Danube Floodrisk Project
Summary Report
Jointly for our common future
J O I N T LY F O R O U R CO M M O N F U T U R E
Harmonization of requirements
on the flod mapping procedures
for the Danube River
Introduction
Flooding is the most widely distributed of all natural hazards across
Europe with floods from rivers, estuaries and the sea threatening many millions of people in Europe. Floods cause distress and
damage wherever they happen and insurance company data show
that the financial impact of flooding has increased significantly
since 1990.
In April 2007, the Parliament and Council of the European Union agreed the wording on a new European Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks. The Integrated Project
Danube Floodrisk is listed as one of the European actions which
support the Directive, as well as the Joint Danube Strategy.
Danube Floodrisk Project has the main results the Hazard and
Risk Maps Atlas in a harmonized methodology for he Danube
floodplains, environmental, ecological and socio-economic aspects of floods along the Danube and Danube Delta. It considers
flood risk as a combination of hazard sources, pathways and the
consequences of flooding on the “receptors” – people, property
and the environment, stakeholders involvement being one of the
most important issue. A common geodatabase was provided as
support for maps production, as well as a database of the main
stakeholders in the Danube Floodplain.
Harmonisation was the central activity of the project; harmonization is not only needed regarding different nations but also
regarding different user groups. So each user group might expect
different map content and is going to use it in a different way.
The bottom line is that the river is being conceived like a system
which does not respect any border. Flood risk management has
to be one piece of this puzzle. The national requirements are
summarized in the “Report on national requirements on the
flood mapping procedures for the Danube River”, and the
„Manual of harmonized requirements on the flod mapping
procedures for the Danube River”.
Flood risk management is a process which comprises pre-flood
prevention, risk mitigation measures and preparedness, backed
up by flood management actions during and after an event; this
aspects are presented in the pilot activities.
Floods often cross international borders and so must flood
risk management activities along the danube River. The technical
aspets wasere integrated through decision support technologies,
uncertainty estimation and pilot applications for areas under flood
risks or for important objectives, sites in Austria, Italy, Romania
aand Bulgaria.
Danube Floodrisk was active in stimulating the uptake of research advances through manuals, guidance for professionals,
stakeholders involvement, public information and educational
material, leaflets and newsletters.
Danube Floodrisk was an flagship project for the priority of
the Interreg IVB - SEE Programme of the European Commission.
It commenced in 2009 and ran to 2012. The Danube Floodrisk
consortium includes 24 partners in 8 countries along the Danube,
leading institutes, universities and NGOs in the basin, and the
project involves managers, researchers and practitioners from
a range of government, commercial and research organisations,
specialising in aspects of flood risk management.
The European Floods Directive is a driving force in many national
as well as international flood risk mapping activities, still in some
aspects it is defining the map production procedure and the expected results not in every detail. Here it is desired to find a
common interpretation.
Due to the different actors involved in flood risk management
and the different environmental, legislative, administrative and
economic situation many different requirements exist.
In the harmonization manual not all aspects of the EU Floods
Directive could be handled, as the Danube Floodrisk project only
covers the hazard and risk mapping part and some examples of
flood risk management plans in certain pilots. The focus is on the
production of maps on the scale of a large river catchment (scale
1:100 000). Still it is considering as much as possible also the needs
and problems of the tributaries.
The harmonisation process covers the specification of the goals
and tackles technical questions referring to the scenario definitions, methods used, accuracy threshold and so forth.
Basis for the harmonized product description are the national
laws of the project members, the European Floods Directive and
good practice results from different flood risk mapping projects
as well as existing maps or atlases.
Hydrological and hydraulic modeling
The hydrological processing was performed at different degrees
of complexity, depending on the future utilization of the results.
Sinthetical hydrographs were generated, under the volume conservation hyphotesis.
For hydraulic simulations in steady state either a unique value of
the maximum discharge corresponding to a probability of exceedance P% or an uncertainty interval of the maximum discharges
was obtained if taking into account the hydrologic uncertainty; in
the latter case instead of a well defined inundation line, a strip of
inundation was obtained for each probability of exceedance P%.
The inundation strip is also justified by the uncertainties related to
the DTM. For unsteady state simulations, a family of hydrographs
corresponding to the same probability of exceedance P% are
obtained. The floods corresponding to the maximum discharges
which could lead to the dyke overtopping was considered for
hydraulic simulations. The floods having the maximum volumes
represented boundary conditions for transient computation of
the water flow through the dyke and its foundation. The critical
gradients was computed, showing the (possible) sensitive parts
of the hydraulic structures.
1D for mountainous regions and in Croatia and Serbia was applied, and coupled 1D-2D or pure 2D simulations for plain areas
was considered for urban areas (pilot areas) or for the Danube
Delta.
Quality management data and results was provided by an neutral expert.
The flowchart of the hydrological methodology is presented
in Figure 1.
The main steps are the following:
1) Selection of the time series of the maximum discharges:
a) Either the maximum annual discharges are selected,
b) or the maximum discharges exceeding a certain threshold value.
1
DA N U B E F LO O D R I S K S U M M A RY R E P O R T
the confidence interval.
b) If the maximum discharges exceeding the threshold value were selected, then by increasing
3)
uncertaintyOf
interval
will befurther
obtained.statistical
Of course,
2) Statistical
processing ofvalue
the selected
discharges.
the threshold
another
uncertainty interval willanother
be obtained.
course,
further statistical considerations should lead to a reasona) If maximum annual discharges were selected, then:
should
toused
a reasonable
uncertainty.
interval of uncertainty.
1)considerations
only one distribution
functionlead
can be
for statisti- interval ofable
max
3) Preparing data for hydraulic simulations
cal extrapolation, obtaining a unique value Q P% , or
Preparing
for hydraulic
simulations
2) a set ofdata
distribution
functions can
be used for fitting
a) If the hydraulic simulations will be in steady state, the
the empirical data, resulting an interval of uncertainty.
hydrological data are already obtained: using the disa) a)In the
If latter
the hydraulic
be in steady charge
state,Q max
the
hydrological
data
are already
a line
of flooded area will
be obtained,
while
case, some ofsimulations
the distribution will
functions
P%
max
max
;Q U ) P%using
a strip the
of
usingarea
the uncertainty
interval (Q L while
can be discarded
based
on Kolmogorov-Smirnov
obtained:
using
the
discharge
atest.
line of flooded
will be obtained,
flooded area results.
The extreme values for a probability of exceedance
uncertainty
interval
a strip of flooded
area results.
b) If the hydraulic simulations are in unsteady state, the
P% represent in fact the uncertainty interval of the
max
max
whole hydrograph (Q(t)) P% is necessary. A set of hydischarge maximum: (Q L ;Q U ) P% . It should be menIf thetioned
hydraulic
areisin
hydrograph
is necessary.
using either A
a
that the simulations
uncertainty interval
notunsteady
similar with state, the whole
drographs
(Q(t)) P% can be obtained
Markoveither
chains generation
algorithm
or a synthetic
flood
the confidence
interval.
set
of hydrographs
can be obtained using
a Markov
chains
generation
b) If the maximum discharges exceeding the threshold value
­algorithm.
algorithm or a synthetic flood algorithm.
were selected, then by increasing the threshold value
Figure 1
Flowchart of the hydrological methodology
Selection of time series
Maximum annual discharge discharges
1 statistical distribution
Q max p%
(AT, SK, RS)
Steady state simulations
Discharges Q max > Q thresh = Q alert
m statistical distributions
Generalized Paretto Distribution
Interval of uncertainty Q max p% = [ QL; QU ]
p%
Markov chain generation
procedure
Synthetic floods
procedure
Q(t) p% (HU)
Computation of the flood
volume for Q(t) > Q thresh
n statistical distributions
Interval of uncertainty V p% = [ VL; VU ]
p%
Floods clusterization and dimensionless floods
Synthetic floods (QU (t); VL) p% and (QL (t); VU) p%
(shape, maximum discharge, volum, increasing time,
total duration) – (RO)
Unsteady state simulations
2
Figure 1 Flowchart of the hydrological methodology
J O I N T LY F O R O U R CO M M O N F U T U R E
Vulnerability mapping
The methodology for vulnerability index / indicators determination was considered that vulnerability indicators must be developed based on some well defined criteria; this methodology has
been provided by the FP7-project SAFER and was adequatelly
transfered for the danube Floodrisk Project (BEAM Methodology).
The damage functions are not part of the BEAM product itself,
but was taken in an adjusted version from other large scale risk
projects i.e. Rhine and JRC database (Ad de Roo Lisflood model
aplication for flooding areas in Europe).
Projection and coordinate system: Lambert Azimuthal Equal
Area, ETRS 1989 LAEA, others and on request.
BEAM consists of the following set of asset layers:
• Population density
• Private housing: buildings and equipment (urban immobile)
• Household goods (urban mobile)
• Vehicles
• Industry: buildings and equipment (net asset value, immobile)
• Industry: stock in trade (mobile)
• Service and trade: buildings and equipment (net asset value,
immobile)
• Service and trade: stock in trade (mobile)
• A griculture: buildings and equipment (net asset value, immobile)
• A griculture: stock in trade without livestock, mobile)
• A griculture: livestock
Additionally, BEAM contains one combined layer that covers
asset values for:
• Arable land
• Grassland
• Forest
• Road network
• Green urban areas and sport areas
This aggregated layer was related to the single land use classes
as this information is contained in another column of the data file.
The basis for the background land use information is the CORINE land cover information. This is subsequently enhanced by
additional data sources (NAVTEQ). These enhancements relate
mainly to the introduction of small settlement areas as well as the
traffic infrastructure (roads, railways, etc.).
To cover the social-economic data needs, data from the EUROSTAT data base are processed and analysed. Additional values
are being gathered from the national statistical institutes as well
as from other sources – details are presented in the Harmonization Manual.
Common geodatabase
a. Statistical data
In the context of flood hazard and risk modelling the following
data is needed and should be collected in a central database. Meta
data is deliveredavailable. This relates especially to input data not
acquired with DFRP funds such as DTM, cross-sections, roughness coefficients, hydrological data, but also to input data for risk
considerations.
Background data (multiuse):
• Catchment outline, the Danube corridor
• Digital terrain model
• Land cover or land use
Hydraulic data:
• River network
• Cross-sections
• Longitudinal profile
• Gauging stations (geo position and H historical, H(t), Q(H)
Rating curves and Q(t) discharges)
• Bridges
• Hydropower Dams
• Polders
• Spillways
• Bottom outlets
• Dykes
• Dyke weak zone
• Dewatering canals
• Pumping stations
• High Waters Diversions
• Bank protection (rip-rap)
Hydrological data
• Historical records of dyke breaches:
• The width and depth of historical dyke breaches recommended if available
• Time series:
• Q(t) and Z(t) time series are required for calibration and
validation purposes (year 2002 and 2006 floods are recommended for this purpose for as many internal gauging stations
as available).
Vulnerability and damage assessment list of data includes:
• enterprises
• bridges
• roads and railways
• hydrotechnical works
• Infrastructural networks (electricity, water, gas, oil)
• Cultural heritage
• Critical (hazardous) infrastructure
• Recreation areas
Validation data:
• Retention areas / floodplains (delimitations from neighbouring sciences like ecology, geomorphology or soil science)
• Occurred floods (outline, water depth, recurrence interval
and description of event)
• Dike breach information including breach characteristics,
area effected and information about flood progression.
As not all of this data are relevant at the scale of the Danube river and also due to national concerns as well as copyright
limitations only the most relevant data should be gathered in the
central data base. Main usage is to print the atlas and to provide
background information for the map web service. Following data
sets are needed:
3
DA N U B E F LO O D R I S K S U M M A RY R E P O R T
• Rivers and channels (line)
• Rivers, channels and lakes including islands (polygon)
• Dikes (line)
• Settlements (polygon)
• Roads and railroads (line)
• Gauging stations (point)
• Historic flooding extent (polygon), only if relevant and available for publication
• Special risk objects (point), following classifications might be
used: airport, archaeological sites, children‘s home, church,
court, elderly peoples home, exhibition hall, fire brigade,
freight terminal, gas tank, gas works, heating or cooling
system, hospital, hotel, jail, kindergarten, library, livestock
breeding, logistic hub, longdistance heating, monuments, museum, nuclear facilities, oil tank, oil/gas production, petrol
station, police station, port areas, post office, power plant,
production site with dangerous goods, pumping station,
pumping station for water supply, radio/television station,
recycling station, refinery, relay station, research institute,
residential home, sanatorium, school, slaughterhouse, telecommunication, theatre/opera, town hall, toxic release
inventory sites, train station, underground mining, underground station, university, vehicle depot, waste disposal site,
waste water treatment plant, water protection area, water
sewage plant, water works, youth hostel, zoo
For damage assessment calculation the following data was
needed, related to a statistical special unit, the NUTS region
(polygon). The data was be collected in the best level of detail
available, in EUROSTAT usually NUTS level 2, where available.
b. Digital terrain data
A 5 meters grid (acc. to the project proposal) for LiDAR scanning seems to be enough, so this implies 1 terrain point per 3-4
m2 with a precision of 10-15 cm each. The tributaries of the
Danube have been also considered and have been taken into
account in LiDAR scanning by measuring them until the backwaters. The tributaries have to be LiDAR surveyed up to the end
of the floodplain that is in connection with the Danube and the
tributary. If the tributary has got a floodplain that is separated
from the Danube by a higher ground then that floodplain is not
subject of our project.
The ground GPS total stations network was be mixed with the
Bathymetrical measurements as landmarks for cross sections.
• Accuracy is the same as for the cross-sections
• the density of the LiDAR points can be defined by the survey
company to achieve equired grid density for the modellers
• linear structures should be defined as break lines including
information on openings as well.
c. Cross sections
4
Regarding the bathymetric measurements, the cross sections
were done at least at1000 meters distance; this issue has been
discussed with the hydraulics team and they considered that for
modelling they need more detailed interval of 250 meters; this
was applied only for special hydraulic conditions (islands, dead
branches etc.) to have a better control; in certain cases, where
hydraulically justified, the site data was collected even at 100 m.
The common projection of the bathymetric maps is WGS 84
while the national projection was whatsoever specific to the national hidrologic services; all the European countries adopted the
ETRS 89 reference system and provide tools for transformations
between ETRS89 and the national systems. Therefore ETRS 89
shall be applied in DFRP.
d. Roughness coefficients
Roughness coefficient were estimated as minimum requirement
based on Corine Land Cover (CLC) data, if no more detailed land
cover data sets were available; they referenced to the CLC system
by a lookup table. By this values used can be better interpreted.
Field trips and sites survey were organized during the project
implementation period, to check the density of the vegetation
and new houses and farms.
The WP5 was linked very narrow with WP3 - Harmonization
of data and methods and WP4 - Stakeholder involvement and end
user integration, to provide support for WP6 - Map production
(hazard, risk) and WP7 - Integration methods for risk management
and spatial planning, of Danube Floodrisk project to develop both
cartographic DTM/DEM, a global database observing system for
hydrological data, but also the socio-anthropological data, needed
in vulnerability assessment . The DTM/DEM is intended to support a range of hydrological modeling objectives, building on existing/collecting data in data centers and networks and produced
based on modern technology of LIDAR technique. Entire model
of Danube Floodplain with an accuracy of 1m is suitable through
enhanced communications and shared development.
In WP 5 the relevant project partners work on the compilation
and acquisition as well as processing and storing of all necessary
data. The process follows the agreed harmonized methods and
requirements of WP 3.
All data was collected in data bases to serve for the mapping
actions. The WP5 was linked to the EU Floods Directive initiative
framing, and ICPDR Danube River Basin GIS platform require-
J O I N T LY F O R O U R CO M M O N F U T U R E
to establish an initial data collection needs. We also understand
the minimum requirements for hydrological data, and the priority of these requirements. However, we continually refine our
understanding of both users and uses and we seek clarification
of the specific requirements for hydrological data at global and
regional scales. The availability check includes an assessment of
data quality compared with the defined requirements, accessible
data that fulfill the requirements and also the gaps (both spatial
and temporal) – we used for test, data sets to perform quality test
as defined in Harmonization Manual.
Each partner seek available data in the institutions of their
country. Also was clarified the access rights and was made a fist
evaluation of data quality. This implies having an on-going process
to validate the understanding of what was required. An inventory
of available networks and datasets was a critical part of this process. Further quality checks was performed by a common experts
to assure data interoperability.
Acquisition of additional
and missing data (Act. 5.2)
ments - Cooperation beyond regional and national borders thus
is an imperative to fulfill reporting and management obligations.
Working group LP, ERDF-1-6, 8-11, 13, IPA-1, 3-6, of the Danube
Floodrisk project develop a web global system for topographical, hydrological and socio-economic data, with main obestives:
• support Floods Directive (and others – WFD, Natura 2000,
European Strategy for Landscape Conservation) reporting
and map making
• integration of existing and future information data sources to
increase usage effectiveness
• optimization of costs
• anticipate analysis and modeling functionality.
The main data sources for flood risk maps are digital terrain
data, land use information, hydraulic data and for the damage
assessment also statistics. Especially linear structures were considered as they have high impacts for Q30 and Q100. After the
first simulation results was seek experts input and guidance on
a number of technical and scientific issues related to validate
them by earth observation and ground information as water level,
discharge, soil maps.
Availability check and first
quality check (Act. 5.1)
The first activities are to set up a complete list of available data
and to discover the conditions of access (rights, costs). There is a
general understanding of the needs for hydrological data and information at the global scale, which has allowed us to move forward
The common challenges of the most regions include inadequate
monitoring networks, gaps in the records, a general decline of
number of stations, chronic under-funding, differences in processing and quality control and differences in data policies.
Political and technical challenges differ from region to region.
Major problems in the poorer regions of the Danube Floodplain
include poor status or outright lack of monitoring networks and
support infrastructure and data quality problems. For areas where
no data was available, data was acquired (within available budget), including supporting actions (flight permissions, provision of
ground data) and checks of results. Special focus is on data for
inundation calculation (terrain data, bathymetry information) and
damage calculation (land use, statistics, damage functions). Costs
for data collection depended on the dimension of flooded areas,
of the length of the river sector. Cross-sections was monitored
by each partner, and the hydraulic works and solutions adopted
by partners.
Technical challenges related to collecting, managing and accessing datasets – and ensuring proper quality control – met best
practices and available infrastructure, following this flow:
• Setting Danube Floodrisk priorities;
• Coordinating data sources and use of higher resolution data
(spatial/temporal); (e.g., satellite, data flow);
• Encouraging cooperation among data providers (e.g., network inventories);
• Transition from research to operational data;
• Standardization of monitoring and formats (e.g. cartographic
projections, altitudes reference);
• Data and product access – redistribution restrictions, data
rescue;
• Reducing duplication of effort;
• Human dimensions feedback (e.g. socio-economic);
• Simplifying data/metadata collection procedures;
• Encouraging regional initiatives for data standards and exchange;
• Using pilot projects as a tool for developing measurements
capabilities.
Each responsible partner organized the bidding process and
accompany the data collection process for detailed DTM and GIS
layers (land cover/land use) production. Joint activities between
partners harmonized the data and reduce costs. In case of the
Bulgarian and Slovacia partner all activity for field measurements
5
DA N U B E F LO O D R I S K S U M M A RY R E P O R T
and LIDAR survey was contracted services, because no was recent available data. In case of the Romanian partner PP11, LIDAR
data collection was already provided for a large surface, till the
entry in the Danube Delta; in this case only data along the three
river branches was collected. Field measurement as well as data
processing was provided by the partners itself. In case of Austria
PP1-PP2 some data was available for the surface between dykes
from a former DANewBE Project, dedicated to naval transport;
only partial areas was surveyed and some more cross sections was
monitored for the hydraulic model application for hazard mapping.
In case of Hungarian partners PP5 and PP6, they bring flood risk
maps as an in-kind contribution in the Danube Floodrisk Project
– this products were financed by a Hungarian National Program
which begun in 2009.
Set up of a common data base
(Act. 5.3)
All products was carefully designed and developed with the right
expertise engaged. Sufficient resources (time and money) was
dedicated at the outset.
A simple process for planning and managing the data collection
development, and the subsequent deployment and maintenance,
were adopted.
The WP5 always try to build upon the experiences and best
practices of other initiatives.
A convention was prepared by all
participant states along the Danube
about the godata base access and the
national data use. This is mentioned
in the following lines.
The common database created as a result of
the Danube FLOODRISK project* contains all
data used for Danube flood hazard and flood
risk maps. The structure of the database has
been agreed by the Project Partners. The contained data have been collected and calculated
by harmonized methods, assuring the achievement of the project’s objectives while also considering the specific national requirements.
The initial national data used as a basis
for the preparation of the project data meet
specific national standards and data structure.
Nevertheless, as a result of the harmonization activities performed during the project,
the final datasets conform to common agreed
requirements with regard to the data content,
format and accuracy. The geospatial data are
presented in identical projection and vertical
reference system. The GIS data representing
the flood extent are adjusted and harmonized
on the country borders. Hence, regardless
of the various data sources, the harmonized
structure and format of the data provide a uniform basis of flood risk assessment and management along the Danube. In order to assure
a homogeneous view of the maps, NAVTEQ
data are used as background data.
6
* www.danube-floodrisk.eu
Follow-up to have a common approach data handling was organized from a central point - LP. Based on the definitions all data
are made accessible to all partners depending on the needs. Also
all relevant meta data are available in the web application.
The goal of the WP5 was to meet the needs of the international
science community for floods risk management data and information to address spatial planning.
There is a general understanding of the needs for data and
information at the Danube scale, which has allowed us to move
forward to establish an initial WP5 database system organizing. We
also understand the minimum requirements for pilot study data,
and the priority of these requirements. However, was needed
to continually refine our understanding of both users and uses/
regional and local scale project-specific or pilot-specific.
As a result, we can ascertain web database systems can meet
these requirements, and also the gaps (both spatial and temporal). This implies having an on-going process to set up of a
common data base and an inventory of available networks and
datasets.
The main results partners
got during the project implementation
for data collection are:
• Reports on data availability, area covered by each data set, accessibility conditions and quality check results
• Homogeneous terrain data set that has been quality checked
and adjusted to neighbour data sets
The project database is intended to link
the national data and methods to the common flood-related strategy and to serve as a
common platform of the flood management
activities in the Danube River Basin, and it
does not substitute in any way the national
data and their management policies in the
flood-related activities at country level.
Future use
Considering the forthcoming tasks related to
the implementation of the European Floods
Directive in the Danube basin and the crucial
importance of the availability of relevant data,
the benefit of this database is indisputable.
The information collected should serve as a
starting point for the development of the Flood
Risk Management Plan in the international
Danube River Basin. Most of the data used for
the assessment of the flood risk are closely related to the objectives of the Water Framework
Directive which contributes to the coordination
with the Danube River Basin Management Plan.
The database would facilitate further transboundary activities aimed at specific aspects
of flood prevention and mitigation of floods’
consequences in the Danube basin. These data
could be used as a basis of development of
more detailed flood maps of the Danube sections, addressed to particular target groups, in
order to contribute to the public participation
process in flood risk management.
Besides, this database improves the transboundary flood management at bilateral level.
In fact, the availability of harmonized and com-
parable data allows the countries to coordinate
their flood management activities and avoid
undertaking measures that would increase the
flood risk in neighbouring countries.
The data produced as a result of the DFRP
will be also used in further flood-related tasks
at national level. They will be incorporated in
the national databases designed to support the
development of the national flood risk management plans, assuring the coordination with
the Danube Flood Risk Management Plan. The
experiences gained during the project would
facilitate the national activities on implementation of the Floods Directive, especially those
related to the flood risk assessment.
Further maintenance
Taking into account the key role of these data
in the development of the Danube Flood Risk
Management Plan, the Project Partners agreed
to put the database at the disposal of the ICPDR, considering the available resources and
the extensive experience of the ICPDR as coordinator of the transboundary water management activities in the Danube basin. This will
be a guarantee for a wider and more adequate
use of the data in the future.
The ICPDR through the relevant Expert
Groups should assure the integration of the data
collected under the DFRP with other databases
available at basin level and with the common
geographic information system DanubeGIS in
order to support the work of the Expert Groups
and to allow the usage of the data in all relevant
Danube-wide activities and further projects.
J O I N T LY F O R O U R CO M M O N F U T U R E
• Homogeneous river cross section data set that has been quality
checked and adjusted to neighbor data sets
• Homogeneous land use data set that has been quality checked
and adjusted to neighbour data sets
• Homogeneous statistical dataset that has been quality checked
and has comparable content than neighbor data sets
• Harmonized information and data compiled by the partners,
processed as far as necessary and ready to be used for the
mapping actions.
• Common data base, used for common data handling and distribution of data between project partners within and past the
project
Meta data content:
• Projection information
• Height system used (if applicable)
• Data Source, way of data generation, processing
• Accuracy information
• Owner of the data, copyright limitations
• Detailed description of the classes used, preferable already
adjusted to INSPIRE
• Property rights (copyright)
Using results of hydrological and hydraulic modelling in a
harmonized methodology of data colection and processing,
the Hazard and Risk Maps Atlas was provided, as results of
WP6‑MAPS.
The data storage and further data maintenance should be carried out in accordance
with the present applicable rules and policy
(of the ICPDR). The data structure and format
could be further developed and supplemented
in connection with the further development
of the Danube Information System (Danubis)
after a common agreement between the Contracting Parties.
Updating the national parts of the data
will remain the responsibility of every country and shall be performed according to the
ICPDR concept on data update. The Danubian
Purpose of the Atlas
The DanubeFLOODRISK project is an important contribution to
the implementation of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), the Danube Strategy and the EU flood policy. In
September 2007, immediately after yet another devastating Danube flood in 2006, the Ministry of Environment and Water Management of Romania, under the Presidency of ICPDR, initiated
the transboundary DanubeFLOODRISK Project, being supported
by the German government. Each country along the Danube was
promoting the cooperation between spatial planning and water
protection authorities in the Danube River Basin. Since then, 19
authorities from Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria,
Italy, Serbia and Croatia have been working together as project
partners, and a number of 4 supplemental organizations (3 from
Germany and the ICPDR) have joined the project as observer
partners. Their main objectives were:
• Development of flood hazard maps based on a harmonized
methodology
• Transformation of these into risk maps
• The development of hazard and risk maps for defined pilot
areas to support the local / regional flood risk management
decision-making process with stakeholders
• To support the anticipatory decision making in the frame of
development and infrastructure projects.
DanubeFLOODRISK was funded by the the South East Europe
programme in the framework of the Regional Policy’s Territorial
Cooperation Objective by the European Union.
countries shall assure the transboundary harmonization of the updated data considering
the harmonization principles adopted by the
Project Partners and in compliance with the
ICPDR documents on data harmonization.
Data rights and access
On account of the type and the origin of the
data, the access to some datasets could be
subject todifferent limitations. Since not all the
data contained in the project database have
been funded by Danube Floodrisk project,
copyright limitations could be imposed. Ad-
ditionally, some restrictions could ensue from
national standards or legislation.
The access to the data beyond the DFRP
shall be gained according to the ICPDR
policy on data use, considering the limitations defined by countries. In order to avoid
unregulated access and usage of the data it
is recommended that the project countries
should indicate their restrictions on data
distribution. As an example, the classification system adopted by ICPDR IMGIS Expert
Group for the DanubeGIS data could be used
(table 1)
Table 1
Classification Code (ClasscationCd) – Codelist Elements
Defintion: name of the handling restrictions on the dataset
DefinedBy: ISO19115
name
code
definition
ICPDR usage
unclassified
1
available for general disclosure
available for public users (free for use according to end-user license
agreement)
restricted
2
not for general disclosure
available for use by ICPDR delegations, EG/TG members and
guests, Observers, Secretariat
confidential
3
available for someone who can be entrusted with information
available for use in ICPDR-related projects after signing of a usage
agreement
secret
4
kept or meant to be kept private, unknown, or hidden from all
but a select group of people
available for tasks of the Secretariat and IM&GIS EG
topSecret
5
of the highest secrecy
available for harmonization tasks of the IM&GIS EG
not relevant
0
datasets which are by nature or obviously not relevant for a country
(e.g. CWBody is not relevant for all inland countries)
not available
6
datasets which could be relevant, but no data is available (no data
has been uploaded).
7
DA N U B E F LO O D R I S K S U M M A RY R E P O R T
During the past century flood protection along the Danube
river has been generally conducted by constructing dykes, leading
to a feeling of safety and, therefore, a decrease of flood awareness.
The floods in 2002 in the upper reach of the Danube catchment
as well as in 2006 and 2010 in the lower reach of the catchment
have again highlighted the limits of implemented protection measures since overtopping or dyke failure occurred, highlighting that
residual flood risk always remains despite all efforts.
The main goal of this Atlas is to raise the citizens’ awareness
along the Danube river with respect to their exposure to floods
and the inherent flood risk. The Danube Atlas is part of the Danube Action Plan of the ICPDR and, therefore a significant contribution to the Danube Strategy implementation.
The objective of the Danube Action Plan on Floods is to improve the flood protection of people and assets and to concurrently improve the environmental state along the Danube and its
floodplains.
A first report on the implementation of the action plan on
floods by 2011 is available on www.icpdr.org. The performance
targets are:
• To reduce flood damages
• To increase flood awareness by drafting hazard and risk
maps
• To improve the flood forecasting and early flood warning system.
The Danube Atlas represents areas exposed to flood hazard
and the associated damage potentials and flood risk. The Atlas,
therefore, supports the prioritisation of measures to be taken
within the Danube Action Plan on Floods advancing the target of
reducing the residual risk. Maps representing the flood hazard (left
side pages) illustrate the anticipated inundation depth in graded
blue colours. Quantifying the flood risk for people and assets, the
maps on the right side pages outline possible damages in case of
extreme floods. Distinction has to be made between two cases:
• areas with protection measures against 100 years floods and
higher (some high density areas are protected beyond the
overall target of a 100-years flood protection standard)
• areas with lower protection measures and unprotected areas
Areas with a high level of protection
In such areas floods usually remain within the flood protection
structures, e.g. dykes, and no flooding outside these structures
occurs as long as the structures sustain. Failure of protective
structures might occur e.g. when flood pressure lasts over longer
periods on the dyke and its stability decreases. Therefore, for
some of those stretches with high protection level, local failure of
protective measures was considered and displayed in the Atlas,
representing a worst case or residual risk scenario. In other areas,
e.g. such as the Vienna area, failure was considered rather unlikely
because of a very high protection level, and was therefore not
considered in the flood hazard scenarios, thus representing rather
a realistic than an unrealistic worst case scenario.
Unprotected areas or areas with a low level of protection
In those areas medium and extreme floods overtop existing
flood protection structures, and if no protection is present, also
the frequent flood events inundate the low lying areas along the
river, e.g. the floodplains in Hungary and in the Danube Delta.
Here, no consideration of residual risk was necessary.
Atlas Scale
8
Even though the terrain data is available at high resolution for
almost all national river sectors (LiDAR data) and land survey in-
formation is at hand for cross sections, the atlas is printed in a
scale of 1:100,000.
This scale is suitable for the targeted overview representation but will not be detailed enough for projects on a local scale.
Particular attention has been paid to the representation of the
consequences of potential extreme floods by indicating inundated
areas and associated inundation depths. Comparably frequent
events, such as floods with recurrence intervals of 30 and 100
years are indicated by their inundation boundaries.
The maps included in the Atlas represent the flood depth at
any given point for the extreme event of a 1000 years flood and
it must be taken into account that one single event will not have
impacts on the entire river reach. Thus, the Danube Atlas does
not represent the flood situation liable to occur due to one single
event along the entire course of the Danube. The maps rather
represent a synthesis of many possible extreme events, the most
unfavourable flood situation for any given point and thus the threat
posed to any individual. This overall view is based on a statistic
assumption.
Area of consideration
Traditionally, according to the surrounding landscape and the development of the river course, the Danube stream is split into
the following sections, which also differ from one another with
respect to flood protection.
Upper Danube
• Germany, Austria
• Valley characteristics with the major part being deeply cut
into the rock
• Dyke protected stretches (HQ100)
Middle Danube (Vienna to Iron Gate)
• Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia
• Valley characteristics, with the plain becoming larger
• Mainly dyke protected
• Polders of different sizes
Lower Danube (downstream Iron Gate)
• Romania and Bulgaria
• Almost completely dyke protected
J O I N T LY F O R O U R CO M M O N F U T U R E
• Polders of different sizes
Delta area (downstream Ceatal Ismail)
• Three navigable branches with dyke protection: Chilia, Sulina
and Sfantu Gheorghe
• Total surface of 564,000 ha
Localities have generally local protection by embankments
Flood hazard maps
Flood hazard maps are produced for 3 flood scenarios: a frequent event of 30 years flood (HQ30), a medium event of a 100
years flood (HQ100), and an extreme event of a 1000 years flood
(HQ1000).
The limit of one in 30 years floods (HQ30): These areas
along the river are frequently flooded. The flood hazard is widely
known. Generally flood plains, wetland, forest and agricultural
areas are affected. Usually the inundation areas of a 30-years flood
should be kept free of settlements and buildings and existing buildings have to be adapted to the flood situation. The inundation
areas should serve for retention purposes in order to reduce the
overall flood risk. These retention areas are often valuable biotopes, such as in Hungary and the Danube Delta.
The limit of one in 100 years floods (HQ100): A 100-years
flood event is widely accepted as the design level for flood protection measures along the Danube river. Normally, flood hazard in
the areas between the limits HQ30 and HQ100 is known mainly to
the residents having lived there for a long time, and older buildings adapted to the risk of flooding, as well as more recent ones
with a higher damage potential may be found in these areas. Agricultural land use is predominant; permission for settlement use
should only be given exceptionally and with provision of preventive
construction measures. Due to the transition from aquatic to terrestrial vegetation, these surfaces represent valuable biotopes.
Limits and flood depth of extreme events - one in 1000
years floods (HQ1000): During these very rare events, flood extents and depths are distinctly larger, respectively higher than
what has been observed so far. Existing flood protection works
might be overtopped or might fail to perform, thus describing
a residual risk scenario. For the areas between a HQ100 and
HQ1000, no direct restrictions of land use arise, but preventive
flood strategies and emergency planning should be accounted for,
especially regarding vulnerable objects. As potential preventive
measures (such as evacuation plans) are highly dependent on the
flood depth, not only the limits of the flooded areas, but also flood
depth classes are illustrated.
Assumptions for hazard calculation
Due to the varying hydrological and topographic situation, the
assumptions for hazard computation for the different sections of
the Danube had to be adjusted to the local situation. The present
land use conditions were considered.
Along the Upper Danube from source till Bratislava the
calculations are based on the historic surface levels of the Danube floods, while downstream Bratislava the model results are
generally based on maximum discharges. Upstream Bratislava
maximum historic water levels have been reached in 1850, 1899
and 1954. During the flood events in 1965, 1975 and 2002 above
all dyke failure occurred leading to the flooding of e.g. Bratislava.
Along the same Danube stretch the icy flood in 1876 had a devastating character, destroying 3,350 m of dykes inundating more than
60.000 ha of land, including numerous villages and settlements.
More recent flood events in 2006 and 2010 affected the downstream reach of the Danube in Romania, Bulgaria and Ukraine.
The derivation of flood scenarios is based on analysing flood
discharges during the period of observations at all hydrometrical
stations along the Danube. Other important parameters are the
duration of the flood wave and the volume. Discharges-volumes
were looked as conditioning parameters (Drobot et al., 2012).
For reasons of simplification, the hydraulic model calculations
did not take into account:
• The morphological processes of the river bed in certain
stretches of the river
• The effects of river training measures (canalisation)
The assessment of inundated areas and respective flood depths
relies on hydraulic assumptions. Despite the influence on the flood
characteristics, road embankments, canals or some historic flood
dams are generally neglected. As the chosen scale only permits a
rough assessment of contours, the outlined flood scenarios must
be considered as an overview. The calculation of inundation areas
• areas with lower protection measures and unprotected areas
Areas with a high level of protection
In such areas floods usually remain within the flood protection
structures, e.g. dykes, and no flooding outside these structures
occurs as long as the structures sustain. Failure of protective
structures might occur e.g. when flood pressure lasts over longer
periods on the dyke and its stability decreases. Therefore, for
some of those stretches with high protection level, local failure of
protective measures was considered and displayed in the Atlas,
representing a worst case or residual risk scenario. In other areas,
e.g. such as the Vienna area, failure was considered rather unlikely
because of a very high protection level, and was therefore not
considered in the flood hazard scenarios, thus representing rather
a realistic than an unrealistic worst case scenario.
Unprotected areas or areas with a low level of protection
In those areas medium and extreme floods overtop existing
flood protection structures, and if no protection is present, also
the frequent flood events inundate the low lying areas along the
river, e.g. the floodplains in Hungary and in the Danube Delta.
Here, no consideration of residual risk was necessary.
Atlas Scale
Even though the terrain data is available at high resolution for
almost all national river sectors (LiDAR data) and land survey information is at hand for cross sections, the atlas is printed in a
scale of 1:100,000.
This scale is suitable for the targeted overview representation but will not be detailed enough for projects on a local scale.
Particular attention has been paid to the representation of the
consequences of potential extreme floods by indicating inundated
areas and associated inundation depths. Comparably frequent
events, such as floods with recurrence intervals of 30 and 100
years are indicated by their inundation boundaries.
The maps included in the Atlas represent the flood depth at
any given point for the extreme event of a 1000 years flood and
it must be taken into account that one single event will not have
impacts on the entire river reach. Thus, the Danube Atlas does
not represent the flood situation liable to occur due to one single
event along the entire course of the Danube. The maps rather
represent a synthesis of many possible extreme events, the most
unfavourable flood situation for any given point and thus the threat
posed to any individual. This overall view is based on a statistic
assumption.
9
DA N U B E F LO O D R I S K S U M M A RY R E P O R T
Area of consideration
Traditionally, according to the surrounding landscape and the development of the river course, the Danube stream is split into
the following sections, which also differ from one another with
respect to flood protection.
Upper Danube
• Germany, Austria
• Valley characteristics with the major part being deeply cut
into the rock
• Dyke protected stretches (HQ100)
Middle Danube (Vienna to Iron Gate)
• Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia
• Valley characteristics, with the plain becoming larger
• Mainly dyke protected
• Polders of different sizes
Lower Danube (downstream Iron Gate)
• Romania and Bulgaria
• Almost completely dyke protected
• Polders of different sizes
Delta area (downstream Ceatal Ismail)
• Three navigable branches with dyke protection: Chilia, Sulina
and Sfantu Gheorghe
• Total surface of 564,000 ha
• Localities have generally local protection by embankments
They have been combined with digital terrain models referring to LiDAR data, field measurements and topographic maps of
1: 5 000 to 1: 25 000. The gained information on inundation areas
were then generalised for the representation on a scale 1: 100 000.
Calculation of flood extents in Hungary was carried out with a
simplified method based on national inundation maps, where the
probability of dyke resistance was also taken into consideration.
Therefore, this map does not necessarily correspond to the Hungarian national inundation maps. Germany contributed existing
hazard maps for the 100 years flood.
Flood risk maps
10
The maps of potential damage contain values in Euro/m² for different land use types. The underlying information is a harmonized
data set on assets and population density (BEAM, Basic European
Assets Map, www.floodrisk.eu).
Additionally, some information on elements at risk is provided.
In consequence of the generalised delineation and the 1:100,000
representation, a reduced number of objects and categories is
displayed. Relevant objects outside the potentially inundated areas are displayed as well, as they might be affected indirectly (for
example by accessibility). The information is based on NAVTEQ
points of interest as well as from the EU-database on IPPC sites.
Assumptions for risk assessment
Some assumptions had to be made to be able to account for
the overall Danube river in the frame of the DanubeFLOODRISKproject:
• Only assets for which direct tangible damages were assessable were taken into account
• The results are based on the net concept, which reflects
the current market value of an asset (not restoration costs
or insured assets)
• No costs for the building ground are included as it is assumed that the value assigned to it will not change in case
of an event
• No external planning costs are included (i.e. building permits)
as they will not apply for a simple restoration after an event
• No costs due to production downtimes are taken into account
• No consideration of damage reduction measures was applied
• Expenses for emergency prevention and the interventions as
well as damages to flood protection works are not included
Data used for generation of asset
and population density information
To gain comparable results, mainly European data base information has been used (like Eurostat). Additional values from various
other sources (national statistics, industry, scientific publications)
were integrated. All values have been converted to Euro using
official EU-rates.
Work steps for damage assessment calculation
The calculation of potential damage is based on the following steps:
• Determination of the number of people exposed to the potentially inundated areas
• Determination of assets and values on the inundated surfaces
(per land use class)
• Application of damage functions to each of the different asset
classes. A damage function describes the damage in percent
of the total value of a specific land use. Different land uses
also may have a different susceptibility to floods. More than
one asset class may be located on the same area (like buildings and household).
Detailed maps were produced for high risk areas, providing
information about flood protection measures and flood management action plans for localities.
Pilot activities
One important preparatory step to the implementation of pilot projects addressing Floods Directive issues in selected EU
Member States (Austria, Bulgaria, Italy, and Romania) was the
preparation of the “Scoping study” (Act. 7.1). The first chapter is
dedicated to the presentation of the relevant existing legislative
frameworks on European level – the Water Framework Directive
and the Floods Directive, and the status of the Floods Directive
implementation, including the existing national approaches and/or
J O I N T LY F O R O U R CO M M O N F U T U R E
maps and flood risk management plans.
Reflections of the WFD and of the FD together with Member
State implementations and past experience delivered some findings applicable to pilot scale, which contributed to the success of
the pilot projects for DANUBE FLOODRISK.
Stakeholders involvment and
liance between mapping activities
and land planning and protection
measures
The Atlas and the pilot action plans were discussed with stakeholders and limits of flooding were verified, as well as the interests for implementing the proposed actions plans.
the envisaged strategies to flood protection with respect to spatial
planning, environmental and emergency management aspects.
Another chapter examines previous Member State experience
regarding implementation of interdisciplinary flood protection
projects in order to give evidence for the Member State competence for pilot applications, which is follow by a chapter describing
the common strengths or weaknesses among the four Member
States in their existing national frameworks, approaches and past
experience. Common and individual issues identified as suitable
at the pilot level are recommended to be addressed in the pilot
projects, generating an added value. The scope of the seven pilot
projects and the Italian pilot study has been outlined, together
with the expected added value of the pilot projects.
Therefore, the aim of this scoping study was to find topics
which are suitable and relevant for being addressed in pilot projects, contributing to different issues of the Floods Directive, and
designed for delivering transferable lessons.
Following the scoping study, eight pilot projects (including the
Italian pilot study) (Act. 7.2) have been implemented in four countries (Romania Pilot Projects: Galati, Cernavoda, and Giurgiu; Austrian Pilot Projects: City of Krems: Harbor and ­Settlement Area;
Italian Pilot Projects: Drava river; and Bulgaria: Lom, Nicopole,
and Ruse).
Through the pilot projects, the flood hazard maps and flood
risk maps have been elaborated and adapted to local levels with
local stakeholder involvement for testing both the suitability of the
methods developed in the Danube FLOODRISK project and as
well the uptake and use of the maps in further planning processes
of local decision makers regarding flood risk management plans.
All the stakeholders were involved to determine an optimal format for maps, valuable information being collected for the future
designs and approaches.
In a third and final step, the lessons learned from the eight pilot
projects have been elaborated individually, also with regards to
common issues and transferability of lessons. These findings were
compiled in a follow-up paper (Act. 7.3)
With the Floods Directive currently being implemented in
national legislations, and with ongoing discussions on EC level
(Working Group F) and in International River Commissions (e.g.
Flood Protection Expert Group of ICPDR), it is evident that many
details of the Floods Directive are still open and need further
specification, especially interdisciplinary issues addressing risk
The public and stakeholders, through constructive engagement, helped inform the development of the flood maps and FRMPs, as well as benefit from the outcomes. Relevant stakeholders
include a wide range of interests, including national, regional and
local ministries and authorities, international river commissions,
civil protection and emergency response services, land use planners, the insurance industry, the scientific community as well as
flood risk managers and the general population. WP4 – STAKE
activities, integrates all main technical activities of harmonization,
mapping and local scale FRMP by pilots activities, by open and
transparent public and stakeholders information and involvment.
In relation to flood maps, stakeholders and members of the
public helped providing the local information to enhance the accuracy of the maps and provide input in relation to the formats to
ensure that the maps provide optimum benefit to end-users for
purposes such as awareness raising of risk, public and institutional
preparedness and planning for flood events (including flash floods),
enhanced resilience, and the promotion of sustainable development and land use planning. Similarly, the public and stakeholders
have important roles to play in the preparation of the FRMPs,
particularly in relation to:
• Setting flood risk management objectives
• Identifying important local issues that should be considered
when assessing appropriate measures
• The decision-making process for the selection of measures
(MCA, benefits and costs)
• The criteria for prioritisation of measures.
When considering public and stakeholder engagement, as well
as the dissemination of information, it was important to consider:
• The objectives and target audience of the engagement or
dissemination (i.e., who the stakeholders are),
• The most appropriate and effective timing of the consultation
for different stakeholders
• The scale and scope of the engagement, taking into account
the need for information exchange and / or cooperation between local, regional, national and international authorities
• The mechanism or media by which the engagement or dissemination might be undertaken (e.g., web-based publication
or consultation, such as internet-based flood mapping portals, publicity campaigns, public exhibitions, public meetings,
community group liaison, workshops, etc.)
• The format, content and tools for implementing the engagement or applying in dissemination
The awareness and understanding of members of the public
and stakeholders of the risk of flooding, and how they should re-
11
DA N U B E F LO O D R I S K S U M M A RY R E P O R T
spond in the event of a flood was essential for effective emergency
response and community resilience in the pilot areas affected by
high risks in flooding and debris flows.
For getting the best practice on stakeholders involvement, international and national workshops, meetings and questionnaires
were prepared.
The Working Group F on Floods (WGF) of the European Commission (EC), under the umbrella of the Common Implementation
Strategy of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD–
CIS) and its working programme, has planned, as part of its mandate, the organization of thematic workshops on specific issues
regarding the implementation of the Floods Directive 2007/60/EC
(FD) on the assessment and management of flood risks.
As part of a series of workshops looking at the implementation
of Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of
flood risk, the ‘Floods’ Directive, Working Group F organized a
three days thematic workshop in Bucharest, Romania during 17 18 April 2012 on the subject of “Stakeholders involvement in the
flood risk management”. The event was hosted by the Romanian
Government with support from the ICPDR and Danube Floodrisk
Project Management Team and its Steering Committee.
The two main aims of the WG F are to support the implementation of the Floods Directive and to improve information
exchange on good practices on relevant topics, such as flood risk
management plans, flood mapping, preliminary flood risk assessment, economic assessment and funding of flood risk management
measures, and vulnerability assessment.
To reach the goal of Floods Directive implementation, the public and stakeholders involvement in flood management is needed.
The legal references are the followings:
• The Flood Directive requires that all interested parties shall
be involved in the production, review and updating of flood
Table of management and working packages meetings
12
Meeting
Title
Data
Location
1
DFRP Kick-off meeting
24-Jun-09
RO/Bucharest
2
DFRP PP Meeting
02-Sep-09
AT/Vienna
3
National meeting of the Danube Floodrisk project
18-Sep-09
IT/Trento
4
Internal Project team meeting
Project team meeting
19-Sep-09
BG/Pleven
5
ÖROK Meeting
28-Sep-09
AT/Vienna
6
Internal Project team meeting
Project team meeting
01-Oct-09
BG/Sofia
7
DFRP WG HARM
National requirements
09-Oct-09
HU/Budapest
8
DFRP AT meeting with provinces
06-Nov-09
AT/Wien
9
Internal Project team meeting
Project team meeting
10-Nov-09
BG/Sofia
10
DFRP WG HARM
Data & methods
19-Nov-09
HU/Budapest
11
BMLFUW WS for water departments of provinces
09-Dec-09
AT/Wien
12
DFRP WG HARM
Data & methods
14-Dec-09
HU/Budapest
13
DFRP and CEFRAME - information exchange
11-Feb-10
AT/St. Poelten
14
DFRP WG HARM & PP Meeting
Data & methods
18-Feb-10
BG/Sofia
15
International Project management meeting
Project team meeting
19-Feb-10
BG/Sofia
16
WG HARM5
Data & methods
18-Mar-10
HU/Budapest
17
DFRP WP7 AT Pilot
22-Apr-10
AT/Krems
18
WG HARM hydrology
Design flood simulation
10-Jun-10
HU/Budapest
19
DFRP STG Meeting
13-Jun-10
RO/Timisoara
20
DFRP WP7 AT Pilot
17-Jun-10
AT/Krems
21
DFRP WP4 meeting
03-Sep-10
AT/Vienna
22
DFRP LP-UBA-A Meeting
06-Sep-10
RO/Bucharest
23
DFRP PP & SH Meeting
Data & methods
13-14.09.2010
IT/Venice
24
Management Meeting
SC Meeting
13-Oct-10
RO/Timisoara
25
CEFRAME Event
07-Dec-10
AT/St. Poelten
26
WP5 Data Collection
Data collection
21-Jan-11
RO/Bucharest
27
DFRP PM & STG Meeting
Mapping requirements
02-Mar-11
SK/Bratislava
28
Internal Project team meeting
Project team meeting
23-Mar-11
BG/Sofia
29
Internal Project team meeting
Project team meeting
05-May-11
BG/Sofia
30
SEE Annual Conference
12-May-11
BG/Sofia
31
DFRP WP 3-5-6 coordination
16-May-11
IT/Rome
32
WP6 Meeting
Mapping requirements
17-May-11
IT/Rome
33
National meeting of the Danube Floodrisk project
18-May-11
IT/Trento
J O I N T LY F O R O U R CO M M O N F U T U R E
risk management plans (FD art 10.2).
• This process shall be coordinated as appropriate with the
involvement of interested parties in the preparation of River
Basin Management Plans (FD art 9.3, WFD Art 14).
• In addition the result of all three steps of the Directive shall
be made available to the public (article 10.1).
The workshop was followed by a one day meeting for WG F 11
on 19th April 2012. The event was held in the Parliament House
of Romania, Nicolae Balcescu Conference Hall. The Workshop
was organized in 7 sessions chaired by designated officials, and
following with introductory presentations and 6 panel discussions on the respective topic. The panellists present brief initial
thoughts and then lead discussion sessions so that participants can
gain greater depth in one or other of the topics.
A brief questionnaire and call for papers was distributed
getting inputs from more than 150 authors and contributions at dis-
cussions from a large group of experts of more than 200 persons.
A workshop Proceedings was prepared and presentations
were posted both on the project site, as well as in CIRCA; the
abstract volume included 64 short papers presentations.
The full documents of the workshop are available on the folowing sites: www.danube-floodrisk.eu and www.hidro.ro.
Management and dissemination activities were concentrated
on organizing activities and partners’ communication, preparing
reports, both technical and financial ones. A comprehensive list of
meetings is presented in the following table. In general meetings
were organized in parallel working packages meetings, as well.
During the project implementation, the working team prepared 7 technical and financial reports and the final report is under
preparation.
Large numbers of dissemination documents were prepared, as:
Table of management and working packages meetings
Meeting
Title
Data
Location
34
Flood Directive Implementation
18-20.05.2011
RO/Bucharest
35
DFRP project coordination & WP3
Management issues
01-Jun-11
HU/Budapest
36
WG HARM8
Mapping requirements
02-Jun-11
HU/Budapest
37
Internal Project team meeting
Project team meeting
07-Jun-11
BG/Sofia
38
DFRP WP7 AT Pilot
10-Jun-11
AT/Krems
39
Regional meeting
Bilateral partner meeting
20-Jun-11
RO/Tulcea
40
Regional meeting
Bilateral partner meeting
21-Jun-11
RO/Tulcea
41
Seminar on the Economical and Ecological re-design of the
Danube Floodplain for the reduction of the flooding risk
23-Jun-11
RO/Galati
42
Meeting on flood control and prevention issues
29.06 -01.07.2011
RO/Calimanesti
43
International Symposium
Presentation of the project
6/29-7/1/2011
IT/Catania
44
Fifth International Conference on Flood Risk (ICFR5)
Topic 1 - Flood Risk Management
(Prevention, Mitigation and Adaptation)
27-29.11.2011
Tokyo
45
DFRP PP & SH Meeting
Mapping requirements
03-Oct-11
IT/Trento
46
Internal Project team meeting
Project team meeting
06-Oct-11
BG/Sofia
47
DFRP WP7 AT Pilot
13-Oct-11
AT/Krems
48
Management Meeting
Management issues
03-Nov-11
RO/Bucharest
49
EGU Leonardo Conference Series on the Hydrological Cycle
Floods in 3D: Processes, Patterns, Predictions
23-25.11.2011
Bratislava
50
DFRP meeting with provinces and CEFRAME regarding
DFRP FRMs
25-Nov-11
AT/Vienna
51
Basin Board
12/ /2011
BG/Pleven
52
WP6 Meeting/ Danube Floodrisk Training Course On Beam
Risk Methodology For Flood Risk Mapping
Mapping requirements
12-13.01.2012
IT/Rome
53
DFRP WP7 AT Pilot
19-Jan-12
AT/Krems
54
DFRP WP6/FHM national agreement from provinces
24-Jan-12
AT/Vienna
55
XIII Meeting GRASS e GFOSS
15/16/17 February
Trieste
56
DFRP WP7 AT Pilot
22-Feb-12
AT/Krems
57
DFRP SH WS
07-Mar-12
AT/Vienna
58
DFRP WP7 AT Pilot
20-Mar-12
AT/Krems
59
EC WG F SH WS
17-Apr-12
RO/Bucharest
60
Management meeting
5 September 2012
RO/Bucharest
RO/Bucharest
61
Final event
10 -13 october
2012
62
DFRP WP7 AT Pilot
24-Apr-12
AT/Krems
63
FloodRisk2012 conference
20-Nov-12
NL/Rotterdam
13
DA N U B E F LO O D R I S K S U M M A RY R E P O R T
Leassons learned
14
The DanubeFLOODRISK project is an important contribution to
the implementation of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), the Danube Strategy and the EU flood policy,
and contains a large number, and a wide range, of findings.
The project offers a large number of best practices and an extended list of lessons learned from the pilot actions, from working
together to develop recommendations and conclusions, or from
preparing the transnational guideline for the integration of flood
risk information formulated as input for master plans of spatial
planning, which have been highlighted during the Thematic Workshop in April 2012, such as:
The research used several means of engagement with the
stakeholders identified such as the use and revision of existing data
from secondary sources as census data and archives, interviews
and focus groups with qualified professionals, standardized questionnaire surveys in six communities exposed to flood hazards
and those recently flooded.
Public involvement allows the incorporation of a factor that is
often forgotten: local knowledge.
The results of the surveys prove the transparency in the stakeholders’ actions, in communication between organizations and
individuals involved. The interviewed stakeholders’ responses
are valuable outcomes enabling decision-makers to consider the
wider implications of their activities in planning and adopting flood
protection measures.
Flood risk communications should be two-way between the
public and the responsible agencies. The role of feedback loops
in the system will not only allow local knowledge of the risk to be
considered a resource to be included in flood incident management plans but will also serve to increase trust levels between
stakeholder.
In communicating criteria and results of economic assessments,
the number of parameters should be minimized, e.g. to the 4
types of impact (economic, social, environmental, cultural). The
use of the same criteria as the ones of the preliminary flood risk
assessment (PFRA) and of the risk maps will make this process
more consistent and will avoid double work.
It would be a good practice to use a few criteria weight profiles
in the MCA evaluation of alternatives based on stakeholders’ opinions. The MCA tool could be used to propose different scenarios
based on different weights of the criteria and propose them in
this way to the politicians, in order to make the impact of these
changes transparent. It is important to present the uncertainty related to these evaluations. A MCA should be adaptable, by changing the parameters that could be changed within the next years.
Through the choice of Danube F
­ LOODRISK pilot applications
across EU countries addressing different issues covered by the
Floods Directive, an enhanced experience in this field was delivered and therefore a good added value for discussions on EU
level, but also for discussions and implementation works at the
Member State levels.
Several lessons and options for transferable results have been
introduced by the Italian Drava pilot study. The main transferable
issues are related to generic preparedness measures, recommendations and best practice for future spatial planning measures, and input for risk management planning in case of small
transnational catchments. Additionally, some lessons regarding
stakeholder involvement are considered to be transferable, especially when considering other areas with similar characteristics
J O I N T LY F O R O U R CO M M O N F U T U R E
like basin size and land use, human works and morphological and
topographical situation.
The production of the Guidelines on “The triggering of landslides and debris flow and their mapping” developed within the
Danube FLOODRISK Project is one of the main results of the
project. The work represents one of the activities on the studypilot area of the Drava basin in South Tyrol (Italy), which was
chosen as test area for studying in deep the main problems and
issues of small mountainous catchments. The Guidelines prepared
by a complex team of experts under the coordination of ISPRA,
aim to be a useful tool for the professional community preparing
Hazard Maps for specific territorial environments. The Guidelines
propose a method of hazard assessment that is based on a methodology that is consistent with the most up-to-date knowledge
in the field of river and torrent associated hazards.
Awards recognition
A Diploma of Excellence was awarded in May 2011, for the
Danube FLOODRISK Project, coordinated by the Romanian
Ministry of Environment and Forests, within the frame of a
competition organized under the High Patronage of the Chairmanship of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation and the aegis of DG MARE – European Commission.
With the same occasion, the Danube FLOODRISK project received the Social & Economic Innovator Trophy in the Danube
Black Sea region.
The advantage of the transnational co-operation is given
through the possibility of raising the willingness to participate
in the transnational approach for all single actors, the common
harmonization of data and methods and the joint exemplary implementation in the different regions.
• FAQ
• Related Documents
The project website was designed to provide usability and a
great user experience. The website has two distinct areas: one
open to the visitors and one restricted for project partners and
accessible through authentication.
In the public areas all the publishable materials were made
available for the website visitors including all publications like posters, flyers, brochures, guides and manuals, newsletters. Also in the
public area is the on line questionnaire module used as an additional tool to distribute and gather data from project stakeholders.
The website structure is based on a 3 columns layout which
was developed for a content management platform.
The presentation part is accessible in all languages of the project and it has been permanently updated. The visitors have the
possibility to subscribe for the newsletter directly on the site.
The restricted area is an application developed for the internal communication used by project partners to share and discuss
versions of documents, to plan meetings and to store project
related documents (financial and communication products).
The website also provide access to an area where through an
interactive interface users may chose to display different data sets
on the danube floodrisk map (a web service showing the hazard
and risk maps and additional flood related information including
additional functions like search). The link to the map geoportal is:
http://maps.danube-floodrisk.eu/
It is expected that the website will be active after the project
time life expires at least 5 more years!
Key innovations
• Transnational cooperation in the most international river
basin in the world
• Joint flood risk assessment
• Joint harmonization of requirements, data and methods
• Stakeholder and end user involvement
• Joint preparation and completion of common data base (incl.
data acquisition)
• Joint production of hazard and risk maps
• Exemplary Integration into spatial planning
The project had a significant positive impact both on experts in
the field of the Danube countries, as well as on the International
Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) and
the European Commission, the beneficiaries on the long term of
the project results. This will ensure the long-term sustainability of
the project results!
Stay tuned to our website
Within the frame of the awareness campaign a webpage has been
launched and kept operational along the project implementation
(http://www.danube-floodrisk.eu).
The actual structure of the site is the following:
• About FLOODRISK
• Project Team
• Work Packages
• Timetable
• Publications
15
Printed in Bucharest, Romania
2012
www.danube-floodrisk.eu
Stakeholder oriented
f lood risk assessment for
the Danube f loodplains
Project partners
MEF – Ministry of Environment and Forests (RO)
UBA-A – Federal Environment Agency Austria Ltd. (AT)
VD – via donau, Austrian Waterway Company (AT)
MOEW – Ministry of Environment and Water (BG)
VKKI – Central Directorate for Water & Environment (HU)
VITUKI – Environmental Protection and Water
Management Research Institute (HU) DEF – Danube Environmental Forum (HU) ISPRA – Higher Institute for Environmental Protection and
Research (IT)
TUCEB – Technical University of Civil Engineering
of Bucharest (RO)
RWNA – “Romanian Water” National Administration (RO)
DDNI – “Danube Delta” National Institute for
Research and Development (RO)
CESEP – Centre for Environmentally Sustainable
Economic Policy (RO)
SWME – Slovak Water Management Enterprise,
state enterprise (SK)
CroWa – Croatian Waters, Legal entity for water
management (HR)
IJC – “Jaroslav Cerni” Institute for the Development
of Water Resources (RS)
JVP SV – Public Water Company „Srbijavode“ (RS)
JVP VV – Public Water Management Company
“Vode Vojvodine” (RS)
© EuroGeographics 2001
MAFWM – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Management (RS)
RHMSS – Republic Hydrometeorological Service
of Serbia (RS)
Observers:
ICPDR – International Commission for the Protection
of the Danube River (AT)
JRC – European Commission - DG Joint Research Center (IT)
BfG – Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde (DE)
LfU – Bavarian Environmental Agency (DE)
RPT BWL – Regional Council Tübingen (DE)
Contact
Lead Partner
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Romania
12 Libertatii Blvd., Sector 5, 040129 Bucharest, Romania
Contact person
Mary-Jeanne Adler, Ph.D
Scientific Director, INHGA; Counselor, MMP
E-mail: mj.adler@hidro.ro
Tel.: +40-21-408 95 27; Fax: +40-21-316 02 82
www.danube-floodrisk.eu