1 / 20

Flood Mapping Workshop: Sharing Methods and Addressing Directive

This workshop in Dublin aimed to share information on flood mapping methods and discuss the mapping aspects of the Floods Directive. Key outcomes include improved capacity in flood mapping and recommendations for the working group.

darrellh
Download Presentation

Flood Mapping Workshop: Sharing Methods and Addressing Directive

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008

  2. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • WORKSHOP OVERVIEW • KEY OUTCOMES

  3. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • ORGANISING COMMITTEE • Ireland • Commission • France • Germany • UK

  4. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • PARTICIPANTS • 76 Participants • 22 European Countries • Commission • 5 International Organisations

  5. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES: • Sharing of Information on Methods & Recent Developments in Flood Mapping (WG F Objective) • Discuss / Draw Conclusions on Mapping Aspects of ‘Floods’ Directive (FRMD) • Answer / Address the Key Workshop Questions • Raise Other Key Issues / Questions • Report Conclusions to WG F

  6. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • PROGRAMME – SESSION THEMES • 1: Workshop Introduction • 2: Flood Mapping Requirements • 3: Scope of Mapping Requirements • 4: Trans-National Mapping • 5: Mapping for PFRA • 6: Reporting • 7: Advances in Mapping & Research • 8: Discussion / Conclusions

  7. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • SESSION STRUCTURE • Plenary: Presentation of Papers • Break-Out Groups • Specific Questions to Address • Focus on Outcomes • Key Views and Conclusions • Recommendations (for WG F) • Outstanding Issues / Open Questions • Plenary: Group Feedback & Discussion

  8. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • WORKSHOP OUTCOMES • Improved Capacity in MS re. Flood Mapping, Particularly in Meeting Requirements of FRMD • Basis for Common Understanding, Where Possible • Workshop Report: For WG F & MS • Summary of discussions (views and conclusions, recommendations, outstanding questions) • Papers • Recommendations for WG F

  9. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • REPORT STRUCTURE (DRAFT) • Vol I: • Workshop / Report Overview • Key Questions & Programme • Session Reports (Abstracts, Conclusions) • Summary: Conclusions, Questions, Recommendations • Vol II: • List of Participants • Records of Session Breakout Groups • Full Papers (tbc)

  10. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • WORKSHOP OVERVIEW • KEY OUTCOMES • Key outcomes summarised here in 8 Themes • Full set of comments in Break-out Group Records (Vol. II)

  11. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • KEY OUTCOMES: Sources of Flooding • [C3-1] Flood risk from all sources need to be assessed under the PFRA, and, • [C3-2] may need to be mapped where significant (Art. 5), but, • [C3-3] it may not be possible to map all sources to the same standard (e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative definition of probability)

  12. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • KEY OUTCOMES: Sources of Flooding • [OQ3-1] A ‘common’ list of all potential sources of flooding might be useful for MS • [R3-1] Workshop in CZ should include sessions on assessment of risk from other sources

  13. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • KEY OUTCOMES: PFRA • [C5-1] Mapping required for PFRA is limited to Art. 4(2)(a) and reporting of APSRs • [C5-3] Historic data may be of limited value • [C5-4] GIS-based techniques available for indicative, predictive mapping • [C5-5] Absence of risk receptors valid as reason for not designating APSRs • [OQ5-1] Does ‘significant’ in Art. 4(2) have same meaning as in Art. 5(1)?

  14. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • KEY OUTCOMES: Flood Event Probabilities • [C2-7] MS do have flexibility in definition of flood event probabilities (Art. 6(3)) • [OQ2-7/8] Can different probabilities be defined for diff. areas or types of flooding? • [R2-3 / 3-2] Further consideration required re. • Definition of ‘extreme’ events (c.f., use of term in WFD), • Approach / requirements for mapping for tsunamis & dam break (‘ultra-extreme’?)

  15. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • KEY OUTCOMES: Transboundary Maps • [C4-1/2] Various transboundary coordination issues (technical / organisational) to be considered for flood mapping (see report) • [R4-1] Each transboundary situation is different, and coordination needs to be considered within specific context (no ‘one size fits all’ solution) • [C4-3] Should make use of existing transboundary structures (International Commissions, WFD arrangements, etc.)

  16. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • KEY OUTCOMES: Transitional Measures • [C2-3] Eligible maps will need to comply with minimum requirements of Directive, but flexibility is required for Risk Maps (different risk indicators), while noting spirit of Art. 13 • [C2-4] Art. 13(2) may be used for different parts of territory, or for different types of map • [OQ2-4/6] Clarity required on eligibility ref. coordination with WFD, and on requirements on format and content

  17. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • KEY OUTCOMES: Reporting • [C6-1] Reporting of maps may best be achieved through WISE / national systems linked to WISE • [C6-5] The scale of mapping should be selected to reflect end-use, rather than to facilitate reporting • [R5-1, 6-1] Reporting formats for PFRA and maps should be developed as soon as possible • [R6-2] MS should contribute to development of reporting formats and INSPIRE

  18. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • KEY OUTCOMES: Vulnerability • [C7-2] There is a lack of understanding on measurement of some aspects of risk (e.g., environmental, cultural, indirect social) • [R2-1] Further information exchange / joint research is required on vulnerability assessment / risk indicators for these aspects of risk

  19. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008 • KEY OUTCOMES: Research Needs • [R7-2] Various other research needs have been identified (see report) • [C7-1] Joint research should be linked to policy needs, and build on existing work (e.g., CRUE, FloodSite) • [R7-3] Communication / dissemination of research between MS needs to be further improved, making use of websites / databases (e.g., CRUE / CRUISE)

  20. Working Group FThematic Workshop on Flood MappingDublin, 17 – 19 September, 2008

More Related