COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Slovenia 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: Slovenia, 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) 74 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT First Flood Risk Management Plans - Member State: Slovenia 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) 75 final} - {SWD(2019) 76 final} - {SWD(2019) 77 final} - {SWD(2019) 78 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 

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

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

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

Overview of the assessment .................................................................................................... 7 

Good Practices....................................................................................................................... 10 

Areas for further development .............................................................................................. 10 

Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 12 

1. 

 Scope of the assessment and sources of information for the assessment ......................... 13 

1.1  Reporting of the FRMPs ............................................................................................ 13 

1.2  Assessment of the FRMPs ......................................................................................... 13 

2. 

 Integration of previously reported information ................................................................ 14 

2.1  Conclusions drawn from the preliminary flood risk assessment................................ 14 

2.2 

Presentation of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps (FHRMs) in the FRMP ...................... 15 

2.3  Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas ................................................... 18 

2.4  Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood hazard and risk 
maps   .................................................................................................................................... 18 

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

3. 

 Setting of Objectives ........................................................................................................ 20 

3.1 

3.2 

Focus of objectives ..................................................................................................... 20 

Specific and measurable objectives ............................................................................ 20 

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods ........................................... 20 

3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding ............................. 21 

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives ............................................................................... 21 

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting objectives ....... 21 

4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives ........................................................... 22 

4.1  Cost of measures ........................................................................................................ 22 

4.2 

Funding of measures .................................................................................................. 23 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures ............................................ 24 

4.4  Measures and objectives............................................................................................. 25 

1 

 
 
4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures .................................................................... 25 

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures ........................................................................................... 25 

4.7  Authorities responsible for implementation of measures ........................................... 27 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures ................................................................... 27 

4.9  Measures taken under other Community Acts ........................................................... 28 

4.10  Specific groups of measures ....................................................................................... 28 

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding .................................................................. 29 

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP ...................................................... 29 

4.13  Coordination with the Water Framework Directive ................................................... 30 

4.14  Good practices and areas for further development with regard to measures ............. 31 

5. Consideration of climate change ........................................................................................... 33 

5.1  Good practices and areas for further development concerning climate change ......... 33 

6. Cost-benefit analysis ............................................................................................................. 34 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development ..................................................... 35 

7. 

 Governance including administrative arrangements, public information and consultation . 
 ........................................................................................................................................... 36 

7.1  Competent authorities ................................................................................................ 36 

7.2 

Public information and consultation .......................................................................... 36 

7.3  Active involvement of Stakeholders .......................................................................... 38 

7.4 

7.5 

Effects of consultation ................................................................................................ 38 

Strategic Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 38 

7.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding governance ................. 39 

Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures ......................................................... 40 

Background & method .......................................................................................................... 40 

Types of measures used in reporting ..................................................................................... 41 

List of Annex A tables & figures .......................................................................................... 42 

Measures overview ................................................................................................................ 43 

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

Measure details: name & location ......................................................................................... 45 

Measure details: objectives ................................................................................................... 45 

Measure details: authorities ................................................................................................... 47 

2 

 
 
 
Measure details: progress ...................................................................................................... 48 

Measure details: other ........................................................................................................... 51 

Annex B: Definitions of measure types .................................................................................... 52 

Catalogue of Natural Water Retention Measures .................................................................. 53 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Acronyms 

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

Areas of Potential Significant Flood Risk 
Cost-Benefit Analysis 
European Environment Agency 
Floods Directive 
Flood Hazard and Risk Map 
Flood Risk Management Plan 
Natural Water Retention Measures 
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments 
Programme of Measures 
River Basin District 
River Basin Management Plan 
Strategic Environmental Assessment 
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 & 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  Slovenia1.  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. 

  The national FRMP – Slovenia prepared one FRMP, which contains general sections and 
(in  separate  sections)  17  sub-basin  flood  plans  across  the  two  Units  of  Management 
(UoM) in the country.  

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  MSs  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 

Slovenia  is  divided  into  two  UoMs,  which  correspond  to  the  River  Basin  Districts  (RBDs) 

under the Water Framework Directive (WFD): these UoMs are the Danube (SI_RBD_1) and 
the  Adriatic  (SI_RBD_2).  Slovenia  prepared  one  FRMP  that  covers  both  UoMs;  the  FRMP 

incorporates 17 sub-basin flood plans – 14 in the Danube UoM and three in the Adriatic UoM. 
Each sub-basin flood plan includes at least one APSFR.  

The management of the two main UoMs/RBDs in Slovenia is performed at the state level3. The 
UoMs/RBDs are further divided into 17 sub-basin units (14 in the Danube UoM and three in 

the Adriatic UoM). 

The FRMP was approved by a government decision (No. 35500-5/2017/8) on 27 July 2017.    

The  table  below  gives  an  overview  of  both  UoMs  in  Slovenia,  including  the  UoM  code,  the 
name, and the number of APSFRs reported. It also shows if the UoM reported all documents 
required  to  European  Environment  Agency’s  (EEA)  WISE4  –  the  FRMP  as  a  PDF  and  the 
reporting sheet as an XML. Slovenia delivered 13 PDF documents at national level and 2 XML 

documents at UoM level. The PDF documents include one national FRMP and supplementary 
documents such as PFRA and APSFR reports and methodology, the Strategic Environmental 

Assessment (SEA) report, the catalogue of measures and relevant governmental decisions.   

Table 1 

Overview of UoMs in Slovenia 

UoM 

SI_RBD_1 

SI_RBD_2 

TOTAL 

Name 

Number of APSFRs 

XML reported 

PDF Reported 

DANUBE 

ADRIATIC 

51 

10 

61 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes (at national level) 

Yes (at national level) 

Slovenia’s FRMP can be downloaded from the following web page: 

  http://www.mop.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/voda/zmanjsevanje_poplavne_ogrozenosti/ 

3   Slovenia  subsequently  noted  that  since  2016,  the  key  actors  in  water  management  are  the  Ministry  of  the 

Environment and Spatial Planning and Slovenian Water Agency (Direkcija RS za vode). 

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  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 

The FRMP includes a list of four, clearly defined general 
objectives that are described in Slovenia’s reporting sheets and in 
the sub-plans provided with the FRMP. 

FRM objectives relate to...  

...the reduction of 
potential adverse 
consequences  

Strong 
evidence 

This aspect is specified in the definition of objectives in the FRMP 
and Slovenia’s reporting sheets. The four national Flood Risk 
Management (FRM) objectives are: (1) preventing new risks from 
floods, (2) reducing existing flood risks, (3) decreasing current 
flood dangers during and after floods and (4) enhancing awareness 
about flood endangerment. 

...to the reduction of 
the likelihood of 
flooding  

Strong 
evidence  

The second objective seeks to reduce flood risks, a term which 
includes the likelihood of flooding, and is linked to prevention 
measures.  

...to non-structural 
initiatives  

Strong 
evidence 

The fourth objective focuses on strengthening public awareness.  

FRM objectives consider relevant potential adverse consequences to...   

...human health  

Some 
evidence  

Although it is not specified in the objectives set out in the FRMP, 
Slovenia’s reporting sheets state that the objectives address 
potential adverse consequences to human health, economic 
activity, environment and cultural heritage5.  

5   Slovenia subsequently recalled that in the PFRA, all four categories of vulnerability  – human health, cultural 

heritage, economy, environment – were considered in detail. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...economic activity   Some 

See above under human health. 

...environment  

evidence 

Some 
evidence 

See above under human health.  

...cultural heritage   Some 

See above under human health.  

evidence 

Measures have been...  

...identified  

Strong 
evidence  

Slovenia’s FRMP defines 20 measure groups that are implemented 
via projects in each UoM and sub-basin. In its reporting sheets, 
Slovenia reported 40 measures to WISE: these correspond to the 20 
measure groups across its two UoMs.  

...prioritised  

Strong 
evidence  

Measures have been prioritised on national and sub-basin levels. A 
simple ranking of the measures was prepared by an expert group at 
national level. The methodology is explained in the FRMP. 

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

...costs & benefits   Some 

evidence 

In the Slovene FRMP, aspects of costs and benefits are analysed. 
Costs of measures were estimated, and quantitative information on 
elements at risk and assessed potential flood damage (which are 
used as an indication of benefits of flood protection measures) was 
presented. 

Cost-benefit assessment was not used for the prioritisation and 
planning of the measures in the FRMP6, but the Plan indicates that 
a cost-benefit method will be used at sub-basin level for flood 
prevention construction projects (Slovenian measure group U7).         

...flood extent  

Strong 
evidence  

The flood extent is presented for each APSFR in a corresponding 
fiche. According to the information reported, flood extent has been 
used to define the measures. 

...flood conveyance   Some 

...water retention  

evidence 

Strong 
evidence 

No reference to conveyance routes is included in the FRMP. 
However, conveyance routes were identified in the preparation of 
the PFRA, and thus were considered via this preparatory stage. 

Natural water retention measures (NWRM) have been planned, in 
particular for the protection of flood plains through their 
designation as “natural flood-plains” (which provides formal 
protection of the most important flood-plains): land-use in these 
flood-plains should maintain their water retention capacity (e.g. via 
prohibition of urbanisation). 

6   Slovenia subsequently noted that a CBA is not a requirement of the FD. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
Criterion 

Evidence 

Comments 

...environmental 
objectives of the 
WFD  

Strong 
evidence  

...spatial 
planning/land use  

Strong 
evidence 

...nature 
conservation  

Some 
evidence 

The 20 measure groups set out in the FRMP have been assessed 
and designated into three categories in regard to their role vis-à-vis 
the WFD objectives: (1) synergetic influence, (2) potential conflict, 
and (3) irrelevant for implementation of the WFD. This was carried 
out based on expert judgment. All the measures that raise potential 
conflicts with the WFD goals have to be further examined at 
project level and harmonised with the WFD’s objectives. 

The FRMP includes a clearly defined measure group on land use.  

In 2015, a special study for designating natural flood areas 
considered the contribution of this type of measure to nature 
conservation. 

...navigation/ port 
infrastructure  

No evidence  Navigation and port infrastructure are not explicitly mentioned7. 

...likely impact of 
climate change  

 Some 
evidence  

The reporting sheets and the FRMP indicate that the contribution 
of each measure to adaptation to climate change was checked8.      

Coordination with 
other countries 
ensured in the 
RBD/UoM  

Strong 
evidence 

The FRMP indicates that coordination with neighbouring Member 
States (AT, HR, HU and IT) occurred via the international Danube 
and Sava river processes as well as via bilateral relations. 

Coordination 
ensured with WFD  

Strong 
evidence 

Slovenia held a joint consultation of its draft FRMP/sub-basin 
flood plans and its RBMPs. The authorities developing both 
documents (led by different teams within the same authority) 
coordinated their work. The objectives of the Floods Directive are 
incorporated in Slovenia’s RBMP.  

Active involvement 
of interested 
parties  

Strong 
evidence 

The FRMP reports that during the drafting process there were 
several internal and expert consultations as well as consultations 
for the interested public9. Each sub-basin plan has a chapter 
devoted to public consultation.  

7   Slovenia subsequently noted that flood hazard mapping for all three coastal APSFR’s (Piran, Izola and Koper) 

considered navigation and port infrastructure. 

8   Slovenia subsequently recalled that under the Floods Directive, consideration of climate change is required for 

the second FRMPs.  

poplavne 

zmanjševanja 

9   Slovenia subsequently informed of a report on public consultation (Posvetovanje z javnostmi v okviru priprave 
2016; 
načrta 
ogroženosti 
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/FRMP_PCP.pdf), 
which 
provides  detailed  information  on  public  consultation  process  and  groups  that  were  actively  involved: 
municipalities,  governmental  bodies  and  institutions,  public  agencies,  civil  initiatives,  associations,  research 
institutions, spatial planning companies, interested individuals, media and others. During the drafting process 
of  the  FRMP,  workshops  in  river  basin  districts  were  held  with  interested  parties.  In  the  strategic 
environmental assessment process for the FRMP, additional public consultation and presentations were carried 

Ljubljana, 

poročilo, 

January 

– 

9 

 
 
                                                 
Good Practices 

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

Table 3 

Good practices in the Slovenian FRMPs 

Topic area 

Good practices identified 

Integration of previous reported 
information 

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

the  PFRA  and  FHRM  stages  with 
Slovenia  coordinated 
neighbouring  countries,  both  bilaterally  and  via  international 
river basin processes.  

For each project or spatial plan in flood areas, flood hazard and 
risk mapping is obligatory. These detailed flood hazard and flood 
risk maps are included in the graphic viewer “Atlas voda” (Water 
management Atlas), which is updated with information from new 
studies twice a year. 

The FRMP provides clear information on costs, funding sources 
and  expected  funding  levels  (and  is  forthright  in  identifying  a 
funding gap).   

The FRMP sets out measure groups for spatial planning, NWRM 
and nature conservation actions.  

There  are  strong  links  with  the  WFD.  For  example,  measure 
groups were assessed for their compatibility with the WFD. All 
the  measure  groups  that  have  potential  conflict  with  the  WFD 
goals  are  to  be  further  examined  on  a  project  level  and 
harmonised with all the WFD objectives.  

Monitoring will be carried out every two years and will include a 
public consultation process.  

Consideration of climate change  The  contribution  of  measure  groups  to  climate  adaptation  was 

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) 

Public participation.  

assessed. 

The  FRMP  sets  out  a  comprehensive  approach  for  CBA  at  the 
project or sub-basin level. 

After the FRMP was completed, workshops were organised on a 
sub-basin level to raise awareness of its objectives, assessments 
and provisions. 

Areas for further development 

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

assessed. 

out. Slovenia also pointed out that in the prior PFRA process, a long and active public consultation was carried 
out (FRMP, p.20). 

10 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
Table 4 

Areas for further development in the Slovenian FRMPs 

Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Integration of previously 
reported information in the 
FRMPs. 

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  

Although mapping is carried out on a project level, there is limited 
information in the FRMP on how the FHRMs were used to prioritise 
measures.  
Despite the existence of an online viewer, the “Atlas voda”, for 
some of the APSFRs, no internet links for maps (FHRM) are 
provided in the FRMP document10. The links that are provided do 
not work. Furthermore, a map or a link to a digital map of UoMs 
with delineation of the APSFRs is not included in the FRMP11. 
The objectives are not specific or measurable.   

Although the FRMP links objectives and measures, it is not clear by 
how much the measures will contribute to the objectives, nor 
whether the objectives will be achieved within a specific time 
horizon (due in part to the fact that objectives are not specific or 
measurable).  
While the FRMP describes how monitoring of measures will be 
carried out and presented in a report every two years, a baseline for 
monitoring progress is not clearly defined in the FRMP.  

The FRMP contains little information about climate change impacts 
on flooding, and it does not appear that climate change was 
considered in the design of measures12. 
The national climate change adaptation strategy was under 
development when the FRMP was drafted, but there is no evidence 
of early coordination. 

Use of CBA  

CBA  will  be  performed  in  the  process  of  implementation  of  the 

FRMP at the project level, but was not used to identify, prioritise or 
plan its measures.13  
It is not clear if transboundary effects of measures were assessed 

10   Slovenia  subsequently  provided  an  updated  table  with  links  to  the  missing  maps  for  six  APSFRs.  Also, 
Slovenia subsequently indicated that some of the APSFRs (Celje and Zagorje ob Savi) could not be mapped in 
detail  because  of  the  ongoing  implementation  of  the  structural  flood  risk  reduction  measures:  for  example, 
maps  for  Celje  were  started  but  the  activities  were  stopped  until  Cohesion  project  activities  for  the  Savinja 
river basin are finished. 

11   Slovenia subsequently noted that a lot of graphic material (including a  digital map of UoMs with delineation 

of the APSFRs) was removed from the FRMP due to the border dispute between Slovenia and Croatia. 

12  Slovenia  subsequently  noted  that  under  the  FD,  consideration  of  climate  change  is  required  only  from  the 
second cycle. Slovenia also noted that information about climate change impacts in Slovenia was included in 
the PFRA and that all of the flood risk reduction measures are part of the adaptation to climate change. 

13   Slovenia subsequently noted that a CBA is not a requirement of the FD. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                 
Topic area 

Areas identified for further development 

Public participation  

under the CBA methodology. 

Although a report on public participation was published separately 
from the FRMP14, there is little information in the FRMP about the 
types of stakeholders actively involved in its preparation and the 
extent of their involvement. There is also little information about the 
results of the consultation and the FRMP does not refer to the 
separate report on participation. 

Recommendations 

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

  The process for the development of objectives should be better explained in the FRMP. 
To  be  able  to  assess  progress,  the  objectives  should  be  specific  and  measurable  to  the 

extent possible, so their achievement can be ascertained. 

  The FRMP should present and explain the baseline for implementation of the measures 

for monitoring progress.  

  The  impacts  of  climate  change  should  be  considered  better  in  the  development  of  the 
next  FRMP  and  its  measures.  The  FRMP  and  the  national  climate  change  adaptation 

strategy (once adopted) should be coordinated. 

  CBA should not be used exclusively at the project level; where possible it could also be 
employed  as  a  tool  in  the  planning  process  to  identify  and  prioritise  measures  and  to 
assess  alternatives  of  possible  measures  at  an  early  stage  of  programme  development 

(also at the transboundary level).  

  The results of the active involvement of stakeholders in the preparation of the FRMP and 

of public consultation should be reflected better in the FRMP.  

 

It will be important to ensure that FRMPs, APSFRs, and FHRMs refer to each other as 

appropriate and that they are continuously available to all concerned and the public in an 

accessible format, including digitally. 

14 http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/FRMP_PCP.pdf  

12 

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

assessment 

1.1 

Reporting of the FRMPs 

Slovenia prepared one FRMP that covers both of its UoMs and consists of 17 sub-basin flood 
plans, 14 in the Danube UoM (SI_RBD_1) and three in the Adriatic UoM (SI_RBD_2). 

Slovenia  did  not  make  use  of  Article  13.3  of  the  Floods  Directive,  which  allowed  Member 
States  to  make  use  of  previous  flood  risk  management  plans  (provided  their  content  is 

equivalent to the requirements set out in the Directive). 

1.2 

Assessment of the FRMPs 

The  assessment  covers  the  FRMP  submitted  by  Slovenia  and  any  relevant  supplementary 

documents provided with the FRMP. The following UoMs were assessed: 

Table 5 

UoMs assessed in Slovenia 

UoM 

SI_RBD_1 

SI_RBD_2 

Name 

DANUBE 

ADRIATIC 

Slovenia’s FRMP can be downloaded from the following web page: 

  http://www.mop.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/voda/zmanjsevanje_poplavne_ogrozen

osti/ 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
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 FRMP and within all sub-basin flood plans 

within  the  FRMP  as  textual  description.  There  are  also  short  textual  descriptions  of  the 
APSFRs but no summary map showing the APSFRs covered by the FRMP or by the sub-basin 
flood  plans15.  However,  all  PFRA  reports  and  a  map  showing  the  APSFRs  covered  by  the 
FRMP  are  included  in  the  documentation  that  Slovenia  submitted  as  part  of  its  reporting  to 

WISE. Each APSFR is presented with a number of internet links to maps but the links to these 
maps  are  not  working.  However,  functional  links  to  the  maps  are  provided  in  a  separate 

spreadsheet file that outlines the process of implementing the Floods Directive, a link to which 
is  provided  in  all  17  sub-basin  plans16.  All  the  maps  related  to  the  FHRM  phase  are  also 
publicly available through an on-line application “Atlas voda”17 (Water Management Atlas). 

Links to maps showing APSFRs have been provided in the FRMP; however, these links do not 

work. As mentioned  above, the 17 sub-basin  flood plans contain  a link to a spreadsheet  that 
presents  the  process  of  implementing  the  Floods  Directive.  This  spreadsheet  also  provides 
working  links18  to  maps,  which  present  the  following  information  for  each  of  the  APSFRs: 
flood hazard and flood risk maps for 10, 100 and 500 years return period. It appears that maps 

for eight of the APSFRs are missing (i.e. for ASPFRs Zagorje ob Savi, Celje, Kostanjevica na 
Krki, Rogaška slatina – steklarna, Ptuj, Odranci, Miren, and Nova Gorica.)19 20. 

15   Slovenia subsequently informed that a lot of graphic material (including a map of UoMs with delineation of 

the APSFRs) was removed from the FRMP due to the border dispute between Slovenia and Croatia. 

16   FRMP,  Chapters  2  »RBD  Danube«  and  3  »RBD  Adriatic«,  p.22-223.  Table  that  presents  the  process  of 

implementing The Flood Directive (link provided in sub-basin flood plans): 
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPOPO.xls  

17   Atlas  voda  (Water  Management  Atlas)  provides  updated  information  on  Integral  flood  hazard  map  and 

Integral flood hazard classes map approximately twice a year: 
http://gis.arso.gov.si/evode/profile.aspx?id=atlas_voda%40Arso  
Slovenia subsequently provided a direct link to a new updated application of “Atlas voda” that was released in 
May 2018:  
https://gisportal.gov.si/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=72a68d57f3974207ae79e70c830e07de 

18   Coastal city of Piran APSFR maps, RBD Adriatic (SI_RBD_2) APSFR: 

http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_61_obmocij_DOFi/
42_OPVP_Piran.jpg  

  River floods Ljubljana – south APSFR maps, RBD Danube (SI_RBD_1) APSFR: 

http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_61_obmocij_DOFi/
01_OPVP_Ljubljana_jug.jpg   

19   FRMP,  Chapters  2  »RBD  Danube«  and  3  »RBD  Adriatic«,  p.22-223.  Table  that  presents  the  process  of 

implementing The Flood Directive (link provided in the FRMP): 
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPOPO.xls  
Slovenia  subsequently  provided  an  updated  table  with  internet  links  to  the  missing  maps  for  six  APSFRs. 
However, the flood hazard and flood risk maps for two of the  APSFRs (Celje and Zagorje ob Savi) are still 
missing.  

20   Slovenia  subsequently  indicated  that  some  of  the  APSFRs  (e.g.  Celje  and  Zagorje  ob  Savi)  could  not  be 
mapped in detail because of the ongoing implementation of the  structural flood risk reduction measures: For 

14 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conveyance  routes  have  been  taken  into  account  in  the  PFRA:  They  were  included  in  the 
preparation  of  the  PFRA  in  accordance  with  national  rules  that  define  the  methodology  for 
their preparation21. 

2.1.1  Coordination with neighbouring Member States on shared RBDs/UoMs 

It is reported in the FRMP (p.19-20) that the identification of flood risk areas and the FRMPs 

themselves  have  been  coordinated  with  neighbouring  Member  States  in  cases  where 
RBDs/UoMs  are shared22. There  was also  exchange and harmonisation  of  data and methods. 
The FRMP says that harmonisation of FRMPs with Italy was confirmed via a bilateral meeting 
in  December  2015,  with  Austria  via  a  meeting  in  September  2015,  and  with  Hungary  in 

November 2015. There was also an attempt to harmonise the FRMPs with Croatia in October 
2015, but the unsolved border question halted progress.  

Coordination with international FRMPs was assured via international river basin commissions, 
in  particular the preparation  of the FRMPs  for  the Sava river basin  and for the Danube river 

basin.  

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

According  to  the  FRMP,  the  preparation  of  the  flood  hazard  and  risk  maps  confirmed  the 
findings of the PFRA in all 17 sub-basin flood plans included in the FRMP23. 

2.2 

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

FHRMs are provided in all 17 sub-basin flood plans included in the FRMP of Slovenia. There 

is  no  specific  distinction  made  between  the  sources  of  flooding  and  all  maps  present  the 
combined effects of more than one source of flooding: The FHRMs cover fluvial, pluvial and 

seawater floods,  floods from artificial  water bearing structures  and floods from  not  specified 
sources.  The  FHRMs  have  not  been  reproduced  in  the  main  part  of  the  FRMP,  but  the  plan 

provides weblinks to the maps: these links, however, do not work, potentially due to a problem 
with the PDF format of the plan. Working links are provided in the separate document noted 

example, maps for Celje were started but the activities were stopped until Cohesion project activities for the 
Savinja river basin are finished. 

21   Rules on a methodology to define flood risk areas and erosion areas connected to floods and classification of 
60/07), 

of  Slovenia,  No. 

the  Republic 

classes 

risk 

into 

plots 
http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=PRAV8318. 

(Official  Gazette 

of 

  Table  that  presents  the  process  of  implementing  The  Flood  Directive  (link  provided  in  FRMP): 

http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPOPO.xls  

22   FRMP, Chapters 2 »RBD Danube« and 3 »RBD Adriatic«, p.22-223. Minutes of bilateral water-management 

commissions. http://evode.arso.gov.si/index72dc.html?q=node/23  

23   FRMP,  Chapter  1.2  »EU  Flood  Directive  and  Preliminary  Flood  Risk  Assessment  in  Preparation  of  the 

FRMP«, p.9.10. 

15 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
above, a spreadsheet that presents the process of implementing the Floods Directive24 as well 
as in the on-line application “Atlas voda”25 (Water Management Atlas). 

Examples of the links to the FHRMs provided in the spreadsheet are provided below (see the 
footnotes): 

  Seawater FHRMs for the coastal city of Piran26 (Adriatic RBD, SI_RBD_2)  
  Fluvial flood FHRMs for Ljubljana27 (Danube RBD, SI_RBD_1)  

24   FRMP,  Chapters  2  »RBD  Danube«  and  3  »RBD  Adriatic«,  p.22-223.  Table  that  presents  the  process  of 
implementing  the  Flood  Directive  (link  provided  in  the  FRMP),  and  it  is  available  also  via  a  Ministry  web 
page on floods: 
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPOPO.xls  
information 

(Water  Management  Atlas) 
http://gis.arso.gov.si/evode/profile.aspx?id=atlas_voda%40Arso  
https://gisportal.gov.si/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=72a68d57f3974207ae79e70c830e07de 

that  provides  updated 

25   Atlas  voda 

a  year. 

twice 

26   The following links are provided for Piran: 

Flood  Hazard  Map  –  the  extent  of  floods  at  various  return  periods  (10,  100  and  500  years)  –  
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPN/42_Piran/Popl
avna_linija_Q10.pdf  
Flood Hazard Map – the height of flood water at various return periods (10, 100 and 500 years): 
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPN/42_Piran/Glo
bine_pri_Q10.pdf 
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPN/42_Piran/Glo
bine_pri_Q100.pdf 
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPN/42_Piran

/Globine_pri_Q500.pdf  

Flood Risk maps – the risk at various return periods (10, 100 and 500 years): 
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPO/ogrozenost_Q
10_Piran.pdf  
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPO/ogrozenost_Q
100_Piran.pdf  
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPO/ogrozenost_Q
500_Piran.pdf  

27   The following links are provided for Ljubljana: 

Flood  Hazard  Map  –  the  extent  of  floods  at  various  return  periods  (10,  100  and  500  years): 
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPN/01_Ljubljana_
jug_3030_3129_3021_3067/Poplavna_linija_Q10.pdf  
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPN/01_Ljubljana_
jug_3030_3129_3021_3067/Poplavna_linija_Q100.pdf  
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPN/01_Ljubljana_
jug_3030_3129_3021_3067/Poplavna_linija_Q500.pdf  
Flood Hazard Map – the height of flood water at various return periods (10, 100 and 500 years): 
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPN/01_Ljubljana_
jug_3030_3129_3021_3067/Globine_pri_Q100.pdf  
Flood Risk maps – the risk at various return periods (10, 100 and 500 years): 
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPO/ogrozenost_Q
10_lj_JUG.pdf   
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPO/ogrozenost_Q
100_lj_JUG.pdf   
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPVP_Si_KPO/ogrozenost_Q
500_lj_JUG.pdf  

16 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
2.2.1  Maps for shared flood risk areas 

FHRMs  have  been  prepared  for  flood  risk  areas  shared  with  the  other  Member  States  in 

transboundary  river  basins/UoMs.  There  are  links  provided  in  the  FRMP  that  lead  to  the 
minutes  of  the  meetings  of  bilateral  water  management  commissions  (with  Italy,  Austria, 

Hungary  and  Croatia),  which  discussed  also  the  preparation  of  FHRMs.  Mapping  in  shared 
flood  risk  areas  has  been  coordinated  with  the  neighbouring  Member  States  in  all  bordering 
river basins, which is evident from the minutes28. 

2.2.2  Conclusions drawn from the flood hazard and flood risk maps 

The FHRMs have been used as a tool in the public participation process. However, the FRMP 
do  not  indicate  clearly  how  the  FHRMs  were  used  to  prepare  the  content  of  the  plan,  in 
particular, its priorities, objectives, and measures29 30.  

The FRMPs explain that flood hazard mapping is used and further developed in the process of 

preparing  construction  projects  and  spatial  plans.  The  FRMP  moreover  states  that  maps  are 
updated whenever flood protection projects and spatial plans are prepared: This work is carried 

out by the Slovenian Water Agency under SI measure U1 (Determination and consideration of 
flood  plain  areas,  see  section  4).  The  preparation  of  flood  hazard  maps  is  obligatory  for  any 

new structural flood risk reduction project. In addition, in the preparation of state or municipal 
spatial  planning  instruments  affecting  flood  risk  areas  as  well  as  projects  requiring  building 

permits in  these areas, the Slovenian Water Agency  actively  also  carries out  FRMP measure 
U1: in this process, for each project or spatial act planned in flood areas, flood hazard and risk 
mapping  is  obligatory31.  The  validated  data  from  such  studies  are  then  integrated  into  the 
detailed flood hazard database, which is publicly available via the online viewer, “Atlas voda” 

(Water  Management  Atlas),  which  is  updated  with  information  from  new,  detailed  studies 
twice a year. 

28   FRMP, Chapters 2 »RBD Danube« and 3 »RBD Adriatic«, p.22-223. Minutes of bilateral water-management 

commissions. http://evode.arso.gov.si/index72dc.html?q=node/23. 
Minutes  of  the  Slovenian-Italian  commission  on  water  management  21.-22.1.2014  in  Miren,  p.8. 
http://gis.arso.gov.si/related/evode/vg_komisije/SLO-IT-zasedanje_oktober%202014.pdf  

29   Reporting sheets – Slovenia, chapters Summary of Consultation. 
30   Slovenia  noted  subsequently  that  Flood  Hazard  Maps  are  obligatory  for  all  structural  flood  risk  reduction 
measures,  so  all  the  structural  measures  are  based  on  flood  hazard  and  risk  mapping,  however,  not  all  the 
detailed maps could be shown in the FRMP itself. All the detailed maps are in Atlas voda (Water management 
Atlas) which is publicly accessible here: 
https://gisportal.gov.si/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=72a68d57f3974207ae79e70c830e07de  
or here: http://gis.arso.gov.si/evode/profile.aspx?id=atlas_voda%40Arso  

31   Restrictions on flood risk areas and the methodology for this mapping were established in legislation prior to 
the FRMP: Decree on conditions and limitations for constructions and activities on flood risk areas (Official 
Gazette, No.89/08), while the methodology is defined in the Rules on methodology to define flood risk areas 
and erosion areas connected to floods and classification of plots into risk classes (Official Gazette, No.60/07). 
17 

 
 
                                                 
2.3 

Changes to the APSFRs or other Flood Risk Areas 

The  FRMP  assessment  looked  for  information  on  changes  in  the  identification  of  APSFRs 

since  December  2011,  or  in  the  FHRMs  since  2013,  indicated  in  the  FRMP.  The  APSRFs 
identified  in  the  process  of  preliminary  flood  risk  assessment  were  adopted  legally  via  a 

resolution of the government of Slovenia in February 2013. The FRMP does not indicate that 
any  changes  have  been  made  in  the  list  of  APSFRs32.  Slovenia  did  not  present  flood  water 
depth  or  level  in  the  preliminary  flood  risk  assessment,  but  instead  a  combination  of  water 
depth and velocity. This has changed and the FHRMs present also flood water depth33. 

In addition, the FRMP does not indicate any changes in the FHRMs since December 2013. The 
methodology for their preparation, defined in the ‘Rules on a methodology to define flood risk 
areas and erosion areas connected to floods and classification of plots into risk classes’34, has 
not changed.  

2.4 

Areas for further development in the earlier assessment of the flood 
hazard and risk maps 

The FHRM assessment35 identified the following areas for further development for Slovenia: 

  Climate change had not been included in the analysis.36  
  No potential adverse consequences on the environment were shown in the maps.  

Information on amendments to address these areas for further development has not been found 
in the FRMP37. A review of the FHRMs indicates that climate change has not been explicitly 
addressed  in  the  maps;  The  online  water  atlas  map  viewer  now  shows  a  range  of  protected 
areas, including Natura 2000 sites and water protection areas. 

2.5  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

integration of previously reported information 

The following good practice was identified:  

32   FRMP,  Chapter  1.2  “EU  Flood  directive  and  Preliminary  Flood  Risk  Assessment  in  Preparation  of  the 

FRMP”, p.9-10. 

33   Reporting sheets – Slovenia, chapters Summary of the Flood Extend. EU overview of methodologies used in 

preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps, 2015. 

34   Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 60/07 
35   European  Commission,  Assessment  of  Flood  Hazard  and  Flood  Risk  Maps  –  Member  State  Report:  SI  – 

Slovenia, November 2014. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/pdf/fhrm_reports/SI%20FHRM%20Report.pdf   

36   Slovenia’s  PFRA  report  considered  climate  change;  it  states  that  “so  far  there  is  no  concrete  proof  of  the 
influence  of  climate  change  on  incidences  of  river  floods  in  Slovenia;  trends  on  maximal  flows  show  even 
slight reduction of flows; average level of sea and the frequency of sea floods are in increasing trend” (p. 26). 
Climatic variability was considered via the analysis of all recorded pluvial and water flow values. 

37   FRMP. Reporting sheets – Slovenia, chapters Summary of the Flood Extend. 

18 

 
 
                                                 
  Flood  hazard  mapping  is  obligatory  as  part  of  the  process  for  new  structural  flood  risk 
reduction projects and for state and municipal spatial instruments. Validated data from such 
studies  are  then  integrated  twice  a  year  into  Slovenia’s  detailed  flood  hazard  database, 

which is publicly available online via the “Atlas voda” viewer.  

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  Although mapping is used on a project level, there is limited information in the FRMP on 

how the FHRMs have been used to prioritise measures on the FRMP level.  

  For some of the APSFRs, no internet links to FHRMs are provided in the FRMP document. 
The links that are provided do not work. Furthermore, a link to a digital map of UoMs with 
delineation of the APSFRs is not included in the FRMP38 39. 

38   Slovenia  noted  subsequently  that  geographic  detail  (including  a  map  of  UoMs  with  delineation  of  the 

APSFRs) was removed from the FRMP due to a border dispute. 

39   Information is available from the online viewer, “Atlas voda”. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.   Setting of Objectives 

3.1 

Focus of objectives 

Slovenia has set four main objectives at the national level, valid for both UoMs/RBDs and for 
all sub-basin flood plans. They are40:  

1.  prevention of new risks from floods (consideration of flood plains in land use and spatial 

planning);  

2.  reduction  of  the  existing  flood  threat  (construction,  management  of  flood  protection 

water infrastructure);  

3.  decreasing  the  existing  flood  threat  during  and  after  floods  (increasing  the  quality  of 
flood  forecasts,  intervention  protocols,  and  damage  estimates  to  speed  up  restoration) 
and  

4.  enhancement of awareness about flood threats.  

Consequently, it can be concluded that in Slovenia41: 

  The objectives aim to reduce the adverse consequences of floods; 

  The objectives aim to reduce the likelihood of flooding;  
  The objectives refer to non-structural measures42.  

3.2 

Specific and measurable objectives 

In Slovenia, the objectives are neither specific nor measurable.  

However,  there  is  a  clear  link  between  the  objectives  and  the  20  measure  groups  that  are 
defined in the Slovenian catalogue of flood prevention measures43, and then with the projects 
in each sub-basin flood plan. All sub-basin plans set out the same four main objectives.  

3.3  Objectives to reduce adverse consequences from floods 

The  first  three  objectives  set  out  to  reduce  adverse  consequences  from  floods44.  Moreover, 
Slovenia’s  reporting  sheets  state  that  the  objectives  seek  to  address  adverse  consequences  to 
human health, economic activity, environment and cultural heritage. 

40   Reporting sheet – Slovenia, chapter Summary of the Objectives; FRMP, Chapter 5, Annex A.  
41   These categories are included in Art. 7 of the Floods Directive. 
42   Non-structural measures include measures such as flood forecasting and raising awareness of flooding as well 

as land use planning, economic instruments and insurance 

43   FRMP, p.15-16. 
44   Reporting sheet – Slovenia, chapter Summary of the Objectives 

20 

 
 
                                                 
3.4  Objectives to address the reduction of the likelihood of flooding 

The objectives address flood risk, which is understood to include likelihood of flooding45. The 
second  objective,  ‘reducing  the  existing  flood  threat’,  specifically  seeks  to  reduce  the 
likelihood of flooding; moreover, it is linked to measure groups to prevent flooding46. The first 
objective, by promoting floodplains, also seeks to reduce the likelihood of flooding.   

3.5 

Process for setting the objectives  

The FRMP indicates  that  the objectives were  coordinated at the national  level  and discussed 
with  stakeholders  before  their  establishment  at  river  basin/river  sub-basin  level47.  Further 
details, however, are not provided.  

3.6  Good practices and areas for further development regarding setting 

objectives 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  focus  of  the  main  objectives  was  discussed  with  stakeholders  prior  to  their 
establishment.  The  focus  of  the  objectives  was  further  emphasised  with  a  common 

methodology  developed  for  defining  flood  risk  and  dealing  with  FRM.  This  kind  of 
practice provides comparable results throughout the country. 

  The  FRMP  links  the  objectives  with  the  20  measure  groups  that  are  defined  in  the 
Slovenian catalogue of flood measures and also with the individual projects identified for 

each sub-basin flood plan. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  Objectives are not specific or measurable.  

45   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. 

46   Reporting sheet – Slovenia, chapter Summary of the Objectives. 
47   Reporting sheet – Slovenia, chapter Summary of the Objectives. 

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4. Planned measures for the achievement of objectives 

In  the  reporting  sheets,  Slovenia  has  reported  40  aggregated48  measures  and  no  individual 
measures.  Of  the  40  measures,  20  are  reported  for  each  of  the  two  UoMs49.  The  measures 
reported by Slovenia cover all four measure aspects50: prevention (20 measures), protection (18 
measures),  preparedness  (10  measures)  and  recovery  and  review  (four  measures).  As  some 
measures cover more than one measure aspect or type, when looking across there are a total of 

52 measures (this implies double-counting). (See Tables A1 and A2 and Figures A1 and A2 of 
Annex A for further information.) 

Slovenia’s FRMP, however, presents the number of measures differently: Slovenia's catalogue 
of flood risk reduction measures includes 20 groups of measures. These 20 groups of measures 

are  used  in  each  UoM  and  in  all  17  sub-basins.  For  each  measure  group,  there  are  regular 
activities performed by state and other agencies, and there can be a series of specific projects 

(these include both construction and non-construction projects; the number of projects per sub-
basin ranges from 22 to 63).  

The  40  aggregated  measures  set  out  in  Slovenia’s  reporting  sheets  correspond  to  the  20 
measure groups: all 20 measure groups are reported once for each of the two UoMs51.  

4.1 

Cost of measures 

Table 6 

Estimated overall budget for the measures in the assessed FRMPs 

Estimated overall budget of planned measures in the FRMP 

(2017-2021) in EUR in constant prices 

Both UoMs 

540 000 000 

Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs 

The FRMP provides an estimated overall budget for the implementation of structural and non-
structural  measures  in  the  FRMP  planned  in  both  UoMs:  EUR  540  m  in  constant  prices 

(approximately EUR 110 m per year in constant prices), for the period 2017-2021.  

48   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. 

49   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. 

50   See Annex B for the list of all EU measure aspects and measure types. 
51   The  measure groups are categorised into five areas, which correspond to the four measure aspects set out at 

EU level: prevention, awareness (reported under prevention), protection, and recovery and review.  

22 

 
 
 
                                                 
 The costs of the groups of measures that are already being implemented were estimated based 
on the expenditure for their implementation in past years (e.g. costs of flood forecasting). Costs 

of  new  measures  or  new  parts  of  measures  were  estimated  based  on  the  planned  activities, 
selected tariffs, data from adopted programmes and assessments of experts. Costs of structural 

measures  were  estimated  based  on  the  preliminary  assessments  and  data  from  investment 
documentation gathered from the Slovenian Water Agency and municipalities52.  

The  FRMP  provides  details  on  the  costs  of  construction  projects  in  each  sub-basin  plan53: 
Appendix  C  to  the  FRMP54  presents  207  construction  projects  in  Slovenia  that  are  listed 
together  with  estimates  of  their  costs,  while  Appendix  F  lists  all  international  and  bilateral 
projects and their estimated budgets. Costs of non-structural as well as structural measures are 

included in the estimated overall budget for implementation of the FRMP. 

The FRMP states, however, that in the period of 2017-2021, only approximately EUR 400 m 

(or  EUR  80  m  per  year)  is  likely  to  be  available  from  financing  sources.  The  FRMP 
nonetheless also presents an optimistic scenario, by which almost EUR 530 m can be ensured.  

In  addition  to  the  budget  for  projects,  the  FRMP  includes  an  overview  of  bilateral  and 
transnational projects (ongoing and in preparation)55, which lists 11 projects and provides their 
estimated costs (in total EUR 25.9 m, of which EUR 10 m is planned for the Ministry of the 
Environment  and Spatial  Planning and for bodies under the Ministry). The FRMP states that 

these costs are included in the estimated total budget.  

4.2 

Funding of measures 

The FRMP lists the following sources of funding for the measures: the national Water Fund, 

the national Climate Fund, national and local public budgets, EU Cohesion funds and various 
INTERREG programs56. 

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)  

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

52   The methodology for the assessed costs of measures in the FRMP (all sub-basin flood plans) is described in 

Chapter 4.1 and in more detail in the Appendix B (6.1 Stroški protipoplavnih ukrepov) of the FRMP.   

53   These are all listed under Slovenian measure group U7, “Planning and implementation of construction flood 

prevention measures”: FRMP, Chapters 2 »RBD Danube« and 3 »RBD Adriatic«, p.22-223.  

54   FRMP, Appendix C, p.244-250 and Appendix F, p.256-258. 
55   Appendix F of the FRMP. 
56   FRMP, Chapter 4.2, p.224 and Appendix E, p.254-255. 
23 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
National Water Fund 

National Climate Fund 

Private investment  

EU funds (generic)  

EU Structural funds  

EU Solidarity Fund  

EU Cohesion funds  

EU CAP funds  

International funds  

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: Reporting sheet and FRMPs 

4.3  Measurable and specific (including location) measures 

The measure groups are general57, while the projects are much more concrete. 

In its reporting sheets, Slovenia has indicated the location of all measures (i.e. measure groups) 
as  the  basins  of  specific  rivers58.  In  the  FRMP,  the  locations  given  for  specific  projects  are 
much more detailed providing location, short description of the project and possible financial 

resources.  

Nonetheless,  the  FRMP  does  not  provide  targets  or  measures  for  the  expected  results  of  the 

measures  or  the  projects.  Even  though  the  FRMP  provides  the  most  detailed  information  for 
construction projects (measure group U7), this still does not indicate the contribution to overall 

flood risk reduction each project or group of projects would make.  

The following table lists all the locations indicated for Slovenia’s projects:  

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  

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

57   FRMP, Chapter 1.3.3, p.15-17. 
58   All measures in SIRBD1 will be implemented in the basins of the rivers Sava, Ljubljanska Sava, Ljublanica, 
Gradascica,  Kaminska  Bistrica,  Litija  Sava,  Savinja,  Krka,  Sotla,  Drava,  Slovenske  Mure  and  Ledava.  The 
location for all measures in SIRBD2 is reported as the basins of the rivers Idrijca and Vipava. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.4  Measures and objectives 

The FRMP indicates which measure groups contribute to the achievement of which objectives; 

however, it is not clear by how much the measures will contribute nor whether the objectives 
will be achieved once all projects are implemented59, 60.  

4.5  Geographic coverage/scale of measures 

As  noted  above,  the  FRMP  provides  information  about  the  location  of  specific  projects 
corresponding  to  each  measure  group.  The  location  is  provided  in  three  different  ways:  (1) 

types of areas to which the project is aimed (whole state, flooded area, or river basin), (2) short 
descriptions of relevant projects with the names of locations (name of a river or town etc.), and 

in some cases also (3) potential sources of financing, which indicate that some projects will be 
international (supported by bilateral or regional programmes) while others are local (financed 

by a municipality).  

Specific  construction  projects  are  prepared  at  river  sub-basin  level,  APSFR  or  water  body 
level, and their expected effects would take place at this level61.  

In its reporting sheets, as noted above, Slovenia reported on the geographic level of groups of 

measures;  however,  Slovenia  did  not  provide,  in  addition,  information  on  the  geographic 
coverage of the expected effects of the groups of measures.  

4.6 

Prioritisation of measures 

In its reporting sheets, Slovenia provided the priority of all measures (i.e. the measure groups 
set out in the FRMP). The majority of the measures are of ‘very high’ priority (38 measures, or 

around  73  %  of  all  measures),  followed  by  measures  of  ‘critical’  priority  (10  measures,  or 
about 19 % of the total). Only four measures were reported as ‘low’ priority and no measures 

were reported as ‘high’ or ‘moderate’ priority. The distribution of the priority of the measures 
across the two UoMs is even (for details see Tables A3 and A4 in Annex A). 

According to the information in the FRMP62, three categories for prioritisation are used: high, 
moderate  and  low.  The  FRMP  further  explains  that  the  following  five  measure  groups  for 

59   FRMP, Chapter 1.3.3, p.15-17.  
60   Slovenia  subsequently  explained  that  a  common  method  for  assessing  the  benefits  of  non-structural  flood 
protection measures has not yet been developed and is the subject of expert discussions. Slovenia’s aim with 
its  measures  and  detailed  projects  is  to  significantly  reduce  flood  risk  and  to  continuously  monitor 
implementation  every  two  years  with  a  report  and  to  reassess  the  flood  risk  situation  in  Slovenia  every  six 
years as per the Floods Directive. 

61   FRMP, Chapter 1.3.3, p.15-17, Chapters 2 ‘RBD Danube’ and 3 ‘RBD Adriatic’, p.22-223. 
62  FRMP, p.3. 

25 

 
 
                                                 
Slovenia were identified as having the highest priority for implementation (on a scale of 1 up 
to 5, with 5 representing the highest priority):  

  Planning  and  implementation  of  flood  prevention  construction  measures  (Slovenian 

measure group U7) received 3.95 points;  

  Regular  maintenance  of  watercourses,  water  objects  as  well  as  water  and  littoral  areas 

(Slovenian measure group U10) received 2.85 points;  

  Ensuring financial resources for civil service of water management (Slovenian measure 

group U13) received 2.20 points;  

  Forecasting of floods received 1.31 points (Slovenian measure group U15J)  

  Execution  of  individual (self-protection)  flood  protection  measures  (Slovenian  measure 

group U8) received 1.24 points;  

Other measure groups received lower scores.   

The FRMP explains  that prioritisation was carried out  by expert judgement: a survey  among 
water  professionals  was  carried  out  at  national  level  to  determine  the  priorities  of  the  20 

measure  groups.  Each  water  professional  gave  priorities  to  the  five  most  important  measure 
groups (giving them 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 point while the rest of the measures received 0.2 points). 

Then the average number of points per measure group was calculated. This input was used in 
prioritisation. CBA was not used for prioritising the measures (see also section 6)63 64.  

Slovenia did not provide information on the timetable of measures in its reporting sheets. The 
FRMP  indicates  that  the  general  timeframe  for  implementation  of  the  specific  projects  is 

2017-2021;  further  details,  however,  are  not  provided.  All  measure  groups  are  composed  of 
different  specific  projects;  some  are  ongoing  and  some  are  continuous  activities.  For  some 

ongoing and planned EU projects in the indicative list of EU projects (Appendix F), the FRMP 
provides more specific timeframes for implementation of the projects, which range from 2016-
2018 for earlier projects to 2018-2020 for later projects65 66. 

63   FRMP, Chapter 1.3.3., Catalogue of measures, p. 17, footnote 18.  
64   Slovenia subsequently explained that this survey was not the only criterion for prioritisation. Expert judgment 
and experience with performing different types of measures were used, as well as the results of the detailed 
public consultation process. 

65   Appendix F of the FRMP (p.256-258).  
66   Slovenia  subsequently  noted  that  some  of  the  projects  were  not  approved  or  confirmed  at  the  time  of  the 
FRMP’s  preparation  or  were  still  in  preparation,  so  a  detailed  time  frame  was  not  possible  to  estimate. 
Information and monitoring of the time frame will be done via the FRMP implementation monitoring process 
(with a report every two years), as set out in the FRMP. 
26 

 
 
                                                 
4.7 

Authorities responsible for implementation of measures 

Slovenia did not report information to WISE about the level of responsibility of the assigned 

responsible authorities; however, it reported the authorities responsible for each measure (i.e. 
measure groups).  

Overall,  all  responsible  authorities  are  at  the  national  level  and  constitute  two  types  of 
authorities:  ministries  of  the  government  (e.g.  Ministry  of  the  Environment  and  Spatial 

Planning,  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Forestry  and  Food,  Ministry  of  Finance)  or  agencies  (e.g. 
Slovenian Environment Agency, Slovenian Water Authority, Administration for Protection and 

Rescue.). Around a quarter of the measures were assigned only one responsible authority but 
most measures were assigned multiple responsible authorities67.  

While the FRMP itself does not provide a summary of authorities responsible for measures, the 
sub-basin plans provide this information. The authorities listed are:  

(1) National administrative bodies: The Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning, 
and the Slovenian Water Agency with its eight regional offices, a body of the Ministry;  

(2)  Executive  bodies:  Companies  holding  concessions  for  water  management, 
specifically for construction projects68;  

(3)  For  organisation  of  civil  protection  in  case  of  interventions  due  to  floods:  The 

national Administration for Civil Protection and Disaster Relief with 13 regional offices, 
a body of the Ministry of Defence.  

While  most  of  the  responsibility  (according  to  the  national  Slovenian  water  management 
legislation)  in  fact  lies  on  the  state/national  level  and  state  agencies,  some  of  the  tasks  were 

assigned to local communities, as seen in the sub-basin lists of projects. Some of the projects 
were assigned to private sector actors as well. 

4.8 

Progress of implementation of measures 

According to the reporting sheets, nearly all measures in Slovenia are ongoing (50 measures) 

and  two  measures  have  not  started.  No  measures  were  reported  as  ‘completed’  or  ‘ongoing 
construction’ (for details see Tables A5 and A6 in Annex A).  

Concerning  construction  measures,  the  FRMP  contains  a  list  of  planned  projects  with 

information  on  the  stage  of  implementation  of  each,  including  necessary  technical  and 

67   Reporting sheets. 
68   These  include:  VGP  d.d.,  Hidrotehnik,  vodnogospodarsko  podjetje,  d.d.,  Drava  vodnogospodarsko  podjetje 
Ptuj d.d., Vodnogospodarsko pojetje Novo mesto d.d., and Mura – Vodnogospodarsko podjetje d.d., d.d. 

27 

 
 
                                                 
administrative steps69. The implementation is monitored through seven steps (see below under 
monitoring). 

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:  the  reporting  sheet  does  not  provide  any  information,  however.  The 
FRMP itself does not mention measures under the WFD70,  71 or the Seveso Directive (though 
information is provided on Seveso installations located in the APSFRs). 

4.10  Specific groups of measures 

The following measure group addresses spatial planning and land use:  adaptation of land-use 

in river basins (Slovenian measure group U3). In addition, measure groups for flood plains also 
include land use elements72. 

Slovenia’s framework for spatial planning has evolved since 2000. The first important step of 
halting or controlling buildings/development in floodplains occurred in 2002 under the Water 

Law  passed  that  year:  its  Article  86  prohibits  any  kind  of  construction  that  would  increase 
flood  risk.  Whenever  further  urbanisation  is  allowed,  protection  and  compensation  measures 
are required73.  

NWRM have been planned in Slovenia. There are two such measures: Slovenian measure U1 - 

Determination  and  consideration  of  flood  plain  areas  (that  partially  corresponds  to  NWRM 
measures  F05,  F14,  N02,  and  N03  from  Annex  B),  and  measure  U2  -  Identification, 

establishment,  and  protection  of  important  natural  high-water  flood  plain  areas  (that 
corresponds to NWRM measures F0574, F1475, N0276, and N0377)78.  

Measures  that  specifically  consider  nature  conservation.  One  measure  specifically 
considers  nature  conservation  (Identification,  establishment,  and  protection  of  natural  flood 

areas of high waters, Slovenian measure  group  U2).  In 2015,  a special  study for designating 

69   FRMP, Appendix C, p.244-250. 
70   Slovenia’s  Programmes  of  Measures  for  its  second  RBMPs,  however,  include  implementation  of  the  whole 

FRMP as a measure ("U1a – protection from adverse effects of floods"). 

71   Slovenia  subsequently  informed  that  Slovenian  the  planning  for  measure  group  U2  (Identification, 
establishment,  and protection of important  natural  high-water flood plain areas), in all of the  17 sub basins, 
and some other measures was done in coordination with WFD/RBMP planning. 

72   Reporting sheets. Corresponding to EU measure type M21.  
73   Reporting  sheets;  Water  Law,  Article  86,  Official  Gazette  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia,  No.67/2002. 

https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/2002-01-3237?sop=2002-01-3237  

74   Land use conversion. 
75   Overland flow areas in peatland forests. 
76   Wetland restoration and management. 
77   Floodplain restoration and management. 
78   FRMP, Chapter 1.3.3., Catalogue of measures, p. 17. 

28 

 
 
                                                 
natural  flood  areas  was  completed  (it  includes  a  proposal  for  formal  protection  of  the  most 
important flood-plains in the sense of protecting their water retention capacity)79. This measure 
is important because its results can have many synergetic effects for the implementation of the 
goals  of  the  WFD  and  other  sectoral  policies  (such  as  biodiversity,  climate  adaptation  and 

green infrastructure). 

The  measures  in  the  Slovenian  FRMP  do  not  specifically  consider  navigation  and  port 

infrastructure  or  dredging  to  increase  the  river  channel  capacity  and  its  ability  to  convey 
water for flood alleviation purposes80.  

4.11  Recovery from and resilience to flooding 

The role of insurance policies is discussed in the Slovenian FRMP, with regard to the recovery 

from  flooding,  preparedness/resilience  to  flood  or  other  issues.  A  general  description  of  a 
measure  group  ‘U18  -  assessment  of  damages  and  execution  of  reconstruction  after  floods’ 

emphasises that it is necessary to provide:  

 

regular  training  and  education  of  members  of  the  commission  for  assessment  of  flood 

damage;  

  equal treatment of victims;  

  participation of insurance companies; and  

  ensuring a quick and professional treatment of victims. 

Besides  that,  the  list  of  specific  projects  includes  two  projects  for  each  sub-basin  under 

measure U20 (Systemic, normative, financial and other measures) that are related to insurance 
policies: both deal with establishing a scheme of subsidising of insurance premiums81. 

There is no specific information in the FRMP on what type of insurance is currently available.  

4.12  Monitoring progress in implementing the FRMP 

Progress in the implementation of planned measure groups and projects will be monitored via a 

report to the Government of Slovenia every two years, where it will be shown how and if the 
listed/planned  measures/projects  are  being  developed  or  being  implemented  and  how  they 

relate to objectives in each of the 17 sub-basins. A draft of the report will go through ‘public 
unfolding’, a basic level of public consultation  that  usually includes a public presentation  on 

79   Reporting sheet – Slovenia, Summary of Flood Extent. FRMP, Chapter 1.3.3. Catalogue of flood prevention 

measures, p.15-16. 

80   FRMP, Chapter 1.3.3., Catalogue of measures, p. 17, Lists of projects for each sub-basin in Chapters 2 “RBD 

Danube” and 3 “RBD Adriatic”, p.22-223. 

81   FRMP. Reporting sheets. 

29 

 
 
                                                 
the Internet, public debate and other forms of public consultation. After it is confirmed by the 
government, it will be published82.  

There is no specific information on what is monitored with the exception of the construction 
measure  group and projects: Seven steps of implementation for each construction project  are 
envisioned and progress will be monitored through these steps83  84. Many measure groups are 
also  ongoing  activities, and there are no clear targets  and/or indicators for assessing whether 

other non-construction measures have been implemented, and no dates were specified for the 
completion of each measure.85 

The FRMP does not indicate a specific baseline against which progress will be monitored and 
assessed.86  

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 (RBMP) of the WFD. 

Table 9 

Coordination of the development of the FRMPs with the development of the 
second River Basin Management Plans of the WFD  

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 Floods Directive were considered in the preparation of the RBMPs a 
Planning of win-win and no-regret measures in the FRMP  

The RBMP PoM includes win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD 
and Floods Directive, drought management and NWRM 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 87 

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

82   Reporting  sheet  –  Slovenia,  Summary  of  the  Progress  FRMP,  subchapter  »Način  spremljanja  izvajanja 

gradbenih in negradbenih protipoplavnih ukrepov« in each of the 17 sub-basin flood plans. 

83   FRMP,  Chapters  2  »RBD  Danube«  and  3  »RBD  Adriatic«,  p.22-223.  Table  that  presents  the  process  of 

implementing The Flood Directive (link provided in sub-basin flood plans): 
http://www.mop.gov.si/fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/voda/opvp/OPOPO.xls  

84   The seven steps are: (1) preparation of expert studies; (2) preparation of a spatial instrument; (3) acceptance of 
a  spatial  instrument;  (4)  preparation  of  a  project  for  the  acquisition  of  building  permit;  (5)  building  permit 
obtained; (6) ongoing construction; (7) construction in operation. 

85   FRMP, Chapter 4.3, p.224-225. 
86   Slovenia subsequently explained that the baseline  is  the results of the PFRA (map of potential  flood risk in 
different categories of vulnerability: human health, economy, cultural heritage, environment) and the FHRMs 
for the APSFRs. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 88 
Notes: a based on reporting under the WFD 

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

The  development  of  the  FRMP  has  been  coordinated  with  the  development  of  the  second 
RBMP of the WFD. There were joint  consultations of the draft FRMP/sub-basin  flood plans 

and RBMPs and coordination between authorities responsible for developing both documents 
(the same authority, different teams).  

In the FRMP, all flood risk management measure groups have been sorted into three categories 
depending  on  their  influence  on  achieving  of  the  WFD  goals:  (1)  synergetic  influence,  (2) 

potential conflict with the WFD goals, and (3) irrelevant for implementation of the WFD. All 
the measure groups that have potential conflict with the WFD goals are to be further examined 

on a project level and harmonised with all the WFD objectives.  

In  the  second  RBMP,  there  is  a  measure  called  "U1a  –  protection  from  adverse  effects  of 

floods", which is actually the implementation of the FRMP, as explained in the text describing 
the measure.89 

4.14  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  with  regard  to 

measures 

The following good practices were identified: 

  The  FRMP  provides  clear  information  on  costs,  funding  sources  and  expected  funding 

levels (and is forthright in identifying a funding gap).   

  The  FRMP  sets  out  measure  groups  for  spatial  planning,  NWRM  and  nature 

conservation actions.  

  There  are  strong  links  with  the  WFD.  For  example,  measure  groups  were  assessed  for 
their  compatibility  with  the  WFD.  All  the  measure  groups  that  have  potential  conflict 

87   Slovenia  subsequently  informed  that  Slovenian  measure  group  U2  (Identification,  establishment,  and 
protection  of  important  natural  high-water  flood  plain  areas),  in  all  of  the  17  sub  basins,  and  some  other 
measures, were prepared in detailed coordination with WFD/RBMP planning. 

88   Slovenia subsequently indicated that these activities are part of the U3 measure group, on adaptation of land-

use in river basins, and are carried out in each of the 17 sub basins. 

89   Reporting sheet – Slovenia, Summary of the Development; FRMP, Chapter 1.3.3., Catalogue of measures, p. 
17;  RBMP,  Program  of  measures  of  water  management,  Measure  U1a  –  Protection  from  adverse  effects  of 
floods, p.211-213. 

31 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
with the WFD goals are to be further examined on a project level and harmonised with 
all the WFD objectives.  

  Monitoring  will  be  carried  out  every  two  years  and  will  include  a  public  consultation 

process.  

The following areas for further development were identified:  

  Although  the  FRMP  links  objectives  and  measures,  it  is  not  clear  by  how  much  the 
measures  will  contribute  to  the  objectives  and  whether  the  objectives  will  be  achieved 

with their implementation (also as objectives are not specific or measurable).  

  Whereas  the  FRMP  describes  how  monitoring  of  measures  will  be  carried  out  and 
presented  in  a  report  every  two  years,  a  baseline  for  monitoring  progress  is  not  clearly 
defined in the FRMP.  

32 

 
 
 
 
5. Consideration of climate change 

Slovenia’s  FRMP  indicates  that  the  contribution  of  each  of  measure  group  to  adaptation  to 
climate change was checked by expert judgement.90 (Moreover, for projects that contribute to 
adaptation,  the  national  Climate  Fund  is  a  potential  source  of  financing,  as  noted  in  section 
4)91.  However,  it  does  not  appear  that  any  measure  groups  or  projects  were  specifically 
developed to address climate change, nor that climate was considered in their design.92  

The  FRMP  does  not  contain  a  reference  to  the  national  Strategic  Framework  for  Climate 
Change Adaptation (which was released after the FRMP, in December 2016). The FRMP does 

not indicate whether climate change scenarios were considered in its development; nor does it 
discuss possible shifts in the occurrence of extreme events, or changes in numerical recurrence 
times, or main sources of flooding under long term climate change scenarios.93 

5.1  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  concerning 

climate change 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The contribution of measure groups to climate change adaptation was assessed.  

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The FRMP contains little information about climate impacts on flooding, and it does not 

appear that climate change was considered in the design of measures.  

  No  reference  to  a  coordination  between  the  FRMP  and  the  national  climate  change 

adaptation strategy when both documents where still under parallel development. 

90   FRMP, Appendix A, p.226-235. 
91   Reporting sheet – Slovenia, chapters Summary of the Objectives, and Summary of the Flood Extent. FRMP, 

p.20. 

92   Slovenia  subsequently  provided  information  that  the  FRMP  itself  is  recognised  as  a  key  climate  change 
adaptation measure. Moreover, whenever new (structural) flood protection measures are planned or designed 
in detail, the most recent information (also on climate change impacts) are included. 

93   “Slovenia is performing a detailed analysis of climate change impacts regarding flood risk management and it 

will be included in the second PFRA.” (information subsequently provided by Slovenia) 

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
6. Cost-benefit analysis 

In the FRMP, costs of measures were estimated (see section 4) and quantitative information on 

elements  at  risk  and  on  potential  flood  damage  (which  provides  an  indication  on  benefits  of 
flood protection) were taken into account94. In the FRMP, the methodology for the estimates of 
the costs of measures is described95.  

A CBA has not been used in the prioritisation and planning of the measures in the FRMP, but a 
methodology is set out to use CBA at the project or the sub-basin level.  

The  FRMP  states96  that  CBA  will  be  performed  in  the  process  of  preparing  investment 
documentation, according to the national decree97. The CBA will be performed at the project 
level for measures that fall into Slovenian measure type U7, “Planning and implementation of 

structural flood protection measures”. According to the national methodology (Article 5), this 
requires comparing costs and benefits of various alternatives, but it also allows comparison of 

just two alternatives: with or without intervention. The recommended structure of costs, as well 
as  one  of  the  possible  methods  for  assessing  the  benefits,  are  presented  in  Annex  B  of  the 

FRMP:  this  includes  costs  of  new  investments,  operating,  maintenance,  administrative  and 
other direct costs of planned flood protection measures, and benefits in terms of reduction of 

damage  to  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic  activity  of  the 
affected areas98.  

The  environment,  ecosystem  services,  possible  sources  of  greater  pollution,  as  well  as  water 
services  such  as  water  supply  and  waste  water  collection  and  treatment  are  included  in  the 

assessment of reduced flood damage due to the implementation of flood protection measures. 
The method includes also proposed monetary values (per unit of endangered element) for both, 

estimated  costs  and  benefits  (resulting  from  the  decrease  in  damage  due  to  application  of 
measures).  The  recommended  structure  of  costs  and  method  for  assessing  the  benefits  are 

applicable to all types of flood protection measures. Assessing of transboundary effects is not 
explicitly mentioned. It appears that CBA will be applied mainly on a project basis in the last 

94   FRMP, Chapter 4 and especially Subchapter 4.3, ‘Aspects of costs and benefits of non-structural and structural 
flood protection measures’, p.224-225. Subsequently Slovenia referred to the report “Ocena stroškov ukrepov 
NZPO in razpoložljivih sredstev po virih financiranja, 12.7.2017” that provides detailed estimates of costs and 
financial sources by measure groups on a state level. 

95   FRMP, Subchapter 4.1 and Subchapter 6.1. 
96   FRMP,  Subchapter  4.3,  ‘Aspects  of  costs  and  benefits  of  non-structural  and  structural  flood  protection 

measures’. 

97   In  accordance  with  the  national  Decree  on  the  uniform  methodology  for  the  preparation  and  treatment  of 
investment  documentation  in  the  field  of  public  finance.  Official  Gazette  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia,  No. 
60/06, 54/10 in 27/16, http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=URED3708  

98   FRMP,  Subchapter  4.3.  Aspects  of  costs  and  benefits  of  non-structural  and  structural  flood  protection 
measures,  p.224-225;  and  Appendix  B  –  Methodology  of  the  Assessment  of  Costs  and  Benefits  of  Flood 
protection Measures, p.236-243. 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
phase of planning, when a CBA is required for investments from public funds according to the 
national decree99. 

6.1  Good practices and areas for further development 

The following good practice was identified: 

  The  FRMP  sets  out  a  comprehensive  approach  for  CBA  at  the  project  and  sub-basin 

level. 

The following area for further development was identified: 

  The application of CBA for measures with potentially transboundary effect is unclear. 

  CBA will be performed in the implementation of the FRMP at the project level, but was 

not used to select and prioritise the Plan’s measures.   

99   Decree  on  the  uniform  methodology  for  the  preparation  and  treatment  of  investment  documentation  in  the 

field of public finance (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 60/06, 54/10 and 27/16). 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
7.   Governance including administrative arrangements, public 

information and consultation 

7.1 

Competent authorities 

In 2010, in accordance with the Water Law, the ministry responsible for water was tasked, as 
the competent authority, to prepare the FRMP: the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment of 

the  Republic  of  Slovenia  used  to  be  the  competent  authority  for  both  UoMs.  Following  a 
reorganisation,  the  Ministry  of  the  Environment  and  Spatial  Planning  of  the  Republic  of 
Slovenia is currently the competent authority for both UoMs100 101. The most recent documents 
reported to the European Commission are dated 2014. 

7.2 

Public information and consultation 

The table below shows how the public and interested parties were informed, according to the 
FRMP concerning the draft FRMPs. Information 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 

Media (papers, TV, radio)  

Internet  

Digital social networking  

Printed material  

Direct mailing  

Invitations to stakeholders  

Local Authorities  

Meetings  

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

In  Slovenia,  the  public  and  stakeholders  were  informed  about  the  preparation  of  the  FRMP 

through  the  internet:  all  the  documents  (including  the  FRMP  and  background  studies)  were 
(and  in  early  2018,  still  are)  available  on  government  web  sites.  In  addition,  the  public  and 

stakeholders were informed through invitations, meetings, and workshops, through local water 
authorities that exhibited the draft plans as well as through press conferences102. 

100  FRMP, Chapter 1.2.1, p.10. 
101  Slovenia  subsequently  noted  that  since  2016,  the  key  actors  in  water  management  are  the  Ministry  of  the 

Environment and Spatial Planning and Slovenian Water Agency (Direkcija RS za vode). 

102  Reporting  sheets  –  Slovenia,  chapter  Summary  of  Consultation.  FRMP,  Chapter  1.3.7.  Public  Consultation 

regarding FRMP, p.19-20. Primorski vodni dnevi: 
http://www.mop.gov.si/si/medijsko_sredisce/novica/archive/2015/2/select/napovednik_dogodkov/article/1244
8/5819/  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
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 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Source: FRMPs 

The actual consultation was carried out first of all via the internet. People were able to submit 
their comments online. The FRMP states that there were more than 50 comments on the draft 

FRMP  collected  in  this  way  from  various  stakeholders  (associations,  local  communities  and 
other groups).  

As indicated above, public presentations were organised across the country in cooperation with 
local authorities103.    

After the publication of the final FRMP, Slovenia organised workshops with local inhabitants 
in  flood-risk  areas  and  with  local  water  professionals.  In  December  2015,  there  were  four 

workshops  for  the  basins  of  Savinja  river  (at  Ljubno  ob  Savinji),  Mura  and  Drava  rivers  (at 
Murska Sobota), Sava river (at Ljubljana) and Soča and Adriatic rivers (at Nova Gorica) that 

explained  the  FRMP.  In  2017,  a  public  discussion  and  exhibition  was  held,  covering  both 
UoMs104.  

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.)  

All UoMs 

✔ 

✔ 

103  Reporting  sheets  –  Slovenia,  chapter  Summary  of  Consultation.  FRMP,  Chapter  1.3.7.  Public  Consultation 

regarding FRMP, p.19-20. FRMP, Chapters 2 »RBD Danube« and 3 »RBD Adriatic«, p.22-223: 
http://www.mop.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/voda/zmanjsevanje_poplavne_ogrozenosti/posvetovanje_z_javno
stmi/  

104  Reporting  sheets  –  Slovenia,  chapters  Summary  of  Consultation.  FRMP,  Chapter  1.3.7. Public  Consultation 

regarding FRMP, p.19-20. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Source: FRMPs 

The  documents  for  the  consultation  were  available  for  downloading  from  the  internet.  They 
were also available at local offices of water authorities where they were publicly displayed.105 

7.3 

Active involvement of Stakeholders 

There is no information in the FRMP on which groups of stakeholders were actively involved 
in the development of flood risk management plans.106 The reporting sheets indicate that after 
the  draft  FRMP  was  publicly  presented  (and  available  for  downloading  from  the  internet), 
there were several internal presentations of the FRMP to government bodies under the Ministry 
of the Environment and Spatial Planning, including flood warning and defence bodies.107  

7.4 

Effects of consultation 

The  FRMP  reports  that  comments  were  collected  at  all  public  presentations  but  does  not 
provide information on how these or written comments were used to amend the draft FRMP.108 
The FRMP does note, however, that information about relevant construction projects planned 

at municipal level were collected and included in an informative list of construction projects to 
be considered.  

7.5 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

The  FRMP  underwent  an  SEA  procedure.  The  FRMP  has  an  Appendix  G  with  "General 
protection  guidelines  and  mitigation  measures”,  taken  from  the  SEA  Report.  The  reporting 

sheets clarify that the draft FRMP and its draft SEA report were publicly presented together at 
public discussions and exhibitions109.   

105  Reporting  sheets  –  Slovenia,  chapters  Summary  of  Consultation.  FRMP,  Chapter  1.3.7. Public  Consultation 

regarding FRMP, p.19-20. 

106  Reporting  sheets  –  Slovenia,  chapters  Summary  of  Consultation.  FRMP,  Chapter  1.3.7. Public  Consultation 
regarding FRMP, p.19-20. Sections on public consultations in each of the sub-basin plans in Chapters 2 and 3 
of the FRMP. 

107  Slovenia  subsequently  provided  additional  information  –  a  report  on  public  consultation  (Posvetovanje  z 
javnostmi v okviru priprave načrta zmanjševanja poplavne ogroženosti  – poročilo, Ljubljana, January 2016; 
does  not  appear  to  be  published),  which  provides  detailed  information  on  public  consultation  process  and 
groups that were actively involved: municipalities, governmental bodies and institutions, public agencies, civil 
initiatives,  associations,  research  institutions,  spatial  planning  companies,  interested  individuals,  media  and 
others.  In  the  strategic  environmental  assessment  process  for  the  FRMP,  additional  public  consultation  and 
presentations  were  carried  out.  Slovenia  also  pointed  out  that  in  the  prior  PFRA  process,  a  long  and  active 
public consultation was carried out (FRMP, p.20).  

108  The report on public consultation (Posvetovanje z javnostmi v okviru priprave načrta zmanjševanja poplavne 
ogroženosti – poročilo, Ljubljana, January 2016, p.38-39) states that the Ministry tried to integrate all relevant 
comments into a revised version of the FRMP. Some comments, such as suggestions to define additional areas 
as APSFRs, will be evaluated and considered in the second FRMP. 

109  FRMP,  Appendix  G,  p.259-262;  Reporting  sheets  –  Slovenia,  chapter  Summary  of  Consultation.  Slovenia 

subsequently provided link to news on public consultation on the FRMP and the SEA report: 
http://www.mop.gov.si/si/medijsko_sredisce/novica/7567/ and 

38 

 
 
                                                 
 
7.6  Good  practices  and  areas  for  further  development  regarding 

governance 

The following good practice was identified: 

  Workshops were held to present and raise awareness of the completed FRMP on a sub-

basin level.  

The following areas for further development were identified: 

  Although a report on public participation was published separately, the FRMP contains 
almost  no  information  about  the  types  of  stakeholders  actively  involved  in  the 

preparation  of  the  FRMP,  nor  the  extent  of  their  involvement.  The  FRMP  does  not 
contain a reference to the separate report. 

  There is little information in the FRMP about the results of the consultation. 

http://www.mop.gov.si/si/medijsko_sredisce/novica/7623/ 
39 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                          
Annex A: Supplementary tables and charts on measures 

This  Annex gives an overview of the data on measures reported by  Slovenia in  its  reporting 

sheets.  These  tables  and  charts  were  used  for  the  preparation  of  section  4  on  measures.  As 
noted in section 4, the FRMP presents a different structure for measures. This Annex, however, 

is only based on Slovenia’s reporting sheets.  

Background & method 

This document was produced as part of the assessment of the Flood Risk Management Plans 

(FRMPs). The below 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 Floods Directive)110, 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  applied  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. 

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

40 

 
 
                                                 
 

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

data sorted. 

  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 table111 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 

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

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

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
List of Annex A tables & figures 

Figure A1: Number of total measures (individual and aggregated) by measure aspect ............ 44 
Figure A2: Share of total measures (aggregated and individual) by measure aspect ................ 44 
Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect ....................... 46 
Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by UoM ....................................... 47 
Figure A5: Visualisation of Table A5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ........... 49 
Figure A6: Visualisation of Table A6: Progress of implementation by UoM ........................... 49 

Table A1 - Total number of measures ....................................................................................... 43 
Table A2: Total number of measures (aggregated and individual), per measure aspect and 
UoM, including duplicates ......................................................................................................... 43 
Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect .................................................................... 46 
Table A4: Category of priority by UoM .................................................................................... 47 
Table A5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect ........................................................ 48 
Table A6: Progress of implementation by UoM ........................................................................ 49 

42 

 
 
 
 
Measures overview 

Table A1 - Total number of measures 

Number of individual measures 

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 

0 

40 

52 

40 

52 

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

equally distributed 

Average number of measures across UoMs including measures which have been allocated to more than one measure type 
Notes:  As  described  in  section  4,  Slovenia’s  FRMP  contains  a  different  structure:  it  presents  20  “measure  groups”,  with  specific 
projects under each measure group in the two UoMs. The 40 measures presented here correspond to the 20 measure groups across the 

26 

two UoMs.  

Table A2: Total number of measures (aggregated and individual), per measure aspect and UoM, including duplicates 

Prevention 

Total 

Protection 

Total 

Preparedness 

Recovery & 
review 

Total 

M21  M22  M23  M24 

M31  M32  M33  M35 

M41  M42  M43  M44 

M51  M53 

Total  Other 

Grand 
Total 

SIRBD1 

SIRBD2 

Grand 
Total 

Average 
per 
UoM 

3 

3 

6 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

5 

5 

10 

10 

10 

20 

5 

10 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

6 

6 

9 

9 

12 

18 

2 

2 

4 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

5 

5 

10 

1 

1 

6 

9 

2 

1 

1 

1 

5 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

4 

2 

26 

26 

52 

26 

0 

0 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. All measures are aggregated as Slovenia did not report any 
individual measure. 

43 

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

Figure A1: Number of total measures (individual and aggregated) by measure aspect  

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. All measures are 

aggregated as Slovenia did not report any individual measures. 

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

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. All measures are 
aggregated as Slovenia did not report any individual measures. 

Measure details: cost 

Member States were requested to report information on: 

  Cost (optional field); 

44 

 
 
 
  Cost explanation (optional field). 

Slovenia  did  not  report  any  information  about  the  cost  or  cost  explanations  for  any  of  the 
measures in the reporting sheets. (As noted in section 4 above, the FRMP contains information 

on the costs of structural and non-structural measures, in Chapter 4.1 and in Appendix B). 

Measure details: name & location 

Member States were requested to report on the following: 

  Location of implementation of measures (mandatory field); 

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

Location of measures 

In  the  reporting  sheets,  Slovenia  provided  information  about  the  location  of  all  measures. 
Overall,  all  measures  in  UoM  SIRBD1  will  be  implemented  in  the  river  basins  of  the  rivers 

Sava, Ljubljanska Sava, Ljublanica, Gradascica, Kaminska Bistrica, Litija Sava, Savinja, Krka, 
Sotla, Drava, Slovenske Mure and Ledava. The location for all measures in UoM SIRBD2 is 

reported as the river basins of the rivers Idrijca and Vipava.   

Geographic coverage 

Slovenia did not provide any information about the geographic coverage of the effects of any 

of  the  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets.  (As  noted  in  section  4  above,  the  FRMP  contains 
information on the geographic coverage of structural and non-structural measures in Chapters 

2 and 3). 

Measure details: objectives 

Member States were requested to report 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). 

45 

 
 
Objectives 

Slovenia  reported  objectives  for  all  measures  in  the  reporting  sheets.  A  range  of  different 

objectives  were  reported  for  the  UoMs.  Consequently,  it  was  not  possible  to  aggregate  the 
information.   

Category of priority 

Slovenia  provided  information  for  the  priority  of  all  measures.  The  following  categories  are 

used in the reporting sheet: 

  Critical; 

  Very high; 

  High; 

  Moderate; 

  Low. 

Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect  

Critical 

Very high 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

2 

4 

2 

2 

16 

12 

8 

2 

Low 

2 

2 

Grand Total 

20 

18 

10 

4 

Grand Total 

38 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. No measures were 

10 

52 

4 

categorised as ‘high’ or ‘moderate’ priority. 

Figure A3: Visualisation of Table A3: Category of priority by measure aspect 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. No measures were 
categorised as ‘high’ or ‘moderate’ priority. 

Table A4: Category of priority by UoM  

Critical 

Very high 

Low 

Grand Total 

SIRBD1 

SIRBD2 

Grand Total 

5 

5 

10 

19 

19 

38 

2 

2 

4 

26 

26 

52 

Average per UoM 

19 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. No measures were 
categorised as ‘high’ or ‘moderate’ priority. 

26 

5 

2 

Figure A4: Visualisation of Table A4: Category of priority by UoM  

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. No measures were 
categorised as ‘high’ or ‘moderate’ priority. 

Timetable 

Slovenia did not provide any information about the timetable of the measures in the reporting 

sheets.  

Measure details: authorities 

Member States were requested to report on: 

  Name of the responsible authority (optional if ‘level of responsibility’ is reported);   

  Level of responsibility (optional if ‘name of the responsible authority’ is reported).  

Slovenia  did  not  provide  information  about  the  level  of  responsibility  of  the  assigned 

responsible  authorities  in  the  reporting  sheets,  however,  after  examining  the  reported 

47 

 
 
 
authorities  for  each  measure  it  appears  that  all  responsible  authorities  operate  at  the  national 
level.  Overall,  Slovenia  assigned  two  types  of  authorities  as  responsible  for  the  measures: 

ministries of the government (e.g. Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Ministry 
of  Agriculture,  Forestry  and  Food,  Ministry  of  Finance  etc.)  or  agencies  (e.g.  Slovenian 

Environment  Agency,  Slovenian  Water  Authority,  Administration  for  Protection  and  Rescue 
etc.). Around a quarter of the measures were assigned only one responsible authority but most 

measures  were  assigned  multiple  responsible  authorities.  (As  noted  in  section  4  above,  the 
FRMP  contains  information  on  the  responsible  authorities  to  perform  specific  structural  or 

non-structural measures in Chapters 2 and 3). 

Measure details: progress 

Member States were requested to report on: 

  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  for  which  not  all  Member  States  reported  and  whose  answers  are  not 
analysed here. 

Slovenia  reported  information  about  the  progress  of  implementation  of  the  measures.  The 
Progress of implementation was reported as112:  

  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 A5: Progress of implementation by measure aspect  

Progress ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

Prevention 

Protection 

Preparedness 

Recovery & review 

Grand Total 

18 

18 

10 

4 

50 

2 

2 

20 

18 

10 

4 

52 

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

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

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. No measures were 
reported as ‘completed’ or ‘ongoing construction’. 

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

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. No measures were 
reported as ‘completed’ or ‘ongoing construction’. 

Table A6: Progress of implementation by UoM  

Progress ongoing 

Not started 

Grand Total 

SIRBD1 

SIRBD2 

Grand Total 

Average per UoM 

25 

25 

50 

25 

1 

1 

2 

1 

26 

26 

52 

26 

Notes: The total includes measures assigned to more than one measure type. No measures were 

reported as ‘completed’ or ‘ongoing construction’. 

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

49 

 
 
 
 
Notes:    The  total  includes  measures  assigned  to  more  than  one  measure  type.  No  measures 
were reported as ‘completed’ or ‘ongoing construction’. 

The categories describing the progress of measures are defined in the EU Reporting Guidance 
Document on the Floods Directive: 

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. 

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, 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
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 on: 

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

  Any other information reported (optional field). 

Slovenia  did  not  provide  information  about  other  Community  Acts  that  might  be  relevant  or 
any other additional information for the measures in the reporting sheets. 

51 

 
 
 
 
Annex B: Definitions of measure types 

Table B1 

Types of flood risk management measures113 

M11 

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

No Action 

Prevention 

M21  Prevention, Avoidance, Measure to prevent the location of new or additional receptors in flood prone 

areas, such as land use planning policies or regulation 

M22 

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 

M23  Prevention, Reduction, Measure to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse consequences in the event of 

a flood actions on buildings, public networks, etc... 

M24 

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 

M31 

M32 

M33 

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 
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. 

M34  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). 

M35 

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

Preparedness 

M41  Preparedness, Flood Forecasting and Warning, Measure to establish or enhance a flood forecasting or 

warning system 

M42 

M43 

M44 

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 

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

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

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Recovery & Review 

M51 

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

M52  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) 

M53  Recovery and Review, Other, Other recovery and review Lessons learnt from flood events Insurance 

M61 

policies 

Other 

Other 

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;  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 NWRM 

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 

N05 Stream bed re-
naturalization 

N06 Restoration and 
reconnection of seasonal 
streams 

U05 Channels and rills 

U06 Filter Strips 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
Agriculture 

Forest 

Hydro Morphology 

Urban 

A07 Low till agriculture 

F07 'Water sensitive' 
driving 

A08 Green cover 

F08 Appropriate design of 
roads and stream 
crossings 

A09 Early sowing 

F09 Sediment capture 
ponds 

A10 Traditional 
terracing 

A11 Controlled traffic 
farming 

A12 Reduced stocking 
density 

F10 Coarse woody debris 

F11 Urban forest parks 

N07 Reconnection of 
oxbow lakes and similar 
features 

U07 Soakaways 

N08 Riverbed material 
renaturalisation 

U08 Infiltration 
Trenches 

N09 Removal of dams 
and other longitudinal 
barriers 

N10 Natural bank 
stabilisation 

N11 Elimination of 
riverbank protection 

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 

54