Activity title

Activity number 5.3

Tomasz Okruszko 2nd IDMP CEE Workshop Ljubljana, 8 – 9 April 2014

Natural small water retention measures

Partners & Outputs

Main objective is to address nature and landscape values and co-operation with the stakeholders

(especially farmers) in order to regard flooding not only as a threat but also as an opportunity for broad

rural development, nature restoration, recreation, “enrichment” of the habitat and (last but not least) for a

new approach to water. The measures include both small scale hydraulic structures as well as non-technical

activities as reforestation, restoration of wetlands, re-meandring of rivers, and soil structure improvement.

The case study will summarize experiences from already implemented projects in Poland, Slovakia

Hungary, and Slovenia.

Based upon critical analysis, tools for systematic application of the non-traditional measures will be

developed. These will include the use of GIS tools for optimization of a system of small water retention

measures in the landscape (choice of catchments for investments).

Recommendations for legislation, integration of these measures into national flood and drought protection

plans, recommendations for financing and role of local communities in application of these measures.

• Small water retention – Permanent or temporary water bodies and measures that enable

water retention on site (of its origin) – Natural appearance enabling diverse ecosystem services (not only

water retention) • Activities focusing on prolongation of the water cycle by increasing

the capacity to retain rainwater (slow drain), stop pollution and

reducing energy losses of water and sediment movement.

(It means not only the retention of surface water with water or damming

up watercourses, but also agricultural practices, phyto land improvement

and afforestation to increase the retention of soil, regulation of rivers such

as changes in cross-section troughs and longitudinal slope and the use of

natural flood plains or outflow cavieties.)

• What has been done from the 1st IDMP CEE workshop till now (October 2013 – April 2014)?

• At what stage of the final output(s) are you now?

• What were the main problems? How did you solve them? Coherency in the apprach & language used. Not solved yet.

• Have there been any changes from the original plan? Why? No

Progress Report

1. Introduction – why do we need to increase the landscape retention?

2. What are the technical and non-technical measures to increase the

landscape retention?

3. How to choose the catchment for the retention measures?

4. How can we evaluate the results in the terms of flood protection, drought

mitigation and biodiversity increase?

5. How can we incorporate the natural landscape retention in the RBMP,

FPMP and DMP?

6. Experiences and critical analysis from already implemented projects in

Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia including best examples on

combined effects and involvement of stakeholders.

7. Conclusion – what is the best action plan?

Structure of the guidelines

Drafted till end of April

Development of template for example

April 2014 PL WULS/ITE (prof Waldemar

Mioduszewski)

Best example from Poland

Aug 2014 PL WULS (dr Ignacy Kardel)

Best example from Slovakia

Aug 2014 SK

Best example from Slovenia

Aug 2014 SLO

Best example from Hungary

Aug 2014 HUN

• What are the plans for the next period (April 2014 – October 2014)?

• What kind of challenges/problems do you expect? Number of iteration to get coherent product

• Will there by any change from the original plan? Why? Extention of the examples(?)fromother countries on no budget basis

• Please discuss also your main dilemmas and prepare the questions for PRG and any other partner.

Plans

1. Introduction – why do we need to increase the landscape retention?

2. What are the technical and non-technical measures to increase the

landscape retention?

3. How to choose the catchment for the retention measures?

4. How can we evaluate the results in the terms of flood protection, drought

mitigation and biodiversity increase?

5. How can we incorporate the natural landscape retention in the RBMP,

FPMP and DMP?

6. Experiences and critical analysis from already implemented projects in

Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia including best examples on

combined effects and involvement of stakeholders.

7. Conclusion – what is the best action plan?

Structure of the guidelines

Drafted till October

Remarks concerning the material submitted are the following:

(1) The Slovak data are missing;

In progress, we have not received it yet

(2) Probably not valid data: M46, Slovenia, 59 floods per year?;

checking

(3) Not all information translated into English;

Not needed

(4) Where are the Hungarian Annexes (7.1, 7.2, etc.);

Mistake during data compilation, they do exist

(5) Hungary has more than 2 Mha forest already;

checking

(6) The XLS file needs a review.

It is working material