1st technical meeting of the cis wgf sub-group on ... · facets annotation and ... data model...

© WRc plc 2017

|

1st Technical Meeting of the CIS WGF Sub-Group on Reporting:

Update of Reporting Tools for the Floods Directive – proposed

methodology, work plan and deliverables

© WRc plc 2017

Project Team

© WRc plc 2017

Overview of Approach

Task 1: support for development of

updated guidance

Step 1: Review of guidance doc

29 in light of lessons learned

Step 2: Review of end-user

needs

Step 3: Review of Floods Directive reporting

Step 4: Development of

revised guidance

Task 2: Development of reporting Schemas and specification for

QA procedures

Setting assumptions

Data modelling

INSPIRE alignment

Specification for QA

© WRc plc 2017

• Review of each Schema

• Taking account of lessons

learned

• Progress under Task 4

WFD/FD for FRMPs

• Table of proposed set of

changes to each element

Step 1: Review of Guidance Doc. 29

Schema element

Field

type/

facets

Annotation and

additional comments in

the schema user guide

Proposal

for 2016

Further

guidance or

comments if

needed

Proposed

quality

assurance

checks

EUSurfaceWater

BodyCode

String Annotation: Unique EU

code for the Water Body.

Add the two-letter ISO

Country code followed by

the Member State unique

id up to a maximum of 42

characters

Keep First 2

characters

should be

country ISO

code

SWB_MS_CD String Annotation: Unique

Code for the Water Body

within the MS

Keep

SWB_NAME String Annotation:

Understandable Name of

Water Body – needs to be

better specified.

Keep

© WRc plc 2017

• How will the information be

used by EC/EEA?

• Was all the information used?

• Gap analysis

• Compilation of list of products

Step 2: Review of end-user needs

Nb Name of

product

Type of

product

Scale of

information*

Detailed information

displayed

Source of detailed information

and aggregation rule

1 Basic

information on

Units of

Management

(UoM)

Table

and

Map

EU/MS/UoM Table and Map of UoM

in the Member State

with an indication of

which (if any) are

international

Number and size

(areas) of National and

International UoM

Aggregated information on the

basis of the information provided

at UoM scale

2 Areas of

Potential

Significant

Flood Risk:

Overview of risk

from flood types

Table EU/MS Table listing for each

Member State, the

number of APSFRs

according to flood type:

source; mechanism,

and; characteristics



at UoM scale

3 EU overview of

planned

measures for

achievement of

objectives

Map EU EU Map illustrating the

broad types of planned

measures



at UoM and MS scale

© WRc plc 2017

Step 3: Document – A Review of Floods

Directive Reporting

Summary of Lessons Learnt

Proposed changes to Schemas

Proposed changes to Guidance

Changes to QA

Procedures

List of Products

Revised Reporting Guidance

© WRc plc 2017

Step 4: Development of revised

Reporting Guidance

Follow WFD structure:

• Introduction – incl. summary

of obligations under FD

• How the EC/EEA will use the

information

• Contents of reporting

Schema sketches

Technical description of data

and GIS information to be

reported

Guidance on expected

contents of e.g. FRMPs or

background docs

Glossary

© WRc plc 2017

Deliverables

Task 1 Deliverables

Discussion document forming the basis of the 1st meeting to be

held in Bucharest

Documents for Sub-WGF on R (2nd, 3rd and final meetings)

Documents for SCG

Documents to be sent to WDs

Updated Guidance document on reporting for the Floods Directive

© WRc plc 2017

Objectives:

• Facilitate the reporting to MS – more of an “options to choose from”

• Empowering analysis to obtain information on floods risks assessments –

less text more data

• Efficiency gains through automation, harmonisation, reference lists and

standards (INSPIRE and OGC)

Task 2: Development of the reporting

schemas and specifications for QAs

© WRc plc 2017

Task 2: Development of the reporting

schemas and specifications for QAs

We Have a Method:

Physical model

Logical model Conceptual

model

Setting assumptions

UML

UML DRAFT

UML v. X

UML final

Reporting tools

QA specifications

Reporting

guidance

© WRc plc 2017

Task 2: Data modelling

Data modelling: UML with data

structure

Reporting Tools

XML definition schemas

GML definition schema

Access DB template

Shapefile template

Documentation

Specifications on the Reporting Guidance

Interactive diagram for a data model

reading

Single environment for

modeling and outputs

production

Common area for

thematic and IT experts

Version control

© WRc plc 2017

Task 2: INSPIRE alignment for spatial data

INSPIRE core fields Description

inspireLocalId A local identifier, assigned by the data provider. The local identifier is

unique within the namespace that is no other spatial object carries the

same unique identifier.

NOTE: It is the responsibility of the data provider to guarantee uniqueness

of the local identifier within the namespace. [Source: Feature Catalogue

'INSPIRE application schemas' http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/data-

model/approved/r4618/fc/#_C33423]

inspireIdNamespace Namespace uniquely identifying the data source of the spatial object.

NOTE The namespace value will be owned by the data provider of the

spatial object and will be registered in the INSPIRE External Object

Identifier Namespaces Register. [Source: Feature Catalogue 'INSPIRE

application schemas' http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/data-

model/approved/r4618/fc/#_C33423]

inspireIdVersionId The identifier of the particular version of the spatial object, with a maximum

length of 25 characters. If the specification of a spatial object type with an

external object identifier includes life-cycle information, the version

identifier is used to distinguish between the different versions of a spatial

object. Within the set of all versions of a spatial object, the version identifier

is unique.

NOTE The maximum length has been selected to allow for time stamps

based on ISO 8601, for example, "2007-02-12T12:12:12+05:30" as the

version identifier.

© WRc plc 2017


thematicIdIdentifier Identifier defining the scheme used to assign the identifier.

thematicIdIdentifierScheme Identifier defining the scheme used to assign the identifier.

beginLifespanVersion Date and time at which this version of the spatial object was inserted or changed

in the spatial data set. This date is recorded to enable the generation of change

only update files.

endLifespanVersion Date and time at which this version of the spatial object was superseded or retired

in the spatial data set. This date is recorded primarily for those systems which

"close" an entry in the spatial data set in the event of an attribute change.

predecessorsIdentifier In a genealogy, the object(s) that has(have) been deactivated/replaced by another

one.


© WRc plc 2017


predecessorsIdentifierScheme Identifier defining the scheme used to assign the identifier value(s) in the

predecessorsIdentifier attribute.

designationPeriodBegin [Beginning of the] time period defining when the management, restriction or

regulation zone was legally designated or became effective in the real world.

designationPeriodEnd [End of the] time period defining when the management, restriction or

regulation zone was legally designated or became effective in the real world.

EvolutionType Type of event that produced or modified the version of the object being

reported (creation, change, deletion, aggregation, splitting). This attribute is

required to explicitly report changes and update the current status of the

object in the Water Information System for Europe.


© WRc plc 2017


nameText

Name, in the national language. National language endonym, or national

language version of the name of the geographical feature or spatial object.

nameLanguage

Language code of the language used in the nameText attribute value.


© WRc plc 2017

Task 2: Quality Assessment Specifications

Allow immediate assessment on data reported:

• Three levels of data quality assessment: • Schema (XML and GML) compliancy:

Correct structure

Completion of mandatory fields

Use of enumerations (Common XSD)

Use the data formats (e.g. date, codes)

• Within schema: Values validation (e.g. outliers)

Spatial consistency (e.g. APSFR inside the UoM)

• Cross schema: Consistency among reporting obligations (e.g. Competent authorities UoMs

reported against UoMs reported under APSFR)

• Statistics: Overview of the data reported (e.g. number of APSFR reported)

BLOCKER

ERROR

INFO

WARNING

Messages types

© WRc plc 2017

Work Programme

Meetings Deliverables/milestones Date

Project Start Mid-February 2017

Kick-off Meeting with European

Commission

Late February 2017

Discussion Document sent to

Sub-WGF on R

10 March 2017

Sub-WGF on R – 1st Meeting

(Bucharest)

16-17 March 2017

Inception Report (including

early Draft Review of the

original guidance and

schemas as an annex)

Late March 2017

Early draft of updated

Guidance document – basis for

the extended 2nd meeting of the

Sub-group on Reporting

Middle of May 2017

Sub-WGF on R – 2nd meeting,

extended & technical

(Brussels)

30-31 May 2017

First draft of updated

Guidance Document sent to

European Commission/Sub-

WGF on R for written comment

Middle to end of June

2017

Second draft of Guidance

Document accounting for

Commission//Sub-WGF on R

comments

Middle of August 2017

Draft Interim Report sent to

Commission

Early September (one

week prior to Interim

Meeting)

Sub-WGF on R – Third

Meeting and possible Interim

Meeting with the European

Commission (Brussels)

Tuesday 05 September

2017 (tbc)

© WRc plc 2017

Work Programme

Final draft of updated

Guidance Document, draft

schemas and specifications

for automatic QA/QC

routines sent to Commission

and Sub-WGF on R

End of September 2017

Sub-WGF on R – Final Meeting

(Estonia)

Agreement/finalisation of the

Guidance document,

schemas and specifications

for automatic QA/QC

routines

Week of 16-20 October

2017

Finalised reporting tools

provided prior to CIS SCG

Meeting

End of October 2017

Interim Report sent to

Commission

Early November 2017

CIS SCG Meeting (Brussels) 9-10 November 2017

Package of Reporting

Tools sent to WD

End of November 2017

WD Meeting (Estonia) 4-5 December 2017

Draft Final Report sent to

Commission

Final draft of Package of

Reporting Tools sent to

Commission

January 2018

Final Meeting with Commission February 2018

Final Report

Final Package of Tools

March 2018

© WRc plc 2017

|

Discussion: Approach & Work

Programme

© WRc plc 2017

|

Discussion Paper – PFRA/APSFR

© WRc plc 2017

• All schema elements to be reviewed and evaluated

• Modifications to schemas and guidance

recommended

• Some worked examples

• Data needs

• Discussion

Introduction and Objectives

© WRc plc 2017

• ‘Lessons Learnt’ – Past floods information required

on source, mechanism, characteristics and adverse

consequences, location, flood data/statistics

• Option to provide summary text in absence of data

taken up (14%) but data often available…

• Recommended ‘No data’ option no longer used

• Simple change to schema and guidance

EXAMPLE 1 (PFRA) - very basic change to

schema: Data not available option

© WRc plc 2017

Current Schema element sketch (from user guide)

© WRc plc 2017

• Differences between Article 4.2b and 4.2c:

• (Article 4.2.b) A description of the floods which have occurred in the

past and which had significant adverse impacts on human health, the

environment, cultural heritage and economic activity and for which the

likelihood of similar events is still relevant

• (Article 4.2.c) A description of the significant floods which have

occurred in the past, where significant adverse consequences of

similar future events might be envisaged

• Clear understanding needed

Example 2 (PFRA) – Clarification on the

assessment of risk based on historical floods

© WRc plc 2017

Proposed Change to Schema sketch

Schema element: PastAdverseConsequences

Field type/facets/relationship: Yes/No (significant and still relevant) for each impact under an

Enumeration list (impact): human health, environment, cultural heritage, economic activity.

Enumeration list (conveyance routes): for example: River/stream channels, land drainage ditches,

roads/pathways, natural floodplain, etc.

Guidance on Completion of this element: Required: A description of floods which have

occurred in the past and which had significant adverse impact on human health, the environment,

cultural heritage and economic activity and for which the likelihood of similar future events is still

relevant, including their flood extent and conveyance routes and an assessment of the adverse

impacts they have entailed.

Quality Checks within Schema element check: significant adverse impact must be reported. A

valid option must be selected from each enumeration list. More than one option can be selected.

Quality Cross-Schema check: clearly distinguish between SignificantAdverseConsequences

schema.

• A clear explanation of the difference between the requirements of Article 4.2b and c will be included in updated guidance text

© WRc plc 2017

• Clarify which types of flood excluded (Y/N or enumeration

list)

• Source, mechanism and characteristics mandatory

• effectiveness of man-made flood defences; conveyance

routes of historical floods; geomorphological characteristics;

and areas of economic activity – no reasons given for the

exclusion

• Methodologies only superficially reported (e.g. for defining

significant adverse consequences) – separate schema

• Not all MS considered climate change (Y/N, link to method)

Other Lessons Learned..

© WRc plc 2017

Reference to methodologies – schema sketch

Schema element: methodsignificancefloodhistoricReference

Field type/facets/relationship: ReferenceType

Guidance on Completion of this element: Required. Provide references or hyperlinks to the

documents and sections where relevant information relating to the approach used to define

significant historic floods can be found. Guidance on what should be included in this document is

provided in Section <> of this guidance document.

© WRc plc 2017

• European Commission requires information to:

• Ensure data are plausible

• Ensure data are consistent

• Conduct cross-references and cross-checks on data (especially in International River Basins)

• Ensure Directives have been implemented in a comparable way

• And also to:

• Provide information on the state of the environment and trends (including flooding)

• Determine implementation of measures and objectives

• Understand whether existing policies are affording adequate protection

• Determine whether funds are adequately distributed

• Inform the public

Data needs

© WRc plc 2017

• 3 main questions:

• Are the reports complete (provision of mandatory fields) and clear

(values in code lists correct and numeric/character values in correct

minimum/maximum ranges)?

• Are the reports understandable (sense check)?

• Are the reports compliant?

• with regard to key issues (compliance checking) involving for some issues

the use of appropriate indicators?

• after in-depth assessment?

• Beyond compliance checking

Questions to be answered

© WRc plc 2017

• The European Commission

has developed a number of

products using the data and

information provided by MS

• Further products to be

developed (for FRMPs)

• Contained within Commission

reports and WISE

• List of products from

PFRA/APSFR/FHRMs

Products from reported data and

information

© WRc plc 2017

Example of products developed from the

information provided

Around 30 products

No. Name of

Product

Type of

Product

Scale of

information

Detail of

information

displayed

Aggregation

rule

Source of

information

1 The

application

of Article 4,

13.1(a) and

13.1(b) of

the Floods

Directive

Map EU/MS The application

of Article 4,

13.1(a) and

13.1(b) of the

Floods Directive

in the Units of

Management of

Member States

Aggregation on

the basis of the

information

reported at

UoM level

Report on

PFRA &

APFSR

2 Overview of

the

application

of the

different

Articles

relating to

the

assessment

of Flood

Risk under

the Floods

Directive

Table MS/UoM MS; Article

Applied; Units of

Management;

Type of Flood

where a

distinction is

made (Source,

Mechanism,

Characteristic

as specified by

the Member

State) ;

Identification of

instances where

no specific flood

types were

reported and it

is assumed that

the relevant

Article is applied

to all flood types

No aggregation Report on

PFRA &

APFSR

© WRc plc 2017

• Information on which types of flood were excluded and why

• Sources, mechanisms and characteristics (all mandatory)

• Methodologies associated with defining significant floods and significant adverse consequences superficially reported

• Often not clear how many significant flood risk areas are shared with other MS and countries

• Large differences in numbers of APSFRs - include area

Potential additional data and information

required

© WRc plc 2017

• Was the reporting guidance clear? Were any major issues encountered in using the reporting guidance?

• Were there any particular areas of ambiguity that would benefit from further explanation?

• Were there any issues with understanding and following the QA steps in the process?

• Did the WISE/ReportNet system function properly when reporting? Were any issues encountered with ReportNet and the Central Data Repository?

• If you encountered any problems, did these lead to in delays to reporting?

• What areas of reporting were the most time and resource intensive?

• Are there any products that would be useful to the MSs that are not currently produced?

• Do you have any suggestions to improve the reporting process for the next cycle?

Discussion & Questions

© WRc plc 2017

|

Discussion Paper – FHRM

© WRc plc 2017


• Modifications to schemas and guidance

recommended

• Some worked examples

• Data needs

• Discussion


© WRc plc 2017

• ‘Lessons Learnt’ – provide more clarity on sources

of flooding included in national maps

• Not all MS reported the source of floods for their

maps..

• Recommended that it should be clearly indicated

where combined sources are included on the map

• Provide another option within enumeration list

Example 1 (FHRMs) – Sources of flooding

© WRc plc 2017

Sources of Flooding Schema

enumeration A18 – specific maps enumeration A19 – combined maps

© WRc plc 2017

• ‘Lessons Learnt’ – ~ 30% of MS provided no

information or unclear information on how return

periods and/or probabilities of flooding were

calculated.

• An enumeration list would have facilitated clearer

responses

Example 2 (FHRMs) – Methods for calculating

return periods and/or probabilities of flooding

© WRc plc 2017

Sources of Flooding Schema

Schema element: ReturnperiondandprobabiltiesApproach

Field type/facets/relationship: ReturnperiondandprobabiltiesApproach_Enum:

Expert judgement

Historical data

Statistical analysis

Modelling

Hydrological rainfall-runoff models

No information

Guidance on Completion of this element: Required: If ‘no information’ is selected justification

must be provided (see Section <> of this guidance).

Quality Checks within Schema element check: Approach must be reported. A valid option must be

selected from the enumeration list. More than one option can be selected.

© WRc plc 2017

• Flooding extent

• Flooding probabilities (including information as to why

particular probabilities have been selected) or return periods

• Depths or water levels

• Velocities or flows (where appropriate)

• Models used, datasets, uncertainties, if and how, climate

change has been taken into account in the mapping (article

6)

• Resolution of models used for the presentation of

hazard maps

• Conveyance routes


© WRc plc 2017


Schema element: methodsandmodelsapproachReference

Field type/facets/relationship: ReferenceType

Guidance on Completion of this element: Required. Provide references or hyperlinks to the

documents and sections where relevant information relating to the modelling approaches used to

produce the flood hazard maps can be found. Guidance on what should be included in this

document is provided in Section <> of this guidance document.

© WRc plc 2017

Data needs - Example of products

developed from the information provided

No

.

Name of

Product

Type of

Product

Scale of

informatio

n

Detail of information

displayed

Aggregation rule Source of

information

29 Summary of

scenarios mapped

for fluvial flooding

with associated

expressions of

probabilities

Table MS Summarises the numeric

values of the probabilities used

by Member States for each of

the scenarios mapped for

fluvial flooding. Allows for

variation in the UoMs.

Aggregation on the basis

of the information

reported at UoM level

Report on

methodologies used

in preparation of

Flood Hazard and

Flood Risk Maps

32 Number of

Member States

including the

different elements

in their hazard

maps for fluvial

flooding

Graph EU Bar chart showing the

scenarios specified in Art 6(4)

of the Floods Directive, and the

number of MSs that have

included them in flood risk

maps.


of the information


Report on

methodologies used

in preparation of

Flood Hazard and

Flood Risk Maps

67 Summary of

methodologies

and approaches

used to assess

the potential

adverse

consequences on

Protected Areas

Table MS Textual table giving a summary

of methodologies and

approaches used to assess the

potential adverse

consequences on Protected

Areas


of the information


Report on

methodologies used

in preparation of

Flood Hazard and

Flood Risk Maps

68 Spatial reference

layer of UoMs

GIS layer UoM Mapping of all UoMs GIS layer including all

UoMs

Basis for WISE map

viewer which is

currently being

updated

© WRc plc 2017


• Modifications to schemas and guidance recommended

• Worked example

• Data needs

• Discussion

• Reminder of Assessment history


© WRc plc 2017

Assessment FRMPs

• Screening of Draft FRMPs (reported in 2015)

• Development of conceptual approach for assessment

• Development of questionnaires

• Dashboard

• MS interviews/questionnaire

• Assessment to start in April

Brief History – FRMP Assessment

© WRc plc 2017

• Varies considerably between, and sometimes within,

Member States

• Format of the Annex has been followed in some

cases, in other’s all the information is there, but in a

different order

• Article 13.3 applied only in 2 RBDs

Structure and contents of the plans

© WRc plc 2017

Included in plan?

Specific and measureable?

• Reduce the risk of flooding

• Not to increase the risk of flooding

• Reduce the consequences of flooding

• Reduce the likelihood of flooding

Objectives

© WRc plc 2017

In place?

Information on budgets and funding?

How will they contribute to achievement

of objectives?

Information on time horizons for implementation?

Measures

© WRc plc 2017

Types of measure

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Me

asu

res t

o p

reve

nt

the loca

tio

n o

f n

ew

or

ad

ditio

na

lre

ce

pto

rs in

flo

od

pro

ne

are

as

Me

asu

res t

o r

em

ove

rece

pto

rs fro

m f

loo

dp

ron

e a

rea

s,

or

tore

locate

rece

pto

rs t

oa

rea

s o

f lo

wer…

Me

asu

res t

o a

da

pt

rece

pto

rs to

red

uce

the a

dve

rse

con

se

qu

en

ce

s in

the e

ve

nt o

f a…

NW

RM

Oth

er

me

asure

s to

enh

an

ce

flo

od r

isk

pre

ve

ntio

n

Nu

mb

er

of

pla

ns

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Me

asure

s to

redu

ce

the

flo

w into

na

tura

l or

art

ific

al…

Me

asure

s involv

ing

ph

ysic

al

inte

rvention

s t

o…

Me

asure

s involv

ing

ph

ysic

al

inte

rvention

s in…

Me

asure

s involv

ing

ph

ysic

al

inte

rvention

s t

o…

Dre

dgin

g o

f rivers

to in

cre

ase

riv

er

chan

nel capa

city

Oth

er

mea

su

res

Num

ber

of

pla

ns

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Me

asure

s to e

sta

blis

hor

enhance a

flo

od

fore

castin

g o

r early

warn

ing s

yste

m

Me

asure

s to e

sta

blis

hor

enhance flo

od e

vent

institu

tio

nal em

erg

ency

response p

lannin

g

Me

asure

s to e

sta

blis

hor

enhance p

ublic

aw

are

ness o

rpre

pa

redness for

flo

od

eve

nts

Oth

er

pre

pare

dness

me

asure

s

Num

ber

of

pla

ns

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cle

an

up

and

resto

ration

activitie

s

He

alth a

nd m

enta

lhe

alth s

up

port

ing

actions

Dis

aste

r fin

ancia

lassis

tan

ce

inclu

din

g…

Tem

pora

ry o

rpe

rman

ent

relo

cation o

f…

Le

sson

s lea

rnt

from

flo

od

events

Insu

rance p

olic

ies

Oth

er

mea

su

res

Num

ber

of

pla

ns

Preventative Protective

Preparedness Recovery and review

© WRc plc 2017

• A need to move away from summary text and replace

it with a series of reporting requirements and

enumeration lists

• Take account of pilot testing (UK, HU, CZ) under

Compliance Assessment project

• Example: Objectives (Article 7(2)) summary text • A summary (< 20.000 characters) of the objectives referred to under Article

7(2), including a description of how the objectives relate to impacts on human

health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, the process

for developing objectives and selecting and prioritising measures to achieve

the stated objectives. (Article 7(2), Annex Part A.I.3

EXAMPLE: FRMPs

© WRc plc 2017

Example Draft Compliance Questions

Assessment questions

and sub-questions (draft)

Type of

response

Implications for

future

reporting

Have objectives been established for the

management of flood risk (Article 7.2)

for identified areas of potential

significant flood risk (Article 5.1)?

Y/N (Count) by target

area

(UoM/RBD/APSFR)

Y/N

Have objectives been established for the

management of flood risk (Article 7.2)

for areas covered by Article 13.1.b?


area

(UoM/RBD/APSFR)

Y/N

Have objectives been established to

reduce the adverse consequences of

flooding?

If yes, generally, are objectives specific

and measurable?

If yes, at which level have they been

established?


area

(UoM/RBD/APSFR)

Y/N

Text

Y/N

Enumeration list

Have objectives been established in

terms of type of consequence?

Reduction in number of fatalities

Reduction in the number of dwellings

flooded

Reduction of the adverse consequences

on human health


on cultural heritage


on the environment


on economic activity

Reduction of any other adverse

consequences


and measurable?


established?


area

(UoM/RBD/APSFR)

[for all sub-questions]

Y/N

Text

Y/N

for all sub-questions]

Enumeration list

Have objectives been established in terms

of reducing the likelihood of flooding?

such as planned increase/improvement in

natural water retention

through land use and spatial planning

through climate change mitigation policies

at national level

through removal or relocation of sensitive

receptors from flood prone areas

Other


and measurable?


established?

Y/N (Count) by target area

(UoM/RBD/APSFR) [for all

sub-questions]

Y/N

Text

Y/N [for all sub-

questions]

Enumeration list


of prevention?


and measurable?


established?


(UoM/RBD/APSFR)

Y/N

Text

Y/N

Enumeration list


of protection?


and measurable?


established?


(UoM/RBD/APSFR)

Y/N

Text

Y/N

Enumeration list

48. Were the proposed objectives for the

Flood Risk Management Plan consulted

with stakeholders before their

establishment?

Y/N

Y/N for a list of stakeholder

groups

Y/N

Enumeration list

for stakeholders

© WRc plc 2017

The majority of potential implications for future reporting are for the

inclusion of Y/N options with associated enumeration lists for the level at

which objectives have been established and for the groups of

stakeholders that could have been consulted on FRMPs

Example Levels:

• Member State

• UoM

• Risk Areas

EXAMPLE: FRMPs Possible enumeration lists - Levels

© WRc plc 2017

EXAMPLE: FRMPs Possible enumeration lists - Stakeholders

Possible enumeration list for Stakeholders

Civil Protection

Authorities

Agriculture/farmers NGOs/nature

protection

Flood

Warning/defence

Authorities

Energy/hydropower Consumer Groups

Drainage Authorities Navigation/ports Local/Regional

Authorities

Emergency Services Fisheries/aquaculture Academia/Research

institutions

Water supply and

sanitation

Industry Other

© WRc plc 2017

• The Commission will use the information reported to:

• Check compliance of the MS’s FRMP with emphasis on

completeness, coherence with other legislation and

coordination in RBD/UoM and consideration of all aspects of

Flood Risk Management:

• Flood Risk objectives established and can be clearly related to a

reduction of potential adverse consequences

• Measures identified and prioritised

• All relevant aspects of Article 7 accounted for

• Coordination in the RBD/UoM has been ensured

• Coordination with WFD has been ensured (incl. benefits and

synergies with objectives)

Data needs

© WRc plc 2017

• Undertake a more comprehensive review of the schema elements

and guidance in light of the lessons learned and the feedback

from this meeting

• Develop an early draft of the reporting guidance and schemas in

time for the extended meeting in May

• In parallel, analyse whether any particular schema elements have

not been used in the assessment of compliance, or in the

production of any maps, tables and graphs to support the

assessment, and for other EU purposes.

• The project team will also compile a list of products based on the

anticipated table of contents of the EU overview report for the

FRMPs.

Next Steps..