circabc.europa.eu · web viewfrom de, pl, se, ee and uk) general. ... please can schema be...

1

Summary of MS feedback received immediately before, during (non-MS specific stated as ‘General’) and following the 2nd Technical Meeting of the CIS WGF, Sub-Group on Reporting 30 – 31 May 2017

Member state

Comment Proposed Action

PFRAGeneral

Spelling to be corrected and duplication of fields removed – applies to all cases where drop

down lists occur.

Check spelling and cross

check across Schemas for

duplication

General

Text box for uncertainty should be optional not mandatory, can get two sources of floods.

General: Where ‘provide brief explanation’ asked as conditional following selection of ‘other’

option– text box should be available, string type, 5,000 characters. Reference not needed in all

cases.

Agree: include: ‘Source

uncertain’ as an option and

provide explanatory text in the

Guidance (see specific MS

comments and proposed

action below)

Post January 2011 floods, If MS selects ‘source uncertain’, make it mandatory to give an explanation.

Call it ‘source uncertain description’

General Names for enumeration: use code and name e.g. A1- fluvial. Agreed and implement change

General Keep distinction between source of flooding and characteristics. Appears to be a consensus

emerging not to change

sources and characteristics

proposed to keep as original

(e.g. see below comments

2

from DE, PL, SE, EE and UK)

General

Characteristics – options are missing that need to be added. Should be marked green as a

change. Code and text combination to be used here too but no changes to the definitions. This

element was not mandatory in the past, from now onwards it is – to be validated in QA.

Mandatory here serves more as a quality check. ’No data available’ will be an option.

General consensus not to

change characteristics. Keep

as original

Make mandatory for floods

post 2011

General

No definitions of source or characterisation are given. Sub group prepared short paper to WGF

which gave a list of sources etc. and included description. Check with these definitions

It should be noted that the

‘Sub-group’ paper referred to

was one produced by a

different sub-group several

years ago. This paper has

been reviewed and the

descriptions given are similar

but not exactly the same as

those given in the tables in the

original guidance e.g. further

options are given for Flood

characteristics in the current

guidance .It is suggest that the

descriptions and definitions

given in the current guidance

document (No.29) are retained

General General comment – do not hide cross checks – say the element is ‘conditional’ and mandatory Schemas and schema

3

for floods from 2010 onwards.

sketches to clearly state

whether ‘Required’

‘Conditional’ or ‘Optional’ with

definitions of these terms to be

provided in the guidance

document text.

Note that the date referred to

should be from January 2011

onwards

General

Cross border relationship: Boundaries to flood models should be coordinated between MS.

Need to have cross border relationship unbounded instead of max/min 1.

Make this statement in the

guidance text and check that

schema element FloodLocationsType/FloodLoc

ation/CrossBoarderRelationshi

p has relationship unbounded

General Need to be consistent with the options available for past and future floods, 3 to add: Number of

buildings affected, damage caused and specific weighting. There is some overlap in lists, the

use of categories and sub-categories should be considered.

Agreed - Add to enumeration

list in…

PFRASummaryInformation/Pot

entialAdverseConsequences

Number of buildings

affected

Level of Damage

caused (e.g. high,

medium, low)

Specific weighting

4

systems defined to

assess significance

Also split Human health,

environment cultural heritage

and economy into

Potential impacts on

human health

Potential impacts ion

the environment

Etc.

Italy (28th

May)

New schema element - Criteria used to identify potentially significant future floods using an enumeration list:

simpler to have 2 main categories: Hazard (level/depth, velocity) and Element at risk (value or vulnerability)

A possible list could be, accordinglyHazard/level or depthHazard/velocityHuman HealthEnvironmentCultural heritageEconomyPotentialDamage/ValuePotentialDamage/VulnerabilityWhether floods have occurred in the pastPredictive modellingOther

Human Health, Environment,

Cultural heritage and Economy

covered above also propose to

include ‘Water/level or depth’

and ‘Watervelocity’ (to replace

‘Flood levels, flow velocity,

depth’ and ‘Product of velocity

and depth’) to keep the

wording as close as possible

to that of the Directive –

otherwise keep as originally

proposed (and include

changes in row above)

General Criteria used: ‘aggrieved’ –common English words should be used. in…

5

PFRASummaryInformation/

PotentialAdverseConsequence

s

replace ‘aggrieved’ with

‘affected’

General Consideration of long-term developments: overlap with this element and the next one. Change

the order of these two questions and make conditional.

These are two separate

schema elements so the order

shouldn’t matter

(PFRASummaryInformation/Ar

ticle4Applied/PFRASummaryIn

formation/LongTermDevelopm

ents and

PFRASummaryInformation/Arti

cle4Applied/PFRASummaryInf

ormation/IssuesArticle4.2.d)

Propose keeping these two

schema elements but add ‘Not

considered’ to

PFRASummaryInformation/Arti

cle4Applied/PFRASummaryInf

ormation/LongTermDevelopme

nts enumeration list and if

‘other’ or ‘not considered’

please provide an explanation

6

Both of these elements should

be mandatory

PFRA

PL In the Reporting Guidance should be clarified how to understand "SpecificArea" element?

The original schema text

states that ‘if no specific area

has been reported it is

assumed that Article 4 is

applied to the entire UoM)’.

However, the Specific Area

element links to those MS

using Article 13 in some areas

and Article 4 in others. This

element is therefore now

redundant

BE PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Appied/PFRASummaryInformation/OverallApproach:

The element name ‘overall approach’ does not seem to match the content which is only

about the use of topography and land use maps.

Rather than a reference to methodology of how map was produced, should it not be a

reference to methodology on how this information/ map was used in the assessment?

Production of these maps is not a product of the FD.

Proposal to keep original

OverallApproach element in

but replace summary with a

reference schema rather than

summary text and introduce a

new schema element (i.e.

rename our proposed new

schema element

OverallApproach to:

PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article

4Appied/PFRASummaryInform

ation/Article4aMaps – Agree:

7

provide reference to how this

map was used in the

assessment

We now have 3 elements

under SummaryInformation:

OverallApproach –

Reference

Article4aMaps Y/N

Aricle4aMaps -

Reference

DE

PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Appied/PFRASummaryInformation/OverallApproach:

Map according to Article 4.2(a) showing topography and land use - land use information of

a typical topographic map! Not comparable to Corine Land Cover!

Agree - covered by proposal in

row above

DE PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Appied/

PFRASummaryInformation/PastAdverseConsequences:

To be defined: impacted area = flooded area?

To be defined: impacted people = residents in flooded area? Add ‘Expert Judgement’ to enumeration list

Impacted area may be

different to flooded area as

there may be areas flooded

that are not impacted and the

same applies to residents but it

may not be easy to distinguish

between the two. Suggest

replacing with ‘flooded area’

(no need to include units e.g.

ha) and ‘residents in flooded

area’ as suggested by DE.

Explanation will need to be

8

provided in the guidance text.

Agree to add ‘Expert

Judgement’ to enumeration list

It should be noted that

wherever an expert judgement

option chosen (either in

isolation, or in combination

with other choices), there

should be a follow-up optional

element enquiring about

"expert judgment", at minimum

enquiring about the

organisation employing the

expert – This will be a new

‘string element’ (i.e.

description).

Italy (28th

May)

Further Proposed changes to enumeration list (adding to DE comments in row above) for

Criteria used to define significant historical floods (PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Appied/

PFRASummaryInformation/PastAdverseConsequences

Replace ‘Damage caused’ with

‘Level of damage (e.g. high,

medium, low)

Return period, extent and

duration of occurrence –

propose not to remove ‘extent’

DE PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Applied/

PFRASummaryInformation/PotentialAdverseConsequences:

human health, environment, cultural heritage and economy: This information must be

provided under adverse consequences anyway. No double reporting.

But this new schema element

has been proposed to gain

information on Criteria used to

identify significant future floods

9

Change residents ‘aggrieved’ to ‘affected’

so is different – suggest

keeping in

Agreed – change aggrieved to

affected (also see above)

DE

PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Applied/

PFRASummaryInformation/LongTermDevelopments:

Delete: Long-term developments is part of Art. 4.2.d => to be integrated into new schema

below: COM – DE suggesting to move not delete. Separate schema elements provide

clarification. Keep as it is.

PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Applied/PFRASummaryInformation/IssuesArticle4.2.d

Would prefer not to delete this

schema element as it asks for

some more specific

information and teases out the

Climate change element rather

than just ‘long-term

developments including

impacts of climate change..’

DE

PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Applied/

PFRASummaryInformation/IssuesArticle4.2.d:

Should be consistent, with or without “position of”.

Change wording/add:

long-term developments: impacts of climate change Long-term developments: Development of Settlements Long-term developments: Development of infrastructure Long-term developments: other

Understand this request but

would prefer to keep as a

separate schema element but

easy to make this change

within the IssuesArticle4.2.d

Delete ‘position of’

DE PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Applied/

PFRASummaryInformation/InternationalInformationExchange:

Wording of Product should be ‘Definitive Table per MS on mechanism of coordination.

If Other used – provide text (e.g. Other mechanism of international coordination –

CONDITIONAL - provide a description if type is set to `other`)

NEW schema element – Add in a reference schema element to provide links to

Noted change on Product

(no other changes needed as

other two bullets cover what is

already in the schema)

10

documents or evidence that coordination mechanism is in place rather than having to

provide summary text.

DE

PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Applied/TypeofFloods/TypeofFlood/SourceofFlooding:

Additional schema element providing information, if floods from sewage systems have

been excluded (Y/N) on types of flood excluded (more than one can be selected):

• Separate sewage systems

• Combined sewage systems

• Surface water drainage systems

• Other

Table providing clear information for MS if floods from sewage systems have been

excluded according to Article 2.1 on which types of flood have been excluded

Accept change - but note that

we lose information on the

type of sewerage/drainage

system excluded

BE PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Applied/TypeofFloods/TypeofFlood/SourceofFlooding:

It is to be expected that for historical floods often more than one type applies and no

explanation will be available. There is no requirement for making this explanation

mandatory.

Why is ground water left out?

Similar options need to be included in mechanisms and characteristics of flooding to cope

with the fact that we want to make these fields mandatory and don’t want to end up with an

Annex 0. This should be looked at for every mandatory field with enumerations list

Include ‘Source uncertain’ as

an option and provide

explanatory text in the main

body of the Guidance (same

applies to mechanisms and

characteristics)

As mentioned on Page 1, second row (for post January 2011 floods), If a MS selects ‘source uncertain’, make it mandatory to give an explanation.

Make mandatory for recent

floods post January 2011

(same applies to mechanisms

and characteristics)

11

Groundwater flooding should

be included in enumeration –

check

Note that the

‘DateOfCommencement’

element provides a distinction

of those floods pre 2011 and

those 2011 onwards. A quality

check will be introduced to

check whether mandatory

information on source,

characteristics and

mechanisms have been

provided post January 2011

PL


Sources of flooding should not be changed.

The proposed list includes subtypes of flooding. Maybe consider entering a separate field

into the subtype (as optional)?

‘Pluvial flooding not including rainfall’ - This is unclear

Support for not changing

sources of flooding

DE PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Applied/TypeofFloods/TypeofFlood/SourceofFlooding:

German proposal for source of floods: Source means the origin of a flood (for example,

heavy rainfall, strong winds, etc).

Sources: See guidance doc No. 29, p. 59-62. The lists were developed to facilitate the

reporting using predetermined agreed lists of types of floods, consequences and

Further support for not

changing the sources of

flooding

12

mechanism of flooding. It was not formally agreed by Water Directors. The current proposal

is a mixture of the three categories and not supported by Germany as they are already

contained in the 1st cycle definitions/ reporting sheets.

Rivers and Lakes: Is already included in “ A 11 - Fluvial” (description: FLOODING OF

LAND BY WATERS ORIGINATING FROM PART OF A NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM,

INCLUDING NATURAL OR MODIFIED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS …this source can include

flooding from rivers, streams, drainage channels…lakes and floods arising from snow

melt”)

Pluvial: Already included in “A 12 –Pluvial” (description: “…This source could include urban

storm water, rural overland flow or excess water, or overland floods arising from

snowmelt.”) See also: Characteristic of flooding: “Flash Flood” and “other

rapid/medium/slow onset” (A 31, A 33-35)

PL PFRAInformation/Article4Applied/FloodEventInformation/FloodLocation +

FloodEventInformation/FloodLocation/FloodEventCodes/FloodData/TypeofPotentialConsequen

ces:

Is this schema element the only link between FloodLocation and FloodEvent? What role

does this field have?

I would like to make sure that I understand well that many FloodLocationCode will be

associated with one FloodEventCode in the PFRA_FLoodEvent table.

Is it possible to create multipolygons, where appropriate?

The lack of possibility to link several locations with one event in the first cycle caused

artificial number of flood events. In this cycle we would like to use this opportunity and

improve the historical flood data. The guidance should provide information on how to

change the flood event codes in this case.

‘Type of Consequences to report damages associated with different flood locations to the

same event’: I have doubts whether the schemes contain this requirement.

One option is to reverse the

hierarchy i.e. Put floodEvent

as parent and floodLocation as

child then one flood event

could be associated to more

than one flood location. This

option needs to be tested.

13

I think that TypeofPotentialConsequences are related only to FloodEvent. New element

TypeofConsequences allows provide only description?

The guidance should clearly explain what data can be reported at the FloodEvent level and

at the FloodLocation level.

PL


‘Add Snow Melt Flood’: I do not agree. For us this is characteristic of the fluvial flood.

According to the list of flood types elaborated in the 1st cycle, fluvial and pluvial floods can

include floods arising from snow melt.

Sources of flooding should not be changed at this stage because it has serious

consequences and problems in existing databases.


sources of flooding

DEPFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Applied/TypeofFloods/TypeofFlood/SourceofFlooding:

Add Snow Melt Flood’: To be discussed in the September meeting.

reso? General support for not

changing sources of flooding

i.e. stick to original guidance

source types and definitions

SE

I saw that there were still the suggestions from Italy to move “snow melt flood” to a source of

flood. But that is not the case for the Nordic countries – it’s just a characteristic of floods .- so

please let it stand as it is in the 1st cycle.


sources of flooding

BE

Eliminate redundant elements from schema: Agreed these are now both

redundant. As noted on page

6, row 2, the Specific Area

element links to those MS

using Article 13 in some areas

and Article 4 in others. This

element is therefore now

redundant.

14

BE

As a solution for the many to many relationship between floodevent and floodlocations:

1) Eliminate AssociatedFL

2) Eliminate FloodLocation from the table FloodEvent

3) Create a new table which links Floodevent to FloodLocation

WRc to discuss with

Bilbomatica – see above in

relation to Italy proposal

This proposal is very similar to

the option proposed above

(page 13, row 1) where the

option is proposed to reverse

the hierarchy i.e. Put

floodEvent as parent and

floodLocation as child then one

flood event could be

associated to more than one

flood location. This option

needs to be tested.

BE

PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Appied/PFRASummaryInformation/

PastAdverseConsequences:

Include “expert judgment” in the enumeration list

Agreed: Add ‘expert

judgement’ to enumeration list

and provide a justification (i.e.

‘string’ text, description)

wherever used (see Page 8,

row 1)

EE

PFRA/PFRAInformation/Article4Applied/TypeofFloods/TypeofFlood/SourceofFlooding – Add

‘Snow Melt Flood’:

If we make this kind change we need to discuss what is then Fluvial flood? Until today we

have been reporting these floods under fluvial flood (which also includes snow melt flood).


sources of flooding

UK Requiring a full data set to be reported again, with additional 2011–2019/20 floods included: . Proposals will be discussed

at the next meeting in

15

Does this refer to past floods only? We think this could be onerous. September.

UK

Past flood events. If a historical flood had been reported (eg at 2011-12), and there is now a

new mandatory field, that mandatory field only applies to new data:

Clarification required on ‘new data’. We have been recording information since 2011/12

according to the current 1st cycle schema. So, we will have new records to upload, but, for

these events, we will not necessarily have data for fields which are still non-mandatory as

of now (2017). From what point will the new mandatory fields apply eg for events occurring

after agreement of the final 2nd cycle schema only? We might otherwise have to

retrospectively collect data for new mandatory fields for records already made of events

since 2011/12 to date.

Ideally mandatory fields should

apply from January 2011 but

proposals will be discussed in

the September meeting as

discussed above.

UK (of

May 25th)

re - Article 2(1) - Reporting the negative, is it intended to include a list of potential flood types so

that the user can indicate which types of flooding are being excluded or are not applicable? Or,

will this be left to MSs to work out?

We have gone with the DE

requested change above as

this generally reflected the

consensus in the meeting (30-

31st) but have noted that we

lose information on the type of

sewerage/drainage system

excluded

UK (of

May 25th)

Documentation describes new item "map according to Article 4.2(a) to be co-ordinated with

WFD reporting including topography and land use - Y/N". What does this mean? Is it asking if

we have a map, if we co-ordinated with WFD or both? Article 4.2a is about producing maps at

RBD scale showing topography and land use etc. so producing a map is an inherent part of

meeting the directive obligations anyway.

Producing the map is a

requirement but not all MS

have complied so this relates

specifically to meeting the

requirements of Article 4.2.a.

MS have also been asked to

provide a reference to how this

map was used in the

16

assessment (see also page 7,

row 1).

UK (of

May 25th)

Text: "Cross-schema check - clearly distinguish between the requirements of these two

schema and refer to the specific section in the reporting guidance where a clear explanation of

the differences is provided". Is this referring to existing or new / updated guidance?

This is referring to the

new/updated guidance

UK (of

May 25th)

Does this mean that if MS report "Fluvial" and don't break it down to "Flooding for rivers" or

"Flooding for lakes" then we need to report a text on why we didn't break it down for every

Flood Event? If so - that would seem a lot of work, or at least a lot of repeated extra data and

not sure if justified. "Fluvial" has been one of the main terms since the start of cycle 1.


sources of flooding

UK (of

May 25th)

New summary reference fields for HHSocial, Cultural Heritage etc. Could they all point to a

single reference paper that covers methodology for all, and e.g. just point out which pages the

relevant parts are covered? Also - this data item is at the level of a flood event - do we really

need to report for every event when it is likely to be the same for all of them, i.e. all will follow

the same method? N.B. we did not use the existing "Summary Text" field in this area in 2011-

12.

Not all MS will have a single

reference paper for all of these

fields but there will be an

option within the Schema

reference document to refer to

pages within the same

document. This reference

replaces the summary to help

make the reporting less

onerous. It is possible that

methodologies may change or

evolve and it should not be too

onerous to refer to reference

document for each event even

if the methodology is the

17

same.

Information is requested at

event level as potential

adverse consequences will be

event specific but it is

accepted that the methodology

may be the same. Reference

document element has been

included to replace the need

for summaries and

descriptions at this level hence

the same ref. docs can be

referred to although specific

page chapters and page nos

will need to be provided (e.g.

to replace ‘fatalities

description’ for example)

UK (of

May 25th)

Follows item 17. Please can schema be modified to treat reference links as WFD have done,

e.g. separate schema elements for the actual URL, page number or location within the

document, and supporting text / explanation if required. See word annex which illustrates this.

In addition - there needs to be a mechanism to update references mid-cycle, SD at NI has

raised a specific comment on that aspect.

Yes reference schemas will

match WFD as per example

provided.

A mechanism to update

references will need to be

included in the schema

UK (of

May 25th)

Overview paper s3.1 mentions reporting only what is mandatory under the Directive (against

Human Health Social, Environment, etc.). Text says "may discuss with MS about removing

Four types will continue to

need to be reported. If no

18

obligation to report all 4 types". Are there any updates on the requirements?

impact e.g. no cultural heritage

impact then this will need to be

stated (by choosing ‘not

applicable’ from the

enumeration list).

UK (of

May 25th)

Please can actual proposed codes be shown for each of the new enumerated elements? Or if

not at this stage, can you confirm when these will be allocated?Codes will be proposed once

final schemas agreed

UK (of

May 25th)

Please can different parts of the document in terms of new enumerated elements be aligned -

e.g. s3.1 of overview mentions new source "Pluvial flooding not including...." but this is not on

PFRA p68. Also e.g new codes for "Flooding from rivers" and "Flooding from lakes" but text on

p68 is for "Flooding from Rivers and / or lakes", i.e. they don't match.


sources of flooding

Italy (May

28th)

Make suggestions regarding the further disaggregation of sources of flooding into Level 1, level

1.1 and level 1.1.1

Proposal to keep sources of

flooding as originally stated

APSFR General

APSFR/SummaryofMethodology: Criteria for determining significant flood risk. Significant past

floods were discussed previously, the same changes apply here (add number of buildings

affected, damage caused (change to ‘level of damage’ see above and specific weighting). Use

the words ‘contaminated sites’ rather than ‘polluted territories’ so terminology is consistent with

WFD and EEA.

Agree – apply same changes

as identified above for PFRA

APSFR/SummaryofMethodology: Criteria for exclusion or inclusion of areas. Needs to be green

(marked as a change) as an enumeration list has been added. Focus on positive reporting,

should stay there for explaining criteria for inclusion of an area as an APSFR, but not for

exclusion (MSs decide on how much risk to accept). Problem arose from MS not explaining

their criteria clearly. Put criteria in definitions/ previous criteria for PFRA for becoming APSFR,

Agree – update UML diagram

to mark as a change in green

Reverse engineer enumeration

list (criteria for inclusion) and

19

reverse engineer so it is framed positively (i.e. focus on reasons for inclusion rather than

exclusion). Should not be a one to one relationship.

change enumeration list:

Potential risk to human health

Potential risk to economic activity

Potential risk to the environment

Potential risk to cultural heritage

Flood defences not in place or not fully implemented

Changes in land use have increased vulnerability of the area to flooding

High level of damage expected

Other

How to note why some APSFRs have been retired? File is deleted and no longer have ID.

Include additional element – APSFRs that were excluded, reason for exclusion? What level

of justification is needed? Request to do this in XML not GML because MS want to use

INSPIRE.

What if APSFRs changed in size/ or some merged? A judgement is needed from MS for

modified APSFRs – minor or major changes. Is this a modified APSFR, or a new one?

Needs to be a place where this can be explained so that track is kept of what happens with

APSFRs. Look into WISE enumeration – does this fit?

Possible solution: XML standalone schema for APSFR that will be removed. New APSFRs

reported normally, spatial GML to be discussed separately. Consultants to suggest any

other possible options.

Included in our proposal for a

new schema (need to attach

this once agreed)

20

Criteria for determination of flood risk: should be 1 to unbounded not 1 to 1. More points like

this are likely to come out when schemas are tested.Agree, make change to

schema

APSFRBE

APSFR/SummaryofMethodology:

Strikethrough of text: It should be noted that completion of this information is conditional but required if Article 4 was used. A ‘blocker’ should appear if this schema element is not completed.

Agreed – because there will be

no option for Article 13

APSFR/SummaryofMethodology – new schema element

‘The number of permanent residents aggrieved by the flood extent in flood plains’: Large

overlap with first bullet.

‘polluted territories’ should be “Contaminated sites” cfr WFD.

Add ‘Number of properties affected’ to the enumeration list

Remove third bullet point

Replace ‘polluted territories

with ‘Contaminated sites’ and

add in ‘Number of properties

affected’ to enumeration list

DE


‘Affected’ not ‘Aggrieved’

‘polluted territories’ should be “Contaminated sites”

Compare with EEA CSI015/ WFD list of pressures

New schema element – Criteria for exclusion or inclusion of areas - Delete – no negative

reporting

Implement first two bullet point

changes.

Disagree with the thirdbullet -

keep new schema element but

reverse engineer (see five

rows above)

EEA CS1015 refers to

‘Contaminated sites’ WFD

refers to ‘contaminated sites or

abandoned industrial sites’

under list of pressures -

suggest we use ‘contaminated

sites’

DE New schema element – Consideration of consequences to Human Health, Environment, Yes - Question at UoM level as

21

Cultural Heritage and Economic Activity

UoM-level

part of new summary schema

element but detail also

required at APSFR level


As it was agreed to reverse this question into why have additional APSFR been included, the

list should also be ‘reversed’:

No flood defences in place

High damage expected,

…

Change implemented (see five

rows above)

DE

APSFR/SummaryofCoordination:

If Art. 5.2 applied to your RBD/ UoM: All national RBD/UoM have to be excluded from

answering this question to prevent from statistical failure.

Needs to be applied to Art. 4; 6 and 7, too.

Agreed easiest way may be to

include ‘Not International’ in

the enumeration list or have an

opening Y/N as to whether

RBD/UoM is international

EE I have also question about APSFR maps. We discussed in the meeting that we should try to

report it in gml format. Does that mean that the original need is to change existing data to the

INSPIRE requirements GML shape file or we already want it to change it in INSPIRE data

model and upload in INSPIRE environment?

See minutes – those MS that

cannot report in GML can use

shape files but will need to be

INSPIRE compatible in future

– previous maps will not need

changing (check) – new

schema/reporting guidelines to

be provided

Please note that the

conversion, from Microsoft

Access Database to XML or

from Shape to GML, will not

22

be executed any more from a

standalone tool installed at MS

premises. The conversion tool

will be able to be run from the

Reportnet user interface which

will be provided same as under

WFD, see link:

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/WFD/WFD_521_2016/FME_processes/WFD2016_Access2XMLs.htm

The FME web service for the

conversion cannot be invoked

from outside of Reportnet end

user interface

UK

Coding APSFRs, and further consideration to be given to retiring old APSFR records and

changing, merging or new records etc:

We are keen to contribute to discussions and towards suggested or potential solutions for

this. When / where / how is this going to be taken forward? We are particularly keen to

know how this is expected to work for relational / attribute level reports and also for linked

spatial data.

New schema will be provided

for review and discussion

UK (of

May 25th)

Criteria for inclusion/exclusion - Please can some guidance be produced for this area? From a

quick read in limited time we had available - this is not clear. E.g. is this part of describing a

general approach of how APSFR were included (added) or excluded (removed) since the 2011

exercise, to be covered in terms of summary / method reporting only.

Yes, text will be provided in the

guidance document.

Information on the criteria for

including APSFRs was lacking

in the first cycle hence asking




23

for it more explicitly using an

enumeration list to supplement

reference schema element

UK (of

May 25th)

Further to item (21) above - are the "Criteria" and "TypeFloodExcluded" linked and if so how?

Again this may be clear but at quick glance haven't understood this Yes, see above

UK (of

May 25th)

Will EC need to see update against APSFR reported in 2011, and / or a complete, fresh

standalone report of all (currently) relevant APSFR in 2018?

For the valid APSFRs we need

standalone reporting. This is

part of the effort to have

complete information, as

opposed to piecemeal New

codes will be required if

APSFRs are no longer valid,

have merged or changed in

size - New schema (called

APSFRIDTracking) will be

provided for review and

discussion

FHRM General New Schema element – Hazard elements/Fluvial/Low, etc. Conveyance routes to go under

‘other’ in this section: add the text ‘e.g. conveyance routes’

It would be good to have Summary names or Schema Element names which give advice to

content (cf. FRMP proposals)

It was agreed to report velocities, flows and conveyance routes under “other”.

Take out ‘Conveyance routes’

and change ‘Other’ to ‘Other

(e.g. conveyance routes)’

We are reviewing new schema

element names

Agreed to report conveyance

routes under ‘Other’ not

24

velocities and flows

DEIt was agreed that “HazardElements” and related requirements will be modelled new -with the

objective to integrate hierarchy.

Agree – see revised version of

UML (presented on the second

day of the May meeting) which

takes these changes into

account

General

New Schema element – Calculation of return periods and probabilities for fluvial floods:

Enumeration lists should be the same for all source of flooding, pluvial to be added in.

Change ‘Other’ to ‘Other e.g. uncertain’

Commonality should be 0 to 1.

Make sure consistent between PFRA and FHRM elements of flood sources. MS to be able

to choose which sources affect them and an option for ‘not relevant’ for each source.

Worked example in the guidance may be beneficial.





account

Change Other’ to ‘Other e.g.

uncertain’ in enumeration list

Will add in Pluvial to revised

version of UML and schema

General New Schema element – Calculation of return periods and probabilities for seawater floods:

Include a warning in guidance and schema notations/description of the element –

‘these must be the same sources reported in the PFRA’.

Also include some scope for legitimate changes in sources.

Include an extra element in Summary1 – ‘same sources reported in PFRA’: Y/N, Other





account

Include an extra element in

Summary1 – ‘same sources

25

and text box for explanation.reported in PFRA’: Y/N, Other

and text box for explanation.

FHRM General

FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - Provide details of models used, datasets used and how uncertainty has been taken into account in the methods applied

Should not be mandatory in case models are not used. High probability should not be mandatory.

Move it one level higher and add the question ‘is this the same for all 3 types of scenario – Y/N if no explain differences.

Provide an option for summary text in case information is dispersed within a document.





account

Clear signposting required in

the reference schema

General

FHRM/Summary/Summary1 New schema element – Determination of most appropriate approach and scale for mapping fluvial floods (for example, to cover all sources)

Optional not mandatory.

Rename element to ‘determination of scale’.

Agree and implement changes

FHRM/Summary/Summary1 New schema element - resolution of models used in hazard maps for flooding (all sources):

Element should be conditional based on whether MS has ticked that models have been used

Change text to say ‘digital elevation model’ not just ‘models’.

Agree to changing text

A Y/N option not currently

provided as to whether digital

elevation models are used or

not – no plans to include Y/N

option

26

‘models’: It was agreed to give the possibility to provide references, reason was that resolution depends on watercourse characteristics or individual APSFR.

revised version of UML

(presented on the second day

of the May meeting) takes

these changes into account

General

FHRM/Summary/Summary1 New schema element – taking existing flood defences into account

Question to be phrased more positively. MS and COM to suggest alternatives. The phrase ‘taking into account’ is not clear.

There should be an option for having no flood defences.

This is covered below under

specific MS responses

General

FHRM/Summary/Summary1

Have scenarios with flood defence failure been considered?

Change wording to ‘Have you taken flood defences into account?’ and add a reference field rather than having a direct question.



General FHRM/Summary/Summary1

New schema element – taking existing infrastructure or buildings into account

Similar to the row above – include with a reference document





of the May meeting) takes this

27

‘mapped’: It was agreed to provide references only.change into account

General

FHRM/Summary/Summary4 New Schema element - Conditional for international UoMsClosed question: Has prior exchange of information taken place in the preparation of flood hazard and flood risk maps

May need to change the wording of ‘prior exchange of information’. Although the Directive uses the term ‘information exchange’ so perhaps simplify by removing ‘prior’

Agree remove ‘Prior’

FHRM General

FHRM/Summary/Summary5

Reference documents can be links, but they have to link to the ultimate page, not home pages.

Guidance text needs to be clear to avoid double counting.

Belongs to Summary 1, should be added there

See proposals for new

reference schemas which

address the first comment

Summary 1 is focused on

methodology whereas

summary 5 is about how to

understand the flood maps -

propose keeping these as

separate summaries

General

FHRM/FloodHazardMaps/HazardArea/QuantitativeLikelihood/MediumProbability/Articles6.6_6.7

New schema element – Justification for applying Article 6.6. For both medium and high probability floods

MS to check what can be done and on what level – have to consult experts.

See comments below (DE)

implying may be difficult at

APSFR level

General FHRM/FloodHazardMaps/HazardArea/TypeofFloods/SourceofFlooding

Add to enumeration list on Sources of Flooding:A18 – Specific mapsA19 – Combined maps

An alternative option is to have specific maps and combined maps as another schema element

Propose new schema element to clarify sources

presented on maps: new

enumeration list (Y/N):

Map shows flood

28

in order to specify one source (e.g. fluvial) if A18 is chosen or two or more sources (e.g. fluvial and pluvial) if A19 is selected

Separate questions raised: Consultants to propose a way forward

‘Are your maps combined or specific?’ With an option for both. If combined, ask what sources of floods are combined.

‘Is more than one source modelled’ ‘Are the flood extents shown for multiple sources’ ‘Are relevant sources modelled and mapped separately?’ If no, ask for explanation and

reference document. Specify in the guidance if a MS answers no, include which sources have been combined. Differences between APSFRs can also be noted in the text.

extents for a single

source

Map shows flood

extent for multiple (i.e.

combined) sources by

overlapping individual

flood sources

Map shows flood

extent for multiple

sources resulting from

combined modelling of

flood sources (e.g. that

occurred concurrently)

Specify in the guidance that for

single source maps, the

source should be clearly

indicated on the map. For

combined maps, the combined

sources should be clearly

stated (e.g. fluvial and pluvial)

and a link to a reference

document should be provided

(new reference schema

element explaining how

29

sources were modelled i.e.

modelling individually or

combined – no need to add

this complication to the maps

themselves)

General

Broad comment – 2nd cycle is about review and if necessary updating. Maps are expensive to produce and are only updated if there is something substantive to revise. Nothing has been included in the schema on how MS have done their review. If there is no new information, the same information should be reported (report in full to keep the same approach across all MS).

Action: Include an optional schema – MS can summarise their review or what has changed. (UoM level, 10,000 characters).

Agree New optional schema

relating to summary review of

updates to maps called

‘…/MapUpdate

This will take the form of

summary text at the UoM level

with a maximum of 5,000

characters (10,000 is

considered a little high)

FHRM

UK

Shapefiles or GML?

does this also apply to APSFR? Currently UK uses shapefiles. More clarification needed on what “GML / Inspire compatible” means, what this would physically look like and how it is to be submitted, so we can assess the impact compared to current shapefile submission route.Note that you will provide draft schemas ‘in two weeks’. Will the info we seek on the tools/compatibility be included? Will there be opportunity to feed back?

New schema will be provided

for review and discussion (see

above for APSFR)

BE For those MS with systems aligned to INSPIRE, they should be able to export information

directly to be reported to the EU:

In the first cycle we just reported the url of our wms/wfs services. Is it expected that we

provide a file to the EU for reporting?

To be confirmed and being

considered as part of New

schemas for APSFR spatial

data reporting.

In the May meeting we

30

discussed the option for MSs

that are already able to do so,

to report spatial flood extents

according to the medium

scenario towards a pan-

European map viewer.

Separate guidance for

geographic information will be

required - will need to update

existing spatial guidance and

propose to include this as an

Annex (as for the WFD) to or a

section of the updated

guidance document.

BE

FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - New Schema element – Hazard elements/Fluvial/Low, etc.

Remove ‘Conveyance routes (Yes/No)’ - It was agreed to include this in the ‘other’

category.

Agreed (see above under

‘general’)

EE

FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - New Schema element – Hazard elements/Fluvial/Low, etc:

If you certainly want to know it in this section (conveyance routes) it should be mentioned in the guidance.

See comment in row above

DE FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - New Schema element – Hazard elements/Fluvial/Low, etc:

Remove ‘Conveyance routes (Yes/No)’ and add ‘Other – please specify, e.g. conveyance routes’

Agreed (see above under

‘general’)

31

ITFHRM/Summary/Summary1 - New Schema element – Hazard elements/Fluvial/Low, etc:

If multiple selection is possible (it implies a combination of selected elements) why “other”?

Now ‘Other e.g. Conveyance

routes’ – see above

BE

FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - New Schema element – Calculation of return periods and

probabilities for fluvial floods:

Too much overlap

Suggestion:

• Expert judgment

• (Statistical analysis on ) historical data

• (statistical analysis) on observed/ gauging data

• (Statistical analysis on) rainfall data

• (Statistical analysis on) hydrological modelling

• (Statistical analysis on) hydraulic modelling

• No information

• other

• Uncertain

Agreed and apply changes in

yellow to enumeration list

Covers all flood types. Fluvial

floods used as an example

If Uncertain is a used a

mandatory description (String

text element) is required

BE



Add ‘Historical data’ to enumeration list.

Agree see change in row

above

FR FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - New Schema element – Calculation of return periods and


Enumeration lists should be the same for pluvial and groundwater floods (except rainfall-

runoff models for the latter), pluvial and groundwater to be added in.

Agree and make change to

schemas based on list two

rows above

32

IT



Not clear the meaning of “elements of flood sources”. Consistency does not mean the

same elements or issues, as the FHRM is a more advanced level of analysis where to

select also those issues that were listed in the PFRA more relevant for the successive risk

analysis.

However if it refers to coherence of flood sources in PFRA and FHRM consistency can’t be

mandatory.

This can be moved one level higher and you could add the question ‘same sources

reported in PFRA’: Y/N if no explain why

See revised version of UML


of the May meeting) which


account

Same sources reported in

PFRA covered in ‘General’

above (New schema element

to be added)

AT



Return periods will be added to “pluvial”

Yes – see changes above

FHRM

BE

FHRM/Summary/Summary1:

Was suggested uncertainty move up to the level of summary 1 as a more general

reference covering all sources.

Yes this has been done - See



of the May meeting)

AT

FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - Provide details of models used, datasets used and how

uncertainty has been taken into account:

ReferenceType will be provided as well

Agree - See revised version of


day of the May meeting)

BE FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - New schema element - Determination of most appropriate

approach and scale:

If it is made possible to select ‘not-relevant’ source at a higher level, is this option ‘Fluvial

floods not mapped’ then needed?

Agree - See revised version of



33

BE

FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - New schema element - resolution of models used in hazard

maps for flooding (all sources):

Was it not agreed to include this in the ‘models used, datasets used’ reference element

with a clear description in the guidance document to include this information?

Yes - See revised version of



DE



This information is very specific and should be provided in the reference documents

regarding the methodology.

Yes - See revised version of



Agree – Add in reference type

for resolution of models not

currently included in this

revised version

AT



Include ReferenceType

Agree – Add in reference type

for resolution of models not

currently included in this

revised version

BE

FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - New schema element – taking existing flood defences into

account:

Again, If it is made possible to select ‘not-relevant’ source at a higher level, are the two

options for ‘…not mapped’ needed?

And can the element not be transformed into a YES/NO question (the partial option

included in the Yes and to be explained in the reference)

Agree now at higher level

prefer to keep partial option in.

Take out Fluvial/Seawater

floods not mapped from

enumeration list as not

relevant at high ‘summary’

level.

PL FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - New schema element – taking existing flood defences into Prefer to keep the enumeration

list as it is with option to

34

account:

Poland prepares two scenarios. In the first – existing flood defences are fully taken into

account. In the second scenario, the flood embankments are removed from the model to

show the maximum flood extent in case of complete destruction of flood defences.

Is it possible to select these two options?

provide further explanation in

the reference

FR


account:

Amend wording: – taking existing flood defences into account as resistant (Fluvial and

Seawater Flooding).

Prefer to use the term

‘functional’ rather than ‘as

resistant’wording rather than

enumeration list

IT


account:

Does it include defence failure?

No this is included as a

separate schema element

AT


account:

There should be an option for having no concrete made flood defences ‘e.g. not

applicable’.

Will be covered in reference

element - explanatory text to

be included in the guidance

BE FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - Have scenarios with flood defence failure been considered?:

Change wording to ‘Have you taken flood defences into account?’ - Refers to previous

record/element.

add a reference field rather than having a direct question - It was agreed to include this in

the reference element of the previous record/element.

Restrict to simple yes/no.

The yes, but … would be a yes and need to be further explained in the reference

document.

If not other options such as “yes, but not for all sources of flooding” , … etc. would have to

Changing the wording limits

the value of the question.

Reference schema included

giving MS the option to provide

reference document and/or link

rather than adding text.

Agree to limit to simple yes/no

hence change enumeration list

35

be included as well and the list would have to be exhaustive or have an “other” option.

ATFHRM/Summary/Summary1 - Have scenarios with flood defence failure been considered?:

no questions; only ReferenceType element

See row above for proposed

changes

FHRM FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - New schema element – taking existing infrastructure or buildings

into account

‘Fluvial/pluvial/seawater/AWBI/Groundwaterfloods not mapped’: These options whould not

be needed when it is possible to (at a higher level) indicate that certain sources of flooding

are irrelevant.

This is now at a higher level

AT

FHRM/Summary/Summary1 - New schema element – taking existing infrastructure or buildings

into account

only a ReferenceType element

Would prefer enumeration list

and reference as proposed

PL

FHRM/Summary/Summary1, Closed question: Climate change:

In Poland, climate change is taken into account depending on the source of flooding (only

for sea water). I suggest adding the option “Yes, but not all sources”.

Accepted: change

enumeration list to:

Yes

No

Yes but not all sources

Reference element included

for CC also need a string

element for description of

sources CC is taken into

account

ATFHRM/Summary/Summary1, Closed question: Climate change:

only a ReferenceType element

See proposed change in row

above

AT FHRM/Summary/Summary3_1 to FHRM/Summary/Summary3_5: Reference types already

36

ReferenceType; summaries are not mandatory

included in the schemas (see

updated UML)

BE

FHRM/FloodHazardMaps/HazardArea/QuantitativeLikelihood/MediumProbability/

Articles6.6_6.7

Justification for both medium and high is the same and should be reported only once.

Agree this is the approach

taken

DE


Articles6.6_6.7

6.6: lift to existing element in summary2 and delete on APSFR-level. Adjust enumeration

according to the proposed track changes:

Risk of failure of existing defences and/ assessed or Prevention of damage and damage potential through legal regulations for use, e.g. for the

embankment foreland (add to enumeration list) The 6 ‘level of protection..’ options not necessary as these are consequences for the

bullets above

It was agreed that this has to be streamlined with Summary 2.Please ensure that this can

be answered on RBD/UoM-level.

Furthermore it was agreed to add explanation and to provide solution in Guidance

Document.

There will be differences at

APSFR level hence ideally

would be kept at this level?

Agree with proposed change

to enumeration list – will be

implemented

Same point being made - text

will be included in guidance

document depending on the

outcome

DE


Articles6.6_6.7

6.7: lift to existing element in summary2 and delete on APSFR-level.

See comment in row above

UK FHRM/FloodHazardMaps/HazardArea/TypeofFloods/SourceofFlooding:

Will these be separate questions in a separate part of the schema? If so – will this be at

summary level (ie approach generally) or expected at level of an APSFR report on FH /FR?

[for us, it would probably be the same answers in every APSFR].

Will A18 (specific maps) and A19 (combined maps) be added as sources, ie all existing

This questions have mainly

been addressed in the

responses given above

37

ones will be left as they are?

Currently, in Scotland for eg, we follow the model to report statistics separately by source

(eg fluvial, coastal, pluvial) within each APSFR in turn. We intend to continue this. The

question of how it appears on maps is different.

Some UK RBDs are shared between CAs, which might lead to different answers in the

respective parts of the RBD.

Clarification on these points will help us understand impacts on UK.

ATFHRM/FloodHazardMaps/HazardArea/TypeofFloods/SourceofFlooding:

Add to enumeration list on Sources of Flooding: Element moved to UoM level

Sources, characteristcs and

mechanisms need to be

reported at the APSFR level

because there will be

differences between APSFRs

DE

FHRM/FloodHazardMaps/HazardArea/TypeofFloods/SourceofFlooding:

It was agreed that List of Sources of Floods and options for representation of flood sources

on maps should be kept separated.

Covered under ‘specific’ and

‘combined’ maps in ‘General’

section above

BE Remove double reporting: Agree – change will be

implemented

38

EE

Element Summary 1/FloodDefences

We understand flood defences as man-made flood defence infrastructure. Natural retention

area is a bit of another meaning for us. It should be clear what we are talking about in this

schema. Even if flood defences in this reporting consider both cases (natural and man-

made) ln Estonia we have risk areas were we don´t have any kind of flood defences (no

natural, no man made – just beautiful small city’s). That means in enumeration list should

be also opportunity to choose not applicable. It wouldn´t be corrects to say that we haven´t

been taken it account.

There should be an option for having no concrete made flood defences: Not only concrete

defences. We have risk areas where we don´t have any kind of flood defences (no natural,

no man made.)

We will need to explain this

distinction in the guidance

document with the option to

provide further clarity in the

reference documents

UK Art 6.6 regarding justification for limiting FH maps to low probability only for coastal flooding:

Need more time to consult expert colleagues. Comments to follow separately.

We will follow the Directive

and the guidance that exists

now. No need to prepare high

or medium probability map, but

39

explain why.

UK (of

May 25th)

Please can the A18 for specific maps and A19 for combined maps be put into a separate field?

We believe that this should be part of a separate question about how maps are displayed,

which may be different to how the sources were independently and / or jointly assessed. E.g.

in 2013-14 SEPA reported on FHRM by each source separately within each PVA, but we

published on maps that can show one or more sources (FH - user can choose which level to

see) and combined data for all sources (FR - due to number of receptors).

It could devalue the report if we had to concatenate base data reported to match published map

- and would have impact / effort. It may also restrain future flexibility on map display.

Agree – see changes

proposed under ‘General’

above

UK (of

May 25th)

Flood Defences taken into account

At what level is this applied, e.g. per each risk-area reported or at method level for the UOM?

As earlier this may be clear but couldn’t work out at quick read.At Summary (UoM) level

UK (of

May 25th)

The updated FHRM_LinkToMS schema has not been supplied. Please can you supply it? We

can't review till we see it and changes about map links are mentioned in the FHRM papers, and

FHRM is on the agenda for the 30th-31st May meeting. We would not now have time to review

and provide meaningful comment on it by 31st May.

This is still under consideration

and will be discussed further at

the September meeting

FRMPs DE FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryObjectives New Schema element –‘OverallObjectives’ Summary to be replaced by TQ: “A summary (< 20.000 characters) of the objectives

referred to under Article 7(2), including a description of how the objectives relate to impacts on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, the process for developing objectives and selecting and prioritising measures to achieve the stated objectives (Article 7(2), Annex Part A.I.3)”(?). Therefore questions should focus on strategies to reduce impacts.

New schema elements

introduced covering strategic

objectives, objectives for

minimising adverse

consequences, considerations

of objectives, process for

developing objectives and

40

selection/prioritisation of

measures for achieving

objectives

DE

FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryObjectives New Schema element –‘MinimiseAdverseConsequences’ Relationship to List of measures/KeyTypeMeasures? Seems that options are more or less

a specification of previous SchemaElement. Check with proposal on page 33 in terms of KTM to avoid redundancies.

• Objective(s) specify the reduction of fatalities due to floods• Objective(s) specify the reduction in the number of dwellings flooded• Objective(s) focus on specify the reduction of adverse consequences of floods on human health• Objective(s) focus on specify the reduction of adverse consequences of floods on cultural heritage• Objective(s) focus on specify the reduction of adverse consequences of floods on the environment• Objective(s) focus on specify the reduction of adverse consequences of floods on economic activity• Objective(s) focus on specify the reduction of other adverse consequences of floods

Previous schema element is

more strategic - this new

element allows MS to confirm

or otherwise that objectives

have considered all potential

consequences and also to

provide references to

methodologies of how they

relate to human health,

economic activity etc..

Agree with changes (i.e.

remove first two bullets of

enumeration list but also

propose to reorder the bullets

to cover human health,

economy, environment,

cultural heritage and other

respectively

General FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryObjectives New Schema element – ‘ObjectivesConsiderations’

Need to have an ‘other’ field - too constrained for a country to report. Wasn’t it adjusted to have an option to indicate that objectives from 1st RBMP are still

valid?

Add ‘Other’ field to

enumeration list

Wherever ‘other’ is selected a description (string element) is required to provide an

41

explanation.

Even if still valid from first

cycle we still need to know this

information – suggest not

adding in this option

DE

FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryAspects –‘AspectsIncluded’ (< 20.000 characters) of how all aspects of flood risk management (focusing on prevention,

protection, preparedness, including flood forecasts and early warning systems) have been addressed in the flood risk management plan (Article 7.3);”

New schema element with

reference element covers this

General

FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryDevelopment New schema element – ‘DevelopmentFRMPandWFD’

How has the development of the FRMP been coordinated with the development of the second River Basin Management Plan

Implement exactly the same wording as in the WFD to avoid conflicting information if the two are compared.

‘DevelopmentFRMPandWFD’ CoordinationFRMPandRBMP’

Summary text: “A summary (< 10.000 characters) of steps taken to coordinate the

development and implementation of the FRMP and WFD RBMP, including on how the

environmental objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC have been taken into account in the

flood risk management plans (Articles 7.3 and 9);”

Small change to enumeration

list required based on WFD

wording

Agree – change title of schema

General FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryCoordinationNew schema element – ‘localNationalInternationalCoordination’

Yes/No response required:

Coordination of FRMPs has taken place at the UoM/RBD level within the Member State Coordination of FRMPs has taken place at the international UoM/RBD level between

Agreed – Amend enumeration

list

Similar terminology used in

42

Member States/neighbouring countries Has the solidarity principle* been considered UoM/RBD not international

Amend wording of third bullet point – ‘was there a need to refer to the solidarity principle’ – Y/N

Compare with WFD Guidance chapter 9.2. Summary text: “A summary (< 10.000 characters) of how coordination was achieved

for the FRMP, or the set of coordinated FRMPs, at the level of the UoM/RBD, including in particular in international UoMs / RBDs. If no coordination was achieved, please explain why. If yes, please refer to international agreements or other documentation on the process, where relevant. A summary of how the solidarity (Article 7(4)) principle was considered, such as in the definition of a significant increase in flood risks and the relevant international coordination efforts, if applied (Articles 7(1), 7(4) and 8);“

WFD Guidance

DEFRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryClimateChange –‘ClimateChangeImpacts’

Summary text: “A summary (< 5.000 characters) of whether and if so how the impact of climate change on the occurrence of floods has been taken into account (Article 14.4);“

Summary text replaced with

Y/N and reference schema

General

FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryCostBenefit New schema element – ‘CostBenefitTransnationalMeasures’

Has cost-benefit analysis been used to assess measures with transnational effects? Yes/No response required

Change wording to ‘If available/relevant please provide reference to the …’ Summary text: “A summary (< 5.000 characters) of the methodology of cost-benefit

analysis used to assess measures with a transnational effect (when available) (Annex Part A.I.5);”

Agreed – Amend wording


Y/N and reference schema if

Yes selected

General FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryConsultation Enumeration list (more than one can be selected):

Media (papers, TV, radio) Internet Social networking (e.g. Twitter, Facebook etc) Printed material Direct mailing

Agreed – Amend enumeration

list

Prefer to just say "social

networking sites" with no

mention of Twitter, Facebook

43

Invitations to stakeholders Local Authorities Meetings Written consultation Other (please describe)

‘Meetings is too vague, update to: ‘Meetings with local population’

Summary text: A summary (< 5.000 characters) of the public information and

consultation, and the encouragement of active involvement of interested parties in the

development of the FRMP in coordination with WFD (Articles 9 and 10, Annex Part

A.II.2) (The schema for reporting will seek to avoid double reporting with respect to the

equivalent requirement of the WFD RBMP reports);

PublicConsultationInformation_Enum:

Media (papers, TV, radio)

Internet

Social networking (Twitter, Facebook etc)

Printed material

Direct mailing

Invitations to stakeholders

Local Authorities

Meetings

Written consultation

Other

rbmpConsultation

Field type / facets: RBMPConsultation_Enum:

Via internet

Via Twitter

etc.


Y/N and reference schema

Existing Enumeration lists

considered comprehensive

and show considerable overlap

with RBMP engagement

processes

44

Via Facebook

Via other social networking

Direct invitation

Exhibitions

Other outreach methods (e.g. game shows, board games, web-based material

forschools)

Telephone surveys

Other

Direct involvement in drafting RBMP

documentProvision

Field type / facets: DocumentProvision_Enum:

Downloadable

Direct mailing (e-mail)

Direct mailing (post)

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions

Paper copies available in municipal buildings (town hall, library etc)

Other

FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryConsultationConsultationStakeholdersInvolved’

Summary text: A summary (< 5.000 characters) of the public information and consultation, and the encouragement of active involvement of interested parties in the development of the FRMP in coordination with WFD (Articles 9 and 10, Annex Part A.II.2) (The schema for reporting will seek to avoid double reporting with respect to the equivalent requirement of the WFD RBMP reports);

WFD:StakeholderGroups_Enum:Water supply and sanitationAgriculture / farmersEnergy / hydropowerNavigation / ports

Stakeholder groups very

similar hence no changes

proposed

FD does not request specific

information on impact of public

participation but agree to add

in an optional description

(string element) to provide

45

Fisheries / aquacultureIndustryNGOs / nature protectionConsumer groupsLocal / regional authoritiesOther

ImpactPublicParticipation_Enum:Changes to selection of measuresAdjustment to specific measuresAddition of new informationChanges to the methodology usedCommitment to further researchCommitment to action in the next RBMP cycleOther

specific information on public

participation

General FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryConsultation New schema element –‘ConsultationStakeholdersInvolvedMechanisms’

Provide information as to the mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders

Wording should be to ‘encourage’ rather than ‘ensure’ active involvement.

Summary text: A summary (< 5.000 characters) of the public information and consultation, and the encouragement of active involvement of interested parties in the development of the FRMP in coordination with WFD (Articles 9 and 10, Annex Part A.II.2) (The schema for reporting will seek to avoid double reporting with respect to the equivalent requirement of the WFD RBMP reports);

WFD:

OngoingStakeholderInvolvement_Enum:

Regular exhibitions

Establishment of advisory groups

Involvement in drafting

Agreed – Amend wording

Wording for enumeration list

very similar to WFD – no

further changes

46

Other outreach activities

Formation of alliances

Other

General

FRMP/Measures/MeasureCodes/Prioritisation/Summary

Proposal to remove this schema element (from ES) Cannot delete without having to make changes elsewhere – keep it in.

Keep in, no further action

required

General

FRMP/Measures/MeasureCodes/ProgressDescription

Proposal to remove this schema element (from ES)

Keep but make it a reference schema.

Options for reporting progress can remain but there needs to be clarification on what they mean – e.g. on-going (planned) and on-going (started).

Provide some additional

guidance text in the guidance

document and amend existing

enumeration list to

- Not started- In preparation (e.g. planning)- On-going- Completed

(i.e. add in ‘in preparation’)

General

FRMP/Measures/MeasureCodes/OtherDescription New Reference Schema - provide references/links to relevant documentation relating to the ‘Other’ description of the measure or additional useful information of clarification

Some MS use this element to make the Measure Name clearer. Rename to ‘Measures Description and other relevant information’ and make it optional.

Leave as a summary rather than a reference field.

Take out New Reference

schema element and revert

back to original summary

rather than a reference field

FRMPs DE FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryObjectives:

Amend enumeration lists:

Our proposal for changing the

enumeration list is as follows:

Reducing flood risk is a

47

Reducing existing flood risk Achieving an acceptable level of security against flooding: -

- Acceptable level is normative and difficult to determine.

Sharing of responsibility for flood risk management (within and between MS) Avoiding

new flood before flooding

Avoiding new flood before flooding risks Reducing new risks

Reducing existing risks to an acceptable level

Minimising adverse consequences - Same like reducing flood risk

Reducing adverse consequences during flooding Reducing adverse consequences after flooding Supporting the objectives of the WFD - This can be a co-benefit of FRM, but not its

purpose.

Use synergies between FD and WFD

Other objectives

product of reducing consequences and/or reducing the likelihood. To reduce consequences, the objectives could be to…

Increase level of physical protection

Increase resilience of receptors

Practice prevention (e.g. avoid assets in or near flood prone areas, or employ NWRMs)

Increase awareness Improve early warning Increase

preparedness Other

Proposing objectives for reducing likelihood is more complex. If a flood event is defined as such only if there are consequences, then the likelihood of flooding depends on the level of protection etc, which means that consequences and likelihood are not discreet values any more. The choice has therefore been limited to the list immediately above, which generally reflects art. 7 of the FD.

48

BE

New Schema element – ‘MinimiseAdversConsequences’:

Rename: ReductionAdversConsequences. (Minimise can be misleading )

Or is this referring to the option in the previous element

[FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryObjectives/ OverallObjectives] ? Is it then conditional to

selecting that option?

Add ‘other’ to the enumeration list

Since the enumeration list

already includes "Objective(s)

specify the reduction of other

adverse consequences of

floods" there is no need to

include an ‘Other’ option.

UK


Where is it proposed that the detailed text/methodology will be sited? On MS websites or

somewhere in the WISE system?

Suggest change in text to reflect that Measures may not necessarily result in reduction in

the number of properties flooded but may reduce the risk to such properties e.g. Flood

Warning schemes.

The Enumeration List contains an Objective for ‘dwellings’ (domestic) but there is none for

commercial property. Is this to be added or is it to be included within the ‘economic activity’

Objective(s)?

Detailed text will be provided in

existing reference schema

element

(commercial property included

under economic activity)

DE


Objective(s) specify the reduction of fatalities due to floods - Redundant and not explicitly

mentioned in Art. 7(2)

Objective (s) specify the reduction in the number of dwellings flooded

Change ‘specify’ to ‘focus on’ for other points in the list.

New reference schema sub-element: Delete Schema: There should be a schema to

provide information regarding the assessment of the progress made according to Annex

B.2

Only agree to change ‘specify’

to ‘focus on’

UK New Schema element – ‘ObjectivesConsiderations’: Accepted – we will follow UK

example for reference

49

As above, where is it proposed that detailed info will be sited?

EEA has previously advised that, if we think that reference documents might be moved

subsequently (hence the link lost) we should upload the documents in to the envelope

and then reference that URL. At the end of this table we’ve added a screenshot of

WFD showing reference documents within the river basin district envelope. Uploading

was easy and means that the files will always remain available.

Comment also relevant to other schema elements where ‘Provide reference to more detailed

methodology rather than summary text’ is mentioned.

document schema

DE

New Schema element – ‘ObjectivesConsiderations’:

Delete Schema: This is redundant to other schema/questions below and partly not required

by the directive

NOT part of former Summary objectives

Retain, some key questions

being asked as part of this

schema

DE

New Reference Schema element to methodology relating to the process for developing

objectives rather than provision of summary text

Summary text:

“A summary (< 20.000 characters) of the objectives referred to under Article 7(2), including a

description of how the objectives relate to impacts on human health, the environment, cultural

heritage and economic activity, the process for developing objectives and selecting and

prioritising measures to achieve the stated objectives (Article 7(2), Annex Part A.I.3);”

New reference schema

included

DE New Reference Schema element to methodology relating to the selection and prioritisation of

measures to achieve the stated objectives

Summary text:

“A summary (< 20.000 characters) of the objectives referred to under Article 7(2), including a

description of how the objectives relate to impacts on human health, the environment, cultural

heritage and economic activity, the process for developing objectives and selecting and

prioritising measures to achieve the stated objectives (Article 7(2), Annex Part A.I.3);”

New reference schema

included

50

BE

FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryAspects - New schema element – ‘AspectsIncluded’:

Seems more practical to use enumeration list than Y/N.

Planned measures in terms of the characteristics of the particular river basin or sub-basin:

The directive asks to ‘take into account characteristics of the basin’ when drafting the

FRMP, not to include this in the FRMP.

Agreed – choose directly from

enumeration list rather than

Y/N

Amend wording of Question as

to whether the following (enum

list) have been taken into

account ’in developing the

FRMP’ rather than ‘in the

FRMP’

PL


Cost benefit analysis of measures with transnational effects: This issue is included in

another schema element - 'CostBenefitTransnationalMeasures'

Just included for completeness

- propose no change to

enumeration list

DE


New Reference Schema element: Optional please, or delete brackets “(referring to more

detailed aspects not included within the plans themselves), this goes beyond former

reporting requirements.

Prefer to delete brackets

BE

FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryFloodExtent

New schema element – ‘SummaryAspects’: Have the following elements relating to Flood

extent been taken into account in the flood risk management plans?

Seems more practical to use enumeration list than Y/N

Agreed – use enumeration list

rather than Y/N

Change wording as requested

(remove ‘relating to flood

extent’)

FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryFloodExtent Agree amend enumeration list

from ‘controlled flooding of

51

New schema element – ‘SummaryAspects’:

Controlled flooding of certain areas in case of a flood event Summary text: “A summary (< 10.000 characters) on how flood extent and flood

conveyance routes and areas which have the potential to retain flood water, such as

natural flood plains, have been taken into account, and if relevant, the promotion of

sustainable land use practices, improvement in water retention as well as the controlled

flooding of certain areas in the case of a flood event has been included in the FRMP, as

well as how soil and water management, spatial planning, land use, nature conservation,

navigation and port infrastructure have been taken into account (Article 7.3);“

certain areas’ to ‘controlled

flooding of certain areas in the

case of a flood event’

Covered with new schema

element (…’SummaryAspects’)

and associated reference

schema

BE

FRMP/Measures/MeasureCodes/Prioritisation/Summary

Seems to have been deleted in the UML. I can see an element ‘prioritisation methodology’

in the web view but not in the UML.

And the element FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryObjectives/SelectionMethodology, see

top page 24, the same content is asked to be reported.

A description (< 5.000 characters) of the way in which progress towards

implementing the identified measures will be monitored (Annex Part A.II.1).

See ‘general’ comment above

keep in

../Prioritisation/Summary – see

‘general’ above

Keep progress description

element in – see row

immediately below

BE FRMP/Measures/MeasureCodes/ProgressDescription:

What information is exactly asked here? Aren’t the options for reporting progress pre-

determined and agreed upon?

‘In preparation (e.g. planning)’ - This is not a description fit for the ‘continually on-going’

type of measures (for example maintenance works). Suggestion “continuous” or

“recurrent”

Keep progress description

element in to provide further

clarification of enumeration list

See previous comment in

‘general’ above. Provide some

additional guidance text in the

52

guidance document and

amend existing enumeration

list to

- Not started- In preparation (e.g. planning)- On-going- Completed

(i.e. add in ‘in preparation’)

Now propose adding in an

extra amendments to the

enumeration list:

‘On-going (one-off,

e.g. construction

works)’

‘On-going (recurrent,

e.g. maintenance

works)’

BE

FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryDevelopment - New schema element – ‘DevelopmentFRMPandWFD’: Add ‘other’ to the enumeration list Agree – add ‘Other’

DE FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryDevelopment - New schema element – ‘DevelopmentFRMPandWFD’: Belongs to information of the 1st cycle; see general comment at end of table, has to be

solvedIt is not fully clear to us, how the COM seeks to gather information regarding review process and the update of some aspects of the plans in the 2nd cycle. We agreed that we do not

The Commission has

proposed that (and explained

why) full reporting will be done

in the 2nd cycle, as was the

case for the WFD – and there

53

change reporting format for information delivered in the 1st cycle. To us the new reporting sheets for the plans seem to be introduced to report entire plans rather than to report the review and updating results. But maybe further sheets regarding this issue will follow.

was no objection to that. The

schemas are built on this

basis. There is in addition in

the schemas the option for

MSs to report summaries of

their review and update results

(via referencing), but this

option is not meant as a

substitute to full reporting (see

also further comments further

down).

DEFRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryCoordination, New schema element – ‘localNationalInternationalCoordination’: see general comment at end of table

To be discussed

IT

FRMP/SummaryOverall/SummaryConsultation: ‘Regular Exhibitions’ is not clear. What do you mean by "exhibition"?

Publication on Official MS Journals where laws are reported? Or exhibition of notices on public sites?

This is referring more towards

‘provision of information at

relevant public exhibitions or

providing notices on public

sites’

Suggest amending the

enumeration list to use the

above statement

UK FRMP/Measures/MeasureCodes/Objectives:

In the schema (XSD) papers, this is still an optional element as per cycle 1. We assume

therefore that this remains optional text but would welcome confirmation (i.e. no new

schema elements)

To be discussed – explaining

how the measures contribute

to the objectives should not be optional

54

PL

FRMP/Measures/MeasureCodes/OtherDescription:

Poland uses this field to describe the individual measures. I suggest do not delete this field.

It is useful to provide additional information.

See above not proposing to

delete this element now

IT

FRMP/Measures/MeasureCodes/ProgressDescription:

We propose “Activated” to report those measures with continuous character, such as public

preparadness/information

See proposal seven rows

above

UK

FRMP/Measures/MeasureCodes/ProgressDescription:

It should be made clearer that it is a new / replacement field for the previous ‘Progress

description’

Also – please confirm it is currently mandatory at this level (as per XSD)? Could there be

an option for reporting at Summary level, then make Conditional / optional here instead?

Make it clear in the guidance

that this is a new updated field

Suggest making it optional at

this level as long as

enumeration list on progress

has been reported against

FR

About the document FRMP_draft-v2.pdf it is not clear what is required/optional/conditional.

Besides about the document FRMP_Table_Changes to FRMP schemav0.1.doc, some links to

relevant documents are required (if this documents are already available), it should be also

possible to give here references to parts of the FRMP itself.

Schemas to clearly state

whether required, optional or

conditional

Minutes of Meeting

BE

Any elements that were optional but have now changed to mandatory need to be pointed out:

All changes need to be pointed out, highlighted in green; new elements, changes to

mandatory but also changes in enumerations lists, in relations (1 to 1, …)…

Changes to be highlighted and

new mandatory options

pointed out

BE It is required that a full data set is reported again, with any additional 2011 – 2019/20 floods

included:

What about the next cycle, will everything need to be reported in full again or not? Do we

It will not be necessary to

report a full dataset again but

floods from January 2011

onwards will need to be

55

need to take this into account?

reported according to the new

schemas

The third cycle takes place

after the evaluation of the FD

and any potential follow up

action. It is difficult to predict

what the outcome of these will

be.

BENames for enumeration: use code and name e.g. A1- fluvial:

Codes should be kept as in 1st cycle to ease conversion.

Codes will be kept the same

where possible although new

enumeration lists have been

proposed which will require

new coding

UK

Static links available for 6 years:

Recommend provision of an envelope in WISE into which documents can be uploaded, as per

WFD (see also UK comments on FRMPs table). But NB there may still be a need for a

mechanism for refreshing URLs which go to webpage content, rather than to an uploadable

document.

IT implications will need to be

considered (although not a

specific requirement of this

project)

IT What if APSFRs changed in size/ or some merged?:

We could use the same approach used in the WFD reporting in the field "evolution", as

follow:

- Refer to modified APSFR only in the SHP/GML (no XML)

- Use Deletion in GML to report on removed APSFR.

- Make sure that cross-check accept the absence in the XML of data for the deleted

APSFR.

Bilbomatica have proposed a

new standalone schema to

facilitate MS reporting APSFR

codes that allow the tracking of

the life cycle of APSFR

reported codes.

56

- Use Creation in GML for new APSFR.

Explanation for each modification is too much demanding. It has to be “optional”.

ITConsultants will seek feedback from MS on how reporting of shape files/GML is set up:

For Italy reporting will be done using shapefile and access database.

We have asked for feedback in

the minutes of the May 30/31

meeting

UK Reporting in full again, when nothing has changed, could be onerous.

We are not proposing this –

see comments five rows above

We need to keep things into

perspective. FD reporting is

not that onerous and the

changes introduced into the

reporting schemas presently

are meant to facilitate things.

DE The entire discussion regarding prefilling of schemas is not included in the draft minutes.

This must be an oversight, still

the conclusion during the

meeting was to not pursue this

avenue as it would inter alia

create the need from the part

of the MSs to verify whatever

was prefilled.

ATReporting in full again: One option discussed was the prefilling of the AccessDB by EC with the

data of the 1st cycleSee above please.

AT References: ReferenceType of WFD reporting will be taken for all references (includes

bookmarks, URL to background reports/documents or upload of documents to WISE

As discussed we will use the

UK example based on the

57

approach used for the WFD

AT Text added to PFRA – Implications for changes to Schema section: Modelling of flood event and flood location need to be changed; a flood event can have

more than one flood locations; it is necessary to have the possibility to provide information per location for associated SWB or cross border relationship; proposal to have a matching table between flood event and flood location to model the m..n relationship; delete the element "AssociatedFlodLocation"

TypeofFloods/OtherCharacteristics: should be 0..1 FloodLocation/TypeofConsequences: why is this element mandatory? FloodData/OtherRelevantInformation: why is this element mandatory? FloodData/TypeofPotentialConsequences/HumanHealthSocial/OtherDamageDescription:

why is this element mandatory? Or ist it conditional? FloodData/TypeofPotentialConsequences/HumanHealthSocial/Summary: why is this

element mandatory? For all other consequences this element is optional FloodData/TypeofPotentialConsequences/EconomicActivity/SummaryReference: why is

this element optional? For all other consequences this element is mandatory Providing data of the 1sr cycle

o 1st cycle data: for new elements "dummy" data should be possible to fill in (not applicable, not relevant, …; e.g. -9999)

o In general for elements available in the 1st reporting definitions of elements and definition of enumerations should not be changed (e.g. all enumerations provided in the 1st cycle should also exist in the second cycle with the same definition; no deletion of enumerations; only adding of new enumerations possible); otherwise it will not be possible to provide the data of the 1st cycle; MS would have to update 1st cycle data according to new enumeration lists; this might not be possible, data maybe not available

Approach to flood location

issue being addressed by

proposals to change the

hierarchy of certain schema

elements.

Characteristics of flooding:

Full, original enumeration list

needs to be included, some

options are missing. There

should be differences in what

is optional/mandatory between

pre and post Jan 2011 floods -

mandatory for floods after Jan

2011 - Consequences and

mechanisms to be made

mandatory for floods from Jan

2011

Clarity to be given in schemas

as to whether optional,

conditional or mandatory.

Where ‘other’ and ‘no’ options

used description/justification

should be mandatory

A consistency check will be

58

carried out across all schemas.

See comments on first cycle

reporting above, no deletion of

enumerations proposed but an

number of new enumerations

are proposed to be added.

Enumeration lists (for sources,

characteristics and

mechanisms) will be the same

as used for the first cycle

ATAPSFR/SummaryofMethodology: Criteria for exclusion or inclusion of areas: It was agreed to

delete this element and provide another solution

Agreed to ‘reverse engineer’

this to provide reasons for

inclusion rather than reasons

for exclusion (see above)

ATFHRM: schema for reporting as GML APSFRs for MS opinion to be provided: When will the

schema be provided?To be provided by July 20th

AT

FHRM section, text added:

•Summary1: ReferenceType uncertainty element will be included here (taken out from

typeofFlods/scenarion elements (low, medium, high)

•Summary 1: element included to choose the relevant source (Yes/NO); only for relevant

sources more details provided

See revised version of UML

presented on second day of

meeting (May 31st)

DE

General comment: minutes should reflect main issues in discussion or rationale behind

decisions/changes, so that other colleagues could follow process avoiding as far as possible to

have discussions on things again and again.

Agreed, we have tried to do

this as far as possible – the

minutes are detailed

DE As far as I remember it was agreed to use term “past floods” for “recent” or “new” floods (after

2010) while the term “historic floods” should be used for floods occurred before 2010. Please

Agreed with sentiment but

59

stick to these terms in this document and do not switch between “past floods” and “recent

floods”. Aside this it was consensus that past floods and historic flood can be distinguished by

element “DateOfCommencement”.

need to check terminology

DEWhat is with options that have been deleted or shifted before meeting? Wasn’t it agreed to

reuse lists from previous reporting and to add only codes for missing types?I think this is the case

DEthe element is ‘conditional’ and mandatory for floods from 2011 onwards –

Please specify element

Presume this comment relates

to PFRA level reporting, which

should be mandatory for floods

from January 2011 onwards

DEPlease use terms and phrasing from “old” Reporting Sheets, especially for contents where

reporting was sufficient, otherwise MS have the impression that content was changed.Yes this makes good sense

DE

Please specify “this element” or leave this two words. Minutes should be understandable for

colleagues which do not attend sub-group meetings. As far as I remember BE said that there is

an overlap between elements “Consideration of long-term developments” and “Issues Article

4.2d”.

See comment above where

overlap is explained (under

PFRA ‘General)

DE‘unless coding during the first reporting is not relevant any more’ - I don’t understand this

without further explanation.

Coding during the first

reporting is still relevant. New

codes for new enumeration

lists will be provided without

changing the coding from the

original reporting

DEFloods: conditional mandatory” for significant floods occurred after 2010

(“DateOfCommencement”)Mandatory from Jan 2011

DE APSFR/SummaryofMethodology: We decided to drop this and find another solution instead.Yes, new reference schema

element to be used

DE Alberto to provide schema for reporting as GML APSFRs for MS opinion. Proposal for To be provided for review as

60

standalone schema in 2 weeks’ time: Outstanding soon as possible

DE

There should be a way for MSs that can already provide geographic data for a medium

probability EU level flood hazard map to do so: Ioannis pointed out that two things have to be

provided: links to MS maps and GIS-layer with “APSFR”

New schema element

proposed to be discussed

‘First draft_PFRA_APSF

R_FHRM_

Schemas’ document

PL

Flood events with no data:

‘It was therefore recommended that for any future reporting on flood events that the “no-

data” option should no longer be used by MS and should be replaced by the structured

information requested in the schema : in most cases at least some of the required

information seems to be available’: It should be underlined that the requirement concerns

flood after (Jan) 2011

Agree

General PL Acronyms should be explained in the guidance (e.g. HMWBs) Noted and agreed

UK

The table doesn’t include PFRA/APSFR so we cannot tell whether comments we made

prior to the May meeting have been taken on board on are ruled out?

Can we have this info, as provided for FHRM and FRMP post-May comments in this table?

We used the UML diagrams

XSD and webviews in the first

part of the meeting but then

switched to the tables for

discussions around FHRM and

FRMPs as this was a little

easier to follow. UK comments

received prior to the May

meeting are included in this

current table as we did not

have time to address them

before the May meeting.

UK FHRM proposed changes:

We have not had time to look at these in detail. We have concentrated on commenting on

the FRMP changes, as we had not had sight of those in earlier versions. We have

There should be more

opportunities to provide

comments through the course

61

commented on two points on FHRM here, but will need more time to understand the post-

May meeting revisions to PFRA/APSFR (when we see them) and FHRM.of the project

UKNo changes proposed to CO or UoM schemas:

UK is content with this.

DE General Comment: As MS will review their plans it is unclear how changes will be reported

with this schema. This system rather seems to seek for a full reporting of information that was

delivered to the COM in the 1st cycle => See Annex B!!!

There was an extensive

discussion on this end-May.

The Commission has

explained why it is preferable

to report in full. To recall that

whereas one would expect that

there would be 3x28=84

submissions in total from the

MSs for the three phases (i.e.

for PFRA, FHRM and FRMP),

in reality there will be in the

end around 250 submissions

for the first cycle (once all MSs

will have reported) which

required repeated updates of

the database.

The approach of full reporting

for the 2nd cycle also follows

the practice of the WFD.

Finally, Annex B speaks about

components of the FRMP, not

about reporting. In any case

62

also the updated FRMPs as a

matter of good practice should

be self-standing (as were the

2nd RBMPs), with the addition

of the components listed in

annex B.

SEIn general it should be possible for all MS to report – so there ought to be an ”other option” in

every case.

‘Other’ option has been added

to the schemas as appropriate

AT

Please check the cardinality of elements. In the draft of the proposed changes for some

elements it says “more than one can be selected” and in the respective schema the cardinality

is 1..1.

Agreed this will need to be

checked.

AT Spatial data: only APSFR has been discussed during the meeting; spatial data for PFRA and

FHRM have also to be provided; discussion needed to have the possibility to provide data

prepared for INSPIRE for flood reporting as well.

Further discussions around

spatial data are required. A

new schema for APSFR will be

presented. We have asked MS

to provide information on how

they will be able to report their

spatial data. The aim is to align

reporting in shape files to

INSPIRE. MS have been

asked to inform the

Commission if they are

planning to report in shape

files rather than GML – it is

important to know whether

there are a large number of

63

MS that will report this way as

Tools for conversion may need

to be considered.

MS THAT HAVE NOT

INFORMED THE

COMMISSION YET PLEASE

DO SO AS SOON AS

POSSIBLE. To discuss.

DE

Figure 1 - Proposal (from Italy) to change Flood Source Enumeration list to include Snow Melt Flood and to simplify Characteristics of Flooding Table

General consensus across MS

to retain existing tables for

Sources, characteristics and

mechanisms

DETable 4 Proposed enumeration lists and ‘Yes/No’ questions in elements for FRMP (agreed changes have been made It should be made more clear which previous summary text or part of previous summary

text is substituted by which TQ’s/options.

Tracked changes can be

provided if required

DE Which Schema Elements address following Summary text from “old” Reporting Sheet: “A description (< 5.000 characters) of the way in which progress towards implementing the identified measures will be monitored (Annex Part A.II.1).

Summaries from “old” RS, are those missing, if not, it should be made clear where these are considered:For the review of the FRMP, the following summary texts shall also be provided: A summary (< 10.000 characters) of information on any changes or updates since the

publication of the previous version of the FRMP, including a summary of the reviews carried out in compliance with Article 14, other than the updated information reported above in the relevant section (Annex, Part B.1);

A summary (< 10.000 characters) of an assessment of progress made toward achievement of the objectives referred to in Article 7.2; a description of, and explanation for, any measures foreseen in the earlier version of the FRMP which were planned to be undertaken and have not been taken forward (Annex, Part B.2 and B.3);

A summary (< 10.000 characters) description of any additional measures since publication

We are not proposing to make

any changes to the exiting

elements under

‘FRMP/Summary/Review i.e.

keep these as descriptions as

they will be more MS specific

and lend themselves less to

enumerations. These elements

are complementary (and

therefore optional in nature)

because the standard

64

of the previous version of the FRMP (Annex, Part B.4). reporting will be to report in

full.

circabc.europa.eu · web viewfrom de, pl, se, ee and uk) general. ... please can schema be...

Documents