Integration FRMP into RBMP: experience in Flanders

Sven Verbeke, Flemish Environment Agency4th European Water Conference, 23-24 March 2015

Content

• Legislation and organization• Advantages and synergies• Challenges • Conclusion

Legislation and organization Decree

Integrated Water Policy (DIW)

2003

Judicial and organizational framework integrated water policy

Transposition WFD in Flemish legislation

Elements flood management before FD existed

2007

FD

Adapted DIW

2010

Transposition FD

RBMP + FRMP = 1 plan

2014

Public consultation

July14 - Jan15

Draft RBMP - integrated

FRMP

2015

RBMP

2016

Reporting RBMP and

FRMP March16

One Competent authority: Coordination Committee on Integrated Water Policy (CIW)www.volvanwater.be

Advantages and synergies

• Single competent authority• Single water management plan• Single public consultation

Advantages and synergies - structure

• Similar structure of WFD and FD plans

Analysis

Environmental

and Flood Risk

Objectives

Assessment state

Inventory necessary measures

Advantages and synergies -Assessment flood risk

3 situationsA: situation acceptable, no action needed to improve the situationB: situation has to be improved based on cost-efficient actionsC: situation is unacceptable

Indicators- People at risk, economical damage,

ecological flood tolerance,…

- Helps to define where action is

necessary to reach defined flood risk

objectives and to evaluate how they

evolve

Seriousness consequencesFrequency

Framework of evaluation

High

Low

Advantages and synergies - prioritization

• All WFD and FD measures investigated and prioritized together

favours implementation synergetic measures

FD measures

Advantages and synergies - prioritization

• FD further prioritization by social risk

Class 1:Actions 2016 -2021

Class 2:Actions 2021 - …

Criteria WFD: Cost-effectiveness, other depending on group of measures

Social risk Social risk

HIGH MIDDLE LOW

high

highlow

low

FD: add criterium maximum social benefits

Content

• Legislation and organization• Advantages and synergies• Challenges • Conclusion

Challenges

• Separate reporting to EU: items to be reported must be extractable

• Key differences WFD and FD

Challenges - key differences WFD and FD

• Area of application• FD: subset of WFD water bodies with a significant

flood risk

Challenges -key differences WFD and FD

• Scope of objectives

• Not always compatible • Within FD • Between WFD and FD

• Complicate assessment and prioritization

WFD (quality) FD (quantity)Environment Water management and safety (people at risk, damage)

Environment Economic activityCultural heritage

Challenges -key differences WFD and FD

• Timing of achieving objectives

• Estimation of benefits• Quantification and monetization easier within FD

Higher sense of urgency Higher social basis of public and politic support

WFD FDDeadlines to reach objectives by 2021/2027

No deadline to reach objectives, prioritization to define which actions first

Actions more linked to RBMP cycle Long term actions not bounded to RBMP cycle

Conclusion• In Flanders challenging but successful

integration of FRMP in RBMP with a lot of win-wins

• Critical success factors hinder some processes are geared to one another