See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272827384

Emerging approaches for future flood management

Conference Paper · May 2007

CITATIONS READS

0 115

1 author:

Paul Graham Samuels

HR Wallingford
118 PUBLICATIONS 1,732 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Graham Samuels on 27 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Emerging approaches for future flood management
Paul Samuels CEng CMath FIMA MICE MCIWEM
Technical Director
HR Wallingford, Howbery Park, Wallingford, OXON OX10 8BA
Coordinator of FP6 Integrated Project FLOODsite
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
This paper describes the European research project FLOODsite and its relationship to the proposed EU
Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks. FLOODsite is providing underpinning
applied scientific developments which support the move in policy from flood management to flood
risk management through a combination of research in risk analysis, sustainable risk management, and
integration of knowledge. The developments are being made in the context of pilot studies of river,
estuary and coastal flooding at several locations in France, Germany, Spain, the Czech Republic, the
Netherlands, Hungary and the UK. The paper provides an update on the research progress so far; the
project continues until early 2009.

Key Words
Flood risk management, research and innovation, EU Directive.

Context
Flood management in Europe is changing. There is a move from flood protection and defence to
comprehensive flood risk management. This is reflected in many national policy frameworks such as
the UK (Making Space for Water), and in the Netherlands (Room for the river). Indeed the emphasis
has changed from managing the physical flood to managing flood risks. This change in approach is
evident at the highest level of policy from the proposal for an EU Directive on the assessment and
management of flood risks (Commission for the European Communities, 2006)

To understand why this is so, it is necessary to reflect upon the nature of floods and flood risk. There
are many definitions of the word “flood” and the concept of “flood risk” in use, see for example
(FLOODsite, 2005). The proposed EU Directive contains the following definitions which will be used
in this paper:
 “flood” means temporary covering by water of land not normally covered by water
 “flood risk” means the likelihood of a flood event of a certain severity together with the estimated
damage to human health, the environment and economic activity associated with a flood event of
that severity

This means that flood risk is entirely a human concern; floods are a natural phenomenon being an
integral part of the hydro-meteorological cycle. Without people or (society) to experience the harm
that flooding can cause and give a value to it, there is no risk. Flood risk management does include
flood management (i.e. of the water) but also incorporates other actions and activities to influence the
human and environmental consequences of the flood.

This move to flood risk management requires methodologies to analyse and quantify the level of flood
risk and a comprehensive view of what constitutes the process of flood risk management.

Risk analysis needs to take account of the probability of a flood occurring, the performance of flood
defence infrastructure in mitigating the effects of the flood (or failing to do so) and the consequences
of the inundation on the people, property and environment that is exposed to the flood. Risk analysis
is a method of combining these factors objectively for the current “climate” of flooding and social and
environmental conditions or for some future scenario for these factors.

Paul Samuels Page 1 27 February 2015

Flood risk management practice is the process of achieving acceptable and sustainable levels of flood
risk through a combination of:
 appropriate governance and institutional arrangements,
 implementation of physical and non-structural measures to reduce or mitigate flood risks
 optimising the performance of asset-systems through
o monitoring and appraisal,
o maintenance and operation, and,
o provision, renewal, adaptation, replacement and even decommissioning

Embedded in the above is the need to keep under review the various components of the process to
ensure their effectiveness and to maintain the use of “sound science” by incorporating developments in
knowledge and understanding into practice. It is complex as it involves many actors and stakeholders
with differing needs and perspectives. It also needs to respond to external drivers such as climate
change and societal expectations and values.

The RIBAMOD principles of flood management describe the actions necessary in the three phases of
pre-flood (preventative) measures, flood emergency and post-flood recovery. The RIBAMOD
principles (Kundzewicz and Samuels, 1997) remain appropriate a decade after they were formulated;
they are as follows:
Pre-flood activities which include:
 flood risk management for all causes of flooding
 disaster contingency planning to establish evacuation routes, critical decision thresholds,
public service and infrastructure requirements for emergency operations etc.
 construction of flood defence infrastructure, both physical defences and implementation of
forecasting and warning systems,
 maintenance of flood defence infrastructure
 land-use planning and management within the whole catchment,
 discouragement of inappropriate development within the flood plains, and
 public communication and education of flood risk and actions to take in a flood emergency.
Operational flood management which can be considered as a sequence of four activities:
 detection of the likelihood of a flood forming (hydro-meteorology),
 forecasting of future river flow conditions from the hydro-meteorological observations,
 warning issued to the appropriate authorities and the public on the extent, severity and timing of
the flood, and
 response to the emergency by the public and the authorities.
The post-flood activities may include (depending upon the severity of the event):
 relief for the immediate needs of those affected by the disaster,
 reconstruction of damaged buildings, infrastructure and flood defences,
 recovery and regeneration of the environment and the economic activities in the flooded area,
and
 review of the flood management activities to improve the process and planning for future
events in the area affected and more generally, elsewhere.

One imminent change to flood management policy across the EU will come from agreement on the
current proposal for a Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks and its transposition
into national legislation. The proposed EU Directive is likely to result in the convergence of national
approaches to flood risk assessment and management, however, the European principles of
Subsidiarity and proportionality will allow for physiographic, demographic, economic, cultural,
institutional and historical differences.

Paul Samuels Page 2 27 February 2015

 The proposal for a European Directive
After several months of preparation and consultation the Commission for the European Communities
(2006) published a proposal for a Directive on “the assessment and management of floods”. The
proposed Directive aimed at the reduction of flood-related risks to human health, the environment and
economic activity. It applied to the whole Community territory, and therefore to flood risk
management in both rivers and coastal areas. The proposal for the new Directive was aligned with the
Water Framework Directive. It set out the need for assessments, maps and plans that cover the river
basin district including the borders of the river basins, sub-basins and where appropriate associated
coastal zones through:
 Preliminary flood risk assessment
 Flood risk maps
 Flood risk management plans

On 27 June 2006, the Council of the EU reached political agreement on the draft directive and on 23 rd
November 2006 adopted a Common Position on the assessment and management of flood risks. This
Council of the EU (2006) Common Position is now under active discussion and negotiation with the
European Parliament, and it is to be expected that the final agreed wording of the Directive may differ
in some details from the outline given below. However, there appears to be acceptance of the three
key components of the Council Common Position.
Key elements of the proposed Directive
Preliminary flood risk assessment (Articles 4 & 5)
It is essential that action will only be taken in areas where potential significant flood risks exist or are
reasonably foreseeable in the future. If in a particular river basin, sub-basin or stretch of coastline no
potential significant flood risk exists or is reasonably foreseeable in the future; Member States would
be able to identify them in the preliminary flood risk assessment. For these river basins and/or sub-
basins no further action would have to be taken.
Flood Hazard Maps and Flood risk maps (Article 6)
Flood hazards and risks will be mapped for the river basins and sub-basins with significant potential
risk of flooding for three scenarios
(a) Floods with a low probability or extreme event scenarios
(b) Floods with a medium probability (likely return period > 100 years)
(c) Floods with high probability, where appropriate
The maps may show information related to flood extent, depths and velocity of water and the potential
adverse consequences.
Flood risk management plans (Article 7)
Flood risk management plans will be developed and implemented at river basin or sub-basin level to
reduce and manage the flood risk where identifies as necessary in the preliminary flood risk
assessment. These plans will focus on the reduction of potential adverse consequences of flooding for
human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity, and, if considered
appropriate, on non-structural initiatives and/or on the reduction of the likelihood of flooding.
Boundaries and International Basins (Article 8)
Article 8 covers the boundaries of plans and in particular the need for collaboration between Member
States for international river basins which extend across several Member States or beyond the
boundaries of the Community.
The Implementation of the Directive
Timetable
In the Council Common Position of November 2006, the implementation timetable is set out as:
 the preliminary flood risk assessment should be complete by 22 December 2012;
 the flood hazard and flood risk maps are to be complete by 22 December 2013

Paul Samuels Page 3 27 February 2015

 the flood risk management plans are to be prepared and published by 22 December 2015
 Article 13 gives transitional provisions for the use of existing risk assessments, maps and plans
if these are finalised before 22 December 2010 instead of the dates listed above; however,
 Article 14 requires the revision and updating of the preliminary flood risk assessment by 22
December 2018, the flood hazard maps and of the flood risk maps by 22 December 2019 and
revision of plans by 22 December 2021 and then all updated on a 6 yearly cycle.
Working Group
The procedures for undertaking these activities have yet to be defined and agreed by the competent
authorities in the Member States. Working Group “F” is to be established to set out the detail of
implementation under the Common Implementation Framework of the WFD. It will be important for
the FLOODsite project (described below) to interact with the WG so that the research outcomes can
inform the development of the implementation plans. It is only through this dialogue that the
emerging results of the FLOODsite research project will be mapped onto the requirements of the
implementation process as it is developed within the working group.

Overview of the FLOODsite research project

The “Integrated Project” FLOODsite is the largest ever EC research action on flood risk management,
with an EC grant to the budget of nearly €10 Million. The project, which started in 2004, is scheduled
to take 5 years to complete, and involves approximately 200 researchers from 13 countries. The
project consortium consists of 37 partners including many of Europe’s leading institutes and
universities and involves researchers, practitioners and managers from a range of research, commercial
and government organisations. FLOODsite is interdisciplinary, integrating expertise from across the
environmental and social sciences, as well as technology, spatial planning and management.
FLOODsite covers flood risks from rivers, estuaries and the sea. There are 35 project tasks including
pilot applications in Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands,
Spain and the UK. These are arranged into seven the “Themes” of the project as illustrated in Figure
1 below.

The project will deliver:

 An integrated, European, methodology for the assessment and management of flood risk.
 Consistency of approach to the causes, consequences and management of flood risks from
rivers, estuaries and the sea.
 Techniques and knowledge to support integrated flood risk management in practice.
 Dissemination of this knowledge, including the development of training media.
 Networking and integration with other EC national and international research.

The progress of the project is monitored by three advisory boards:

 The Scientific and Technical Advisory Board considers the scientific quality of the project and
publication of the results,
 The Application and Implementation Board advises on the implementation of the science in
practice, and
 The Project Board overviews the whole project.

Paul Samuels Page 4 27 February 2015

Figure 1 The Themes within FLOODsite

FLOODsite is a research project. It is undertaking predominantly applied research, with elements of

basic research and some pre-competitive technological development. It is not a demonstration of
current technologies, nor a compilation of best practice nor an application of scientific methods to
achieve some site-specific objectives. The outputs of FLOODsite are principally advances in
knowledge and understanding on a variety of issues within the general ream of flood risk management
which have been pilot-tested in the context of some real-life situations.

Some more information on FLOODsite is presented later in this paper and much more is available
from the project website www.floodsite.net.

FLOODsite and the proposed EU Directive

It is clear that FLOODsite is directly relevant to the needs of the proposed Directive. The explanatory
memorandum to the Commission’s first proposal2 for the Directive states:
“European research policy has been supporting research into different components of flood
risk management since the early 1980s through successive Framework Programmes. The
Sixth Framework Programme is supporting the largest ever EU flood research project,
“FLOODsite”, which is developing integrated flood risk analysis and management methods.
The proposed 7th Framework programme will continue to support research on flood risk
assessment and management.”

There is a growing expectation on the contribution of FLOODsite to the implementation of the

proposed Directive in the Assessment and Management of Flood risks, once it is transposed into
national legislation. It is important to identify what should be expected as outcomes for the research
and, of equal importance, what are the boundaries of the contribution of the FLOODsite Integrated
Project. This issue has been raised by both DG Research and DG Environment and the project
reporting at the end of the third project year has set out the relationship between the Integrated Project
and the Directive. However, the wording of the final version of the Directive is still subject to the
process of negotiation and agreement between the Council and Parliament, which is expected to
conclude during 2007. The contents of the following sections should be viewed in that context.

FLOODsite is delivering advances in several areas of direct relevance to the three main activities of
the proposed directives – preliminary flood risk assessment, the preparation of flood risk maps and the
preparation (and implementation) of flood risk management plans. FLOODsite has already

Paul Samuels Page 5 27 February 2015

participated in the Exchange Circles established from the EU Action Programme Stakeholder Group.
The project partners are keen to work with national authorities responsible for the application of the
proposed directive and preparation of the assessments, map and plans.
Potential support for Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment
The preliminary flood risk assessments will be used to identify areas which need to be considered in
more detail through mapping and potentially the preparation of flood risk management plans. In order
to assess flood risk it is necessary identify both the probability and consequences of flooding. Much
of the research in Theme 1 of FLOODsite is relevant in the assessment of flood risk. In terms of
assessing the probability of the flood hazard, the outputs of Task 2 provide up-to-date statistical tools
for looking at the probability of extreme events both at a point and the variation spatially. Where
raised defences are used as flood mitigation measures in an area, it is important to recognise in
quantifying the risk of flooding that all engineered structures will have a finite probability of failure at
less than the design loading but also may have a performance which exceeds the design standard.
Thus Tasks 4, 6 and 7 provide underpinning knowledge and methods to examine the reliability of
existing flood defences that can form part of a flood risk assessment.

However, the existence of raised defences may be taken as an indication that risk maps and plans need
to be prepared. In that case the contribution of the science in Tasks 4, 6 and 7 will be directly in these
subsequent activities. Likewise it is not yet clear whether the flood damage estimation guidelines
developed in Task 9 or the estimation of loss-of-life developed in Task 10 will be needed in
preliminary assessments. If the preliminary flood risk assessment requires initial drafting of flood
inundation and consequence maps, then other FLOODsite results are also relevant as discussed in the
paragraphs below on the preparation of Flood Risk Maps.
Potential Support for the preparation of Flood Risk Maps
There are many mapping technologies available – from advanced topographic survey such as LiDAR
to commercial GIS to overlay flood outlines with socio-economic data. The Exchange Circle
EXCIMAP is preparing current practice guidance on flood risk mapping. FLOODsite is not
undertaking research on the development of GIS but is making use of this as a commercially available
technology.

Flood risk mapping will require both the hazard and the consequences of flooding to be assessed and
FLOODsite is contributing knowledge relevant to these activities. It is this greater clarity of approach
to risk assessment and for some specific physical processes that FLOODsite will make its main
contribution to the scientific basis of the flood risk maps. The contributions to knowledge will be
developed and tested in the context of our pilot sites in Theme 4.

Task 1 has researched the hydro meteorological processes that govern flash flooding, in particular, the
stationarity of storms and the hydrological behaviour of small mountainous catchments. This has led
to new models of extreme flood response in ungauged basins, and, although the flash flood work in
FLOODsite is directed at improved forecasting this understanding may also improve flood estimation
for mapping the hazard in small mountainous catchments. As noted above the outputs of Task 2
provide up-to-date statistical tools for assessing the probability of extreme events. Task 3 is
developing and testing a general procedure for building a European Flood Hazard Atlas (as opposed to
risk maps) based upon the FLOODsite methodology; the testing will be mainly for coastal areas.

The project is developing a deeper understanding of the elements of risk and this will be available to
support the flood risk mapping process. The understanding of reliability of defences from Tasks 4, 6
and 7 will enable a fuller assessment of risk to be prepared through factoring the likelihood of defence
failures into the assessment of risk. In Task 8, models for flood inundation are being benchmarked,
and this will lead to guidance on the suitability of hydrodynamic modelling approaches for hazard and
risk mapping.

Paul Samuels Page 6 27 February 2015

The work in Tasks 9 and 10 will be of direct relevance to flood risk mapping since this work supports
the evaluation of the consequences of flooding. In particular, the risk mapping may use the flood
damage estimation guidelines developed in Task 9 and the estimation of loss-of-life model and the
GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation of risk developed in Task 10.
Potential Support for the preparation of Flood Risk Management Plans
The purpose of the flood risk management plans is to identify means of reducing the impacts of
flooding. In addition to the using the project knowledge outlined above which supports the
preliminary assessments and flood risk mapping, several other tasks are researching areas which will
support the preparation of flood risk management plans. These include:
 The understanding of community preparedness and resilience from Task 11
 Identification, design and appraisal of sustainable flood mitigation measures from Tasks 12 to 14
 Emergency evacuation planning, coupling inundation and traffic models from Task 17
 Decision support for long-term planning and the selection of a portfolio of measures and
instruments for flood risk management from Task 18

It should be recognised that the process models and decision support software will require further
development for application in practice. The FLOODsite project will prototype methods and pilot
their application but only to a pre-competitive level.

Some recent developments in FLOODsite

The science of risk analysis and risk management
Under risk sources, the hydro-meteorological modelling of flash floods is complete with a final report
being available on the project website. Statistical tools have been reviewed and extensively discussed
to provide a FLOODsite methodology on the analysis of extremes. A final report has been drafted and
a set of journal papers has been produced for a Special Issue of the Journal of Hydraulic Research
which is now under review. Work on hazard mapping has been in progress in Year 3 which uses
results from the work under ‘Extremes’ and to derive a consistent methodology for hazard mapping
focussing on coastal hazards; the scientific contribution is on the mapping of hazards from multiple
sources. For risk pathways, the generic failure mode matrix for all kind of flood defence structures
has now been drafted and is ready for use in other areas of FLOODsite. Use of the failure mode matrix
within a probabilistic framework has been discussed already and is already well on its way. Results on
morphological changes in rivers and at the coast have been produced and are available for inclusion in
reliability analysis. A further key issue is the work on breaching of flood defences where one PhD
thesis has been finished already and four more are in progress Additionally, numerical inundation
modelling is progressing well now after all problems dealing with the access to data have now been
solved. For risk receptors, a major effort has been directed towards the loss of life model which still
needs validation from field data. Another major issue is the field survey on risk perception in three
different countries (UK, Italy and Germany) country reports are available but an analysis of lessons
from these studies is still in progress.

A draft method for the evaluation of measures and instruments has been developed addressing effects,
effectiveness, efficiency, robustness and flexibility of interventions. This method has been tested in 5
case studies (Elbe, Tisza, Upper-Tisza, Oder and residential areas along the Elbe). Work has
completed (in Task 13) on the analysis of current pre-flood risk management with regard to
 different types of floods,
 a broad spectrum of physical measures and policy instruments,
 the formulation and implementation of strategic alternatives, and
 different physical, cultural, political, social and economic conditions of urban and regional
development.
This work has been tested on case studies in Germany, the UK and Italy and reporting is complete.
Other work has focussed on the design of alternative flood risk management strategies and on how to
assess their sustainability; in view of an uncertain future (by scenario approach); design of strategic

Paul Samuels Page 7 27 February 2015

alternatives; trial in 3 cases, Thames, Scheldt and Elbe (linked to the project’s pilot studies). The
review and definition of evaluation criteria for an assessment of strategic alternatives was started. The
approach developed in this task was adopted for a study in behalf of the Netherlands’ 2 nd
Sustainability Outlook and also feeds into the Thames 2100 project. In terms of the work on flood
event management, research is nearly complete on the remote sensing of rainfall. Hydrologic models
have been developed for the two Pilot Basins (Cevennes and Adige); the first results of the rainfall-
runoff models test bed have become available and the Flash Flood Guidance concept has been further
developed by using the Probability Distributed Model as the rainfall-runoff model. The concept has
been tested in the upper Adige river basin. Finally a review of existing models for evacuation and
rescue planning and the assessment of users’ requirements for the countries of the participating
organisations has been completed and some initial modelling of evacuation combined water flow and
traffic movement has been completed.
Frameworks for integration
An important part of FLOODsite is the integration of knowledge from the scientific developments in a
way that can support decision making in practice. In particular, three frameworks were identified as
necessary:
 Conceptual framework which includes a high-level view of the overall flood risk management
process including social science aspects;
 Methodological framework which involves the translation of these high-level concepts into
quantifiable risk metrics and methodologies;
 Technological framework which involves the actual DSS enactment i.e. through a software tool and
considers issues such as software architecture, design, flexibility, platforms etc

A review and evaluation of integral uncertainty propagation methods in flood models has been
completed. The focus was on methods which compute total uncertainties without attempting to
separate contributions from different sources. A general methodology for the use of computational
intelligence methods to propagate integral uncertainty through flood models has been developed. This
method is referred as UNcertainty Estimation based on local Errors and Clustering (UNEEC). The
UNEEC has been implemented in computer code. Testing of this methodology on typical conceptual
hydrological models has been accomplished. Work has begun on the development of an example
application of a framework for uncertainty in the Thames pilot.
Pilot studies
The pilot studies have already made significant progress in data compilation and model
parameterisation and calibration. Links to other tasks have been identified with consideration of data
availability and other necessary information. As all of the pilot sites are embedded in flood
management in practice, the approaches within them vary from comprehensive flood risk management
to investigations of single items. Some examples follow:

 In the Elbe pilot (Task 21) in the Mulde basin, the meteorological working group regionalised
climate projections along IPCC scenarios for the investigation of flood events under future
conditions. A weather generator was developed to downscale daily data of the scenarios to hourly.
Thus rainfall-runoff models for the Upper Mulde catchment have been set up and verified.
Following the climate scenarios flood characteristics under possible future climatic conditions have
been investigated.

 In the Tisza pilot (Task 22) scenario analysis of partial floodplain reactivation with controlled
inundation has been completed.

 In the Thames pilot (Task 24) a sophisticated system model of the Thames Estuary has been
developed that includes joint probability calculations, defence reliability, through a Monte-Carlo
sampling approach – this has been allied to a rapid flood spreading method and economic damage
model to create a sophisticated and practical modelling tool. The model has been run for a number

Paul Samuels Page 8 27 February 2015

 of different management scenarios. These include a “do nothing” and maintain existing defence
standards under a variety of climate change scenarios on the Thames Estuary.

 The Schelde pilot (Task 25) has examined the way local knowledge of flood risk differs from
scientific knowledge obtained from flood modelling. In the previous reporting year a number of in-
depth interviews were held with local residents living in the flood prone area of the Schelde. In the
workshop that was held in January 2007 the same local stakeholders were invited that were
previously interviewed.
Outputs and publication
Results from the project science continue to be published in peer-reviewed journals and at
international scientific conferences; the project team has identified 170 actual or planned publications
in Year 3 and at the end of Year 3, the web pages contained 100 documents for public download.
Research links
In all links have been identified to 79 external projects and actions and most of these links have been
active since the outset of the research. Eight projects or actions emerged as having links into three or
more FLOODsite tasks, as tabulated below.

Project / Action Description

EXCIMAP Stakeholder group for implementation of the proposed EU “Floods” directive
FRMRC UK national research programme on flood risk management
MDSF-2 UK national development project of flood risk analysis tools
NEWater FP6 IP developing modelling methods based on stakeholder knowledge
OSIRIS FP5 IST project on the management of inundation risks
RIMAX German national research programme on flood risk management
TE 2100 UK national flood risk management planning project for the Thames Estuary
VERIS-Elbe German national research programme on the River Elbe

Discussion and Conclusions

Flood management is undergoing change across Europe, both at the level of policy and in
developments in practice informed by research and innovation. This paper has concentrated on just
two of these – the proposed EU Directive on the assessment and management of flood risk and the
FLOODsite Integrated Project on Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies. There is
much additional science being funded within the EU member states as indicated by the connectivity of
FLOODsite discussed above.

Significant challenges will be encountered in the implementation of the policy of flood risk
management rather than the traditional approach of flood defence since it will require public
understanding and acceptance of a degree of risk. The socio-economic research in FLOODsite is
beginning to address these issues.

Flood management decisions are made in the context of substantial complexity and uncertainty. There
is a need to embrace this uncertainty in a way that the “right” structural decisions are made; the less
adaptable these are the longer we need to look into the future in order to choose the line of least regret.
This is the focus on the integration frameworks in FLOODsite which are designed to support the
development of flood risk management measures and instruments over the generational timescale.

Acknowledgement
The work described in this paper was supported by the European Community’s Sixth Framework
Programme through the grant to the budget of the Integrated Project FLOODsite, Contract GOCE-CT-
2004-505420.

Paul Samuels Page 9 27 February 2015

 In preparing the material for this paper I have drawn on the summary reporting of several colleagues
in the FLOODsite team, including Dr Andreas Kortenhaus of the Technical University of
Braunschweig, Dr Frans Klijn of WL|Delft Hydraulics, Paul Sayers of HR Wallingford and Dr Jochen
Schanze of the Dresden Flood Research Centre.

This paper reflects only the author’s views and not those of the European Community. The
information in this paper is provided “as is” and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information
is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and that neither
the European Community nor any member of the FLOODsite Consortium is liable for any use that
may be made of the information.

References

Commission for the European Communities (2006) “Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of floods” COM (2006) 15 final:
Brussels, 18 January 2006

Council of the EU (2006) “Common position adopted by the Council on 23 November 2006 with a
view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment
and management of flood risks”, Document ref 12131/6/06 REV 6, Brussels, available at
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st12/st12131-re06.en06.pdf

FLOODsite Consortium (2005) Language of Risk, Project definitions, FLOODsite Report T32-04-01,
March 2005, available at www.floodsite.net

Kundzewicz Z & Samuels P G (1997), Conclusions of the Worksop and Expert Meeting, RIBAMOD
River basin modelling management and flood mitigation Concerted Action, Proceedings of the
Workshop and Second Expert Meeting on Integrated Systems for Real Time Flood forecasting and
Warning, Eds Casale R, Borga M, Baltas E & Samuels P, Directorate General for Research and
Development, European Commission, Luxembourg, ISBN 92-828-6074-4 (1999)

Word count : 5167

Paul Samuels Page 10 27 February 2015

View publication stats