1 st Technical Meeting of the CIS WGF Sub-Group on Reporting: Update of Reporting Tools for the Floods Directive proposed methodology, work plan and

Transcription

1 1 st Technical Meeting of the CIS WGF Sub-Group on Reporting: Update of Reporting Tools for the Floods Directive proposed methodology, work plan and deliverables

2 Project Team

3 Overview of Approach Task 1: support for development of updated guidance Task 2: Development of reporting Schemas and specification for QA procedures Step 1: Review of guidance doc 29 in light of lessons learned Setting assumptions Step 2: Review of end-user needs Data modelling Step 3: Review of Floods Directive reporting INSPIRE alignment Step 4: Development of revised guidance Specification for QA

4 Step 1: Review of Guidance Doc. 29 Review of each Schema Taking account of lessons learned Progress under Task 4 WFD/FD for FRMPs Table of proposed set of changes to each element Schema element Field type/ facets Annotation and additional comments in the schema user guide EUSurfaceWater String Annotation: Unique EU BodyCode code for the Water Body. Add the two-letter ISO Country code followed by the Member State unique id up to a maximum of 42 characters SWB_MS_CD String Annotation: Unique Code for the Water Body within the MS SWB_NAME String Annotation: Understandable Name of Water Body needs to be better specified. Proposal for 2016 Further guidance or comments if needed Proposed quality assurance checks Keep First 2 characters should be country ISO code Keep Keep

5 Step 2: Review of end-user needs How will the information be used by EC/EEA? Nb Name of product 1 Basic information on Units of Management (UoM) Type of product Table and Map Scale of information* EU/MS/UoM Detailed information displayed Table and Map of UoM in the Member State with an indication of which (if any) are international Source of detailed information and aggregation rule Aggregated information on the basis of the information provided at UoM scale Was all the information used? Number and size (areas) of National and International UoM Gap analysis Compilation of list of products 2 Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk: Overview of risk from flood types 3 EU overview of planned measures for achievement of objectives Table EU/MS Table listing for each Member State, the number of APSFRs according to flood type: source; mechanism, and; characteristics Map EU EU Map illustrating the broad types of planned measures Aggregated information on the basis of the information provided at UoM scale Aggregated information on the basis of the information provided at UoM and MS scale

6 Step 3: Document A Review of Floods Directive Reporting Summary of Lessons Learnt Proposed changes to Schemas Proposed changes to Guidance Revised Reporting Guidance Changes to QA Procedures List of Products

7 Step 4: Development of revised Reporting Guidance Follow WFD structure: Introduction incl. summary of obligations under FD How the EC/EEA will use the information Contents of reporting Schema sketches Technical description of data and GIS information to be reported Guidance on expected contents of e.g. FRMPs or background docs Glossary

8 Deliverables Task 1 Deliverables Discussion document forming the basis of the 1st meeting to be held in Bucharest Documents for Sub-WGF on R (2nd, 3rd and final meetings) Documents for SCG Documents to be sent to WDs Updated Guidance document on reporting for the Floods Directive

9 Task 2: Development of the reporting schemas and specifications for QAs Objectives: Facilitate the reporting to MS more of an options to choose from Empowering analysis to obtain information on floods risks assessments less text more data Efficiency gains through automation, harmonisation, reference lists and standards (INSPIRE and OGC)

10 Task 2: Development of the reporting schemas and specifications for QAs We Have a Method: Conceptual model Logical model Physical model UML DRAFT Setting assumptions UML UML v. X Reporting tools QA specifications UML final Reporting guidance

11 Task 2: Data modelling XML definition schemas GML definition schema Reporting Tools Data modelling: UML with data structure Access DB template Shapefile template Single environment for modeling and outputs production Common area for thematic and IT experts Version control Documentation Interactive diagram for a data model reading Specifications on the Reporting Guidance

12 Task 2: INSPIRE alignment for spatial data INSPIRE core fields inspirelocalid inspireidnamespace inspireidversionid Description A local identifier, assigned by the data provider. The local identifier is unique within the namespace that is no other spatial object carries the same unique identifier. NOTE: It is the responsibility of the data provider to guarantee uniqueness of the local identifier within the namespace. [Source: Feature Catalogue 'INSPIRE application schemas' Namespace uniquely identifying the data source of the spatial object. NOTE The namespace value will be owned by the data provider of the spatial object and will be registered in the INSPIRE External Object Identifier Namespaces Register. [Source: Feature Catalogue 'INSPIRE application schemas' The identifier of the particular version of the spatial object, with a maximum length of 25 characters. If the specification of a spatial object type with an external object identifier includes life-cycle information, the version identifier is used to distinguish between the different versions of a spatial object. Within the set of all versions of a spatial object, the version identifier is unique. NOTE The maximum length has been selected to allow for time stamps based on ISO 8601, for example, " T12:12:12+05:30" as the version identifier.

13 Task 2: INSPIRE alignment for spatial data INSPIRE core fields thematicididentifier thematicididentifierscheme beginlifespanversion endlifespanversion predecessorsidentifier Description Identifier defining the scheme used to assign the identifier. Identifier defining the scheme used to assign the identifier. Date and time at which this version of the spatial object was inserted or changed in the spatial data set. This date is recorded to enable the generation of change only update files. Date and time at which this version of the spatial object was superseded or retired in the spatial data set. This date is recorded primarily for those systems which "close" an entry in the spatial data set in the event of an attribute change. In a genealogy, the object(s) that has(have) been deactivated/replaced by another one.

14 Task 2: INSPIRE alignment for spatial data INSPIRE core fields predecessorsidentifierscheme designationperiodbegin Description Identifier defining the scheme used to assign the identifier value(s) in the predecessorsidentifier attribute. [Beginning of the] time period defining when the management, restriction or regulation zone was legally designated or became effective in the real world. designationperiodend [End of the] time period defining when the management, restriction or regulation zone was legally designated or became effective in the real world. EvolutionType Type of event that produced or modified the version of the object being reported (creation, change, deletion, aggregation, splitting). This attribute is required to explicitly report changes and update the current status of the object in the Water Information System for Europe.

15 Task 2: INSPIRE alignment for spatial data INSPIRE core fields nametext namelanguage Description Name, in the national language. National language endonym, or national language version of the name of the geographical feature or spatial object. Language code of the language used in the nametext attribute value.

16 Task 2: Quality Assessment Specifications Allow immediate assessment on data reported: Three levels of data quality assessment: Messages types Schema (XML and GML) compliancy: Correct structure BLOCKER Completion of mandatory fields Use of enumerations (Common XSD) ERROR Use the data formats (e.g. date, codes) Within schema: WARNING Values validation (e.g. outliers) Spatial consistency (e.g. APSFR inside the UoM) Cross schema: INFO Consistency among reporting obligations (e.g. Competent authorities UoMs reported against UoMs reported under APSFR) Statistics: Overview of the data reported (e.g. number of APSFR reported)

17 Work Programme Meetings Deliverables/milestones Date Project Start Mid-February 2017 Kick-off Meeting with European Commission Late February 2017 Discussion Document sent to Sub-WGF on R 10 March 2017 Sub-WGF on R 1st Meeting (Bucharest) March 2017 Inception Report (including early Draft Review of the original guidance and schemas as an annex) Early draft of updated Guidance document basis for the extended 2 nd meeting of the Sub-group on Reporting Late March 2017 Middle of May 2017 Sub-WGF on R 2 nd meeting, extended & technical (Brussels) May 2017 First draft of updated Guidance Document sent to European Commission/Sub- WGF on R for written comment Second draft of Guidance Document accounting for Commission//Sub-WGF on R comments Draft Interim Report sent to Commission Middle to end of June 2017 Middle of August 2017 Early September (one week prior to Interim Meeting) Sub-WGF on R Third Meeting and possible Interim Meeting with the European Commission (Brussels) Tuesday 05 September 2017 (tbc)

18 Work Programme Sub-WGF on R Final Meeting (Estonia) Final draft of updated Guidance Document, draft schemas and specifications for automatic QA/QC routines sent to Commission and Sub-WGF on R Agreement/finalisation of the Guidance document, schemas and specifications for automatic QA/QC routines Finalised reporting tools provided prior to CIS SCG Meeting Interim Report sent to Commission End of September 2017 Week of October 2017 End of October 2017 Early November 2017 CIS SCG Meeting (Brussels) 9-10 November 2017 Package of Reporting Tools sent to WD End of November 2017 WD Meeting (Estonia) 4-5 December 2017 Draft Final Report sent to Commission Final draft of Package of Reporting Tools sent to Commission January 2018 Final Meeting with Commission February 2018 Final Report Final Package of Tools March 2018

19 Discussion: Approach & Work Programme

20 Discussion Paper PFRA/APSFR

21 Introduction and Objectives All schema elements to be reviewed and evaluated Modifications to schemas and guidance recommended Some worked examples Data needs Discussion

22 EXAMPLE 1 (PFRA) - very basic change to schema: Data not available option Lessons Learnt Past floods information required on source, mechanism, characteristics and adverse consequences, location, flood data/statistics Option to provide summary text in absence of data taken up (14%) but data often available Recommended No data option no longer used Simple change to schema and guidance

23 Current Schema element sketch (from user guide)

24 Example 2 (PFRA) Clarification on the assessment of risk based on historical floods Differences between Article 4.2b and 4.2c: (Article 4.2.b) A description of the floods which have occurred in the past and which had significant adverse impacts on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity and for which the likelihood of similar events is still relevant (Article 4.2.c) A description of the significant floods which have occurred in the past, where significant adverse consequences of similar future events might be envisaged Clear understanding needed

25 Proposed Change to Schema sketch Schema element: PastAdverseConsequences Field type/facets/relationship: Yes/No (significant and still relevant) for each impact under an Enumeration list (impact): human health, environment, cultural heritage, economic activity. Enumeration list (conveyance routes): for example: River/stream channels, land drainage ditches, roads/pathways, natural floodplain, etc. Guidance on Completion of this element: Required: A description of floods which have occurred in the past and which had significant adverse impact on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity and for which the likelihood of similar future events is still relevant, including their flood extent and conveyance routes and an assessment of the adverse impacts they have entailed. Quality Checks within Schema element check: significant adverse impact must be reported. A valid option must be selected from each enumeration list. More than one option can be selected. Quality Cross-Schema check: clearly distinguish between SignificantAdverseConsequences schema. A clear explanation of the difference between the requirements of Article 4.2b and c will be included in updated guidance text

26 Other Lessons Learned.. Clarify which types of flood excluded (Y/N or enumeration list) Source, mechanism and characteristics mandatory effectiveness of man-made flood defences; conveyance routes of historical floods; geomorphological characteristics; and areas of economic activity no reasons given for the exclusion Methodologies only superficially reported (e.g. for defining significant adverse consequences) separate schema Not all MS considered climate change (Y/N, link to method)

27 Reference to methodologies schema sketch Schema element: methodsignificancefloodhistoricreference Field type/facets/relationship: ReferenceType Guidance on Completion of this element: Required. Provide references or hyperlinks to the documents and sections where relevant information relating to the approach used to define significant historic floods can be found. Guidance on what should be included in this document is provided in Section <> of this guidance document.

28 Data needs European Commission requires information to: Ensure data are plausible Ensure data are consistent Conduct cross-references and cross-checks on data (especially in International River Basins) Ensure Directives have been implemented in a comparable way And also to: Provide information on the state of the environment and trends (including flooding) Determine implementation of measures and objectives Understand whether existing policies are affording adequate protection Determine whether funds are adequately distributed Inform the public

29 Questions to be answered 3 main questions: Are the reports complete (provision of mandatory fields) and clear (values in code lists correct and numeric/character values in correct minimum/maximum ranges)? Are the reports understandable (sense check)? Are the reports compliant? with regard to key issues (compliance checking) involving for some issues the use of appropriate indicators? after in-depth assessment? Beyond compliance checking

30 Products from reported data and information The European Commission has developed a number of products using the data and information provided by MS Further products to be developed (for FRMPs) Contained within Commission reports and WISE List of products from PFRA/APSFR/FHRMs

31 Example of products developed from the information provided No. Name of Type of Scale of Detail of Aggregation Source of Product Product information information rule information displayed 1 The Map EU/MS The application Aggregation on Report on application of Article 4, of Article 4, 13.1(a) and the basis of the information PFRA & APFSR 13.1(a) and 13.1(b) of 13.1(b) of the Floods Directive reported at UoM level the Floods Directive in the Units of Management of Member States 2 Overview of Table MS/UoM MS; Article No aggregation Report on the application Applied; Units of Management; PFRA & APFSR of the different Type of Flood where a Articles relating to distinction is made (Source, the Mechanism, Around 30 products assessment of Flood Risk under the Floods Characteristic as specified by the Member State) ; Directive Identification of instances where no specific flood types were reported and it is assumed that the relevant Article is applied to all flood types

32 Potential additional data and information required Information on which types of flood were excluded and why Sources, mechanisms and characteristics (all mandatory) Methodologies associated with defining significant floods and significant adverse consequences superficially reported Often not clear how many significant flood risk areas are shared with other MS and countries Large differences in numbers of APSFRs - include area

33 Discussion & Questions Was the reporting guidance clear? Were any major issues encountered in using the reporting guidance? Were there any particular areas of ambiguity that would benefit from further explanation? Were there any issues with understanding and following the QA steps in the process? Did the WISE/ReportNet system function properly when reporting? Were any issues encountered with ReportNet and the Central Data Repository? If you encountered any problems, did these lead to in delays to reporting? What areas of reporting were the most time and resource intensive? Are there any products that would be useful to the MSs that are not currently produced? Do you have any suggestions to improve the reporting process for the next cycle?

34 Discussion Paper FHRM

35 Introduction and Objectives All schema elements to be reviewed and evaluated Modifications to schemas and guidance recommended Some worked examples Data needs Discussion

36 Example 1 (FHRMs) Sources of flooding Lessons Learnt provide more clarity on sources of flooding included in national maps Not all MS reported the source of floods for their maps.. Recommended that it should be clearly indicated where combined sources are included on the map Provide another option within enumeration list

37 Sources of Flooding Schema enumeration A18 specific maps enumeration A19 combined maps

38 Example 2 (FHRMs) Methods for calculating return periods and/or probabilities of flooding Lessons Learnt ~ 30% of MS provided no information or unclear information on how return periods and/or probabilities of flooding were calculated. An enumeration list would have facilitated clearer responses

39 Sources of Flooding Schema Schema element: ReturnperiondandprobabiltiesApproach Field type/facets/relationship: ReturnperiondandprobabiltiesApproach_Enum: Expert judgement Historical data Statistical analysis Modelling Hydrological rainfall-runoff models No information Guidance on Completion of this element: Required: If no information is selected justification must be provided (see Section <> of this guidance). Quality Checks within Schema element check: Approach must be reported. A valid option must be selected from the enumeration list. More than one option can be selected.

40 Example 3 (FHRMs) Summary of methodologies

41 Example 3 (FHRMs) Summary of methodologies Flooding extent Flooding probabilities (including information as to why particular probabilities have been selected) or return periods Depths or water levels Velocities or flows (where appropriate) Models used, datasets, uncertainties, if and how, climate change has been taken into account in the mapping (article 6) Resolution of models used for the presentation of hazard maps Conveyance routes

42 Example 3 (FHRMs) Summary of methodologies Schema element: methodsandmodelsapproachreference Field type/facets/relationship: ReferenceType Guidance on Completion of this element: Required. Provide references or hyperlinks to the documents and sections where relevant information relating to the modelling approaches used to produce the flood hazard maps can be found. Guidance on what should be included in this document is provided in Section <> of this guidance document.

43 Data needs - Example of products developed from the information provided No Name of. Product 29 Summary of scenarios mapped for fluvial flooding with associated expressions of probabilities 32 Number of Member States including the different elements in their hazard maps for fluvial flooding 67 Summary of methodologies and approaches used to assess the potential adverse consequences on Protected Areas 68 Spatial reference layer of UoMs Type of Product Scale of informatio n Detail of information displayed Aggregation rule Table MS Summarises the numeric Aggregation on the basis values of the probabilities used of the information by Member States for each of reported at UoM level the scenarios mapped for fluvial flooding. Allows for variation in the UoMs. Graph EU Bar chart showing the Aggregation on the basis scenarios specified in Art 6(4) of the information of the Floods Directive, and the reported at UoM level number of MSs that have included them in flood risk maps. Table MS Textual table giving a summary Aggregation on the basis of methodologies and of the information approaches used to assess the reported at UoM level potential adverse consequences on Protected Areas GIS layer UoM Mapping of all UoMs GIS layer including all UoMs Source of information Report on methodologies used in preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps Report on methodologies used in preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps Report on methodologies used in preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps Basis for WISE map viewer which is currently being updated

44 Discussion & Questions Was the reporting guidance clear? Were any major issues encountered in using the reporting guidance? Were there any particular areas of ambiguity that would benefit from further explanation? Were there any issues with understanding and following the QA steps in the process? Did the WISE/ReportNet system function properly when reporting? Were any issues encountered with ReportNet and the Central Data Repository? If you encountered any problems, did these lead to in delays to reporting? What areas of reporting were the most time and resource intensive? Are there any products that would be useful to the MSs that are not currently produced? Do you have any suggestions to improve the reporting process for the next cycle?

45 Discussion Paper FRMPs

46 Introduction and Objectives All schema elements to be reviewed and evaluated Modifications to schemas and guidance recommended Worked example Data needs Discussion Reminder of Assessment history

47 Brief History FRMP Assessment Assessment FRMPs Screening of Draft FRMPs (reported in 2015) Development of conceptual approach for assessment Development of questionnaires Dashboard MS interviews/questionnaire Assessment to start in April

48 Structure and contents of the plans Varies considerably between, and sometimes within, Member States Format of the Annex has been followed in some cases, in other s all the information is there, but in a different order Article 13.3 applied only in 2 RBDs

49 Objectives Included in plan? Specific and measureable? Reduce the risk of flooding Not to increase the risk of flooding Reduce the consequences of flooding Reduce the likelihood of flooding

50 Measures In place? Information on budgets and funding? How will they contribute to achievement of objectives? Information on time horizons for implementation?

51 Measures to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or early warning system Measures to establish or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning Measures to establish or enhance public awareness or preparedness for flood events Other preparedness measures Clean up and restoration activities Health and mental health supporting actions Disaster financial assistance including Temporary or permanent relocation of Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance policies Other measures Number of plans Number of plans Measures to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone areas Measures to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to relocate receptors to areas of lower Measures to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a NWRM Other measures to enhance flood risk prevention Measures to reduce the flow into natural or artifical Measures involving physical interventions to Measures involving physical interventions in Measures involving physical interventions to Dredging of rivers to increase river channel capacity Other measures Number of plans Number of plans Types of measure Preventative Protective Preparedness 25 Recovery and review

52 EXAMPLE: FRMPs A need to move away from summary text and replace it with a series of reporting requirements and enumeration lists Take account of pilot testing (UK, HU, CZ) under Compliance Assessment project Example: Objectives (Article 7(2)) summary text A summary (< characters) of the objectives referred to under Article 7(2), including a description of how the objectives relate to impacts on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, the process for developing objectives and selecting and prioritising measures to achieve the stated objectives. (Article 7(2), Annex Part A.I.3

53 Example Draft Compliance Questions Assessment questions Type of Implications for and sub-questions (draft) response future reporting Have objectives been established for the management of flood risk (Article 7.2) for identified areas of potential significant flood risk (Article 5.1)? Have objectives been established for the management of flood risk (Article 7.2) for areas covered by Article 13.1.b? Y/N (Count) by target area (UoM/RBD/APSFR) Y/N (Count) by target area (UoM/RBD/APSFR) Y/N Y/N Have objectives been established in terms of reducing the likelihood of flooding? such as planned increase/improvement in natural water retention through land use and spatial planning through climate change mitigation policies at national level Y/N (Count) by target area (UoM/RBD/APSFR) [for all sub-questions] Y/N [for all subquestions] Have objectives been established to reduce the adverse consequences of Y/N (Count) by target area Y/N through removal or relocation of sensitive receptors from flood prone areas flooding? (UoM/RBD/APSFR) Other If yes, generally, are objectives specific and measurable? Y/N If yes, generally, are objectives specific and measurable? Y/N If yes, at which level have they been established? Text Enumeration list If yes, at which level have they been established? Text Enumeration list Have objectives been established in terms of type of consequence? Reduction in number of fatalities Reduction in the number of dwellings flooded Reduction of the adverse consequences on human health Reduction of the adverse consequences on cultural heritage Y/N (Count) by target area (UoM/RBD/APSFR) [for all sub-questions] Y/N for all sub-questions] Have objectives been established in terms of prevention? If yes, generally, are objectives specific and measurable? If yes, at which level have they been established? Have objectives been established in terms of protection? Y/N (Count) by target area (UoM/RBD/APSFR) Y/N Text Y/N (Count) by target area (UoM/RBD/APSFR) Y/N Enumeration list Y/N Reduction of the adverse consequences If yes, generally, are objectives specific Y/N on the environment and measurable? Reduction of the adverse consequences on economic activity If yes, at which level have they been established? Text Enumeration list Reduction of any other adverse consequences If yes, generally, are objectives specific and measurable? If yes, at which level have they been established? Y/N Text Enumeration list 48. Were the proposed objectives for the Flood Risk Management Plan consulted with stakeholders before their establishment? Y/N Y/N for a list of stakeholder groups Y/N Enumeration list for stakeholders

54 EXAMPLE: FRMPs Possible enumeration lists - Levels The majority of potential implications for future reporting are for the inclusion of Y/N options with associated enumeration lists for the level at which objectives have been established and for the groups of stakeholders that could have been consulted on FRMPs Example Levels: Member State UoM Risk Areas

55 EXAMPLE: FRMPs Possible enumeration lists - Stakeholders Possible enumeration list for Stakeholders Civil Protection Authorities Flood Warning/defence Authorities Agriculture/farmers Energy/hydropower NGOs/nature protection Consumer Groups Drainage Authorities Navigation/ports Local/Regional Authorities Emergency Services Fisheries/aquaculture Academia/Research institutions Water supply and sanitation Industry Other

56 Data needs The Commission will use the information reported to: Check compliance of the MS s FRMP with emphasis on completeness, coherence with other legislation and coordination in RBD/UoM and consideration of all aspects of Flood Risk Management: Flood Risk objectives established and can be clearly related to a reduction of potential adverse consequences Measures identified and prioritised All relevant aspects of Article 7 accounted for Coordination in the RBD/UoM has been ensured Coordination with WFD has been ensured (incl. benefits and synergies with objectives)

57 Discussion & Questions Was the reporting guidance clear? Were any major issues encountered in using the reporting guidance? Were there any particular areas of ambiguity that would benefit from further explanation? Were there any issues with understanding and following the QA steps in the process? Did the WISE/ReportNet system function properly when reporting? Were any issues encountered with ReportNet and the Central Data Repository? If you encountered any problems, did these lead to in delays to reporting? What areas of reporting were the most time and resource intensive? Are there any products that would be useful to the MSs that are not currently produced? Do you have any suggestions to improve the reporting process for the next cycle?

58 Next Steps.. Undertake a more comprehensive review of the schema elements and guidance in light of the lessons learned and the feedback from this meeting Develop an early draft of the reporting guidance and schemas in time for the extended meeting in May In parallel, analyse whether any particular schema elements have not been used in the assessment of compliance, or in the production of any maps, tables and graphs to support the assessment, and for other EU purposes. The project team will also compile a list of products based on the anticipated table of contents of the EU overview report for the FRMPs.