COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Slovakia Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2019-02-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Slovakia, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, disaster area, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.2.2019  SWD(2019) 78 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Slovakia Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Second River Basin Management Plans First Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2019) 95 final} - {SWD(2019) 30 final} - {SWD(2019) 31 final} - {SWD(2019) 32 final} - {SWD(2019) 33 final} - {SWD(2019) 34 final} - {SWD(2019) 35 final} - {SWD(2019) 36 final} - {SWD(2019) 37 final} - {SWD(2019) 38 final} - {SWD(2019) 39 final} - {SWD(2019) 40 final} - {SWD(2019) 41 final} - {SWD(2019) 42 final} - {SWD(2019) 43 final} - {SWD(2019) 44 final} - {SWD(2019) 45 final} - {SWD(2019) 46 final} - {SWD(2019) 47 final} - {SWD(2019) 48 final} - {SWD(2019) 49 final} - {SWD(2019) 50 final} - {SWD(2019) 51 final} - {SWD(2019) 52 final} - {SWD(2019) 53 final} - {SWD(2019) 54 final} - {SWD(2019) 55 final} - {SWD(2019) 56 final} - {SWD(2019) 57 final} - {SWD(2019) 58 final} - {SWD(2019) 59 final} - {SWD(2019) 60 final} - {SWD(2019) 61 final} - {SWD(2019) 62 final} - {SWD(2019) 63 final} - {SWD(2019) 64 final} - {SWD(2019) 65 final} - {SWD(2019) 66 final} - {SWD(2019) 67 final} - {SWD(2019) 68 final} - {SWD(2019) 69 final} - {SWD(2019) 70 final} - {SWD(2019) 71 final} - {SWD(2019) 72 final} - {SWD(2019) 73 final} - {SWD(2019) 74 final} - {SWD(2019) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 79 final} - {SWD(2019) 80 final} - {SWD(2019) 81 final} - {SWD(2019) 82 final} - {SWD(2019) 83 final} - {SWD(2019) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

Table of contents .......................................................................................................................... 1 

Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... 4 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5 

Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 6 

Overview of the assessment ..................................................................................................... 8 

Good Practices........................................................................................................................ 11 

Areas for further development ............................................................................................... 13 

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 13 

1. 

 Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment .......................... 14 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ............................................................................................. 14 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs .......................................................................................... 14 

2. 

 Integration of previously reported information ................................................................. 16 

2.1.  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment................................. 16 

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMPs ..................... 17 

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas .................................................... 17 

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the FHRM ...................... 18 

2.5  Good practices and areas for further development in the FRMPs regarding integration 
of previously reported information ........................................................................................ 18 

3. 

 Setting of Objectives ......................................................................................................... 19 

3.1 

3.2 

Focus of objectives ...................................................................................................... 19 

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................. 19 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ............................................ 19 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding .............................. 19 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ................................................................................ 20 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding objectives .................... 20 

4. 

 Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ........................................................ 21 

4.1  Cost of measures ......................................................................................................... 21 

4.2 

Funding of measures ................................................................................................... 22 

4.3  Measurable and specific measures .............................................................................. 23 

4.4  Measures and objectives.............................................................................................. 23 

1 

 
 
4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures ..................................................................... 24 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ............................................................................................ 24 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ............................................ 25 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures .................................................................... 26 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ............................................................ 26 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ........................................................................................ 26 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding ................................................................... 27 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ....................................................... 27 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive .................................................... 28 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures .............. 29 

5. 

 Consideration of climate change ....................................................................................... 31 

5.1 

Specific types of measures to mitigate expected effects of climate change................ 31 

5.2  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change .......... 31 

6. 

 Cost-benefit analysis.......................................................................................................... 32 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ...................................................... 33 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation .. 
 ............................................................................................................................................ 34 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................. 34 

7.2 

Public information and consultation ........................................................................... 34 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders ........................................................................... 36 

7.4 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................. 37 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment .......................................................................... 37 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding Governance ................. 37 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures .......................................................... 38 

Background & method ........................................................................................................... 38 

Types of measures used in reporting ...................................................................................... 39 

List of Annex A tables & figures ........................................................................................... 40 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................. 41 

Measure details: cost .............................................................................................................. 44 

Measure details: name & location .......................................................................................... 44 

Measure details: objectives .................................................................................................... 46 

2 

 
 
 
Measure details: authorities .................................................................................................... 46 

Measure details: progress ....................................................................................................... 46 

Measure details: other ............................................................................................................ 50 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types ..................................................................................... 51 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures ................................................................... 52 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

APSFR 
CBA 
EEA 
FD 
FHRM 
FRMP 
KTM 
NWRM 
PFRA 
RBD 
RBMP 
UoM 
WFD 
WISE 

Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
Cost-Banefit Analysis 
European Environment Agency 
Floods Directive 
Flood Hazard and Risk Map 
Flood Risk Management Plan 
Key Types of Measures 
Natural Water Retention Measures 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 
River Basin District 
River Basin Management Plan 
Unit of Management 
Water Framework Directive 
Water Information System for Europe 

4 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

The Floods Directive (FD) (2007/60/EC) requires each Member State to assess its territory for 

significant  risk  from  flooding,  to  map  the  flood  extent,  identify  the  potential  adverse 
consequences  of  future  floods  for  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and 

economic activity in these areas, and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this 
flood  risk.  By  the  end  of  2011,  Member  States  were  to  prepare  Preliminary  Flood  Risk 

Assessments (PFRAs) to identify the river basins and coastal areas at risk of flooding (Areas of 
Potential Significant Flood Risk – APSFRs). By the end of 2013, Flood Hazard and Risk Maps 

(FHRMs) were to be drawn up for such areas. On this basis, Member States were to prepare 
Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) by the end of 2015.  

This  report  assesses  the  FRMPs  for  Slovakia1.  Its  structure  follows  a  common  assessment 
template used for all Member States. The report draws on two main sources: 

  Member State reporting to the European Commission on the FRMPs2: as per Articles 7 
and  15  of  the  FD  this  reporting  provides  an  overview  of  the  plans  and  details  on  their 

measures. 

  Selected FRMPs and sub-plans: Slovakia prepared FRMPs for nine sub-basins across its 
two units of management (UoMs). These plans have the same structure and very similar 
content, applying the same methods and approaches. The assessment looked in detail at 

two plans: the FRMP for the Hron sub-basin in the Danube Unit of Management (UoM), 
SK40000; and the FRMP for the Dunajec and Poprad sub-basin (the only FRMP in the 

Vistula  UoM,  SK30000).  To  confirm  that  the  same  methods  and  approaches  were 
applied in other Danube River Basin District (RBD) sub-unit plans, the other seven sub-

unit FRMPs in the Danube UoM were reviewed as well.  

2 

1   The  present  Member  State  assessment  reports  reflect  the  situation  as  reported  by  each  Member  State  to  the 
Commission  in  2016  or  2017  and  with  reference  to  FRMPs  prepared  earlier.  The  situation  in  the  Member 
States may have altered since then. 
 Referred to as “Reporting Sheets” throughout this report. Data must be reported in a clear and consistent way 
by  all  Member  States.  The  format  for  reporting  was  jointly  elaborated  by  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission as part of a collaborative process called the “Common Implementation Strategy”: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm  
Whereas a key role of the Commission is to check compliance with EU legislation, the Commission also seeks 
information to allow it to determine whether existing policies are adequate. It also requires certain information 
to create a European-wide picture to inform the public. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview 

Figure 1 

Map of Units of Management/River Basin Districts 

  International River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  International River Basin Districts (outside European Union) 
  National River Basin Districts (within European Union) 
  Countries (outside European Union) 
  Coastal Waters 

Source: Water Information System for Europe (WISE), Eurostat (country borders) as presented 

in the 2012 RBMP assessment reports 

Slovakia  has  designated  two  units  of  management  (UoMs)  under  the  FD:  SK30000  for  the 

Vistula RBD and SK40000 for the Danube RBD. The territory of these two UoMs corresponds 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to  the  territory  of  Slovakia’s  two  RBDs,  designated  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive 
(WFD).  

Slovakia has prepared its Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) for sub-basins of its UoMs. 
The FRMP for the Vistula UoM/RBD (SK30000) consists of the Flood Risk Management Plan 

for  the  Dunajec  and  Poprad  sub-Unit  (SK30000RB1SB1),  which  is  the  only  sub-unit 
designated in SK30000. For the Danube UoM/RBD (SK40000), eight plans covering eight of 
the nine sub-units3 are designated for this RBD. 

The FRMPs were approved by the Ministry of Environment in December 2015. 

The  table  below  gives  an  overview  of  the  two  UoMs  in  Slovakia,  including  the  number  of 
APSFRs reported. It also shows if the UoM reported all documents required to the European 
Environment Agency (EEA) WISE4 – the FRMP as a PDF and the reporting sheet as an XML.  

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Slovakia 

UoM 

SK30000FD 

SK40000FD 

TOTAL 

Name 

Number of APSFRs5  XML Reported 

PDF Reported 

VISTULA 

DANUBE 

31 

528 

559 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Slovakia’s FRMPs are available online via the following web page: 

 

http://www.minzp.sk/sekcie/temy-oblasti/voda/ochrana-pred-povodnami/manazment-
povodnovych-rizik/plany-manazmentu-povodnoveho-rizika-2015.html 

3  No areas of potentially significant flood risks (APSFRs) were identified for the 9th sub-unit. 
4  http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/603/deliveries?id=603&tab=deliveries&d-4014547-p=1&d-4014547-

o=2&d-4014547-s=3  

5   According to July 2016 reporting. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview of the assessment 

The table below gives an overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs. 

The following categorisation was used for the column concerning evidence: 

  Evidence to the contrary: An explicit statement was found stating that the criterion was 

not met. 

  No evidence: No information found to indicate that the criterion was met. 

  Some evidence: Reference to the criterion is brief and vague, without a clear indication 
of  the  approach  used  for  the  criterion.  Depending  on  the  comment  in  the  adjacent 
column, “some evidence” could also be construed as “weak evidence”.  

  Strong  evidence:  Clear  information  provided,  describing  an  approach  followed  in  the 

FRMP to address the criterion. 

Table 2  Overview of the evidence found during the assessment of the FRMPs 

Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

FRM objectives have 
been established  

Strong evidence 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of 
potential adverse 
consequences  

Some evidence  

...to the reduction of 
the likelihood of 
flooding  

...to non-structural 
initiatives  

Some evidence  

No evidence  

The objectives of the flood risk management plan are 
to reduce the likelihood of floods and to reduce the 
potential adverse consequences of flooding on 
human health, the environment, cultural heritage and 
economic activity.  

Slovakia’s objectives are general, but the measures 
are concrete and measurable. Objectives have been 
established at the national level. There are no 
differences in objectives across Slovakia’s UoMs and 
sub-basin plans. 

The objectives of the flood risk management plan 
include reduction of the likelihood of flood risk, but 
further detail is not provided.  

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Strong evidence  

Cited in the objectives (see above)   

...economic activity  

Strong evidence  

Cited in the objectives (see above)   

...environment  

Strong evidence  

Cited in the objectives (see above)  

8 

 
 
 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...cultural heritage  

Strong evidence  

Cited in the objectives (see above)  

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong evidence  

...prioritised  

Strong evidence  

Slovakia has reported 1 381 individual measures and 
32 aggregated measures. 

All the individual measures reported are protection 
measures, while the aggregated measures cover all 
four measure aspects.  

Slovakia identified three levels of priority for its 
measures, based on eight criteria. 

Relevant aspects of Article 7 have been taken into account such as...  

...costs & benefits  

Strong evidence  

...flood extent  

Strong evidence  

...flood conveyance  

Strong evidence  

...water retention  

Strong evidence  

The Slovak CBA methodology was used in the 
prioritisation of measures. This approach is presented 
as a good practice case study in the first Danube 
Flood Risk Management Plan produced by the 
ICPDR.  

For each APSFR, an analysis of the impact of 
measures on achieving the FRMP objectives was 
carried out: in particular, the effects of protection 
measures on Qmax (peak flood discharge) was 
modelled for various mixes of measures.  

The preliminary flood risk assessment in Slovakia 
included an analysis of conveyance routes. 
Dewatering channels in urban and agricultural areas 
and water evacuation routes are addressed in the 
FRMPs (Chapter 4). 

Slovakia’s FRMPs (in Annex V of each plan) list 
measures aimed at water retention. For each APSFR, 
an analysis of the impact of these measures on the 
achievement of objectives was carried out. The 
possible effect of the protection measures on the 
Qmax (peak flood discharge) was modelled for 
various measure scenarios. Based on this modelling, 
sub-catchments were identified that have potential 
for improved natural water retention and reduction of 
Qmax using landscape and ecological measures in 
agricultural areas and forests. 

9 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...environmental 
objectives of the WFD  

Strong evidence  

...spatial planning/land 
use  

Strong evidence  

...nature conservation   Some evidence  

The FRMPs (in Chapter 8.5 of each), describe 
coordination of implementation with River Basin 
Management Plans (RBMPs). Moreover, the process 
for permitting or consenting of flood risk 
investments require prior consideration of the 
environmental objectives of the WFD. The design of 
the new and existing structural measures has been 
adapted to take into account the WFD’s objectives. 
Each FRMP also cites the need to apply WFD Art 
4(7) for measures. 

The FRMPs include detailed descriptions of 
measures: the FRMPs describe measures in forests, 
in agricultural land and in urban areas based on local 
zoning development plans. The FRMPs moreover 
provide information on flood risk measures presented 
in local spatial plans. 

The FRMP notes that measures are subject to impact 
assessment in line with the national Nature 
Conservation Law. For measures having impact on 
Natura 2000 areas, assessment under Art. 6 of the 
Habitats Directive is necessary. Specific measures 
that include nature conservation were not, however, 
identified. 

No evidence  

No reference was found in the FRMPs.  

...navigation/port 
infrastructure  

...likely impact of 
climate change  

Some evidence  

Strong evidence  

Coordination with 
other countries 
ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

The FRMPs highlight afforestation measures and 
water retention measures, including construction of 
reservoirs, as appropriate tools for minimising the 
impacts of climate change on the likelihood and 
potential adverse consequences of flooding. 

There is strong coordination in the Danube 
international RBD via the ICPDR, which is briefly 
described in the Danube FRMPs, as well as through 
bilateral coordination with neighbouring countries. 
The Vistula FRMP mentions bilateral coordination 
with Poland but does not provide details. 

10 

 
 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

Coordination ensured 
with WFD  

Strong evidence  

Active involvement of 
interested parties  

Strong evidence  

FRMPs in Chapter 8.5 describe coordination of 
implementation of FRMPs and RBMPs. This 
coordination covered the development of FHRM, 
development of flood risk management plans and 
public information and consultation.  

During the six-month period after the public release 
of the draft FRMPs, special seminars were organised 
throughout Slovakia by the national Ministry of 
Environment in cooperation with the Environmental 
Divisions of the District Authorities, to inform the 
public and to create space for discussion.  

Good Practices 

The assessment identified the following good practices in the Slovak FRMPs assessed. 

Table 3 

Good practices in the Slovak FRMPs 

Topic area 

Integration of 
previously reported 
information in the 
FRMPs. 

Good practices identified 

The preliminary flood risk assessment (PFRA) in Slovakia was based on 
an analysis of the causes, characteristics and consequences of floods 
which occurred between 1997 and 2010. It included assessment of 
adverse impacts on human health, environment, cultural heritage and 
economic activity as well as assessment of flood extent and conveyance 
routes. This supported the development of the FHRMs, which were used 
for setting FRMP objectives and priorities for flood risk management.  

PFRA and FHRM modelling has been used to assess the impact of 
measures on Qmax, to select sub-catchments where water retention has 
most potential and to prioritise measures based on CBA. 

11 

 
 
 
Topic area 

Planning/implementing 
of measures and their 
prioritisation for the 
achievement of 
objectives. 

Good practices identified 

The FRMPs provide a detailed description of a high number of individual 
measures, including measures in forests, in agricultural land and in urban 
areas, and the FRMPs summarise all suggested protection measures in 
APSFRs. 

The FRMPs provide a comprehensive assessment of potential impacts of 
the existing and proposed protection measures on achieving the FRMP 
objectives.  

For each APSFR, a theoretical analysis of the impact of measures on the 
achievement of FRMP objectives has been carried out. Based on this 
modelling, sub-catchments have been identified having a potential for 
improved natural water retention and reduction of Qmax using 
appropriate landscape and ecological measures in agricultural areas and 
forests (Natural Water Retention Measures - NWRM).  

Slovakia’s FRMPs identify at least 520 NWR), more than one-third of all 
measures. 

A comprehensive prioritisation system has been developed and applied.  

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  

The FRMPs highlight afforestation measures and water retention 
measures as tools for minimising the impacts of climate change flood 
risks. 

Use of cost-benefit 
analysis (CBA) in the 
FRMPs assessed.  

Public participation.  

The Slovak CBA method, used to prioritise measures, has been presented 
as a good practice case study in the first international Danube Flood Risk 
Management Plan produced by the ICPDR.  

Active public consultation was organised to inform the public about the 
content and the preparation process of flood risk management plans and 
on the proposed flood protection measures, creating opportunity for 
discussion.  

During the six-month public consultation period for the draft flood risk 
management plans, special seminars were organised throughout Slovakia 
to inform the public about the content and the preparation process of the 
plans, present their measures and to create opportunities for discussion.  

International issues in 
flood risk management.  

Slovakia cooperated with countries in the Danube Basin in the frame of 
ICPDR and also on a bilateral basis with neighbouring countries. 

12 

 
 
 
 
Areas for further development 

The  assessment  identified  the  following  areas  for  further  development  in  the  Slovak  FRMPs 

assessed. 

Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Slovak FRMPs 

Areas identified for further development 

The objectives are not specific or measurable. 

In their Annexes, the FRMPs only provide details about protection 
measures. The presentation of measures is complex. 
An overall budget for the measures (i.e. extending beyond 2021) has not 
been clearly provided. 
As Slovakia’s objectives are not stated in specific or measurable terms, it 
is not clear if the objectives will be achieved by the measures. 
No information was found if a baseline has been established against 
which progress in the implementation of measures will be monitored and 
assessed. 
While the FRMPs mention the national climate change adaptation 
strategy, it is not analysed how this has been used for setting objectives 
and measures. 
The effects of consultation are not described in the FRMPs. 
The description of international cooperation in the Vistula RBD is not 
detailed. 

Topic area 
Setting of objectives for 
the management of flood 
risk.  
Planning/implementation 
of measures and their 
prioritization for the 
achievement of 
objectives.  

Consideration of climate 
change in the FRMPs 
assessed.  
Public participation.  
International issues in 
flood risk management.  

Recommendations 

Based on the reported information and the FRMP assessed, the following recommendations are 
made to enhance flood risk management (not listed in any particular order): 

  To be able to assess progress, the FRMP objectives should be specific and measurable, as 
well as links should be established that will demonstrate how the FRMP objectives will 

be achieved by the implementation of the measures. A baseline should be defined. 

  More clarity when presenting the measures in the FRMP should be sought, including on 

measures with relevance to the WFD. 

 

It should be presented in more detail how the national climate change adaptation strategy 

in Slovakia has been used for setting FRMP objectives and identifying measures.  

  The  FRMP  should  include  more  detail  on  public  consultation  and  stakeholder 

involvement. 

  A  more  detailed  description  of  international  cooperation  in  the  Vistula  RBD  should  be 

provided. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
1.   Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the 

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Slovakia  has  designated  two  UoMs:  SK30000  for  the  Vistula  River  Basin  District  and 
SK40000  for  the  Danube  RBD.  The  territories  of  these  two  UoMs  correspond  to  Slovakia’s 

two RBDs designated under the WFD, and their codes are the same.  

Slovakia did not make use of Art. 13(3) of the FD, which allows Member States to use plans 

prepared before December 2010, and Slovakia prepared FRMPs for both UoMs.   

The Flood Risk Management Plan for the Vistula River Basin District (SK30000) consists of 

the  Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  for  the  Dunajec  and  Poprad  Sub-Unit  (SK30000RB1SB1) 
(344 pages plan + 193 pages annexes), the only sub-unit in SK3000. There is no single plan for 

the Danube RBD (SK40000), but there are eight plans for the following sub-units in the RBD:  

  Bodrog (828 pages for the plan + 656 pages for its annexes),  

  Bodva (193+52 pages),  

  Hornad (613+474 pages),  

 

Ipel (225+90 pages),  

  Morava (335+231 pages),  

  Slana (316+211 pages),  

  Vah (1122+779 pages) and  

  Hron (440+293 pages).  

The Flood Risk Management Plan for the ninth sub-unit in SK40000, called the Danube Sub-
Unit,  was  not  developed  as  no  areas  of  potentially  significant  flood  risks  (APSFRs)  were 
identified in this sub-unit. 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

All  nine  sub-basin  plans  prepared  in  Slovakia  have  the  same  structure  and  a  very  similar 

content.  Across  all  Slovak  FRMPs,  the  same  methods  and  approaches  were  applied.  The 
different  page  sizes  of  these  plans  reflect  the  number  of  locations  (APSFRs)  and  measures 

addressed in each.  

To assess the approaches used in the Danube RBD (SK40000), the FRMP for the Hron sub-

basin  was  selected  for  a  detailed  review,  as  it  presents  both  mountain  and  lowland  river 
characteristics. However, to make sure that the same methods and approaches were applied in 

the other Danube RBD sub-units, all seven sub-unit FRMPs were reviewed as well. In parallel, 

14 

 
 
the Flood Risk Management Plan for the Dunajec and Poprad Sub-Unit (the only one sub-unit 
of the Vistula River Basin District) was reviewed and assessed in detail. 

Table 5 

UoM-level FRMPs assessed 

UoM code 

SK30000FD 

SK40000FD 

UoM Name 

VISTULA 

DANUBE 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.   Integration of previously reported information 

2.1.  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment 

The conclusions of the PFRA are presented in the Flood Risk Management Plans in textual and 

map form. 

All  FRMPs  provide  the  same  link  to  the  page  on  the  web  site  of  the  Slovak  Ministry  of 
Environment providing maps of the APSFRs6. 

The  preliminary  flood  risk  assessment  in  Slovakia  was  based  on  an  analysis  of  the  causes, 

characteristics and consequences of floods which occurred between 1997 and 2010. It included 
assessment of adverse impacts on human health, environment, cultural heritage and economic 

activity as well as an assessment of flood extent and conveyance routes. In the PFRA stage, it 
was  explored  if  the  conveyance  route  capacity  and  the  effect  of  structural  measures  are  less 
than Q100max/Q50max or Q10max7.  

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

Slovakia’s  FRMPs  (in  their  Chapter  1)  indicate  that  the  PFRA  was  coordinated  with  the 

neighbouring countries. Overall coordination in the international Danube RBD was undertaken 
in  the  frame  of  the  ICPDR.  In  addition,  detailed  coordination  was  carried  out  with 

neighbouring countries, including the following sub-basins: 

 

for  the  Morava  sub-basin,  coordination  was  carried  out  with  Austria  and  the  Czech 

Republic; 

 

for the Vah, Hron and Ipel sub-basins, coordination was carried out with Hungary; 

  For the Bodrog, Hornad, Bodva and Slana sub-basins, with Ukraine and Hungary.  

The  FRMP  for  the  Dunajec  and  Poprad  Sub-Unit  of  the  Vistula  RBD  indicates  that 
coordination in the international Vistula RBD was carried out through the bilateral commission 
between Slovakia and Poland8. 

It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  Slovakia  has  not  identified  any  shared  APSFRs  with 
neighbouring countries9. 

6  http://www.minzp.sk/sekcie/temy-oblasti/voda/ochrana-pred-povodnami/manazment-povodnovych-

rizik/predbezne-hodnotenie-povodnoveho-rizika-2011.html  

7  FRMP chapter 1.  
8  Polish-Slovak Border Water Commission. 
9  This is indicated in Slovakia’s reporting sheets and also in the FHRM assessment for Slovakia (available at: 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/SK%20FHRM%20Report.pdf)  

16 

 
 
                                                 
2.1.2  Information how the PFRA was used in the development of the FHR maps 

FHR  maps  were  prepared  for  each  APSFR.  The  FRMPs  do  not,  however,  provide  further 
information how the PFRA was used in the development of these maps. 

2.2 

Presentation  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Risk  Maps  (FHRMs)  in  the 
FRMPs 

Flood hazard and flood risk maps at the scale of 1:50 000 are included in all the FRMPs10. All 
relevant  sources  of  flood  (fluvial,  pluvial,  groundwater)  were  assessed  in  total,  no 
differentiation was made on maps between flood sources. Mapping of fluvial floods included 
areas where flooding is also caused by other sources (pluvial, groundwater)11. 

2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

Chapter  1  of  the  FRMPs  provides  information  that  PFRA  has  been  coordinated  with  the 

neighbouring countries, and flood hazard and flood risk maps have been prepared for all shared 
flood risk areas, but further details were not found in the FRMPs. This sounds contradictory to 

Slovakia’s reporting sheet where, as noted above, no transboundary APSFRs were identified. 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

The FRMPs state that FHRM data (potentially affected population, economic activities) were 

used  for  setting  specific  objectives  and  priorities  for  flood  risk  management.  Protected  areas 
and cultural heritage data were also used but for these it was not specified if they were taken 

from FHRMs or from another source (FRMPs, Chapter 3.1).  

The conclusions on flood risks derived from FHRMs are summarised in the FRMPs in Annex 

III (population affected, economic activities affected, impact on the environment). In addition, 
the  FHRMs  were  used  as  a  tool  in  the  public  participation  process,  in  particular  in 
presentations to public12. 

2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

Any changes in the identification of APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas since December 2011 

should  be  reflected  in  the  FRMP:  for  Slovakia  none  were  reported.  Also,  no  changes  since 
December  2013  were  described  in  the  FRMPs  regarding  the  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk 

Maps. 

10  Available at: http://mpomprsr.svp.sk  
11  FRMP Chapter 2, FRMP maps (see FRMP List of maps). 
12  FRMP chapters 3.1 and 7, FRMP Annex III. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
2.4 

Areas  for  further  development  in  the  earlier  assessment  of  the 
FHRM 

The FHRM assessment identified the following substantive areas for further development for 

Slovakia: 

  All  relevant  sources  of  flooding  (fluvial,  pluvial,  groundwater)  were  presented  without 

distinction, i.e. no distinction was made on maps between flood sources.  

  There  was  no  reference  found  that  mapping  in  the  shared  flood  risk  areas  has  been 

coordinated with neighbouring Member State(s)13. 

Based on information in the FRMPs, it appears that Slovakia has not explicitly addressed the 
first area for further development in the time period between publication of the FHRMs and the 

present assessment of the FRMPs: sources were still presented indistinctively.  

The  FRMPs  report  that  FHRMs  in  shared  flood  risk  areas  have  been  coordinated  with 

neighbouring  Member  States.  At  the  same  time,  as  noted  above,  Slovakia  does  not  indicate 
specific shared flood risk areas with neighbouring Member States. 

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  in  the  FRMPs 

regarding integration of previously reported information 

The following good practices are identified:  

  The preliminary flood risk assessment (PFRA) in Slovakia was based on an analysis of 
the causes, characteristics and consequences of floods which occurred between 1997 and 
2010. It included assessment of adverse impacts on human health, environment, cultural 

heritage  and  economic  activity  as  well  as  assessment  of  flood  extent  and  conveyance 
routes.  This  supported  the  development  of  the  FHRMs,  which  were  used  for  setting 

FRMP objectives and priorities for flood risk management.  

  PFRA and FHRM modelling has been used to assess the impact of retention measures on 
Qmax (peak flood discharge), to  select  sub-catchments where water retention has most 
potential and to prioritise measures based on CBA. 

All relevant sources of flood (fluvial, pluvial, groundwater) were presented in a combined way: 

no distinction was made in the maps between flood sources. This practice should be reviewed 
for the second cycle. 

13  Slovakia subsequently noted that coordination with neighbouring countries consisted of an assessment of the 
effect  of  measures  and  that  in  previous  reporting  to  the  European  Commission  it  was  mentioned  that  no 
transboundary APSFRs have been identified. 

18 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

The objectives  of the  flood risk management plans are to  reduce the likelihood of flood  risk 

and  to  reduce  the  potential  adverse  consequences  of  flooding  on  human  health,  the 
environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic  activity.  The  objectives  provide  a  general 

reference to  measures  that will be implemented, but  not to specific measures. The objectives 
are the same across all FRMPs, and were established at national level. 

Consequently, in the FRMPs assessed14: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods;  
  The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding15; 
  The objectives refer to measures that will be implemented.  

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

The  objectives  are  not  specific  and  measurable  –  they  are  general  (while  the  measures 
themselves are concrete and measurable – see section 4). There is no direct link between the 

general objectives and the detailed measures presented.  

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

In the FRMPs assessed, objectives do not provide further specification of the type of adverse 

consequences  that  will  be  reduced,  or  the  extent  of  reduction.  As  mentioned  previously,  the 
objectives are rather general and do not specify the targets to be achieved.  

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

The objectives focus on reducing the likelihood of flooding.  

The  FRMPs  provide  descriptions  of  the  areas  with  the  retention  potential  (natural  retention 

areas) and of measures for local land use planning, but these points are not directly related to 
the objectives. The national climate change adaptation strategy is cited but it is not explicitly 

explained how this has been used for setting of objectives. 

14  These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 
15  The assessment adopts the generally accepted definition of risk as a product of consequence times likelihood, 

thereby also in alignment with Art. 7(2) of the FD. 

19 

 
 
                                                 
3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

The objectives have been coordinated at the national level: as noted, there are the same general 

objectives  for  all  FRMPs.  The  objectives  were  discussed  with  stakeholder  in  the  public 
consultation for the FRMPs. 

3.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

objectives 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The objectives are neither specific nor measurable.  

20 

 
 
 
 
4.   Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

Slovakia  has  reported  1  381  individual  measures  and  32  aggregated16  measures17.  All  the 
individual measures reported are protection measures, while the aggregated measures cover all 
four  measure  aspects  (no  “other”  measures  are  reported).  All  the  individual  measures  are 

located  at  APSFR  level,  while  the  aggregated  measures  are  all  located  at  either  UoM  or 
national levels. A definition of individual and aggregated measures was not found, however, in 

the FRMPs or the reporting sheets.   

The great majority of measures – 1 303 of the individual protection measures – are located in 

the Danube UoM (SK40000FD). In contrast, the Vistula UoM (SK30000FD) contains only 78 
protection measures. 

Please see Annex A for supplementary tables and charts on measures for detailed information 
on this and subsequent sections. 

4.1 

Cost of measures 

Table 6 

Estimated overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMPs 

Estimated overall budget of planned measures 
(2015-2021) in EUR 

Hron sub-unit (Danube RBD SK40000) 

Dunajec and Poprad sub-unit (Vistula RBD SK30000) 

72 300 000 

45 600 000 

Source: FRMPs 

The  FRMPs  indicate  that  in  total,  approximately  EUR  400  m  are  planned  for  measures  in 
Slovakia  until  202118.  In  addition,  Annex  IX  of  each  FRMP  provides  the  costs  of  each 
individual measure for implementation by 2021 in the sub-basin. Summing up the costs of all 

measures for implementation by 2021 in the Annex IX for the Hron FRMP (no total budget is 
provided)  indicates  that  EUR  72.3  mil  are  planned  for  12  measures;  for  the  Dunajec  and 

Poprad sub-unit, EUR 45.6 mil are planned for 12 measures.  

16   The Reporting Guidance mentions “Measures can be reported as individual measures (recommended for major 
projects)  or  aggregated  measures,…”  and  also  notes  that  measures  may  be  comprised  of  “many  individual 
projects”. European Commission, Guidance for Reporting under the FD (2007/60/EC), 2013, pp. 54-58. 

17  The information reported to WISE was the starting point for the assessment in this section. The majority of the 
statistics  presented  are  based  on  processing  of  information  reported  to  WISE.  Assuming  that  the  Member 
States accurately transferred the information contained in their FRMPs to the reporting sheets (the sheets are 
the same for all Member States and are not customisable) and barring any undetected errors in the transfer of 
this information to WISE arising from the use of interfacing electronic tools, these statistics should reflect the 
content of the FRMPs. 

18  The information is provided in Chapter 6.2 of each FRMP. 

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
The FRMPs indicate that  a far larger amount  –  EUR 1 060 m  – are planned for measures in 
Slovakia  after  2021.  Annex  IX  of  each  FRMP  also  indicates  the  costs  of  each  measure  for 

implementation  after  2021.  Summing  up  the  costs  of  all  measures  for  implementation  after 
2021 indicates that: 

  EUR 135 m are planned in the Hron sub-unit for 42 measures,  

  EUR 282 m are planned for Vah sub-unit for 158 measures,  

  EUR 156 m are planned for Slana sub-unit for 29 measures,  

  EUR 85 m are planned for Morava sub-unit for 46 measures,  

  EUR 10.9 m are planned for Ipel sub-unit for nine measures,  

  EUR 5.4 m are planned for Bodva sub-unit for one measure,  

  EUR 282 m are planned for Vah sub-unit for 158 measures,  

  EUR 85 m are planned for Bodrog sub-unit for 115 measures and  

  EUR 19.3 m for 19 measures in the Dunajec and Poprad sub-unit. 

The information in the FRMPs’ Annex IX does not include a breakdown of cost components 
specifying which elements are included in the calculation of costs (e.g. if operational costs are 

included or only investment costs) or if there are any differences in cost calculation methods 
across different measure aspects. 

4.2 

Funding of measures 

The FRMPs provide an indication of the funding sources for measures. These include national, 

regional  and  local  budgets.  Almost  all  measures  in  the  FRMPs to  be  completed  by  2021  are 
going to be co-funded by EU funds (Structural & Cohesion). Further details, such as the share 
of financing from each source, are not provided19. 

Table 7 

Funding of measures 

Distribution of costs among those groups affected by flooding  

Use of public budget (national level)  

Use of public budget (regional level)  

Use of public budget (local level)  

Private investment  

EU funds (generic)  

EU Structural funds  

EU Solidarity Fund  

EU Cohesion funds  

19  FRMP Chapter 8. 

22 

SK 40000 

SK30000 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EU CAP funds  

International funds  

4.3  Measurable and specific measures 

Source: FRMPs 

All FRMPs assessed include a clear and explicit description of the measures with regard to:  

  What they are trying to achieve, 

  Where they are to be achieved, 

  How they are to be achieved, and 

  By when they are expected to be achieved. 

For  each  measure,  location,  river  chainage  and  APSFR  code  are  given.  For  each  APSFR,  a 

theoretical  analysis  of  the  impact  of  measures  on  the  achievement  of  FRMP  objectives  has 
been  carried  out.  The  possible  effect  of  the  protection  measures  on  Qmax  (peak  flood 

discharge)  was  modelled  for  various  measure  scenarios  (the  scenarios  cover:  the  current 
situation; all areas, except municipal and industrial areas, afforested; optimised use). Based on 

this modelling, sub-catchments were identified that have a potential for improved natural water 
retention  and  reduction  of  Qmax  using  appropriate  landscape  and  ecological  measures  in 
agricultural areas and forests (NWRM)20. 

Table 8 

Location of measures  

International  

National  

RBD/UoM  

Sub-basin  

APSFR or other specific risk area  

Water body level  

More detailed than water body 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

4.4  Measures and objectives 

Source: FRMPs 

It  is  clear  how  and  by  how  much  the  measures  will  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the 
objectives.  It  is  not  clear,  however,  whether  the  objectives  will  be  achieved  when  all  the 

measures are completed, as the objectives are not stated in a specific and measurable way.  

20  FRMP Annex V and Annex VII. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The FRMP Annexes provide details mainly about the individual protection measures (M31  – 
M35)21.  A  comprehensive  assessment  of  the  potential  impact  of  the  existing  and  suggested 
protection measures on achieving objectives is provided in Annex VII of each FRMP. For each 
APSFR, the potential impact of the protection measures on the peak flow was modelled.  

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

All of Slovakia’s aggregated measures are located at UoM level and all individual measures, at 

APSFR level (see Table A5 in Annex A of this document). 

In Slovakia’s reporting sheet no information on geographic coverage of the expected effects of 

the measures was provided. 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

The FRMPs (in Chapter 6.2) refer to three priority levels for APSFRs for the implementation 

of  measures  (high,  medium,  low):  a  prioritisation  method  based  on  eight  criteria  has  been 
applied and the results are presented in Annex IX of each FRMP. The eight criteria (listed in 

Chapter 6.2) are:  

1.  Number of people affected by Q100,  
2.  the number of economic objects in the flood plain area at Q100,  
3.  the number of IPPC and SEVESO objects, environmental loads and other objects that 

could cause extreme water quality deterioration or flood risk at Q100,  

4.  number  of  sites  of  cultural  heritage,  such  as  monuments  and  landmarks,  in  the 

floodplain area of Q100,  

5.  the  number  of  measures  from  River  Basin  Management  Plans  proposed  for 

implementation in the frame of FRMP measures,  

6.  prevented damages in EUR,  
7.  total cost of implementing flood risk management measures in EUR,  
8.  cost benefit of flood risk management measures.  

Timetable 

The  timetable  for  the  implementation  of  measures  is  set  in  two  phases:  until  2021  and  after 
2021. The timetable is set based on the prioritisation described above. The results are shown in 

Annex IX of each plan. It seems that the division line is the approximately EUR 400 m that are 
planned for the FRM measures in Slovakia until 2021 (i.e. measures with high ranking up to 

21  These are called “preventive” measures according to the Slovak Law 7/2010 Z. z., but are protection measures 

according to the EU catalogue of measures. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
EUR 400 m will be implemented by 2021, the rest of the measures after 2021, even if highly 
ranked).  

In  the  Hron  sub-unit,  12  measures  (mostly  protection  measures  but  also  natural  flood 
management and runoff and catchment management measures and measures to reduce the flow 

into  natural  or  artificial  drainage  systems)  have  priority  1  and  are  planned  to  2021.  16 
measures with priority 2 and 26 measures with priority 3 are planned after 2021.  

In the Dunajec and Poprad sub-unit, 12 measures (protection measures and also natural flood 
management and runoff and catchment management measures and measures to reduce the flow 

into  natural  or  artificial  drainage  systems)  have  priority  1  and  are  planned  until  2021.  One 
measure with priority 1 and 18 measures with priority 2 are planned after 2021. 

In  its  reporting  sheets,  Slovakia,  did  not,  however,  provide  information  regarding  the 
prioritisation of measures. Moreover, according to the timetable information reported, Slovakia 

reported measures for implementation in the period up to 2021 (covering the first FRMP).  

4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

According  to  Slovakia’s  reporting  sheets,  the  Ministry  of  Environment  is  responsible  for  the 

great  majority  of  measures,  though  other  national  ministries  and  other  bodies  also  have 
responsibility for measures. According to this information, which is provided for all FRMPs in 

Slovakia:  

  Ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  is  responsible  for  two  preparedness, 

eight  protection and two recovery measures;  

  Ministry of Defence is responsible for two preparedness, 10 protection and four recovery 

measures;  

  Ministry  of  Environment  is  responsible  for  six  preparedness,  six  prevention,  1  385 

protection and six recovery measures;  

  Ministry of Health is responsible for four recovery measures;  

  Ministry of Transport, Constructions  and Regional  Development  is  responsible for two 

preparedness, six protection and two recovery measures;  

  Ministry of Interior is responsible for four preparedness, two prevention and six recovery 

measures; 

 

the academic sector is responsible for two prevention measures;  

  governmental  bodies  (not  specified)  are  responsible  for  two  preparedness  and  four 

prevention measures;  

  municipalities  are  responsible  for  four  preparedness,  two  prevention,  14  protection  and  

four recovery measures;  

25 

 
 
  Non-Governmental Organisations are responsible for six protection measures;  

  associations of physical or legal persons are responsible for six protection measures. 

Consequently, the Ministry of Environment has responsibility for 99 % of the 1 413 measures 

reported  for  Slovakia.  The  other  national  ministries  cited  above  each  have  responsibility  for 
about 1 % of the measures, and municipalities have responsibility for 2 % of the measures. The 

shares for the academic sector, Non-Governmental Organisations and associations are less than 
1 % each. It should be noted that many measures have more than one responsible authority. 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

According  to  Slovakia’s  reporting  sheets,  1  270  measures  (about  90  %  of  the  total)  were 
reported  as  “Not  started”,  95  measures  (7  %)  are  “Progress  ongoing”,  40  measures  (3%)  are 

“Completed” and eight measures (under 1 %) are “On-going construction”.  

The great majority of measures are categorised as protection, and 91% of these (1 268 out of 
1 395) have not yet started. In contrast, all the recovery and review measures (six) are ongoing 
and  four  of  the  six  preparedness  measures  are  ongoing,  with  the  other  two  completed.  See 

Tables A7 and A8 and Figures A5 and A6 in Annex A of this document for further details.  

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts 

Member States have been asked to report on other Community Acts under which each measure 

has  been  implemented;  however,  Slovakia  did  not  provide  this  information  in  its  reporting 
sheets. 

Slovakia’s FRMPs (in Chapter 6) describes protection measures in terms of the requirements 
of the EU WFD environmental objectives. The issue of reducing pollution risks in flood prone 

zones  is  mentioned  in  the  FRMPs,  specifically  when  listing  existing  installations  identified 
under the Seveso Directive; however, further details are not provided. 

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

With  regard  to  spatial  planning/land  use  measures,  the  following  types  of  measures  are 

included in all the Slovak FRMPs: for flood protection in urban areas, the key precautionary 
measure is  to  avoid  construction activities in flood risk areas. Where the potentially affected 
area  is  already  in  use,  the  FRMPs22  state  that  social  pressure  needs  to  be  exerted  to  move 
vulnerable  objects  and  assets  out  of  such  area.  The  FRMPs  moreover  indicate  that  avoiding 
construction  activities  in  flood  risk  areas  is  a  measure  contained  in  spatial  plans  for  urban 

22  Chapter 4.1.2.1.3 in each plan. 

26 

 
 
                                                 
areas23;  spatial  plans  also  include  general  flood  protection  and  prevention  measures  such  as 
river revitalisation and river channel capacity maintenance, construction of polders and dikes. 

For NWRM, the FRMPs list areas suitable for natural and artificial transformation of the flood 
wave, and Annex V of each FRMPs lists measures aiming to retention of water in a landscape 

and  to  the  natural  accumulation  of  water.  Slovakia  reported  a  total  of  520  type  M31 
measures24, about 37 % of all measures.  

With  regard  to  measures  that  specifically  consider  nature  conservation,  all  FRMPs  state 
that assessments will consider and address potential impacts on nature conservation areas: All 

measures are subject to impact assessment in line with §28 of the national Nature Conservation 
Law (543/2002 Z.z.), and for measures having an impact on Natura 2000 areas, an assessment 

according to Art. 6 of the Habitats Directive will be ensured. 

The  FRMPs  in  Slovakia  do  not  refer  to  navigation  and  port  infrastructure.  Detailed 

information  about  dredging  was  not  found,  but  there  are  measures  to  maintain  the  river 
channel capacity with the aim of flood protection (river bed cleaning, vegetation removal)25.  

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The  role  of  insurance  policies  with  regard  to  recovery  from  flooding  or  to  preparedness  and 
resilience is not discussed in the FRMPs assessed26. No information was found with regard to 
the type of insurance available or to be developed for potential flooding areas. Moreover, no 
information was found with regard to flood insurance for properties in flood risk areas, and in 

particular  in  high  flood  risk  areas.  Equally,  there  is  no  information  provided  in  the  FRMPs 
whether ecosystem services are considered in costs and benefits, nor restoration costs in cases 

where potentially polluting sites and installations may be flooded.  Nonetheless, in Slovakia’s 
reporting sheets, insurance companies are listed among the authorities responsible for certain 

measures. No further information is provided, however. 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

FRMPs  contain  a  general  description  of  the  monitoring  of  the  progress  of  measures 
implementation. Monitoring is based on provisions of the Law on Public Works and includes 
monitoring of the preparatory phase, construction phase and finalisation phase and production 

23  FRMPs chapter 3.8. 
24  Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow into 
natural  or  artificial  drainage  systems,  such  as  overland  flow  interceptors  and  /  or  storage,  enhancement  of 
infiltration, etc. and including in-channel, floodplain works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural 
systems to help slow flow and store water. 

25  FRMP Annex VIII. 
26   Slovakia  subsequently  noted  that  according  to  the  national  Flood  Protection  Act,  insurance  policy  is  not  a 

flood protection measure. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
of testing plan and final building approval. In case of the use of EU funds, special indicators 
are applied27. 

No  information  was  found  in  the  FRMPs  regarding  a  baseline  for  measuring  the  progress  of 
implementation of the measures. 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  development  of  the  FRMP  has  been  coordinated  with  the 

development  of  the  second  River  Basin  Management  Plan  of  the  WFD.  In  addition,  the 
reporting  sheets  specifically  identify  KTM  codes  (Key  Types  of  Measures)  under  the  WFD 
KTM2328, KTM2429, and KTM1730 as relevant.  

Table 9 

Coordination of the development of the FRMPs with the development of the 

second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD  

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Integration of FRMP and RBMP into a single plan 

Joint consultation of draft FRMP and RBMP  

Coordination between authorities responsible for developing FRMP and 
RBMP  
Coordination with the environmental objectives in Art. 4 of the WFD  

The objectives of the FD were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a 

Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMP  

The RBMP Programme of Measures included win-win measures in terms of 
achieving the objectives of the WFD and FD, drought management and 
NWRMs a 
Permitting or consenting of flood risk activities (e.g. dredging, flood defence 
maintenance or construction) requires prior consideration of WFD objectives 
and RBMPs  
Natural water retention and green infrastructure measures have been included  

Consistent and compliant application of WFD Article 4(7) and designation of 
heavily modified water bodies with measures taken under the FD, e.g. flood 
defence infrastructure  
The design of new and existing structural measures, such as flood defences, 
storage dams and tidal barriers, have been adapted to take into account WFD 
Environmental Objectives a 

The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland 
and porous pavements, have been considered to reduce urban flooding and 
also to contribute to the achievement of WFD Environmental Objectives  

27  FRMP Chapter 8. 
28  Natural water retention measures. 
29  Adaptation to climate change. 
30  Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Notes: a  based on reporting under the WFD 

Slovak  Act  no.  7/2010  Coll.  has  transposed  the  FD  and  provides  that  the  first  flood  risk 

management  plans  and  their  updates  will  become  part  of  the  river  basin  management  plans 
(RBMPs) for the respective sub-basins and the river basin districts. At present, however, there 

are two separate plans.  

In the FRMPs, Chapter 8.5 describes coordination of implementation of FRMPs and RBMPs. 

In particular, they refer to coordination for the development of FHRM, development of flood 
risk management plans and to public information and consultation. The aspects of permitting 

or  consenting  of  flood  risk  activities  requiring  prior  consideration  of  WFD  environmental 
objectives  are  addressed  in  the  FRMPs  (in  Chapter  6.1,  which  summarises  all  suggested 

protection measures). The design of structural measures has been adapted to take into account 
WFD Environmental Objectives. Chapter 6.1 clearly describes the requirements related to the 
application of the WFD Art. 4(7) for each measure31. The results of an environmental impact 
assessment should be provided for each measure.  

FRMPs Annex V lists all measures aiming at the retention of water in a landscape and to the 
natural accumulation of water. 

NWRM  have  been  included  under  both  RBMPs  and  FRMPs.  FRMPs  in  Annex  V  list  all 
measures aiming at retention of water in a landscape and at the natural accumulation of water. 

Annex  1  lists  520  M31  measures  in  Slovakia.  The  FRMPs  (in  Chapter  6)  also  describe 
protection measures in terms of the WFD’s objectives.  

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  FRMPs  provide  a  detailed  description  of  a  high  number  of  individual  measures, 
including  measures  in  forests,  in  agricultural  land  and  in  urban  areas,  and  the  FRMPs 

summarise all suggested protection measures in APSFRs.  

  The FRMPs provide a comprehensive assessment of potential impacts of the existing and 

proposed protection measures on achieving the FRMP objectives.  

31  In particular, that all practicable steps have to be taken to mitigate the adverse impact on the status of the body 
of water; that the reasons for those modifications or alterations have to be specifically set out and explained in 
the river basin management plan and the objectives will be reviewed every six years; that the reasons for those 
modifications  or  alterations  are  of  overriding  public  interest;  and  the  beneficial  objectives  served  by  those 
modifications  or  alterations  of  the  water  body  cannot  for  reasons  of  technical  feasibility  or disproportionate 
cost be achieved by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option. 

29 

 
 
                                                 
  The possible effect of the protection measures on the Qmax (peak flood discharge) was 
modelled for various mixes of measures. Based on this modelling, sub-catchments could 
be  identified  having  a  potential  for  improved  natural  water  retention  and  reduction  of 

Qmax  using  appropriate  landscape  and  ecological  measures  in  agricultural  areas  and 
forests.  

  Slovakia’s FRMPs identify at least 520 NWRMs, more than one-third of all measures.  

  A comprehensive system to prioritise measures has been developed and applied.  

The following areas for further development were identified:  

 

In their Annexes, Slovakia’s FRMPs only provide details on protection measures.  

  As Slovakia’s objectives are not stated in specific or measurable terms, it is not clear to 

what extent they will be achieved by the measures.  

  No information  was  found if a baseline has been established against which progress  in 

the implementation of measures will be monitored and assessed. 

30 

 
 
 
 
5.   Consideration of climate change 

Slovakia’s FRMPs cite the national Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, published in 201432. 
They  explain that the Strategy calls for adaptation measures in  the water  management sector 
such  as  water  retention  (by  afforestation,  floodplain  revitalisation,  application  of  proper 

agricultural  methods,  reduction  of  non-permeable  surfaces  in  urban  areas),  construction  of 
reservoirs  and  polders,  proper  urban  zoning  (avoiding  new  construction  in  flood  risk  areas), 

effective water management (effective reservoir management), prevention of water pollution, 
research (quantification of climate change impact on river hydrology). The FRMPs, however, 

do  not  explain  how  the  Strategy  has  been  used  in  preparing  the  plans,  including  in  setting 
objectives or identifying measures33, though they do include some of the measures it suggests. 

The FRMPs note that climate change will lead to a more irregular precipitation pattern that will 
cause  both  drought  and  flood  (especially  flash  flood)  events.  Greater  extremes  in  the 

hydrological regime are expected as well. No information was found in the reporting sheets or 
in  the  FRMPs  with  regard  to  whether  the  main  sources  of  flooding  are  expected  to  change 

under the long-term climate change scenarios.  

5.1 

Specific  types  of  measures  to  mitigate  expected  effects  of  climate 
change 

The  FRMPs  highlight  afforestation  measures  and  water  retention  measures,  including 

construction of reservoirs, as appropriate tools for minimizing the impacts  of climate change 
on the likelihood and potential adverse consequences of flooding34. 

5.2  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The  FRMPs  highlight  afforestation  measures  and  water  retention  measures  as  tools  for 

minimising the impacts of climate change flood risks. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  While the FRMPs mention the national climate change adaptation strategy in Slovakia, it 
is  not  explicitly  explained how it has been used  for setting the FRMPs’  objectives  and 

measures. 

32  Ministry of Environment, Adaptation Strategy of the Slovak Republic on Adverse Impacts of Climate Change, 

December 2014. 
33  FRMPs Chapter 1. 
34  FRMPs Chapter 4. 

31 

 
 
                                                 
6.   Cost-benefit analysis 

All the FRMPs assessed refer to cost benefit as a criterion for the establishment of priorities for 

the selection of measures. CBA was used for all measures. 

The  FRMPs  note  that  CBA  had  already  been  applied  for  specific  flood  protection  measures 

and projects in Slovakia. According to national legislation, flood damage to assets is defined 
through an estimation of restoration costs based on prices in the affected region.  

For  the  purpose  of  the  prioritisation  of  measures  in  the  Flood  Risk  Management  Plans,  a 
national  methodology  for  the  evaluation  of  flood  damages,  for  use  in  the  analysis  of  flood 

protection measures and their economic benefits, was prepared by the national Working Group 
on  Economics  and  then  amended  and  adopted  by  the  national  Working  Group  on  Floods  in 

January 2014. The ranking of measures is based inter alia on their efficiency indices, which are 
calculated  as  the  ratio  between  the  estimated  avoided  potential  flood  damages  and  the 

estimated  overall  costs  (for  preparation,  land  purchase,  implementation,  operation  and 
maintenance) of a given measure during its lifetime. The lifetime period of the flood protection 

measures/structures equals 100 years in Slovakia. 

Multi-benefits were considered in all the FRMPs. The efficiency index was used as one out of 

several  criteria  in  the  process  of  prioritization  of  measures.  Prioritisation  of  flood  protection 
measures to achieve the objectives of the Flood Risk Management Plan up to 2021 was mainly 

according to the urgency of their implementation and has been carried out on the basis of eight 
criteria (also listed in section 4): 

1.  Number of people affected by Q100,  
2.  the number of economic objects in the flood plain area at Q100,  
3.  the number of IPPC and SEVESO objects, environmental loads and other objects that 

could cause extreme water quality deterioration or flood risk at Q100,  

4.  number of objects of cultural heritage, resp. Cultural monuments and landmarks in the 

floodplain area of Q100,  

5.  the number measures from river basin management plans proposed for implementation 

in the frame of FRMP measures,  

6.  Prevented damages in EUR,  
7.  total cost of implementing flood risk management measures in EUR,  
8.  cost benefit of flood risk management measures.  

Based on these criteria, the prioritisation of measures was carried out. Each of the criteria was 
assessed individually and the cumulative effect  of flood protection measures protecting more 

32 

 
 
than  one  geographical  area  was  taken  into  account.  The  assessment  of  the  eight  criteria 
assigned a score to each proposed measure.  

Based on the results of prioritisation process, the measures to be implemented up to 2021 were 
identified. Next,  the technical  feasibility of  completion  of the proposed measures up to  2021 

was assessed. If it is technically unfeasible, then the measure is proposed for realisation  after 
2021. The results of prioritisation are presented in FRMPs, in Annex IX35. 

Slovakia’s  reporting  sheet  states  that  no  transboundary  APSFRs  were  identified  and  no 
measures  with  transboundary  impact  were  identified.  Therefore,    to  assess  measures  with 

transnational effects was not relevant for the first FRMP. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The Slovak CBA method is presented as a good practice case study in the first Danube 
Flood  Risk  Management  Plan  produced  by  the  ICPDR.  This  method  was  used  to 
prioritise measures.  

35  The Slovak CBA is described in Annex 5 of the international Danube Flood Risk Management Plan published 

by the ICPDR. 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

The  FRMPs  and  Slovakia’s  reporting  sheets  indicate  that  the  Competent  Authorities  and  the 
Units of Management previously identified for the FD have not changed. No documents have 

been submitted to the European Commission regarding the matter since the initial reporting in 
2010. 

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

The  table  below  shows  how  the  public  and  interested  parties  were  informed  in  the  UoMs 
assessed  concerning  the  draft  FRMPs.  Information  on  how  the  consultation  was  actually 

carried out and which stakeholders participated is presented in the rest of the section: 

Table 10 

Methods used to inform the public and interested parties of the FRMPs 

All UoMs assessed 

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

TV documentary 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

Slovakia’s  FRMPs  were  developed  in  coordination  with  the  updates  of  the  River  Basin 
Management Plans under the WFD (as per Act No. 7/2010 Coll. on Flood Protection, Art. 9.4). 

These two strategic documents were jointly submitted for strategic environmental assessment 
(under  Act  No.  24/2006  Coll.  on  Environmental  Impact  Assessment)  and  for  the  public 

consultation, for written comments.  

During  the  six-month  consultation  period  for  the  draft  FRMPs,  special  seminars  were 

organised  throughout  Slovakia  by  the  Ministry  of  Environment  in  cooperation  with  the 
Environmental Divisions of the District Authorities. The scope of the seminars was to inform 
the  public  about  the  content  and  the  preparation  process  of  the  plans  and  on  their  proposed 
flood protection measures, and to create opportunities for discussion.  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The participants in these seminars included36: 

  mayors of municipalities or representatives of communities united in micro-regions; 

  officials in self-governing bodies who work on protection against floods (e.g. employees 

of regional road administration, etc.);  

  officials of the Divisions of crisis management of District Authorities; 

  officials of the Environmental Divisions of the District Authorities.  

Members of the broader public also participated. 

The table below shows how the actual consultation was carried out: 

Table 11 

Methods used for the actual consultation 

Via Internet  

Digital social networking  

Direct invitation  

Exhibitions  

Workshops, seminars or conferences  

Telephone surveys  

Direct involvement in drafting FRMP  

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

The consultation was carried out via Internet, via direct invitation to stakeholders and also via 
the special seminars described above.  

The table below shows how the documents for the consultation were provided: 

Table 12 

Methods used to provide the documents for the consultation 

Downloadable  

Direct mailing (e-mail)  

Direct mailing (post)  

Paper copies distributed at exhibitions  

Paper copies available in municipal buildings (town hall, library etc.)  

Source: FRMPs 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

For all the UoMs assessed, documents for the consultation were available for download from 
the Internet, and paper copies were available in  all municipalities. There were no differences 

36  FRMP Chapter 8.2 DFRMP. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
between FRMPs in terms of their structure and table of contents, the approaches and methods 
used, or the text phrases describing the major principles followed between the plans. As noted 

in section 1, the FRMPs did differ in terms of length, due among other reasons to the number 
of information provided on specific conditions and measures. 

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

The  table  below  shows  the  groups  of  stakeholders  that  were  actively  involved  in  the 

development of the FRMPs assessed (further details are provided above): 

Table 13 

Groups of stakeholders  

All UoMs assessed 

Civil  Protection  Authorities  such  as  Government  Departments  responsible 
for emergency planning and coordination of response actions 

Flood Warning / Defence Authorities  

Drainage Authorities  

Emergency services  

Water supply and sanitation  

Agriculture / farmers  

Energy / hydropower  

Navigation / ports  

Fisheries / aquaculture  

Private business (Industry, Commerce, Services) 

Non-Governmental Organisations including nature  protection, social issues 
(e.g. children, housing) 

Consumer Groups  

Local / Regional authorities  

Academia / Research Institutions  

General public (via online questionnaires) 

Source: FRMPs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

The table below shows the mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders: 

Table 14 

Mechanisms used to ensure the active involvement of stakeholders  

Regular exhibitions  

Establishment of advisory groups  

Involvement in drafting  

Workshops and technical meetings 

36 

All UoMs assessed 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Formation of alliances  

Information days 

Source: FRMPs 

The main mechanisms for active involvement by stakeholders were the formation of advisory 

groups  as  well  as  holding  regular  exhibitions  and  the  organisation  of  the  special  seminars 
described above.  

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The effects were not mentioned in the FRMPs. 

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

Both FRMPs and RBMPs underwent a Strategic Environmental Assessment procedure37.  

7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

Governance 

The following good practices were identified: 

  Active public consultation was organised to inform the public about the content and the 
preparation  process  of  flood  risk  management  plans,  and  on  the  proposed  flood 

protection measures, creating sufficient space for discussion.  

  During  the  six-month  public  consultation  period  for  the  draft  flood  risk  management 
plans,  special  seminars  were  organised  throughout  Slovakia  to  inform  the  public  about 
the content and the preparation process of the plans, present their measures and to create 

opportunities for discussion.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The effects of the consultations are not described in the FRMPs. 

37  Reporting sheet: Summary of the Development. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

This Annex gives an overview of the data on measures provided by Slovakia in its reporting 

sheets.  These  tables  and  charts  were  used  for  the  preparation  of  section  4  on  the  planned 
measures.   

Background & method 

This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans 
(FRMPs). The tables and charts below are a summary of the data reported on measures by the 

Member States and were used by the Member State assessor to complete the questions on the 
Flood measures. The data are extracted from the XMLs (reporting sheets) reported by Member 

States for each FRMP, and are split into the following sections: 

  Measures overview – Tabulates the number of measures for each UoM 

  Measure details: cost – Cost & Cost explanation 

  Measures details: name & location – Location & geographic coverage 

  Measure details: authorities – Name of responsible authority & level of responsibility 

  Measure details: objectives – Objectives, Category of priority & Timetable 

  Measure details: progress – Progress of implementation & Progress description 

  Measure details: other – Other Community Acts  

On the basis of the reporting guidance (which in turn is based on the FD)38, not all fields are 
mandatory, and, as such, not all Member States reported information for all fields.  

Some of the fields in the XMLs could be filled in using standardised answers – for example, 
progress  is  measured  via  the  categories  set  out  in  the  Reporting  Guidance.  This  means  that 

producing comprehensive tables and charts required little effort.  For many fields, however, a 
free  data  format  was  used.  For  some  Member  States,  this  resulted  in  thousands  of  different 

answers, or answers given in the national language.  

In such situations, tables and charts were developed using the following steps: 

  A first filter is done to identify how many different answers were given. If a high number 
of different  answers are given, Member States assessors were asked to refer to the raw 
data when conducting the assessment, and this Annex does not reflect these observations. 

 

If a manageable number of answers are given, obvious categories are identified, and raw 
data sorted. 

38  http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas/dir200760ec/resources 

38 

 
 
                                                 
  Measures  missing  information  may  be  assigned  categories  based  on  other  fields  (for 
example,  if  the  level  of  Responsibility  Authority  is  missing,  the  information  may  be 
obvious from the field “name of Responsible Authority”). 

  Measures  where  obvious  categories  cannot  be  defined  based  on  other  available 
information  (as  in  the  example  above  on  the  name  of  the  Responsible  Authority),  are 

categorised as “no information”. 

Types of measures used in reporting  

The following table39 is used in the reporting on the types of measures. Each type of measures 
is coded as an M-number. Measures are grouped in an ‘aspect’. 

NO ACTION 

M11: No Action 

PREVENTION 

M21: Avoidance 

PREPAREDNESS 

M41: Flood Forecasting & Warning 

M42: Emergency response planning 

M43: Public Awareness 

M44: Other preparedness 

RECOVERY & REVIEW 

M51: Clean-up, restoration & personal recovery 

M22: Removal or relocation 

M52: Environmental recovery 

M23: Reduction 

M24: Other prevention 

PROTECTION 

M31: Natural flood management 

M32: Flow regulation 

M33: Coastal and floodplain works 

M34: Surface Water Management 

M35: other protection 

M53: Other recovery  

OTHER MEASURES 

M61: Other measures 

39  Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a  

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect ............. 43 
Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect ............... 43 
Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Location of implementation by measure aspect ......... 45 
Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Location of implementation by UoM ......................... 45 
Figure A5: Visualisation of Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ........... 48 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Progress of implementation by UoM .......................... 49 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ....................................................................................... 41 
Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM .................................. 41 
Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM ................................. 42 
Table  A4  -  Total  number  of  measures  (aggregated  and  individual)  per  measure  aspect  and 
UoM ........................................................................................................................................... 42 
Table A5 - Location of implementation by measure aspect ...................................................... 44 
Table A6 - Location of implementation by UoM ...................................................................... 45 
Table A7 - Progress of implementation by measure aspect ....................................................... 47 
Table A8 - Progress of implementation by UoM....................................................................... 48 

40 

 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1 - Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

Number of individual measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Number of aggregated measures  

Number of aggregated measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Total number of measures  

Total number of measures including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

Range of number of measures between UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type (Min-Max) 

Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 

1 381 

1 381 

32 

32 

1 413 

1 413 

94 - 1 319 

707 

Table A2 - Number of individual measures per measure type and UoM 

Prevention 

SK30000FD 

SK40000FD 

Grand Total 

0 

M31 

31 

489 

520 

Protection 

M33 

25 

373 

398 

M32 

9 

101 

110 

13 

13 

Average per UoM 

7 
Notes: All individual measures reported by Slovakia are Protection measures. 

260 

199 

55 

0 

41 

M34 

M35 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
Review 

Other 

13 

327 

340 

170 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Grand 
Total 

78 

1 303 

1 381 

691 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A3 - Number of aggregated measures per measure type and UoM 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

M21  M23  M24  M31  M32  M33  M34  M35  M41  M42  M43  M51  M52  M53 

Other 

Grand 
Total 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

3 

6 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

0 

0 

16 

16 

32 

16 

SK30000FD 

SK40000FD 

Grand Total 

Average per 
UoM 

Table A4 - Total number of measures (aggregated and individual) per measure aspect and UoM 

Prevention 

Aggregate 

Individual 

Total 

Protection 

Aggregate 

Individual 

Total 

Preparedness 

Aggregate 

Individual 

Total 

Recovery & review 

Aggregate 

Individual 

Total  Other 

SK30000FD 

SK40000FD 

Grand 

Total 

Average per 
UoM 

3 

3 

6 

3 

3 

3 

6 

3 

7 

7 

14 

7 

78 

85 

1 303 

1 310 

1 381 

1 395 

691 

698 

3 

3 

6 

3 

0 

0 

3 

3 

6 

3 

3 

3 

6 

3 

0 

0 

3 

3 

6 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Grand 
Total 

94 

1 319 

1 413 

707 

42 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The information in Table A4 is visualised in Figures A1 and A2 below: 

Figure A1 - Number of total measures (individual and aggregate) by measure aspect  

Note  that  the  majority  of  measures  (>90%)  in  SK  are  individual  protection  measures,  which 
makes the other types of measures less visible. 

Figure A2 - Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect  

Note  that  the  majority  of  measures  (>90%)  in  SK  are  individual  protection  measures,  which 
makes the other types of measures less visible. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

  Cost explanation (optional field). 

Slovakia has provided no information about the costs of measures in the reporting sheets. 

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field) 

  Geographic coverage of the impact of measures (optional field) 

Location of measures 

For Slovakia, it has been possible to  identify the location of all measures, as the free format 

answers are clearly either UoM codes or APSFR codes.  

Table A5 - Location of implementation by measure aspect 

UoM 

APSFR 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

6 

14 

6 

6 

32 

1 381 

1 381 

6 

1 395 

6 

6 

1 413 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A3 - Visualisation of Table A5: Location of implementation by measure aspect 

Table A6 - Location of implementation by UoM 

SK30000FD 

SK40000FD 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

UoM 

16 

16 

32 

16 

APSFR 

Grand Total 

78 

1 303 

1 381 

691 

94 

1 319 

1 413 

707 

Figure A4 - Visualisation of Table A6: Location of implementation by UoM 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Geographic coverage 

Slovakia did not report information about the geographic coverage of the effects of measures 
in the reporting sheets.  

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Objectives linked to measures (optional field, complementary to the summary provided 

in the textual part of the XML).  

  Category of priority (Conditional, reporting on either ‘category of priority’ or ‘timetable’ 

is required). 

  Timetable  (Conditional,  reporting  on  either  ‘category  of  priority’  or  ‘timetable’  is 

required). 

Objectives 

Slovakia has provided no information for objectives in the reporting sheets. 

Category of priority 

Slovakia has provided no information for priority of the measures in the reporting sheets. 

Timetable 

In the reporting sheets, Slovakia has provided “do roku 2021” for every measure, i.e. by 2021 
(the next cycle of the FRMP). 

Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Name of the responsible authority;   

  Level of responsibility.  

Slovakia reported that many measures have more than one responsible authority, creating some 
double  counting  and  making  the  aggregation  of  the  data  difficult.  Overall,  most  measures 

reported  national  ministries  and  municipalities  as  the  responsible  authorities,  some  measures 
reported  also  other  responsible  authorities  from  e.g.  the  academic  sector,  associations,  Non-

Governmental Organisations, insurance companies or other government bodies. 

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

46 

 
 
  Progress  of  implementation  of  measures  (mandatory  field)  –  this  is  a  closed  question 

whose responses are analysed below; 

  Progress description of the implementation of measures (optional field) – this is an open 

text question whose answers are not analysed here. 

Slovakia reported the progress of all measures. The progress of implementation was reported 
as40: 

  COM (completed); 

  OGC (ongoing construction); 

  POG (progress ongoing); 

  NS (not started). 

A full definition of these terms can be found at the end of this section. 

Table A7 - Progress of implementation by measure aspect 

Completed 

Ongoing 
construction 

Progress 
ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
review 

38 

2 

Grand Total 

40 

8 

8 

4 

81 

4 

6 

95 

2 

1 268 

6 

1 395 

6 

6 

1 270 

1 413 

40  Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Figure A5: Visualisation of Table A7: Progress of implementation by measure aspect  

Table A8 - Progress of implementation by UoM 

Completed 

Ongoing 

construction 

Progress 

ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

SK30000FD 

SK40000FD 

Grand Total 

Average per 

UoM 

10 

30 

40 

20 

3 

5 

8 

4 

16 

79 

95 

48 

65 

1 205 

1 270 

635 

94 

1 319 

1 413 

707 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure A6 - Visualisation of Table A8: Progress of implementation by UoM 

The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance 
Document on the FD. 

For measures involving construction or building works (e.g. a waste water treatment plant, 
a fish pass, a river restoration project, etc.): 

  Not  started  (NS)  means  the  technical  and/or  administrative  procedures  necessary  for 

starting the construction or building works have not started. 

  Progress on-going (POG) means that administrative procedures necessary for starting the 
construction or building works have started but are not finalised. The simple inclusion in 
the RBMPs is not considered planning in this context. 

  On-going construction (OGC) means the construction or building works have started but 

are not finalized. 

  Completed (COM) means the works have been finalised and the facilities are operational 

(maybe only in testing period in case e.g. a waste water treatment plant). 

For measures involving advisory services (e.g. training for farmers): 

  Not  started  (NS)  means  the  advisory  services  are  not  yet  operational  and  have  not 

provided any advisory session yet. 

  Progress  on-going  (POG)  means  the  advisory  services  are  operational  and  are  being 
used.  This  is  expected  to  be  the  situation  for  all  multi-  annual  long/mid-term  advisory 
services that are expected to be operational during the whole or most of RBMP cycle. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed (COM) means an advisory service that has been implemented and has been 
finalised, i.e. is no longer operational. This is expected only for advisory services that are 
relatively  short  term  or  one-off,  and  which  duration  is  time  limited  in  relation  to  the 
whole RBMP cycle. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
For measures involving research, investigation or studies: 

  Not started (NS) means the research, investigation or study has not started, i.e. contract 

has not been signed or there has not been any progress. 

  Progress on-going (POG) means the research, investigation or study has been contracted 

or started and is being developed at the moment. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed (COM) means the research, investigation or study has been finalised and has 

been delivered, i.e. the results or deliverables are available (report, model, etc.). 

For measures involving administrative acts (e.g. licenses, permits, regulations, instructions, 
etc.): 

  Not  started  (NS)  means  the  administrative  file  has  not  been  opened  and  there  has  not 

been any administrative action as regards the measure. 

  Progress  on-going  (POG)  means  an  administrative  file  has  been  opened  and  at  least  a 
first  administrative  action  has  been  taken  (e.g.  requirement  to  an  operator  to  provide 
information  to  renew  the  licensing,  request  of  a  permit  by  an  operator,  internal 
consultation  of  draft  regulations,  etc.).  If  the  measure  involves  more  than  one  file,  the 
opening of one would mean already “ongoing”. 

  On-going construction (OGC): Not applicable 
  Completed (COM) means the administrative act has been concluded (e.g. the license or 
permit  has  been  issued;  the  regulation  has  been  adopted,  etc.).  If  the  measure  involves 
more than one administrative act,  “completed” is achieved only when all of them have 
been concluded. 

Measure details: other 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Other Community Acts associated to the measures reported (optional field); 

  Any other information reported (optional field). 

Slovakia has provided no information about this in the reporting sheets. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures41 

No Action 

M11 

No Action, No measure is proposed to reduce the flood risk in the APSFR or other defined area, 

M21 

M22 

M23 

M24 

M31 

M32 

Prevention 

Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone 

areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 

Prevention, Removal or relocation, Measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas, or to relocate 

receptors to areas of lower probability of flooding and/or of lower hazard 

Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of a 
flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc... 

Prevention, Other prevention, Other measure to enhance flood risk prevention (may include, flood risk 
modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability assessment, maintenance programmes or policies etc...) 

Protection 

Protection Natural flood management / runoff and catchment management, Measures to reduce the flow 

into natural or artificial drainage systems, such as overland flow interceptors and / or storage, 

enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in-channel , floodplain works and the reforestation of banks, 
that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water. 

Protection, Water flow regulation, Measures involving physical interventions to regulate flows, such as 
the construction, modification or removal of water retaining structures (e.g., dams or other on-line storage 

areas or development of existing flow regulation rules), and which have a significant impact on the 

hydrological regime. 

Protection, Channel, Coastal and Floodplain Works, Measures involving physical interventions in 

M33 

freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal waters and flood-prone areas of land, such as the 
construction, modification or removal of structures or the alteration of channels, sediment dynamics 

management, dykes, etc. 

Protection, Surface Water Management, Measures involving physical interventions to reduce surface 
water flooding, typically, but not exclusively, in an urban environment, such as enhancing artificial 

drainage capacities or though sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). 

Protection, Other Protection, Other measure to enhance protection against flooding, which may include 
flood defence asset maintenance programmes or policies 

Preparedness 

Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or 
warning system 

Preparedness, Emergency Event Response Planning / Contingency planning, Measure to establish or 

enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning 

Preparedness, Public Awareness and Preparedness, Measure to establish or enhance the public awareness 

or preparedness for flood events 

Preparedness, Other preparedness, Other measure to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events to 
reduce adverse consequences 

M34 

M35 

M41 

M42 

M43 

M44 

Recovery & Review 

41   Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC): 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a3c92123-1013-47ff-b832-16e1caaafc9a 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Recovery and Review (Planning for the recovery and review phase is in principle part of preparedness), 

M51 

Individual and societal recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure, etc), Health 
and mental health supporting actions, incl. managing stress Disaster financial assistance (grants, tax), incl. 

disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, Temporary or permanent relocation , Other 

Recovery and Review, Environmental recovery, Clean-up and restoration activities (with several sub-

topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous materials containers) 

Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance 
policies 

Other 

Other 

M52 

M53 

M61 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures   

NWRM cover a wide range of actions and land use types. Many different measures can act as 
NWRM,  by  encouraging  the  retention  of  water  within  a  catchment  and,  through  that, 

enhancing  the  natural  functioning  of  the  catchment.  The  catalogue  developed  in  the  NWRM 
project  represents  a  comprehensive  but  non  prescriptive  wide  range  of  measures,  and  other 

measures, or similar measures called by a different name, could also be classified as NWRM.  

To ease access to measures, the catalogue of measures hereunder is sorted by the primary land 

use in which it was implemented: Agriculture; Forest; Hydromorphology; Urban. Most of the 
measures however can be applied to more than one land use type. 

Table B2 

List of NWRMs 

Agriculture 

A01 Meadows and 
pastures 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

F01 Forest riparian 
buffers 

N01 Basins and ponds 

U01 Green Roofs 

A02 Buffer strips and 
hedges 

F02 Maintenance of forest 
cover in headwater areas 

N02 Wetland restoration 
and management 

U02 Rainwater 
Harvesting 

A03 Crop rotation 

F03 Afforestation of 
reservoir catchments 

N03 Floodplain 
restoration and 
management 

U03 Permeable surfaces 

A04 Strip cropping along 
contours 

F04 Targeted planting for 
'catching' precipitation 

N04 Re-meandering 

U04 Swales 

A05 Intercropping 

F05 Land use conversion 

A06 No till agriculture 

F06 Continuous cover 
forestry 

A07 Low till agriculture 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

U07 Soakaways 

52 

 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A08 Green cover 

A09 Early sowing 

F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream 
crossings 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

A10 Traditional terracing 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

F11 Urban forest parks 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

U08 Infiltration Trenches 

U09 Rain Gardens 

U10 Detention Basins 

U11 Retention Ponds 

F12 Trees in Urban areas 

N12 Lake restoration 

U12 Infiltration basins 

A13 Mulching 

F13 Peak flow control 
structures 

N13 Restoration of 
natural infiltration to 
groundwater 

F14 Overland flow areas 
in peatland forests 

N14 Re-naturalisation of 
polder areas 

Source: www.nwrm.eu 

53