1 st CYCLE QUESTIONNAIRE

Transcription

1 THE "FLOODS" DIRECTIVE 1 st CYCLE QUESTIONNAIRE WORKING GROUP FLOODS No19 WORKSHOP & MEETING VIENNA, APRIL 2016 The end of the 1 st cycle and the beginning of the 2 nd cycle of implementation ( ) of the "Floods" Directive gives an opportunity to improve on our delivery of the requirements of the Directive and share our 1 st cycle successes. A Workshop is scheduled to take place between the 12 th and 14 th of April this year (Working Group Floods No19) for looking back at the whole of the 1 st cycle of implementation of the Floods Directive to derive lessons learned, good practice and recommendations to enhance flood risk management in the EU and Directive implementation and reporting in the 2 nd cycle over the next 6 years. So, this is not just yet another questionnaire! As we are between cycles, the aim is that the questions spark a reflection of the past six years and a contemplation for the forthcoming six years. This is a once in six years opportunity we should seize in order to create insights that will improve the management of flood risk. The questionnaire should be filled in electronically 1 in English. It is important that all questions are replied in full so as to provide an as clear picture as possible. Even if a question does not apply to your country, please state this - and explain why! Try to not leave any blanks! Depending on the administrative arrangements within a Member State (MS), it may be difficult to generalise a response that is applicable across the whole MS. In this case please refer to the most widespread practice or the generally prevailing conditions within the MS. Please fill in just one questionnaire per MS. If need be, differences in regions within a MS can be highlighted within the questionnaire in the text boxes. It is recommended to read through the whole questionnaire before responding to the questions. This will also save time in case other persons need to be involved for answering the questionnaire. Please note that overlapping questions with previous questionnaires have been avoided, although some background questions are being asked to introduce the topic. In case of doubtful interpretation of a question, you can send an to clemens.neuhold@bmlfuw.gv.at 1 To activate a check box please click on it. 1

2 The resulting report will not make reference to individual MSs and where examples are cited there will be no reference to the MS, unless the MS so wishes. Your Member State is Your first name is Your last name is Your address is Your phone number is Your organisation is Your organisation's address is 2

3 1. OVERALL 1.1 Please describe very briefly what were the 3 biggest gains or positive impacts for your country from implementing the 1 st cycle of the Directive: 1.2 Please describe very briefly what were the 3 biggest obstacles during the 1 st cycle for you (at the MS level) in the implementation of the Directive: 1.3 Please describe very briefly what are the 3 things you would change to improve the implementation of the Directive in your country: at the EU level: 1.4 Does your country have legislation on flood risk management that goes beyond the requirements of the Directive (more ambitious)?if so, Please provide examples: 3

4 1.5 Has the introduction of the Directive in your country influenced other areas of policy besides water? If yes, how? [e.g. in relation to hydropower, agriculture, river navigation, civil protection, insurance ] 1.6 Does the Directive provide a sufficient framework and at the same time flexibility for conducting preliminary assessments, drafting the flood hazard and risk maps and preparing risk management plans? Please explain: 1.7 If you feel further guidance is useful, in what areas affected by the Directive would you find further guidance at the European level would be beneficial? 1.8 Are there any concepts/terminology/language in the Directive that may need to be clarified? 4

5 2. CONTEXT 2.1 Please describe very briefly what was the main tool/arrangement/method for the management of flood risk in your country before the introduction of the Directive: 2.2 Please describe very briefly how the introduction of the Directive influenced flood risk management in your country: 2.3 Does the Directive somehow constrain the exercise of flood risk management in your MS? If yes, please describe how and propose ways to improve the situation: 2.4 Is your organisation responsible for the coordination of flood risk management in your country at the central level? If not please give details of the organisation responsible for the coordination of flood risk management in your country at the central level: No such single organisation exists in my country, and flood risk management responsibilities are assigned as follows 5

6 2.5 Are the same responsibility arrangements also applicable for the implementation (fulfilment of the requirements, including e.g. reporting) of the Directive? If no, please describe the arrangements for the implementation of the Directive 2.6 In my country, the overall responsibility for the implementation of the Directive is generally at the central level...regional/sub-federal level local/municipal level 2.7 In particular, the primary responsibility for identification of the flood risk is done at central level regional/sub-federal level local/municipal level multiple levels In case of multiple levels please explain: evaluation of the significance of the risk is done at central level regional/sub-federal level local/municipal level multiple levels In case of multiple levels please explain: 6

7 preparation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps is done at central level regional/sub-federal level local/municipal level multiple levels In case of multiple levels please explain: selection and prioritisation of measures for reducing adverse consequences from significant floods and/or the reduction of the likelihood of flooding is done at central level regional/sub-federal level local/municipal level multiple levels In case of multiple levels please explain: commissioning / implementation of measures is at the central level regional/sub-federal level local/municipal level multiple levels In case of multiple levels please explain monitoring of implementation of measures is at the central level regional/sub-federal level local/municipal level multiple levels 7

8 In case of multiple level please explain: None of the above situations describes my country's reality. Here is therefore a description of the situation in my country: 2.8 What was found to be advantageous with respect to the organisational setup for the coordination and/or the implementation of the Directive during the 1 st cycle of implementation? 2.9 What was found to be disadvantageous with respect to the organisational setup for the coordination and/or the implementation of the Directive during the 1 st cycle of implementation? 2.10 Further to the meaning in article 2.1 of the Directive, a "flood" is understood in your country as an event that is principally connected to a well defined inundated geographical area a meteorological/hydrological event and all affected areas (geographically connected or not) are allocated to that flood other, please explain: 8

9 3. Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment 3.1 My country made use of Article 13 of the Directive (more than one option may apply) Yes, for the whole country Yes, for parts of the country Yes, for some sources of flooding Please note: All of the following questions to be answered, irrespective of whether Article 13 was applied or not by the country. 3.2 My country has a database(s) of historic flood events or centrally collated data at national level [database created or significantly updated after 2007] at subnational level [database created or significantly updated after 2007] at national or subnational level, but they are not detailed enough to carry out a preliminary flood risk assessment my country generally does not have one If a database(s) or centrally collated data exist, what information is actually typically available for past floods that assisted you in carrying out the preliminary flood risk assessment at your desired standard? [more than one checks possible] Date of flood Source/s of flood Extent and/or depth or level of flood Flood conveyance route Information on consequences of the flood Weather and/or water and/or soil conditions around the time of the flood Other information, please explain: 2 "generally does not" includes existence of usable databases that however cover a smaller proportion of the identified APSFRs (e.g. less than 20%) 9

10 3.4: If information about consequences is available please describe what information you typically have: 3.5: Is the centrally collated data/database(s) publicly available? 3.6: Did the 1 st cycle of implementation reveal substantial gaps in the centrally collated data or database/s for the Directive? If yes, has a decision been taken to improve the recording of flood data? 3.7 Have you developed guidance on how to collect and record flood event data? If publicly available, please provide a link: 3.8 In addition to/instead of information on past floods, we made use of the following methods in undertaking the preliminary flood risk assessment/identifying areas of potential significant flood risk: Published or unpublished sources of historical information Expert judgment Modelling Other, please specify: 10

11 3.9 If modelling was used, please briefly describe the method used: 3.10 We currently have satisfactorily accurate digital elevation models covering a large proportion 3 of the country's relevant territory: [models created or significantly updated after 2007] If not, is there a plan to close the gap and what is the foreseen timescale? 3.11 We currently have digital inundation maps covering a large proportion 4 of the bodies 5 of water in the country that have the potential to be a source of significant floods: [maps created or significantly updated after 2007] If not, is there a plan to close the gap and what is the foreseen timescale? 3.12 We currently have knowledge of the general hydrological characteristics of a large proportion 6 of the country's bodies of water that have the potential to be a source of significant floods: [hydrological knowledge accumulation improved after 2007 ] If not, is there a plan to close the gap and what is the foreseen timescale? 3 E.g. at least 75% 4 E.g. at least 75% in terms of area 5 Surface or underground, permanent or not, natural or artificial, freshwater or coastal. 6 E.g. at least 75% in terms of numbers 11

12 3.13 We currently have knowledge of the general geomorphological characteristics of a large proportion 7 of the country's bodies of water that have the potential to produce significant floods: [knowledge accumulation started or accelerated after 2007] If not, is there a plan to close the gap and what is the foreseen timescale? 3.14 For the following statement, please pick the subsequent response that most closely describes the situation in your country: "We currently have knowledge/inventory of the extent of a large proportion 8 of the original floodplains 9 (i.e. without accounting for human interventions) of the country that could serve as natural water retention areas"...yes, we are at an advanced stage, we have largely covered already our river basins with the potential for significant floods [knowledge accumulation started or accelerated after 2007]...Yes, largely - and we are upscaling to cover substantial parts of our river basins with the potential for significant floods in the medium term (by 2021) [knowledge accumulation started or accelerated after 2007];...No, but we have started covering 10 our river basins with the potential for significant floods, this will be a long term process (it will extend beyond 2021) [knowledge accumulation started or accelerated after 2007];...No, we are at the pilot stage [pilots initiated after 2007 ];...No, we are aware and are raising awareness within the country [awareness largely created after 2007 ];...No, we haven't started floodplain mapping If the reply is "No", is there a plan to accelerate and what is the foreseen timescale? 7 E.g. at least 75% in terms of numbers. 8 E.g. at least 75% of the total area of the country's floodplains. 9 Where relevant e.g. may not be relevant in steep slopes. 10 E.g. covered already more than 10% 12

13 ...None of the above representatively describes the situation in my country. Here is therefore a description of the situation in my country: 3.15 With regards to the location and dimension of existing man made flood defence infrastructure in the country we have limited information we have moderately good information we have good information None of the above representatively describes the situation in my country. Here is therefore a description of the situation in my country: 3.16 Flood defence location information was enhanced as a result of the implementation of the Floods Directive: Strongly Partly Not at all 3.17 With regards to the effectiveness (level of protection) of existing man made flood defence infrastructure in the country we have limited information we have moderately good information we have good information None of the above representatively describes the situation in my country. Here is therefore a description of the situation in my country: 3.18 Flood defence effectiveness information was enhanced as a result of the implementation of the Floods Directive: Strongly Partly Not at all 13

14 3.19 Please cite any difficulties you encountered in defining what is a "significant flood": 3.20 Will you retain the same definition for "significant flood" in the 2 nd cycle? 3.21 Please explain why you are content/not content with the present definition of a "significant flood": 3.22 Please cite any difficulties you encountered in defining what are "adverse impact/consequences" to receptors 11 : 3.23 Will you retain the same definition for "adverse impact/consequences" in the 2 nd cycle? 3.24 Please explain why you are content/not content with the present definition of "adverse impact/consequences": 11 Receptors are humans, economic activity, the environment and cultural heritage. There is no need to make reference to all four receptors. One or two receptor groups can be chosen and discussed because they presented a particular challenge. 14

15 3.25 With regards to climate change and its influence on the occurrence of significant floods, what information would be useful in the 2 nd cycle for identifying APSFRs and the severity of potential adverse consequences more accurately? 3.26 Has research specifically on climate change and its influence on the occurrence of significant floods been undertaken in your country? and the outcome was used in the following way: Yes, however the outcome of the research has not been put to use yet. Research estimates that: No, but a country targeted study will be carried out during the 2 nd cycle No, this is not in our short to medium term plans 3.27 What were the main factors 12 that, if present, would have significantly facilitated/improved the preliminary flood risk assessment? Please explain: 12 A factor can be knowledge, a situation, an economic or human resource, a coincidence, guidance, a peer review, all of that, or anything else. 15

16 3.28 What were the main hindrances 13 from which the preliminary flood risk assessment mostly suffered? Please explain: 3.29 Based on lessons learned, please describe which particular steps in your preliminary flood risk assessment process will be reviewed in the 2 nd cycle: 3.30 Based on lessons learned, please describe which particular steps in your preliminary flood risk assessment process will most probably be done differently in the 2 nd cycle: 3.31 Overall, are you satisfied with the preliminary flood risk assessment of the 1 st cycle? Rather not, and we will undertake a substantial review and update by 2018 Rather yes, but we will nonetheless update our preliminary flood risk assessment by 2018 Yes and we will undertake a review by 2018 You may provide further details here: 3.32 If undertaken, what was the main feedback from the public consultation on the preliminary flood risk assessment? 13 This is not something that was missing, rather something that was there and was obstructing the process. 16

17 3.33 What changes were made as a result of public consultation? 3.34 What was the role of consulting services 14 in the elaboration of the preliminary flood risk assessment? [Please indicate if the support of consultancies was not utilised] 3.35 Which specific areas of implementation of the preliminary flood risk assessment could benefit from flood risk management research? 14 "Consulting services" includes private sector, but also academia and research agencies that are independent from the organisation tasked with flood risk reduction and/or the implementation of the Directive in the MS. 17

18 4. Flood Hazard and Risk Maps NB: If there is a need to distinguish between Flood Hazard Maps and Flood Risk Maps in your responses, please do so in the boxes below or provide a separate document explaining the situation. 4.1 What were the three main hindrances/difficulties or dilemmas from which the 1 st cycle flood hazard and risk mapping mostly suffered? Please explain: 4.2 Is there a documented 15 guidance/standard/procedure/manual that is applied in your country for the production of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps? If publicly available, please provide a link: 4.3 In some maps it was decided not to distinguish between individual sources of flooding in APSFRs. If this was the case in your country, why was this choice made and what are the advantages of this choice? 4.4 The likelihoods associated with flood scenarios were expressed as return periods or percentage probabilities. What difficulties were encountered when defining the flood scenario likelihood and how were these overcome? 15 I.e. known to practitioners and accessible. 18

19 4.5 Certain probabilities or return periods were chosen for flooding from the various sources. Will you retain the same values per source in the 2 nd cycle? If the reply is "No" please explain the reason/s: 4.6 Please explain which expression of likelihood (i.e. return period, percentage probability or other) do you consider is better understood by non-experts and why this is the case: 4.7 Will you change the way likelihood is expressed in the 2 nd cycle? If the reply is "Yes" please explain the reason/s: 4.8 How did you consider the country's existing man made flood defence infrastructure in the modelling? Fully considered Fully considered, but with residual risk areas also mapped Partly considered Not considered If you ticked the latter two choices under this question please explain why this was the case: 19

20 4.9 Scenarios with flood defence failure were considered Yes, but not for all significant risk areas If you ticked "Yes, but" or "No" please explain why failure scenarios were not considered or not considered in all significant risk areas: 4.10 What data/information/tools are missing to overcome the challenges in modelling the flood conveyance routes/flood extent and how can the gap be narrowed? 4.11 If modelling was used to prepare the flood hazard maps, please select which method(s) were used (more than one checks possible): Simple GIS-based hydraulic analysis 1D modelling Rapid flood spreading (quasi-2d) models 1D/2D dynamically linked modelling 2D modelling 3D modelling Other, please describe: 4.12 Was the uncertainty represented in flood hazard maps, and if so, how? 20

21 4.13 Based on the experience from the 1 st cycle, what changes are you considering in the methodology for the production of flood hazard maps and why? Based on the experience from the 1 st cycle, what changes are you considering in the appearance of flood hazard maps and why? 4.15 For the following risk mapping relevant statement, please pick the subsequent response that most closely describes the situation in your country: "We currently have knowledge/an inventory of the exact geographic location of significant flood risk receptors 16 which are at a significant risk of flooding in our country"...yes, we are at an advanced stage, we have largely covered already our river basins/coastal areas with the potential for significant floods [knowledge accumulation started or accelerated after 2007]...Yes, largely - and we are upscaling to cover substantial parts of our river basins/coastal areas with the potential for significant floods in the medium term (by 2021) [knowledge accumulation started or accelerated after 2007];...No, but we have started covering 17 our river basins/coastal areas with the potential for significant floods, this will be a long term process (it will extend beyond 2021) [knowledge accumulation started or accelerated after 2007];...No, we are at the pilot stage [pilots initiated after 2007 ];...No, we haven't started receptor mapping The geographic location of the receptors is available to us in a digital format... [availability improved after 2007 ] Receptors (manmade or not) whose disruption of normal function may lead to significant downside risk for society, the economy, the environment and cultural heritage; including critical infrastructure such as: chemical, communications, dams, emergency services, energy, government facilities, healthcare, IT, nuclear reactors, transportation, water & wastewater systems E.g. covered already more than 10%. 21

22 4.16 How was the uncertainty in data accuracy dealt with in flood risk maps? 4.17 Based on the experience from the 1 st cycle, what changes are you considering in the methodology for the production of flood risk maps and why? 4.18 Based on the experience from the 1 st cycle, what changes are you considering in the appearance of flood risk maps and why? 4.19 What was the role of consulting services 18 in the preparation of the flood hazard and risk maps? [Please indicate if the support of consultancies was not utilised] 4.20 Is your country considering to move primarily to webgis maps in the 2 nd cycle? If the reply is "No", please explain why this is not the case: 18 Includes academia, research agencies, int'l technical assistance 22

23 4.21 Is your country prepared to provide INSPIRE compliant flood relevant spatial data for the 2 nd cycle? If the reply is "No", please indicate when this is expected to be the case: 4.22 Were climate change scenarios 19 considered in the maps produced in the 1 st cycle? 4.23 Please describe how the likely impact of climate change shall be taken into consideration in the review and/or update of your flood hazard and flood risk maps for the 2 nd cycle of implementation: 4.24 Do you consider that flood maps should communicate information about present levels or future levels of risk to the public and why? 4.25 What was the element most difficult to explain to the public in relation to the flood hazard and risk maps? 19 Stories of possible futures depending on greenhouse gas emissions. 23

24 4.26 If undertaken, what was the main feedback from the public consultation on the flood hazard and risk maps? 4.27 What changes were made as a result of public consultation? 4.28 Was there a known effect from the publication of the flood maps on insurance premiums for properties mapped inside flood zones? 4.29 Are there features in your flood hazard and risk maps that go beyond the requirements of the Directive? If the reply is "Yes", what additional features have been mapped, and/or what additional maps have been produced, and what is the added value of these additional features? Please distinguish between hazard maps and risk maps: 24

25 5. Flood Risk Management Plans 5.1 In what stage of preparation is the flood risk management plan/s in your country? Plan being prepared Draft plan being consulted Consultation of draft plan ended Final plan adopted 5.2 At what level was/were the flood risk management plan/s prepared? National River basin district Sub-river basin district (hydrographically defined area) Other, please explain: 5.3 What is the legal status of the flood risk management plan/s in your country? After its adoption, is there a legal requirement for its implementation? 5.4 What are the most important benefits that drafting the flood risk management plans/s has brought? Please explain: 5.5 What were the most important difficulties or dilemmas when drafting the flood risk management plan/s? Please explain: 25

26 5.6 At what level 20 are the objectives set? Central level Regional/sub-federal level Local/municipal level Multiple levels In case of "multiple levels" please explain: 5.7 Would you describe the flood risk reduction objective/s in the flood risk management plan/s as strategic (e.g. providing the framework and/or policies for a river basin) or operational (e.g. setting residual risk levels in individual communities)? 5.8 What led to this approach in objective setting? 5.9 Does/do the flood risk management plan/s include a method for monitoring and evaluating the plan's achievement of objective/s in six years' time? If yes, how will the degree of achievement of the flood risk management plan's objective/s be evaluated in six years? 20 "Level" in this context denotes the level at which flood risk reduction is sought to be reduced, as opposed to the level of the administration setting the objectives. 26

27 If not, please explain why not: 5.10 The financing for the measures to reduce flood risk primarily 21 comes from the central level regional/sub-federal level local/municipal level multiple levels In case of multiple levels please explain:.private sector 22 In case of private sector please explain: 5.11 Funding for flood risk management has generally increased post Yes it did No it did not, it stayed roughly the same On the contrary, it declined Not sure 21 "primarily" means if the funding does not come forth from this source we won't be able to go ahead with the measure/s, or we will have to engage in prioritisation such that would not reduce the risk to acceptable levels in the APSFR. 22 The part of the economy that is run by individuals and companies for profit. 23 Including from both, national and EU sources. 27

28 5.12 If your reply to the previous question was "yes", has the FloodsDirective influenced this change? Strongly Partly Not at all If in part, please describe 5.13 If funding for flood risk management has generally increased post 2007, but the increase was not influenced by the Floods Directive, what was the reason/s for the increase? 5.14 What was the total budget 24 in EUR for flood risk reduction measures at the national level (including regional and local) over the previous 3 years (if the budget for the last 3 years is not known, please provide the budget that is known and please don't forget to mention the period of years over which the budget extends!) The total budget at the national level cannot be ascertained because 24 Funding from all sources included. 28

29 5.15 Do you expect the budget for flood risk reduction measures, at the national level, in the next three years to fall remain roughly the same rise If available, please provide information on future budgets for flood risk reduction measures in the following box 5.16 Does your country have a way to keep track of the damage from floods at the central level (including national, regional and local)? If yes, please provide below (a) a short description of how this is done and (b) the organisation/s collecting damage information: The total damage at the national level cannot be ascertained because 5.17 Is flooding an insurable risk in your country? If the reply above is "Yes" it is only compulsory to take out a policy against flooding if the property is in an area that floods it is compulsory to include flooding insurance as part of any property insurance policy 29

30 5.18 Do you have a methodology for future proofing of measures 25 to enable flood risk managers to respond to the future as it unfolds (e.g. climate change), minimising regrets, in a purposeful and planned way? If yes, please provide detail below: 5.19 The approach to include flood risk reduction measures in the flood risk management plan/s was mainly as broad types/groups of measures at the river basin/coast level as mainly as individual projects at the APSFR level otherwise, please explain: 5.20 Further to the previous question, what led to the one or the other approach? 5.21 If broad types/groups of measures at the river basin/coast level are mainly included in the flood risk management plan/s, how is the connection established to the APSFR level measures? 25 The adaptive design of measures assists with keeping future options open without incurring unnecessary additional expenditure. 30

31 5.22 If broad types/groups of measures at the river basin/coast level are mainly included in the flood risk management plan/s, how will progress in the implementation of the measures be evaluated at the level of the Plan? 5.23 Irrespective of the level of detail of the measures included in the flood risk management plan/s, what is the mechanism for ensuring that measures in one APSFR do not increase the flood risk in area? 5.24 How will/are the measures in the flood risk management plan/s prioritised? 5.25 What are the advantages and disadvantages of this method of prioritisation? 5.26 How do political decisions influence the prioritisation of measures? (excluding budgeting) 5.27 How does public pressure or consultation influence the prioritisation of measures? 31

32 5.28 What was the main feedback from the public consultation on the flood risk management plan/s? 5.29 What changes were made as a result of public consultation? 5.30 Is there a process for feedback from interested parties during the whole 26 implementation cycle? How is this process organised? 5.31 Which interested parties have provided feedback in your country? 5.32 How is the management of flood risk coordinated with civil protection in your country? 26 as opposed to feedback to the draft PFRA, the draft FHRM and the draft FRMP in certain periods. 32

33 5.33 Is there a dedicated mechanism 27 (e.g. at the municipal level) to monitor and record further "encroachment" of human activity (housing, production, services ) into floodplains 28? If yes, what is the experience from its functioning? [mechanism introduced or reinforced after 2007] 5.34 Are there urban planning and building regulations to control encroachment of human activity (housing, infrastructure, production, services ) into floodplains? How effective are the urban planning and building regulations in actually controlling encroachment? How can they be reinforced? 5.35 Are there controls other than urban planning and building regulations to limit encroachment of human activity (housing, production, services ) into floodplains? Yes there are, we control and monitor successfully socioeconomic development within floodplains by means of [means introduced or reinforced after 2007] No there are not If not, is there provision for establishing other controls? 27 Other than the building permitting process. 28 Even if settlement is taking place in floodplains that are considered as protected from flooding. 33

34 5.36 Have there been difficulties in reconciling the needs of local communities with the longer term planning of measures for flood risk reduction? Please describe: 5.37 What was the role of consulting services in the elaboration of the flood risk management plan/s? [Please indicate if the support of consultancies was not utilised] 5.38 Is there a role for the private sector (particularly Small and Medium Enterprises if relevant) in the management of flood risk? If yes, what is the role of the private sector? 5.39 What are the main obstacles in cross-border cooperation 29 in the preparation of your flood risk management plans for shared APSFR? 5.40 How do different standards and/or regulations influence cross-border cooperation? How can such differences be reconciled? 29 Cross border is understood between nations, i.e. international. 34

35 5.41 How much of an obstacle is the language barrier when coordinating flood risk management at cross-border areas? How is this obstacle overcome? 5.42 Is exchange of information with regards to planned measures taking place in crossborder river basins/sub-river basins? If so, at which stage of the project lifecycle, and does this exchange of information ever lead to redesigned projects? Please mention examples Cooperation at cross-border basins/coasts has improved after the introduction of the Floods Directive a lot somewhat not at all 5.44 What features have been included in your flood risk management plan/s that go beyond the requirements of the Floods Directive, and what is the added value of these additional features? 5.45 Based on the experience from the 1 st cycle, what changes are you considering for the production of flood risk management plan/s? 35

36 6. REPORTING In view of the 2 nd cycle and the possibility to review the schemas for the reporting, please provide your feedback 30 below. 6.1 What where the most important obstacles in data collection for the purposes of reporting 31 (up to three for each of the three stages 32 of the 1 st cycle)? Please mention in which step of the data collection process these obstacles were encountered: 6.2 What where the most important reporting obstacles (up to three for each of the three stages of the 1 st cycle)? Please mention in which step of the reporting process these obstacles were encountered: 6.3 Please set out any proposals on how the reporting process can be improved? 6.4 Please set out any proposals on how the schemas can be improved? 30 Please use real life examples where possible to support understanding 31 Please try and remember as far back as possible and/or enquire with colleagues. Recent instances don't necessarily make for important ones! 32 I.e. PFRA, FHRM, FRMP 36

37 6.5 Is your organisation responsible for reporting under the Directive? If not, please provide below the organisation that carries out the reporting: 37

38 7. FINALLY 7.1 Which organisations, outside your own, have you consulted with prior to or during filling in this questionnaire? Please provide details: 7.2 Following the completion of the questionnaire, please list possible areas of cooperation, coordination or further work through the Working Group on Floods that became evident to you when contemplating your responses 33 : 7.3 Was a question omitted from this questionnaire? Please add it below: 7.4 Beyond these questions, we are very interested in hearing your specific examples, anecdotes and stories around all these issues where additional information seems relevant. In addition, if you think important issues are missing from the above, please provide your input in the box below: THANK YOU! Please return this questionnaire to clemens.neuhold@bmlfuw.gv.at with a copy to Eva.Baron@minienm.nl, Peter.Cadek@svp.sk and barbro.naslundlandenmark@msb.se 33 Please make sure that those areas are not already included in the Work Programme of WGF to be found here: 38