1st technical meeting of the cis wgf sub-group on ... · facets annotation and ... data model...
TRANSCRIPT
© WRc plc 2017
|
1st Technical Meeting of the CIS WGF Sub-Group on Reporting:
Update of Reporting Tools for the Floods Directive – proposed
methodology, work plan and deliverables
© WRc plc 2017
Project Team
© WRc plc 2017
Overview of Approach
Task 1: support for development of
updated guidance
Step 1: Review of guidance doc
29 in light of lessons learned
Step 2: Review of end-user
needs
Step 3: Review of Floods Directive reporting
Step 4: Development of
revised guidance
Task 2: Development of reporting Schemas and specification for
QA procedures
Setting assumptions
Data modelling
INSPIRE alignment
Specification for QA
© WRc plc 2017
• Review of each Schema
• Taking account of lessons
learned
• Progress under Task 4
WFD/FD for FRMPs
• Table of proposed set of
changes to each element
Step 1: Review of Guidance Doc. 29
Schema element
Field
type/
facets
Annotation and
additional comments in
the schema user guide
Proposal
for 2016
Further
guidance or
comments if
needed
Proposed
quality
assurance
checks
EUSurfaceWater
BodyCode
String Annotation: Unique EU
code for the Water Body.
Add the two-letter ISO
Country code followed by
the Member State unique
id up to a maximum of 42
characters
Keep First 2
characters
should be
country ISO
code
SWB_MS_CD String Annotation: Unique
Code for the Water Body
within the MS
Keep
SWB_NAME String Annotation:
Understandable Name of
Water Body – needs to be
better specified.
Keep
© WRc plc 2017
• How will the information be
used by EC/EEA?
• Was all the information used?
• Gap analysis
• Compilation of list of products
Step 2: Review of end-user needs
Nb Name of
product
Type of
product
Scale of
information*
Detailed information
displayed
Source of detailed information
and aggregation rule
1 Basic
information on
Units of
Management
(UoM)
Table
and
Map
EU/MS/UoM Table and Map of UoM
in the Member State
with an indication of
which (if any) are
international
Number and size
(areas) of National and
International UoM
Aggregated information on the
basis of the information provided
at UoM scale
2 Areas of
Potential
Significant
Flood Risk:
Overview of risk
from flood types
Table EU/MS Table listing for each
Member State, the
number of APSFRs
according to flood type:
source; mechanism,
and; characteristics
Aggregated information on the
basis of the information provided
at UoM scale
3 EU overview of
planned
measures for
achievement of
objectives
Map EU EU Map illustrating the
broad types of planned
measures
Aggregated information on the
basis of the information provided
at UoM and MS scale
© WRc plc 2017
Step 3: Document – A Review of Floods
Directive Reporting
Summary of Lessons Learnt
Proposed changes to Schemas
Proposed changes to Guidance
Changes to QA
Procedures
List of Products
Revised Reporting Guidance
© WRc plc 2017
Step 4: Development of revised
Reporting Guidance
Follow WFD structure:
• Introduction – incl. summary
of obligations under FD
• How the EC/EEA will use the
information
• Contents of reporting
Schema sketches
Technical description of data
and GIS information to be
reported
Guidance on expected
contents of e.g. FRMPs or
background docs
Glossary
© WRc plc 2017
Deliverables
Task 1 Deliverables
Discussion document forming the basis of the 1st meeting to be
held in Bucharest
Documents for Sub-WGF on R (2nd, 3rd and final meetings)
Documents for SCG
Documents to be sent to WDs
Updated Guidance document on reporting for the Floods Directive
© WRc plc 2017
Objectives:
• Facilitate the reporting to MS – more of an “options to choose from”
• Empowering analysis to obtain information on floods risks assessments –
less text more data
• Efficiency gains through automation, harmonisation, reference lists and
standards (INSPIRE and OGC)
Task 2: Development of the reporting
schemas and specifications for QAs
© WRc plc 2017
Task 2: Development of the reporting
schemas and specifications for QAs
We Have a Method:
Physical model
Logical model Conceptual
model
Setting assumptions
UML
UML DRAFT
UML v. X
UML final
Reporting tools
QA specifications
Reporting
guidance
© WRc plc 2017
Task 2: Data modelling
Data modelling: UML with data
structure
Reporting Tools
XML definition schemas
GML definition schema
Access DB template
Shapefile template
Documentation
Specifications on the Reporting Guidance
Interactive diagram for a data model
reading
Single environment for
modeling and outputs
production
Common area for
thematic and IT experts
Version control
© WRc plc 2017
Task 2: INSPIRE alignment for spatial data
INSPIRE core fields Description
inspireLocalId A local identifier, assigned by the data provider. The local identifier is
unique within the namespace that is no other spatial object carries the
same unique identifier.
NOTE: It is the responsibility of the data provider to guarantee uniqueness
of the local identifier within the namespace. [Source: Feature Catalogue
'INSPIRE application schemas' http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/data-
model/approved/r4618/fc/#_C33423]
inspireIdNamespace Namespace uniquely identifying the data source of the spatial object.
NOTE The namespace value will be owned by the data provider of the
spatial object and will be registered in the INSPIRE External Object
Identifier Namespaces Register. [Source: Feature Catalogue 'INSPIRE
application schemas' http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/data-
model/approved/r4618/fc/#_C33423]
inspireIdVersionId The identifier of the particular version of the spatial object, with a maximum
length of 25 characters. If the specification of a spatial object type with an
external object identifier includes life-cycle information, the version
identifier is used to distinguish between the different versions of a spatial
object. Within the set of all versions of a spatial object, the version identifier
is unique.
NOTE The maximum length has been selected to allow for time stamps
based on ISO 8601, for example, "2007-02-12T12:12:12+05:30" as the
version identifier.
© WRc plc 2017
Task 2: INSPIRE alignment for spatial data
thematicIdIdentifier Identifier defining the scheme used to assign the identifier.
thematicIdIdentifierScheme Identifier defining the scheme used to assign the identifier.
beginLifespanVersion Date and time at which this version of the spatial object was inserted or changed
in the spatial data set. This date is recorded to enable the generation of change
only update files.
endLifespanVersion Date and time at which this version of the spatial object was superseded or retired
in the spatial data set. This date is recorded primarily for those systems which
"close" an entry in the spatial data set in the event of an attribute change.
predecessorsIdentifier In a genealogy, the object(s) that has(have) been deactivated/replaced by another
one.
INSPIRE core fields Description
© WRc plc 2017
Task 2: INSPIRE alignment for spatial data
predecessorsIdentifierScheme Identifier defining the scheme used to assign the identifier value(s) in the
predecessorsIdentifier attribute.
designationPeriodBegin [Beginning of the] time period defining when the management, restriction or
regulation zone was legally designated or became effective in the real world.
designationPeriodEnd [End of the] time period defining when the management, restriction or
regulation zone was legally designated or became effective in the real world.
EvolutionType Type of event that produced or modified the version of the object being
reported (creation, change, deletion, aggregation, splitting). This attribute is
required to explicitly report changes and update the current status of the
object in the Water Information System for Europe.
INSPIRE core fields Description
© WRc plc 2017
Task 2: INSPIRE alignment for spatial data
nameText
Name, in the national language. National language endonym, or national
language version of the name of the geographical feature or spatial object.
nameLanguage
Language code of the language used in the nameText attribute value.
INSPIRE core fields Description
© WRc plc 2017
Task 2: Quality Assessment Specifications
Allow immediate assessment on data reported:
• Three levels of data quality assessment: • Schema (XML and GML) compliancy:
Correct structure
Completion of mandatory fields
Use of enumerations (Common XSD)
Use the data formats (e.g. date, codes)
• Within schema: Values validation (e.g. outliers)
Spatial consistency (e.g. APSFR inside the UoM)
• Cross schema: Consistency among reporting obligations (e.g. Competent authorities UoMs
reported against UoMs reported under APSFR)
• Statistics: Overview of the data reported (e.g. number of APSFR reported)
BLOCKER
ERROR
INFO
WARNING
Messages types
© WRc plc 2017
Work Programme
Meetings Deliverables/milestones Date
Project Start Mid-February 2017
Kick-off Meeting with European
Commission
Late February 2017
Discussion Document sent to
Sub-WGF on R
10 March 2017
Sub-WGF on R – 1st Meeting
(Bucharest)
16-17 March 2017
Inception Report (including
early Draft Review of the
original guidance and
schemas as an annex)
Late March 2017
Early draft of updated
Guidance document – basis for
the extended 2nd meeting of the
Sub-group on Reporting
Middle of May 2017
Sub-WGF on R – 2nd meeting,
extended & technical
(Brussels)
30-31 May 2017
First draft of updated
Guidance Document sent to
European Commission/Sub-
WGF on R for written comment
Middle to end of June
2017
Second draft of Guidance
Document accounting for
Commission//Sub-WGF on R
comments
Middle of August 2017
Draft Interim Report sent to
Commission
Early September (one
week prior to Interim
Meeting)
Sub-WGF on R – Third
Meeting and possible Interim
Meeting with the European
Commission (Brussels)
Tuesday 05 September
2017 (tbc)
© WRc plc 2017
Work Programme
Final draft of updated
Guidance Document, draft
schemas and specifications
for automatic QA/QC
routines sent to Commission
and Sub-WGF on R
End of September 2017
Sub-WGF on R – Final Meeting
(Estonia)
Agreement/finalisation of the
Guidance document,
schemas and specifications
for automatic QA/QC
routines
Week of 16-20 October
2017
Finalised reporting tools
provided prior to CIS SCG
Meeting
End of October 2017
Interim Report sent to
Commission
Early November 2017
CIS SCG Meeting (Brussels) 9-10 November 2017
Package of Reporting
Tools sent to WD
End of November 2017
WD Meeting (Estonia) 4-5 December 2017
Draft Final Report sent to
Commission
Final draft of Package of
Reporting Tools sent to
Commission
January 2018
Final Meeting with Commission February 2018
Final Report
Final Package of Tools
March 2018
© WRc plc 2017
|
Discussion: Approach & Work
Programme
© WRc plc 2017
|
Discussion Paper – PFRA/APSFR
© WRc plc 2017
• All schema elements to be reviewed and evaluated
• Modifications to schemas and guidance
recommended
• Some worked examples
• Data needs
• Discussion
Introduction and Objectives
© WRc plc 2017
• ‘Lessons Learnt’ – Past floods information required
on source, mechanism, characteristics and adverse
consequences, location, flood data/statistics
• Option to provide summary text in absence of data
taken up (14%) but data often available…
• Recommended ‘No data’ option no longer used
• Simple change to schema and guidance
EXAMPLE 1 (PFRA) - very basic change to
schema: Data not available option
© WRc plc 2017
Current Schema element sketch (from user guide)
© WRc plc 2017
• Differences between Article 4.2b and 4.2c:
• (Article 4.2.b) A description of the floods which have occurred in the
past and which had significant adverse impacts on human health, the
environment, cultural heritage and economic activity and for which the
likelihood of similar events is still relevant
• (Article 4.2.c) A description of the significant floods which have
occurred in the past, where significant adverse consequences of
similar future events might be envisaged
• Clear understanding needed
Example 2 (PFRA) – Clarification on the
assessment of risk based on historical floods
© WRc plc 2017
Proposed Change to Schema sketch
Schema element: PastAdverseConsequences
Field type/facets/relationship: Yes/No (significant and still relevant) for each impact under an
Enumeration list (impact): human health, environment, cultural heritage, economic activity.
Enumeration list (conveyance routes): for example: River/stream channels, land drainage ditches,
roads/pathways, natural floodplain, etc.
Guidance on Completion of this element: Required: A description of floods which have
occurred in the past and which had significant adverse impact on human health, the environment,
cultural heritage and economic activity and for which the likelihood of similar future events is still
relevant, including their flood extent and conveyance routes and an assessment of the adverse
impacts they have entailed.
Quality Checks within Schema element check: significant adverse impact must be reported. A
valid option must be selected from each enumeration list. More than one option can be selected.
Quality Cross-Schema check: clearly distinguish between SignificantAdverseConsequences
schema.
• A clear explanation of the difference between the requirements of Article 4.2b and c will be included in updated guidance text
© WRc plc 2017
• Clarify which types of flood excluded (Y/N or enumeration
list)
• Source, mechanism and characteristics mandatory
• effectiveness of man-made flood defences; conveyance
routes of historical floods; geomorphological characteristics;
and areas of economic activity – no reasons given for the
exclusion
• Methodologies only superficially reported (e.g. for defining
significant adverse consequences) – separate schema
• Not all MS considered climate change (Y/N, link to method)
Other Lessons Learned..
© WRc plc 2017
Reference to methodologies – schema sketch
Schema element: methodsignificancefloodhistoricReference
Field type/facets/relationship: ReferenceType
Guidance on Completion of this element: Required. Provide references or hyperlinks to the
documents and sections where relevant information relating to the approach used to define
significant historic floods can be found. Guidance on what should be included in this document is
provided in Section <> of this guidance document.
© WRc plc 2017
• European Commission requires information to:
• Ensure data are plausible
• Ensure data are consistent
• Conduct cross-references and cross-checks on data (especially in International River Basins)
• Ensure Directives have been implemented in a comparable way
• And also to:
• Provide information on the state of the environment and trends (including flooding)
• Determine implementation of measures and objectives
• Understand whether existing policies are affording adequate protection
• Determine whether funds are adequately distributed
• Inform the public
Data needs
© WRc plc 2017
• 3 main questions:
• Are the reports complete (provision of mandatory fields) and clear
(values in code lists correct and numeric/character values in correct
minimum/maximum ranges)?
• Are the reports understandable (sense check)?
• Are the reports compliant?
• with regard to key issues (compliance checking) involving for some issues
the use of appropriate indicators?
• after in-depth assessment?
• Beyond compliance checking
Questions to be answered
© WRc plc 2017
• The European Commission
has developed a number of
products using the data and
information provided by MS
• Further products to be
developed (for FRMPs)
• Contained within Commission
reports and WISE
• List of products from
PFRA/APSFR/FHRMs
Products from reported data and
information
© WRc plc 2017
Example of products developed from the
information provided
Around 30 products
No. Name of
Product
Type of
Product
Scale of
information
Detail of
information
displayed
Aggregation
rule
Source of
information
1 The
application
of Article 4,
13.1(a) and
13.1(b) of
the Floods
Directive
Map EU/MS The application
of Article 4,
13.1(a) and
13.1(b) of the
Floods Directive
in the Units of
Management of
Member States
Aggregation on
the basis of the
information
reported at
UoM level
Report on
PFRA &
APFSR
2 Overview of
the
application
of the
different
Articles
relating to
the
assessment
of Flood
Risk under
the Floods
Directive
Table MS/UoM MS; Article
Applied; Units of
Management;
Type of Flood
where a
distinction is
made (Source,
Mechanism,
Characteristic
as specified by
the Member
State) ;
Identification of
instances where
no specific flood
types were
reported and it
is assumed that
the relevant
Article is applied
to all flood types
No aggregation Report on
PFRA &
APFSR
© WRc plc 2017
• Information on which types of flood were excluded and why
• Sources, mechanisms and characteristics (all mandatory)
• Methodologies associated with defining significant floods and significant adverse consequences superficially reported
• Often not clear how many significant flood risk areas are shared with other MS and countries
• Large differences in numbers of APSFRs - include area
Potential additional data and information
required
© WRc plc 2017
• Was the reporting guidance clear? Were any major issues encountered in using the reporting guidance?
• Were there any particular areas of ambiguity that would benefit from further explanation?
• Were there any issues with understanding and following the QA steps in the process?
• Did the WISE/ReportNet system function properly when reporting? Were any issues encountered with ReportNet and the Central Data Repository?
• If you encountered any problems, did these lead to in delays to reporting?
• What areas of reporting were the most time and resource intensive?
• Are there any products that would be useful to the MSs that are not currently produced?
• Do you have any suggestions to improve the reporting process for the next cycle?
Discussion & Questions
© WRc plc 2017
|
Discussion Paper – FHRM
© WRc plc 2017
• All schema elements to be reviewed and evaluated
• Modifications to schemas and guidance
recommended
• Some worked examples
• Data needs
• Discussion
Introduction and Objectives
© WRc plc 2017
• ‘Lessons Learnt’ – provide more clarity on sources
of flooding included in national maps
• Not all MS reported the source of floods for their
maps..
• Recommended that it should be clearly indicated
where combined sources are included on the map
• Provide another option within enumeration list
Example 1 (FHRMs) – Sources of flooding
© WRc plc 2017
Sources of Flooding Schema
enumeration A18 – specific maps enumeration A19 – combined maps
© WRc plc 2017
• ‘Lessons Learnt’ – ~ 30% of MS provided no
information or unclear information on how return
periods and/or probabilities of flooding were
calculated.
• An enumeration list would have facilitated clearer
responses
Example 2 (FHRMs) – Methods for calculating
return periods and/or probabilities of flooding
© WRc plc 2017
Sources of Flooding Schema
Schema element: ReturnperiondandprobabiltiesApproach
Field type/facets/relationship: ReturnperiondandprobabiltiesApproach_Enum:
Expert judgement
Historical data
Statistical analysis
Modelling
Hydrological rainfall-runoff models
No information
Guidance on Completion of this element: Required: If ‘no information’ is selected justification
must be provided (see Section <> of this guidance).
Quality Checks within Schema element check: Approach must be reported. A valid option must be
selected from the enumeration list. More than one option can be selected.
© WRc plc 2017
Example 3 (FHRMs) – Summary of methodologies
© WRc plc 2017
• Flooding extent
• Flooding probabilities (including information as to why
particular probabilities have been selected) or return periods
• Depths or water levels
• Velocities or flows (where appropriate)
• Models used, datasets, uncertainties, if and how, climate
change has been taken into account in the mapping (article
6)
• Resolution of models used for the presentation of
hazard maps
• Conveyance routes
Example 3 (FHRMs) – Summary of methodologies
© WRc plc 2017
Example 3 (FHRMs) – Summary of methodologies
Schema element: methodsandmodelsapproachReference
Field type/facets/relationship: ReferenceType
Guidance on Completion of this element: Required. Provide references or hyperlinks to the
documents and sections where relevant information relating to the modelling approaches used to
produce the flood hazard maps can be found. Guidance on what should be included in this
document is provided in Section <> of this guidance document.
© WRc plc 2017
Data needs - Example of products
developed from the information provided
No
.
Name of
Product
Type of
Product
Scale of
informatio
n
Detail of information
displayed
Aggregation rule Source of
information
29 Summary of
scenarios mapped
for fluvial flooding
with associated
expressions of
probabilities
Table MS Summarises the numeric
values of the probabilities used
by Member States for each of
the scenarios mapped for
fluvial flooding. Allows for
variation in the UoMs.
Aggregation on the basis
of the information
reported at UoM level
Report on
methodologies used
in preparation of
Flood Hazard and
Flood Risk Maps
32 Number of
Member States
including the
different elements
in their hazard
maps for fluvial
flooding
Graph EU Bar chart showing the
scenarios specified in Art 6(4)
of the Floods Directive, and the
number of MSs that have
included them in flood risk
maps.
Aggregation on the basis
of the information
reported at UoM level
Report on
methodologies used
in preparation of
Flood Hazard and
Flood Risk Maps
67 Summary of
methodologies
and approaches
used to assess
the potential
adverse
consequences on
Protected Areas
Table MS Textual table giving a summary
of methodologies and
approaches used to assess the
potential adverse
consequences on Protected
Areas
Aggregation on the basis
of the information
reported at UoM level
Report on
methodologies used
in preparation of
Flood Hazard and
Flood Risk Maps
68 Spatial reference
layer of UoMs
GIS layer UoM Mapping of all UoMs GIS layer including all
UoMs
Basis for WISE map
viewer which is
currently being
updated
© WRc plc 2017
• Was the reporting guidance clear? Were any major issues encountered in using the reporting guidance?
• Were there any particular areas of ambiguity that would benefit from further explanation?
• Were there any issues with understanding and following the QA steps in the process?
• Did the WISE/ReportNet system function properly when reporting? Were any issues encountered with ReportNet and the Central Data Repository?
• If you encountered any problems, did these lead to in delays to reporting?
• What areas of reporting were the most time and resource intensive?
• Are there any products that would be useful to the MSs that are not currently produced?
• Do you have any suggestions to improve the reporting process for the next cycle?
Discussion & Questions
© WRc plc 2017
|
Discussion Paper – FRMPs
© WRc plc 2017
• All schema elements to be reviewed and evaluated
• Modifications to schemas and guidance recommended
• Worked example
• Data needs
• Discussion
• Reminder of Assessment history
Introduction and Objectives
© WRc plc 2017
Assessment FRMPs
• Screening of Draft FRMPs (reported in 2015)
• Development of conceptual approach for assessment
• Development of questionnaires
• Dashboard
• MS interviews/questionnaire
• Assessment to start in April
Brief History – FRMP Assessment
© WRc plc 2017
• Varies considerably between, and sometimes within,
Member States
• Format of the Annex has been followed in some
cases, in other’s all the information is there, but in a
different order
• Article 13.3 applied only in 2 RBDs
Structure and contents of the plans
© WRc plc 2017
Included in plan?
Specific and measureable?
• Reduce the risk of flooding
• Not to increase the risk of flooding
• Reduce the consequences of flooding
• Reduce the likelihood of flooding
Objectives
© WRc plc 2017
In place?
Information on budgets and funding?
How will they contribute to achievement
of objectives?
Information on time horizons for implementation?
Measures
© WRc plc 2017
Types of measure
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Me
asu
res t
o p
reve
nt
the loca
tio
n o
f n
ew
or
ad
ditio
na
lre
ce
pto
rs in
flo
od
pro
ne
are
as
Me
asu
res t
o r
em
ove
rece
pto
rs fro
m f
loo
dp
ron
e a
rea
s,
or
tore
locate
rece
pto
rs t
oa
rea
s o
f lo
wer…
Me
asu
res t
o a
da
pt
rece
pto
rs to
red
uce
the a
dve
rse
con
se
qu
en
ce
s in
the e
ve
nt o
f a…
NW
RM
Oth
er
me
asure
s to
enh
an
ce
flo
od r
isk
pre
ve
ntio
n
Nu
mb
er
of
pla
ns
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Me
asure
s to
redu
ce
the
flo
w into
na
tura
l or
art
ific
al…
Me
asure
s involv
ing
ph
ysic
al
inte
rvention
s t
o…
Me
asure
s involv
ing
ph
ysic
al
inte
rvention
s in…
Me
asure
s involv
ing
ph
ysic
al
inte
rvention
s t
o…
Dre
dgin
g o
f rivers
to in
cre
ase
riv
er
chan
nel capa
city
Oth
er
mea
su
res
Num
ber
of
pla
ns
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Me
asure
s to e
sta
blis
hor
enhance a
flo
od
fore
castin
g o
r early
warn
ing s
yste
m
Me
asure
s to e
sta
blis
hor
enhance flo
od e
vent
institu
tio
nal em
erg
ency
response p
lannin
g
Me
asure
s to e
sta
blis
hor
enhance p
ublic
aw
are
ness o
rpre
pa
redness for
flo
od
eve
nts
Oth
er
pre
pare
dness
me
asure
s
Num
ber
of
pla
ns
0
5
10
15
20
25
Cle
an
up
and
resto
ration
activitie
s
He
alth a
nd m
enta
lhe
alth s
up
port
ing
actions
Dis
aste
r fin
ancia
lassis
tan
ce
inclu
din
g…
Tem
pora
ry o
rpe
rman
ent
relo
cation o
f…
Le
sson
s lea
rnt
from
flo
od
events
Insu
rance p
olic
ies
Oth
er
mea
su
res
Num
ber
of
pla
ns
Preventative Protective
Preparedness Recovery and review
© WRc plc 2017
• A need to move away from summary text and replace
it with a series of reporting requirements and
enumeration lists
• Take account of pilot testing (UK, HU, CZ) under
Compliance Assessment project
• Example: Objectives (Article 7(2)) summary text • A summary (< 20.000 characters) of the objectives referred to under Article
7(2), including a description of how the objectives relate to impacts on human
health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, the process
for developing objectives and selecting and prioritising measures to achieve
the stated objectives. (Article 7(2), Annex Part A.I.3
EXAMPLE: FRMPs
© WRc plc 2017
Example Draft Compliance Questions
Assessment questions
and sub-questions (draft)
Type of
response
Implications for
future
reporting
Have objectives been established for the
management of flood risk (Article 7.2)
for identified areas of potential
significant flood risk (Article 5.1)?
Y/N (Count) by target
area
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
Y/N
Have objectives been established for the
management of flood risk (Article 7.2)
for areas covered by Article 13.1.b?
Y/N (Count) by target
area
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
Y/N
Have objectives been established to
reduce the adverse consequences of
flooding?
If yes, generally, are objectives specific
and measurable?
If yes, at which level have they been
established?
Y/N (Count) by target
area
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
Y/N
Text
Y/N
Enumeration list
Have objectives been established in
terms of type of consequence?
Reduction in number of fatalities
Reduction in the number of dwellings
flooded
Reduction of the adverse consequences
on human health
Reduction of the adverse consequences
on cultural heritage
Reduction of the adverse consequences
on the environment
Reduction of the adverse consequences
on economic activity
Reduction of any other adverse
consequences
If yes, generally, are objectives specific
and measurable?
If yes, at which level have they been
established?
Y/N (Count) by target
area
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
[for all sub-questions]
Y/N
Text
Y/N
for all sub-questions]
Enumeration list
Have objectives been established in terms
of reducing the likelihood of flooding?
such as planned increase/improvement in
natural water retention
through land use and spatial planning
through climate change mitigation policies
at national level
through removal or relocation of sensitive
receptors from flood prone areas
Other
If yes, generally, are objectives specific
and measurable?
If yes, at which level have they been
established?
Y/N (Count) by target area
(UoM/RBD/APSFR) [for all
sub-questions]
Y/N
Text
Y/N [for all sub-
questions]
Enumeration list
Have objectives been established in terms
of prevention?
If yes, generally, are objectives specific
and measurable?
If yes, at which level have they been
established?
Y/N (Count) by target area
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
Y/N
Text
Y/N
Enumeration list
Have objectives been established in terms
of protection?
If yes, generally, are objectives specific
and measurable?
If yes, at which level have they been
established?
Y/N (Count) by target area
(UoM/RBD/APSFR)
Y/N
Text
Y/N
Enumeration list
48. Were the proposed objectives for the
Flood Risk Management Plan consulted
with stakeholders before their
establishment?
Y/N
Y/N for a list of stakeholder
groups
Y/N
Enumeration list
for stakeholders
© WRc plc 2017
The majority of potential implications for future reporting are for the
inclusion of Y/N options with associated enumeration lists for the level at
which objectives have been established and for the groups of
stakeholders that could have been consulted on FRMPs
Example Levels:
• Member State
• UoM
• Risk Areas
EXAMPLE: FRMPs Possible enumeration lists - Levels
© WRc plc 2017
EXAMPLE: FRMPs Possible enumeration lists - Stakeholders
Possible enumeration list for Stakeholders
Civil Protection
Authorities
Agriculture/farmers NGOs/nature
protection
Flood
Warning/defence
Authorities
Energy/hydropower Consumer Groups
Drainage Authorities Navigation/ports Local/Regional
Authorities
Emergency Services Fisheries/aquaculture Academia/Research
institutions
Water supply and
sanitation
Industry Other
© WRc plc 2017
• The Commission will use the information reported to:
• Check compliance of the MS’s FRMP with emphasis on
completeness, coherence with other legislation and
coordination in RBD/UoM and consideration of all aspects of
Flood Risk Management:
• Flood Risk objectives established and can be clearly related to a
reduction of potential adverse consequences
• Measures identified and prioritised
• All relevant aspects of Article 7 accounted for
• Coordination in the RBD/UoM has been ensured
• Coordination with WFD has been ensured (incl. benefits and
synergies with objectives)
Data needs
© WRc plc 2017
• Was the reporting guidance clear? Were any major issues encountered in using the reporting guidance?
• Were there any particular areas of ambiguity that would benefit from further explanation?
• Were there any issues with understanding and following the QA steps in the process?
• Did the WISE/ReportNet system function properly when reporting? Were any issues encountered with ReportNet and the Central Data Repository?
• If you encountered any problems, did these lead to in delays to reporting?
• What areas of reporting were the most time and resource intensive?
• Are there any products that would be useful to the MSs that are not currently produced?
• Do you have any suggestions to improve the reporting process for the next cycle?
Discussion & Questions
© WRc plc 2017
• Undertake a more comprehensive review of the schema elements
and guidance in light of the lessons learned and the feedback
from this meeting
• Develop an early draft of the reporting guidance and schemas in
time for the extended meeting in May
• In parallel, analyse whether any particular schema elements have
not been used in the assessment of compliance, or in the
production of any maps, tables and graphs to support the
assessment, and for other EU purposes.
• The project team will also compile a list of products based on the
anticipated table of contents of the EU overview report for the
FRMPs.
Next Steps..