Danube Floodrisk Project Final Report

Jointly for our common future

European Territorial Co-operation 2007 – 2013

FINAL ACTIVITY REPORT

PROJECT TITLE DANUBE FLOODRISK – Stakeholder oriented flood risk assess-ment for the Danube floodplains

PROJECT ACRONYM

DANUBE FLOODRISK

REF. NUMBER EE/A/077/2.1/X

LEAD PARTNER Ministry of Environment and Forests, Romania

START DATE 01.05.2009 END DATE 31.10.2012

2

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Short project summary in view of the results achieved (this text should be able to stand alone and suitable for publication, therefore should also be attractive, easy readable and interesting to wider public). (ca. 1000 characters)

The Danube River and its tributaries link almost all countries in the Southeast-European area. It is the natural, cultural and logistic network for most important ag-glomerations which form together the basis for economic development – as also de-scribed in the European Danube Strategy. At the same time the Floods of the Dan-ube River periodically cause dramatic damages. The risks for human lives, economy, ecology and cultural heritage throughout the River’s huge flood plains might poten-tially even increase due to climate change in future.

The DANUBE FLOODRISK project changed significantly the transnational coopera-tion of all countries at this river regarding flood risk management. All Danube Coun-tries in the SEE programme developed a common understanding of the flood risk management strategy, priorities and methods. The hydraulic models were harmo-nised, a joint data base was designed and set up and joint flood risk maps were de-veloped.

The key output is a signal for the whole region: as core output a common “DANUBE FLOODRISK Atlas” was produced and published as end result of hundreds of har-monisation and coordination steps as well as adjustments of national approaches and international compromises. Intensive stakeholder integration took place through-out the project.

Thus the project has a far reaching strategic focus beyond risk management. It im-proves safer sustainable conditions for living environment and economy in the Dan-ube floodplains.

1.2 Summary of the project key points described in the following parts of this final report, suitable for publication and structured according to the following main sections (ca. 2500 characters): • Project context and objectives – highlight the major project objectives and the

relevance / importance of the issues addressed by the project for the SEE area • Key achievements – short description of main project outputs and results • Partnership and added value of cooperation – highlight the added value of the

transnational cooperation approach • Sustainability and follow up – outline the sustainability of project results, their

transferability and potential follow-ups

The Danube River is one of the most important natural axes in South-East-Europe. It links most of the countries in the SEE area. Thus the improvement and good exam-ples of transnational cooperation of all countries at this river is a brilliant signal for the whole region. The DANUBE FLOODRISK project has a far reaching strategic focus beyond risk management. It supports the integration of all Danube countries and con-tributes to the flood risk management strategy of the European Union. Doing so it is a flagship project for the implementation of the European flood risk management di-rective of 2007. It improved safer sustainable conditions for living environment and

3

economy as well as for cultural heritage in the Danube floodplains.

Risk reduction in large international river basins can only be achieved through trans-national, interdisciplinary and stakeholder oriented approaches. A catchment-wide coordination of approaches and methods is a basis for effective flood risk prevention.

The DANUBE FLOODRISK project’s key achievements are methods and solutions for the most cost-effective measures for flood risk reduction: risk assessment, risk mapping, involvement of stakeholders and risk reduction by adequate spatial plan-ning. The project brought together scientists, public servants, NGOs and stakehold-ers who developed jointly a scalable system of flood risk maps for the Danube River floodplains. A transnational methodology and data harmonization were developed and implemented for flood risk assessment and mapping.

One key product is the DANUBE FLOODRISK Atlas of hazard and risk maps, which is available as printed version and as scalable web-application. For the first time all countries and regions situated along the Danube have jointly developed flood risk maps and furthermore developed a database, which is available to all relevant organ-isations and the International Commission on the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). A network has been established, that has approved to continue to cooper-ate closely.

With the completion of the ETC funded period end of October 2012 the next work starts: the maps show WHERE the greatest risk is, but for an equitable flood risk management for all the river stretch other factors should be taken into consideration also: national GPD and possibly the resilience of each country towards the flood disasters. The maps are nevertheless an important basis for risk management. The great challenges from now on are, - communicating the risk to local and regional actors - dealing with the risk in planning and decision making in practice and - actually reducing the existing risks! Pilot actions in the FLOODRISK project on exemplary solutions demonstrate how effective approaches can be implemented. The project partners (persons and organisations) have achieved a lot, under partly very difficult conditions. They now form a network which is still bound by the funding programme.

2 RÉSUMÉ OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES 2.1 Short outline of the project, highlighting its context and objectives, covering also the

following issues (ca. 2000 characters): • Project’s aims and rationale /added value for adopting a transnational approach • Project contribution to the goals of the SEE Programme • Main success factors and obstacles (if any) for reaching the project objectives

Since decades the Danube Countries know that a joined river calls for joint modelling and risk management. Since years they are working together on the idea of harmo-

4

nising the hydraulic modelling, reducing differences in the flood plain mapping and creating a joint set of inundation maps for the Danube, under the coordination of the International Commission for the protection of the Danube (ICPDR). This task is one of the great challenges for administrations, decision makers, scientists and engineers due to different historically developed standards, models and set up of organisations. Responsibilities for the tasks of flood protection and flood risk management are dif-ferent throughout the Danube countries like throughout all European Countries. Regional technical solutions are not sufficient to reduce the risks, upstream and downstream cooperation is necessary. All countries and regions have separate ap-proaches regarding flood prevention, different simulation models and priorities. The-se need to be harmonized and approaches coordinated, in order to achieve an effec-tive flood protection and an equitable degree of protection along the whole Danube. Single protection measures are comparatively ineffective, if not integrated into a transnational risk management context. Hence, the main aim of the project was to develop and produce high quality, stakeholder oriented flood risk maps for the Dan-ube river floodplains to provide adequate risk information for spatial planning and economic requests. The single objectives of the project were:

• Development of a joint mapping method for flood risk and harmonization of data sources.

• Production and provision of risk maps and risk information. • Integration of relevant stakeholders and end users on different levels into the def-

inition and realization processes. • Set up of a common data base • Linkage of flood risk mapping and provision of maps as basis for planning, e.g.

within the EU Floods Directive. • Development and distribution of exemplary procedures within the Danube coun-

tries and beyond. • Reflection of the EU Directives, e.g. WFD, Floods Directive, providing feedback

based on the experiences of the project cooperation by using the platform of the ICPDR Flood Protection Expert Group.

EU legislation gives a framework for international river basin management but cannot simply reduce national disparities. National legal framework often prevents flexible adjustments of models and scenarios. In so far the Danube River is just an example for similar challenges in international river basins, like the Rhine, Elbe, Oder or Rhone Rivers. But it is one of the most complicated settings due to its length, size of floodplains and the large number of countries involved. In this framework the ICPDR and its member states contributed to flood risk man-agement already in the past. However, overcoming the major difficulties towards joint modelling and mapping requires extra resources (human and economic), a very good working platform and a daily functioning international network of responsible bodies - and huge flexibility of each partner. This is exactly what the DANUBE FLOODRISK project in the funding program on European Transnational Cooperation (ETC) delivered. It created a platform for coop-eration and trust, for flexible solutions (often far beyond the “normal” agenda) and it offered economic resources for work which goes far beyond the obligatory duties of countries, organisations and enthusiastic persons. The objectives could only be reached by an intensive transnational cooperation and

5

stakeholder integration. The project improved the institutional cooperation within the ICPDR and supported the realization of measures within the existing international cooperation structure. These outputs required a joint transnational approach under the umbrella of the transnational funding programme. Harmonized risk assessment, mapping as well as the collection of the data basis for risk mapping are explicit tasks of the SEE programme. This project provides the ba-sis to develop a transnational flood risk prevention strategy in the Danube basin, which again is a key issue for economic development.

2.2 Level of achieving project objectives Complete the table below inserting the objectives as outlined in the approved Application Form, indicating up to which level those have been achieved, describing briefly in the “comment” field what exactly have been achieved. If some of the objectives have only partially, or not been achieved, the justification should be included in the last column.

Objectives Achievement

(%)

Comment / Justification

1 Development of a joint mapping method for flood risk and harmoni-zation of data sources

100% A joint method for mapping and data harmonisation was worked out in the project. The method is described in the “Manual of harmonized require-ments on the flood mapping proce-dures for the Danube River”. All Part-ner countries have contributed and approved the manual. For comment on data handling and related reports and datasets, see objective 4.

2 Production and provision of risk maps and risk information.

100% The joint method for mapping and the collected and harmonised data were used to create flood hazard and risk maps for the whole Danube. The maps are collected and published in the DANUBE FLOODRISK Atlas; The atlas is part of the Danube action plan of the ICPDR. The partner coun-tries and the ICPDR ensure the sus-tainability of the product.

3 Integration of relevant stakeholders and users on different levels into the definition and realization pro-cesses.

100% The close cooperation between the project and important stakeholders was ensured during the whole project implementation. Especially the ICPDR was very actively involved during the project implementation. Several Workshops took place, e.g. the Workshop in Venice. A “common stakeholders’ involvement strategy for the Danube Floodplain” was pub-lished. Furthermore, the pilot projects included local stakeholders very suc-cessfully; see summary report of pilot projects.

6

Objectives Achievement

(%)

Comment / Justification

4 Set up of a common data base 100% The main results include the reports on data availability, area covered by each data set, accessibility condition and quality check results, homoge-nous terrain data set, cross section and land use dataset that have been quality checked and adjusted to neighbour data sets, harmonised information and data compiled by the partner, processed and ready to be used for the mapping actions and a common data base used for common data handling and distribution of data between project partners within and after the project completion.

5 Linkage of flood risk mapping and provision of maps as basis for planning, e.g. within the EU Floods Directive

100% The objective was mainly dealt with in the pilot projects (WP7). 8 pilot pro-jects were implemented in 4 partner countries. Furthermore, a “scoping study of the integration of risk in spa-tial planning” and a summary report “Use of risk information and risk maps in spatial planning” were pub-lished.

6 Development and distribution of exemplary procedures within the Danube countries and beyond

100% The procedure for data harmonization and elaboration for hazard and risk mapping have been developed with university experts and published as project documents. In addition the guideline for hazard mapping for small catchments with debris flow has been developed with the university of Trento (Italy). A specific seminar for students and experts took place in Trento in September 2012.

7 Reflection of the EU Directives, e.g. WFD, Floods Directive, providing feedback based on the experiences of the project cooperation by using the platform of the ICPDR Flood Protection Expert Group.

100% Major feedback has been given on the Floods Directive, especially on stakeholder involvement. Pilot activi-ties took place. The key action in this respect was the International Work-shop on Stakeholder involvement in Bucharest in April 2012. As result a document on strategies and best practice for stakeholder involvement in flood risk projects has been sent to the “Working Group on Floods” of the EU commission (Sep. 2012).

3 KEY ACHIEVEMENTS – PROJECT OUTPUTS/RESULTS

7

3.1 Type/characteristics of achievements (ca. 3000 characters) • Describe the major achievements of the project deriving from its outputs and re-

sults, focusing on the qualitatively most significant achievements (and not simply listing all outputs and results that were generated by the project)

• The main achievements of the project in relation to the project and programme objectives should be detailed, using also indicators, when applicable;

• The specific feature of these achievements should be demonstrated, their inno-vative character, the practical relevance and applicability of those project outputs

• How these project achievements contribute to practical improvements / changes in a specific thematic field in the SEE area.

In case further results have been achieved, in addition to those listed in the original appli-cation, they should be listed as well.

The project achieved the following outputs and results: Harmonized data and methods: One transnational adjusted digital terrain model was developed: A joint (transnation-al, harmonized) method for the creation of flood risk maps was worked out: all Part-ner countries were involved in the discussion and conclusions were found. Relevant data was collected by the Partner countries and provided transnationally. The data were firstly checked on quality and needed to be harmonised as all countries used different specifics and models. For the first time, a harmonised data base regarding flood risk areas is existent, which is available to all Partner countries and the ICPDR. The data base is the basis for the development of maps for the DANUBE FLOODRISK Atlas, but also for further mapping activities and coordination require-ments between the countries in the Danube basin in future. Joint catalogues, checklists for all risk mapping actions in the Danube countries: The joint method on mapping and data harmonisation is described in the “Manual of harmonized requirements on the flood mapping procedures for the Danube River”. All partner countries were involved in the development of this manual and all approved it. This was only possible through a transnational project: the close cooperation of relevant organisations from the different countries. Flood risk and hazard maps atlas, DVD and Internet posted: The joint method for mapping and the collected and harmonised data were used to create flood hazard and risk maps for the whole Danube. The maps are collected and published in the DANUBE FLOODRISK Atlas; All Partner countries received copies of the Atlas, which is the very first of its kind and not only an important basis for flood protection and prevention measures but also advertising transnational cooperation. The Atlas is also part of the Danube action plan of the ICPDR. The partner countries and the ICPDR ensure the sustainability of the product. The Atlas maps are available as Hardcover publication, on DVD and via internet and should therefore also raise the public awareness for flood risks. Consultation of experts, stakeholders, decision makers: The integration of stakeholders into the work or project was very extensive: Work-shops were held, a joint stakeholder integration strategy and questionnaires were worked out. The ICPDR, as a key stakeholder for the topic of flood risk in the Danube basin, was always involved in the Working Group meetings and project communica-tion. Experts and scientific organisation from different countries were involved in the

8

Partnership as project partners; they have brought lots of experiences and know-how into the project. The decision makers were informed about the project results. Innovative, cost-efficient risk oriented risk management, integrating aspects like economy, climate change, nature development, spatial planning, urban development, agriculture: The achievement of a joint flood risk management in the Danube basin was the greater goal of the project. The project has achieved first steps on this way: the (methods, data and maps) basis for evaluating flood risks was assessed, evaluated and harmonised for all countries in the Danube basin. Also, first pilot projects dealt with the application of the joint flood information in municipalities, e.g. in Giurgiu: In this process the local administration, spatial planning, urban development, economy, nature protection and agriculture stakeholders were involved and concrete measures for improving risk management were developed. Assessment of the risk situation for power supply stations, nuclear power stations as well as for other important infrastructure in risk areas: The topic of flood risk and power plants was dealt with in one pilot project in Romania with the pilot site “Nuclear power plant Cernavoda”: The pilot project was defined in close cooperation with the power plant administration, several meetings were held. Hydrological calculations were done on the basis of a digital terrain model of the area. The results show that the power plant is well protected against “normal” flood (protection level: maximal probable flood level). Some problems might arise from low water, as the water from the Danube is needed for the cooling cycle of the plant. Surface runoff after extreme rainfall events might be an issue in the future as well. The results are described in a report. It also contains suggestion for measures to decrease the risk of flash floods. 8 regional test cases to reflect the approaches and to support the dissemination pro-cess: There have been 8 pilot projects implemented in 4 countries. All were reflecting the approaches for flood risk management and mapping: local scale mapping was con-ducted on the basis of the joint achievements of the project and communicated with local stakeholders. The lessons-learned for the local scale projects were brought back to project context and conclusions for the whole Danube basin were made joint-ly. Through this, the project results could be reflected in pilot areas; the flood risk awareness of local stakeholders and even local public was increased and feedback from the local level could be incorporated to the transnational level. An important result was obtained by one of the Romanian teams which developed a Decision Support System for flood risk management applied to Lower Danube on the Romani-an territory. Reflection of the EU Flood Directive: Input for EU working group on floods (WG F) and ICPDR Flood Protection Expert Group from the project results and experiences and based on the pilot implementa-tion of the “handbook on good practices for flood mapping in Europe” compiled by the EU exchange circles on flood risk mapping. Major feedback has been given on the Floods Directive, especially on stakeholder involvement e.g. from the International Workshop on Stakeholder involvement in Bucharest in April 2012. As result a docu-ment on strategies and best practice for stakeholder involvement in flood risk projects has been sent to the “Working Group on Floods” of the EU commission (Sep. 2012).

3.2 Target groups and territorial dimension of achievements (ca. 1500 characters)

9

Please describe the groups targeted and the territorial dimension of the project achieve-ments by indicating:

• The main target groups that benefit from the achievements, explaining also if all planned target groups have been reached and are able to use the project results and in case not, provide the reasons (also the description should highlight how the different target groups are using the project results).

• On which territorial level(s) (local, regional, national) have the project outputs / results been implemented / applied and how.

The most relevant stakeholders were involved into the project as project partners. Furthermore, the target group defined in the Application Form were directly ad-dressed in Workshops and Conferences and within the pilot projects: national and regional spatial planning authorities, regional development agencies, communities in flood risk areas, water management authorities, NGOs. A further very important stakeholder and target group for the project was the ICPDR, which also functioned as a multiplicator for further stakeholders in the Danube basin. Moreover, the results of the project aim partly to the scientific world (Data harmonisa-tion and joint method, pilot project Galati and pilot project Drava). The key product, the DANUBE FLOODRISK Atlas, is aiming at the broad public in flood-prone areas in the Danube basin. The Atlas raises the citizen’s awareness for flood risks. Also, the pilot project Krems and the pilot Giurgiu integrated the local public in their activities. The project worked out general guidelines and recommendations for local stakehold-er’s involvement in Workshops, with questionnaires and by collection of lessons-learned. The results are summarised in the “Common stakeholder involvement strat-egy for the Danube Floodplain”. The pilot projects can provide further specific and more practical experiences with involving the target groups. E.g. the pilots in Krems and in Giurgiu followed a very far-reaching participatory approach, reaching all rele-vant target groups within the pilot areas.

3.2.1 Project implementation area Please, define the geographic location of the project implementation by indicating the NUTS III level codes1 of areas where the key, content related project activities and results (but not project meetings, conferences, etc.), especially of the pilot activities were deliv-ered, highlighting (make a short note) also, if the location of pilots / deliverables are differ-ent from the location of the involved project partners’.

Description of pilot activity / main project result Location

NUTS III code1

Harmonized data and methods All involved regions

1 Annex 1 contains the list of NUTS III codes of those SEE countries involved in the NUTS system. In case of countries, not applying the NUTS system, please indicate the name of the NUTS III equivalent territory (AL – county / Qark; BA - kanton; MD – statistical region; RS – district / okrug; UA – raion). In case of countries outside of the SEE area, please refer to the EUROSTAT website - http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_PUB_WELC .

10

Joint data base All along the Danube River.

Danube Atlas All along the Danube River.

Joint stakeholder’s involvement strategy All involved regions

Pilot project Krems, Austria AT124

Pilot project Lom, Bulgaria BG312

Pilot project Nikopol, Bulgaria BG314

Pilot project Ruse, Bulgaria BG323

Pilot study Drava, Italy IT10

Pilot project Galati, Romania RO224

Pilot project Cernavoda, Romania RO223

Pilot project Giurgiu, Romania RO314

3.3 Output and result indicators Please provide a qualitative description on the most relevant final output and result indica-tors reached by the project (in reference to the outputs listed in table 3.3.1), giving short information about its content as well as how and by whom it is used. Explain if targets are reached / not reached / exceeded. (ca. 2000 characters)

The most important final output and result indicators are

• No of common collection of flood hazard and risk maps (Atlas): The Danube Floodrisk Atlas with flood hazard and risk maps has been accomplished: the Atlas is used for information and awareness raising in the Danube floodplain. The Atlas contains the whole Danube stream from the source to its delta and displays haz-ard maps with flood levels of 100-year flood and extreme floods. All partner coun-tries as well as the ICPDR will use and distribute the Atlas further.

• No of common methodologies adopted: this indicator is also reached: In order to produce the hazard and risk maps for the Atlas, a common methodology had to be agreed upon. All countries along the Danube have agreed and a joint Manual was written. It will be used as guide for harmonising data and building hazard and risk maps in further regions by the responsible organisations and stakeholders.

• No of advanced tools and methodologies adopted to improve knowledge man-agement within the partnership: No of common data base about flood risk infor-mation: the data collected from all countries in the Danube basin was harmonised to calculate joint maps of flood hazard and risks. The harmonised data has been put in a database, which is being used by the respective countries as well as by the ICPDR. The indicator is reached.

• No of pilot actions implemented: 8 pilot projects have been reached: 1 in Austria, 3 in Bulgaria, 1 in Italy and 3 in Romania. The results are further used by the stakeholders in the pilot areas (especially the local maps produced and measures developed) and beyond (especially the newly tested tools and methods). This in-dicator is reached.

11

3.3.1 Complete the table below inserting the project output and result indicators as out-

lined in the approved Application Form and indicating, if those have all been achieved. If some of the outputs or results have only partially, or not been achieved, the justification should be included in the last column.

Outputs Target Achieve-

ment Justification/Comment

1 No of articles/appearances published in the press and in other media (including online media, TV, radio)

53 45 Different articles about flood risk management published for publicity by partners (in regional con-text); scientific papers; information in newspapers about the pilot actions.

2 No of press conferences 3 3 Press conf. at events: Ro-mania start-up, Galati, Bulgaria, Final Event

3 Average of hits per month on the operation’s website

30.000 Ca. 3.000 As counted by the web page tools; the no. esti-mated in the application was unrealistically high by a factor 10; it seems that the factor 10 was a mis-take.

4 No of publications pro-duced (editions, specify: e.g. folder, newsletter, bro-chure, report, guideline, handbook)

13 16 6 Newsletters, 2 flyers, 8 Brochures: WP3 (harmoni-sation of the results), WP6 (harmonization of the methodology for atlas print-ing), Pilot Brochure, Stake strategy, WGF recommen-dation report, WGF pro-ceedings, abstract booklet, success story

5 No of transnational events implemented

5 5 Venice, Trento, Bratislava, Stakeholder Workshop Bucharest, Bucharest-final Conference

6 No of national events im-plemented

7 7 Calimanesti, Tulcea, Bu-charest, Trento, Viena (January 2012 and March 2012)

7 No of regional events im-plemented

9 9 In the pilot regions: project meetings with regional stakeholders and pubic information meetings: Pilot Krems (4), Galati (2) and Giurgiu (3); not counted: small coordination meet-ings.

8 No of study visits organised 0 -- --

12

Outputs Target Achieve-ment

Justification/Comment

9 No of studies realised 5 6 Scoping Study on Pilot Regions (WP7), Pilot Ac-tions Evaluation Study (WP7), Data Harmonisa-tion Study (WP3), Risk Mapping Harmonisation Study (WP3), Final report, Summary Reports of the WP5 and WP 6

10 No of guidelines produced 2 4 1 Debris Flow Mapping guidelines, 1 WGF Final report (on Stakeholder Involvement), Harmonisa-tion Manual (WP3); Risk Mapping Manual/Guideline (WP3)

11 No of management plans developed

0 -- --

12 No of joint action plans produced

1 (1) (indirectly from the partner-ship: Contribution to the Flood Risk Management Action Plan of the ICPDR; coordinated by the observ-er partner ICPDR together with the participating mem-ber states in the project).

13 No of databases created or improved

5 6 1 joint data base to collect all data for Atlas Map pro-duction; 5 national data bases keeping the hydrau-lic and hydrological data of the participating countries (to prepare for displaying data to the joint data base).

14 No of training events, sem-inars organised

10 8 4 in Romania (by UTCB), 1 in Rome (with methodology training), 2 training events in Slovakia (Bratislava, June 12), 1 in Hungary (Sept 11)

15 No of participants involved in training events and sem-inars

150 160 In average 20 per training event

16 No of individuals that partic-ipated in exchange schemes

0 -- --

17 No of promotion concepts 1 2 Communication plan for DANUBE FLOODRISK, Logo development

18 No of promotion activities 10 10 3 RO, 2 BG, 1 SK, 1 AT, 1 HU, 1 HR, 1 RS

13

Outputs Target Achieve-ment

Justification/Comment

19 No of services developed 0 -- --

20 No of small scale infrastruc-ture projects

0 -- --

21 No of person in charge for administration of projects

25 28 Average in the project life time (changing persons): per project partner 2 per-sons (project administra-tion, acquisition, financial management, reporting etc.); plus IPA partners (1 each)

22 No of project meetings held 32 21 The no. is lower than esti-mated because working group meetings of the WG STAKE, WG HARM and WG Pilots were regularly held together to reduce efforts and expenses; no. includes 4 preparation meetings and 2 meetings held in combination with conferences.

23 No of common collection of flood hazard and risk maps (Atlas)

1 1 Hazard and Risk Atlas produced and published 2012

Results Target Achieve-ment

Justification/Comment

1 No of permanent infor-mation sources / channels in operation (e.g. websites, regular publications)

1 1 www.DANUBE-FLOODRISK.eu (including external information and the project-internal project management system)

2 No of individuals reached directly through dissemina-tion outputs in the co-operation area

16.548 25.000 The target no. was an addi-tion of the individual esti-mations of the PP; the achieved no. is calculated as total of people in the pilot areas (households) potentially affected by floods and being part of the local management activi-ties in the pilot actions.

3 No of administrative actors reached directly through dissemination outputs in the cooperation area

400 400 No. of civil servants work-ing on flood risk manage-ment in the project area, directly being in contact with risk mapping (thus directly reached at least by the disseminated Danube

14

Results Target Achieve-ment

Justification/Comment

Risk Atlas).

4 No of private sector actors reached directly through dissemination outputs in the cooperation area

80 80 Businesses and industry in flood risk areas involved in pilot projects (especially businesses in the harbour pilot area in Krems, Galati and Giurgiu)

5 No of SME reached directly through dissemination out-puts in the co-operation area

0 -- --

6 No of advanced tools and methodologies adopted to increase the projects visibil-ity among experts and wid-er communities, the public (additionally description

0 -- --

7 No of common positions / agreements formulated

2 3 Common position on data harmonisation (Harmonisa-tion manual); common position on flood risk map-ping (Risk Mapping Manu-al); convention on data exchange and common geodatabase (signed)

8 No of common methodolo-gies adopted

1 2 Common methodology on data, data management and data processing as well as common methodol-ogy on Risk Map produc-tion

9 No of strategies adopted at governmental level

0 -- --

10 No of innovative products developed

1 1 Common international ge-odatabase

11 No of regional/local policies and instruments improved or developed

8 8 Planning policies and plan-ning instruments improved in the 8 pilot activities

12 No of common standards established (e.g. through new guidelines)

3 3 Data harmonisation stand-ards, risk mapping stand-ards; Hydrological pro-cessing standards (applied by Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia)

13 No of new tools / instru-ments developed

0 1 Decision Support Tool for the identification of the polders to be flooded in order to decrease the wa-ter level at Galati (pilot

15

Results Target Achieve-ment

Justification/Comment

project Galati, Romania).

14 No of impact studies on environmental issues car-ried out (e.g. in pre-investment projects)

0 -- --

15 No of pilot actions prepared (first application)

8 8 8 (3 RO, 3 BG, 1 AT, 1 IT)

16 No of pilot actions imple-mented (first application)

8 8 8 (3 RO, 3 BG, 1 AT, 1 IT)

17 No permanent exchange programmes established

0 -- --

18 No of staff members with increased capacity (aware-ness / knowledge / skills)

60 > 60 All civil servants involved in project activities, especially in the pilot actions; im-proved capacity regarding flood risk management, working with flood risk maps and using data ba-ses.

19 No of advanced tools and methodologies adopted to improve knowledge man-agement within the partner-ship (additionally descrip-tion necessary)

1 1 Homepage of Danube Floodrisk was used for exchanging documents and news about the status of work. Also data and background information was exchanged via the “project management serv-er”

20 No of regions proactively promoted

0 -- --

21 No of common manage-ment structures / systems established

1 1 The whole partnership is a new network (management structure) of flood risk management authorities along the Danube river

22 No of individuals benefiting directly from new / im-proved services

0 -- --

23 No of investment proposals developed (if possible specify volume of invest-ment

0 -- --

24 No of private market reac-tions achieved (e.g. private activities mobilized)

0 -- --

25 No of investment projects implemented (specify vol-ume of investment)

0 -- --

16

Results Target Achieve-ment

Justification/Comment

26 No of infrastructures of common interest improved

0 -- --

3.3.2 Indicate in the table below which Programme indicators have the project contribut-

ed to, describing how and quantifying also the specific contribution. Please, con-sider that contribution to a certain result indicator is possible in accordance with the project objectives and the effect of the project should be thoroughly explained.

Results indicators (Y/N) Explanation/Comment

P1: Total no. of contributions to facilitated innovation, entrepreneurship, knowledge economy and enhanced integration and economic relations in the co-operation area

No. of contributions to established technology and innovation oriented networks in specific technology fields

N N/A

No. of contributions to more effec-tive provision of collective business and innovation support especially for SME

N N/A

No. of contributions to improved innovation governance and in-creased public awareness with regard to innovation

N N/A

P2: Total no. of contributions to protected and improved environment No. of contributions to improved integrated water management and flood risk prevention structures and systems

Y The project contributed to the indicator significantly: the major aim of the project was fulfilled: high quality, stakeholder oriented flood hazard and risk maps were developed and produced for the Danube river floodplains to provide adequate risk information for spatial planning and eco-nomic requests.

No. of contributions to improved transnational risk prevention struc-tures and systems

Y The project has succeeded, that all coun-tries along the Danube have agreed on a joint method for the maps. Moreover, a harmonised database of flood risk rele-vant data now exists. The transnational cooperation of all relevant stakeholders and countries represented has reached to build up a network on flood risk preven-tion experts.

No. of contributions to co-ordinated activities on management schemes of natural assets and protected areas

N N/A

No. of contributions to co-ordinated activities on energy and resource efficient technologies, services and

N N/A

17

policies P3: Total no. of contributions to the co-ordinated preparation of accessibility networks and supported multi-modality No. of contributions to the co-ordinated promotion, planning and operation of primary and secondary transportation networks

N N/A

No. of contributions to co-ordinated activities to lessen the digital divide among states and regions especial-ly in the case of market failure

N N/A

No. of contributions to co-ordinated activities for increased efficiency of existing transport and to the stimu-lated shift to environmentally friend-ly transportation systems

N N/A

P4: Total no. of contributions to developed and implemented integrated strategies for metropolitan areas and regional systems of settlements, optimised polycentric struc-tures in the area and used cultural values for sustainable development No. of contributions to built up and disseminated strategies, skills and knowledge and pilot action for tack-ling crucial problems affecting met-ropolitan areas and regional sys-tems of settlements

N N/A

No. of contributions to the provision of partners with new tools for the formulation of their role and the formation of new partnerships for functional growth areas

N N/A

No. of contributions to improved joint conservation and better utilisa-tion of cultural values for develop-ment and sustainable tourism

N N/A

4 PARTNERSHIP Evaluate the transnational cooperation within the partnership and highlight the different aspects of added value of the transnational cooperation approach (ca. 3000 characters) by:

• Assessing the overall cooperation of the partnership as well as roles and in-volvement of partners in the project, and indicating if all partners have made the planned inputs to the project;

• Describing (if relevant) the experience of cooperating with project partners fund-ed by IPA sources;

• Specifying (if relevant) the benefit of the project and the SEE territory in general of involving 20% ERDF PPs, or Associated Strategic Partners (10% PP, EU ASP, 20% ASP) in the partnership;

18

• Outlining what has been achieved by the project which could not have been achieved individually or bilaterally at only local, regional or national level;

• Explaining if the cooperation achieved to generate coordination across different sectors (including sectoral policies) and across different levels of administration (from local and regional to national and EU level);

• Detailing if the project partnership established synergies with other projects in other EU cooperation areas/programmes and if other types of actors and/or or-ganizations have been involved (networks established) beyond the project part-nership and how.

The partnership was including all relevant organisations along the Danube to reach the goals of Flood Risk Map production for all stretches and stakeholder involvement. The partnership structure of public administrations and scientific organisations as well as NGOs was well balanced to get sufficient technical, political and scientific support. The project partner’s responsibility covered the Danube River in its full length. The broad structure of the partnership provided (beside the major named ad-vantages) also challenges: in general, the partnership learned a lot from each other, each type of organisation could bring in its strength; the Partner DEF from Hungary was, as NGO, specifically involved in the integration of stakeholders from the Danube basin. The research organisations could provide more updated and innovative meth-ods and had the capacities to involve strongly in testing approaches. Whereas the public administrations were very important to provide the political and countries’ per-spectives and views. They were also crucial when handling with data and national approaches. A challenge for the partnership was the multicultural and multilingual consistence of the group; like in all transnational projects, the working groups had to overcome the language barrier with patience and partly time consuming negotiations. But the pro-ject coordinators and work group leaders managed to reach both: constructive scien-tific disputes and common understanding of each other’s stakes in the project. Significant for flood risk management projects in international river basins are differ-ent views on common solutions depending on the location of the PP: upstream-downstream conflicts often result from this. The DANUBE FLOODRISK project man-aged to build a common platform for common solutions despite national, scientific or cultural differences. The framework of the funding project helped a lot to form a part-nership on flood risk management! The involvement of the IPA Partners and associated partners was far more difficult than expected. Due to formal and budget problems the IPA Partners had problems to take part in the project’s workshops. Nevertheless, both the IPA and the associated partners were regularly informed about the project’s status and results; the joint products of the project, like the data base and the Atlas, were finalised with the con-tribution from the IPA and associated countries, Serbia and Germany. Thus all part-ner regions, including IPA-countries and Germany (as observers) contributed to the data management and Risk Atlas production so that all the area is covered by the atlas. Therefore, the involvement of the IPA and associated partners has paid out well and can overall be regarded as success.

5 SUSTAINABILITY AND FOLLOW-UP

19

5.1 Sustainability and mainstreaming of project results Provide an outline on the sustainability of project results, their transferability and long-lasting effects (ca. 3000 characters) describing:

• Which measures have already been realised for ensuring the sustainability of the project results in the medium/longer term (please consider the 3 dimensions of sustainability - financial/institutional/political)?

• If and which “next steps” after project closure are envisaged for ensuring the sus-tainability of the project results in the medium/longer term?

• If and how project results have been mainstreamed and/or integrated into policy at local, regional, national or European level? How the results of pilot projects (if applicable) are / will be transferred within the involved partner regions and main-streamed beyond the partnership? Will further mainstreaming and transfer of re-sults to other organisations/ regions/ countries beyond the partnership be achieved?

• Will the partnership / involved stakeholders continue to cooperate on the issue the project dealt with?

With the completion of the ETC funded period end of October 2012 the follow activi-ties based on the FLOODRISK atlas start: the maps that show WHERE the greatest risk is, are now one basis for risk management, though further aspects have to be regarded as well, e.g. national GDP. The great challenges from now on are, - communicating the risk to local and regional actors - dealing with the risk in planning and decision making in practice and - actually reducing the existing risks! Pilot actions on these objectives delivered exemplary solutions. The project partners now form a network which is ready to do the next steps. For the future the framework conditions are: • The ICPDR already serves successfully as coordinator and platform – further

steps in flood risk management can build up on DANUBE FLOODRISK results. • The Danube Strategy aims at better coordination and cooperation between the

countries and regions to address economic, social and environmental challenges; it raises the importance of this European Region, it delivers an important platform for international cooperation – although it does not come with extra EU finance.

• The next funding programme period 2014 – 2021 should offer financial perspec-tives for the region; the new funding area Southeast Europe will (hopefully) inte-grate all parts of the Danube River Basin. It is expected that flooding topics and flood risk management in the transnational context of the international Danube River Basin will be an objective also of the next operational program.

Altogether this means that the framework conditions for success for international co-operation on joint flood risk management strategies and measures in the future in the Danube River basin are developed. And it means that – not looking to all administra-tive and practical lacks the partners faced – there must be a positive vision for long term consolidation for a project based cooperation on flood risk management. Concerning the sustainability and mainstreaming of the specific results, the project

20

has achieved a lot: for the first time not only the DANUBE FLOODRISK Atlas, cover-ing the whole river Danube, has been finalised. Also a common dataset has been developed. Both results will in future be further used by the partner countries and the ICPDR. The produced flood hazard and risk maps are available in printed version (Atlas) at all Partner organisations, who received copies which are distributed in their countries. The maps are also available via website; this enables also the affected public and further interested stakeholders to assess the maps. The project produced also high-quality results in the pilot projects; specific local maps were produced for Giurgiu, RO; Krems, AT; Lom, Nikopol and Ruse in BG. New methods have been developed and tested for Drava, IT; Galati, RO. Both the local scale maps and the new methods and tools will be further used in the pilot areas and beyond. E.g. the results of the Krems, AT pilot project were well received also be-yond the pilot area: another city (Ybbs, Austria) has shown interest in the risk maps and measures developed. Also, the city of Belene in Bulgaria was included into the pilot project process later, after they had shown great interest in the activities in Lom and Nikopol, BG. The project managed also to create a partnership in the field of water management, which consists of all countries and relevant stakeholders in the Danube basin. This network will not end after the DANUBE FLOODRISK project, but intends to work to-gether in the future as well. For this a first discussion round on possible topics in the cooperation took place at the last meeting in Bucharest.

5.2 Impacts List the impacts that the project has already had (e.g. territorial cohesion and socio-economic / environmental impacts) and provide qualitative and (if possible) quantitative information. Please, also indicate whether the results of the project will have impacts in the foreseeable future (next 1-5 years). The description should, in particular, cover the following issues (ca. 3000 characters):

• If and at which level the project results will stimulate policy improvements and/or the adoption of new policies (regional/national/EU)?

• The possibility to induce any future investments from the project results by short-ly describing investments also identifying who will execute it, quantifying their volume and indicating the respective financing sources?

• If and how the project results generated new jobs or will new jobs be created in the near future?

The DANUBE FLOODRISK project was set up to create the ground for safer, risk adapted development and to reduce potential loss of lives, economic values, ecologic values and cultural heritage that are endangered by floods in future. Thus tangible, quantitative countable and direct impacts on economic or demographic as well as en-vironmental situations during the project life time are not foreseen. However, the project’s impacts can be summarised as follows: 1. Short term On short term the project delivers an important information basis for planning authori-ties, developers of economic and urban areas and infrastructure and for decision maker about the flood risk situation in development areas. The short term impact shall be an improved planning approach that takes flood risks better into consideration than until date. Public budgets can be saved if wrong decisions that increase the risk and

21

the potential losses in the case of floods are prevented due to the flood risk infor-mation as delivered by the project. Additional investments and growth of economy cannot be expected as impact of this type of project but improvement of investments and increased sustainability of public and private investments are one of the key impacts of the project. Regarding policy two impacts are expected: the implementation of the EU flood di-rective aims at international river basin wide cooperation and coordination. For the Danube River this cooperation on flood risk management is significantly improved by the DANUBE FLOODRISK project. Local and regional policies on economic, environmental or spatial developments can be adjusted and improved to the flood risk situation. Building policy and planning poli-cy should take the flood risk information of the DANUBE FLOODRSK project into con-sideration. 2. Medium term The implementation of the European DANUBE strategy is an important development factor for the SEE region. The results of the DANUBE FLOODRISK project can sup-port the process of cooperation in all water related issues of the Danube Strategy. Water management authorities in the Danube River basin can build their cooperation up on the network that was created in DANUBE FLOODRISK. 3. Long term Depending on the future results of climate change research the impacts of climate change might be fundamental for all water related areas, also in SEE. The problem of increasing draughts and low water problems in the Danube is not tackled by transna-tional projects yet. Here the network of DANUBE FLOODRISK partners is a good starting point for future studies and strategies regarding adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Regarding the possibility of increasing floods as consequence of climate change DANUBE FLOODRISK already delivered an important basis for future concepts: the risk areas identified and mapped in the project already show the problem area if cli-mate change will increase the floods. This means that the project already creates a fundament for long term strategies on climate change in the Danube River basin. Explicit impacts of these adaptation strategies cannot be named yet in detail due to high uncertainties of climate change prognosis.

6 PUBLICITY, VISIBILITY AND CAPITALISATION POTENTIAL Communication and Dissemination Briefly summarise the measures taken with regard to the communication and dissemina-tion of project results. Please also include information on additional measures planned for the future (ca. 1500 characters):

• Measures undertaken to raise awareness and to inform the general public on project topics and activities highlighting the results achieved in the field of publici-ty and visibility.

• If all planned target groups of communication have been reached by the project publicity and in case not, what were the reasons?

22

• Follow-up activities planned to disseminate project results • Project results most relevant in terms of capitalisation (new, innovative ap-

proaches/methodologies and tools, good practices) and the level of their visibility achieved by project publicity.

To raise awareness and to inform the general public on project topics and activities, the project has undertaken the following actions:

• Regularly updating of the project Website

• Contributions to newsletters and scientific publications

• Press releases

• Production of two project flyers and several project posters

• Regular Workshops and Conferences As the target groups of the project consists mainly of all stakeholders relevant in the field of flood risk management - national and regional authorities, agencies, commu-nities in flood risk areas and NGOs – they have been reached by the Workshops and conferences and by the communication and dissemination work done in the respec-tive countries. A key stakeholder for the project was the ICPDR, which involved greatly in the project activities and therefore ensured optimal dissemination and capi-talisation of results. Project results most relevant in terms of capitalisation:

• Danube Atlas: high visibility, but finished only in the final phase of the project. Website was built with all maps to reach general public.

• Joint method and harmonised database: high visibility achieved for the re-spective target group: water management authorities and ICPDR; not target-ed to the public.

After the project the websites (project website and Atlas website with maps) will be available longer and all relevant project publications are also printed, published and send to all relevant organisations. A number of scientific papers will continue to be published even after the end of the project.

7 CONTRIBUTION TO THE HORIZONTAL POLICIES OF THE EU 7.1 Sustainable development Briefly describe the approaches, actions and contributions of the project to sustainable development. Consider the aspects of the three interlinked objectives of the Sustainable Development Strategy of the EU: environmental protection, social equity and cohesion and economic prosperity. (ca. 1000 characters)

The project improved flood risk management and flood risk prevention in the Danube basin. This was achieved by developing a joint method for risk mapping and data harmonisation as well as bringing the relevant stakeholders together. The manage-ment of environmental risks is crucial for the sustainability of a region; also, when

23

regarding the future impacts of climate change, flood risk prevention is a key issue for adaptation in the EU. An effective flood risk management is moreover a prerequisite for economic development and competitiveness: many economic activities are bound to sites close to rivers (industrial sites, shipping, tourism, etc.) and these are endan-gered by floods. In the project activities (esp. pilot projects) the existing urban and economic structures were also assessed; jointly, measures to improve flood risk pre-vention were worked out and awareness was raised. The involvement of all relevant stakeholders and target groups in the project, raised awareness on the topic of flood risks in the area. Additionally, as all countries of the Danube basin were involved in the project and stakeholders from all countries were integrated, the cooperation and cohesion in the region was strengthened.

The Floodrisk project has received the „Danube Region Strategy Relevance“ label from Priority Area 5 of the EUSDR. Also the Atlas is considered as one of the first outputs of the EUSDR. For further information please see http://www.danube-region.eu/pages/reports.

7.2 Equal opportunities Briefly describe the approaches, actions, contributions and influence of the project on equal opportunities. Consider those aspects of equal opportunities that are described in the SEE Guidelines on horizontal themes (SEE Implementation Manual – annex 4). (ca. 1000 characters)

The DANUBE FLOODRISK project had a neutral impact on equal opportunities and non-discrimination. Especially the results of the flood risk assessment and the hazard and risk maps produced will be available and accessible for all groups and people interested: the details on the joint method and the harmonisation of data are available on the project website and were additionally distributed to interested target groups as printed publication. The DANUBE FLOODRISK Atlas is available as printed publica-tion and via a website.

The harmonization of data and methods was done on the basis of scientific standards and regardless of the aspects of economic conditions, ethnic origin, sex, religion, age and sexual orientation of the population in the Danube river basin.

8 LOCATION OF PROJECT DOCUMENTATION AND DELIVERABLES Please, indicate the location of project documentation and deliverables that are to be re-tained for audit purposes in accordance with Article 10.2 of the Subsidy Contract by each project partner. In case the storing place is different from the location of the PP, please highlight this, providing also contact details of a person / unit responsible for storing the documentation. PP No.

Name of PP organisation Location of project doc-uments and deliverables

Contact details

(Phone; email address)

24

(Name – in case different from the PP’s - address of organisation)

LP Ministry of Environment 12 Libertatii Blv, Sec-tor 5, 040129 Bucharest, Romania

ERDF PP1

Federal Environment Agency Austria Ltd.

Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria

+43 (1) 31304; office@umweltbundesamt.at

ERDF PP2

via donau, Austrian Wa-terway Company

Donau-City-Straße 1, 1220 Vienna, Austria

+43 (0) 50 4321 – 1000; office@via-donau.org

ERDF PP3

Ministry of Environment and Water

22, Maria Louisa St, 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria

ERDF PP4

Withdrawn 01.03.2011

ERDF PP5

OVF (successor of VKKI)

Márvány u. 1/D. Buda-pest H-1012, Hungary

Csaba Daczi Daczi.Csaba@ovf.hu

ERDF PP6

“VITUKI” Environmental and Water Management Research Institute Non-profit Ltd.

Kvassay J. út 1., Bu-dapest, H-1096, Hun-gary

Dr Péter Bakonyi vituki@vituki.hu

ERDF PP7

Danube Environmental Forum

Déri Sétány 13. III. 4., 6500 Baja, Hungary

ERDF PP8

Italian National Institute for Environmental Protec-tion and Research

Via Vitaliano Brancati 48, 00144 Rome, Italy

ERDF PP9

Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bu-charest

Bd. Lacul Tei 124, 020396 Bucharest, Romania

ERDF PP10

Administratia Nationala Apele Romane („Roma-nian Water” National Administration)

Edgar Quinet, No. 6 Sector 1, 010018 Bucharest, Romania

ERDF PP11

INSTITUTUL NATIONAL DE CERCETARE – DEZVOLTARE “DELTA DUNARII” (DANUBE DELTA” NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT)

BABADAG STREET, NO. 165 820112 Tulcea, Ro-mania

ERDF PP12

Centrul pentru Politici Economice Durabile de Mediu (Centre for Envi-ronmentally Sustainable Economic Policy)

45 Lt Av. Ghe. Negel, Sector 6, 060131 Bu-charest, Romania

Phone: 0040722690227; Fax: 0378106933; office@cesep.ro

25

ERDF PP13

Slovenský vodohospo-dársky podnik, štátny podnik (Slovak Water Management Enterprise, state enterprise)

Nam. gen. M.R. Štefánika 1, 01071 Žilina, Slovakia

+421 41 562 29 00; gr@svp.sk

ContactLead 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

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)

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)

Project partners

Stakeholder oriented f lood risk assessment for the Danube f loodplains

© EuroGeographics 2001