Danube Floodrisk Project Summary Report. Jointly for our common future

Transcription

1 Danube Floodrisk Project Summary Report Jointly for our common future

2 JOINTLY FOR OUR COMMON FUTURE Introduction Flooding is the most widely distributed of all natural hazards across Europe with floods from rivers, estuaries and the sea threatening many millions of people in Europe. Floods cause distress and damage wherever they happen and insurance company data show that the financial impact of flooding has increased significantly since In April 2007, the Parliament and Council of the European Union agreed the wording on a new European Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks. The Integrated Project Danube Floodrisk is listed as one of the European actions which support the Directive, as well as the Joint Danube Strategy. Danube Floodrisk Project has the main results the Hazard and Risk Maps Atlas in a harmonized methodology for he Danube floodplains, environmental, ecological and socio-economic aspects of floods along the Danube and Danube Delta. It considers flood risk as a combination of hazard sources, pathways and the consequences of flooding on the receptors people, property and the environment, stakeholders involvement being one of the most important issue. A common geodatabase was provided as support for maps production, as well as a database of the main stakeholders in the Danube Floodplain. Harmonisation was the central activity of the project; harmonization is not only needed regarding different nations but also regarding different user groups. So each user group might expect different map content and is going to use it in a different way. The bottom line is that the river is being conceived like a system which does not respect any border. Flood risk management has to be one piece of this puzzle. The national requirements are summarized in the Report on national requirements on the flood mapping procedures for the Danube River, and the Manual of harmonized requirements on the flod mapping procedures for the Danube River. Flood risk management is a process which comprises pre-flood prevention, risk mitigation measures and preparedness, backed up by flood management actions during and after an event; this aspects are presented in the pilot activities. Floods often cross international borders and so must flood risk management activities along the danube River. The technical aspets wasere integrated through decision support technologies, uncertainty estimation and pilot applications for areas under flood risks or for important objectives, sites in Austria, Italy, Romania aand Bulgaria. Danube Floodrisk was active in stimulating the uptake of research advances through manuals, guidance for professionals, stakeholders involvement, public information and educational material, leaflets and newsletters. Danube Floodrisk was an flagship project for the priority of the Interreg IVB - SEE Programme of the European Commission. It commenced in 2009 and ran to The Danube Floodrisk consortium includes 24 partners in 8 countries along the Danube, leading institutes, universities and NGOs in the basin, and the project involves managers, researchers and practitioners from a range of government, commercial and research organisations, specialising in aspects of flood risk management. Harmonization of requirements on the flod mapping procedures for the Danube River The European Floods Directive is a driving force in many national as well as international flood risk mapping activities, still in some aspects it is defining the map production procedure and the expected results not in every detail. Here it is desired to find a common interpretation. Due to the different actors involved in flood risk management and the different environmental, legislative, administrative and economic situation many different requirements exist. In the harmonization manual not all aspects of the EU Floods Directive could be handled, as the Danube Floodrisk project only covers the hazard and risk mapping part and some examples of flood risk management plans in certain pilots. The focus is on the production of maps on the scale of a large river catchment (scale 1: ). Still it is considering as much as possible also the needs and problems of the tributaries. The harmonisation process covers the specification of the goals and tackles technical questions referring to the scenario definitions, methods used, accuracy threshold and so forth. Basis for the harmonized product description are the national laws of the project members, the European Floods Directive and good practice results from different flood risk mapping projects as well as existing maps or atlases. Hydrological and hydraulic modeling The hydrological processing was performed at different degrees of complexity, depending on the future utilization of the results. Sinthetical hydrographs were generated, under the volume conservation hyphotesis. For hydraulic simulations in steady state either a unique value of the maximum discharge corresponding to a probability of exceedance P% or an uncertainty interval of the maximum discharges was obtained if taking into account the hydrologic uncertainty; in the latter case instead of a well defined inundation line, a strip of inundation was obtained for each probability of exceedance P%. The inundation strip is also justified by the uncertainties related to the DTM. For unsteady state simulations, a family of hydrographs corresponding to the same probability of exceedance P% are obtained. The floods corresponding to the maximum discharges which could lead to the dyke overtopping was considered for hydraulic simulations. The floods having the maximum volumes represented boundary conditions for transient computation of the water flow through the dyke and its foundation. The critical gradients was computed, showing the (possible) sensitive parts of the hydraulic structures. 1D for mountainous regions and in Croatia and Serbia was applied, and coupled 1D-2D or pure 2D simulations for plain areas was considered for urban areas (pilot areas) or for the Danube Delta. Quality management data and results was provided by an neutral expert. The flowchart of the hydrological methodology is presented in Figure 1. The main steps are the following: 1) Selection of the time series of the maximum discharges: a) Either the maximum annual discharges are selected, b) or the maximum discharges exceeding a certain threshold value. 1

3 DANUBE FLOODRISK SUMMARY REPORT 2) Statistical processing of the selected discharges. a) If maximum annual discharges were selected, then: 1) only one distribution function can be used for statistical extrapolation, obtaining a unique value Q, or max P% 2) a set of distribution functions can be used for fitting the empirical data, resulting an interval of uncertainty. In the latter case, some of the distribution functions can be discarded based on Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The extreme values for a probability of exceedance P% represent in fact the uncertainty interval of the max max discharge maximum: ( Q ; Q ) L U P%. It should be mentioned that the uncertainty interval is not similar with the confidence interval. b) If the maximum discharges exceeding the threshold value were selected, then by increasing the threshold value another uncertainty interval will be obtained. Of course, further statistical considerations should lead to a reasonable interval of uncertainty. 3) Preparing data for hydraulic simulations a) If the hydraulic simulations will be in steady state, the hydrological data are already obtained: using the discharge Q a line of flooded area will be obtained, while max P% max max using the uncertainty interval ( Q ; Q ) L U P% a strip of flooded area results. b) If the hydraulic simulations are in unsteady state, the whole hydrograph (Q(t)) P% is necessary. A set of hydrographs (Q(t)) P% can be obtained using either a Markov chains generation algorithm or a synthetic flood algorithm. Figure 1 Flowchart of the hydrological methodology Selection of time series Maximum annual discharge discharges Discharges Q max > Q thresh = Q alert 1 statistical distribution m statistical distributions Generalized Paretto Distribution Q max p% (AT, SK, RS) Interval of uncertainty Q max p% = [ QL; QU ] p% Steady state simulations Markov chain generation procedure Synthetic floods procedure Q(t) p% (HU) Computation of the flood volume for Q(t) > Q thresh n statistical distributions Interval of uncertainty V p% = [ VL; VU ] p% Floods clusterization and dimensionless floods Synthetic floods (QU (t); VL) p% and (QL (t); VU) p% (shape, maximum discharge, volum, increasing time, total duration) (RO) 2 Unsteady state simulations

4 JOINTLY FOR OUR COMMON FUTURE Vulnerability mapping The methodology for vulnerability index / indicators determination was considered that vulnerability indicators must be developed based on some well defined criteria; this methodology has been provided by the FP7-project SAFER and was adequatelly transfered for the danube Floodrisk Project (BEAM Methodology). The damage functions are not part of the BEAM product itself, but was taken in an adjusted version from other large scale risk projects i.e. Rhine and JRC database (Ad de Roo Lisflood model aplication for flooding areas in Europe). Projection and coordinate system: Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area, ETRS 1989 LAEA, others and on request. BEAM consists of the following set of asset layers: Population density Private housing: buildings and equipment (urban immobile) Household goods (urban mobile) Vehicles Industry: buildings and equipment (net asset value, immobile) Industry: stock in trade (mobile) Service and trade: buildings and equipment (net asset value, immobile) Service and trade: stock in trade (mobile) Agriculture: buildings and equipment (net asset value, immobile) Agriculture: stock in trade without livestock, mobile) Agriculture: livestock Additionally, BEAM contains one combined layer that covers asset values for: Arable land Grassland Forest Road network Green urban areas and sport areas This aggregated layer was related to the single land use classes as this information is contained in another column of the data file. The basis for the background land use information is the CO- RINE land cover information. This is subsequently enhanced by additional data sources (NAVTEQ). These enhancements relate mainly to the introduction of small settlement areas as well as the traffic infrastructure (roads, railways, etc.). To cover the social-economic data needs, data from the EU- ROSTAT data base are processed and analysed. Additional values are being gathered from the national statistical institutes as well as from other sources details are presented in the Harmonization Manual. Common geodatabase a. Statistical data In the context of flood hazard and risk modelling the following data is needed and should be collected in a central database. Meta data is deliveredavailable. This relates especially to input data not acquired with DFRP funds such as DTM, cross-sections, roughness coefficients, hydrological data, but also to input data for risk considerations. Background data (multiuse): Catchment outline, the Danube corridor Digital terrain model Land cover or land use Hydraulic data: River network Cross-sections Longitudinal profile Gauging stations (geo position and H historical, H(t), Q(H) Rating curves and Q(t) discharges) Bridges Hydropower Dams Polders Spillways Bottom outlets Dykes Dyke weak zone Dewatering canals Pumping stations High Waters Diversions Bank protection (rip-rap) Hydrological data Historical records of dyke breaches: The width and depth of historical dyke breaches recommended if available Time series: Q(t) and Z(t) time series are required for calibration and validation purposes (year 2002 and 2006 floods are recommended for this purpose for as many internal gauging stations as available). Vulnerability and damage assessment list of data includes: enterprises bridges roads and railways hydrotechnical works Infrastructural networks (electricity, water, gas, oil) Cultural heritage Critical (hazardous) infrastructure Recreation areas Validation data: Retention areas / floodplains (delimitations from neighbouring sciences like ecology, geomorphology or soil science) Occurred floods (outline, water depth, recurrence interval and description of event) Dike breach information including breach characteristics, area effected and information about flood progression. As not all of this data are relevant at the scale of the Danube river and also due to national concerns as well as copyright limitations only the most relevant data should be gathered in the central data base. Main usage is to print the atlas and to provide background information for the map web service. Following data sets are needed: 3

5 DANUBE FLOODRISK SUMMARY REPORT Rivers and channels (line) Rivers, channels and lakes including islands (polygon) Dikes (line) Settlements (polygon) Roads and railroads (line) Gauging stations (point) Historic flooding extent (polygon), only if relevant and available for publication Special risk objects (point), following classifications might be used: airport, archaeological sites, children s home, church, court, elderly peoples home, exhibition hall, fire brigade, freight terminal, gas tank, gas works, heating or cooling system, hospital, hotel, jail, kindergarten, library, livestock breeding, logistic hub, longdistance heating, monuments, museum, nuclear facilities, oil tank, oil/gas production, petrol station, police station, port areas, post office, power plant, production site with dangerous goods, pumping station, pumping station for water supply, radio/television station, recycling station, refinery, relay station, research institute, residential home, sanatorium, school, slaughterhouse, telecommunication, theatre/opera, town hall, toxic release inventory sites, train station, underground mining, underground station, university, vehicle depot, waste disposal site, waste water treatment plant, water protection area, water sewage plant, water works, youth hostel, zoo For damage assessment calculation the following data was needed, related to a statistical special unit, the NUTS region (polygon). The data was be collected in the best level of detail available, in EUROSTAT usually NUTS level 2, where available. 4 b. Digital terrain data A 5 meters grid (acc. to the project proposal) for LiDAR scanning seems to be enough, so this implies 1 terrain point per 3-4 m2 with a precision of cm each. The tributaries of the Danube have been also considered and have been taken into account in LiDAR scanning by measuring them until the backwaters. The tributaries have to be LiDAR surveyed up to the end of the floodplain that is in connection with the Danube and the tributary. If the tributary has got a floodplain that is separated from the Danube by a higher ground then that floodplain is not subject of our project. The ground GPS total stations network was be mixed with the Bathymetrical measurements as landmarks for cross sections. Accuracy is the same as for the cross-sections the density of the LiDAR points can be defined by the survey company to achieve equired grid density for the modellers linear structures should be defined as break lines including information on openings as well. c. Cross sections Regarding the bathymetric measurements, the cross sections were done at least at1000 meters distance; this issue has been discussed with the hydraulics team and they considered that for modelling they need more detailed interval of 250 meters; this was applied only for special hydraulic conditions (islands, dead branches etc.) to have a better control; in certain cases, where hydraulically justified, the site data was collected even at 100 m. The common projection of the bathymetric maps is WGS 84 while the national projection was whatsoever specific to the national hidrologic services; all the European countries adopted the ETRS 89 reference system and provide tools for transformations between ETRS89 and the national systems. Therefore ETRS 89 shall be applied in DFRP. d. Roughness coefficients Roughness coefficient were estimated as minimum requirement based on Corine Land Cover (CLC) data, if no more detailed land cover data sets were available; they referenced to the CLC system by a lookup table. By this values used can be better interpreted. Field trips and sites survey were organized during the project implementation period, to check the density of the vegetation and new houses and farms. The WP5 was linked very narrow with WP3 - Harmonization of data and methods and WP4 - Stakeholder involvement and end user integration, to provide support for WP6 - Map production (hazard, risk) and WP7 - Integration methods for risk management and spatial planning, of Danube Floodrisk project to develop both cartographic DTM/DEM, a global database observing system for hydrological data, but also the socio-anthropological data, needed in vulnerability assessment. The DTM/DEM is intended to support a range of hydrological modeling objectives, building on existing/collecting data in data centers and networks and produced based on modern technology of LIDAR technique. Entire model of Danube Floodplain with an accuracy of 1m is suitable through enhanced communications and shared development. In WP 5 the relevant project partners work on the compilation and acquisition as well as processing and storing of all necessary data. The process follows the agreed harmonized methods and requirements of WP 3. All data was collected in data bases to serve for the mapping actions. The WP5 was linked to the EU Floods Directive initiative framing, and ICPDR Danube River Basin GIS platform require-

6 JOINTLY FOR OUR COMMON FUTURE to establish an initial data collection needs. We also understand the minimum requirements for hydrological data, and the priority of these requirements. However, we continually refine our understanding of both users and uses and we seek clarification of the specific requirements for hydrological data at global and regional scales. The availability check includes an assessment of data quality compared with the defined requirements, accessible data that fulfill the requirements and also the gaps (both spatial and temporal) we used for test, data sets to perform quality test as defined in Harmonization Manual. Each partner seek available data in the institutions of their country. Also was clarified the access rights and was made a fist evaluation of data quality. This implies having an on-going process to validate the understanding of what was required. An inventory of available networks and datasets was a critical part of this process. Further quality checks was performed by a common experts to assure data interoperability. ments - Cooperation beyond regional and national borders thus is an imperative to fulfill reporting and management obligations. Working group LP, ERDF-1-6, 8-11, 13, IPA-1, 3-6, of the Danube Floodrisk project develop a web global system for topographical, hydrological and socio-economic data, with main obestives: support Floods Directive (and others WFD, Natura 2000, European Strategy for Landscape Conservation) reporting and map making integration of existing and future information data sources to increase usage effectiveness optimization of costs anticipate analysis and modeling functionality. The main data sources for flood risk maps are digital terrain data, land use information, hydraulic data and for the damage assessment also statistics. Especially linear structures were considered as they have high impacts for Q30 and Q100. After the first simulation results was seek experts input and guidance on a number of technical and scientific issues related to validate them by earth observation and ground information as water level, discharge, soil maps. Availability check and first quality check (Act. 5.1) The first activities are to set up a complete list of available data and to discover the conditions of access (rights, costs). There is a general understanding of the needs for hydrological data and information at the global scale, which has allowed us to move forward Acquisition of additional and missing data (Act. 5.2) The common challenges of the most regions include inadequate monitoring networks, gaps in the records, a general decline of number of stations, chronic under-funding, differences in processing and quality control and differences in data policies. Political and technical challenges differ from region to region. Major problems in the poorer regions of the Danube Floodplain include poor status or outright lack of monitoring networks and support infrastructure and data quality problems. For areas where no data was available, data was acquired (within available budget), including supporting actions (flight permissions, provision of ground data) and checks of results. Special focus is on data for inundation calculation (terrain data, bathymetry information) and damage calculation (land use, statistics, damage functions). Costs for data collection depended on the dimension of flooded areas, of the length of the river sector. Cross-sections was monitored by each partner, and the hydraulic works and solutions adopted by partners. Technical challenges related to collecting, managing and accessing datasets and ensuring proper quality control met best practices and available infrastructure, following this flow: Setting Danube Floodrisk priorities; Coordinating data sources and use of higher resolution data (spatial/temporal); (e.g., satellite, data flow); Encouraging cooperation among data providers (e.g., network inventories); Transition from research to operational data; Standardization of monitoring and formats (e.g. cartographic projections, altitudes reference); Data and product access redistribution restrictions, data rescue; Reducing duplication of effort; Human dimensions feedback (e.g. socio-economic); Simplifying data/metadata collection procedures; Encouraging regional initiatives for data standards and exchange; Using pilot projects as a tool for developing measurements capabilities. Each responsible partner organized the bidding process and accompany the data collection process for detailed DTM and GIS layers (land cover/land use) production. Joint activities between partners harmonized the data and reduce costs. In case of the Bulgarian and Slovacia partner all activity for field measurements 5

7 DANUBE FLOODRISK SUMMARY REPORT and LIDAR survey was contracted services, because no was recent available data. In case of the Romanian partner PP11, LIDAR data collection was already provided for a large surface, till the entry in the Danube Delta; in this case only data along the three river branches was collected. Field measurement as well as data processing was provided by the partners itself. In case of Austria PP1-PP2 some data was available for the surface between dykes from a former DANewBE Project, dedicated to naval transport; only partial areas was surveyed and some more cross sections was monitored for the hydraulic model application for hazard mapping. In case of Hungarian partners PP5 and PP6, they bring flood risk maps as an in-kind contribution in the Danube Floodrisk Project this products were financed by a Hungarian National Program which begun in Set up of a common data base (Act. 5.3) All products was carefully designed and developed with the right expertise engaged. Sufficient resources (time and money) was dedicated at the outset. A simple process for planning and managing the data collection development, and the subsequent deployment and maintenance, were adopted. The WP5 always try to build upon the experiences and best practices of other initiatives. Follow-up to have a common approach data handling was organized from a central point - LP. Based on the definitions all data are made accessible to all partners depending on the needs. Also all relevant meta data are available in the web application. The goal of the WP5 was to meet the needs of the international science community for floods risk management data and information to address spatial planning. There is a general understanding of the needs for data and information at the Danube scale, which has allowed us to move forward to establish an initial WP5 database system organizing. We also understand the minimum requirements for pilot study data, and the priority of these requirements. However, was needed to continually refine our understanding of both users and uses/ regional and local scale project-specific or pilot-specific. As a result, we can ascertain web database systems can meet these requirements, and also the gaps (both spatial and temporal). This implies having an on-going process to set up of a common data base and an inventory of available networks and datasets. The main results partners got during the project implementation for data collection are: Reports on data availability, area covered by each data set, accessibility conditions and quality check results Homogeneous terrain data set that has been quality checked and adjusted to neighbour data sets 6 A convention was prepared by all participant states along the Danube about the godata base access and the national data use. This is mentioned in the following lines. The common database created as a result of the Danube FLOODRISK project * contains all data used for Danube flood hazard and flood risk maps. The structure of the database has been agreed by the Project Partners. The contained data have been collected and calculated by harmonized methods, assuring the achievement of the project s objectives while also considering the specific national requirements. The initial national data used as a basis for the preparation of the project data meet specific national standards and data structure. Nevertheless, as a result of the harmonization activities performed during the project, the final datasets conform to common agreed requirements with regard to the data content, format and accuracy. The geospatial data are presented in identical projection and vertical reference system. The GIS data representing the flood extent are adjusted and harmonized on the country borders. Hence, regardless of the various data sources, the harmonized structure and format of the data provide a uniform basis of flood risk assessment and management along the Danube. In order to assure a homogeneous view of the maps, NAVTEQ data are used as background data. * The project database is intended to link the national data and methods to the common flood-related strategy and to serve as a common platform of the flood management activities in the Danube River Basin, and it does not substitute in any way the national data and their management policies in the flood-related activities at country level. Future use Considering the forthcoming tasks related to the implementation of the European Floods Directive in the Danube basin and the crucial importance of the availability of relevant data, the benefit of this database is indisputable. The information collected should serve as a starting point for the development of the Flood Risk Management Plan in the international Danube River Basin. Most of the data used for the assessment of the flood risk are closely related to the objectives of the Water Framework Directive which contributes to the coordination with the Danube River Basin Management Plan. The database would facilitate further transboundary activities aimed at specific aspects of flood prevention and mitigation of floods consequences in the Danube basin. These data could be used as a basis of development of more detailed flood maps of the Danube sections, addressed to particular target groups, in order to contribute to the public participation process in flood risk management. Besides, this database improves the transboundary flood management at bilateral level. In fact, the availability of harmonized and comparable data allows the countries to coordinate their flood management activities and avoid undertaking measures that would increase the flood risk in neighbouring countries. The data produced as a result of the DFRP will be also used in further flood-related tasks at national level. They will be incorporated in the national databases designed to support the development of the national flood risk management plans, assuring the coordination with the Danube Flood Risk Management Plan. The experiences gained during the project would facilitate the national activities on implementation of the Floods Directive, especially those related to the flood risk assessment. Further maintenance Taking into account the key role of these data in the development of the Danube Flood Risk Management Plan, the Project Partners agreed to put the database at the disposal of the ICP- DR, considering the available resources and the extensive experience of the ICPDR as coordinator of the transboundary water management activities in the Danube basin. This will be a guarantee for a wider and more adequate use of the data in the future. The ICPDR through the relevant Expert Groups should assure the integration of the data collected under the DFRP with other databases available at basin level and with the common geographic information system DanubeGIS in order to support the work of the Expert Groups and to allow the usage of the data in all relevant Danube-wide activities and further projects.

8 JOINTLY FOR OUR COMMON FUTURE Homogeneous river cross section data set that has been quality checked and adjusted to neighbor data sets Homogeneous land use data set that has been quality checked and adjusted to neighbour data sets Homogeneous statistical dataset that has been quality checked and has comparable content than neighbor data sets Harmonized information and data compiled by the partners, processed as far as necessary and ready to be used for the mapping actions. Common data base, used for common data handling and distribution of data between project partners within and past the project Meta data content: Projection information Height system used (if applicable) Data Source, way of data generation, processing Accuracy information Owner of the data, copyright limitations Detailed description of the classes used, preferable already adjusted to INSPIRE Property rights (copyright) Using results of hydrological and hydraulic modelling in a harmonized methodology of data colection and processing, the Hazard and Risk Maps Atlas was provided, as results of WP6 MAPS. Purpose of the Atlas The DanubeFLOODRISK project is an important contribution to the implementation of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), the Danube Strategy and the EU flood policy. In September 2007, immediately after yet another devastating Danube flood in 2006, the Ministry of Environment and Water Management of Romania, under the Presidency of ICPDR, initiated the transboundary DanubeFLOODRISK Project, being supported by the German government. Each country along the Danube was promoting the cooperation between spatial planning and water protection authorities in the Danube River Basin. Since then, 19 authorities from Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, Serbia and Croatia have been working together as project partners, and a number of 4 supplemental organizations (3 from Germany and the ICPDR) have joined the project as observer partners. Their main objectives were: Development of flood hazard maps based on a harmonized methodology Transformation of these into risk maps The development of hazard and risk maps for defined pilot areas to support the local / regional flood risk management decision-making process with stakeholders To support the anticipatory decision making in the frame of development and infrastructure projects. DanubeFLOODRISK was funded by the the South East Europe programme in the framework of the Regional Policy s Territorial Cooperation Objective by the European Union. The data storage and further data maintenance should be carried out in accordance with the present applicable rules and policy (of the ICPDR). The data structure and format could be further developed and supplemented in connection with the further development of the Danube Information System (Danubis) after a common agreement between the Contracting Parties. Updating the national parts of the data will remain the responsibility of every country and shall be performed according to the ICPDR concept on data update. The Danubian countries shall assure the transboundary harmonization of the updated data considering the harmonization principles adopted by the Project Partners and in compliance with the ICPDR documents on data harmonization. Data rights and access On account of the type and the origin of the data, the access to some datasets could be subject todifferent limitations. Since not all the data contained in the project database have been funded by Danube Floodrisk project, copyright limitations could be imposed. Additionally, some restrictions could ensue from national standards or legislation. The access to the data beyond the DFRP shall be gained according to the ICPDR policy on data use, considering the limitations defined by countries. In order to avoid unregulated access and usage of the data it is recommended that the project countries should indicate their restrictions on data distribution. As an example, the classification system adopted by ICPDR IMGIS Expert Group for the DanubeGIS data could be used (table 1) Table 1 Classification Code (ClasscationCd) Codelist Elements Defintion: name of the handling restrictions on the dataset DefinedBy: ISO19115 name code definition ICPDR usage unclassified 1 available for general disclosure available for public users (free for use according to end-user license agreement) restricted 2 not for general disclosure available for use by ICPDR delegations, EG/TG members and guests, Observers, Secretariat confidential 3 available for someone who can be entrusted with information available for use in ICPDR-related projects after signing of a usage agreement secret 4 kept or meant to be kept private, unknown, or hidden from all but a select group of people available for tasks of the Secretariat and IM&GIS EG topsecret 5 of the highest secrecy available for harmonization tasks of the IM&GIS EG not relevant 0 datasets which are by nature or obviously not relevant for a country (e.g. CWBody is not relevant for all inland countries) not available 6 datasets which could be relevant, but no data is available (no data has been uploaded). 7

9 DANUBE FLOODRISK SUMMARY REPORT During the past century flood protection along the Danube river has been generally conducted by constructing dykes, leading to a feeling of safety and, therefore, a decrease of flood awareness. The floods in 2002 in the upper reach of the Danube catchment as well as in 2006 and 2010 in the lower reach of the catchment have again highlighted the limits of implemented protection measures since overtopping or dyke failure occurred, highlighting that residual flood risk always remains despite all efforts. The main goal of this Atlas is to raise the citizens awareness along the Danube river with respect to their exposure to floods and the inherent flood risk. The Danube Atlas is part of the Danube Action Plan of the ICPDR and, therefore a significant contribution to the Danube Strategy implementation. The objective of the Danube Action Plan on Floods is to improve the flood protection of people and assets and to concurrently improve the environmental state along the Danube and its floodplains. A first report on the implementation of the action plan on floods by 2011 is available on The performance targets are: To reduce flood damages To increase flood awareness by drafting hazard and risk maps To improve the flood forecasting and early flood warning system. 8 The Danube Atlas represents areas exposed to flood hazard and the associated damage potentials and flood risk. The Atlas, therefore, supports the prioritisation of measures to be taken within the Danube Action Plan on Floods advancing the target of reducing the residual risk. Maps representing the flood hazard (left side pages) illustrate the anticipated inundation depth in graded blue colours. Quantifying the flood risk for people and assets, the maps on the right side pages outline possible damages in case of extreme floods. Distinction has to be made between two cases: areas with protection measures against 100 years floods and higher (some high density areas are protected beyond the overall target of a 100-years flood protection standard) areas with lower protection measures and unprotected areas Areas with a high level of protection In such areas floods usually remain within the flood protection structures, e.g. dykes, and no flooding outside these structures occurs as long as the structures sustain. Failure of protective structures might occur e.g. when flood pressure lasts over longer periods on the dyke and its stability decreases. Therefore, for some of those stretches with high protection level, local failure of protective measures was considered and displayed in the Atlas, representing a worst case or residual risk scenario. In other areas, e.g. such as the Vienna area, failure was considered rather unlikely because of a very high protection level, and was therefore not considered in the flood hazard scenarios, thus representing rather a realistic than an unrealistic worst case scenario. Unprotected areas or areas with a low level of protection In those areas medium and extreme floods overtop existing flood protection structures, and if no protection is present, also the frequent flood events inundate the low lying areas along the river, e.g. the floodplains in Hungary and in the Danube Delta. Here, no consideration of residual risk was necessary. Atlas Scale Even though the terrain data is available at high resolution for almost all national river sectors (LiDAR data) and land survey information is at hand for cross sections, the atlas is printed in a scale of 1:100,000. This scale is suitable for the targeted overview representation but will not be detailed enough for projects on a local scale. Particular attention has been paid to the representation of the consequences of potential extreme floods by indicating inundated areas and associated inundation depths. Comparably frequent events, such as floods with recurrence intervals of 30 and 100 years are indicated by their inundation boundaries. The maps included in the Atlas represent the flood depth at any given point for the extreme event of a 1000 years flood and it must be taken into account that one single event will not have impacts on the entire river reach. Thus, the Danube Atlas does not represent the flood situation liable to occur due to one single event along the entire course of the Danube. The maps rather represent a synthesis of many possible extreme events, the most unfavourable flood situation for any given point and thus the threat posed to any individual. This overall view is based on a statistic assumption. Area of consideration Traditionally, according to the surrounding landscape and the development of the river course, the Danube stream is split into the following sections, which also differ from one another with respect to flood protection. Upper Danube Germany, Austria Valley characteristics with the major part being deeply cut into the rock Dyke protected stretches (HQ 100 ) Middle Danube (Vienna to Iron Gate) Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia Valley characteristics, with the plain becoming larger Mainly dyke protected Polders of different sizes Lower Danube (downstream Iron Gate) Romania and Bulgaria Almost completely dyke protected

10 JOINTLY FOR OUR COMMON FUTURE Polders of different sizes Delta area (downstream Ceatal Ismail) Three navigable branches with dyke protection: Chilia, Sulina and Sfantu Gheorghe Total surface of 564,000 ha Localities have generally local protection by embankments Flood hazard maps Flood hazard maps are produced for 3 flood scenarios: a frequent event of 30 years flood (HQ 30 ), a medium event of a 100 years flood (HQ 100 ), and an extreme event of a 1000 years flood (HQ 1000 ). The limit of one in 30 years floods (HQ 30 ): These areas along the river are frequently flooded. The flood hazard is widely known. Generally flood plains, wetland, forest and agricultural areas are affected. Usually the inundation areas of a 30-years flood should be kept free of settlements and buildings and existing buildings have to be adapted to the flood situation. The inundation areas should serve for retention purposes in order to reduce the overall flood risk. These retention areas are often valuable biotopes, such as in Hungary and the Danube Delta. The limit of one in 100 years floods (HQ 100 ): A 100-years flood event is widely accepted as the design level for flood protection measures along the Danube river. Normally, flood hazard in the areas between the limits HQ 30 and HQ 100 is known mainly to the residents having lived there for a long time, and older buildings adapted to the risk of flooding, as well as more recent ones with a higher damage potential may be found in these areas. Agricultural land use is predominant; permission for settlement use should only be given exceptionally and with provision of preventive construction measures. Due to the transition from aquatic to terrestrial vegetation, these surfaces represent valuable biotopes. Limits and flood depth of extreme events - one in 1000 years floods (HQ 1000 ): During these very rare events, flood extents and depths are distinctly larger, respectively higher than what has been observed so far. Existing flood protection works might be overtopped or might fail to perform, thus describing a residual risk scenario. For the areas between a HQ100 and HQ1000, no direct restrictions of land use arise, but preventive flood strategies and emergency planning should be accounted for, especially regarding vulnerable objects. As potential preventive measures (such as evacuation plans) are highly dependent on the flood depth, not only the limits of the flooded areas, but also flood depth classes are illustrated. Assumptions for hazard calculation Due to the varying hydrological and topographic situation, the assumptions for hazard computation for the different sections of the Danube had to be adjusted to the local situation. The present land use conditions were considered. Along the Upper Danube from source till Bratislava the calculations are based on the historic surface levels of the Danube floods, while downstream Bratislava the model results are generally based on maximum discharges. Upstream Bratislava maximum historic water levels have been reached in 1850, 1899 and During the flood events in 1965, 1975 and 2002 above all dyke failure occurred leading to the flooding of e.g. Bratislava. Along the same Danube stretch the icy flood in 1876 had a devastating character, destroying 3,350 m of dykes inundating more than ha of land, including numerous villages and settlements. More recent flood events in 2006 and 2010 affected the downstream reach of the Danube in Romania, Bulgaria and Ukraine. The derivation of flood scenarios is based on analysing flood discharges during the period of observations at all hydrometrical stations along the Danube. Other important parameters are the duration of the flood wave and the volume. Discharges-volumes were looked as conditioning parameters (Drobot et al., 2012). For reasons of simplification, the hydraulic model calculations did not take into account: The morphological processes of the river bed in certain stretches of the river The effects of river training measures (canalisation) The assessment of inundated areas and respective flood depths relies on hydraulic assumptions. Despite the influence on the flood characteristics, road embankments, canals or some historic flood dams are generally neglected. As the chosen scale only permits a rough assessment of contours, the outlined flood scenarios must be considered as an overview. The calculation of inundation areas areas with lower protection measures and unprotected areas Areas with a high level of protection In such areas floods usually remain within the flood protection structures, e.g. dykes, and no flooding outside these structures occurs as long as the structures sustain. Failure of protective structures might occur e.g. when flood pressure lasts over longer periods on the dyke and its stability decreases. Therefore, for some of those stretches with high protection level, local failure of protective measures was considered and displayed in the Atlas, representing a worst case or residual risk scenario. In other areas, e.g. such as the Vienna area, failure was considered rather unlikely because of a very high protection level, and was therefore not considered in the flood hazard scenarios, thus representing rather a realistic than an unrealistic worst case scenario. Unprotected areas or areas with a low level of protection In those areas medium and extreme floods overtop existing flood protection structures, and if no protection is present, also the frequent flood events inundate the low lying areas along the river, e.g. the floodplains in Hungary and in the Danube Delta. Here, no consideration of residual risk was necessary. Atlas Scale Even though the terrain data is available at high resolution for almost all national river sectors (LiDAR data) and land survey information is at hand for cross sections, the atlas is printed in a scale of 1:100,000. This scale is suitable for the targeted overview representation but will not be detailed enough for projects on a local scale. Particular attention has been paid to the representation of the consequences of potential extreme floods by indicating inundated areas and associated inundation depths. Comparably frequent events, such as floods with recurrence intervals of 30 and 100 years are indicated by their inundation boundaries. The maps included in the Atlas represent the flood depth at any given point for the extreme event of a 1000 years flood and it must be taken into account that one single event will not have impacts on the entire river reach. Thus, the Danube Atlas does not represent the flood situation liable to occur due to one single event along the entire course of the Danube. The maps rather represent a synthesis of many possible extreme events, the most unfavourable flood situation for any given point and thus the threat posed to any individual. This overall view is based on a statistic assumption. 9

11 DANUBE FLOODRISK SUMMARY REPORT Area of consideration Traditionally, according to the surrounding landscape and the development of the river course, the Danube stream is split into the following sections, which also differ from one another with respect to flood protection. Upper Danube Germany, Austria Valley characteristics with the major part being deeply cut into the rock Dyke protected stretches (HQ 100 ) Middle Danube (Vienna to Iron Gate) Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia Valley characteristics, with the plain becoming larger Mainly dyke protected Polders of different sizes Lower Danube (downstream Iron Gate) Romania and Bulgaria Almost completely dyke protected Polders of different sizes Delta area (downstream Ceatal Ismail) Three navigable branches with dyke protection: Chilia, Sulina and Sfantu Gheorghe Total surface of 564,000 ha Localities have generally local protection by embankments They have been combined with digital terrain models referring to LiDAR data, field measurements and topographic maps of 1: to 1: The gained information on inundation areas were then generalised for the representation on a scale 1: Calculation of flood extents in Hungary was carried out with a simplified method based on national inundation maps, where the probability of dyke resistance was also taken into consideration. Therefore, this map does not necessarily correspond to the Hungarian national inundation maps. Germany contributed existing hazard maps for the 100 years flood. No consideration of damage reduction measures was applied Expenses for emergency prevention and the interventions as well as damages to flood protection works are not included Data used for generation of asset and population density information To gain comparable results, mainly European data base information has been used (like Eurostat). Additional values from various other sources (national statistics, industry, scientific publications) were integrated. All values have been converted to Euro using official EU-rates. 10 Flood risk maps The maps of potential damage contain values in Euro/m² for different land use types. The underlying information is a harmonized data set on assets and population density (BEAM, Basic European Assets Map, Additionally, some information on elements at risk is provided. In consequence of the generalised delineation and the 1:100,000 representation, a reduced number of objects and categories is displayed. Relevant objects outside the potentially inundated areas are displayed as well, as they might be affected indirectly (for example by accessibility). The information is based on NAVTEQ points of interest as well as from the EU-database on IPPC sites. Assumptions for risk assessment Some assumptions had to be made to be able to account for the overall Danube river in the frame of the DanubeFLOODRISKproject: Only assets for which direct tangible damages were assessable were taken into account The results are based on the net concept, which reflects the current market value of an asset (not restoration costs or insured assets) No costs for the building ground are included as it is assumed that the value assigned to it will not change in case of an event No external planning costs are included (i.e. building permits) as they will not apply for a simple restoration after an event No costs due to production downtimes are taken into account Work steps for damage assessment calculation The calculation of potential damage is based on the following steps: Determination of the number of people exposed to the potentially inundated areas Determination of assets and values on the inundated surfaces (per land use class) Application of damage functions to each of the different asset classes. A damage function describes the damage in percent of the total value of a specific land use. Different land uses also may have a different susceptibility to floods. More than one asset class may be located on the same area (like buildings and household). Detailed maps were produced for high risk areas, providing information about flood protection measures and flood management action plans for localities. Pilot activities One important preparatory step to the implementation of pilot projects addressing Floods Directive issues in selected EU Member States (Austria, Bulgaria, Italy, and Romania) was the preparation of the Scoping study (Act. 7.1). The first chapter is dedicated to the presentation of the relevant existing legislative frameworks on European level the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive, and the status of the Floods Directive implementation, including the existing national approaches and/or

12 JOINTLY FOR OUR COMMON FUTURE maps and flood risk management plans. Reflections of the WFD and of the FD together with Member State implementations and past experience delivered some findings applicable to pilot scale, which contributed to the success of the pilot projects for DANUBE FLOODRISK. Stakeholders involvment and liance between mapping activities and land planning and protection measures The Atlas and the pilot action plans were discussed with stakeholders and limits of flooding were verified, as well as the interests for implementing the proposed actions plans. the envisaged strategies to flood protection with respect to spatial planning, environmental and emergency management aspects. Another chapter examines previous Member State experience regarding implementation of interdisciplinary flood protection projects in order to give evidence for the Member State competence for pilot applications, which is follow by a chapter describing the common strengths or weaknesses among the four Member States in their existing national frameworks, approaches and past experience. Common and individual issues identified as suitable at the pilot level are recommended to be addressed in the pilot projects, generating an added value. The scope of the seven pilot projects and the Italian pilot study has been outlined, together with the expected added value of the pilot projects. Therefore, the aim of this scoping study was to find topics which are suitable and relevant for being addressed in pilot projects, contributing to different issues of the Floods Directive, and designed for delivering transferable lessons. Following the scoping study, eight pilot projects (including the Italian pilot study) (Act. 7.2) have been implemented in four countries (Romania Pilot Projects: Galati, Cernavoda, and Giurgiu; Austrian Pilot Projects: City of Krems: Harbor and Settlement Area; Italian Pilot Projects: Drava river; and Bulgaria: Lom, Nicopole, and Ruse). Through the pilot projects, the flood hazard maps and flood risk maps have been elaborated and adapted to local levels with local stakeholder involvement for testing both the suitability of the methods developed in the Danube FLOODRISK project and as well the uptake and use of the maps in further planning processes of local decision makers regarding flood risk management plans. All the stakeholders were involved to determine an optimal format for maps, valuable information being collected for the future designs and approaches. In a third and final step, the lessons learned from the eight pilot projects have been elaborated individually, also with regards to common issues and transferability of lessons. These findings were compiled in a follow-up paper (Act. 7.3) With the Floods Directive currently being implemented in national legislations, and with ongoing discussions on EC level (Working Group F) and in International River Commissions (e.g. Flood Protection Expert Group of ICPDR), it is evident that many details of the Floods Directive are still open and need further specification, especially interdisciplinary issues addressing risk The public and stakeholders, through constructive engagement, helped inform the development of the flood maps and FRM- Ps, as well as benefit from the outcomes. Relevant stakeholders include a wide range of interests, including national, regional and local ministries and authorities, international river commissions, civil protection and emergency response services, land use planners, the insurance industry, the scientific community as well as flood risk managers and the general population. WP4 STAKE activities, integrates all main technical activities of harmonization, mapping and local scale FRMP by pilots activities, by open and transparent public and stakeholders information and involvment. In relation to flood maps, stakeholders and members of the public helped providing the local information to enhance the accuracy of the maps and provide input in relation to the formats to ensure that the maps provide optimum benefit to end-users for purposes such as awareness raising of risk, public and institutional preparedness and planning for flood events (including flash floods), enhanced resilience, and the promotion of sustainable development and land use planning. Similarly, the public and stakeholders have important roles to play in the preparation of the FRMPs, particularly in relation to: Setting flood risk management objectives Identifying important local issues that should be considered when assessing appropriate measures The decision-making process for the selection of measures (MCA, benefits and costs) The criteria for prioritisation of measures. When considering public and stakeholder engagement, as well as the dissemination of information, it was important to consider: The objectives and target audience of the engagement or dissemination (i.e., who the stakeholders are), The most appropriate and effective timing of the consultation for different stakeholders The scale and scope of the engagement, taking into account the need for information exchange and / or cooperation between local, regional, national and international authorities The mechanism or media by which the engagement or dissemination might be undertaken (e.g., web-based publication or consultation, such as internet-based flood mapping portals, publicity campaigns, public exhibitions, public meetings, community group liaison, workshops, etc.) The format, content and tools for implementing the engagement or applying in dissemination The awareness and understanding of members of the public and stakeholders of the risk of flooding, and how they should re- 11

13 DANUBE FLOODRISK SUMMARY REPORT spond in the event of a flood was essential for effective emergency response and community resilience in the pilot areas affected by high risks in flooding and debris flows. For getting the best practice on stakeholders involvement, international and national workshops, meetings and questionnaires were prepared. The Working Group F on Floods (WGF) of the European Commission (EC), under the umbrella of the Common Implementation Strategy of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD CIS) and its working programme, has planned, as part of its mandate, the organization of thematic workshops on specific issues regarding the implementation of the Floods Directive 2007/60/EC (FD) on the assessment and management of flood risks. As part of a series of workshops looking at the implementation of Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risk, the Floods Directive, Working Group F organized a three days thematic workshop in Bucharest, Romania during April 2012 on the subject of Stakeholders involvement in the flood risk management. The event was hosted by the Romanian Government with support from the ICPDR and Danube Floodrisk Project Management Team and its Steering Committee. The two main aims of the WG F are to support the implementation of the Floods Directive and to improve information exchange on good practices on relevant topics, such as flood risk management plans, flood mapping, preliminary flood risk assessment, economic assessment and funding of flood risk management measures, and vulnerability assessment. To reach the goal of Floods Directive implementation, the public and stakeholders involvement in flood management is needed. The legal references are the followings: The Flood Directive requires that all interested parties shall be involved in the production, review and updating of flood Table of management and working packages meetings 12 Meeting Title Data Location 1 DFRP Kick-off meeting 24-Jun-09 RO/Bucharest 2 DFRP PP Meeting 02-Sep-09 AT/Vienna 3 National meeting of the Danube Floodrisk project 18-Sep-09 IT/Trento 4 Internal Project team meeting Project team meeting 19-Sep-09 BG/Pleven 5 ÖROK Meeting 28-Sep-09 AT/Vienna 6 Internal Project team meeting Project team meeting 01-Oct-09 BG/Sofia 7 DFRP WG HARM National requirements 09-Oct-09 HU/Budapest 8 DFRP AT meeting with provinces 06-Nov-09 AT/Wien 9 Internal Project team meeting Project team meeting 10-Nov-09 BG/Sofia 10 DFRP WG HARM Data & methods 19-Nov-09 HU/Budapest 11 BMLFUW WS for water departments of provinces 09-Dec-09 AT/Wien 12 DFRP WG HARM Data & methods 14-Dec-09 HU/Budapest 13 DFRP and CEFRAME - information exchange 11-Feb-10 AT/St. Poelten 14 DFRP WG HARM & PP Meeting Data & methods 18-Feb-10 BG/Sofia 15 International Project management meeting Project team meeting 19-Feb-10 BG/Sofia 16 WG HARM5 Data & methods 18-Mar-10 HU/Budapest 17 DFRP WP7 AT Pilot 22-Apr-10 AT/Krems 18 WG HARM hydrology Design flood simulation 10-Jun-10 HU/Budapest 19 DFRP STG Meeting 13-Jun-10 RO/Timisoara 20 DFRP WP7 AT Pilot 17-Jun-10 AT/Krems 21 DFRP WP4 meeting 03-Sep-10 AT/Vienna 22 DFRP LP-UBA-A Meeting 06-Sep-10 RO/Bucharest 23 DFRP PP & SH Meeting Data & methods IT/Venice 24 Management Meeting SC Meeting 13-Oct-10 RO/Timisoara 25 CEFRAME Event 07-Dec-10 AT/St. Poelten 26 WP5 Data Collection Data collection 21-Jan-11 RO/Bucharest 27 DFRP PM & STG Meeting Mapping requirements 02-Mar-11 SK/Bratislava 28 Internal Project team meeting Project team meeting 23-Mar-11 BG/Sofia 29 Internal Project team meeting Project team meeting 05-May-11 BG/Sofia 30 SEE Annual Conference 12-May-11 BG/Sofia 31 DFRP WP coordination 16-May-11 IT/Rome 32 WP6 Meeting Mapping requirements 17-May-11 IT/Rome 33 National meeting of the Danube Floodrisk project 18-May-11 IT/Trento

14 JOINTLY FOR OUR COMMON FUTURE risk management plans (FD art 10.2). This process shall be coordinated as appropriate with the involvement of interested parties in the preparation of River Basin Management Plans (FD art 9.3, WFD Art 14). In addition the result of all three steps of the Directive shall be made available to the public (article 10.1). The workshop was followed by a one day meeting for WG F 11 on 19 th April The event was held in the Parliament House of Romania, Nicolae Balcescu Conference Hall. The Workshop was organized in 7 sessions chaired by designated officials, and following with introductory presentations and 6 panel discussions on the respective topic. The panellists present brief initial thoughts and then lead discussion sessions so that participants can gain greater depth in one or other of the topics. A brief questionnaire and call for papers was distributed getting inputs from more than 150 authors and contributions at discussions from a large group of experts of more than 200 persons. A workshop Proceedings was prepared and presentations were posted both on the project site, as well as in CIRCA; the abstract volume included 64 short papers presentations. The full documents of the workshop are available on the folowing sites: and Management and dissemination activities were concentrated on organizing activities and partners communication, preparing reports, both technical and financial ones. A comprehensive list of meetings is presented in the following table. In general meetings were organized in parallel working packages meetings, as well. During the project implementation, the working team prepared 7 technical and financial reports and the final report is under preparation. Large numbers of dissemination documents were prepared, as: Table of management and working packages meetings 34 Flood Directive Implementation RO/Bucharest 35 DFRP project coordination & WP3 Management issues 01-Jun-11 HU/Budapest 36 WG HARM8 Mapping requirements 02-Jun-11 HU/Budapest 37 Internal Project team meeting Project team meeting 07-Jun-11 BG/Sofia 38 DFRP WP7 AT Pilot 10-Jun-11 AT/Krems 39 Regional meeting Bilateral partner meeting 20-Jun-11 RO/Tulcea 40 Regional meeting Bilateral partner meeting 21-Jun-11 RO/Tulcea 41 Seminar on the Economical and Ecological re-design of the Danube Floodplain for the reduction of the flooding risk 23-Jun-11 RO/Galati 42 Meeting on flood control and prevention issues RO/Calimanesti 43 International Symposium Presentation of the project 6/29-7/1/2011 IT/Catania 44 Fifth International Conference on Flood Risk (ICFR5) Topic 1 - Flood Risk Management (Prevention, Mitigation and Adaptation) Tokyo 45 DFRP PP & SH Meeting Mapping requirements 03-Oct-11 IT/Trento 46 Internal Project team meeting Project team meeting 06-Oct-11 BG/Sofia 47 DFRP WP7 AT Pilot 13-Oct-11 AT/Krems 48 Management Meeting Management issues 03-Nov-11 RO/Bucharest 49 EGU Leonardo Conference Series on the Hydrological Cycle Floods in 3D: Processes, Patterns, Predictions Bratislava 50 DFRP meeting with provinces and CEFRAME regarding DFRP FRMs 25-Nov-11 AT/Vienna 51 Basin Board 12/ /2011 BG/Pleven 52 WP6 Meeting/ Danube Floodrisk Training Course On Beam Risk Methodology For Flood Risk Mapping Mapping requirements IT/Rome 53 DFRP WP7 AT Pilot 19-Jan-12 AT/Krems 54 DFRP WP6/FHM national agreement from provinces 24-Jan-12 AT/Vienna 55 XIII Meeting GRASS e GFOSS 15/16/17 February Trieste 56 DFRP WP7 AT Pilot 22-Feb-12 AT/Krems 57 DFRP SH WS 07-Mar-12 AT/Vienna 58 DFRP WP7 AT Pilot 20-Mar-12 AT/Krems 59 EC WG F SH WS 17-Apr-12 RO/Bucharest 60 Management meeting 5 September 2012 RO/Bucharest 61 Final event Meeting Title Data Location october 2012 RO/Bucharest 62 DFRP WP7 AT Pilot 24-Apr-12 AT/Krems 63 FloodRisk2012 conference 20-Nov-12 NL/Rotterdam 13

15 DANUBE FLOODRISK SUMMARY REPORT 14 Leassons learned The DanubeFLOODRISK project is an important contribution to the implementation of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), the Danube Strategy and the EU flood policy, and contains a large number, and a wide range, of findings. The project offers a large number of best practices and an extended list of lessons learned from the pilot actions, from working together to develop recommendations and conclusions, or from preparing the transnational guideline for the integration of flood risk information formulated as input for master plans of spatial planning, which have been highlighted during the Thematic Workshop in April 2012, such as: The research used several means of engagement with the stakeholders identified such as the use and revision of existing data from secondary sources as census data and archives, interviews and focus groups with qualified professionals, standardized questionnaire surveys in six communities exposed to flood hazards and those recently flooded. Public involvement allows the incorporation of a factor that is often forgotten: local knowledge. The results of the surveys prove the transparency in the stakeholders actions, in communication between organizations and individuals involved. The interviewed stakeholders responses are valuable outcomes enabling decision-makers to consider the wider implications of their activities in planning and adopting flood protection measures. Flood risk communications should be two-way between the public and the responsible agencies. The role of feedback loops in the system will not only allow local knowledge of the risk to be considered a resource to be included in flood incident management plans but will also serve to increase trust levels between stakeholder. In communicating criteria and results of economic assessments, the number of parameters should be minimized, e.g. to the 4 types of impact (economic, social, environmental, cultural). The use of the same criteria as the ones of the preliminary flood risk assessment (PFRA) and of the risk maps will make this process more consistent and will avoid double work. It would be a good practice to use a few criteria weight profiles in the MCA evaluation of alternatives based on stakeholders opinions. The MCA tool could be used to propose different scenarios based on different weights of the criteria and propose them in this way to the politicians, in order to make the impact of these changes transparent. It is important to present the uncertainty related to these evaluations. A MCA should be adaptable, by changing the parameters that could be changed within the next years. Through the choice of Danube FLOODRISK pilot applications across EU countries addressing different issues covered by the Floods Directive, an enhanced experience in this field was delivered and therefore a good added value for discussions on EU level, but also for discussions and implementation works at the Member State levels. Several lessons and options for transferable results have been introduced by the Italian Drava pilot study. The main transferable issues are related to generic preparedness measures, recommendations and best practice for future spatial planning measures, and input for risk management planning in case of small transnational catchments. Additionally, some lessons regarding stakeholder involvement are considered to be transferable, especially when considering other areas with similar characteristics

16 JOINTLY FOR OUR COMMON FUTURE like basin size and land use, human works and morphological and topographical situation. The production of the Guidelines on The triggering of landslides and debris flow and their mapping developed within the Danube FLOODRISK Project is one of the main results of the project. The work represents one of the activities on the studypilot area of the Drava basin in South Tyrol (Italy), which was chosen as test area for studying in deep the main problems and issues of small mountainous catchments. The Guidelines prepared by a complex team of experts under the coordination of ISPRA, aim to be a useful tool for the professional community preparing Hazard Maps for specific territorial environments. The Guidelines propose a method of hazard assessment that is based on a methodology that is consistent with the most up-to-date knowledge in the field of river and torrent associated hazards. Awards recognition A Diploma of Excellence was awarded in May 2011, for the Danube FLOODRISK Project, coordinated by the Romanian Ministry of Environment and Forests, within the frame of a competition organized under the High Patronage of the Chairmanship of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation and the aegis of DG MARE European Commission. With the same occasion, the Danube FLOODRISK project received the Social & Economic Innovator Trophy in the Danube Black Sea region. The advantage of the transnational co-operation is given through the possibility of raising the willingness to participate in the transnational approach for all single actors, the common harmonization of data and methods and the joint exemplary implementation in the different regions. FAQ Related Documents The project website was designed to provide usability and a great user experience. The website has two distinct areas: one open to the visitors and one restricted for project partners and accessible through authentication. In the public areas all the publishable materials were made available for the website visitors including all publications like posters, flyers, brochures, guides and manuals, newsletters. Also in the public area is the on line questionnaire module used as an additional tool to distribute and gather data from project stakeholders. The website structure is based on a 3 columns layout which was developed for a content management platform. The presentation part is accessible in all languages of the project and it has been permanently updated. The visitors have the possibility to subscribe for the newsletter directly on the site. The restricted area is an application developed for the internal communication used by project partners to share and discuss versions of documents, to plan meetings and to store project related documents (financial and communication products). The website also provide access to an area where through an interactive interface users may chose to display different data sets on the danube floodrisk map (a web service showing the hazard and risk maps and additional flood related information including additional functions like search). The link to the map geoportal is: It is expected that the website will be active after the project time life expires at least 5 more years! Key innovations Transnational cooperation in the most international river basin in the world Joint flood risk assessment Joint harmonization of requirements, data and methods Stakeholder and end user involvement Joint preparation and completion of common data base (incl. data acquisition) Joint production of hazard and risk maps Exemplary Integration into spatial planning The project had a significant positive impact both on experts in the field of the Danube countries, as well as on the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) and the European Commission, the beneficiaries on the long term of the project results. This will ensure the long-term sustainability of the project results! Stay tuned to our website Within the frame of the awareness campaign a webpage has been launched and kept operational along the project implementation ( The actual structure of the site is the following: About FLOODRISK Project Team Work Packages Timetable Publications 15