(Doc . WGF7-6-NL-Final Report_FRMP Workshop)
WG-F workshop on the preparation of
Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMP)
Maastricht, 26-27 January 2010
Observations, Recommendations and Conclusions
Final report
31 March 2010
Executive summary
Background
On January 26th and 27th 2010, a thematic workshop on the topic of Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) took place in Maastricht, the Netherlands. The workshop was hosted by the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, co-organized with Flemish, French, German, Irish, Swedish delegates and the European Commission.
The ‘Floods’ Directive (FD) requires that Member States define objectives for the management of flood risks, focusing on the reduction of potential adverse consequences of flooding for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, and, if considered appropriate, on non-structural initiatives and/or on the reduction of the likelihood of flooding. Important topics are related to the national and international design of the process to prepare the FRMPs. In consultation with the WG-F members, five themes (A t/m E) were defined for the workshop (see also Appendix Report / Questionnaire):
· Theme A: Scope and detail: suitable level of detail of FRMPs;
· Theme B: Scope and detail: Types of measures, examples of spatial and land-use planning and civil protection;
· Theme C: National and international process design;
· Theme D: Funding and Cost Benefit assessment;
· Theme E: Reporting sheets.
Objectives
The objectives of the workshop were:
· To exchange information and experiences on recent developments in the preparation of FRMPs, and to present recent examples;
· To discuss and draw conclusions and recommendations on key issues in relation to flood risk management plans, including issues raised in the previous workshops on climate change and floods in Sweden (8-10 September 2009) and the Catchment Flood Risk Management Workshop in Scotland (15-16 October 2009);
· To report such conclusions and recommendations to WG F for consideration.
Structure of the workshop
The workshop was structured along the five main themes defined for the workshop. It started with a session on ‘Setting the scene’ followed by plenary presentations and parallel interactive sessions on the five main themes.
The output of the workshop
The output of the workshop incorporates:
· A summary of key conclusions and messages from the workshop, including issues requiring further analysis and discussion in WG F;
· Summaries of the discussions held, in particular conclusions and recommendations for the implementation of the FD, including where possible those related to reporting and common understanding on specific issues.
Those are summarized below.
Furthermore the output of the workshop are the papers presented at the workshop which can be found on the CIRCA website.
Conclusions
For each of the themes a set of conclusions is described below.
Theme A: Scope and detail: Suitable level of detail of FRMPs
FRMPs can be considered as strategic plans on a river basin level, referring to the (underlying) regional and local plans as (action) plans to implement measures on the respective levels, not duplicating them.
Objectives on flood risk reduction and management are a prerequisite for the selection and implementation of an adequate set of measures and monitor progress. Objectives should be formulated not only for structural, but also for non-structural measures.
The drafting of a Flood Risk Management Plan is a carefully balanced combination of both top-down and bottom-up processes. A joint analysis at the river basin level will lead to shared objectives at this level of scale. It should be based on a thorough and joint hydrological analysis, also in international river basins. Parallel a bottom-up process of investigating existing, already planned and new possible measures should take place. In many cases at these lower levels of scale, objectives already exist but on a more local and operational level. In the FRMPs objectives and measures at these varying levels of detail have to be tuned.
Objectives can be met by different measures such as Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA). This may be a good method to present and discuss options for the selection of measures. To enhance the acceptance of the outcome and implementation of the measures it is important to involve stakeholders in the choice of criteria and the method. In addition methods and results should be simple and transparent in order to be understandable and acceptable for public and politicians.
Within the context of the application of the solidarity principle, Member States have to set their own objectives on flood risk management. This implies that within one international river basin different objectives might exist. This makes it necessary to use existing, or establish new coordination mechanisms between neighbouring countries within the same river basin.
The Karlstad (Sweden) conference has provided insight into the state of affairs on taking into account climate change in flood risk management plans. Climate change has to be taken into account while preparing FRMPs. A mix of research and political agenda setting is necessary in this stage of the process. The trends in our climate are robust enough to act, but uncertainties remain. The implications of climate change in coastal regions should get special attention in the implementation process of the Flood Directive. The risk profile of some of these regions is characterised as a low probability and a high impact.
Theme B: Scope and detail of FRMPs: Types of measures, examples of spatial and land-use planning and civil protection
Linking flood risk maps to spatial planning will influence the decision making by all public and private parties on measures and developments within and around River Basins. Legal links may provide a strong instrument in assuring Flood Risk Management. For a well functioning system it is essential to update Flood Risk Maps on a regular basis. Flood Risk Maps may influence the level playing field and the policies and premiums of insurance companies. When implementing legal arrangements that link spatial planning to flood risk management the implications for private parties should be considered. Such areas may become less attractive for investors and insurance may become problematic.
Integrated flood risk management combining protection, prevention and preparedness is essential. All three aspects need to be considered. The focus should depend on the geographical and demographic characteristics of the area. Within one river basin, the focus of flood risk management can differ because of differences in geographical or demographical characteristics. Therefore it is not a problem that neighbouring Member States have a different focus in flood risk management as long as objectives and measures are discussed and coordinated. Best practices are welcome.
Floods in urban areas may have significant consequences in terms of damage and casualties, because of the high intensity of assets and inhabitants. However, compared to river floods, in flood risk management often the focus is not on urban flood risk management. For areas where urban floods with significant consequences might occur, attention should be paid to urban flood risk management in the FRMP. (Urban) flood risk management requires tailor made measures and close partnership between stakeholders. Urban flood risk management may not be a separate item, but placed inthe widerand integralcontextof flood management at the higher scale of the entire River Basin.
Tools to communicate potential measures with stakeholders and public should visualize measures and effects in an attractive way (colours), enabling reference to the users’ area of living (e.g. by GIS/satellite maps as underlay). They should be user-friendly, present robust outcomes and preferably consist of standard hardware. The accuracy of digital terrain and bathymetry data should be in line with the required use of the tools, i.e. strategic selection of measures, not the design measures.
Theme C: National and international process design
There is a wide variety of types of existing plans at different levels of administration that have to be tuned to the elaboration of FRMPs: flood action plans (measures), water management plans, spatial planning plans, civil protection plans, plans regarding economic and agricultural developments. The elaboration of FRMPs is a repetitive process, in which a combination of “top down” and “bottom up” interactions results in convergence of the (underlying) plans in time, as well as improved new generations of FRMPs on the river basin level. Valuable experiences with this process design exist in Flanders, Norway, Switzerland and for the Elbe, Danube Meuse and Rhine international river basins.
To tune the existing plans with the FRMP elaboration a stepwise approach is advised:
· Clarify the goals of the existing plans as soon as possible in order to evaluate whether they are similar to FRMP objectives or not;
· If not, seek for synergy in measures that meet both (FD and WFD) objectives, like flood retention and flood plain lowering.
Coordination of objectives from different plans asks for a clear national command to clarify which objectives (and related legislation) prevail and which are open for amending.
The planning cycles of the FD and WFD offer both potential synergistic effects and conflicts concerning data requirements, objectives and the planning of measures. Hence, approaches for usage of synergetic effects and/or handling of conflicts between river basin and flood risk management planning are needed.
Theme D: Funding and cost benefit analysis
The implementationof Flood Risk Management Plans, as well as the funding of the proposed measures, is the responsibility of eachmember state.Member States can apply forEuropean Funds for additional support.It is concluded by participants that current European system of funding doesn’t always fit with the characteristics of the implementation of measures from FRMPs.
Several Member States (Belgium, Ireland, Italy, UK and the Netherlands) have developed methods for cost benefit analysis. Within one river basin, outcomes of cost benefit analyses need to be comparable. There is a need for methods to valuate non-economic aspects (environmental, social, cultural heritage).
Theme E: Reporting sheets
The reporting sheets will allow the Commission to check the compliance of Member States’ Flood Risk Management Plans with the requirements of the Flood Directive, compare methodologies and the use of information and prepare digital records at a European level on the flood risk management objectives, on planned measures and other relevant information at UoM/RBD level. In the Reporting Sheet a detailed list is included of what information should be provided to the Commission.
The current version of the reporting sheets was discussed with the participants of the workshop. The suggestions for improvement will be taken into account in the next steps of the process.
Recommendations and follow-up actions
Important results of the workshop are recommendations and follow-up actions described for each of the themes:
Follow-up actions Theme A: Scope and detail: Suitable level of detail of FRMPs
à It is recommended to make use of existing, or establish new, working relations on different levels to coordinate objectives and measures from Member States within the same river basin.
à It is recommended to include climate change in the FRMP while setting the objectives for a FRMP.
à Categorisation and prioritization of the objectives can differ for each Member State. Member States can learn from each other in the way they set up objectives and their methods for prioritization. Best practices should be exchanged and evaluated.
à In the workshop on Floods and Economics in Ghent (Belgium), the prioritization of non-structural measures should get special attention. The workshop will take place October, 25 and 26, 2010.
à The planned resource document on floods and decision support may include lessons learned and good practices with application of MCA.
à Coastal Regions should get specific attention in Flood Risk Management Plans.
à A discussion paper as follow up of the Karlstad workshop should be prepared.
Follow-up actions Theme B: Scope and detail of FRMPs: Types of measures, examples of spatial and land-use planning and civil protection
à There is a need for a “working” example (best practice) on how to involve other sectors in flood risk management (e.g. spatial planning, energy sector, finance possibilities).
à For areas where urban floods with significant consequences might occur, attention should be paid to urban flood risk management in the FRMP.
à Best practices on urban flood risk management need to be exchanged among Member States.
à A Thematic Workshop on flash floods will be held in Italy May, 26-28, 2010.
Follow up actions Theme C: National and international process design
à It is recommended to identify the planning steps and measures that exhibit possible synergies or conflicts. Common tools for implementing and coordinating the FD and WFD are needed. These can be developed based on the identification of synergies and conflicts.
à It is recommended to pay special attention to derogations in a following workshop.
Follow up actions Theme D: Funding and cost benefit analysis
à A Thematic Workshop on Floods and Economics will be organized in Ghent, Flanders, Belgium October, 25 and 26, 2010.
à There is a need for collecting and distributing of best practices in the application of cost benefit analysis. An operational system, called EconoMe, to evaluate the costs and the benefit of a planned measure, is offered to the organizers of the workshop in Ghent to present.
à It is recommended to try to achieve outcome results for cost benefit analysis that can be compared between Member States in an international river basin.
à An additional workshop should be organized on cost benefit analysis for non structural measures (like forecast and emergency management).
Follow-up actions Theme E: Reporting sheets
à The questions for clarification need to be answered and discussed in the next WG-F meeting.
à A new version of the reporting sheets needs to be developed and discussed with the Member States in the next WG-F meeting.
à The purposes of visualization in WISE are not clear to all Member States, nor are the consequences this might have. More information on purpose and consequences should be provided for discussion in WG-F.
Table of contents
Executive summary 2
Table of contents 7
Workshop introduction 8
Setting the scene 12
World Café: Issues and expectations 12
Plenary presentations 16
Session A: SCOPE AND DETAIL OF FRMPs 19
Plenary presentations 20
Parallel sessions 21
Session B: SCOPE AND DETAIL OF FRMPs 26