COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Third River Basin Management Plans Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans Member State: Slovenia Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) Third River Basin Management Plans Second Flood Risk Management Plans
Date: 2025-02-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: Slovenia, adaptation to climate change, application of EU law, environmental risk prevention, flood, risk management, water, water management, water pollution, watercourse

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.2.2025  SWD(2025) 30 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Third River Basin Management Plans  Second Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and Second Flood Risk Management Plans Member State: Slovenia  Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC)   Third River Basin Management Plans   Second Flood Risk Management Plans {COM(2025) 2 final} - {SWD(2025) 13 final} - {SWD(2025) 14 final} - {SWD(2025) 15 final} - {SWD(2025) 16 final} - {SWD(2025) 17 final} - {SWD(2025) 18 final} - {SWD(2025) 19 final} - {SWD(2025) 20 final} - {SWD(2025) 21 final} - {SWD(2025) 22 final} - {SWD(2025) 23 final} - {SWD(2025) 24 final} - {SWD(2025) 25 final} - {SWD(2025) 26 final} - {SWD(2025) 27 final} - {SWD(2025) 28 final} - {SWD(2025) 29 final} - {SWD(2025) 31 final} - {SWD(2025) 32 final} - {SWD(2025) 33 final} - {SWD(2025) 34 final} - {SWD(2025) 35 final}  
 
 
y
n
a
r
V
n
a
p
e
t
S

|

m
o
c
s
l

.

e
x
e
P
©

Country specific staff working document 

Slovenia 

ENVIRONMENT 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Content 

Content ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

SECTION A: WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE .......................................................................................................................... 3 

SECTION B: FLOODS DIRECTIVE ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 

1. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD) ............................................................................................... 6 

1.1 Flood hazard and risk maps ......................................................................................................................................... 7 

1.2 Flood risk management plans ..................................................................................................................................... 8 

2. FD recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................ 10 

2 

 
 
 
SECTION A: 
WATER FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE 

3 

 
 
 
Slovenia has failed to comply with its legal obligation and has not reported the 3rd RBMPs in time. 
The Commission has thus been bound to launch legal proceedings.  

4 

 
SECTION B: 
FLOODS DIRECTIVE 

5 

 
 
 
1. Flood risk management under floods directive (FD) 

The Directive requires each Member State (MS) to scan its territory for flood risks, assess the potential 
adverse  consequences  of  future  floods  for  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and 
economic  activity,  identify  the  significant  risks,  map  the  flood  extent  and  the  potential  adverse 
consequences, and take measures to reduce the flood risk. These activities are reflected in (a) the 
preliminary  flood  risk  assessments,  or  PFRAs  (including  the  identification  of  areas  of  potential 
significant flood risk, or APSFRs), (b) the preparation of flood hazard and risk maps, or FHRMs, and (c) 
the establishment of flood risk management plans, or FRMPs. The preliminary assessments, mapping 
and planning for flood risk are repeated in six-yearly cycles. 

There are two Units of Management (UoMs) in Slovenia, which are the same as the Water Framework 
Directive’s  River  Basin  Districts  (RBD).  Fluvial  and  pluvial  floods  are  considered  as  potentially 
significant sources of flooding in Slovenia. Slovenia has designated 86 Areas of Potential Significant 
Flood Risk (APSFRs). Climate change scenarios have been developed specifically for the MS. Slovenia 
stated  that,  as  a  part  of  the  project  "Climate  Change  Impact  Assessments  in  the  21st  Century", 
scenarios for three periods were developed (2011-2040, 2014-2070 and 2071-2100). The impact 
of  climate  change  on  the  occurrence  of  floods  has  been  considered  at  the  time  of  the  second 
preliminary flood risk assessment. This impact was considered in such a way that, based on expected 
/ estimated changes in climatological and other meteorological variables, long-term projections of 
changes  in  high  flows  in  Slovenia  were  prepared  and  taken  into  account.  Changes  (meaning  the 
increase in extent of high flood waters) were carried out  only where climate change will have an 
impact on the increase of high waters. In areas where it is estimated that climate change will affect 
the high waters in a way that they will be reduced in the future, Slovenia has not reduced the areas 
of hazard potential to stay on the safe side. 

6 

 
 
1.1 Flood hazard and risk maps 

Slovenia’s FHRMs (in pdf form) are published on a governmental portal1. Besides, Slovenia is using 
two  GIS-based  geoportals  at  a  national  level,  “Water  Management  Atlas”2,  which  is  the  official 
geoportal for publishing flood risk related information, and “Environmental Atlas3, which is an older 
and widely used geoportal, operated by the Slovenian Environmental Agency4. They both show areas 
of potential significant flood risk (APSFRs), while the flood hazard maps and flood risk maps in pdf 
format developed for the APSFRs are offered in the Water Management Atlas (as links to pdf maps 
in  the  pop-up  information  box).  FHRMs  were  prepared  at  the  national  level  and  show  the  whole 
country. Maps for floods with low probability (1/500 years), with medium probability (1/100 years) 
and with high probability (1/10 years) are provided. Flood extent is shown on all maps. Water depth 
is shown on all maps. Number of inhabitants is shown on all maps. Likewise, type of economic activity 
is shown on all maps. Flood risk maps show which land uses and objects are affected by the flood 
scenarios. Information on negative economic consequences is reported in EIONET for low probabilities 
only for about a third of the APSFRs5. IED installations are shown. Potentially affected protected areas 
identified in Annex IV(1)(i), (iii) and (v) to Directive 2000/60/EC are shown in the FHRMs. 

A GIS based web-viewer covered the whole country already for the first FHRMs however, for the first 
FHRMs not all flood hazard maps were publicly available for all APSFRs, and no flood risk maps were 
publicly  available.  For  the  second  FHRMs  Slovenia  has  a  single  link  to  the  official  governmental 
webpage6 with lists of flood hazard maps and flood risk maps and with links to pdf maps. It also 
provided a document7 with a presentation of the methodology for preparation of the maps for the 
second FHRMs. This document also provides information on how the flood hazard maps and flood risk 
maps can be accessed through a national on-line GIS portal, the Water Management Atlas. 

In terms of changes of contextual information (i.e. the way in which information about the maps is 
conveyed to the public) since the first FHRMs, a noteworthy change is that Slovenia added links to 
pdf maps as part of information on APSFRs that are presented in the on-line GIS national geoportal 
Water Management Atlas8. The on-line GIS information is updated with newer information on flood 
hazards approximately twice a year. 

In terms of changes in methodologies used to prepare flood hazard maps since the first FHRMs, there 
is a national approach for flood hazard mapping based on a decreed methodology9 that has been in 
force since 2007 and has not changed. 

1 https://www.gov.si/teme/karte-poplavne-nevarnosti-in-karte-poplavne-ogrozenosti-za-obmocja-pomembnega-vpliva-
poplav/ 
2 https://geohub.gov.si/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f89cc3835fcd48b5a980343570e0b64e 
3http://gis.arso.gov.si/atlasokolja/profile.aspx?id=Atlas_Okolja_AXL@Arso&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 
4 The Slovenian Environmental Agency is part of a different ministry after the last reorganization of the Slovenian 
government. 
5 Subsequently, Slovenia clarified that they have shown economic activity only where there is and if it is at risk of being 
flooded. 
6 https://www.gov.si/teme/karte-poplavne-nevarnosti-in-karte-poplavne-ogrozenosti-za-obmocja-pomembnega-vpliva-
poplav/  
7 Posodobitev in izdelava kart poplavne nevarnosti in kart poplavne ogroženosti za območja pomembnega vpliva poplav 
(opis metodologije), MOP, November 2020.  
8 Subsequently, Slovenia removed all the links to pdf maps from both GIS-based national geoportals, possibly in response 
to the August 2023 flood. 
9 Pravilnik o metodologiji za določanje območij, ogroženih zaradi poplav in z njimi povezane erozije celinskih voda in morja, 
ter o načinu razvrščanja zemljišč v razrede ogroženosti, Uradni list RS, št. 60/07.  

7 

 
 
In terms of changes in methodologies used to prepare flood risk maps since the first FHRMs, the 
same approach for all potential adverse consequences is applied as for the first FHRMs. The difference 
is mainly due to updated data used for the second FHRMs. 

Climate change in the second FHRMs 

Climate change has been taken into account in the production of flood hazard maps. The “flood hazard 
potential map”, takes into account a fluvial flood scenario for 2040, based on the RCP4.5_median 
scenario, with a 500-year return period for the period 2011-2040 and with probability distribution 
Pearson III, was used in the preparation of flood risk models and contributed to the review of the 
APSFRs at the time of the second PFRA. 

1.2 Flood risk management plans 

Objectives and measures 

The FRMP can be easily found on the Natural Resources and Spatial Planning Ministry’s website10. 
The FRMP has four general objectives: (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 risks. The fourth objective focuses on strengthening public awareness. Slovenia’s FRMP defines 
20 generic measures that are implemented via projects in each UoM and sub-basin. The FRMP does 
not provide details on specific measures that will follow from the generic ones. The generic measures 
have been prioritised at national level, using a survey of water experts. Slovenia reported the priority 
of each of its measures. The largest share, 26 measures (65 % of the total), were reported as high 
priority, including eight measures each for prevention, protection, and preparedness measures. Two 
prevention and two preparedness measures were reported as low priority (one of each aspect in each 
UoM), while the remaining 10 measures (25 % of the total) were reported as moderate priority. The 
FRMP identifies the authorities responsible for monitoring the progress of the measures and notes 
that the government publishes a report on progress every two years11 (the progress report for the 
period 2017-21 is Annex I of the FRMP). 

While the FRMP does not provide information on the costs of each generic measure or the cost of 
individual projects at sub-basin level, it does provide an overall estimate of the cost of measures and 
projects for the country as a whole. Funding is provided by national and EU budgets. Next to the total 
budget for its measures, the FRMP describes a cost-benefit method to be used at project level, though 
it does not provide information where this has been used or the results. Slovenia reported several 
areas  of  coordination  with  the  WFD;  however,  there  is  little  information  in  the  FRMP  on  this 
coordination. The generic measures include natural water retention measures (NWRMs). The FRMP 
mentions studies to designate natural flood areas, and notes that structural measures need to be 
assessed  for  their  environmental  impacts, including  on  Natura  2000  sites.  The  generic  objectives 
have been assessed and designated into three categories with regard to their role vis-à-vis the WFD 
objectives: (1)  synergetic influence, (2)  potential  conflict, and (3) not relevant. The FRMP identifies 
generic measures for prevention, protection and preparedness and Slovenia reported 12 prevention 
measures, 12 protection measures and 12 preparedness measures to EIONET. Its measures include 
early warning systems. The FRMP also identifies generic measures for spatial planning and land use. 

10 https://www.gov.si/teme/nacrt-zmanjsevanja-poplavne-ogrozenosti/  
11 
https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MOP/Dokumenti/Voda/NZPO/porocilo_o_izvajanju_ukrepovo_NZPO_2017_2019.pdf  

8 

 
 
 
Moreover, the plan states that flood risks are to be integrated into spatial planning. The second FRMP 
provides information on the progress of the measures in the first FRMP, but not for the achievement 
of the objectives. Slovenia reported to EIONET the progress of measures in three categories: ongoing 
construction,  ongoing  (recurrent  e.g.,  maintenance  works),  and  in  preparation.  The  majority  were 
reported as ongoing (recurrent e.g., maintenance works): 34 measures (85 % of the total), including 
10  measures  each  for  prevention,  protection,  and  preparedness,  plus  four  recovery  and  review 
measures). Two prevention measures were reported as in preparation, and four measures as ongoing 
construction, two each for protection and preparedness. In the first FRMPs, 96 % of the measures 
were reported as progress ongoing, with the remaining 4 % were reported as not started. The FRMP 
provides information on the progress of all measures in Appendix I12, which provides an overview of 
each measure and then a brief note on progress at either national level and/or within the sub-basins. 
For example, on measure U6 for flood risk education and awareness, the FRMP highlights work carried 
out  in  several  sub-basins  under  international  projects  as  well  as  national  work  on  education.  For 
measure U16 on flood warning, the FRMP describes updates to the national flood warning system. 
The  FRMP13  also  provides  a  list  of  flood  prevention/protection  construction  projects  with  basic 
information on the progress of each project and a list of 38 already finished projects under the first 
FRMP. The implementation of ongoing construction projects is monitored through seven technical and 
administrative steps.  

Governance 

The national FRMP states the coordination took place in bilateral water management commissions 
with Austria, Croatia, Hungary and Italy, and it provides a link14 to the minutes of the meetings of 
these commissions. 

The national FRMP reports that the public consultation on the draft plan was held for two months15. 
The sub-basin plans refer to the national government webpage16 where the draft national FRMP was 
presented for consultation. No further information on the consultation process is provided, however, 
on that page or in the national FRMP itself17. 

Consideration of climate change 

The second FRMP describes how climate projections were considered in the second PFRA, however 
the  link  to  measures  in  the  FRMP  is  not  clear.  The  second  FRMP  also  refers  to  Slovenia's  policy 
framework for adaptation to climate change. The FRMP states that climate change impacts were 
integrated into the second PFRA, and provides an overview of some impacts of climate change on 
flood risks. The FRMP refers to a 2016-17 project, carried out by the Slovenian Environmental Agency, 
the “Assessment of Climate Change in Slovenia by the end of the 21st Century”, explaining that the 
project  ‘will  further  enable  the  preparation  of  an  action  plan  for  measures  to  adapt  to  climate 
change’18. The FRMP notes that the project results were used for the second PFRA. The following 
shifts  for  the  first  period  until  2040  and  in  the  second  period  until  2070  are  presented  for  the 
moderately optimistic scenario, RCP 4.5: (1) increase in average air temperature by between 0.5 and 

12 FRMP, Chapter 13, pp. 416-446. 
13 FRMP, Appendix C, section 7.2, pp. 377-393 
14 http://www.evode.gov.si/index.php?id=92 
15 This is noted in the sub-basin plans. For example, section 3.1.1.7 for the Soča sub-basin.  
16 https://www.gov.si/zbirke/javne-objave/osnutek-nacrta-zmanjsevanja-poplavne-ogrozenosti-2022-2027/  
17 In the previous FRMP, it was reported that comments were collected at all public presentations but did not provide 
information on how these comments were used to amend the draft FRMP. The FRMP noted that information about 
relevant construction projects planned at municipal level were collected and included in an informative list of construction 
projects to be considered (p. 38, Assessment of Slovenia’s FRMP Assessment SWD_2019_74). 
18 FRMP, Section 10, p. 398. 

9 

 
 
 
 
1 °C in the first period, and to the end of the second period by 2 °C; (2) changes in annual precipitation 
are only apparent in the second thirty-year period until 2070, when the amount of precipitation will 
increase  in  the  eastern  half  of  Slovenia,  and  summers  are  expected to  be  drier  compared  to  the 
average in the reference period; (3) the changes are also reflected in the flow of surface water – in 
general in both periods for most of the northern part of the country shows an increase, especially in 
the north-eastern part of the country. 

Progress identified in the second FRMPs 

While the FRMP does not specifically identify baselines for its measures, the descriptions of some 
measures include information that can serve as a baseline. The progress report annexed to the FRMP 
provides overviews of the implementation of measures and thus provides elements that can be used 
as baselines for the plan’s measures. In the second national FRMP, the climate change topic is well 
covered, it is described how climate projections were considered in the second PFRA, however the link 
to measures in the FRMP is not clear. The second national FRMP refers to Slovenia's policy framework 
for  adaptation  to  climate  change.  A  report  on  public  participation  was  prepared  separately  (and 
provided to the Commission), but no link to it was found in the FRMP. Slovenia participated in Interreg 
projects with Austria and Croatia aimed at raising public awareness. 

2. FD recommendations 

Based on the reported information and the FHRMs and FRMPs assessed, the following recommendations are 
made to enhance flood risk management: 

• 

• 

The FHRMs should cover all APSFRs as both flood hazard and flood risk maps; 

The FHRMs should show water depths also for the low probability scenario; 

•  Pluvial flooding should be considered in the FHRM; 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The FRMP should provide detail on how the FHRM was used in the choice of objectives and measures; 

The FRMP’s objectives should be specific and where possible linked to quantitative indicators and be 
timebound; 

The  FRMP  should  provide  details  of  both  structural  and  non-structural  measures,  beyond  generic 
measures; 

The  FRMP  should  provide  information  on  the  costs  of  measures  (next  to  the  overall  cost  which  is 
provided); 

•  Provisions for the protection of cultural heritage at risk from flooding should be discussed in the FRMP; 

•  Where  relevant,  the  FRMP  should  incorporate  CBA  for  the  prioritisation  of  measures  that  lend 

themselves to it and provide a clear description of the methodology used; 

10 

 
 
 
•  Public consultation for the FRMP should aim for a six-month duration. The FRMP should provide detail 
on the public consultation and active stakeholder involvement, in particular, the comments received, 
and how they were taken into account; 

• 

The FRMP should set out clearly coordination with the RBMP; 

•  Where appropriate, the FHRM should consider flow velocity or relevant water flow and the FRMP flood 

conveyance routes, as these are relevant to emergency response. 

11