Beneficiaries and flood risk assessment in Danube Floodplain. DANUBE FLOODRISK Giurgiu pilot case study

Transcription

1 Beneficiaries and flood risk assessment in Danube Floodplain DANUBE FLOODRISK Giurgiu pilot case study

2 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.3 ACRONYMS 4 I. INTRODUCTION 5 I.1 Giurgiu pilot case brief description....5 I.2 Why Giurgiu?...6 II. MATERIALS AND METHODS..7 II.1 Thematic maps development..7 a) Map of the Studied Area Location....7 b) Map of Networks and Communications c) Flood Extent Map d) Map of Vulnerable Elements to Floods II.2 Sketch Match interactive design...12 II.2.1 Conceptual description II.2. 2 Workshop 1st day II.2. 3 Workshop 2nd day III. DISCUSSIONS

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This participatory activity for Giurgiu pilot was carried out within DANUBE FLOODRISK project Work Package (WP) 7 Pilot projects for integration of risk information into spatial planning on local / regional / national level. The Sketch Match method is a workshop method developed by Netherlands Government Service for Land and Water Management (DLG) and was for the first time implement by DDNI for Giurgiu pilot case, based on previous experience together with the Dutch team within project Room for the River in Cat s bend, Romania 1, funded by the Dutch programme partners for Water. The following people contributed to this report: Mr. Iulian Nichersu responsible of WP 7, DDNI team leader; Mr. Marian Mierla GIS expert, map producing; Mrs. Eugenia Marin Socio-economical expertise; Mr. Cristian Trifanov GIS expert, map producing; Mrs. Iuliana Nichersu Spatial planner; Mr. Cristian Luli Cadastre Engineer. A valuable input for the workshop & report was GIS and hydrological analyzes in order to elaborate the hazard flood maps by Mr. Adrian Constantinescu hydrological expert from DDNI. Particular regards to all the stakeholders that attended the workshop for the 2 days, making possible the success of this public participation workshop

4 ACRONYMS AFDJ APA SERVICE APM GR AZL CJ-GR INCDD (DDNI) ISU GR MM SGA - GR HQ River Administration of Lower Danube, Giurgiu Water supply and treatment in Giurgiu Giurgiu Environment Protection Agency Giurgiu Autonomous Administration of Free Zone Giurgiu County Council Danube Delta National Institute Giurgiu Emergency situations inspectorate Ministry of Environment & Forests Giurgiu Water Management Hydrological levels and discharge 4

5 I. INTRODUCTION I.1 Giurgiu pilot case brief description Giurgiu City, the county of the same name, Giurgiu is situated in the extreme south of Romania, on the left bank of the Danube, in a marshy area, 65 km south of the capital Bucharest, forming a Euroregion with neighboring Bulgarian city, Ruse. The city lies both in Burnazului Plain and the Danube Meadow, the soil being sandy. It is located at the intersection of River Pan-European Corridor 9 and Auto Pan-European corridor 7. Town area is 47,6 km². Its population on July 1, 2001 was inhabitants and the density: inhabitants/km². Close to the town there are a lot of satellite localities from where people are coming to work in the town (Vedea, Slobozia, Malu etc.). Giurgiu is a major transit center by road, rail and river and point of contact with Ruse City (Bulgaria) through road and rail bridge (2 200 m long) constructed over the Danube in the years (inaugurated on June 20, 1954). It is also an important crossing point (customs) for goods and passenger traffic. In 1996 it was founded the Autonomous Administration of Free Zone (AZL) situated in the South-East of the town (on the shore of the Danube River). The presence of AZL has created new possibilities for the development of all economic activities. The AZL s facilities offered to attract the interest of Romanian and foreign investors through leasing and rental consisted as premises for activities in production, trade and services. Since then the town became an important road, railway and river transit center. Fig. 1 Giurgiu pilot case study 5

6 I.2 Why Giurgiu? This region has had to struggle with increasing flood risks and actual floods, which have created much damage, particularly in the last few years. Because the Danube was recently channelized and enclosed by dikes, there is hardly room for the reduction of peak flow during rainy periods or for the development of nature along the river. Due to climate change and large-scale deforestation, these peak flows are occurring not only more frequently, but they also carry a greater volume of water over a shorter time. The river foreland of the Danube at Giurgiu has insufficient capacity to relieve the peak flows, as seen during the summers of 2004 and 2005 and spring 2006 when a large part of the region flooded and required large-scale evacuations. Bellow it is shown a comparative flood situation between different flood years ( ). Fig. 2 Giurgiu flooded in 2006 (source: Fig.3 Giurgiu flooded in 1946 (source: 6

7 II. MATERIALS AND METHODS II.1 Thematic maps development For a good approach of the participatory method it was necessary to use maps of the studied area in order to have a better perspective of the place. The used maps scale was the same for each one in order to have the possibility to transpose elements from one map to another. The used maps contained data that were available and important for the studied area. For not having crowded maps there was established the maximum data that the maps should represent in order to have the important elements on them. After this establishment the data was divided into themes for creating maps with the same aspects. Layers like ortophotos, digital terrain model, roads, railways, water bodies and of course buildings and many others were harmonized into a data base. After the data base was completed the maps started to take shape in theory. There was a lot of data to be processed, thus it has been decided the theme of the maps. There were four thematic maps agreed up on: a) Map of the Studied Area Location b) Map of Networks and Communications c) Flood Extent Map d) Map of Vulnerable Elements to Floods All these maps were plotted on A0 format in four sets, three to be available in each group session and one set to be available in the plenary session. The processing software used were ArcGIS, Global Mapper and CorelDraw. a) Map of the Studied Area Location This represented the topographic map of the municipality. It has all the elements needed to identify an overview of area and its main known issues by the stakeholders in the area. This was the starting point of the discussions and enabled to draw the main subjects that we had to deal with them later in the discussions. Fig. 4 (a) Steps in creating the Study area location map 7

8 The map was conceived in ArcGIS as an intersection between the polyline of the shape file of the municipality and the Romanian topographic map. On this map there could be seen the main elements from the area like: the Danube River, main channels, agricultural area, main agglomeration of the buildings, main ways to other localities, other water bodies, roads, railways, buildings, industry and neighborhoods, bridges, coordinates and hypsometry, borders, level quota, dykes etc. Fig. 4 (b) Steps in creating the Study area location map The final layout of the map is displayed below. The map was explained in detail in plenary session and again in the group session. All this items helped them to understand that each one is important and have to be taken into consideration and nothing is to be neglected or less important. Fig. 5 The map of the Giurgiu study area location 8

9 b) Networks and Communications Map This map illustrates the communication grid throughout the municipality such as railways, electrical network, streets and clearly pointed out the Giurgiu s harbor. Since the city s most important economic activity is the harbor and the free zone, the communication arteries within the land represent a high priority to be considered. One of the elements presented on the map is the electrical grid throughout the city. This was acquired from the electrical authority ENEL in Giurgiu. The process of this grid was very laborious - single digital copy was georeferenced in ArcGIS and afterwards followed by digitizing the whole network containing the route of the high electricity power lines and the transformation stations as shown in the right (Figure 6). The digitizing procedure was done with the highest caution taking into consideration all elements present in the map such as buildings, roads, bridges, etc. so that the errors should be reduced to the minimum. Other elements that composed the map were the shape of the roads, bridges and railways. All these items overlaid on top of an orthophoto of the municipality. The orthophoto was processed in the same manner as the Location of the Studied Area Map. The final layout of the map is shown below (Figure 7). Fig. 6 Digitized electrical network Fig. 7 Network and Communication map 9

10 c) Flood Extent Map The Flood extent map represents the flooding extent at different HQs (HQ 30, HQ 100 and HQ 1000). Based on the methodology from the manual of data harmonization (Figure 8) and methods of producing hazard maps, these maps were processed and finalized for Romania, Gruia - Black Sea sector (Figure 9). The extent of the floods is given by the 2D hydraulic modeling made in SOBEK software. This data requires very laborious processing in dedicated GIS software and field work. The basic needs are the digital terrain model acquired with LIDAR technology, hydrographs of maximum flow, cross-sections on the Danube and topographical measurements. The map contains these HQ extents (Figure 10) overlaid with transparency and underneath them the ortophoto of the municipality. Again the map layout was made in ArcGIS. The final layout of this particular map is shown below (Figure 11). H_min H_med Fig. 8 Logical framework of creating flood hazard maps H_max Fig. 9 Examples of flood hazard maps at Gruia HQ 30 HQ 100 HQ 1000 Fig. 10 Flood hazard maps for Giurgiu HQ 30, HQ100, HQ

11 Fig.11 Final Flood extent map d) Map of Vulnerable Elements to Floods This map was the most laborious of all four due to its complexity and field computations regarding statistics. The map contains vulnerable elements to floods and they are displayed in such manner that the user can quickly estimate whether is a high or low risk area. The map shows all the buildings (residential, industrial and administrative plus the statistical repartition of the population) within the municipality. Additionally, the map contains also the water bodies and streets that aid the reading of the map. In elaboration of the Map of Vulnerable Elements to Floods, first of all there is a layer with all the digitized buildings within the municipality like residential, industrial, administration, cultural, private etc. which were given attributes (Figure 12). With the help of several maps of Giurgiu and some data given by the authorities we were able to give attributes to buildings nonresidential like schools, hospitals, museums, private and other administrative and industrial buildings. For residential buildings the statistical population attributes and codes were computed based on the building s surface and resulted a palette of color from which the number of inhabitants can be distinguished. In the same manner, accordingly to the newest statistics, the average 11

12 number of cars and income per person in Giurgiu municipality was computed according to the number of persons inhabiting the building (Figure 13). This map offered users to have a better view of the city s development and with the help of the other maps they could already anticipate an evacuation plan for example. All the tools needed are on those maps and everybody started to discuss from their point of view and come even with plausible solutions. The final layout of this map is displayed below (Figure 14). Fig. 12 Digitized buildings within municipality Fig. 13 Buildings with attributes Fig. 14 Map of vulnerable elements to floods 12

13 II. 2 Sketch Match interactive design II.2.1 Conceptual description SketchMatch is an interactive planning method, developed by the Government Service for Land and Water Management in the Netherlands (DLG) 2 to bring insight into spatial development issues together with regional partners. The sketch match is a method that is used to identify and visualize potential development paths and so facilitate the decision-making process for managers, policymakers and local stakeholders. It is an intensive process that organizations and other interested parties can use in their own development areas. A SketchMatch is a series of interactive design sessions lasting up to three days in which participants (citizens, policymakers, farmers and other stakeholders), under supervision of a spatial designer and a process supervisor, analyze and work out the spatial problem in a specific region. A SketchMatch works like a creative pressure cooker by bringing together a group of interested parties to work intensively on a common design. This creates a lot of enthusiasm and often accelerates the decision making process. This is worked out with maps and 3-D GIS visualizations. The result of a SketchMatch is a spatial design, in the form of a ground plan, map, book, visual story, model, 3-D GIS visualization, or whatever form suits the project best. Various disciplines come together in a SketchMatch: layout, GIS, ecology, hydrology, hydraulics, socio-economy, spatial planning etc. A thorough preparation, including a clear picture of the design assignment and the players involved, is very important. It holds that if the right people with the right expectations sit down at the design table, they increase the chance of success. A good SketchMatch brings parties together as people begin to understand each other's wishes and interests. It increases the support because participants accept a common plan, which they themselves have also sketched out. In the plan, they see their own wishes and interests represented, as well as the wishes and interests of others. A SketchMatch can thus act as a crowbar widening the frameworks in a creative way. Every SketchMatch consists of three phases: 1. Registration and preparation; 2. SketchMatch Session; 3. Completion. Each mentioned phase was accomplished by DDNI for Giurgiu pilot case study during 2 days of work between 05-06July The workshop was held in Giurgiu Chamber for Commerce, Industry and Agriculture

14 II.2. 2 Workshop 1 st day Plenary session The workshop started with welcome greetings by Dr. Iulian Nichersu to all participants that attended the meeting, followed by a short introduction made by every invitee (Figure 15(a), (b)). Further Mr. Nichersu held a presentation about Danube Flood Risk project, entitled Romanian flood mapping along Danube Floodplain reaching the following aspects: short introduction of the project, its main objectives & map concept; presentation of flood hazard map for Giurgiu pilot project at 30, 100 & 1000 years, with the main indicators that were taken into account for the hazard: population, buildings, cultural heritage, electrical network, street network and telecommunications; Comparative flood events occurred in Giurgiu municipality in 1942 & Fig. 15(a) - Introduction of participants Fig. 15 (b) Presentation of Giurgiu pilot project After this introductive session, the participants were asked to express their expectations related to the application of this participatory approach for Giurgiu pilot case, expectations which were further written down (Table 1, Figure 16). Through her intervention, Mrs. Olimpia Negru (Flood Risk Management Department, Ministry of Environment and Forests) has made the following specifications: Under current legislation, the Ministry of Environment and Forests coordinates the development of management strategy in case of floods on the Romanian Lower Danube. It is a responsibility assumed at EU level. The strategy should include: - Risk assessment, preparation of hazard and risk maps; - Management plans; - Involvement of county councils by developing risk maps on which to estimate damages in case of floods. 14

15 For Giurgiu area, the strategy is partially unenforceable, there is only one flood defense plan, but there is no estimate of damage. The main obstacle is the fact that there have not yet been approved the hazard and risk maps and the local factors have not realized local risk maps on which to evaluate possible damage from floods. In this context the main expectations is that through this session to answer the following questions: how to act in case of floods? And: what the practical solutions to prevent/stop floods are. Table 1 Expectations within Sketch Match session expressed by participants Reliable information on evacuation plans and the strategic locations for people and equipment to set in case of floods; Substantiation defense expenditures in case of floods by providing official documents on hazard and flood risk; update evacuation plans; Environment (additional arguments against the destruction of forests and other natural areas); Practical solutions, lessons learned on how to be able to implement solutions identified for flood situations; Clarifications / explanations about how affect investment plans for hazard and risk maps; Cost / benefit analysis for flood risk prevention; Stakeholder s opportunity to contribute directly to the development / validation of hazard and risk maps; Collaboration between institutions present at the session after the project is ended; institutional collaboration for infrastructure enhancements; How are existing networks affected by these maps (road and railway transportation, sewerage, electricity, gas etc.); Further socio-economic development of the area. Fig. 16 Expectations mentioned by participants 15

16 Further, was presented the work methodology and divided the participants in 3 (three) groups with following topics: spatial planning, flood risk & socio-economic development. The members for each group were chosen taking into consideration their field activity and expertise (which was asked to be fulfilled in the confirmation of participation form) and split in 3 (three) separate rooms, assisted by the experts from DDNI. Each group focused on problems and potentials of the area from their topic point of view. For all groups the participants were invited to familiarize themselves with Giurgiu thematic maps realized by DDNI team (see Chapter II.1 Thematic map development). Further, the participants together with the DDNI experts draw their ideas on overlays for every thematic map. Group 1 Spatial Planning Group team Participants Departments Mr. Iulian Nichersu (DDNI) Mr. Luli Cristian (DDNI) Mrs. Olimpia Negru (MMP) Mr. Marius Jega (Giurgiu City Hall) Mr. Dan Craciun (AFDJ) Mrs. Ioana Scruba (AZL) Mrs. Magdalena Dumitru (Giurgiu APM) Mrs. Silvia Cornoiu (Giurgiu City Hall) Head of Flood Risk Management Department Cadastre Department Expert topo-hydrographic measurements Specialist OSMSU Natural protected areas department Urbanism Department Plenary session of group results (held by Mrs. Silvia Cornoiu & Mr. Iulian Florea): Problems: One of the main problems identified by the group was water infiltration close to dams, as reported in 2006 when two areas were highly affected: Groapa Neamtului and Cetate, yet the dams did not collapsed. Also was mentioned that there is no updated information about the dams state in the industrial area, and that no regular inspections were done over the last decade. Further some of the dams are used for road traffic, although they were not designed for this purpose. The members of the group revealed that large investment works are already approved in exposed area to floods; the work did not started yet, so they are not marked on spatial development plans. Information relevant to the Danube water management issues are partially or not known by various stakeholders in the area. For example, they were aware that in 2006 even areas that appeared to be safe on the map were flooded by infiltrations but they had different information or lacking data about the water level and damage produced. 16

17 Further, the members of this group have identified that safe areas against floods are placed outside the city. The industrial platform is positioned as well in secure area (western part of the city) but prevents a potential building development. The forest exploitations are not correlated with spatial development plans, the floodplain forests are not included in plans for flood protection and unauthorized dams are used as road transportation for forest exploitation. Potentials: As potential was identified an artificial side arm of the Danube that can be used for situations where floods occur, but is not functional for the moment. As well, the old irrigation channels can be used to take the extra water from floods. Upstream Giurgiu municipality there are floodplains that could be designed for stocking water in case of high levels on Danube and preventing floods in Giurgiu. Were identified areas with touristic potential as Mocanu and Mocanasu islet. Fig. 17 Working with thematic maps in group 1 Fig. 18 Presentation of results in group 1 Fig. 19 Sketch of problems & potentials for spatial planning group 17

18 Group 2 Flood Risk Group team Participants Departments Mrs. Iuliana Nichersu (DDNI) Mr. Trifanov Cristian (DDNI) Mrs. Silvia Neamtu (MMP) Mrs. Delia Verban, Mrs. Ianca Meca (Giurgiu City Hall) Mrs. Mihaela Cristea (Giurgiu County Council) Mr. Iulian Florea (AFDJ) Mr. Ionut Zinca (ISU Vlasca) Mr. Petru Marin (SGA Giurgiu) Flood Risk Management Department Environmental Department Cadaster Department Public manager Hydrographic technician Officer I - analysis, evaluation and coordination of intervention Expert hydrographic Plenary session of group results (held by Mr. Petru Marin): First, using the location of the studied area Map were drawn the limits of the city, level quota, the Danube River and also identified the major problems and qualities for the studied area. Afterwards the background was changed with the Networks and Communications Map from which it has been extracted the infrastructure throughout the city and harbor (railways, roads, dykes) and the problems and qualities related to this aspect. Following, the Flood Extent Map in the background was used to draw the flood hazard limit HQ30 that gave a more flood risk related shape (high/low risk areas). The session continued with the drawing on the spreadsheet of the localization for the main items regarding the three chosen topics. Problems: People complained about the flash floods caused by the undersized sewerage when rain off occurs. Important central neighborhoods are flooded in such situations: Interex, Train Station, Ramadan, Bread factory. An important problem is that major objectives along the Danube could be damaged when facing a flood (free zone Giurgiu, harbor, museums, Dunapref private company, Giurgiu shipyard and Lower Danube Fluvial Administration). Considering the low altitude, the experiences from 2006 floods and its importance, the customs area is considered a very vulnerable objective. In 2006 the embankment in front of the customs was broken intentionally, to lower the flood risk that threatened Giurgiu. The main problem identified was that the dikes are undersized and not too well maintained (the dams resistance is quite low and in case of flood the structure is vulnerable, since they are used for heavy transportation, and there are some serious problems caused by the rodents galleries and vegetation). Using the location of the studied area map and the network and communications map was identified a major problem regarding the lack of infrastructure and the poor quality of it. 18

19 Related to this problem, was raised also the issue of navigation, that is considered to be a sensitive issue, when considering the flood risk (was discussed the problem of procedures and operations during high levels of Danube). Qualities: The first information revealed in this topic was the existence of the new Urban General Plan (actualized and approved by the Local Administration). This is considered a very useful document for all the stakeholders in Giurgiu that could also bring a contribution for any flood risk related aspect. Regarding the administrative documents related to flood risk, for Giurgiu was approved the Flood defense plan. Since at the session were present representatives from several public institutions and private companies, one of the advantages of Giurgiu is that between the institutions is a very good communication. Although the infrastructure (transport and communication) raises some problems, as a quality for the study area, was highlighted the good quality of it in some areas (for example, the railway and the road from the South of Giurgiu are important for their height, since their structure can be considered also a dam). Fig. 20 Working with thematic maps in group 2 Fig. 21 Presenting the results of group 2 Fig. 22 Final sketch of flood risk group 19

20 Group 3 Socio-economic development Group team Participants Departments Mrs. Eugenia Marin (DDNI) Mr. Marian Mierla (DDNI) Mrs. Narcisa Musat (AZL) Mrs. Elena Dumitru (Apa Service) Mrs. Ana-Maria Gagichevici (Giurgiu City Hall) Mr. Sergiu Ionescu (AFDJ) Economic Department Technical engineer Cultural heritage Department Hydrographic technician Plenary session of the group results (held by Mrs. Narcisa Musat): The group started the work by trying to answer to following question: what will happen if the damns will break and what will be affected from socio-economical point of view? The first step was to find out what is the cause of breaking dams and were identified as main causes the poor maintenance of dams, the deforestation (was given as example a recent tree cutting along dams near Giurgiu Economical Free Zone) as well as navigation by not respecting the fluvial traffic rules (making high waves destroying the riverbanks). At this topic was mentioned as well, as a problem, lack of assuming responsibilities by the administrators of dams. Further, using the Flood extent Map and the Vulnerable Element map was drawn the flood hazard limit (HQ 30) and then identified the areas and the main elements (residential, administrative, industrial, economical buildings) which are flooded and those safe. Starting from hypothesis that schools represent safe shelters in case of emergency situations, was observed that they are placed in flooded area at HQ 30; the same situation was identified for churches, hospitals, administrative institutions, city hall (where is the local committee office for emergency situations). The area where is planned to be build the water treatment plant and a touristic park is as well under the risk of being flooded once at 30 years. The residential buildings were identified in the flooded area (HQ30) but this is specific to almost the entire center of the city. Was specified that there are areas in Giurgiu were floods occur every year, like the historic citadel near the Danube. An important problem is that major objectives along the Danube river ar5e affected by floods, like: Giurgiu Autonomous Administration of Free Zone, Giurgiu harbor, Giurgiu shipyard and Lower Danube Fluvial Administration. Areas safe of floods at HQ 100 and several buildings that can be used as safe shelters in case of emergency, were identified in the Western part of Giurgiu. 20

21 Related to the infrastructure the main issue is that there is no integrated system (transport, water supply & sewage, electric system are all separate, old, not partially rehabilitated the sewage system is undersigned causing urban floods in case of higher precipitations). For Giurgiu Autonomous Administration of Free Zone was done in 2008 a feasibility study through which was identified a budget of 4 million euro for a good infrastructure in the area to be used further by potential economical investors. From the study resulted that the sewage system was in good state, but the situation is different when it comes to electricity network, combining old parts (having exposed wires to water) with rehabilitated ones. As a positive point, the water necessary for supplying the city comes from deep wells thus is not affected by floods. A strong aspect is that the economic investors in Giurgiu Autonomous Administration of Free Zone are not in the flooded area but mainly in higher zones and are not affected by floods. It was mentioned thus the necessity of attracting private investments in the area. Fig. 23 Working with thematic maps in group 3 Fig.24 Presenting the results of group 3 Fig Final sketch of socio-economic group 21

22 Wrap-up of 1 st day The results presented by each group gave an overview of the problems and potentials of the area to our main topic: flood risk. It was observed that common issues for all the thematic groups were identified. Further, the SWOT analysis for Giurgiu pilot case was done (Figure 26). Fig. 26 SWOT analyze for Giurgiu pilot case 22

23 II.2. 3 Workshop 2 nd day Plenary session The 2 nd day started with an overview of problems from previous day. Further, the participants 3 were split in 2 (two) thematic groups working on finding solutions for problems identified. Each group was assisted by 3 (three) experts from DDNI working with the same thematically maps used in 1 st day in order to sketch the solutions on overlay. Group 1 Spatial Planning Group team Participants Departments Mr. Iulian Nichersu (DDNI) Mrs. Iuliana Nichersu (DDNI) Mr. Cristian Luli (DDNI) Mr. Marius Jega (Giurgiu City Hall) Mrs. Elena Dumitru (Apa Service) Mrs. Magdalena Dumitru (Giurgiu APM) Mr. Dan Craciun (AFDJ) Mrs. Ana-Maria Gagichevici (Giurgiu City Hall) Mrs. Ioana Scruba (AZL) Mrs. Mihaela Cristea (Giurgiu County Council) Cadastre Department Technical engineer Natural protected areas department Expert topo-hydrographic measurements Cultural heritage Department Specialist OSMSU Public manager Fig. 27 (a) Working group 1 Fig. 27 (b) Draft sketch for possible solutions 3 To be mentioned that not all the participants from the 1 st day succeeded to attend the 2 nd workshop. 23

24 Group 2 Flood risk management Group team Participants Departments Mr. Marian Mierla (DDNI) Mrs. Eugenia Marin (DDNI) Mr. Cristian Trifanov (DDNI) Mr. Ionut Zinca (ISU Vlasca) Mr. Dan Craciun (AFDJ) Mr. Petru Marin (SGA Giurgiu) Mrs. Narcisa Musat (AZL) Mrs. Silvia Cornoiu (Giurgiu City Hall) Mrs. Ianca Meca (Giurgiu City Hall) Officer I - analysis, evaluation and coordination of intervention Expert topo-hydrographic measurements Expert hydrographic Economic Department Urbanism Cadastre Department Fig. 28 (a) Working group 2 Fig. 28 (b) Draft sketch for possible solutions Plenary session of both group results & conclusions: At the end of the 2 nd day, one representative of each group formulated the possible solutions that were identified. Thus, it was observed that all the issues from both groups could be tackled by same possible solutions (which we called non-structural ): raising public awareness & institutional collaboration. Raising public awareness can be achieved through education, trainings, and courses among population (children are an important target) on flood topic; Inter-Institutional collaboration: can be done by organizing regularly (mainly before the flood season) meetings between responsible departments for flood emergency from different institutions (from local, regional to national and trans-boundary level). 24

25 The structural possible solutions were sketched on the final map of Sketch Match (Annex 1) and are as follows: Dams Technical expertise: Regarding the flood protection measures, the main problem identified was that the dams are undersized and not well maintained (the dams resistance is quite low and in case of flood the structure is vulnerable, since they are used for heavy transportation, and there are some serious problems caused by the rodents galleries and vegetation); Identify safe areas and temporary shelters: in the western and northern part of the city at HQ30 and in the western part is the only place where the safe area is at even HQ1000. These areas can be used in case of emergency supplying them with sanitary and other basic necessities or can be designed for future town development (new housing area). A possible safe route (the existing railway) from the flooded areas to those safe in the northern part was identified. Fig. 29 Safe areas in Giurgiu at HQ30, HQ100, HQ1000 Identify wetlands as water stocking: 2 islands (Mocanu & Mocanasu, 246 ha) in S-E part of Giurgiu. Fig. 30 Mocanu island (source: 25

26 Modernization of sewerage network and protection of critical infrastructure: vital lifeline facilities (roads, water supply, electricity network, telecommunications) needs reparation and integration; Using the location of the studied area map and the network and communications map was identified a major problem regarding the lack of infrastructure and the poor quality of it. Land use planning and regulations: as a possible solution was proposed the reevaluation of land use. Land use legislation enables the establishment of development and protection of land in such a way as to minimize the risk to the population and prevent the natural resources from being destroyed during the flooding; Reforestation: Deforestation and loss of vegetation on the dams is known to increase the weakness of these structures enhancing the risk of dam breaking at high water levels; as a result of these actions, erosion will be prevented; Maintenance of navigation channel: floods change navigation on the Danube. Depending on water levels, the transport rules are different and require adaptation. Transport on the Danube is one of the main activities of the town and channel maintenance is a necessity in managing flood risk. Was raised also the issue of navigation, that is considered to be a sensitive issue, when considering the flood risk (was discussed the problem of procedures and operations during high levels of Danube). III. DISCUSSIONS Factors important for this session success: - Enthusiasm and motivation of participants - Availability of good thematically maps - Important preparation before the workshop (2 months before and a previous non-formal meeting which took place in Giurgiu City Hall) - Well-considered selection of participants based upon insight in the stakeholder-network - Expertise in different complementary fields of DDNI team Advantages of Sketch match session: - Good cooperation process with different stakeholders and experts - Raising awareness among stakeholders related to their local water system, landscape and flood risk - Strengthening the relations between stakeholders 26