and hydrogeological warnings;
  • Real time monitoring of meteorological stations such as rain and river gauges;
  • Drought monitoring.

2)Are their already examples available of the FRMPs, e.g. pilot FRMPs?

3)If you are in the start-up fase of the elaboration, can you indicate a (provisional) time schedule for the elaboration of the FRMPs?

4)What are the lessons learned during the elaboration of the FRMPs so far?

If possible, categorize these lessons according to the three themes of the conference

(I: Scope and detail, II: National process design, III: International process design).

The importance of:

  • Maintaining a “river basin approach” for planning activities (not considering administrative boundaries);
  • Guarantying strengthens of FRMP ties towards other plans;
  • Applying a multi-disciplinary approach;
  • Collecting information, experience and know how from all the institutions, public bodies, research institutes and local administrations who are involved in environmental risk management and mitigation;
  • Defining plans’ contents and actions in a participated planning process.

5)What kind of problems did you meet or do you expect to meet in the elaboration of the FRMPs?

If possible, categorize these problems according to the three themes of the conference

(I: Scope and detail, II: National process design, III: International process design)

The main problems we had to address are:

  • Establishing homogeneous criteria at national level for:
  • Risk mapping, and particularly vulnerability evaluation;
  • Estimating hydraulical reference scenarios;
  • Defining methodologies for costs-benefit evaluations.
  • Harmonizing the FRMPs with the already existing local plans. In fact, although the FRMPs are superior in rank than the others plans, it was and is difficult to adapt the subordinate plans constraints to the FRMPs ones to ensure consistency among them;
  • The availability and coverage of territorial and hydrological data, being the monitoring networks managed at regional administrative level;
  • The fact that we had to evaluate risk in a highly populated territory where rivers and streams have been sometimes improperly confined or modified by hydraulic structures. Those structural measures may actually increase flood risk and reduce the possibility of restoring rivers to their natural expansion space. This has consequences when dealing with FD objectives and measures.

6)What other issues would you like to discuss during the international conference?

If possible, categorize these issues according to the three themes of the conference

(I: Scope and detail, II: National process design, III: International process design).

Relation and communication tools between expertises/technical level and “non expert” /”politic” level.

Communication to the public of FRMP’s risk levels and FRMP’s actions.

Implementing a more harmonized and objective evaluation of flood risk, improving the evaluation of socio-economic aspects relevant for risk evaluation.

7)Do you have any other comments or suggestions?

No.

WG-F: Questionnaire on the Status of Flood Risk Management Plans - Latvian

1)What is the status of the FRMPs in your country?

c) We are at the start-up of the elaboration of the FRMPs.

2)Are their already examples available of the FRMPs, e.g. pilot FRMPs?

No, examples or drafts are not available yet.

3)If you are in the start-up fase of the elaboration, can you indicate a (provisional) time schedule for the elaboration of the FRMPs?

On 20 December 2007 Latvian Government has approved the National Program on assessment and management of flood risks. This program will serve as a preliminary flood risk assessment. It is planned to start with elaboration of flood risk maps and to finalise and approve these plans as required by the Directive 2007/60/EC.

4)What are the lessons learned during the elaboration of the FRMPs so far?

If possible, categorize these lessons according to the three themes of the conference

(I: Scope and detail, II: National process design, III: International process design)

Currently we can’t tell a lot, as elaboration of FRMPs has not started yet. During the elaboration of the abovementioned National Program we learned about the need to carry out a wider survey of the earth’s surface to get as precise information as possible (I).

5)What kind of problems did you meet or do you expect to meet in the elaboration of the FRMPs?

If possible, categorize these problems according to the three themes of the conference

(I: Scope and detail, II: National process design, III: International process design)

I: Ensuring of reliability of flood forecasts obtained via modelling.