1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 80, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Sustainable Hill Cultivation Programme', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/01/2015

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

This approach is devoted to the implementation of 'The Landscape Revitalisation Programme and integrated river basins management of the Slovak Republic' in the Sobotište village.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The objective of the first implementation project for 2011 was to create, activate and systematically implement a minimum of 6 million m³ of water retention elements in mountain and foothill areas of forest-agricultural landscape in Slovakia. A particular aim was to create and build landscape water retention systems, terrain elements, facilities and technical solutions in forest, agricultural and urban areas in selected village locations, with the abovementioned cyclical rainwater retention capacity, which will then be operated and
maintained. Another project objective was to force and socially support the creation of employment at community and regional level. The creation of water retention elements and the implementation of revitalisation measures required the creation of a minimum of 2,500 jobs of a seasonal and temporary nature in 2011, including extending existing specialist capacities. This whould also extend the work skills and knowledge necessary for revitalisation of the landscape.
833 municipalities showed interest to participate in this project/approach, while 200 municipalities met the criteria. The project created about 3,500 seasonal jobs in 2011, particularly in regions with high unemployment.


Methods: Criteria and their significance for including villages into the first implementation project are
as follows:
1. 45% - historic or regularly repeated occurrence of flash flooding,
2. 35 % - village is situated in a location with a high potential risk of flooding, in accordance
with modelled potential for the occurrence of flooding. A map of regional and local
potential for flooding in the area of Slovakia1
is at Appendix No. 1,
3. 10% - location of a village in the upper part of river basins, so the implemented measures
will positively decrease the risk of flooding for highest possible number of villages in the
given river basins,
4. 10% - the ratio of documented unemployment is taking into account so citizens of villages
with a high ratio of documented unemployment could contribute towards revitalisation
works.

The submitted methodology of the whole flood potential of Slovakia was prepared on the basis of the work of J. Minár and Co. (2005). The mentioned work focuses upon the
presentation of methodology and results for evaluating the flood creation potential within the whole of Slovakia. It also includes a general description of the modelling of hydrological
processes. The method presented in this work is a good alternative for fast, effective and relatively financially undemanding but still sufficiently reliable analysis of flood risks of
larger areas. The actual calculation of total potential for flooding took place in the technological environment of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in the following steps
with the stated data:

- calculation of the morphometric potential (incline, horizontal articulation of the
topography, slope length, speed of surface run-off),
- partial synthetic geological potential (infiltration and drainage properties of the soil,
retention properties of the land cover, breaking effect of land cover, size of river basin,
shape of river basin),
- overall potential of the land for the creation of flood situations (climatic and
hydrological characteristics and data).

Stages of implementation: Management of the first implementation project was carried out by the Executive Manager of the Programme of Landscape Revitalization and Integrated River Basin Management in SR in cooperation with the Government Representative for Local Government and for Integrated River Basin and Landscape Management and other interested departments of the Government Office SR.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities

The Sobotište of village was greatly affected in 2011 by floods from storm rainfall. Problems with floods, however, occur regularly, especially at the Teplica and the Sobotišský stream. Some problems have been recorded in farmland and meadows, in places of concentrated runoff during the storm rainfalls, long lasting rainfalls, and snow melting. Floods endanger villages and make severe damage. The goal of the approach is to eliminate damage to healt and properties.

Water retention measures are proposed in the territory of Sobotište, localities of Kubiny, Staré Hory, Javorec, Kaničkov Jarok and Padelky. It is expected that the proposed water retention measures will support the accumulation and infiltration of water into the soil and retard runoff from farmland, meadows, and pastures. With the proper function of measures the surface runoff in farmland will decrease and slow down, and community will not endanger as much as previously.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: In general, the main problems within the implementation of projects are mostly legislative regulations that hamper the SLM and the implementation of technologies. The big problem is protection zone of particular rivers connected to administrative and legislative laws and regulations. Some difficulties detected were the execution of permissions for the implementations of methods and technologies that would help to achieve the sustainable land management.
Second problem is land consolidation. The process of the land consolidation is too long to be achieved and accomplished in time. Especially if the public call of the application submission for subsidies needs the consolidation of land to be already solved.
Third, the measures cannot be more expensive than the protected object.
Four, there is lack of money for the purchasing the land in municipalities.
Five, there is very poor law enforcement and recovery of law and claims.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	self-mobilization	Government
planning	self-mobilization	Government, SLM specialist
implementation	self-mobilization	Municipalities, land users
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	Municipalities, land users
Research	passive

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

No

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

No

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government: 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Government funds and subsidies

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

• construction

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

7.1 Methods/ sources of information