DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D – Water, Marine Environment & Chemicals
ENV.D.1 - Water /
Meeting of Floods Directive Reporting Drafting Group
Date: 15-16 June 2011 Time: 15/6: 10:30 - 17:00 & 16/6: 9:30 - 13:30
Venue: European Commission, DG Environment (Avenue Beaulieu 5, Brussels)
Room BU-5 Room B
Draft Minutes as of 20 June 2011. Documents and presentations are available on CIRCA.
1. Welcome and introduction
The COM (Mr. Nicola Notaro, NN) welcomed the participants from AT, DE, BE, CZ, FI, FR, IE, NL, PL, RO, SE and UK as well as the consultants supporting the Commission UBA Vienna and Atkins to the Floods Directive Reporting Drafting Group Meeting.
2. Approval of the agenda
Due to the absence of EEA representatives, NN informed that item 7 “Update from EEA” will not be tackled during this meeting. NL asked the COM to anticipate item 11 (“Flood hazard maps and Flood risk maps, GIS guidance, schemas”) to the first day of the meeting. With these changes, the agenda was approved.
3. Approval of the minutes of the last meetings
The minutes of the last meeting were circulated as room document, including written comments of MS (DE, UK) received before the meeting in track changes. During the meeting, further comments were received from UK to be included under item 7 (update of FD reporting sheets), the Polish representative was added to the list of participants and a specification of the deadlines requested by DE was introduced under agenda item 6. With these changes the minutes of the last meeting were approved.
4. Reporting Article 3 - CA and UoM
- Information point on updates to the tools and schemas
- Visualisation in WISE
MB pointed out that the launch of the floods part of WISE was planned for the end of May 2011, but the process could not be finalised before this meeting and should – also depending on the EEA work process in this regard – be finalised within the next month. During the last weeks bilateral clarifications (e.g. CA not clearly related to RBD) took place between the COM and MS. All issues (including the question as regards the German part of the Danube) were solved and clarified.
Follow-up and next steps:
a) Atkins to prepare and send XML files with updated information to MS within the next month.
b) MS to upload XML files on Reportnet and to inform the COM in an informal message (not via the Permanent Representations) about the finalisation of the upload.
5. PFRA reporting
Result of the 2nd testing of schemas, tools, GIS guidance
- Report from Atkins
Atkins (MW) provided a presentation showing the output of the second testing phase of the PFRA reporting tools, which started with the invitation by E-Mail sent to MS on 12 May 2011. MS had 4 weeks time for testing; replies were received by 9 MS: AT, CZ, ES, FI, IE, PL, RO, SE and UK. MW thanked all for their contribution and feedback provided.
MW informed that the changes made in the reporting tools since the last FRDG meeting were not that substantial and included in particular the following: first level starts with choice of application of Article 4, 13.1.a or 13.1.b; under “flood location” information on “cross border relationship” can be reported (due to discussions ongoing in ICPDR Floods EG); under “type of potential adverse consequences” the degree of the consequences can be reported and “EU surface water body codes” from the WFD can be used in order to avoid double information of spatial data already reported under the WFD. Furthermore MW highlighted the importance to include information in the attribute tables in order to properly create XML files. A database for each UoM needs to be filled out; it is not possible to have a national database for all UoMs instead. EEA changed the resources page for the FD, which could lead to problems in the validation process. Therefore MS should re-install the conversion tools from the following new webpage: http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas/dir200760ec/resources.
- Feedback from MS
The main general comments included the following:
· FI requested information how to report in the case of non-appearance of flood events. MW confirmed that the predefined envelope in Reportnet should be left empty, which will not create any errors in the validation process.
· FR, who only recently performed the testing of the tools finding errors as regards the software compatibility, asked if it is still possible to send comments. As the reporting tools need to be finalised within the next weeks, bilateral discussions between Atkins and FR took place during the meeting and all issues were solved.
Main comments as regards the PFRA reporting database included the following:
· UK proposed to re-introduce the asterix (*) and to transparently display, ideally directly in the tables (not only in the manual), which information is requested mandatory and which optional. MW advised against this.
· IE and ES pointed out that several redundant data is requested in the database. MW explained that this information is necessary in order to make a correct linkage of data and recommended MS to make a bulk upload of information.
Main comments as regards the PFRA reporting schema and enumeration lists included the following:
· UK requested a default value “not applicable” under each (mandatory) type of consequences, which was confirmed by MW and the COM.
· UK and PL asked for more information how the elements of “Cross Border Relationship” and “Cross Border Flood Location Code” should be used. The COM informed that a flood location crossing (inter)national and/or RBD/UoM borders can be established through these elements.
· Under “flood location” FI requested to add the element “flood location name”.
· UK pointed out that reporting the type of floods on two levels (PFRA flood types and flood event level) will lead to problems in the UK as different water bodies (large, small rivers, coastal waters) are managed (and will be reported) by different national and regional authorities. NN proposed to have bilateral discussions between Atkins and UK in order to address the specificities in the UK touching as less as possible the current version of the PFRA reporting tools. A bilateral discussion took place during the meeting and UK's issues on this matter were solved.
· AT and PL asked for clarification whether it is possible to reuse the “flood event code” for the “flood location code”, which will be checked by MW. DE requested information whether the same “flood event code” could be used for more than one flood location. DE and AT indicated that this will affect the statistics of the number of flood events, as for example in 2002, AT divided one flood event in around 1000 different flood locations. MW explained that a “flood event code” is at the moment a unique identifier.After a bilateral discussion between Atkins, DE and AT, it was agreed during the meeting to add the possibility to add multiple floodlocation linked to a specific flood event.
· UK and DE asked for a clear definition of the term “specific area” and whether these areas can be based on administrative boundaries. MW confirmed that at the moment the UoM is the default value for the “specific area” as discussed in the last FRDG meeting. MB highlighted the importance to transparently display this information on the map.
· PL asked whether the currency of damage estimates can be reported in national currency, which was confirmed by MB, provided date is given to identify correct exchange rate.
· FI requested to remove “degree” from “Degree_Total Damage”, “Degree_Total Damage GDP” and “Degree_Total Damage Class”. MB explained that this relates to the decision to report not just type, but also degree, of adverse consequences in the PFRA,. and should therefore be left in. MB indicated that the information can be reported optionally and drew attention to the linkage with the work of the EEA on past floods as well as DG ECHO and the activities related to the solidarity fund (question of DE). MB confirmed, based on the concerns of DE that this information will get mandatory in the future, that this data is foreseen to be reported on an optional basis. AT requested clarification whether it is planned to display this information on the maps and/or to make it publicly available and if MS will be informed when data reported through the reporting tools of the FD will be used for other purposes. MB confirmed that this information will not be displayed on the maps. NN made clear that this information – in full respect of the access to information legislation – will be shared with other services in the COM and that MS will not be notified in this case. Several MS expressed their concerns as regards classified information (e.g. critical infrastructure, dams, drinking water location/coordinates) and requested information how the COM can ensure that this information is not passed over to other services/bodies (JRC, EEA), the public and/or other MS. NN affirmed that classified information (attributed as “classified” in Reportnet) will be kept confidential and not passed on unless MS have given their agreement. DE proposed to change “unclassified” to “public” in order to make clear that all information which is not classified will be public.
· DE stressed the problem with the wording “insignificant” in the enumeration list for TotalDamageClass as only significant information will be reported, the wording should therefore be changed to “not applicable” or “not known”.
No changes were made in the APSFR reporting schema.
Main comments as regards the database to xml conversion tool, Upload files in test environment,
QA's and factsheets included the following:
· AT/UK/PL experienced problems with the DB to xml conversion and Atkins confirmed to correct the conversion tool.
· UK provided several editorial issues to be changed in the guidance tools.
· AT highlighted the importance to produce transparent and well readable factsheets, which are helpful in order to inform colleagues from the federal provinces about the data reported to the COM.
Follow-up and next steps:
As both testing phases were finalised, the final PFRA reporting tools will be tentatively released on 1 July 2011 by sending an E-Mail to WG F, SCG and WD taking into account the deadline of publishing the reporting tools approximately 9 months before the reporting deadline for PFRA of 22 March 2012.
6. RS Flood Risk Management Plans
- discussion version 10
MB introduced the new version of the reporting sheet for FRMP, which was circulated before the meeting in a track changes and a clean version (version 10). NL provided written comments on version 10 before the meeting. A discussion took place on version 10 focusing on section C and the look-out box on page 4 (linkage WFD and FD reporting taking into account the recently approved WFD reporting sheet of the 2012 reporting on the progress in the implementation of the programme of measures); changes in the document were made on screen.
The main outcome of the general discussions including the look-out box on page 4 included the following:
· SE generally stressed that the FD is not an environmental directive, but dealing with risk management and that measures cannot be the same for the FD and the WFD. SE pointed out that the risk aspect of the FD needs to be more in the focus of the ongoing work. NN took note of the comment and – although this general discussion is not an issue to be discussed in the FRDG, rather in WGF – made clear that there are differences between the FD and the WFD. NN also highlighted must however also be recognised that the FD is also an environmental protection instrument based on the Treaty article which is the basis for environmental policy.
· The look-out box on page 4 on the linkage of WFD and FD reporting was revised (based on a proposal of DE) and MB made clear that also after 2016 separate plans for the FD and WFD will be possible.
The main outcome of section C included the following:
· Section C1: DE and IE indicated that information requested in C1.1 will not always be the same as reported for the first reporting cycle, as new (more robust) findings will be derived after the mapping stage is finalised. NN confirmed that it is possible to report less areas in 2018 compared to the reporting after the first PFRA, if more precise information is available.
· Section C2:
o C2.1: NN stressed that the summary could also include a web link referring to more detailed information. For the COM it is important that the information is clearly accessible and that the relevant issues are covered.
o C2.5: DE asked for clarification as regards the terms “coordination/integration”. NN explained that information on the concrete coordinating measures should be included; in addition the coordination on national level among different actors in the development of the plans (one single plan or several coordinated plans) should be added here.
o C2.6: UK stressed that information on the impact of climate change is not legally required for the first reporting cycle, which was confirmed by NN, however the summary text already clarifies the optionality. The text was modified to 'if and if so how climate change'.