EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 26.2.2019
SWD(2019) 72 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Malta
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) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 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 FRMPs
1.2
Assessment of the FRMPs
2.
Integration of previously reported information
2.1
Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment
2.2
Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs
2.3
Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas
2.4
Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps
2.5
Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information
3.
Setting of Objectives
3.1
Focus of objectives
3.2
Specific and measurable objectives
3.3
Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods
3.4
Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding
3.5
Process for setting the objectives
3.6
Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives
4.
Planned measures for the achievement of objectives
4.1
Cost of measures
4.2
Funding of measures
4.3
Measurable and specific (including location) measures
4.4
Measures and objectives
4.5
Geographic coverage/scale of measures
4.6
Prioritisation of measures
4.7
Authorities responsible for implementation of measures
4.8
Progress of implementation of measures
4.9
Measures taken under other Community Acts
4.10
Specific groups of measures
4.11
Recovery from and resilience to flooding
4.12
Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP
4.13
Coordination with the Water Framework Directive
4.14
Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures
5.
Consideration of climate change
5.1
Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change
5.2
Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change
6. Cost-benefit analysis
6.1
Good practices and areas for further development
7.
Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation
7.1
Competent authorities
7.2
Public information and consultation
7.3
Active involvement of Stakeholders
7.4
Effects of consultation
7.5
Strategic Environmental Assessment
7.6
Good 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 & figures
Measures overview
Measure details: cost
Measure details: name & location
Measure details: objectives
Measure details: authorities
Measure details: progress
Measure details: other
Annex B: Definitions of measure types
Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)
Acronyms
|
APSFR
|
Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk
|
|
EEA
|
European Environment Agency
|
|
FD
|
Floods Directive
|
|
FHRM
|
Flood Hazard and Risk Map
|
|
FRMP
|
Flood Risk Management Plan
|
|
NGO
|
Non-Governmental Organisation
|
|
NWRM
|
Natural Water Retention Measures
|
|
PFRA
|
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments
|
|
PoM
|
Programme of Measures
|
|
RBD
|
River Basin District
|
|
RBMP
|
River Basin Management Plan
|
|
SEA
|
Strategic Environmental Assessment
|
|
UoM
|
Unit of Management
|
|
WFD
|
Water Framework Directive
|
|
WISE
|
Water Information System for Europe
|
Introduction
The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State (MS) 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 Malta. 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: as per Articles 7 and 15 of the FD this reporting provides an overview of the plans and details on their measures;
·Selected FRMPs: One single FRMP was assessed, covering Malta’s one Unit of Management (UoM)
.
Overview
Figure 1
Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts
|
|
|
|
International River Basin Districts (within European Union)
|
|
|
|
|
International River Basin Districts (outside European Union)
|
|
|
|
|
National River Basin Districts (within European Union)
|
|
|
|
|
Countries (outside European Union)
|
|
|
|
|
Coastal Waters
|
Source: WISE, Eurostat (country borders) as presented in the 2012 RBMP assessment reports
Malta has designated a single unit of management (UoM) under the Floods Directive, covering the whole country. Malta’s UoM corresponds to its single river basin district (RBD) designated under the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
For its Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP), Malta reported a single document covering the whole UoM: this document is Malta’s Second Water Catchment Management Plan, which provides the second river basin management plan (RBMP) under the WFD and contains the FRMP. While this plan focuses on the requirements of the WFD, several passages in the main text of the Second Water Catchment Management Plan mention floods, and flood measures are included in the programme of measures; the main text on floods, however, is part of a short Annex to the main document. In this report, the Annex in the Water Catchment Management Plan related to floods is nonetheless referred to as Malta’s FRMP and also as the Plan, whereas passages in the main text of the Water Catchment Management Plan relevant for the Floods Directive are referred to as ‘the main sections of the Water Catchment Management Plan’ or as a specific chapter of the Water Catchment Management Plan.
Information on the approval and legal status of the Water Catchment Plan was not found in the Plan itself or the web sites where the Plan can be downloaded (see below).
The table below gives an overview of the UoM in Malta, including the UoM code, the name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if all documents required for the UoM were submitted to European Environment Agency’s (EEA) WISE
– the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML.
Table 1
Overview of UoM in Malta
|
UoM
|
Name
|
Number of APSFRs
|
XML Reported
|
PDF Reported
|
|
MTMALTA
|
Malta
|
4
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
4
|
|
|
The Water Catchment Management Plan and the FRMP can be downloaded from the following web pages:
·
http://www.energywateragency.gov.mt/water-framework-directive/
·
https://era.org.mt/en/Pages/Water-Catchment-Management-Plan.aspx
Overview of the assessment
The table 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 2Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMP
|
Criterion
|
Evidence
|
Comments
|
|
FRM objectives have been established
|
Strong evidence
|
Malta’s Plan sets out three objectives, which are in turn closely related to undertake specific activities – for example, to develop water level monitoring facilities.
|
|
FRM objectives relate to...
|
|
...the reduction of potential adverse consequences
|
No evidence
|
The objectives do not refer to a reduction in potential adverse consequences, though this appears to be an unstated goal (the Maltese FRMP is partly based on the National Floods Relief Project, which had the objective "to avert increases in risks to life and property and control damages caused by uncontrolled surface water runoff").
|
|
...to the reduction of the likelihood of flooding
|
Strong evidence
|
One of the three objectives is to reduce the likelihood of flooding in ‘at risk’ catchments.
|
|
...to non-structural initiatives
|
Strong evidence
|
The objectives include the development of modelling and monitoring.
|
|
FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...
|
|
...human health
|
No evidence
|
The objectives do not refer to the reduction of potential adverse consequences.
|
|
...economic activity
|
No evidence
|
See above under human health
|
|
...environment
|
No evidence
|
See above under human health
|
|
...cultural heritage
|
No evidence
|
See above under human health
|
|
Measures have been...
|
|
...identified
|
Strong evidence
|
The Plan includes 10 measures to address flood risk, including both ongoing and new measures.
|
|
...prioritised
|
Some evidence
|
Malta has reported to WISE the priorities of its 10 measures. However, the FRMP itself does not provide information on priorities, nor an indication how they were set, though it does set out a timetable for the 10 measures.
|
|
Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as...
|
|
...costs & benefits
|
Some evidence
|
It is mentioned that a cost benefit assessment has been performed, but no details on the method or its role regarding floods measures are provided.
|
|
...flood extent
|
Some evidence
|
It is mentioned that the FRMP is based on a modelling exercise, taking into account conveyance routes as well as the extent and depth of the floods.
|
|
...flood conveyance
|
Some evidence
|
It is mentioned that the FRMP is based on a modelling exercise, taking into account conveyance routes as well as the extent and depth of the floods.
|
|
...water retention
|
Strong evidence
|
The Plan includes a measure for the assessment of sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDs) and natural water retention measures (NWRMs) and a follow-up measure for their implementation.
|
|
...environmental objectives of the WFD
|
Strong evidence
|
Malta’s FRMP is integrated into its RBMP, and it is stated that work on floods was developed in parallel and are closely coordinated with work on the WFD. It is stated in the reporting sheets that the floods occurring in Malta do not affect the environmental objectives of the WFD.
|
|
...spatial planning/land use
|
Some evidence
|
The Plan does not explicitly refer to spatial planning or land use as a measure in relation to floods, though the integration of a measure on sustainable urban drainage systems into planning is mentioned.
|
|
...nature conservation
|
No evidence
|
The Plan does not refer to nature conservation in relation to floods.
|
|
...navigation/port infrastructure
|
No evidence
|
While Malta’s overall plan refers to shipping in several sections, this is not in relation to floods.
|
|
...likely impact of climate change
|
Some evidence
|
The Water Catchment Management Plan includes a section on climate change that briefly discusses potential impacts in terms of seawater flooding and pluvial flooding (heavy rainfall events). A climate check of all measures, including those in the FRMP, is presented. It is indicated that four of the 10 FRMP measures are "aimed at reducing climate change impacts on the occurrence of flooding".
|
|
Coordination with other countries ensured in the RBD/UoM
|
Not relevant
|
No other countries are bordering Malta’s UoM/RBD.
|
|
Coordination ensured with WFD
|
Strong evidence
|
Both the FRMP and the 2nd RBMP were developed in parallel and closely coordinated. Some measures are listed under both the FRMP and the RBMP Programme of Measures.
|
|
Active involvement of interested parties
|
Some evidence
|
The FRMP provides little information on mechanisms for the active involvement of interested parties specifically regarding floods, though it does note that meetings were held with stakeholders regarding one measure on sustainable urban drainage systems. General information about the involvement of stakeholders in the common process for the RBMP and FRMP is provided in the main sections of the Water Catchment Management Plan.
|
Good Practices
The following good practices were identified:
Table 3
Good practices in the Maltese FRMP
|
Topic area
|
Good practices identified
|
|
Setting of objectives for the management of flood risk
|
One of Malta’s objectives sets a specific target (for upstream storage and infiltration capacity).
|
|
Planning/implementation of measures and their prioritisation for the achievement of objectives.
|
The description of measures includes an identification of stakeholders that will be involved in the implementation of measures.
|
|
Consideration of climate change in the FRMPs assessed.
|
Identified measures that support climate change adaptation and reference to Malta’s national Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (not in the FRMP though).
|
|
Flood risk governance
|
Malta prepared a single Plan that integrates its RBMP and FRMP, including measures for floods management in the overall programme of measures.
|
Areas for further development
The assessment identified the following areas for further development in the Maltese FRMP.
Table 4
Areas for further development in the Maltese FRMP
|
Topic area
|
Areas identified for further development
|
|
The integration of previously reported information in the FRMPs.
|
The FRMP does not describe how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHRMs, nor how these maps were used for the preparation of the plan itself, including its objectives and measures.
It is not clear if the map of catchments that previously experienced flooding, provided in the FRMP, shows the APSFRs. Links to FHRMs are not provided in the Plan.
|
|
The setting of objectives for the management of flood risk.
|
Malta’s objectives do not specify the reduction in adverse consequences of flooding (the reduction of likelihood of flooding is specified).
For none of the objectives is there an explicit timeframe.
|
|
Planning/implementation of measures and their prioritization for the achievement of objectives.
|
The FRMP does not contain information on the cost of flood risk mitigation measures: Information on the costs of some but not all of these measures is included in chapter 11 of the Water Catchment Management Plan.
While the institutional body to monitor implementation of measures is identified, the FRMP does not contain information on the methodology or indicators for monitoring.
The FRMP does not provide a methodology to explain the prioritisation of measures reported by Malta to WISE.
While the FRMP provides some specific information on measures, for the most part this is not sufficient to measure their implementation and results. The location and coverage of all measures is given as the catchment, including for measures that will need to be carried out in specific locations.
|
|
The use of cost-benefit analysis in the FRMPs assessed.
|
An analysis of costs and benefits of measures with regard to their flood mitigation/risk reduction potential was not used in the selection or planning of FRMP measures.
|
|
Public consultation.
|
The public consultation is only briefly described in the Maltese FRMP, which refers to the consultation for the Water Catchment Management Plan as a whole; although the overall consultation for the Water Catchment Management Plan also covered floods, the detailed information on consultation and active involvement of stakeholders in the main document only refers to WFD issues. Consequently, information is not provided on which groups were actively involved regarding floods measures, nor the effects of the consultation on the FRMP.
|
|
Flood risk governance
|
The single Plan, i.e. the Water Catchment Management Plan, mainly targets the requirements of the WFD; although it also addresses obligations under the Floods Directive, its dual role is nevertheless not clearly articulated.
|
Recommendations
Based on the reported information and the FRMP, the following recommendations are made to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order):
·To be able to assess progress, objectives should have an explicit timeframe. What appear to be now implicit links between measures and objectives should become explicit in the second cycle.
·Objectives should explicitly include reducing the adverse consequences of floods.
·The FRMP/Water Catchment Management Plan should provide information on the estimated cost of all flood risk mitigation measures, their prioritisation and the methods for prioritisation; the mechanisms and indicators for monitoring their implementation.
·The methodology for assessing of flood risk mitigation measures in terms of costs and benefits should be presented in the FRMP/the Water Catchment Management Plan..
·The FRMP/Water Catchment Management Plan. should provide more detailed information on the active involvement of stakeholders. It is important to ensure that FRMPs, PFRAs/APSFRs and FHRMs refer to each other as appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an accessible format, including digitally.
1. Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment
1.1Reporting of the FRMPs
There is one single UoM in Malta, covering the whole country.
Malta did not make use of Article 13.3 of the Floods Directive, which allowed Member States to make use of previous flood risk management plans for the first (provided their content is equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive).
1.2Assessment of the FRMPs
Malta reported one FRMP (UoM Code: MTMALTA, UoM Name: Malta), which is integrated as a part of Malta’s Second Water Catchment Management Plan: this plan was assessed.
Table 5
UoM assessed in Malta
|
UoM code
|
UoM Name
|
|
MTMALTA
|
Malta
|
2. Integration of previously reported information
2.1Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment
The conclusions of the PRFA are briefly presented in the FRMP. This includes a summary map showing ‘catchments that experienced previous surface water flooding’. It is not explicitly stated if the map shows areas of potential significant flood risk (APSFRs). The FRMP provides a textual description of the methodology employed and the results of previous steps.
No links to web-based maps of the APSFRs were provided, however.
While the FRMP does not refer explicitly to conveyance routes, it explains that floods in Malta are the result of storm events during which the dry valley channels adopt their natural function as a storm water ‘culvert’, conveying ‘…uncontrolled surface water for a very short period (less than 2 hours)… throughout the urban areas… for eventual discharge at the coastal zone’.
2.1.1Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs
As an island country, Malta does not have any neighbouring Member States.
2.1.2Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps
The FRMP explains that a modelling exercise carried out as part of the National Flood Relief Project (NFRP) provided the basis for the preparation of flood risk and hazard maps. The objective of this project was to avert increases in risks to life and property and control damages caused by uncontrolled surface water runoff in the four priority catchment basins of Msida, Gzira, Qormi and Marsaskala. The modelling exercise provided information on the extent and depth of the floods based upon a one in five-year event storm scenario and this provides the basis for the information presented in the Flood Hazard Maps.
The FRMP does not, however, explicitly describe how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHRMs.
2.2Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs
The FRMP presents an example map of a ‘Flood Risk Area’, but otherwise does not provide a presentation of flood hazard and flood risk maps .
While the FRMP does not provide links to the FHRMs, these can be found on one of the web pages providing the Plan:
https://www.energywateragency.gov.mt/water-framework-directive/
.
2.2.1Maps for shared flood risk areas
There are no shared flood risk areas with other Member States.
2.2.2Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps
The FRMP does not indicate how the FHRM were used for the development of flood management objectives, measures or other elements of the FRMP.
2.3Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas
The assessment looked for information on changes in the identification of APSFRs or since December 2011, or in the FHRMs since December 2013, indicated in the FRMP. No references to changes were found in Malta’s Plan.
2.4Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk maps
There is no information about Malta in the earlier assessment as the country was late with the reporting of the FHRMs.
2.5Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration of previously reported information
The following areas for further development were identified:
·The FRMP does not describe how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHRMs, nor how these maps were used for the preparation of the plan itself, including its objectives and measures.
·It is not clear if the map of catchments that previously experienced flooding, provided in the FRMP, shows the APSFRs. Links to FHRMs are not provided in the Plan.
·
3. Setting of Objectives
3.1Focus of objectives
The Maltese flood risk objectives refer to:
·The development of a modelling framework;
·Focus on the reduction of the likelihood of flooding in identified ‘at risk’ catchments through the adoption of upstream water management measures such as Rainwater Harvesting and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems;
·The introduction of water level monitoring facilities.
These objectives apply to the FRMPs assessed. Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed:
·The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding
·The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented
·The objectives refer to non-structural measures
3.2Specific and measurable objectives
Malta’s FRMP sets a target related to its second objective: the development of 1.5 m cubic metres of upstream storage and infiltration capacity. The other two objectives refer to specific activities. Consequently, all three objectives are measurable. None of the objectives, however, set a timeframe.
3.3Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods
The objectives do not refer to the reduction in adverse consequences from floods, though it appears to be an unstated goal as the Maltese FRMP refers to the National Floods Relief Project, which had the objective "to avert increases in risks to life and property and control damages caused by uncontrolled surface water runoff". There is no reference, however, to the components set out in Article 7(2) of the Floods Directive (human health, environment, cultural heritage and economic activity).
3.4Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding
The second objective calls for the reduction of the likelihood of flooding. Consequently, the objectives also address flood risk.
3.5Process for setting the objectives
There is no information provided on the process Malta followed to set the objectives, neither what was considered when setting the objectives nor the bodies involved.
3.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives
The following good practice was identified:
·One of Malta’s objectives sets a specific target (for upstream storage and infiltration capacity).
The following areas for further development were identified:
·Malta’s objectives do not specify the reduction in adverse consequences of flooding.
·None of the objectives sets a timeframe.
4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives
Malta reported 10 individual measures and no aggregated measures. In terms of the aspects of flood risk management, Malta reported five prevention measures, all under EU measure type M24; four preparedness measures (two each for EU measure types M41 and M44); and one “no action” measure.
Malta’s FRMP also indicates 10 measures, but these are presented in a different categorisation – direct, indirect and supporting measures – whose links with Malta’s reporting is not clear for all measures.
4.1Cost of measures
Although the FRMP does not report the costs of flood risk mitigation measures, information on the costs of some of these measures is included in chapter 11 of the Water Catchment Management Plan: this the case in particular for measures that address both the Floods Directive and the Water Framework Directive (e.g. measure GWM4, Development of managed aquifer recharge schemes).
4.2Funding of measures
The RBMP lists funding sources for the flood management measures. These include: national resources, EU structural funds (the Cohesion Fund, ERDF and specifically the INTERREG Programme are indicated) as well as the EU LIFE Programme and the EU Horizon 2020 Programme.
Table 6
Funding of measures
|
|
All UoMs
|
|
Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding
|
|
|
Use of public budget (national level)
|
✔
|
|
Use of public budget (regional level)
|
✔
|
|
Use of public budget (local level)
|
|
|
Private investment
|
|
|
EU funds (generic)
|
|
|
EU Structural funds
|
✔
|
|
EU Solidarity Fund
|
|
|
EU Cohesion funds
|
|
|
EU CAP funds
|
|
|
International funds
|
|
|
Other *
|
✔
|
Notes: Other in Malta includes: EU LIFE Programme, EU Horizon 2020 Programme.
4.3Measurable and specific (including location) measures
Malta’s FRMP provides a description of each measure with brief information on:
·What they are trying to achieve,
·How they are to be achieved, and
·By when they are expected to be achieved.
For all measures, the location is indicated as the entire Water Catchment District (i.e. the whole UoM), even for measures which are expected to be carried out in specific locations (e.g. implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and Natural Water Retention Measures).
The measures in the FRMP are only partly specific or measurable.
4.4Measures and objectives
The descriptions of the measures do not provide clear links to the FRMP’s objectives. Nonetheless, as explained in section 3, some of Malta’s objectives refer to specific initiatives, such as modelling and monitoring. Consequently, although it is not stated it can be assumed that completion of the first measure in the FRMP, on modelling, should achieve the objective to develop a modelling framework (see section 3).
4.5Geographic coverage/scale of measures
Malta reported that the location of all ten measures and their geographic coverage is at UoM/national level. As noted above, this includes measures that would appear to be carried out in more specific locations.
4.6Prioritisation of measures
Malta has reported on the prioritisation of its measures:
·One of the ten measures (for preparedness) is indicated as critical priority.
·Five measures are indicated as high priority: two prevention measures, preparedness measures and the one no action measure.
·Four measures are indicated of moderate priority, three for prevention and one for preparedness.
While the main sections of the Water Catchment Management Plan refer briefly to the prioritisation of its WFD measures, no indication was found on the method for prioritising the floods measures. The Plan does, however, set out a timetable for the implementation start dates of the measures (and states that the implementation of the respective measures is envisaged to be staggered over the six-year catchment management cycle):
·One measure in 2016;
·Five measures in 2017;
·Two measures in 2018;
·One measure each in 2019 and 2020.
The detailed description of the measures includes an estimation of completion dates of the measures (one each by 2017, 2018 and 2019, while for seven measures the implementation will be continued throughout the second catchment planning period).
4.7Authorities responsible for implementation of measures
In its reporting to WISE, Malta indicated the same responsible authority for all measures, i.e. the Energy and Water Agency (EWA), which is an authority at the national level.
In the FRMP, in contrast, another government agency is listed for each measure as the lead entity responsible for implementation, the Sustainable Energy and Water Conservation Unit (SEWCU) . The FRMP also indicates for each measure stakeholders that would need to be involved in the process, without indicating their specific roles or responsibilities. For example, the measure "Modelling the impact of the National Flood Relief Project on flood hazard and risk in identified catchments" has the following information regarding stakeholder participation:
·The Policy Development Directorate (PDD-MTI) within the Ministry for Transport and Infrastructure (MTI);
·The Environment and Resources Authority (ERA);
·The Eco-Gozo Regional Development Directorate within the Ministry for Gozo (MGoz);
·The Planning Authority (PA);
·The Marine, Storm Water and Valley Management Unit (MSWVMU) within the Ministry for Transport and Infrastructure (MTI);
·Transport Malta (TM);
·The Civil Protection Department (CPD);
·Local Councils.
4.8Progress of implementation of measures
Malta has reported on the process of implementation of all its measures. All ten measures are classified as an ongoing process.
4.9Measures taken under other Community Acts
Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure has been implemented: Malta has not provided such information, however, in its reporting sheets.
In Malta’s Plan, all ten measures listed for floods are also found in the main sections of the Water Catchment Management Plan among the measures for the WFD.
The FRMP does not refer to other Community Acts, and it does not appear that any of the ten floods measures are linked to, among others, the Seveso or the EIA Directives.
4.10Specific groups of measures
None of the ten measures explicitly refers to spatial planning or land use actions for addressing flood risks. One measure (FLD3) includes spatial planning aspects: specifically, developing guidance at the national and local level for better adoption of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems in planning.
The FRMP has two measures for natural water retention, one for an assessment of ‘Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and Natural Water Retention Measures to mitigate flood hazard and risk’ (FLD3) and another for their implementation (FLD4). The description does not indicate, however, which types of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems or NWRMs are to be considered.
None of the measures in the FRMP specifically considers nature conservation, and this is not indicated as an issue considered in preparing the plan.
No floods measures specifically consider ports and navigation (the main sections of the Water Catchment Management Plan addresses shipping in its WFD measures, however there are no navigable rivers).
No reference has been found in the FRMP assessed to dredging to increase the river channel capacity and its ability to convey water for flood alleviation purposes: based on the description of Malta’s surface waters and flood risks, this is not relevant.
4.11Recovery from and resilience to flooding
The role of insurance policies is not discussed in the Maltese FRMP.
4.12Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP
In its reporting sheets, Malta states that an Inter-Ministerial Committee on Water (IMC) will be established to monitor the implementation of both WFD and floods measures. While the responsibilities of the Committee are outlined, it is not explained how the progress is measured or evaluated.
The main sections of the Water Catchment Management Plan note that an initial Inter-Ministerial Committee on Water was set up for the first RBMP. For the new Plan, the Committee will establish sub-committees that will work with local entities and stakeholders; it is not specified, however, if a sub-committee will focus on floods .
Neither the reporting sheets nor the FRMP indicate that a baseline has been established against which progress will be monitored and assessed.
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 7
Coordination of the development of the FRMP with the development of the second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD
|
|
MTMALTA
|
|
Integration of FRMP and RBMP
|
✔
|
|
Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP
|
✔
|
|
Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and RBMP
|
✔
|
|
Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD
|
|
|
The objectives of the Floods Directive were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a
|
✔
|
|
Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMP
|
✔
|
|
The RBMP PoM includes win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, drought management and NWRMs a
|
✔
|
|
Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence maintenance or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives and RBMPs
|
|
|
Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included
|
|
|
Consistent and compliant application of WFD Article 7 and designation of heavily modified water bodies with measures taken under the FD e.g. flood defence infrastructure
|
|
|
The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers, have been adapted to take into account WFD Environmental Objectives a
|
✔
|
|
The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and porous pavements, have been considered to reduce urban flooding and also to contribute to the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives
|
✔
|
Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD
Malta produced a single document covering the whole UoM: This document is Malta’s Second Water Catchment Management Plan, which provides the second River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) under the WFD - and the first FRMP. Several sections in the main text of the second Water Catchment Management Plan mention floods, and flood measures are included in the programme of measures for the Water Catchment Management Plan. Some measures identified in the FRMP are also relevant for the RBMP (e.g. measures for rainwater harvesting, groundwater management and governance). The main text on floods, however, is part of a short Annex to the main document. It is stated that the development of the FRMP has been closely coordinated with the implementation of the WFD.
All ten FRMP measures are part of the second RBMP/the WFD’s PoM.
4.14Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures
The following good practices were identified:
·The description of measures includes an identification of stakeholders that will be involved in their implementation of measures.
·The single Plan for the RBMP and FRMP integrates measures for floods management with measures under the WFD.
The following areas for further development were identified:
·The FRMP does not contain information on the cost of measures; information on the costs of some but not all flood management relevant measures is provided in chapter 11 of the Water Catchment Management Plan.
·While the institutional body to monitor implementation of measures is identified, the FRMP does not contain information on the methodology or indicators for monitoring.
·The FRMP does not provide a methodology to explain the prioritisation of measures reported by Malta to WISE.
·While the FRMP provides some specific information on measures, for the most part this may prove insufficient to measure their implementation and results.
·
5. Consideration of climate change
The main text of the Second Water Catchment Management Plan discusses potential climate change impacts: an increase in heavy rainfall events leading to flooding is foreseen; a change in storm surges is not anticipated; sea-level rise is expected as a long-term change, though trends since 1961 have varied.
The Second Water Catchment Management Plan refers to Malta’s national Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, published in May 2012, stating for example that the monitoring of the implementation of measures will track integration with this as well as other plans. The FRMP Annex, however, does not cite this Strategy.
5.1Specific measures to address expected effects of climate change
Malta’s reporting sheets state that four of the ten measures are "aimed at reducing climate change impacts on the occurrence of flooding" (this information is also found in chapter 12 of the Water Catchment Management Plan, though not in the Annex/FRMP). These are:
·The implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and Natural Water Retention Measures.
·Survey of the status of existing rainwater runoff harvesting infrastructure, identification of potential users of rainwater harvested in these infrastructures, undertaking of rehabilitation works and development of a management framework to ensure the effective use of harvested rainwater runoff.
·Rehabilitation of existing rainwater harvesting dam structures in valleys.
·Development of Managed Aquifer Recharge schemes for aquifer management purposes.
5.2Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change
The following good practices were identified:
·Malta’s overall Plan provides a brief overview of expected climate impacts for flood events.
·Malta has identified measures that support climate change adaptation (though this is specified in the reporting sheets and in chapter 12 of the Water Catchment Management Plan, not the Annex/FRMP itself).
6. Cost-benefit analysis
It is unclear whether and how a cost-benefit analysis was used in selecting, prioritising and planning of flood protection measures in Malta.
Malta’s reporting sheets state that a "comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits of the measures" was carried out in the frame of the second RBMP. No further details are provided the FRMP itself. As noted in section 4, information on the costs of some but not all flood measures is included in chapter 11 of the Water Catchment Management Plan (this is the case in particular for measures listed under both the FRMP and the RBMP PoM). .
It appears that benefits of flood protection measures have not been calculated. In section 11.4 of the Water Catchment Management Plan, where the flood measures are discussed along with RBMP measures, it is stated that ‘...(the assessed) measures have other social and economic benefits that have not been included in this analysis, such as reducing the damage from storm water runoff and the prevention of loss of lives from flood events…’.
It is thus unclear whether and for which types of flood measures cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis has been used.
6.1Good practices and areas for further development
The following area for further development was identified:
·It is not clear whether or how an analysis of costs and benefits was used in the selection or planning of FRMP measures.
7. Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation
7.1Competent authorities
There were no updates made to the Competent Authorities or the Unit of Management. Malta has not reported any changes to the competent authority’s roles and responsibilities in WISE since 2012.
7.2Public information and consultation
The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed concerning the draft FRMP. Information on how the consultation was actually carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section:
Table 8
Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMP
|
|
MTMALTA
|
|
Media (papers, TV, radio)
|
|
|
Internet
|
✔
|
|
Digital social networking
|
|
|
Printed material
|
|
|
Direct mailing
|
|
|
Invitations to stakeholders
|
|
|
Local Authorities
|
|
|
Meetings
|
✔
|
Source: FRMP
The public consultation process supporting the development of the first Flood Risk Management Plan was undertaken within the development framework of the second Water Catchment Management Plan, meaning the consultation on the FRMP was integrated into the consultation on the RBMP.
The draft Water Catchment Management Plan was available via Internet. While other information activities were carried out for the Plan as a whole, it is not clear if these included the FRMP.
The FRMP itself and Malta’s reporting sheets refer to information meetings on the application of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS): these were organised for the public and stakeholders by the Local Councils Association under an EU project, E2STORMED.
The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out:
Table 9
Methods used for the actual consultation
|
|
MTMALTA
|
|
Via Internet
|
✔
|
|
Via digital social networking
|
|
|
Direct invitation
|
|
|
Exhibitions
|
|
|
Workshops, seminars or conferences
|
✔
|
|
Telephone surveys
|
|
|
Direct involvement in drafting FRMP
|
|
|
Postal written comments
|
|
Source: FRMP
As noted above, information meetings were held on Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. It can be noted that the main text of the Second Water Catchment Management Plan provides a description of several consultation meetings with stakeholders on the WFD aspects of the Plan; however, issues and measures for flood management are not mentioned in these pages, .
The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided:
Table 10
Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation
|
|
MTMALTA
|
|
Downloadable
|
|
|
Direct mailing (e-mail)
|
✔
|
|
Direct mailing (post)
|
|
|
Paper copies distributed at exhibitions
|
|
|
Paper copies available in municipal buildings (town hall, library etc.)
|
|
|
Paper copies at the main office of the competent authority
|
|
Source: FRMP
As noted above, a web page was created to provide documents and information for the consultation of the Second Water Catchment Management Plan. Specific information regarding the FRMP was not found at the time of the assessment.
7.3Active involvement of Stakeholders
The table below shows the groups of stakeholders that have been actively involved in and reported to WISE specifically for the development of the FRMP:
Table 11
Groups of stakeholders
|
|
MTMALTA
|
|
Civil Protection Authorities such as Government Departments responsible for emergency planning and coordination of response actions
|
|
|
Flood Warning / Defence Authorities
|
|
|
Drainage Authorities
|
|
|
Emergency services
|
|
|
Water supply and sanitation
|
|
|
Agriculture / farmers
|
|
|
Energy / hydropower
|
|
|
Navigation / ports
|
|
|
Fisheries / aquaculture
|
|
|
Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services)
|
|
|
NGOs including nature protection, social issues (e.g. children, housing)
|
|
|
Consumer Groups
|
|
|
Local / Regional authorities
|
✔
|
|
Academia / Research Institutions
|
|
Source: FRMP
As noted above, meetings were held on SUDS with the Local Councils Association. The FRMP does not indicate the specific stakeholders involved, however.
While the main sections of the Water Catchment Management Plan describe detailed discussions with groups of stakeholders on key aspects of the RBMP, issues related to the FRMP are not mentioned among the topics addressed .
The table below shows the mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders:
Table 12
Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders
|
|
MTMALTA
|
|
Regular exhibitions
|
|
|
Establishment of advisory groups
|
|
|
Involvement in drafting
|
|
|
Workshops and technical meetings
|
✔
|
|
Formation of alliances
|
|
|
Information days
|
|
Source: FRMP
Though, as noted above, the main sections of the Water Catchment Management Plan describe the involvement of stakeholders, the only information found in the FRMP and Malta’s reporting sheets on involvement related to floods issues concerns the meetings on SUDS.
7.4Effects of consultation
There is no information in the FRMP or the reporting sheets on the effects of the consultation.
7.5Strategic Environmental Assessment
Malta’s reporting under the WFD indicated that no SEA procedure was carried out for the Second Water Catchment Plan.
7.6Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance
The following good practice was identified:
·Malta organised stakeholder meetings for one of the measures to be carried out under the FRMP, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.
The following area for further development was identified:
·Public consultation is only briefly described in the Maltese FRMP, which refers to the consultation for the Water Catchment Management Plan as a whole; although the overall consultation for the Water Catchment Management Plan covered floods, the detailed information on consultation and active involvement of stakeholders in the main document only refers to WFD issues. Consequently, information is not provided on which groups were actually actively involved regarding floods measures, nor the effects of the consultation on the FRMP.
·
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures
This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by Malta 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), 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 above on the name of the Responsible Authority), are categorised as “no information”.
Types of measures used in reporting
The following table
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’.
|
NO ACTION
M11: No Action
|
PREPAREDNESS
M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning
M42: Emergency response planning
M43: Public Awareness
M44: Other preparedness
|
|
PREVENTION
M21: Avoidance
M22: Removal or relocation
M23: Reduction
M24: Other prevention
|
RECOVERY & REVIEW
M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery
M52: Environmental recovery
M53: Other recovery
|
|
PROTECTION
M31: Natural flood management
M32: Flow regulation
M33: Coastal and floodplain works
M34: Surface Water Management
M35: other protection
|
OTHER MEASURES
M61: Other measures
|
List of Annex A tables & figures
Figure A1: Number of total measures by measure aspect
Figure A2: Visualisation of Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by UoM
Table A1: Total number of measures
Table A2: Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM
Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect
Table A4: Category of priority by UoM
Measures overview
Table A1: Total number of measures
|
Number of individual measures
|
10
|
|
Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type
|
10
|
|
Number of aggregated measures
|
0
|
|
Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type
|
0
|
|
Total number of measures
|
10
|
|
Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type
|
10
|
|
Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type (Min-Max)
|
0
|
|
Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type
|
10
|
Table A2: Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM
|
|
No action
|
Total
|
Prevention
|
Total
|
Preparedness
|
Total
|
Grand Total
|
|
|
M11
|
|
M24
|
|
M41
|
M44
|
|
|
|
MTMALTA
|
1
|
1
|
5
|
5
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
10
|
|
Grand Total
|
1
|
1
|
5
|
5
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
10
|
Notes: All measures are individual measures as Malta did not report any aggregated measures. Measure codes and aspects are described above.
The information in Table A2 is visualised in Figure A1 below:
Figure A1: Number of total measures by measure aspect
Notes: All measures are individual as Malta did not report any aggregated measures.
Measure details: cost
Member States were requested to report information on:
·Cost (optional field);
·Cost explanation (optional field).
Information on cost was not provided in the reporting sheets for any of the measures in Malta.
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
Malta reported the same location (the entire RBD of Malta) for all measures i.e. the UoM.
Geographic coverage
Malta reported the same geographic coverage (the entire RBD of Malta) for all measures i.e. national coverage.
Measure details: objectives
Member States were requested to report information on:
·Objectives linked to measures (optional field, complementary to the summary provided in the textual part of the XML);
·Category of priority (Conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ is required);
·Timetable (Conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ is required).
Objectives
Malta did not provide information about the objectives of the measures in the reporting sheets.
Category of priority
Malta provided information for the priority of all measures. The following categories are used in the reporting sheet:
·Critical;
·Very high;
·High;
·Moderate;
·Low.
Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect
|
|
Critical
|
High
|
Moderate
|
Grand Total
|
|
No action
|
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
Prevention
|
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
|
Preparedness
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
|
Grand Total
|
1
|
5
|
4
|
10
|
Figure A2: Visualisation of Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect
Table A4: Category of priority by UoM
|
|
Critical
|
High
|
Moderate
|
Grand Total
|
|
MTMALTA
|
1
|
5
|
4
|
10
|
|
Grand Total
|
1
|
5
|
4
|
10
|
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by UoM
Timetable
Malta did not report any information about the timetable of measures.
Measure details: authorities
Member States were requested to report information on:
·Name of the responsible authority (optional if ‘level of responsibility’ is reported);
·Level of responsibility (optional if ‘name of the responsible authority’ is reported).
Malta reported the same responsible authority for all measures, i.e. the Energy and Water Agency (EWA), which is an authority at the national level.
Measure details: progress
Member States were requested to report information on:
·Progress of implementation of measures (mandatory field) – this is a closed question whose responses are analysed below;
·Progress description of the implementation of measures (optional field) – this is an open text question for which not all Member States reported and whose answers are not analysed here.
The Progress of implementation was reported as
:
·COM (completed);
·OGC (ongoing construction);
·POG (progress ongoing);
·NS (not started).
Malta indicated the progress of all measures as ‘progress ongoing’ in the reporting sheet.
The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance Document on the Floods Directive:
|
For measures involving construction or building works (e.g. a waste water treatment plant, a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc.):
·Not started (NS) means the technical and/or administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have not started.
·Progress on-going (POG) means that administrative procedures necessary for starting the construction or building works have started but are not finalised. The simple inclusion in the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context.
·On-going construction (OGC) means the construction or building works have started but are not finalised.
·Completed (COM) means the works have been finalised and the facilities are operational (maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant).
For measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers):
·Not started (NS) means the advisory services are not yet operational and have not provided any advisory session yet.
·Progress on-going (POG) means the advisory services are operational and are being used. This is expected to be the situation for all multi- annual long/mid-term advisory services that are expected to be operational during the whole or most of RBMP cycle.
·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable
·Completed (COM) means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been finalised, i.e. is no longer operational. This is expected only for advisory services that are relatively short term or one-off, and which duration is time limited in relation to the whole RBMP cycle.
For measures involving research, investigation or studies:
·Not started (NS) means the research, investigation or study has not started, i.e. contract has not been signed or there has not been any progress.
·Progress on-going (POG) means the research, investigation or study has been contracted or started and is being developed at the moment.
·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable
·Completed (COM) means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and has been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.).
For measures involving administrative acts (e.g. licenses, permits, regulations, instructions, etc.):
·Not started (NS) means the administrative file has not been opened and there has not been any administrative action as regards the measure.
·Progress on-going (POG) means an administrative file has been opened and at least a first administrative action has been taken (e.g. requirement to an operator to provide information to renew the licensing, request of a permit by an operator, internal consultation of draft regulations, etc.). If the measure involves more than one file, the opening of one would mean already “ongoing”.
·On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable
·Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license or permit has been issued; the regulation has been adopted, etc.). If the measure involves more than one administrative act, “completed” is achieved only when all of them have been concluded.
|
Measure details: other
Member States were requested to provide information on:
·Other Community Acts associated to the measures reported (optional field);
·Any other information reported (optional field).
Malta did not provide information for any of these fields in the reporting sheets.
Annex B: Definitions of measure types
Table B1
Types of flood risk management measures
|
|
No Action
|
|
M11
|
No Action, No measure is proposed to reduce the flood risk in the APSFR or other defined area,
|
|
|
Prevention
|
|
M21
|
Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation
|
|
M22
|
Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to relocate receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard
|
|
M23
|
Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc...
|
|
M24
|
Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood risk modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability assessment, maintenance programmes or policies etc...)
|
|
|
Protection
|
|
M31
|
Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in-channel , floodplain works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water.
|
|
M32
|
Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures involving physical interventions to regulate flows, such as the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line storage areas or development of existing flow regulation rules), and which have a significant impact on the hydrological regime.
|
|
M33
|
Protection, Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works, Measures involving physical interventions in freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal waters and flood-prone areas of land, such as the construction, modification or removal of structures or the alteration of channels, sediment dynamics management, dykes, etc.
|
|
M34
|
Protection, Surface Water Management, Measures involving physical interventions to reduce surface water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing artificial drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).
|
|
M35
|
Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may include flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies
|
|
|
Preparedness
|
|
M41
|
Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or warning system
|
|
M42
|
Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning
|
|
M43
|
Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public awareness or preparedness for flood events
|
|
M44
|
Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events to reduce adverse consequences
|
|
|
Recovery & Review
|
|
M51
|
Recovery and Review (Planning for the recovery and review phase is in principle part of preparedness), Individual and societal recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure, etc), Health and mental health supporting actions, incl. managing stress Disaster financial assistance (grants, tax), incl. disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, Temporary or permanent relocation , Other
|
|
M52
|
Recovery and Review, Environmental recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (with several sub-topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous materials containers)
|
|
M53
|
Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance policies
|
|
|
Other
|
|
M61
|
Other
|
Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)
NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as NWRM, by encouraging the retention of water within a catchment and, through that, enhancing the natural functioning of the catchment. The catalogue developed in the NWRM project represents a comprehensive but non prescriptive wide range of measures; other measures, or similar measures called by a different name, that could also be classified as NWRM.
To ease access to measures, the catalogue of measures hereunder is sorted by the primary land use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most of the measures however can be applied to more than one land use type.
Table B2
List of NWRMs
|
Agriculture
|
Forest
|
Hydro Morphology
|
Urban
|
|
A01 Meadows and pastures
|
F01 Forest riparian buffers
|
N01 Basins and ponds
|
U01 Green Roofs
|
|
A02 Buffer strips and hedges
|
F02 Maintenance of forest cover in headwater areas
|
N02 Wetland restoration and management
|
U02 Rainwater Harvesting
|
|
A03 Crop rotation
|
F03 Afforestation of reservoir catchments
|
N03 Floodplain restoration and management
|
U03 Permeable surfaces
|
|
A04 Strip cropping along contours
|
F04 Targeted planting for 'catching' precipitation
|
N04 Re-meandering
|
U04 Swales
|
|
A05 Intercropping
|
F05 Land use conversion
|
N05 Stream bed re-naturalization
|
U05 Channels and rills
|
|
A06 No till agriculture
|
F06 Continuous cover forestry
|
N06 Restoration and reconnection of seasonal streams
|
U06 Filter Strips
|
|
A07 Low till agriculture
|
F07 'Water sensitive' driving
|
N07 Reconnection of oxbow lakes and similar features
|
U07 Soakaways
|
|
A08 Green cover
|
F08 Appropriate design of roads and stream crossings
|
N08 Riverbed material renaturalisation
|
U08 Infiltration Trenches
|
|
A09 Early sowing
|
F09 Sediment capture ponds
|
N09 Removal of dams and other longitudinal barriers
|
U09 Rain Gardens
|
|
A10 Traditional terracing
|
F10 Coarse woody debris
|
N10 Natural bank stabilisation
|
U10 Detention Basins
|
|
A11 Controlled traffic farming
|
F11 Urban forest parks
|
N11 Elimination of riverbank protection
|
U11 Retention Ponds
|
|
A12 Reduced stocking density
|
F12 Trees in Urban areas
|
N12 Lake restoration
|
U12 Infiltration basins
|
|
A13 Mulching
|
F13 Peak flow control structures
|
N13 Restoration of natural infiltration to groundwater
|
|
|
|
F14 Overland flow areas in peatland forests
|
N14 Re-naturalisation of polder areas
|
|
Source:
www.nwrm.eu
