1. Activity title
Activity number 5.3
Tomasz Okruszko
2nd IDMP CEE Workshop
Ljubljana, 8 – 9 April 2014
Natural small water retention measures

2. 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.

3. • 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.)

4. • 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. • 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

8. 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

9. 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