WGF Thematic Workshop-Stakeholder involvement in flood risk management, back to back with WGF12
Common Implementation Strategy
Working Group F on Floods
WG F Thematic workshop on
Stakeholder involvement in flood risk management 17-19
April, 2012
Bucharest – Romania, Parliament House, Nicolae Balcescu Hall
(back-to-back WGF 12)
Bucharest 17-19 April , 2012
Introduction
As part of a series of workshops looking at the implementation of Directive 2007/60/EC on the
assessment and management of flood risks, the ‘Floods’ Directive, Working Group F will organize a
two day thematic workshop in Bucharest, Romania during April 2012 on the subject of “Stakeholders
involvement in flood risk management”. The event will be hosted by the Romanian Government with
support from the ICPDR and Danube Floodrisk Project Management Team and Steering Committee.
The two main aims of WG F are:
a) To support the implementation of the Floods Directive
b) To improve information exchange related to the Floods Directive.
The objectives of WG F are to:
a) Provide the means for the implementation of the Floods Directive
b) Create a platform for coordination with the Water Framework Directive
c) Enable links with other CIS activities
d) Provide a platform for information exchange on:
-
Relevant Issues and Outline for the WGF Thematic Workshop on Stakeholder Engagement
There are real and substantial challenges for flood risk management in the future in relation to those
most vulnerable to flooding and the likely consequences of climate change on the frequency and
nature of flooding and its impact on different stakeholder groups.
The ‘Floods’ Directive (Article 10) requires Member States to make available to the public the
PFRA and the flood maps, and to encourage active involvement of interested parties in the
production, review and updating of the flood risk management plans (FRMPs). 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). The WFD process set out in article 14 of that
Directive, with which the FRMP preparation and consultation needs to be coordinated, requires :
o consultation on the workprogramme for the preparation of RBMP to start at the latest
22.12.2012,
o consultation on significant water management issues to start at the latest 22.12.2013 and
o consultation on draft River Basin management plans to start 22.12.2014.
Each of these stages of consultation needs to run for at least 6 months.
In previous WG F Thematic workshops, the role of stakeholder involvement has been raised on a
number of occasions as a topic for which EU level information exchange on good practices needs to
be further developed.
The public and stakeholders, through constructive engagement, can help 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.
In relation to flood maps, stakeholders and members of the public can help provide 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 is 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 workshop will examine each of the above issues thematically when considering flood maps and
FRMPs, with consideration of the differences between public and institutional stakeholder
engagement.
The awareness and understanding of members of the public and stakeholders of the risk of flooding,
and how they should respond in the event of a flood is also essential for effective emergency
response and community resilience.
Purpose
To promote wider benefits for the local environment, community and biodiversity by
- Involving stakeholder engagement, including communities
- Delivering a common language / terminology in presenting the flood risk management
plans, maps and assessments
- Better presentation of the natural features and processes for stakeholders and
communities understanding and compliance of flood risk management
- Identification with the local communities local sustainable solutions which are self
maintaining with long term benefits, integrating the general futures determined at the
basin level
- Preparation of an adaptable Plan of measures to changes, including climate change, that
will be shared with communities and stakeholders to get a common consensus
The specific purpose of the WG F Thematic Workshop on “Stakeholder involvement in flood risk
management” will be to consider and exchange information on the effective and efficient
involvement of, and communication with, stakeholders and the public throughout the
implementation of the ‘Floods’ Directive. In the workshop, the preliminary results of the DANUBE
Floodrisk Project shall also be outlined, to present actions identified in the Flood Risk Management
Plan, to explore implications in flood risk maps production, and to brainstorm and discuss the
actions needed for securing the long-term matching of needs of using of flood risk maps by the
stakeholders, end-users and exposed population.
About the EU DANUBE Floodrisk project, and its relevance for the proposed workshop
The EU DANUBE Floodrisk Project was launched to support activities implementing the Floods
Directive in the region. The project is closely linked to the ICPDR Flood Protection Expert group,
providing solutions for method integration and stakeholder involvement at a large transnational
basin scale as Danube.
The DANUBE FLOODRISK project focuses on the most cost-effective measures for flood risk
reduction: risk assessment, risk mapping, involvement of stakeholders, risk reduction by adequate
spatial planning. Partners from 19 institutions in the Danube countries, from central public bodies,
universities, research institutes and operational agencies, NGOs are implicated in the project and
coordinated by the Lead partner which is the Ministry of Environment and Forests, in Romania.
With the overall objective of the EU DANUBE Floodrisk Project "Stakeholder oriented flood risk
assessment for the Danube floodplains" being the improvement of the socio-economic conditions of
the population in the Danube floodplain through the use of flood risk mapping, it is thus evident to
recommend the Leading Partner (LP) Romania as a host for this workshop.
The DANUBE Floodrisk Project already seeks to take account of the social consequences of
flooding through differentiated approaches to communication, changes to risk assessment
methodologies and aspects of flood resilience measures and land use planning, in line with the
provisions of the Flood Risk Management Plan.
The WG F Thematic workshop on the role of participation in the implementation of the Floods
Directive will therefore be linked to this project.
Workshop Format
The Stakeholders Workshop will consist of a two day meeting, and will be held back-to-back with a
one day meeting of WG F the following day, bringing together experts of the WG F, of projects
implemented for flood risk mapping and flood risk management plans, together with representatives
of stakeholders and end users.
The Conference is organized in sessions chaired by designated officials, with introductory
presentations and panel discussions on the respective topic. The panellists will 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 will be issued to WG F prior to the event with a view to
collecting the latest research, information on relevant projects, as well as good practices and
examples.
Outputs
The workshop will produce two principle outputs:

A Workshop Report for WG F, that will include the key findings and recommendations of the
workshop, outcomes of analysis of the proposed questionnaire and examples of good practice
in public and stakeholder engagement

A Strategy Document, under the EU Danube Floodrisk Project, that will set public and
stakeholder consultation in the broader context of flood risk management
Participants
The following Participants are be invited:
 WG F Member States and stakeholders representative (including NGOs, stakeholders)
 Participants from non-EU members of the ICPDR Flood Protection expert group
 Representatives of other international river commissions (Rhine, Sava, Tisza Rivers)
 Local Municipal Officials and/or basin managers/Basin Committee coordinators (from
selected areas with flooding problems, representatives to be identified via WG F)
 Non-Governmental Organizations (WWF, REC, DEF, local)
 Other private stakeholders, including representatives of insurance companies
 Selected public relations experts: Peter Heilland, Germany, Job Udo, HKV Netherlands (list
will be completed)
Program Committee
Ministry of Environment and Forestry of Romania (MEF)
ICPDR Secretariat
WWF, DEF, representatives
WG F Members: Mark Adamson (WGF co-chair)
Heinz Stefelmeyer -AT,
Arpad Szentivanyi -HU,
Giuseppina Monaceli -IT,
Barbro Naslund - SW
DG ENV:
Maria Brattenmark
Danube Floodrisk: Dr. Robert Konecny -AT,
Prof. Dr. Radu Drobot –RO
Dr. Peter Bakonyi - HU
Organizing Committee
MEF: Dan Carlan, General Director
Gheorgeh Constantin, Water Director for RO,
Olimpia Negru, Flood Risk Management Directorate
ANAR:Ovidiu Gabor, Deputy General Director
Elena Tuchiu, Director for WFD implementation for RO
INHGA: Dr. Petre Stanciu, Director
Dr. Mary-Jeanne Adler, Scientific Director
Annex 1: Comments from previous WG F Thematic workshops to be taken on board
General issues – role of stakeholder involvement in integrated flood management:
The report from the Catchment approach to flood risk management (UK, 2009) includes the first concerted
effort to focus on the importance of stakeholder involvement, and should be a starting point for development
of the specific Thematic workshop. The importance if the issue hs also been raised in all other workshops,
with some examples given below covering different aspects of flod risk management, to be further developed
during the proposed workshop.
Involvement of stakeholders at the catchment level, such as communities, landowners, citizens is at the
heart of integrated planning in flood risk management. Participation is important as a means to improve
decision making and deliver better solutions on the ground. Different levels of participation – information
supply, consultation and active involvement – are not mutually exclusive. They build on each other and
different levels of participation can be used at different stages. (Summary, Catchment approach workshop,
UK, 2009).
There are good examples in Europe of stakeholder engagement in flood risk management, these examples
should be reviewed to develop appropriate and sustainable engagement methods , such as the Common
Implementation Strategy (CIS) guidance on public participation and other guidance from Member states) on
stakeholder engagement should be revisited to draw out best practice guidelines for flood risk management.
(Recommendation, Catchment approach workshop, UK, 2009).

The raising of public awareness for flood risk was also regarded as being most essential and special
emphasis (Recommendation Land use and local planning workshop, AT/SI, 2008)
Art 4 – on the role of public information on the PFRA
The issue of public information at the stage of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment is important, as the
public needs to understand what that assessment entailed. Therefore Guidelines (handbook) for general
public on information use and interpretation should be prepared. (Recommendation PFRA workshop, CZ,
2009)
Public will not be probably interested in methodologies. On the other hand they will want to see maps and
some of relevant historical information (in different level of details than experts). (Open Question PFRA
workshop, CZ, 2009)
Art 7. – on the role of stakeholder involvement and communication in the flood risk
management to reduce flood risk
The successful implementation of revitalisation measures needs broad-based support. Soliciting this support
requires profound education, communication, citizen involvement and information on the effectiveness and
the cost-benefit of such measures. (Recommendation Land use and local planning workshop, AT/SI, 2008)
Methods (e.g. Multi Criteria Analysis) used for setting objectives and selecting measures should be
considered by involving relevant stakeholders and the results from these methods should be transparent and
understandable for the public and politicians (Conclusion, Flood risk management plan workshop, NL, 2010).
In the process of decision making in flood risk management, economic assessment is not the only
instrument, but EU Member States recognise the key role of it in flood risk analysis and in selecting and
prioritising measures to manage flood risks. Economic assessments can provide reliable information for
politicians and stakeholders, and they can justify and explain prioritisation of measures and allocation of
resources to execute them. Member States clearly plan to intensify their efforts in this field. (Conclusion,
Floods and economics workshop, BE, 2010)
Stakeholders can discuss on relative weights of criteria in the decision frameworks, but it is questioned that it
always leads to an acceptable outcome. (Conclusion, Floods and economics workshop, BE, 2010)
Developing a better understanding of phenomena and processes is crucial for selecting the best measures.
Communication and participation are the main measures to invest on in order to choose the best other
measures to be implemented. The range of possible measures, structural and non-structural, should be
widened (e.g. free space, erodible corridor, warnings, delocalization). (Key conclusion, Flash floods and
pluvial floods workshop, IT, 2010)
There should be a common understanding of ways to increase preparedness (including self help measures)
and through this raise the level of resilience to both FF and PF. The importance of education and awareness
raising must be recognised. Information according to target: message translation from the expert to the
public including adaption to local conditions. The "right behaviour" in a rapid onset flood event needs to be
identified and communicated to the public. A "common langue" on for instance extreme events needs further
discussion, including in relation to communication witht e public for preparedness. . (Recommendations,
Flash floods and pluvial floods workshop, IT, 2010)
On socio-economic considerations: We should concentrate on informing and educating. We should aim at
producing appropriate behaviour in floods (like learning to drive, and avoiding driving into flash floods (many
casualties).
Post-flood survey should also collect information about social understanding.
(Recommendations, Flash floods and pluvial floods workshop, IT, 2010)
Collect together experience on communicating risk. Mark protected areas as flood prone areas; using of
right language is important. Avoid being too complex in presenting flood risk. Raise responsibility for selfprotection; prepare population with simple reflex. Transfer knowledge and understanding to people. Use
animation and images. (Recommendations, Flash floods and pluvial floods workshop, IT, 2010)
How to communicate uncertainty to the public needs further consideration. (Open question, Flash floods and
pluvial floods workshop, IT, 2010)
Art 9.3 – on involving different sectors of interested parties in the preparation of flood risk
management plans
There is a need for a “working” example (best practice) on how to involve other sectors in flood risk
management (e.g. spatial planning, energy sector, finance possibilities). (Recommendation, Flood risk
management plan workshop, NL, 2010).
Art 10.1 – the role of publicly available information, such as maps and plans
For the purpose of FRMPs, maps are important for public participation, but they should not be too
complicated and easy to understand for the public. These maps should focus on the areas of potential
significant flood risk. People are mainly interested whether their property will flood or not, so a minimal level
of detail is necessary. It is important to show comparable numbers (like numbers of houses and people
affected), and they should be harmonised as much as possible. (Recommendation Floods and economics
workshop, BE, 2010)
Tools to communicate potential measures with stakeholders and public need to visualize measures and
effects in a logic, trustful, understandable and attractive way enabling reference to the users area of living.
(Conclusions, Flood risk management plan workshop, NL, 2010).
Active involvement of all interested parties in the process is important to develop a Land use planning
ownership of FRMPs. COMMENT: The most important factor in the success of reducing damage from floods
is the commitment of land use planners and decision makers at the local level to prevent development of
flood prone areas. (Recommendation/Statement, Land use workshop, NO, 2007)
The possible implications for private parties (e.g. policies of insurance companies) while implementing legal
arrangements that link spatial planning to risk management need to be considered. (Conclusions, Flood risk
management plan workshop, NL, 2010).
Communicating food risk to interested parties is one challenges, communicating with "un-interested" parties
is another challenge. Further work is needed on how to communicate flood risk to actors in areas where
there is no (recent) experience of floods. (Open question, Flash floods and pluvial floods workshop, IT,
2010)
Annex 2 - Draft programme AGENDA
WGF Thematic workshop:
Stakeholder Involvement in Flood Risk
Management
17-19 April, 2012
Bucharest – Romania
(back-to-back WGF 11)
First day
9:30 – 10:00 Registration
10:00 – 10:30
OPENING ADDRESS
Minister, Mr. Laszlo Borbely
Lead partner representative (MJA)
10:30 – 11:30
SESSION 1:
INTERNATIONAL BASINS AND STAKEHOLDER
INVOLVEMENT / DANUBE FLOOD RISK MAPPING PROJECT – A
BASIS FOR A SAFER PLACE
Chair: tbc
Introduction:
Philip Weller, ICPDR Executive Secretary
Flood risk management plans - the role of stakeholder participation in the preparation of River Basin
Management Plans in the Danube - lessons learnt for the Flood Risk Management Plans
Mary Jeanne Adler (MJA), Romania - Project Leader
The Danube Flood Risk mapping project, and the relevance for stakeholder participation
Other projects in international basins presentation
Facilitated Dialogue
The session will present the findings of the Danube River Basin Management planning process including the
development of Flood action programmes, with particular emphasis on the important projects in hazard and
risk mapping and flood risk management in the Danube Basin and the European scale as Danube Floodrisk,
Floodsite, Floodrisk, ConHaz, SAFER, ELLA, EFAS, ERA-Net CRUE project RISKMAP etc. and the key
themes of this workshop (themes session 2 to 6).
12:00 – 13:00
Lunch break
13:00 – 15:00
SESSION 2: FLOOD MAPPING - INPUT FROM AND DISSEMINATION TO
THE PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDERS
Chair: tbc
Introduction:
13:00 - 13: 40 : Presentation of Invited / Submitted Papers (Max 4 no. 10 minute
presentations) 1
Proposals for themes:
-
The approach of social milieus in flood risk communication on the local level in an Austrian alpine valley a success story
Benefits of new media for regional public participation in flood risk communication
The ERA-Net CRUE project RISKMAP
13.40:-14:00
Panel discussions
1. How to ensure local knowledge is taken on board in the production of local/national flood risk and hazard
maps. Good practice methods and experience sought.
1
A call for papers will be carried out via WG F and to selected projects, for the steering committee to chose specific presentations.
2. Guidelines for general public on information use and interpretation – Peter Heiland
3. Planning web-sites for national mapping information dissemination (best practice examples) - Tools for
delivering flood mapping information at local /national level.
14:00-15:00
Facilitated Dialogue (breakout sessions with 3 discussion topics)
1. This session will focus on the best ways of involving the local population in the preparation of flood hazard
and flood risk maps, to make sure the best use can be made of local and historical sources of information.
Methodologies for how best to ensure this will be explored, as will potential barriers and good practices. A
strong link to the immediate recovery and review phase can be made, but the issue on how to involve the
local communities which have not recently been flooded and where the awareness may be lower.
2. This session will address issues related to what the general public is interested in? The public will
probably not be interested in methodologies. On the other hand they will want to see maps and some of the
relevant historical information (in different levels of detail than experts). It is important to show comparable
numbers (like numbers of houses and people affected), and they should be harmonised as much as
possible. Public awareness for flood risk is essential for preventing losses – safety measures, guidelines for
behaviour, for building in secure way, etc. that are specific for the risk areas could be important tools for
preventing losses.
3. WISE is meant to be a European level tool for making flood maps across the EU available, and not the
main means for making available flood maps to the local/national population; this is expected to remain a
national/local responsibility. This workshop will therefore address the best tools for delivering flood maps.
The general public usually use closer sources of data –e.g. local web pages; people are mainly interested
whether their property will flood or not, so a minimal level of detail is necessary. Tools to communicate
potential measures with stakeholders and public need to visualize measures and effects in a logical, trustful,
understandable and attractive way enabling reference to the users area of living.
15:00 – 15:30
Coffee break
15:30 – 17:30
SESSION 3: PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTING
FRMP
INVOLVEMENT OF THE PUBLIC AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS
–
Chair: tbc
15:30 - 16:10 Presentation of Invited / Submitted Papers (Max 4 no. 10 minute
presentations)
Proposed themes:
-
Risk communication in a seething conflict in an urban environment
Dealing with fears, communicating the risks: step-by-step approach to pave the way for a pilot project
A catalogue of FRMP Measures and its application for an Austrian APSFR
Best practice for FRMP, impact evaluation and stakeholders participation
Existing public participation and methods for flood risk management solution prioritization at the basin
level
Practices for stakeholders involvement for environmental evaluation of FRMP and RBMP
Practices for social and economic evaluation of FRMP solutions – levels of stakeholders involvement
16:10 – 16:30 Panel discussion
1. How best to involve interested parties at local, regional and national level in the development of flood risk
management plans, including in objective setting and identification and prioritsation of measures. Good
practice stories and lessons learnt.
2. The use of Multi Criteria Analysis for setting objectives and selecting measures should be considered in
FRMP, by involving relevant stakeholders and the results from these methods should be transparent and
understandable for the public and politicians. In communicating criteria and results of economic
assessments, the number of parameters should be minimised, e.g. to the 4 types of impact (economic,
social, environmental, cultural). Conclusions on how to involve different sectoral stakeholders should be
considered, as well as what kind of parameters/indexes should be addressed to capture their interest and
getting their reaction/contribution. This should include information on the effectiveness, cost-benefit and
prioritisation of the proposed measures will be considered.
3. How to secure broad-based support for the successful implementation of revitalisation measures in FRMP
- education, communication and citizen involvement. This session deals in particular with both the local
communities in the areas of potential significant flood risk where flood risk needs to be reduced, as well as
local actors from other parts of the catchments such as where measures may be necessary, given that the
Flood Risk Management Plans shall cover the whole catchments.
16:30 - 17:30 Facilitated Dialogue (breakout sessions with the three discussion
topics under the Panel discussion)
17:30 – 18:30
Parliament House visit
An official dinner will be offered by the Ministry of Environment and Forests
Second day
9:00 – 12:00
SESSION 4: WORKING WITH INSTITUTIONAL STAKEHOLDERS AND
OTHER SECTORS, IN PARTICULAR ON LAND USE
9:00 - 9:40 : Presentation of Invited / Submitted Papers (Max 4 no. 10 minute
presentations)
Proposed themes:
-
Examples of working with stakeholders in catchment flood risk management - new findings
Lessons learnt from WFD public participation, including the GIS Guidance document
9.40 - 10:30 : Round table 12: Best practice on how to involve other sectors in flood
risk management (e.g. spatial planning, energy sector, finance possibilities).
This session will identify different methods, good practices, and lessons learnt, for working with interested
parties with a focus on institutional stakeholders (such as local authorities, regional authorities, water
management authorities (if different) and public facilities such as education and essential services such as
hospitals etc., as well as with other sectors (such as landowners, agriculture, forestry, SMEs, energy
companies (hydropower for instance), water operators, navigation, tourism etc.).
This session will also address general risk communication and how to deal with stakeholder fears and/or
conflicts. Risk communication is the new issue in this Directive, especially political stakeholders are
concerned about stakeholder reactions and conflicts are very likely to occur.
The session will also deal with implications for private parties (e.g. policies of insurance companies) while
2
* Participants will share in two groups, which will participate in the two round tables sessions.
implementing legal arrangements that link spatial planning to risk management.
10:30 – 11:00
Coffee break
11:00 – 12:00 Round table 23*: Developing land use planning for better flood risk
management -by involving landowners and other interested parties
This session will address the most important factor in the success of reducing damage from floods which is
the commitment of land use planners and decision makers at the local level to prevent development of flood
prone areas; what instruments should be addressed and how this should be presented will be an important
output of the round table. Coordination of objectives from the different plans asks for a clear national
command to clarify what objectives (and related legislation) prevail and which are open for amending. There
are tradeoffs within the catchment in terms of set-aside of land for flood risk reduction downstream, including
incentives for such measures.
12:00 – 13:00
Lunch break
13:00 – 15:00
SESSION 5: AWARENESS - THE ROLE OF PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER
INVOLVEMENT FOR PREPAREDNESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Chair: (tbc)
Introduction:
13:00 - 13:40 Presentation of Invited / Submitted Papers (Max 4 no. 10 minute
presentations)
Proposed themes:
- EXCIFF (WGF 2007) Good practice for delivering flood related information to the general public
- The role of public awareness for flood risk reduction for flash floods and other rapid onset floods
- Approaches to public awareness to increase preparedness and emergency response in the recovery phase
13:40 - 14:00 Panel discussion
This section will focus on the methods for best involving the public and stakeholders with a view of increasing
preparedness and emergency response. Good practice and lessons learnt will be presented and discussed.
Barriers and opportunities to outreach will be identified.
The use of new technologies will also be explored here.
A special focus will be places on flash floods and other rapid onset floods, but also on other types of floods.
14:00 – 14:40 Breakout sessions with two discussion topics
1. Flood emergency situations management plans preparation and further use -– stakeholders involvement
and public participation
2. Emergency response plans – stakeholders involvement and public participation
14:40 - 15:00 Coffee Break
15:00 – 16:00
SESSION 6 :
INVOLVEMENT
TRANSBOUNDARY
ASPECTS
OF
Chair: Philip WELLER, ICPDR Executive Secretary
15:00 - 15:40 Presentations :
3
* Participants will share in two groups, which will participate in the two round tables sessions.
STAKEHOLDER
o
International river commissions’ collaboration between countries (as major stakeholders) and regional,
local stakeholders levels – main issues, action plans – ex. Rhine, Danube, Elbe, Sava, Tisza
Commissions
o
The role of NGOs participation at the local, regional, national and trans-national levels will also be
addressed.
o
Discussions on trans-border issues for reporting – data availability, border integration, presentation of
methods and their large scale compatibility for a common presentation/understanding of mapping
products and of the action plans for risk reduction (FRMP T Large scale integration).
15:40 - 16:00 Plenary discussions
16:00 – 17:00 SESSION 7: NEXT STEPS AND NEEDED ACTIONS
Chair : Philip WELLER, ICPDR Executive Secretary
16:00 - 16:30
discussions.
Reporting for the sessions, including the two round tables findings and three breakout
16:30 - 16:45 Review of lessons and messages from previous day - key conclusions and next steps
including development of a strategy document based on the workshop outcomes.
16:45 – 17:00
CLOSING STATEMENTS
City tour, optional Concert Hall at the Romanian Athenaeum
Dinner
Third day 2012
WGF12 Meeting