1. 14th MEETING OF WORKING GROUP F ON FLOODS Thursday 17 October 2013
European flood impact database
- after the PFRA reporting -
Wouter Vanneuville Project manager Water & Vulnerabilities, EEA
Personal interpretation
Not aiming at be complete
EEA supports FD implementation
Knowledge gaps > why, for which aim, how to solve them

2. 2009 – Water Directors
no comprehensive and consistent “European” database on past flood events and their impacts;
overview of the impacts of floods throughout Europe is usually based on data extracted from global databases;
in addition to the subjects which are explicitly listed in the Floods Directive, the Water Directors agreed in 2009 on the creation of a data-base on past floods.

3. 2010 – Mapping the impacts of natural hazards
One of the key messages on floods:
“Much information on flood events is available through global disaster databases. Nevertheless, the development of a comprehensive publicly available database of flood events and their impacts in Europe is desirable in order to strengthen disaster prevention at European level.”

4. 2011 – Metadata Questionnaire
survey of existing databases of past flood events and their impacts

5. 2011 – Metadata Questionnaire
18 EEA member and cooperating countries responded
Comment from WG F: wait until the PFRA information on past floods is available

6. 2012 – Towards a potential European flood impact database
Summary of most relevant EU policies where national and European level can benefit from a European flood impact database
Overview of existing databases (global, national, project level), including first look at PFRA reporting
Guiding principles and suggestions for the implementation (including conceptual model of an EFID)

7. draft 2013 – Significance at European level
Different thresholds in global databases and in EU policies (e.g. ESF)
Focus on affected people and economic impact
Trends in impact of natural hazards (incl. floods) most probably becomes an EEA Core Set Indicator in 2014
draft

8. 2013 – Case study approach based on PFRA reporting
NOT part of the compliance check
History of events reported as past floods in PFRA
Focus on economic and environmental impact
Similarities and differences (based on limited amount of case studies) of methodologies at UoM level
Comparison of information in PFRA and a catalogue of large floods in Europe in the 20th century

9. 2013 – Case study approach based on PFRA reporting
Some observations, no appreciation/judgement:
several events in the Chronology of 100 great floods in Europe in 20th century missing in PFRA reporting (partly but not only because of use of art. 13§1b);
different starting dates (same event?);
the use of the categories B10, B20, B30 and B40 differs amongst UoM/MS;
in general much less fatalities reported;
only for limited number of events with quantitative data of impacts or class of impact;
potential inconsistencies (e.g. damage class medium combined with impact not applicable, or economic impact low for an event in the top 20 of the most costly events in Europe)

10. 2013 – Case study approach based on PFRA reporting
On the quality and usefulness of reported information:
harmonization of reporting on flood risk and flood damage has, to some degree, been achieved;
at the same time, a large degree of heterogeneity in the reported information still exists; both in terms of the amount and level of detail;
differences in reporting between MS prevent a direct comparison between MS and UoM at the European level at this stage;
categories (B20-B25 and B40-B46) as defined for describing the environmental and economic impacts are adequate and appropriate, but extra guidance seems to be required to harmonise reporting habits across the MSs.

11. 2013 – Case study approach based on PFRA reporting
On the need and usefulness of additional data collection and reporting:
data and information on past flood events are valuable when trying to assess the current and future levels of risk and impacts;
a need for past data on floods to help reduce the uncertainty and knowledge gaps that flood managers and decision-makers are currently faced with;
In defining the need for additional information, if any, it is important to have a clearly defined purpose for the use of this additional information.

12. 2013 – Case study approach based on PFRA reporting
Recommendations to meet the goals of an EFID
PFRA reporting used as a basis for a European Flood Impact Database;
revised guidance on the use of the categories B20-B25 and B40-B46;
revised guidance on the criteria to classify floods as 'significant‘;
harmonized approach to the usefulness of collecting (incomplete) data on floods in the (far) past.

13. 2013 Finalise both working papers
includes sharing them with you for comments and remarks

14. 2014 Prefilling the DB and comments
Based on
the observations made in the different working papers;
a clear definition of the aim and goal (there’s no one size fits all database);
desirable thresholds to reach this goal;
information available in PFRA, national sources (metadata questionnaire), European and global sources.
Timeline
Q1-Q2: outline for the data sheet + prefilling (ready WG Floods #15)
Q2-Q3: corrections and additions by MS (draft result WG Floods #16)

15. Thank you!
Wouter Vanneuville