EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 26.2.2019

SWD(2019) 67 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Spain

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)
Second River Basin Management Plans
First Flood Risk Management Plans

{COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}

Table of contents

Acronyms

Introduction

Overview

Overview of the assessment

Good practices

Areas for further development

Recommendations

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

1.1. Reporting of the FRMP

1.2. Assessment of the FRMP

2. Integration of previously reported information

2.1Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment

2.2Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs

2.3Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas

2.4Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps

2.5Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information

3. Setting of Objectives

3.1Focus of objectives

3.2Specific and measurable objectives

3.3Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods

3.4Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding

3.5Process for setting the objectives

3.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives

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

4.1Cost of measures

4.2Funding of measures

4.3Measurable and specific (including location) measures

4.4Measures and objectives

4.5Geographic coverage/scale of measures

4.6Prioritisation of measures

4.7Authorities responsible for implementation of measures

4.8Progress of implementation of measures

4.9Measures taken under other Community Acts

4.10Specific groups of measures

4.11Recovery from and resilience to flooding

4.12Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMPs

4.13Coordination with the Water Framework Directive

4.14Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures

5. Consideration of climate change

5.1Specific measures planned to address climate change

5.2Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change

6. Cost-benefit analysis

6.1Good practices and areas for further development

7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation

7.1Competent authorities

7.2Public information and consultation

7.3Active involvement of Stakeholders

7.4Effects of consultation

7.5Strategic Environmental Assessment

7.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures

Background & method

Types of measures used in reporting

List of Annex A tables and figures

Measures overview

Measure details: cost

Measure details: name & location

Location of measures

Geographic coverage

Measure details: objectives

Objectives

Category of priority

Timetable

Measure details: authorities

Measure details: progress

Measure details: other

Annex B:Definitions of measure types

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)

Acronyms

Introduction

The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State to assess its territory for significant risk from flooding, to map the flood extent, identify the potential adverse consequences of future floods for human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk. By the end of 2011, Member States were to prepare Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard & Risk Maps (FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015.

This report assesses the FRMPs for Spain (ES) 1 . Its structure follows a common assessment template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources:

·Member State reporting to the European Commission on the FRMPs 2  as per Articles 7 and 15 of the FD: this reporting provides an overview of the plans and details on their measures

·Selected FRMPs: due to the high number of FRMPs prepared in Spain, the assessment has focused on a selected set of plans, chosen to cover a broad range of methodological approaches and different Units of Management (UoMs). The following FRMPs were reviewed:

oOne for a UoM managed at national level (ES080, Júcar);

oFour UoMs managed at regional level: ES014, Galicia; ES017, Eastern Cantabrian, partially managed by the Basque Country authorities; ES060, Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, managed by the Andalusian authorities; and ES110, Balearic Islands.

Overview

Figure 1     Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts

Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders)

Spain is divided into 25 Units of Management (UoMs), which correspond to the River Basin Districts (RBDs) under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). At the time of drafting this report, Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) had been approved and reported for 17 of Spain’s UoMs 3 , the exceptions being the UoMs for Catalonia (ES100) 4 and the Canary Islands (ES120 to ES127): see the Table 1 below for an overview.

The approach for preparing the FRMPs is similar in each UoM, based on work developed by the National Ministry for Agriculture. However, certain differences can be found when comparing the national approach with the FRMPs developed by regional competent authorities (such as Galicia, Andalusia, the Basque Country and the Balearic Islands which have been assessed for this report). The regional FRMPs also differ in the degree of detail provided.

In Spain the FRMPs were adopted by Royal Decree:

·The FRMPs for ES010, 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, 80, 91, 150 and 160 – by Royal Decree 18/2016 on 15 January 2016

·ES014, RD 19/2016, 15 January 2016

·ES017 and 18, RD 20/2016, 15 January 2016

·ES060, 63 and 64, RD 21/2016, 15 January 2016

·ES110, RD 159/2016, on 15 April 2016

The table below gives an overview of all UoMs in Spain, including the UoM code, the name, and the number of APSFRs reported 5 . It also shows if the UoM reported all documents required to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE 6  – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML.

Table 1        Overview of UoMs in Spain

The FRMPs can be downloaded from the following web page:

http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/agua/temas/gestion-de-los-riesgos-de-inundacion/planes-gestion-riesgos-inundacion/Enlace_documentacion_PGRI.aspx

Overview of the assessment

Table 2 below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMP. The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence:

·Evidence to the contrary: An explicit statement was found stating that the criterion was not met;

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

·Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication of the approach used for the criterion. Depending on the comment in the adjacent column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”;

·Strong evidence: Clear information provided, describing an approach followed in the FRMP to address the criterion.

Table 2    Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs

Good practices

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

Table 3    Good practices in the Spanish FRMPs

Areas for further development

The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Spanish FRMPs assessed.

Table 4    Areas for further development in the Spanish FRMPs

Recommendations

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

·The process of prioritization of objectives should be better explained and documented, e.g. explaining which institutions and stakeholders have taken part in it, and which reasons have been argued to decide on high or low priorities for the different objectives.

·The achievement of the objectives of the FRMPs should be measurable to the extent possible to be able to assess progress.

·For measures, indicators of progress should be developed and linked to measurable objectives.

·A stronger emphasis should be placed upon the introduction of nature based solutions (including NWRM).

·The methodology for assessing measures in terms of costs and benefits as well as its application and results of this analysis should be presented.

·The prioritization of the measures should be more transparent and better documented.

·Climate change should be considered, including better integration of and more systematic references to the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

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

1.1. Reporting of the FRMP

Spain has reported 17 out of 25 FRMPs. The eight missing FRMPs 8  refer to ES100 (Catalonia) and the seven UoMs of the Canary Islands (ES120 to 127).

Spain did not make use of Article 13.3 of the Floods Directive, which allows Member States to make use of previous flood risk management plans (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive).

Concerning the geographic coverage of the FRMPs, there is one FRMP covering each entire UoM. In addition, other documents have been reported for some of the UoMs as annexes and/or background documents.

1.2. Assessment of the FRMP

In Spain some river basin districts (RBDs)/UoMs are managed at a national level and others are managed at regional level (i.e. at the Autonomous Community level).

The nationally managed UoMs assessed are:    

Table 5    Nationally managed UoMs assessed

The regionally managed UoMs assessed are:

Table 6    Regionally managed UoMs assessed

However, the regional Basque Country authority has taken an active role in the development of the FRMP for the Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, which therefore has a somewhat different content than other FRMPs of inter-regional (and thus nationally managed) UoMs.

Nationally managed basins/UoMs are expected to take a consistent approach: for this reason, one national FRMP significantly affected by floods (Júcar, ES080) and four UoMs managed at regional level (ES014 for Galicia; Eastern Cantabrian, ES017 for the Basque country; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060 for Andalusia; and ES110 for the Balearic Islands) were chosen for the assessment.

As neither Catalonia (ES100) nor the Canary Islands (ES120 to ES127) had reported FRMPs at the time of the assessment, it was assumed that all methodological approaches reported at the time by Spain were covered by this assessment.

2. Integration of previously reported information

2.1Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment

The conclusions of the PRFA are presented in the FRMP for all five FRMPs assessed. This includes a summary map showing areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFRs). All FRMPs assessed also had a textual description which includes tables listing the APSFRs, the methodology employed and the results of previous steps. The information varies in detail and is shorter for Galicia (ES014) than for the other UoMs assessed 9 .

Links to maps of the APSFRs have been provided as URLs in the FRMPs for three UoMs – Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060 and Balearic Islands, ES110 and Galicia, ES014 (however, in an Annex) – but not for the Eastern Cantabrian, ES017 or the Júcar, ES080, although for both of these overview maps are included in the FRMP.

No reference to conveyance routes is included in the FRMP summary of the APSFRs for Galicia, ES014. In the FRMPs for Eastern Cantabrian (ES017), Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) and Júcar (ES080), conveyance routes are not explicitly mentioned as an element of the APSPFR 10 but reference is made to river beds, which can be considered as one, albeit obvious, conveyance route 11 .

2.1.1Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment

The only international UoM analysed in detail is Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, which includes catchments shared with France. Its only shared APSFR is ES017-GIP-BID-01 between France and Spain. However, the map included in FRMP for this UoM is unclear, and it does not appear that a shared APSFR and map have been elaborated.

Annex 5 of the FRMP for the Eastern Cantabrian UoM indicates that there is an overall coordination agreement (the 2006 Toulouse agreement) and that information exchange and cooperation have taken place, but no specific description of the exchanges is provided 12 .

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

There is no specific information available in the reporting sheets (across all 17 FRMPs reported), regarding the ways which the PFRA was used in developing the flood hazard and flood risk (FHR) maps.

Across the five FRMPs assessed, two FRMPs (Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060, and Balearic Islands, ES110) did not provide specific information. For the three other FRMPs assessed, information is provided, but not always with sufficient detail to understand the links:

·The FRMP for Galicia, ES014, explains that the preparation of FHR maps was based on the previous PFRA and it assessed the identified areas with more detail.

·The FRMP for Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, refers to the two steps but does not describe the links in detail.

·In the Júcar FRMP, ES080, a clear reference is provided for FHR maps being based on the PFRA, but no conclusions are included in the FRMP regarding the evolution of APSFRs in between the two assessment steps 13 .

2.2Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs

The flood hazard and flood risk maps have been presented in one of the five FRMPs assessed (Eastern Cantabrian, ES017). This FRMP includes maps for each APSFR, where the coastal and fluvial flood risks are reflected; the methodology informs furthermore that separate studies have been undertaken for floods from both sources and the APSFR is represented as the combined area of both individual sources. In the Galicia FRMP (ES014), a table of fluvial and coastal APSFRs is presented, but no maps. The FRMPs for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060), Júcar (ES080), and Balearic Islands (ES110) do not include APSFR-specific maps in the FRMP itself or the corresponding annexes/appendixes.

Links to the flood hazard and flood risk maps have been provided in the FRMPs in some but not all FRMPs assessed. Specifically:

·FRMP for Galicia, ES014: internet links for maps are provided in Annex 1, page 34, which refers to http://www.cmati.xunta.es/ide-dhgc/ and the National flood risk mapping system http://sig.magrama.es/snczi/

·FRMP for Eastern Cantabrian, ES017 14 : maps of the APSFR are at http://www.uragentzia.euskadi.net/u81-0003/es/contenidos/informacion/mapas-de-peligrosidad-y-riesgo-cantabrico-oriental-en-el-ambito-de-las-cuencas-internas-de-la-capv/demarcacion-cantabrico-oriental/es_docu/demarcacion-cantabrico-oriental.html   http://www.chcantabrico.es/index.php/es/actuaciones/dph/evaluacion-y-gestion-de-los-riesgos-de-inundacion/mapas-de-peligrosidad-y-riesgo/dh-del-cantabrico-oriental  

·FRMP for Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060 15 : reference to the map viewer is provided http://www.cma.junta-andalucia.es/medioambiente/site/portalweb/  

·FRMP for Júcar, ES080 16 : general link to the National System ( http://sig.magrama.es/snczi/ )

·Balearic Islands, ES110 17 : Links are not provided to a map, but to fiches of the fluvial FRAs: http://www.caib.es/sacmicrofront/archivopub.do?ctrl=MCRST259ZI158962&id=158962
And of the coastal FRAs:

http://www.caib.es/sacmicrofront/archivopub.do?ctrl=MCRST259ZI158964&id=158964 http://www.caib.es/sacmicrofront/archivopub.do?ctrl=MCRST259ZI158965&id=158965  

Floods from pluvial, groundwater and artificial water bearing infrastructure sources have not been identified in the UoMs assessed; The FRMPs do not include references to these flood sources. None of these sources had been identified in the previous FHRM phase 18 .

2.2.1 Maps for shared flood risk areas

Flood hazard and flood risk maps have not been prepared for flood risk areas shared with other Member States, in the one transboundary river basin/UoM assessed. As noted above, the only shared APSFR is ES017-GIP-BID-01 between France and Spain. However, the map included in the FRMP for the Eastern Cantabrian, ES017 (Annex 1), is unclear, and it does not appear that a shared map has been elaborated 19 . This FRMP does refers to information exchange, without being specific on the moment or content of such exchanges. Neither the FRMP’s main nor its Annex 5 (on information exchange) refers to active transboundary cooperation on the preparation of the maps. The reporting sheets (for the Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, and the Adour-Garonne UoM in France, FRF) and the FRMP for the Eastern Cantabrian, ES017 (main document), do not include information on this topic.

2.2.2Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps

In all the FRMPs, Flood hazard and risk maps (FHRMs) have been used to develop the FRMPs. Based on the reporting sheets and the FRMPs assessed:

·FHRMs are used to set priorities for flood risk management (e.g. locations, economic activities, assets)

·FHRMs are used as a tool in the public participation process

·Measure types and locations have been defined based on the FHRM

The approach varies, however, across the FRMPs assessed and in general limited detail has been provided on how the FHRMs have been used to develop FRMPs. In general, all FRMPs refer in a standard text to the relevance of the FHRM exercise and its results for the definition of the FRMP. In three out of five assessed FRMPs (Galicia, ES014; Eastern Cantabrian, ES017; and Balearic Islands, ES110), the FHRMs have been used to prioritise the locations for flood risk measures. The other two assessed FRMPs do not provide conclusions on the use of the FHRMs for the development of FRMPs. For example 20 :

·The Galicia (ES014) FRMP refers to an analysis carried out in the frame of the FRMP drafting on which measures would be applicable to each of the APSFRs and the FRMP page 35 refers to the maps being submitted to public consultation 21 .

·The Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP refers to the FHRMs as a basis for considering measures with criteria of benefit and sustainability 22 . In the chapter referring to the FHRMs, but not its conclusion, the FRMP states briefly that the results of the mapping exercise help to prioritize measures both within one flood risk areas and between flood risk areas 23 .

·The FRMP for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060, only provides a list of the APSFRs without defining other type of conclusions 24 .

·The Júcar (ES080) FRMP does not provide conclusions from the FHRM exercise 25 .

·The FRMP for the Balearic Islands, ES110: Chapter 4.5 includes a summary description of the assessment, providing overall data on the population or economy affected, etc. and states that the exercise has determined the measures and priorities for the implementation; but does not specify how the results influence objectives or measures in detail 26 . The FRAs with the highest risks have been prioritised for the implementation of measures 27 .

2.3Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas

Any changes in the identification of Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk since December 2011 should be reflected in the FRMP. Out of the five FRMPs assessed, three (Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; Júcar, ES080; and Balearic Islands, ES110) do not provide details regarding possible changes to the APSFRs due to increased information, knowledge and understanding. However, in two FRMPs such references have been found and they cite changes in the number of flood risk areas (in particular for floods from coastal sources: Galicia, ES014) and the maps combining flood risks from different sources (Eastern Cantabrian, ES017). In detail:

·The Galicia (ES014) FRMP refers to the fact that the number of preliminary coastal APSFRs increased from 39 to 42, due to a better simulation of flood risks, however, according to the FRMP, 14 of these do not present real flood risks 28 .

·The Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP refers to changes in the APSFRs due to coastal sources, where new areas have been included and others discarded due to the additional information available 29 . Furthermore, for APSFRs with combined sources, these have been reflected in a map as a “combined area” 30 .

·The Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) FRMP does not provide any insights concerning possible changes 31 .

·The Júcar (ES080) FRMP: Chapter 4 describes the methodology and results of the different risk factors considered (including surface area, depth, velocity, response time, sediment transport, obstacles in conveyance route) but does not inform about possible changes due to improved knowledge base.

·The Balearic Islands (ES110) FRMP does not provide any insights concerning possible changes

No information was found regarding in the FRMPs whether any changes were made regarding the preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps since December 2013 (the Directive’s deadline for the FHRMs).

2.4Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps

The FHRM assessment 32 identified the following substantive areas for further development for Spain:

·Several FHRMs were reported to be still under development.

·It was not clear whether Emergency Actions plans for dams already correspond to the requirements of the Directive, if not whether Spain considered adapting those plans to the Directive’s requirements.

None of these areas for further development are explicitly addressed within the FRMPs assessed or the reporting in the time period between publication of the FHRMs and the assessment of the FRMPs. Nonetheless, the following information has been found:

·For the FRMPs assessed, the FHRMs had been completed – however, information was not available regarding the FRMPs not reported: Catalonia (ES100) and the Canary Islands (ES120 to ES127).

·Emergency Action Plans are mentioned as measures of the FRMPs, coordinated by the corresponding competent authorities 33 .

2.5Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information

The following good practices were identified:

·Inclusion in two FRMPs (Galicia, ES014, and Eastern Cantabrian, ES017) of explicit information about changes in the APSFRs and FHRMs.

·Inclusion of printed maps of the distribution of APSFRs within the UoM as well as internet links to maps of all APSFRs. The Eastern Cantabrian FRMP (ES017) presents maps for each of the APSFRs in the FRMP.

The following areas for further development were identified:

·For one FRMP assessed (Júcar, ES080), no internet links to AFPSFR maps are provided.

·There is limited detail in the FRMPs on how the FHRMs have been used for the development of FRMPs.

·

3 Setting of Objectives

3.1Focus of objectives

The eight general objectives of all FRMPs in Spain are:

·Increase perception of flood risk and self-protection strategies by the population, social and economic agents;

·Improve administrative coordination among all actors involved in risk management;

·Improve knowledge for adequate flood risk management;

·Improve predictive capacity in flood and flood situations;

·Contribute to improving spatial planning and management of exposure in flood areas;

·Achieve a reduction, as far as possible, of the risk by reducing the danger to human health, economic activities, cultural heritage and the environment in flood areas;

·Improve resilience and reduce the vulnerability of elements located in flood areas;

·Contribute to the improvement of the water body status, and coordination with the WFD.

These objectives apply to the five FRMPs assessed. Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed 34 :

·The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods;

·The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding 35 ;

·The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented;

·The objectives refer to non-structural measures 36 .

3.2Specific and measurable objectives

In Spain, objectives are neither specific nor measurable. The “general” objectives for the FRMPs are not specific on what they are trying to achieve (not quantitative or measurable), where they are to be achieved, and by when they are expected to be achieved. There is some information available how they are to be achieved.

In all FRMPs assessed, indicators are provided associated to measures, but not associated directly to the objectives (note there is not a direct and explicit relationship between objectives and measures, as the measures contribute usually to several objectives). Almost exclusively, they are effort (output) indicators (e.g. number of so-called “management agreements” undertaken to carry jointly out certain measures), and not impact indicators. The indicators are defined for 2015 (baseline) and 2021 (targets). Furthermore, such targets are not defined for all measures (e.g. Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060, FRMP): many of the indicators listed (in the template provided to the UoM authorities by the National authorities) “do not apply” or are “not defined”. In some UoMs (so far out of the assessed UoMs, only developed for Júcar, ES080), more detailed “specific” objectives associate the general objectives with the APSFRs, and provide further detail for some of them (e.g. “Improve predictive capacity in flood and flood situations at the Elche dam and review its flood management protocols”).

3.3Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods

In the FRMPs assessed, objectives do not provide further specification of the type of adverse consequences that will be reduced. As mentioned previously, the objectives are rather general and do not specify the targets to be achieved. None of the many indicators established for measures focus on impacts, but rather on efforts.

3.4Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

The objectives aim to reduce the vulnerability and risk to flooding; however, without further specification.

3.5Process for setting the objectives 

Each of the five FRMPs assessed sets out priorities by ranking the eight general objectives determined nationwide (see above) for the specific circumstances of the UoM. The FRMPs and the reporting sheets also refer to coordination activities between different national authorities (as the Ministry for Public Works, related to infrastructure construction and drainage, and the Ministry for Economy and Competitiveness, related to research and innovation). All FRMPs have undergone a consultation process.

3.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives

The following good practices were identified:

·The objectives of the FRMPs were coordinated at national or regional level and discussed with stakeholders before their establishment

·In one of the UoMs assessed (Júcar, ES080), more detailed “specific” objectives associate the “general” objectives of the FRMPs with the APSFRs, and provide further detail for some of them (e.g. “Improve predictive capacity in flood and flood situations at the Elche dam and review its flood management protocols”).

·The FRMPs and the reporting also refer to coordination activities between the different national authorities (e.g. the Ministries for Public Works related to infrastructure construction and drainage, and Economy and Competitiveness related to research and innovation), including their specific measures in the Plans.

The following areas for further development were identified:

·The objectives are not measurable and do not specify the targets to be achieved.

·The decision-making process for prioritization of the objectives is not described in detail in the FRMPs.

4 Planned measures for the achievement of objectives

For all UoMs that have been reported (17 UoMs 37 ), including the five UoMs whose FRMPs have been assessed, the total number of individual measures is 192, and the number of aggregated 38 measures is 1 171. In consequence, the total number of measures is 1 363 (the FRMPs do not explain how individual and aggregated measures are defined). The average number of measures per UoM is 80, with a range between 49 and 156 measures per UoM 39 .

The 17 FRMPs reported each contain most of the measure types 40 defined. However, prevention measures of types 22 41 are only present in some of the UoMs. Moreover, the measure types 35 42 , and 52 43 are not included in any of the FRMPs of the Spanish UoMs.

For all 17 UoMs reported, in terms of the number of measures associated, Protection measures are in the majority, with 404 measures (30 %). These are followed by Preparedness (358 measures or 26 %), Prevention (327 measures or 24 %) and Recovery and review measures (274 measures or 20 %).

Please see Annex A for tables and charts on measures for this and subsequent questions in this section.

4.1Cost of measures

Table 7    Overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMP

Source: Reporting sheets and FRMP

For the five FRMPs assessed, the expected costs or budget for implementing the measures are very different for the UoMs, as shown above. Its distribution amongst the categories of Prevention, Protection, Preparedness and Recovery is also very different, with Prevention ranging from 22-78 %, Protection from 14-62 %, Preparedness from 5-19 % and Recovery from 0-16 % of the total FRMP budget for the UoM.

For the FRMPs assessed, some present an overall cost forecast or budget, whilst the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins FRMP (ES060) only presents these for the separate measures and does not provide an overview.

·The Júcar (ES080) FRMP 44 describes the following budget distribution: Prevention 31%, Protection 34 %, Preparedness 19 %, and Recovery 16 %

·The Balearic Islands ES110 FRMP 45 includes the following proportional distribution of the total budget: Prevention 78,25 %, Protection 14,37 %, and Preparedness 7,38 %. No budget foreseen for Recovery. According to the Galicia (ES014) FRMP 46 , the distribution is Prevention 22,95 %, Protection 62,43 %, Preparedness 5,78 % and Recovery 8,84 %.

·The FRMP for Galicia (ES014) 47 states that part of the budget included in the FRMP will not necessarily be executed. This is due to the fact that flood investments are risk-related, and might not necessarily occur

·The Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP includes a different presentation of the budget to the other UoMs assessed, with no overall figure specified, but figures (in million EUR) for the first two planning cycles (2015-2021, 2021-2027) referring to the four areas: Prevention first: 16.59M EUR, second: 9.32M EUR, Protection first: 98.73, second: 269.5, Preparedness first: 11.05, second: 0. Recovery and evaluation: first 10.8,second: 0.

·In the FRMP for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060, no budget has been identified overall, and figures are only available measure by measure 48 .

The FRMPs assessed do not describe in detail either the measures, or the cost elements which are considered for the FRMP’s budget 49 .

4.2Funding of measures

All five FRMPs assessed explain that the majority of the budget will be covered by the national and regional competent and cooperating authorities, as well as from local authorities, most of these co-funded by EU budgets (structural and cohesion funds, agricultural and fishery funds, social funds, according to the Partnership Agreement and its priorities). Some of the measures do not require “additional budget”, as they are considered core activities of the Spanish administration already. Private sources might come from activities under the corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities of private foundations.

Table 8    Funding of measures

Source: FRMPs

4.3Measurable and specific (including location) measures

All FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of the measures with regard to:

·What they are trying to achieve,

·Where they are to be achieved,

·How they are to be achieved, and

·By when they are expected to be achieved.

In general, the FRMPs include information on the measures which refer to their location (it can be the whole UoM or other more detailed locations), the timeframe for the implementation, the budget, the responsible authority and indicators for management. However, not all the information is provided for all measures; the gaps relate particularly to the budget (for measures considered as those which are already being carried out by the authorities in the frame of flood-related policies). In addition, the descriptions of the measures remain rather brief for example “Development and implementation of the river conservation programme” (Júcar, ES080) or for “agreements with third parties” (Balearic Islands, ES110). In the Spanish FRMPs assessed, measures are presented with a standard template table, with key information such as responsible administration, time for implementation (start, end), budget, location/geographic scope. However, it should be noted that the information in the tables is rather limited.

The measures indicate one of three levels of location: National, RBD/UoM and APSFR (or more detailed than a single water body).

Table 9    Location of measures 

Source: Reporting sheets

Almost all measures are specific and measurable. As stated before, for measures with a detailed location, the description usually is more detailed in terms of providing a figure in kilometres, etc. The geographic reference is either UoM, APSFR or more specific (e.g. list of weirs to be removed in Júcar, ES080). There are no differences between the assessed UoMs regarding the level of specificity of the measures 50 .

4.4Measures and objectives

It is not clear how measures will contribute to the achievement of objectives, nor clear by how much they will contribute. It is also not clear whether the objectives will be achieved when all measures are completed. The measures have associated indicators that monitor the effort, but not the impact. Additionally, the (general) objectives established in the FRMPs are not measurable (see section 3 above). For these reasons, it is not possible to assess progress against objectives.

4.5Geographic coverage/scale of measures

For all 17 UoMs reported prior to 2017, with 1 363 measures reported, 857 apply to the whole UoM, and 503 to an APSFR. Three measures target more specific locations. Whilst the majority of measures addressing Prevention, Preparedness and Recovery target the UoM, the majority of measures addressing Protection are foreseen at the APSFR level. For further data, see Tables A6 and A7 in Annex A.

While Spain reported on the geographic scale of measures, it did not report information on the geographic coverage of the expected impact of measures.

4.6Prioritisation of measures

The vast majority of measures are categorised as either of very high or critical priority, especially for preparedness and prevention measures. Protection measures are the lowest in the scoring of the number of critical measures, whilst there are most critical measures for Prevention, followed by Preparedness and Recovery. The only measures categorised as low (one measure) or moderate (five measures) are protection measures. It is worth noting that the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060, has the highest proportion of critical priority measures of all UoMs. For further data on all 17 UoMs, please see Tables 8 and 9 in Annex A.

The five FRMPs assessed do not include summaries on the distribution of the number of measures according to the priorities. The summary of the Programme of Measures in the FRMPs refers to the main priorities in text form or table form for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) FRMP 51 ; and Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP (referring only to Structural Measures) 52 ; Júcar (ES080) FRMP 53 ; Balearic Islands (ES110) FRMP 54 ; the Galicia (ES014) FRMP 55 , indicating the priority measures. These summaries do not, however, include the full priority classification for critical, very high, high, moderate and low priorities.

According to the FRMPs assessed, the prioritisation of measures has followed four criteria:

1)a ranking of the objectives according to their relevance, developed in some of the UoMs explicitly (e.g. Galicia, ES014) after technical and stakeholder meetings,

2)a cost-benefit assessment of the measures (which is not further described),

3)a comparison of the geographical extent of the measure implementation, prioritising those measures that cover a wider geographical range,

4)beneficial links with the implementation of related EU legislation, in particular the Water Framework Directive.

All the FRMPs assessed and the reporting summaries include the same standard text, referring to the fact that similarity of the prioritisation results under criteria 1 and 2 are similar for the UoMs. No details are provided on the discussions at the meetings for fixing criteria 1, nor the cost benefit assessment of the measures.

For the five FRMPs assessed, the timetable for the implementation of the measures is provided within the FRMPs, and specifies the start and end month and year, in the first planning cycle. Most of the measures will be implemented in the 2015-2021 period, with a target to be achieved in 2021. In general, the majority of measures refers to six years of implementation; this indication is however not based on a detailed assessment. There does not seem to be an immediately clear relationship between the timetable and the priorities.

4.7Authorities responsible for implementation of measures

For all 17 FRMPs reported, Spain reports that national authorities (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and the Environment, Ministry for Public Works) are responsible for the implementation of the majority of measures (760 measures), regional authorities are responsible for the implementation of 337 measures, local/municipal authorities are responsible for the implementation of 37 measures, and other bodies for the implementation of 229 measures. Note that the UoM authorities are either national or regional (see the overview for details).

Across the four measure aspects (Prevention, Protection, Preparedness, Recovery), the national authorities are in all cases responsible for the highest number of measures. However, local authorities play a more significant role dealing with prevention measures compared to other types of measures, and other bodies (such as research institutes, e.g. as identified in Eastern Cantabrian, ES017) for measures for preparedness. This observation relates to the number of measures rather than the budget. For further information, please see Tables A10 and A11 of Annex A.

4.8Progress of implementation of measures

For all 17 FRMPs reported, the vast majority of the measures are on-going for all aspects, either as process or construction. Regarding protection measures, approximately 25 % of them has not yet started, and also a significant proportion (approx. 10 %) of recovery measures has not yet started. No measures have been completed so far. For further information, please see Tables A12 and A13 of Annex A.

4.9Measures taken under other Community Acts

Member States were asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has been implemented: Spain has reported this information for all FRMPs assessed. All FRMPs refer to the RBMPs under the WFD, and in the case of Balearic Islands, ES110, also to coastal and maritime protection (referring to the Spanish Coastal Law). Several protection measures refer to civil protection measures, e.g. Galicia, ES014, and Eastern Cantabrian, ES017.

For Spain, 159 different reported measures are reported under other Community Acts. Note however, that the legislation reported includes National or Regional acts for example covering urban land use management, forestry and road infrastructure, without providing any corresponding references to the EU act. It also refers to Horizon 2020, under the research policy of the EU.

4.10Specific groups of measures

With regard to spatial planning/land use measures, the following types of measures are included in the five FRMPs assessed:

a)Administrative coordination for construction in the floodplains, according to the compulsory reports by UoM authorities for urban development plans;

b)Adoption of regional and urban regulation of land use limitations in the “areas of preferential flows” (a possible synonym for “conveyance routes”) and floodplains;

c)Adoption of protocols and agreements between authorities;

d)Coordination of flood risk information in the map viewers;

e)Adaptation of urban planning;

f)Development of technical construction guidance documents to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience against floods in buildings, agricultural holdings and networks;

g)Training and awareness raising campaigns on the measures addressing vulnerability.

The framework has evolved since 2000. According to Art.11 of the Water Law, the UoM authorities transfer information on floodplains and flood risk to municipalities for consideration in urban planning. Further regulation and limitations can be established by the national and regional governments. Art. 15 of Royal Decree 903/2010 (Evaluation and management of flood risk) establishes that urban planning has to respect the regulatory elements of FRMPs and shall recognise the rural character of flood risk areas. Annex A includes the adaptation of urban planning to FRMPs in the list of measures.

Natural water retention measures (NWRMs) have been planned in some, but not all, of the five FRMPs assessed. Natural water retention measures are mentioned explicitly in the summary reporting of the FRMPs (although no detailed explanation is given). The following specific measures have been identified in the FRMPs assessed, with only one NWRM (flood mitigation area in Júcar, ES080) explicitly planned:

·The Galicia (ES014) FRMP 56 establishes within the indicators that in 2015 no NWRM was implemented in the UoM, and that the target indicator for 2022 is still to be determined.

·The Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP includes in Annex 2 information on NWRM including some schema on possible types for bio-retention (unclear which NWRM category). However, the FRMP page 200 indicates that the target indicator for NWRM is “not applicable”, thus it remains uncertain if such measures will be implemented. The relevance of floodplain conservation has been assessed.

·The FRMP for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) explains that a 2 m€ budget is foreseen for the first planning cycle for river restoration projects including NWRM (category Nature, hydrology-forestry and agro-hydrology) 57 . However, the indicator table on NWRM is blank regarding the status and target.

·The Júcar FRMP (ES080) Annex 2 includes a measure “Área de laminación en el Barranco Hondo” (Flood mitigation area in the Barranco Hondo creek; unclear which NWRM category)

·The Balearic Islands (ES110) FRMP 58 includes the preparation of river restoration projects including aspects of NWRM (category N), however, no specific reference has been found to underpin that such measures will be implemented.

Measures that specifically consider nature conservation. All five FRMPs assessed refer in a generic manner to biodiversity, e.g. the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, by using a common text. At a more measure-specific level, the following references have been found:

·The FRMP for Galicia (ES014) refers to biodiversity in the measure description for river restoration measures.

·The FRMP for Eastern Cantabria (ES017) refers to Natura 2000 in the measure description of river restoration measures, e.g. referring to the competent authorities. Biodiversity is not referred to.

·The FRMP for the Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) refers to biodiversity in the frame of river restoration projects, as well as to Natura 2000 and the related regulatory references.

·The Júcar FRMP (ES080) - no reference has been found to biodiversity of Natura 2000.

·The FRMP for the Balearic Islands (ES110) neither refers to biodiversity nor to Natura 2000 when describing the measures 59 .

All five FRMPs assessed make a brief reference that they shall take into consideration navigation and port infrastructure. However, there are no measures specifically targeting these.

No reference has been found in the five FRMPs assessed to dredging as a measure to increase the river channel capacity 60 . It should however be noted that the RBMP for the Guadalquivir RBD (ES050) 61 includes a justification of the Guadalquivir estuary dredging as a WFD Art.4(7) exemption, due to its benefits for flood risk reduction, listing this aspect as an important one for justifying overriding public interest. This measure is not listed in the FRMP but only in the RBMP 62 (which does not further refer to the FRMP and its data).

4.11Recovery from and resilience to flooding

The role of insurance policies is discussed in all five FRPMs assessed, with regard to the recovery from flooding, preparedness/resilience to flood or other issues. According to the data reported in the reporting sheets, insurance policies are included as recovery measures, for people and goods, and in particular the agricultural sector. This applies to all UoMs by means of the National Joint Insurance Compensation Agreement (Consorcio de Compensación de Seguros) and the National Entity for Agrarian Insurance (Entidad Estatal de Seguro Agrarios (ENESA)).

With regard to the type of insurance available or to be developed for potential flooding areas, the information is briefly explained, but refers only to agrarian, agricultural and livestock subscription modules.

With regard to the flood insurance for properties in all flood risk areas, and in particular in high flood risk areas, no information has been found on this specific detail in the five FRMPs assessed. Although “people and goods” are mentioned, there is only an explicit reference to “agricultural holdings” in terms of properties. No mention has been found to which type of risk areas the insurance would apply. No information was found whether insurance is conditional on making at risk properties (domestic, industrial) as flood resilient as possible, nor if environmental liability insurance cover the restoration costs arising from flooding of potentially polluting sites and installations.

There is no detailed information about the costs and benefits of the measures included in the FRMPs assessed or their annexes, with regard to whether ecosystem services are considered in estimating restoration costs in cases where potentially polluting sites and installations may be flooded.

4.12Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMPs

Progress in the implementation of planned measures is tracked via monitoring indicators: this is detailed in a specific chapter in all five FRMPs assessed. For each measure, the FRMP has a space to enter a numeric baseline, for the level before implementation of the measure, and a target/expected value upon its completion (e.g. kilometres of rivers or coastline, number of protocols, number of guidance documents, of regional regulation considering floods, percentage of dams with management plans). Planned dates for the completion of each measure are specified with month and year. However, not all indicators are fully filled in, and for some the FRMPs indicate that the target “needs to be determined” (e.g. number of NWRM). There are no differences between the FRMPs assessed.

A baseline has been established against which progress will be monitored and assessed in all five FRMPs assessed. The baseline is often quantitative - for example stating how many municipal reports have already been emitted in 2015 or how many kilometres of coastline have been mapped regarding their flood risk - but it also refers to status descriptions like “regulation drafted pending approval”, “project pending approval”, “pending start” and “in drafting process, e.g. when referring to legislation or protocols”. In the FRMP for Galicia (ES014) several baselines are “to be determined”, which will hamper the assessment of progress.

4.13Coordination with the Water Framework Directive

The table below shows how the development of the FRMP has been coordinated with the development of the second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD.

Table 10    Coordination of the development of the FRMP with the development of the second River Basin Management Plan of the WFD 

Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD

The FRMPs assessed refer to the necessity of coordination between the FRMPs and RBMPs, and the obligation to foster the achievement of the WFD objectives, which often leads to the selection of sustainable solutions, like NWRM including sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) (note however that few NWRMs have been included so far in the budgets).

In detail, the overlap between Flood Risk Areas and water bodies has been assessed, and in particular a summary of their status and objectives for each of the concerned water bodies. In three UoMs, out of the five whose FRMPs were assessed, a joint Strategic Environmental Assessment has been undertaken for the RBMPs and FRMPs (e.g. Eastern Cantabrian, ES017; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; Júcar, ES080).

The authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP are the same for all UoMs assessed, so this coordination shall be ensured within the authorities. Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD is done by listing of the water bodies and their status and objectives in the FRMPs, and by considering the contribution as criteria for the prioritisation of measures.

4.14Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures

The following good practices were identified:

·Almost all measures are specific and measurable. All five of the FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of what measures are trying to achieve, where, how and by when.

·The geographic reference is either UoM, APSFR or other, more specific (e.g. list of weirs to be removed in Júcar, ES080): for measures with a specific location, the description usually is detailed, such as providing a figure in km or other specifics. This level of geographic detail can be considered as a good practice.

·Natural Water Retention Measures – e.g. for river restoration - are included in the five FRMPs assessed, though the detailed description and target indicator values are often not available.

·For the five FRMPs assessed, progress in the implementation of planned measures is tracked via monitoring indicators, including quantitative baselines and targets; however, information is not provided for all the indicators.

The following areas for further development were identified:

·It is not clear how measures will contribute to the objectives, nor clear by how much. The FRMPs include almost exclusively effort (output) indicators only a few impact indicators, these usually without establishing target values for 2021; therefore, the progress in achieving the objectives will be difficult to measure. It is also not clear whether the objectives will be achieved, when all measures are completed.

·The FRMPs assessed do not describe in detail either the measures, or the cost elements which are considered for the FRMP budget.

·While NWRMs are mentioned in the summary reporting of the FRMPs, no explanation is given. There are some references to NWRMs (and one measure in Júcar, ES080 described under good practices), and the necessity of coordination between FRMPs and RBMPs is indicated as a reason for the selection of sustainable solutions. In practice, however, NWRMs have only been considered relatively very marginally in the FRMP.

·

5. Consideration of climate change

The five FRMPs assessed refer to climate change scenarios of IPCC and other bodies. These show clear trends for the overall decrease in precipitation, but unclear or different trends related to daily maxima of rainfall. Given these uncertainties, all five FRMPs assessed include a measure to develop further studies on the effects of climate change on flood risk, as current information is judged as insufficient. In general, these “improvements” or “forward steps” of knowledge are scheduled for 2021 (FRMPs for Galicia, ES014; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; Balearic Islands, ES110), for “December 2021” (Júcar, ES080), or not specified. They also include measures to improve weather forecasting 65 .

However, it should be noted that the expected effects of climate change have not been clearly established in the FRMPs, due to the lack of (or contradiction among) previously existing studies. For this reason, no other measures than those for knowledge improvement have been included in the FRMPs.

There is reference to the national Climate Change Adaption Strategy in some but not all five FRMPs assessed. These FRMPs mention studies on climate change, and the Spanish Office for Climate Change as an involved authority. Specifically, the FRMPs for Galicia (ES014), Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060), Júcar (ES080) and Balearic Islands (ES110) mention explicitly the National Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation, as a possible strategy to contribute to in synergy without further details 66 .

The timeframes for the climate change scenarios have not yet been considered. There is also no information available in the reporting sheets on reference to a shift in the occurrence of extreme events and changes in numerical recurrence times. No information was found in the reporting sheets or the FRMPs with regard to whether the main sources of flooding are expected to change under the long term climate change scenarios.

5.1Specific measures planned to address climate change

With regard to measures to reduce pollution risk in flood prone zones, climate change is only mentioned explicitly in the FRMPs for measures regarding studies. This applies to all five FRMPs assessed.

Climate change is not mentioned in the description of non-structural measures, including NWRMs, in the FRMPs assessed. No reference to climate change is found in the description of measures related to land use/spatial planning in the FRMPs assessed. No reference to climate change is found in the description of measures using economic instruments, according to the FRMPs assessed and the reporting sheets. No consideration of climate change is included in the measure descriptions of structural measures, according to the FRMPs assessed.

5.2Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change

The following good practices were identified:

·All five FRMPs assessed include a measure to develop further studies on the effects of climate change on flood risk.

·Reference to the National Strategy for Climate Change Adaptation in four of the five FRMPs assessed.

The following area for further development was identified:

·Due to the lack and contradictions of previously existing information and studies, no clear likely impact of climate change has been identified. In consequence, no further consideration of climate change impacts was included in the FRMPs and the establishment of measures.

·Coordination between FRMPs and the national climate change adaptation strategy is not systematic.

6. Cost-benefit analysis

The five FRMPs assessed refer to cost benefit as a criterion for the establishment of priorities for the selection of measures. However, they do not report further details nor provide evidence of such assessments, neither in general nor specifically for the measures.

It is unclear from the FRMPs assessed for which types of measures cost-benefit analysis has been used, and no information was found in the reporting sheets or the FMRPs assessed indicating whether the method used multi-benefits.

The FRMP for Eastern Cantabrian, ES017, reports that no transboundary measures are planned and thus no cost-benefit assessment of measures with transnational effects has been undertaken, according to the reporting sheets.

6.1Good practices and areas for further development

The following good practice was identified:

·Cost benefit analysis is reported to be used as a criterion for the prioritisation of measures.

The following area for further development was identified:

·The cost-benefit assessment for measures is not documented in the FRMPs, and such assessments are expected to be applied only for structural measures and during the implementation phase of FRMPs. 67

7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation

7.1Competent authorities

Based on the FRMPs and the information provided in the reporting sheets, the Competent Authorities and the Units of Management identified for the Floods Directive have not changed recently. No new documents on the matter have been submitted to the European Commission since 2010.

7.2Public information and consultation

The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed in the five UoMs assessed concerning the draft FRMPs. Information on how the consultation was actually carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section:

Table 11    Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMP

Source: FRMP

For all five RBMPs assessed, information was provided via the Internet:

·The Eastern Cantabrian, ES017 FRMP states that the website was used, and two workshops were held during the consultation, and includes a list of the stakeholders that were invited to attend the meetings.

·The Júcar, ES080 FRMP reports on information days, workshops and expert meetings as well as factsheets in the preparatory steps of FD implementation; however, it is not clear if this activity refers to the consultation of the FRMP.

·Balearic Islands, ES110 FRMP does not provide details on the consultation process 69 .

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

Table 12    Methods used for the actual consultation

Source: FRMP

For all five FRMPs assessed, consultation was reported as being carried out via written text to the competent authority 70 . For four of the five FRMPs consultation was carried out via Internet as well 71 :

·The FRMP for Galicia (ES014) states that in the implementation phase of the plan, information days, workshops and expert meetings as well as factsheets will be organised to stimulate the FRMP implementation; and four information meetings were held in November 2017 (after the adoption of the Plans). There are no such reported activities for the consultation phase of the draft FRMP.

·The Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) FRMP informs that website was used, and two workshops being held during the consultation, and includes a list of the stakeholders that were invited to attend the meetings.

·The Andalusian Mediterranean Basins (ES060) FRMP reports that there was a written consultation and submission of comments by email.

·The Júcar (ES080) FRMP reports that consultation was made in written form.

·The Balearic Islands (ES110) FRMP does not provide details on the consultation process.

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

Table 13    Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation

Source: FRMP

For all five FRMPs assessed, the documents were provided at the main office of the competent authority, in physical form (printed), and via internet (website of the competent authority), according to the FRMPs.

7.3Active involvement of Stakeholders

The table below shows the groups of stakeholders that have been actively involved in the development of the five FRMPs assessed:

Table 14    Groups of stakeholders actively involved in the development of the five FRMPs assessed

Source: FRMP

In general, during the drafting process of FRMPs, technical working groups were established for coordination with the institutions listed in the table above. It should be noted that this description is a standard text, which, for example, was also adopted by Balearic Islands, ES110, led by a regional UoM authority.

The table below shows the mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders:

Table 15    Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders

Source: FRMP

Specific mechanisms for the active involvement of stakeholders have been reported for the Eastern Cantabrian (ES017) and Júcar (ES080) FRMPs, namely workshops, technical meetings, and information days.

7.4Effects of consultation

The FRMPs assessed include extensive information in the Annexes describing in detail the text of comments received and the response texts of the administrations. However, the information is very detailed, and aggregation is not practical.

7.5Strategic Environmental Assessment

All five FRMPs assessed have undergone an SEA procedure. In some cases, a joint Strategic Environmental Assessment was undertaken for the RBMPs and FRMPs (Eastern Cantabrian, ES017; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; and Júcar, ES080) 73 .

7.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance

The following good practice was identified:

·SEAs have been carried out for all the FRMPs. In some cases, a joint Strategic Environmental Assessment has been undertaken for the RBMPs and FRMPs (Eastern Cantabrian, ES017; Andalusian Mediterranean Basins, ES060; Júcar, ES080).

·The FRMPs include extensive information in the Annexes describing in detail the texts of comments received during consultation and the responses of the administrations.

The following area for further development was identified:

·The number of comments received during the consultation has been low in general. The reasons should be investigated to potentially adjust the approach for the second cycle.

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures

This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by Spain in the reporting sheets. These tables and charts were used for the preparation of section 4 on measures.

Background & method

This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs). The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the Member States and were used by the Member State assessor to complete the questions on the Flood measures. The data are extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by Member States for each FRMP, and are split into the following sections:

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

·Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation;

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

·Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility;

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

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

·Measure details: other – Other Community Acts.

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the Floods Directive) 74 , not all fields are mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields.

Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers – for example, progress is measured via the categories set out in the Reporting Guidance. This means that producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort. For many fields, however, a free data format was used. For some Member States, this resulted in thousands of different answers, or answers given in the national language.

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

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

·If a manageable number of answers are given, obvious categories are identified, and raw data sorted.

·Measures missing information may be assigned categories based on other fields (for example, if the level of Responsibility Authority is missing, the information may be obvious from the field “name of Responsible Authority”).

·Measures where obvious categories cannot be defined based on other available information (as in the example on the name of the Responsible Authority, above), are categorised as “no information”.

Types of measures used in reporting

The following table 75 is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’.

Types of measures used in reporting

List of Annex A tables and figures

_Toc521939338

Table A1    Number of measures reported in the reporting sheets    

Table A2    Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM, including duplicates            

Table A3    Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM    

Table A4     Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, including duplicates    

Table A5    Location of implementation by measure aspect    

Table A6    Location of implementation by UoM    

Table A7    Category of priority by measure aspect    

Table A8    Category of priority by UoM    

Table A9    Level of responsibility by measure aspect    

Table A10    Level of responsibility by UoM    

Table A11    Progress of implementation by measure aspect    

Table A12    Progress of implementation by UoM    

Figure A1    Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect    

Figure A2    Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect    

Figure A3    Visualisation of Table A6: Location by measure aspect    

Figure A4    Visualisation of Table A7: Location by UoM    

Figure A5    Visualisation of Table A8: Category of priority by measure aspect    

Figure A6    Visualisation of Table A9: Category of priority by UoM    

Figure A7    Visualisation of Table A10: Level of responsibility by measure aspect    

Figure A8    Visualisation of Table A11: Level of responsibility by UoM    

Figure A9    Visualisation of Table A12: Progress of implementation by measure aspect    

Figure A10    Visualisation of Table A13: Progress of implementation by UoM    

Measures overview

Table A1    Number of measures reported in the reporting sheets

Table A2    Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM, including duplicates

Table A3    Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM

Table A4        Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure type and UoM, including duplicates

The information in Tables A3, A4 and A5 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below:

Figure A1    Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect

Figure A2    Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect

Measure details: cost

Member States were requested to report information on:

·Cost (optional field);

·Cost explanation (optional field).

The reported information on costs in the reporting sheets is descriptive. For Spain, it was not possible to aggregate the information provided in tabular form.

Measure details: name & location

Member States were requested to report information on the following:

·Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field);

·Geographic coverage of the impact of measures (optional field).

Location of measures

For Spain, it has been possible to identify the location of all measures, as the free format answers are fairly uniform.

Table A5    Location of implementation by measure aspect

Figure A3    Visualisation of Table A6: Location by measure aspect

Table A6    Location of implementation by UoM