1. Prioritisation of measures in FRMPs 14th WG F meeting, Brussels Clemens Neuhold Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management - Flood Control Management Division

2. Decision Process
Working committee on the EU Floods Directive and associated working groups (on scenarios, hazard and risk)

3. Timeline Austria, administrative organisation
2012
objectives
Harmonisation process (federal level) with legal division (water law)
5 pilot projects
4 finished (2 rural, urban, industrial)
1 in progress (energy supply)
Workshops on national level
Catalogue of measures, prioritisation
Method to prioritise measures
Federal Blueprint
Provincial editing
Public information and consultation
Federal finishing
Reporting

4. Working progress Appropriate objectives – agreed
Avoidance of new risks
Reduction of existing risks
Strengthening resilience
Raising awareness
Measures – agreed
22 measures referring to risk circle and appropriate objectives
Prioritisation – DRAFT under discussion

5. Measures
22 measures related to 4 appropriate objectives AND 5 fields of action
Prevention
Protection
Awareness
Preparedness
Recovery
Types of measures will be prioritised – not distinct measures
Consideration of hazard zone plans
Development of land management concept
Restoration of retention areas
Structural measures

6. Measures Measures are characterised by Title Description Examples
Legal frame
Relevant divisions, work steps
Measures will be prioritised on 3 levels
Federal
Provincial
APSFR

7. Prioritisation of measures
Prioritisation by (reporting sheets by the EC)
“either a timetable for implementation”
Creates pressure
Under financial constraints
Budget on a yearly basis – no planning safety
“as a category of priority”
Applicability
Transparency
Objectivity
“Summary text”
Not comparable for 391 APSFRs

8. DRAFT under discussion – to be finalised until 22.12.2013
Hazard
Expected losses
Possible in the considered APSFR
STATUS
Implementation stage
Priority
I, II, III
Attributes
Feasibility 22
measures
Catalogue of questions to be answered with yes / no
Not possible

9. Catalogue of questions
Approach to obtain comparable results – objective approach
The estimation if a type of measure leads to “high”, “medium” or “low” risk reduction is highly biased by subjetivity
Yes / no seems to be more robust
General questions
Reduction of hazard – questions related to the hydraulic / hydrologic process itself
Reduction of expected losses – questions related to development in the flood plain
Feasibility to assess potential resistance
Legally binding measures obtain Priority I

10. Catalogue of questions
Reduction of Hazard
Does the measure reduce the hazard due to retention
Does the measure reduce the hazard due to river training
Does the measure reduce the probability of alluvial deposition during the flood event
Reduction of expected losses
Does the measure contribute to flood-adapted land use
Does the measure contribute to flood-adapted development
Does the measure facilitate emergency response

11. Catalogue of questions
Feasibility
Is the measure non-structural
Is the measure relevant for another measure
Is the measure legally binding
Is a consent needed (notification, regulation)
Will there be external costs (besides administrational costs)
Is there a high degree of administrational harmonisation efforts needed (between administrational levels, decision levels, …)
Are there rights of third parties touched
Is funding ensured
Will the measure be implemented during the current cycle of FD

12. Prioritisation Priority I A measure is legally binding
There are 3 yes out of 5 referring to
Reduction of hazard by retention
Reduction of alluvial deposition during floods
Non-structural
Relevant to implement another measure
Possibility to implement the measure during the current cycle
Priority II
Feasibilty > 50% of positive answers
Priority III

13. Next steps
Way to obtain a Priority I, II, III (IV) needs to be discussed
How do we need to sum up the yes / no - answers
Do we have to assign weights, additional information?
Looks very promising
High degree of objectivity
23/10/2013 next work committee meeting to agree upon the method
22/12/2013 federal blueprint of the flood risk management plan

14. Thank you for your attention! clemens.neuhold@lebensministerium.at