Montenegro Water Sector Report

Consultant Report 1025 | February 2013

Republic of Montenegro Detailed Water Sector Assessment and Water Cadastre Proposals Disaster Risk Reduction

National Water Masterplan

Water Framework Directive Compliance

Water Resources and Climate Change Impacts

www.waterconsultant.com United Nations Development Programme

Montenegro Water Sector Review i

REPORT QUALITY CONTROL

Republic of Montenegro - Detailed Water Sector Assessment and Water Cadastre Proposals – February 2013. This document has been prepared by Brian Faulkner - Independent Consultant, for UNDP (Montenegro). Technical analysis has been undertaken utilising industry standard software and the highest professional standards. Copyright of this information is hereby vested only in the client. No responsibility is accepted for liabilities arising to any third party from the unapproved use of this material. Prepared by: ....................................................... Brian Faulkner MSc DipEM FCIWEM Engineer/Analyst Checked by: ........................................................ Brian Faulkner MSc DipEM FCIWEM Supervising Consultant Approved by: ................................................................ Snezana Marstijepovic UNDP Project Manager Date: 26 February 2013

CONTACT DETAILS

E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Telephone: +44 (0) 1392 666 953 +382 2022 5533 Fax: +382 2022 5551 Mobile: +44 (0) 7967 399 874 +382 67 333 577 Website: www.waterconsultant.com www.undp.org.me

REVISION HISTORY

Status/Version Date Amendments

Issued to

First Circulation Draft 130212

UNDP requests redrafting Section 5.3 Executive Summary approved/translated

SM – (UNDP)

Approved Final Draft 130226

New Section 3.6 added on public access to information added (drafted by UNDP)

SM - (UNDP) – Authorised for general release to stakeholders for comment

Approved Final Report 130410

Stakeholder comments from all Agencies added. Section 4.1.2 added. Conceptual framework graphic added (Annex 6.1). Workshop summary added (Annex 6.2).

SM – (UNDP) – Authorised for unrestricted distribution

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.waterconsultant.com/

http://www.undp.org.me/


Montenegro Water Sector Review ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. CONTEXT AND TERMS OF REFERENCE ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 The Project Context ....................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 Hydrometeorological Extremes in Montenegro ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.3 Montenegro in Pre-accession to the EU ............................................................................................................. 1-2 1.1.4 The EU Water Framework Directive ................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.1.5 Developing Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change .............................................................................................. 1-3 1.2 Terms of Reference of this Report................................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.2.1 Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.2.2 Main Deliverables as per ToR .............................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.2.3 Report Structure ................................................................................................................................................. 1-4

2. A REVIEW OF THE HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL NETWORKS ............................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Hydrometeorological Institute Overview ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Meteorological Network ............................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 International Support Initiatives ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Data Collection from Active Stations .................................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.3 Processing of Active Data and Data Quality ........................................................................................................ 2-3 2.2.4 Live Updates, Forecasts and Emergency Warnings ............................................................................................. 2-3 2.2.5 Historical Data Archive and Yearbooks ............................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.6 Principal Gaps and Issues Identified ................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Surface Water Hydrometric Network ............................................................................................................................ 2-4 2.3.1 International Support Initiatives ......................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.2 Data Collection from Active Stations .................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.3.3 Processing of Active Data and Data Quality ........................................................................................................ 2-6 2.3.4 Live Updates, Forecasts and Emergency Warnings ............................................................................................. 2-9 2.3.5 Historical Data Archive ...................................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.3.6 Detailed Audit of the National Discharge Calculation Capability ...................................................................... 2-10 2.3.7 Principal Gaps and Issues Identified ................................................................................................................. 2-11 2.4 Groundwater Hydrometric Network ........................................................................................................................... 2-13 2.4.1 International Support Initiatives ....................................................................................................................... 2-13 2.4.2 Data Collection from Active Stations ................................................................................................................ 2-13 2.4.3 Principal Gaps and Issues Identified ................................................................................................................. 2-13 2.5 Surface and Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network ............................................................................................. 2-13 2.5.1 International Support Initiatives ....................................................................................................................... 2-13 2.5.2 Data Collection from Active Stations ................................................................................................................ 2-13 2.5.3 Processing of Active Data and Data Quality ...................................................................................................... 2-14 2.5.4 Historical Data Archive and Yearbooks ............................................................................................................. 2-14 2.5.5 Principal Gaps and Issues Identified ................................................................................................................. 2-14

3. A REVIEW OF GEOGRAPHIC DATA AVAILABILITY AND NEEDS ....................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 The Need for a Spatial Approach in Environmental Governance .................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Functional and Consequential Mapping ............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Geodata Defined ................................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Main Drivers of Spatial Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Montenegro’s Operational Needs ...................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Water Framework Directive Reporting ............................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.3 EU WFD Common Implementation Strategy Compliance ................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Environmental Information Sources in Europe ............................................................................................................. 3-2 3.3.1 Information Management and Data Standards .................................................................................................. 3-3 3.3.2 Climate Change and Adaptation ......................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3.3 General Environmental Data ............................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3.4 Baseline Background Mapping ............................................................................................................................ 3-3


Montenegro Water Sector Review iii

3.3.5 Floods and Droughts ........................................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.3.6 GIS Features Alignment across National Borders ................................................................................................ 3-4 3.4 WISE – Water Information System for Europe .............................................................................................................. 3-4 3.4.1 Components of WISE .......................................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.4.2 Water Data Centre – European Environment Agency ......................................................................................... 3-4 3.4.3 GIS Reporting Concepts in the WISE Framework ................................................................................................ 3-4 3.4.4 Conceptual Model of the WISE Data Framework ............................................................................................... 3-5 3.5 Gap Analysis of GIS Water Related Data ....................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.5.1 Local GIS Data and Maps Available in Montenegro ............................................................................................ 3-6 3.5.2 South East Europe GIS Data and Maps Available Externally ............................................................................... 3-6 3.6 Public Interface with the Water Information System .................................................................................................... 3-7 3.7 Main Gaps and Issues Identified .................................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.7.1 Institutional Access to GIS Software ................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.7.2 Compliance with EU CIS Standards ..................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.7.3 Compliance with WISE GIS Data Layers .............................................................................................................. 3-8 3.7.4 The Identification and Coding of National Waterbodies ..................................................................................... 3-8 3.7.5 WFD River Basin Management Plan Output Maps ............................................................................................. 3-9 3.7.6 GIS Data Compliance for Drinking Water Protection Areas ................................................................................ 3-9 3.7.7 GIS Data Compliance for Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Areas ............................................................................. 3-9 4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL WATER INFORMATION SYSTEM ....................................................... 4-1

4.1 Identified Needs ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 Information Technology Supporting Adaptive Capacity ..................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Water Cadastre and Water Information System in Montenegro Law ................................................................ 4-1 4.1.3 Water Cadastre and Water Information System Defined Internationally ........................................................... 4-1 4.1.4 Coordination with IPA Component III – Environmental Information System at the EPA .................................... 4-2 4.2 Generalised Concepts .................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Types of Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................ 4-2 4.2.2 The Importance of Stations with Long-term Records ......................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.3 Types of Information ........................................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.4 Timescales and Spatial Resolution of Information .............................................................................................. 4-4 4.3 Environmental Monitoring Database Structure ............................................................................................................ 4-5 4.3.1 Environmental Monitoring Data Model .............................................................................................................. 4-5 4.3.2 Metadata and Entity Relationship Model ........................................................................................................... 4-5 4.4 Water Permits Database Structure ................................................................................................................................ 4-6 4.4.1 The Critical Role of Permits in Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) .......................................................... 4-6 4.4.2 Water Permit Design ........................................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.4.3 Water Permits Data Model ................................................................................................................................. 4-7 4.5 Geographic Information Database Structure ................................................................................................................ 4-8 4.5.1 GIS Geodata Defined ........................................................................................................................................... 4-8 4.5.2 RBMP GIS Layer Example from the UK ................................................................................................................ 4-8 4.5.3 Object Referencing in the WIS GIS Framework ................................................................................................... 4-8 4.5.4 Spatial Reference System and Accuracy ............................................................................................................. 4-9 4.5.5 Geodata Data Model ........................................................................................................................................... 4-9 4.6 Maintaining the National Water Cadastres ................................................................................................................. 4-12 4.6.1 Software Options for the Environmental Monitoring Database ....................................................................... 4-12 4.6.2 Software Options for the Water Permit Database ............................................................................................ 4-12 4.6.3 Software Options for the GIS Geodatabase ...................................................................................................... 4-13 4.7 Main Gaps and Issues Identified .................................................................................................................................. 4-13 4.7.1 National Water Cadastres Technical Working Group ....................................................................................... 4-13 4.7.2 Selection of Environmental Monitoring Database Software ............................................................................. 4-14 4.7.3 Selection of Water Permit Database Software ................................................................................................. 4-14 4.7.4 Selection of GIS Database Software .................................................................................................................. 4-15 4.7.5 National Standards for GIS Mapping and Reporting ......................................................................................... 4-15

5. A REVIEW OF WATER SECTOR DATA COORDINATION AND WORKFLOWS .................................................................... 5-1

5.1 A Snapshot of the Current National Situation ............................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Information Systems in Use in National Institutions ........................................................................................... 5-1


Montenegro Water Sector Review iv

5.1.2 Main Uses of Environmental Data ...................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.3 Institutional Access to GIS Software ................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2 Data Coordination and Workflow Illustration ............................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.1 Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.2 Example – Data Flows to Produce Ecological Status ........................................................................................... 5-3 5.2.3 The Need for Efficient Data Systems ................................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3 Main Gaps and Issues Identified .................................................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3.1 Simplified Data Collection Responsibilities ......................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3.2 Transparent Environmental Regulation .............................................................................................................. 5-4 5.3.3 Efficient and Coordinated Licensing .................................................................................................................... 5-4 5.3.4 The Delivery of River Basin Management Plans .................................................................................................. 5-4 5.3.5 Hazard Mapping of Droughts and Water Scarcity ............................................................................................... 5-4 5.3.6 Flood Hazard Monitoring and Flood Risk Mapping ............................................................................................. 5-5 5.3.7 National Waterbody Coding System ................................................................................................................... 5-5 5.3.8 Water Quality Monitoring and Ecological Status ................................................................................................ 5-6 6. ANNEXES........................................................................................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Annex 1 – Water Information System Conceptual Framework Graphical Overview ..................................................... 6-1 6.2 Annex 2 – Summary on the Stakeholder Workshop – 14

th March 2013, Podgorica ...................................................... 6-2


Montenegro Water Sector Review v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 – Critical Regions for Future Water Shortage in Europe 2070 ........................................................................ 1-1 Figure 1-2 – 30 day SPI Values of the 2007 Drought ........................................................................................................ 1-2 Figure 2-1 – Institutional Structure of IHMS .................................................................................................................... 2-1 Figure 2-2 – Meteorological Network in Montenegro ..................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-3 – IHMS Web Update of Live Meteorological Data........................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-4 – Active and Proposed Surface Hydrometric Network Stations with Water Quality Sampling ....................... 2-5 Figure 2-5 – Example Output from HYDRAS 3™ ............................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-6 – IHMS Web Update of Live Hydrometric Data ............................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-7 – Web Based Flood Warning – Czech NHMS ................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-8 – Flow Measurement using ADCP Technology .............................................................................................. 2-11 Figure 2-9 – Example of Online National River Flow Archive ......................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-10 – Example Water Quality Status Report ...................................................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-11 – Ecological Status and Chemical Status under WFD .................................................................................. 2-15 Figure 3-1 – Example GIS Thematic Map at River Basin Scale .......................................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3-2 – Common Implementation Strategy GIS Guidance........................................................................................ 3-2 Figure 3-3 – Conceptual Model of the WISE Data Framework ......................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-4 – CCM Dataset Coverage including Montenegro ............................................................................................ 3-6 Figure 3-5 – Water Information System of Czech Republic .............................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 3-6 – Water Information System of Austria .......................................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 4-1 – Monitoring Leading to Overall Status ........................................................................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-2 – Example Best Practice Abstraction Permit ................................................................................................... 4-7 Figure 4-3 – Example GIS Layer and Data Table of Ecological Status – Wye River Basin UK .......................................... 4-10 Figure 4-4 – Example Concept of GIS Data Layers .......................................................................................................... 4-13 Figure 4-5 – Flood Hazard Mapping in ArcGIS ................................................................................................................ 4-14 Figure 5-1 – Water Scarcity Monitoring in UK .................................................................................................................. 5-5 Figure 5-2 – Flood Hazard Monitoring in UK .................................................................................................................... 5-5 Figure 5-3 – Conceptual Environmental Data Collection and Workflows for Water Sector ............................................. 5-7

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 – Active and Inactive Flow Gauging Stations with Data Capacity – Adriatic Basin ........................................... 2-7 Table 2-2 – Active and Inactive Flow Gauging Stations with Data Capacity – Black Sea Basin ......................................... 2-7 Table 2-3 – Summary of River Flow Gauging Station Operational Readiness .................................................................. 2-8 Table 2-4 – Summary of River Flow Gauging Station Data Quality .................................................................................. 2-8 Table 2-5 – Principal Trans-boundary Monitoring Stations ............................................................................................ 2-16 Table 2-6 – Hydrometeorological Networks Needs Assessment and Recommendations .............................................. 2-17 Table 3-1 – Overview of WISE Framework GIS Data Requested from EU Member States ............................................. 3-10 Table 3-2 – Local GIS Data or Maps Available in Montenegro ....................................................................................... 3-11 Table 3-3 – SEE GIS Data or Maps Available Externally .................................................................................................. 3-12 Table 3-4 – Geographic Data Needs Assessment and Recommendations ..................................................................... 3-14 Table 4-1 – Example GIS Data Structure for <Waterbody> .............................................................................................. 4-9 Table 4-2 – Example GIS Data Structure for <Eco_Stat> .................................................................................................. 4-9 Table 4-3 – Environmental Monitoring Data: Outline Data Model ................................................................................ 4-16 Table 4-4 – Example Table Structures and Entity Relationships .................................................................................... 4-17 Table 4-5 – Water Permit Administration Data: Outline Data Model ............................................................................ 4-18 Table 4-6 – Geographic Information Data: Outline Data Model .................................................................................... 4-19 Table 4-7 – Water Cadastre Needs Assessment and Recommendations ....................................................................... 4-20


Montenegro Water Sector Review vi

ACRONYMS

BAT Best Available Techniques BWD Bathing Water Directive (2007/6/EC) CIS Common Implementation Strategy (of the EU WFD) CV Compliance Value DMP Drought Management Plan DWD Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) DWPA Drinking Water Protected Area DWS Drinking Water Standard EQO Environmental Quality Objective EQS Environmental Quality Standard EIS Environmental Information System EEA European Environment Agency (of European Commission) ELV Emission Limit Value EMS Environmental Monitoring Station EPA Environmental Protection Agency (of Montenegro) E-PRTR European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register FD Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) FHM Flood Hazard Map FRM Flood Risk Map GI Geographic Information GIS Geographic Information System GW-QS Groundwater Quality Standard GWB Groundwater Body GWD Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC) GWDTE Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems IHMS Hydrometeorological Institute (of Montenegro) HS Hydrometric Station (water level and/or discharge) JRC Joint Research Centre (of European Commission) LOQ Limit of Quantification MSDT Ministry for Sustainable Development and Tourism (MSDT) (of Montenegro) MS Member State ND Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) NHMS National Hydrometeorological Service POC Point of Compliance RBMP River Basin Management Plan TV Threshold Value UWWTD Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) WC-TWG Water Cadastre Technical Working Group (proposed) WFD Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) WISE Water Information System for Europe (2007/2/EC) WTP Water Treatment Plant (Supply) WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant


Montenegro Water Sector Review vii

KRATAK PREGLED I GLAVNE PREPORUKE

Poglavlje 1 – Kontekst i projektni zadatak Vlada Crne Gore objavila je Prvi nacionalni izvještaj Crne Gore o klimatskim promjenama prema Okvirnoj konvenciji Ujedinjenih nacija o klimatskim promjenama (UNFCCC) 2010. godine. Izrada drugog Nacionalnog izvještaja trenutno je u toku, a doprinos ovog izvještaja ogleda se u potrebnom kontekstu za taj izvještaj. Očekuje se da de uticaj klimatskih promjena biti posebno značajan u jugoistočnoj Europi uopšte, uključujudi i Crnu Goru, a trenutno se smatra da postoji značajan nedostatak spremnosti i mjera za prilagođavanje na klimatske promjene na državnom nivou. Evropska Komisija utvrdila je da de kombinacija nestašica vode zbog nekontrolisane potrošnje i povedane učestalosti i ozbiljnosti suša zbog klimatskih promjena dovesti mnoge regione u situaciju ozbiljne nestašice vode u narednim decenijama. Takođe se očekuje da de se povedati učestalost i ozbiljnost poplava. Očekuje se da de uticaj klimatskih promjena na nacionalne vodne resurse biti veliki i zahtijevati zajedničke i relativno hitne mjere adaptacije. U izvještaju Evropske komisije o napretku Crne Gore iz 2012. godine ističe se nedostatak napretka u sektoru zaštite životne sredine uopšte kako slijedi: „Potrebni su značajni napori za usklađivanje sa pravom i sprovođenje pravne tekovine EU u oblasti zaštite životne sredine i klime, kao i za jačanje administrativnih kapaciteta i međuinstitucionalne saradnje. Pitanja zaštite životne sredine i klimatskih promjena moraju biti uzeta u obzir sistemski u drugim oblastima politike i planskim dokumentima. Nedostatak političkog prioriteta i adekvatnog finansiranja, kao i ograničena svijest o potrebi zaštite životne sredine i klimatskim promjenama otežavaju napredak u ovoj oblasti. Pripreme u toj oblasti još uvijek su u ranoj fazi "(2012). Okvirna direktiva o vodama (ODV) i pratede direktive ostaju najvažniji dijelovi evropskog zakonodavstva u oblasti zaštite životne sredine sa kojim se sistemi i procedure u Crnoj Gori trebaju uskladiti u roku od 5-10 godina. Značaj ODV za Crnu Goru je u tome što su zahtjevi za prikupljanje podataka i upravljanje informacijama za izradu efikasnih planova upravljanja slivnim područjem veoma značajni, a zakonodavni okvir i nacionalne ekološke mreže monitoringa moraju biti izuzetno mjerodavne (u skladu sa svrhom) kako bi se ispunili svi zahtjevi ODV. Crna Gora kao i vedina zemalja jugoistočne Evrope (zemlje JIE) ima visok stepen izloženosti i osjetljivosti na klimatske promjene. Izloženost je teško smanjiti. Izgleda da su povišene temperature, smanjeni vodni resursi i sve vedi ekstremi neizbježni. Osjetljivost se može smanjiti na primjer kroz programe za smanjenje potrošnje vode za stanovništvo i poljoprivredu, ali je metodologija za najbržu otpornost vjerovatno povedanje sposobnosti prilagođavanja. Informaciona tehnologija, uključujudi izradu kvalitetnih nacionalnih ekoloških baza podataka (katastri vode i informacioni sistemi), smatra se kritičnim alatom u razvoju sposobnosti prilagođavanja. Vladin Prvi izvještaj o klimatskim promjenama (2010) identifikuje značajan nedostatak nacionalne spremnosti u sposobnosti prilagođavanja: „U ovom trenutku ne postoje nacionalne strategije ili mjere za prilagođavanje i procjene očekivanih mehanizama za samoprilagođavanje". „Za sada, ne postoji zvanična strategija ili državna politika koja tretira ovaj problem integralno i daje preporuke za prilagođavanje". Ovaj izvještaj sadrži širok i pažljivo razmotren pregled potreba u sektoru voda i pitanja koordinacije u Crnoj Gori, sa posebnim osvrtom na potrebne podatke i sisteme upravljanja podacima. U skladu sa projektnim zadatkom, pregled efikasnosti i prikladnosti za svrhu postojedih mreža za pradenja stanja životne sredine sadržan je u poglavlju 2. U poglavlju 3 razmotrili smo potrebe za podacima u Crnoj Gori, posebno u kontekstu kontrole poplava, vodnih resursa, vodnog planiranja i klimatskih promjena. Dali smo kratak pregled podataka za sektor voda koji se trenutno koriste u Crnoj Gori na onsovu GIS-a, a zatim i izvore informacija i GIS podatke iz drugih evropskih izvora koji su relevantni za Crnu Goru. U poglavlju 4 pokazali smo mogudi plan i strukturu takozvanog „katastra voda“, koji se takođe može definisati kao informacioni sistem voda. Jasno je da GIS nije u širokoj upotrebi kod institucija u sektoru voda u Crnoj Gori u ovom trenutku, i tamo gdje postoje GIS podaci, ne moraju nužno biti u skladu sa standardima i formatima koje je utvrdila Evropska agencija za zaštitu životne sredine ili Zajednička strategija za sprovođenje Okvirne direktive o vodama. Naši prijedlozi katastra voda veoma pažljivo uzimaju u obzir zahjeve pradenja stanja životne sredine, strukture podataka i slojeva u GIS-u utvrđenih ODV, obzirom da smatramo da je to primarni model koji treba slijediti. U poglavlju 5 dajemo kratak pregled koordinacije i korišdenja podataka institucija nadležnih za vode u Crnoj Gori. Postoji nekoliko djelova koji nisu mjerodavni i koji po našem mišljenju dupliraju napore ili stvaraju potencijalnu konfuziju ili ograničavaju upotrebu podataka i standarde za podatke između institucija, što bi se jednostavno moglo ispraviti usaglašavanjem nadležnosti institucija. Poglavlje 2 – Pregled hidrometeoroloških mreža U kratkom vremenskom roku koji je utvrđen za ovaj zadatak, detaljno smo razmotrili samo glavne mreže za pradenje stanja životne sredine. To su meteorološke i mreže klimatskih stanica, hidrometrijska mreža (vodostaj i proticaj), mreža kvaliteta vode, kao i mreža podzemnih voda.


Montenegro Water Sector Review viii

Što se tiče meteorološke mreže, 2012. godine, mreža za meteorološka osmatranja u Crnoj Gori sastoji se uglavnom od 9 automatskih meteoroloških stanica (AMS), 15 klimatskih stanica i 18 samostalnih mjernih instrumenata za mjerenje padavina. 9 AMS rade impresivno u stvarnom vremenu za pradenje vremenskih uslova, a podaci se objavljuju na web stranici Zavoda za hidrometeorologiju i seizmologiju (ZHMS) . Međutim, došlo je do značajnog smanjenja broja ručnih stanica za mjerenje padavina, sa više od 80 prije 2000. godine do samo 18 stanica u ovom trenutku. Značajno smanjen broj stanica znači da se greške interpolacije padavina za slivove koji se ne mjere mogu značajno povedati, sa nepredvidivim ishodima za modeliranje vodnih resursa, procjenu hidroenergije, i ekologiju voda uopšte. Što se tiče 15 klimatskih stanica, u Crnoj Gori se ne radi sa posudama za isparavanje klase A. Obzirom da je isparavanje jedan od osnovnih pokretača vodnih resursa, smatramo da najmanje 2-3 takve posude treba ugraditi u klimatskim stanicama, uz stalno pristustvo zaposlenih. Iako se do vedine meteoroloških podataka dolazi kroz procese kontrole kvaliteta putem softvera CLIDATA u ZHMS, Svjetska meteorološka organizacija objavila je (2009) da značajnu količinu prethodnih podataka još uvijek treba digitalizovati, kao i da uopšte nedostaju raspoloživi podaci u dostupnim i bazama podataka povezanim sa drugim hidrološkim podacima, kao što je na primjer proticaj rijeke. To je još uvijek važno otvoreno pitanje u 2012. godini. Što se tiče hidrometrijske mreže (vodostaj i proticaj), postoji 9 stanica za automatsko mjerenje vodostaja koje funkcionišu u slivu Jadranskog mora (uključujudi i dva instrumenta za mjerenje visine plime u Baru i Kotoru), i 11 automatskih stanica u crnomorskom slivu. Te stanice su u impresivnom stanju funkcionalnosti, obzirom da se vodostaj može provjeriti u bilo kojem trenutku putem sistema GSM telekom i HYDRAS softvera, a dobijeni podaci objavljuju se na web stranici ZHMS skoro u realnom vremenu. Dakle, postoji prilično efikasan operativni sistem upozorenja od poplava. Međutim, postoje značajni drugi problemi sa hidrometrijskom mrežom. U pregledu iz norveškog „Masterplana“ iz 2006. godine predaže se ukupno 51 operativnih hidrometrijskih stanica. U stvari postoje samo 23 operativne stanice u ovom trenutku, 20 automatskih i 3 ručne stanice. ZHMS je saopštio da nije dobio sredstva i radnu snagu za rukovanje mrežom u punom kapacitetu. Trebalo bi biti od posebnog interesa to što je nekoliko stanica koje ne rade npr. Bad, Dobrakovo i Brštanovica na važnim mjestima koja se nalaze u blizini državnih granica. Nepostojanje monitoringa na ovim lokacijama znači da Crna Gora ne ispunjava svoje evropske obaveze izvještavanja nizvodnih država o prekograničnim tokovima ili opteredenju zagađivačima.

Postoji veoma značajan problem sa obradom podataka o vodostaju iz mnogih stanica tako da se dobiju upotrebljivi podaci o proticaju. Vodostaj je koristan samo za upozorenja od poplava, i služi samo u vrlo privremene svrhe. Prava vrijednost hidrometrijske stanice leži u dugoročnim podacima o proticaju. Veliki broj stanica nije opremljen žičarama, što znači da se za te stanice ne može vršiti mjerenje proticaja. ZHMS je saopštio da u ostalim stanicama velika brzina vode ne dozvoljava pravilnu procjenu krive proticaja. To znači da se za te neispravne stanice ne izračunava proticaj, a za mnoge stanice ne postoje podaci ved više od 20 godina. ZHMS trenutno ne koristi statističke metode za utvrđivanje krive proticaja, tako da je moguda značajna greška u izračunavanju prilikom pretvaranja vodostaja u proticaj čak i za one stanice koje nemaju aktivnu krivu proticaja. Potreban je poseban projekt kako bi se osiguralo da sve operativne stanice koriste ažuriranu i tačnu krivu proticaja. Otprilike od 2008. godine, podaci u stvarnom vremenu o vodostaju sa 19 AMS čuvani su u HYDRAS softveru, koji omogudava retrospektivno ispitivanje podataka i sl. Međutim, vedina nacionalnih arhivskih podataka o proticaju (koji datiraju od 1948. godine) još uvijek nije u lako dostupnom obliku (npr. kompjuterizovane relacijske baze podataka). WISKI, veoma modan programski paket sa podacima o vodama (koji bi mogao činiti jezgro nacionalnog katastra voda) instaliran je 2010. godine, ali nisu opredijeljenja potrebna sredstva za obuku ili implementaciju. WISKI se radi toga trenutno ne koristi aktivno u ZHMS, nažalost, jer njegove mogudnosti daleko premašuju mogudnosti HYDRAS-a, pogotovo jer WISKI može biti direktno povezan u GIS okruženju. Sve nacionalne procjene vodnih resursa, procjene vodnog bilansa, procjene protoka poplava i cijeli koncept ekološkog statusa vodnih tijela u skladu sa Okvirnom direktivom o vodama oslanjaju se na tačne i ažurne proračune proticaja iz državne hidrometrijske mreže. Prema tome planiranje i implementacija Nacionalnog arhiva riječnih proticaja (pohranjene u odgovarajudu relacijsku bazu podataka i sa web pristupom) je nacionalni prioritet. Ovom hitnom i kritičnom zadatku Vlada mora pokloniti odgovarajudu pažnju i za njega odvojiti odgovarajuda sredstva. To de biti opsežan zadatak jer sve prethodne i tekude podatke od 1948. godine treba unijeti u arhivu na sistematski i dosljedan način. Dugoročni podaci su od kritičnog značaja za pravilnu procjenu vodnih resursa i uticaja klimatskih promjena. Godišnjaci su dobar pokazatelj pravilne popunjenosti sa odgovarajudim brojem zaposlenih i funkcionisanjem Zavoda za hidrometeorologiju i seizmologiju, ali ni jedan hidrometrijski godišnjak nije izrađen u Crnoj Gori od 1987. godine. To je značajan previd koji treba ispraviti. Ako se Nacionalni arhiv riječnih proticaja pravilno održava i finansira, izrada godišnjaka postaje relativno jednostavna. Mreža kvaliteta površinskih voda zasniva se na nekih 36 tačaka uzorkovanja u 13 glavnih rijeka i 11 tačaka uzorkovanja u tri glavna jezera u Crnoj Gori, Skadarsko, Plavsko i Crno jezero. Postoji još 16 tačaka uzorkovanja duž obalnog pojasa sa naglaskom na glavnim gradovima i lukama. Uzorci se takođe uzimaju sa 9 lokacija podzemnih voda. Kako smo shvatili, laboratorija ZHMS dobila je akreditaciju ISO 7025 (Laboratorijska analiza), što potvrđuje da se revidirano osiguranje kvaliteta i mjere kontrole kvaliteta rutinski primjenjuju tokom vršenja ove analize.


Montenegro Water Sector Review ix

Monitoring podzemnih voda u Crnoj Gori je relativno neznatan i ne postoji zvanična mreža. Kvalitet vode prati se na 9 lokacija, a usmjeren je samo na oblast Skadarskog jezera, ali ne i vodostaj podzemnih voda. Crna Gora ima značajna podzemna vodena tijela, a u skladu sa nekoliko direktiva (ODV, Direktiva o nitratima) postoji jasan zahtjev da se vrši redovno pradenje podzemnih voda. Ovo je još jedan prioritet za Vladu. Mreža za pradenje kvaliteta vode je pohvalno razvijena, ali uočeno je nekoliko značajnih problema. Prvo, aktivna korelacija između uzorkovanja vode radi ispitivanja kvaliteta i kontinuiranog mjerenja proticaja nije zadovoljavajuda. Na primjer, u Jadranskom slivu, na samo 7 od 11 tačaka uzorkovanja u rijekama aktivno se mjeri vodostaj na istoj lokaciji. U Crnomorskom slivu, od 13 tačaka za uzorkovanja kvaliteta vode koje su povezane sa hidrometrijskim stanicama, samo 4 mogu biti povezane sa podacima o vodostaju. To znači da se za vedinu stanica za ispitivanje kvaliteta vode opteredenje zagađivačima ne može izračunati. Opteredenja zagađivačima su od značaja u skladu sa Okvirnom direktivom o vodama takođe i za obaveze prekograničnog izvještavanja. Vrijednost koncentracija kvaliteta vode bez pozivanja na proticaj veoma je ograničena. Drugo, program pradenja uglavnom se zasniva na fizičko-hemijskim parametrima. Međutim, u skladu sa Okvirnom direktivom o vodama, kvalitet vode je jednako definisan biološkim i hidromorfološkim indikatorima, kao i opasnim materijama, od kojih se vedina ne prati u Crnoj Gori. Vlada uopšte, ZHMS i Agencija za zaštitu životne sredine posebno moraju početi da planiraju značajno povedanje u vrsti i obimu uzorkovanja koje se sprovodi kako bi postupali u skladu sa pravnom tekovinom EU i brojnim zahtjevima iz Okvirne direktive o vodama. Značajan nedostatak je čuvanje i dostupnost podataka o kvalitetu vode. Neki najnoviji podaci se upisuju u tabelu u ZHMS, a koriste se za godišnju ocjenu usklađenosti sa standardima kvaliteta životne sredine (EQS) glavnih rijeka, ali vedina podataka se ne čuva u bilo kojem obliku relacijske baze podataka radi čega nisu lako dostupni. Veliki dio prethodnih podataka još uvijek je u štampanom obliku. Prikupljanje podataka nema mnogo smisla ako se ne mogu lako pronadi ili koristiti. Potrebna je koordinacija između Vlade, Agencije za zaštitu životne sredine i ZHMS da se osigura izrada sistema Nacionalnog arhiva kvaliteta vode kako bi se podaci čuvali i učinili dostupnim. Sa izradom planova upravljanja riječnim slivovima u skladu sa Okvirnom direktivom o vodama, to de postati neophodno u bududnosti. Poglavlje 3 – Pregled raspoloživosti i potrebnih geografskih podataka Vedina eksperata za vodoprivredu složide se da je gotovo nemogude sprovesti bilo kakav oblik sistematske analize životne sredine, pradenja i izvještavanja, bez prednosti Geografskog informacionog sistema (GIS) pomodu geoprostornih podataka. U saradnji sa statističkom analizom i kompjuterskim modeliranjem, geoprostorni podaci su nesporno jedan od ključnih instrumenata u upravljanju prirodnim resursima. I pored toga, vedina institucija u sektoru voda u Crnoj Gori (AZŽS, ZHMS, Uprava za vode i Sektor za upravljanje u izvanrednim situacijama) nemaju pristup GIS softveru. Postoji hitna potreba da se kvalifikovano tehničko osoblje upozna sa GIS metodama, da se nabavi odgovarajudi GIS softver, i što je najvažnije, osigura da su skupovi podataka spremni za ispravljanje standarda, kao i da su koordinacija, vlasništvo i razmjena tih podataka pravilno organizovani. Možemo redi da je ovo jedna od osnovnih prednosti u izradi nacionalnog katastra voda, odnosno kako bi se osigurala dosljednost, koordinacija i standardizacija podataka. Čak i tamo gdje je GIS u novijoj upotrebi (npr. mapiranje opasnosti od poplava u opštinama (Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova / UNDP), zaštita šuma (Ministarstvo poljoprivrede)), riječna mreža (Ministarstvo održivog razvoja i turizma) postoji vrlo malo dokaza da se GIS podaci proizvode u standardnim formatima EU. Od presudne je važnosti da eksperti za vodoprivredu u Crnoj Gori koji koriste GIS razumiju zahtjeve zajedničke strategije za sprovođenje Okvirne direktive o vodama, koja utvrđuje jasne smjernice i principe za strukturu i izvještavanje geoprostornih podataka. Sprovođenje ODV zahtijeva obradu prostornih podataka za pripremu planova upravljanja riječnim slivovima i izvještavanje prema Evropskoj komisiji. U prvom slučaju GIS tehnika neophodna je za izvođenje različitih slojeva informacija (npr. o karakteristikama riječnih bazena i vodnih tijela, hemijskom i ekološkom stanju vodnih tijela i potencijalu različitih mjera upravljanja), dok je u drugom slučaju GIS alat za izradu i dobijanje GIS slojeva potrebnih za izvještavanje o planovina upravljanja riječnim slivom prema Evropskoj komisiji. Što se tiče informacija o zaštiti životne sredine, izvještaja i GIS podataka, EU posjeduje ogromna materijalna sredstva. Stručnjaci za zaštitu životne sredine iz Crne Gore trebaju se upoznati sa ovim brojnim izvorima. Osigurali smo veoma detaljan i temeljan „leksikon“ tih sredstava i sva su povezana na internet. Ocijenili smo vedinu GIS podataka koji su proizvedeni u Crnoj Gori, i uopšte, premda su rezultati mogde zadovoljili lokalne i ograničene zahtjeve pojedinog projekta, npr. opštinsko mapiranje opasnosti od poplava, čini se da metapodaci, formati i osobine tih skupova podataka generalno ne zadovoljavaju standarde EU. Postoji veoma hitna potreba da sve institucije u sektoru voda koordiniraju GIS resurse, obučeno osoblje i standarde. Skupovi podataka u Jugoistočnoj Evropi koji se primjenjuju u Crnoj Gori su relativno rijetki, ali smo identifikovali više od 20 slojeva GIS podataka koji de vjerojatno biti od značaja. Najvažniji od njih su standardni skupovi podataka EU za granice slivnih područja i riječnih mreža (ECRINS), zemljišni pokrivač i korišdenje zemljišta (CORINE), kao i rasterske pozadine na osnovu LANDSAT 7 satelitskih slika, sve slobodno dostupno.


Montenegro Water Sector Review x

Veoma poseban problem vezano za GIS je nedostatak nacionalnog sistema kodiranja za vodena tijela u Crnoj Gori. To je od velike važnosti u skladu sa Okvirnom direktivom o vodama uopšte (SVE države članice moraju šifrovati svoja vodena tijela u skladu sa Pfafstetter metodom), a šifra vodenog tijela je jedan od kritičnih primarnih ključnih atributa koji bi trebali biti prisutni u svakom skupu GIS podataka ili relacijskoj bazi podataka koja se odnosi na određena vodena tijela. Bez tog relacijskog primarnog ključa u bazi podataka, kritični rezultati planova upravljanja slivnim područjem kao što je stanje životne sredine se ne mogu utvrditi. Izrada nacionalnog referentnog sistema za vodena tijela u Crnoj Gori je hitan zadatak, a njegov značaj se ne može dovoljno naglasiti. Velika praznina u upravljanju životnom sredinom u ovom trenutku je nedostatak kartografskih prikaza zaštidenih područja zasnovanih na GIS-u. To je jasna obaveza u skladu sa Okvirnom direktivom o vodama, ali bez obzira na standarde EU, to što u ovom trenutku Crna Gora nema izrađene nikakve karte zaštidenih područja sa vodom za pide izaziva veliku zabrinutost. Ove karte definišu površinske zone u kojim se uticaji izgradnje i zagađenja moraju strogo kontrolisati u cilju očuvanja kvaliteta hemijskog statusa podzemnih vodenih tijela koja se koriste za javno vodosnabdijevanje, a kojih Crna Gora ima mnogo. Izrada tih karata je prioritet. Poglavlje 4 – Konceptualni okvir za Nacionalni katastar voda Pripremili smo detaljan niz prijedloga za nacionalni katastar voda. Po nekim definicijama „katastr voda“ jednostavno se može odnositi na karte. To je potpuno nedovoljna definicija. U stvari u skladu sa principima integralnog upravljanja vodnim resursima na kojim se zasniva ODV, SVI podaci koji se odnose na vode u slivu rijeke trebaju biti dostupni i procijenjeni istovremeno. Prema tome poželjan je izraz „informacioni sistem za vode". Predložili smo i strukturirali logičan i masivan informacioni sistem o vodama koji uključuje tri glavna elementa: baze podataka za pradenje stanja životne sredine (koje se sastoje od brojčanih vrijednosti parametara (kao vremenske serije) dobijenih of bioloških, meteoroloških, hidroloških i mreža kvaliteta vode) , pravilno strukturirana i kompjuterizovana vodna dozvola ili baza podataka sa dozvolama, i na kraju, sveobuhvatan skup geoprostornih skupova podataka koji se mogu kombinovati u GIS-u tako da proizvedu bilo koju vrstu ekološke karte. Jedina svrha prikupljanja podataka o životnoj sredini je da se poboljša upravljanje životnom sredinom, predvide promjene u životnoj sredini i olakša prilagođavanja na te promjene. Katastar voda, dakle, mora biti „prozor“ prema ekološkim podacima. To znači da baze podataka (katastra) moraju biti (i) ažurirane (ii) tačne (iii) lako dostupne. Na osnovu ova tri kriterijuma, ni jedan od ekoloških programa monitoringa u Crnoj Gori ne može se smatrati zadovoljavajudim za te svrhe u ovom trenutku. Vidjeli smo da sve ekološke podatke hitno treba u potpunosti kompjuterizovati u pravilno strukturirane relacijske baze podataka i poboljšati pristup za stručnjake (putem intraneta) i javnost (preko interneta). U oba slučaja se nivo detalja može kontrolisati, na primjer tako da javnost može vidjeti samo opšti kratak pregled podataka. Identifikovali smo nekih 11 ekoloških pod-baza podataka koje trebaju biti usklađene sa pradenjem stanja životne sredine i/ili izvještavanjem u skladu sa zahtjevima različitih direktiva EU. Dali smo prikaz njihove strukture podataka. Predložili smo da se pet različitih vrsta saglasnosti ili dozvola za vode čuva u zasebnoj bazi podataka, ali i dalje kao sastavni dio cjelokupnog informacionog sistema za vode. Na kraju, identifikovali smo osam različitih GIS geoprostornih baza podataka koje treba da budu u skladu sa zahtjevima za upravljanje riječnim slivom i/ili izvještavanjem u skladu sa različitim direktivama EU. U tih osam GIS baza podataka, postoji oko 60 pojedinačnih GIS skupova podataka ili slojeva, svaki sa svojom referentnom šifrom i posebnom šemom (format podataka) koje propisuje Zajednička strategija za sprovođenje. Navedeni su modeli podataka i uopšte struktura za sve ove skupove podataka u skladu sa EU. Ne možemo predvidjeti bilo koju procjenu uticaja na životnu sredinu ili planiranje u Crnoj Gori (npr. mapiranje opasnosti od poplava, nacionalni master plan za vode) koji bi zahtijevali šire skupove podataka od onih predstavljenih u ovom Izvještaju. Drugim riječima, poštovanje zahtjeva za podacima u skladu sa direktivama EU takođe bi zadovoljilo sve crnogorske lokalne potrebe. Možda kontraverzno, snažno smo tvrdili da su vodne dozvole kritični element svakog ISV ili katastra. To se zasniva na principima ODV. Trenutno ne postoji baza podataka o dozvolama koja je povezana sa drugim bazama u Crnoj Gori. Izrada planova upravljanja slivnim područjem usklađenih sa ODV koristi dobro definisan metod. Prvo, mora postojati identifikacija pritisaka (od antropogenih izvora), nakon čega slijedi procjena uticaja (na vodena tijela), nakon čega slijedi program mjera (kako bi se osiguralo da vodena tijela dostignu „dobar ukupni status"). U svakoj od tih glavnih komponenti plana upravljanja slivnim područjem, ovlašdeno (i neovlašteno) zahvatanje vode iz vodenih tijela i ispuštanje (otpadnih voda) u vodeno tijelo, kao i dozvoljne količine i/ili pragovi su od kritične važnosti u isticanju štetnih pritisaka, prilikom procjene uticaja na životnu sredinu , kao i sprovođenja kontrole ili mjera sanacije. Vodne dozvole su prema tome osnovne za upravljanje životnom sredinom uopšte, te bi trebale imati osnovnu ulogu u bilo kojem katastarskom ili informacionom sistemu. Ovaj Izvještaj je sveobuhvatno pokazao da su bududi zahtjevi za prikupljanjem podataka i upravljanjem podacima za nacionalno upravljanja zaštitom životne sredine u skladu sa procedurama EU veoma značajni i složeni, te da su vjerovatno uveliko podcijenjeni od strane vedine nacionalnih institucija u Crnoj Gori. Pokazali smo potencijalnu složenost koordinacije i razmjene podataka između nekoliko institucija u Crnoj Gori, od kojih vedina nije ni prikupljena u ovom trenutku. Veoma je potrebno


Montenegro Water Sector Review xi

osnovati nacionalnu Tehničku radnu grupu za katastar voda kako bi se osiguralo da se zahtjevi za podacima i standardi EU u potpunosti razumiju i poštuju, te da se jasno definišu odgovornost i „vlasništvo“ nad posebnim skupovima podataka. Procedure za kontrolu verzije podataka i kako se tačno datoteke sa najnovijim podacima razmjenjuju između institucija moraju biti jasno definisane. To nije slučaj u ovom trenutku. Poglavlje 5 – Pregled koordinacije podataka u sektoru voda i proces rada Projektni zadatak posebno zahtijeva ocjenu pitanja i preporuka za institucionalne reforme kako bi se optimiziralo upravljanje sektorom voda. U najširoj definiciji to uključuje službu za hidrometeorološke prognoze i upozorenja, dostavljanje podataka za posebne studije, kao i identifikovanje dugoročnih trendova u odnosu na klimatske promjene. Također uključuje više strateških elemenata koordinacije i obrade podataka za dobijanje rezultata koji se mogu koristiti u kontekstu Okvirne direktive o vodama (ODV), planova upravljanja riječnim slivovima i mjera za smanjenja rizika od katastrofa, kao što je unaprijeđeno mapiranje opasnosti od poplava. Kako bi pomogli ovaj proces, prvenstveno smo se koncentrisali na pitanja prikupljanja i korišdenja podataka tamo gdje bi oni mogli biti glavno sredstvo, tehničke ili smetnje u bududoj koordinaciji gdje sadašnji institucionalni aranžmani ne bi odgovarali za tu svrhu. Identifikovali smo šest ključnih oblasti. Sljededa ograničenja moraju se razmotriti i otkloniti: (i) više institucija prikuplja podatke (ii) transparentna i objektivna regulacije (iii) efinasno i koordinirano izdavanje dozvola (iv) izrada planova upravljanja riječnim slivom (v) mapiranje opasnosti od suša i nestašica vode (vi) mapiranje opasnosti od poplava i rizika od poplava (vii ) mapiranje sliva i nacionalni sistem za šifriranje vodenih tijela (IIx) biološki podaci i ekološko stanje. (ii) više institucija odgovornih za prikupljanje i/ili obradu i/ili širenje podataka o zaštiti životne sredine je garancija za preklapanje, lošiji kvalitet podataka, nejasne standarde i vlasništvo, tešku koordinaciju, i ne manje važno, dodatne troškove u obliku više dozvola za slične softvere i udvostručavanje zaposlenih (npr. stručnjaci za GIS) koji obavljaju slične poslove u različitim institucijama. To nije priuštivo i logično. Rješenje je da se osigura da minimalan broj institucija učestvuje u prikupljanju i obradi podataka. Trenutno Agencija za zaštitu životne sredine nije ovlašdena da prikuplja podatke direktno. Pritisci i zahtjevi ODV međutim, sa značajnim povedanjem potrebe za prikupljanjem složenijih podataka o opasnim materijama, ekološkim, biološkim i hidromorfološkim elementima, sugerišu da de se obaveze AZŽS (a možda i ZHMS) u pogledu prikupljanja podataka možda morati povedati u bududnost. (iii) Naglašavamo potrebu za objektivnim, nepristrasnim i transparentnim propisima koji regulišu zaštitu životne sredine. Javni pristup podacima i proces donošenja odluka je osnov toga, i zbog tog razloga podatake o životnoj sredini treba čuvati u zvanično strukturiranim bazama podataka koje su generalno dostupne na internetu. Ove baze podataka trenutno ne funkcionišu u Crnoj Gori. (iv) Po našem mišljenju postoji značajna nepovezanost u sistemu izdavanja dozvola za vode u Crnoj Gori. Dozvolu za zahvatanje razmatra Uprava za vode (ali sa minimalnim tehničkim sredstvima, na primjer ne postoji baza podataka o dozvolama za zahvatanje i ne koristi se GIS sistem za prikaz lokacija gdje se vrši zahvatanje). Izdavanje dozvola za ispuštanje, posebno kontrolu otpadnih voda, vrši potpuno druga institucija, odnosno Agencije za zaštitu životne sredine (AZŽS). Međutim, čini se problematičnim to što usko povezana pitanja izdavanje dozvola za količine i kvalitet trebaju rješavati dvije potpuno različite institucije na dva različita mjesta, posebno obzirom da rezultati procesa izdavanja dozvola (tj. količina i kvalitet) nisu trenutno dostupni u bilo kojem obliku baze podataka ili GIS sistema. Ovaj izvještaj stoga navodi snažne i jasne razloge zašto sistem izdavanja dozvola za vode mora biti sastavni dio katastra voda. Treba postojati jedan integralni sistem baze podataka o izdavanju dozvola za vode. (iv) Za planiranje upravljanja riječnim slivom potreban je veliki broj podataka uopšte, posebno u smislu korišdenja vode, pritisaka na životnu sredinu i posljedičnih uticaja na kvalitet vodenog tijela. Potrebne su značajne tehničke vještine i sredstva za planiranje vodnih resursa, GIS i pristup informacijana. Trenutno Uprava za vode ima ovlašdenje da uspostavi i održava nacionalni informacioni sistem za vode, ali se čini da su sredstva i sposobnosti ove institucije potpuno neadekvatni za izradu planova upravljanja riječnim slivom, koji su u središtu upravljanja zaštitom životne sredine. To de zahtijevati značajno povedanje broja zaposlenih i pristup kvalitetnim informacijama i modnim alatima kao što su GIS, šta sada nije vidljivo. (v) Razumljivo je da je u ovom trenutku mapiranje opasnosti od poplave u centru pažnje. Međutim, suše i nestašice vode su jednako kritične, a možda predstavljaju čak i vedu prijetnju po opšte javno zdravlje i ekonomsku stabilnost. Trenutno se ni jedna procedura za pradenje suša sistmatski ne objavljuje. Takvi rezultati zahtijevaju integraciju GIS podataka (slivovi i slivna područja) i evidentiranih podataka o padavinama i proticaju koji se objavljuju u skoro realnom vremenu. (vi) Trenutno Sektor za upravljanje u izvanrednim situacijama angažovan je za zadatak mapiranja opasnosti od poplava. Očigledno Sektor ima zakonsku obavezu da koristi takve podatke za informisanje opštiina i javnosti uopšte. U ovom slučaju on je ključni korisnik podataka o poplavama, ali to ne znači da takođe treba biti tvorac takvih karata. U gotovo svim


Montenegro Water Sector Review xii

zapadnoevropskim državama, podaci o poplavama i mapiranje poplava vrši specijalizovano odjeljenje ili nacionalna agencija za zaštitu životne sredine ili zavod za hidrologiju. Objavljene karate zatim se redovno dostavljaju opštinama, službama i koordinatoru za izvanredne situacije. Takvo mapiranje zahtijeva složene hidrološke analize, kompjutersko modeliranje rijeka i plavnih dolina i pripadajudu mapiranje na bazi GIS-a. (vii) Vodena tijela su kamen temeljac upravljanja zaštitom životnom sredinom u skladu sa Okvirnom direktivom o vodama i osnov za sve aspekte pradenja stanja životne sredine i izvještavanja. To je uglavnom prostorni proces, odnosno zahtijeva utvrđivanje, šifrovanje i mapiranje granica i dužine bazena i vodenih tijela. Izrada nacionalnog referentnog skupa podataka sa šiframa vodenih tijela na bazi GIS-a u skladu je sa opštom strategijom za implementaciju ODV, ali do danas nije ostvaren napredak. (IIx) Trenutno se rutinski prikupljaju samo osnovni fizičko -hemijski podaci u ZHMS, a ti podaci se koriste samo za izvještavanje o stanju životne sredine. Međutim, u narednim godinama potreba za složenijim podacima o kvalitetu vode znatno de se povedati. U skladu sa ODV bide potreban značajno vedi broj podataka o biološkim, hidromorfološkim i opasnim zagađivačima, osim osnovnih fizičko-hemijskih podataka. Trenutno u Crnoj Gori dakle uopšte nije jasno koja de institucija prikupljati podatke i/ili vršiti složene analize potrebne za utvrđivanje ekološkog stanja. Kao daljnja komplikacija, mapiranje ekološkog stanja je ključni zahtjev za izvještavanje u skladu sa ODV, tako da de instituciji koja je obavezna da vrši ocjenu ekološkog statusa vr lo vjerovatno trebati dodatne nadležnosti za izradu takvih karata.


Montenegro Water Sector Review xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS Section 1 – Context and Terms of Reference The Government of Montenegro (GoM) published the Initial Communication on Climate Change of Montenegro to the UNFCCC in 2010. The Second National Communication is currently in preparation, and this Report contributes to the necessary background of that Communication. Climate change impacts are expected to be particularly significant in South East Europe generally, including Montenegro, and currently there is perceived to be a significant lack of climate change preparedness and adaptation measures at Government level. The European Commission has identified that a combination of water shortages due to uncontrolled demand and the increasing frequency and severity of droughts due to climate change will bring many regions into a situation of severe water stress in the coming decades. The frequency and severity of floods is also expected to increase. Climate change impacts on national water resources are likely to be severe and will require concerted and relatively urgent adaptation measures. The European Commission 2012 progress report on Montenegro emphasises a lack of progress in the environment sector generally as follows: “Considerable efforts are required to align with and implement environment and climate acquis, as well as to strengthen administrative capacity and inter-institutional cooperation. Environment and climate change considerations need to be more systemically taken into account in other policy fields and planning documents. The lack of political priority and adequate financing as well as limited awareness of environmental and climate requirements are hampering progress in this field. Preparations in this area are still at an early stage”(2012). The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the daughter Directives remain the most important pieces of European environmental legislation with which Montenegro’s systems and procedures will need to harmonise within 5-10 years. The relevance of the WFD to Montenegro is that the data collection and information management requirements of developing effective River Basin Management Plans are very considerable, and both the legislative framework and the national environmental monitoring networks must be in a high state of competence (fitness for purpose) in order to deliver all that the WFD requires. Montenegro in common with most of south-east Europe (SEE countries) has a high level of exposure and sensitivity to climate change. Exposure is difficult to reduce. Increased temperatures, reduced water resources and amplified extremes seem inevitable. Sensitivity can be reduced through population and agriculture water use reduction programmes for example, but the most rapid resilience methodology is probably by increasing adaptive capacity. Information technology including the development of good quality national environmental databases (water cadastres and information systems) is seen as a critical tool in developing adaptive capacity. The Government’s Initial Communication on Climate Change (2010) identified a significant lack of national preparedness in adaptive capacity: “At this point there are no national strategies or adaptation measures and estimates of the expected mechanisms of self-adaptation”. “For now, there is no formal strategy or government policy which treats this problem integrally and provides recommendations for adaptation”. This Report is a wide ranging and carefully considered review of the water sector needs and coordination issues in Montenegro, with particular reference to data needs and data management systems. In accordance with the ToR, a review of the effectiveness and fitness for purpose of the current environmental monitoring networks is given in Section 2. In Section 3 we review data needs in Montenegro, specifically in the context of flood management, water resources, river basin planning and climate change. We have provided a summary of GIS based water sector data that are in current use in Montenegro, and then we provide sources of information and GIS data from other European sources that are relevant to Montenegro. In Section 4 we have shown the possible design and structure of a so called ‘water cadastre’ which may also be defined as a Water Information System. It is clear that GIS is not in widespread use in Montenegro water sector Agencies at this time, and where GIS data has been produced, it is not necessarily in compliance with the standards and formats set out by the European Environment Agency or the Common Implementation Strategy of the Water Framework Directive. Our water cadastre proposals take very careful account of the environmental monitoring requirements, data structures and GIS layers specified under the WFD, as we consider that this is the primary model that should be followed. In Section 5 we present a brief review of coordination and data uses of water relevant Agencies in Montenegro. There are several inefficiencies identified which in our view are duplicating effort or are creating potential confusion or limitation of data use and data standards between Agencies which could be simply corrected by a realignment of Agency responsibilities. Section 2 – A Review of the Hydrometeorological Networks In the very short timescale allocated for this task, we have carried out a high level review only of the main environmental monitoring networks. These are the meteorological and climate station networks, the hydrometric network (water level and discharge), the water quality network, and the groundwater network.


Montenegro Water Sector Review xiv

With regard to the Meteorological Network, as at 2012, the meteorological observation network in Montenegro consists principally of 9 Automatic Weather Stations (AWS), 15 climate stations, and 18 standalone precipitation gauges. The 9 AWS operate impressively in real time to monitor weather conditions, data being reported to the Institute of Hydrometeorology and Seismology (IHMS) website. However, there has been significant downgrading of the number of the manual observation precipitation stations, from more than 80 pre 2000 to now only 18 stations. The greatly reduced number of Stations means that interpolation errors of precipitation for ungauged catchments may increase significantly, with unpredictable outcomes for water resources modelling, hydropower estimation, and water ecology generally. With regard to the 15 climate stations, there are no A Class Evaporation Pans operated in Montenegro. Since evapotranspiration is one of the fundamental drivers of water resources, we consider that at least 2-3 such pans should be installed in the climate stations, which are permanently manned. Although most meteorological data are captured through quality controlled processes onto the CLIDATA software operating in IHMS, it was reported by WMO (2009) that a significant amount of the historical data still remains to be digitised, and that there is a general lack of data availability within accessible and linked databases to other hydrological data such as river flow for example. This is still an important outstanding issue in 2012. With regard to the hydrometric network (water level and discharge), there are 9 functioning automatic water level stations in the Adriatic river basin (including 2 tide level gauges at Bar and Kotor), and 11 automatic stations in the Black Sea basin. These Stations are in an impressive state of functionality, since water level can be polled at any time through the GSM telecom system into the HYDRAS software, and these levels are posted to the IHMS website in near real-time. There is therefore a reasonably effective flood warning system in operation. However, there are significant other problems with the hydrometric network. A Norwegian ‘Masterplan’ review of 2006 proposed that there should be a total of 51 hydrometric stations made operational. In fact there are only 23 Stations operational at this time, 20 automatic and 3 manual. IHMS reports that it has not been given the resources or staff to operate the network to full capacity. It should be of particular concern that several of the non-operational sites e.g. Bad, Dobrakovo and Brštanovica are important sites located near the national borders. Lack of monitoring at these sites means that Montenegro cannot fulfil its European obligations to report on trans-boundary flows or pollutant loads to downstream States.

There is a very significant problem with the processing of water level data from many of the Stations into useable discharge data. Water level is only useful for flood warning purposes, and serves only a very temporary purpose. The full value of a hydrometric station lies in its long-term discharge data. Many of the Stations are not equipped with cableways, meaning that flow calibrations cannot be carried out for those Stations. In other Stations IHMS has reported that high water velocities prevent the proper assessment of the rating curve. For these defective Stations, this means that discharge is not being calculated, and for many of the Stations this backlog extends to more than 20 years. IHMS is currently not using statistical methods to determine rating curves, so there is possibly some significant calculation error in the conversion of water level to discharge even for those Stations that do have an active rating curve. A special project will be required to ensure that all operational Stations are using an up to date and accurate rating curve. Since 2008 approximately, real-time data on water level from the 19 AWS has been held in the HYDRAS software, which allows retrospective interrogation of data etc. However, most of the national flow archive (dating back as far as 1948) is still not in an easily accessible form (e.g. a computerised relational database). WISKI, a very powerful water data software package, (and one which could form the core of a national water cadastre) was installed in 2010, but was not properly funded in terms of training or implementation. WISKI is therefore not currently actively used in IHMS, which is regrettable as its capabilities far exceed those of HYDRAS, especially as WISKI can be directly linked into a GIS environment. All national water resource assessments, water balance evaluations, flood discharge estimates and the whole concept of the ecological status of waterbodies under the Water Framework Directive rely on accurate and up to date discharge computations from the national hydrometric network. Therefore the design and implementation of a National River Flow Archive (stored on an appropriate relational database and web-accessible) is a national priority. This urgent and critical task must be given adequate attention and resources by Government. This will be a major task since all historic and current data since 1948 needs to be added into the archive in a systematic and consistent way. Long-term data is critical for proper assessments of water resources and climate change impacts. Annual Yearbooks are a good indicator of a properly resourced and functioning hydrometeorological Agency, but no Hydrometric Yearbook has been produced in Montenegro since 1987. This is a significant oversight that requires correction. If the National River Flow Archive is being properly maintained and funded, production of a Yearbook becomes relatively straightforward. The Surface Water Quality Network is based on some 36 sampling points in 13 main rivers and 11 sampling points in the three main lakes of Montenegro, Skader, Plavsko and Black Lake. There are a further 16 sampling points along the coastal zone focusing on the main towns and ports. 9 groundwater locations are also sampled. We understand that the IHMS laboratory has received ISO 7025 (Laboratory Analysis) accreditation, which confirms that audited quality assurance and quality control measures are routinely applied during the implementation of these analyses.


Montenegro Water Sector Review xv

Relatively little groundwater monitoring is carried out in Montenegro, and there is no formal network. Water quality of 9 locations is monitored, focused only on the Lake Skader area, but not groundwater level. Montenegro has significant groundwater waterbodies, and it is a clear requirement under several Directives (WFD, Nitrates Directive) that groundwater should be routinely monitored. This is another priority for Government. The water quality network is commendably extensive, but there are some major identified issues. First, the active correlation between water quality sampling and continuous discharge measurement is not satisfactory. For example, in the Adriatic river basin, only 7 out of the 11 river sampling points have water level being actively measured at the same location. In the Black Sea river basin, of the 13 water quality sampling points associated with hydrometric stations, only 4 can be associated with water level data. This means that for the majority of the water quality stations, pollutant loads cannot be calculated, although this is not currently a requirement under Montenegro legislation. However, pollutant loads are of importance under the Water Framework Directive, and for trans-boundary reporting obligations. Water quality concentrations without reference to discharge are of very limited value. Second, the monitoring programme is based predominantly on physico-chemical parameters. However, under the Water Framework Directive, water quality is defined as much by biological and hydromorphological indicators, as well as hazardous substances, most of which are not monitored in Montenegro. Government generally and IHMS and the Environment Protection Agency specifically will have to start planning significant increases in the type and extent of sampling carried out in order to comply with the EU acquis and the many requirements of the Water Framework Directive. There is a significant failure of the storing and accessibility of water quality data. Some recent data are entered onto spreadsheet in IHMS, and used for Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) annual compliance determinations of main rivers, but the majority of data are not stored in any form of relational database and are therefore not easily accessible. Much of the historic data are still in hard-copy. There is little point in collecting data if it cannot be easily accessed or used. Government, EPA and IHMS should coordinate to ensure that a National Water Quality Archive system is developed to preserve the data and make it accessible. Development of River Basin Management Plans under the Water Framework Directive will make this a necessity in the future. Section 3 – A Review of Geographic Data Availability and Needs Most environment professionals would agree that it is virtually impossible to carry out any form of systematic environmental analysis, monitoring or reporting without the benefit of a Geographic Information System (GIS) using geospatial data. In conjunction with statistical analysis and computer based modelling, geospatial data is unquestionably one of the critical tools in environmental management. In spite of this, most water sector Agencies in Montenegro (EPA, IHMS, the Directorate for Water and Sector for Emergency Management) do not have access to GIS software. There is an urgent requirement to introduce qualified technical staff to GIS methods, to purchase appropriate GIS software, and most importantly, ensure that datasets are prepared to correct standards, and that coordination and ownership and sharing of these data is properly organised. We can say that this is one of the primary advantages of developing a national water cadastre i.e. to ensure consistency, coordination and standardisation of data. Even where GIS is in recent use (e.g. flood hazard mapping of Municipalities (Ministry of Interior/UNDP), forestry protection (Ministry of Agriculture)), rivers network (Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism) there is very little evidence that these GIS data are being produced in EU standard formats. It is of critical importance that Montenegro environment professionals who are using GIS understand the requirements of the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy (CIS), which sets out clear guidelines and principles for the structure and reporting of geospatial data. The implementation of the WFD requires the handling of spatial data both for the preparation of the River Basin Management Plans and for the reporting to the Commission. In the first case GIS techniques will be essential for the derivation of various information layers (e.g. on the characteristics of river basins and water bodies, on the chemical and ecological status of water bodies and potential of various management measures), while in the second case GIS will be the tool for the preparation and delivery of the GIS layers required for the reporting of RBMPs to the European Commission. The resources of the EU with regard to environmental information, reports and GIS data are enormous. Montenegro environment professionals should become familiar with these many sources. We have provided a very detailed and thorough ‘gazetteer’ of these resources, all of which are web linked. We have assessed most of the GIS data locally produced in Montenegro, and generally, while the outputs may have met the local and limited requirements of a particular project e.g. Municipal flood hazard mapping, it would appear that the metadata, formats and attributes of these datasets do not comply with EU standards generally. There is a very urgent need for all water sector Agencies to coordinate GIS resources, trained staff and standards. South East Europe datasets applicable in Montenegro are relatively rare, but we have identified more than 20 GIS data layers that will probably be of relevance. The most important of these are the EU standard datasets for catchment


Montenegro Water Sector Review xvi

boundaries and river networks (ECRINS), land-cover and land use (CORINE), and raster backgrounds based on LANDSAT 7 satellite imagery, all freely available. A very specific GIS related issue is the lack of a national coding system for Montenegro waterbodies. This is of critical importance in complying with the Water Framework Directive generally (ALL Member States must code their waterbodies in accordance with the Pfafstetter method), and waterbody code is one of the critical Primary Key attributes that should be present in every GIS dataset or relational database that references specific waterbodies. Without this relational Primary Key in a database, critical outputs of River Basin Management Plans such as Ecological Status cannot be determined. Production of the national reference system for waterbodies in Montenegro is an urgent task, and its importance cannot be over-stated. A major gap in environmental governance at the present time is the lack of GIS based maps showing Protected Areas. This is a clear requirement under the Water Framework Directive, but irrespective of EU standards, it is of great concern that at this time Montenegro has not produced any maps of Drinking Waterbody Protected Areas. These maps define surface zones in which development and pollution impacts must be strictly controlled in order to preserve water quality chemical status of groundwater bodies used for public water supply, of which Montenegro has many. Production of these maps is an urgent priority. Section 4 – Conceptual Framework for the National Water Information System We have prepared a detailed set of proposals for a national water water information system and individual cadastres. Under some definitions ‘water cadastre’ may simply refer to maps. This is a wholly insufficient definition. In fact under the integrated water resources management principles (IWRM) on which the WFD is based, ALL water related information in a river basin should be accessible and evaluated simultaneously. The term ‘water information system’ is therefore preferable. We have proposed and structured a logical and robust Water Information System (WIS) that incorporates three main elements: environmental monitoring databases (comprising the numeric values of parameters (as time-series) obtained from the biological, meteorological, hydrological and water quality networks), a properly structured and computerised Water Permit or Licensing database, and finally, a comprehensive set of geospatial datasets that can be combined in a GIS to produce any type of environmental map. The only purpose of collecting environmental data is to improve environmental governance and to anticipate environmental change and facilitate adaptations to these changes. A water cadastre must therefore be the ‘window’ onto the environmental data. This means that the databases (of the cadastre) must be (i) up to date (ii) accurate (iii) easily accessible. Under these three criteria, none of the environmental monitoring programmes in Montenegro could be considered fit for purpose at this time. We have seen that all the environmental data is in urgent need of fully computerising into properly structured relational databases with improved accessibility for professionals (via an intranet) and the general public (via the internet). In both cases the level of detail can be controlled so that the public may see only general summaries of the data for example. We have identified some 11 environmental sub-databases required to comply with the environmental monitoring and/or reporting requirements of the various EU Directives. We have shown the outline data structure of these. We have proposed five distinct types of Water Permit or Licence to be held in a separate database, but still integral to the overall Water Information System. Finally, we have identified eight distinct GIS geospatial databases required to comply with the river basin management and/or reporting requirements of the various EU Directives. In these eight GIS databases, there are approximately 60 individual GIS datasets or layers, each with its own reference code and specific schema (data format) prescribed by the Common Implementation Strategy. The data models and general structure for all of these EU compliant datasets have been outlined. We cannot envisage any environmental assessment or planning carried out in Montenegro (e.g. flood hazard mapping, national water master plan) that would require datasets beyond those represented in this Report. In other words, compliance with the EU Directives data requirements would meet all of Montenegro’s local needs also. Perhaps controversially, we have strongly argued that Water Permits are a critical element of any WIS or cadastre. This is based on WFD principles. Currently there is no licensing database linked to other databases in Montenegro. Developing WFD compliant River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) uses a well defined method. First, there must be an Identification of Pressures (from anthropogenic sources), followed by an Assessment of Impacts (on waterbodies), followed by a Programme of Measures (to ensure waterbodies achieve ‘Good Overall Status’). In each of these main components of an RBMP, the authorised (and unauthorised) abstractions from waterbodies and discharges to waterbodies (effluents), and the permitted quantities and/or thresholds are of critical importance in pin-pointing detrimental pressures, assessing the environmental impacts, and implementing controlling or restorative measures. Water Permits are therefore central to environmental governance generally, and should play a central part in any cadastre or information system. This Report has comprehensively shown that the future data collection and data management requirements for national environmental governance in compliance with EU procedures are very substantial and very complex, and have probably been greatly under-estimated by most national Agencies in Montenegro. We have shown the potential complexity of data


Montenegro Water Sector Review xvii

coordination and exchange between several Agencies in Montenegro, most of which is not even collected at this time. It is very necessary for a national Water Cadastre Technical Working Group to be set up to ensure that the EU data requirements and standards are fully understood and complied with, and that responsibility and ‘ownership’ of specific datasets is clearly defined. The procedures for data version control and how exactly the latest data files are shared between Agencies must be clearly defined. This is not the case at present. Section 5 – A Review of Water Sector Data Coordination and Workflows The Terms of Reference specifically requested an appraisal of issues and recommendations for institutional reform to optimise management of the water sector. In the broadest definition this includes hydrometeorological forecasting and warning services, provision of data for special studies, and identification of long-term trends with respect to climate change. It also includes the more strategic elements of coordinating and processing data to produce outputs that can be used in the context of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and Disaster Risk Reduction measures such as improved flood hazard mapping. To assist this process, we have focused primarily on data collection and usage issues where there are likely to be major resource, technical or coordination bottlenecks in the future and where the current institutional arrangements are unlikely to be fit for purpose. We have identified six critical areas. These constraints have to be reviewed and eliminated: (i) Multiple Agencies collecting data (ii) Transparent and objective regulation (iii) Efficient and coordinated licensing (iv) the delivery of RBMPs (v) Hazard mapping of droughts and water scarcity (vi) hazard mapping of floods and flood risk (vii) river basin mapping and the national waterbody coding system (iix) biological data and ecological status. (i) Multiple Agencies responsible for collecting and/or processing and/or disseminating environmental data is a guarantee of overlap, reduced data quality, confused standards and ownership, difficult coordination, and not least, additional costs in the form of multiple licenses for similar software and duplicating staff (e.g. GIS experts) carrying out similar jobs in different Agencies. This is not affordable or logical. The solution is to ensure that a minimum number of Agencies are involved in data collection and processing. Currently the Environment Protection Agency does not have a mandate to collect data directly. The pressures and demands of the WFD however, with significant increases in the need to collect more complex data on hazardous substances, ecological, biological and hydromorphological elements suggests that the data collection responsibilities of the EPA (and possibly the IHMS) may need to increase in future. (ii) We emphasise the need for objective and impartial and transparent environmental regulation. Public accessibility to data and the decision making process is fundamental to this, and for this reason environmental data needs to be held in formal structured databases that are generally available on the internet. These databases are not currently operating in Montenegro. (iii) In our view there is a major disconnect in the Montenegro water licensing system. Abstraction Licensing is processed by the Directorate for Water (but with minimum technical resources, for example there is no database of abstraction licenses, and no GIS system is used to show abstraction locations). Discharge Licensing, specifically effluent control, is carried out by a completely different Agency, namely the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). However it seems problematic to us that the highly connected issues of quantity and quality licensing should be carried out by two completely different Agencies in two different locations, particularly as the results of the licensing process (i.e. quantity and quality) are not currently available in any form of database or GIS system. This Report has therefore made a strong and clear case for the Water Licensing system to be an integral part of the water cadastre. There should be a single integrated database system of water licensing. (iv) River basin management planning is extremely demanding of information generally, particularly in terms of water usage, environmental pressures and the resultant impacts on waterbody quality. Significant technical skills and resources in water resources planning, GIS and information retrieval are required. Currently the Directorate for Water has the mandate to establish and maintain a national Water Information System but the resources and capabilities of this Agency would appear to be wholly inadequate to deliver RBMPs, which are at the heart of environmental governance. It will require a significant increase of staff with access to high quality information and powerful tools such as GIS, none of which are evident this time. (v) There is an understandable focus at this time on flood hazard mapping. However, droughts and water scarcity are equally critical and perhaps of even greater threat to general public health and economic stability. Currently there is no drought monitoring procedure published systematically. Such outputs require the integration of GIS data (river basins and catchments) and monitored precipitation and discharge data to be published in near real-time. (vi) Currently the Sector for Emergency Management is engaged for the task of flood hazard mapping. Clearly the Sector is legally responsible to use such data to inform Municipalities and the public generally. In this case it is a key user of the flood data, but this does not mean that it should also act as the originator of such maps. In virtually all western European States, flood data and flood mapping is carried out by a specialist department of either the national environmental agency or the


Montenegro Water Sector Review xviii

hydrology institute. Published maps are then circulated regularly to the Municipalities, emergency services and the emergency coordinator. Such mapping requires sophisticated hydrological analysis, computer modelling of rivers and floodplains, and associated GIS based mapping. (vii) Waterbodies are the building blocks of environmental governance under the Water Framework Directive and are fundamental to all aspects of environmental monitoring and reporting. This is mainly a spatial process i.e. it requires boundaries and lengths of basins and waterbodies to be identified, coded and mapped. The development of a national GIS based reference dataset of waterbody codes in compliance with the WFD Common Implementation Strategy is a major priority, but there has been no progress on this to date. (iix) Currently primarily physico-chemical data are routinely collected in the IHMS, with some limited data collected on nutrients and hazardous substances, microbiological and hydrobiologica parameters. The data programmes therefore provide adequate information for generalised State of the Environment reporting. However, in future years the need for water quality data of greater complexity will significantly increase. Significant increases in biological, hydromorphological and hazardous pollutant data will be required under the WFD, in addition to basic physico-chemical data. Currently in Montenegro it is not at all clear which Agency would therefore collect the data and/or carry out the complex analyses required to determine ecological status. As a further complication, ecological status mapping is a key requirement of WFD reporting, and therefore the Agency with specific responsibility for ecological status assessment very probably needs additional competencies to produce such maps.


Montenegro Water Sector Review 1-1

1. CONTEXT AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.1 The Project Context

1.1.1 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

The Government of Montenegro (GoM) published the Initial Communication on Climate Change of Montenegro to the UNFCCC in 2010.

1 The Second National Communication is

currently in preparation. Climate change impacts are expected to be particularly significant in Montenegro, and currently there is perceived to be a significant lack of climate change preparedness and adaptation measures at Government level.

Climate change forecasts in the Initial Communication (IC) were made on the basis of the A1B and A2 scenarios for Montenegro. Projected changes in average temperature for the period 2071-2100 range between 3.4 – 4.8°C from the southern to northern parts respectively in the water critical June-July-August (JJA) period (A2 scenario).

Precipitation is also expected to decrease by as much as 50% in some areas. There is generally a strong correlation between precipitation, evapotranspiration and resultant water resources, so for example in the period 2071-2100 the correlation model between catchment precipitation and runoff for the Morača River at Podgorica shows an estimated 31% reduction in annual river flow for the period 2071-2100. By any standards these are massive changes in future potential water resources. Biodiversity, agriculture and public health are considered to be the other most vulnerable sectors. Considering the forecast changes in precipitation and temperature to 2100, strong disturbances in water resource and water runoff regimes are to be expected. First, overall water balances within river basins can be expected to reduce. This will affect both groundwater and surface water availability. Secondly, seasonal hydrometeorological extremes are likely to be amplified. For example, rainfall intensities are likely to increase, leading to more flash flooding, public hazard and economic damage. Analysis by the European Commission indicates that annual average flood damage for the period 2070-2100 is expected to increase by as much as 100% in many river basins in Europe.

2 Since 1998 floods in Europe have caused some 700

deaths and at least €25 billion in insured economic losses.

1 Ministry for Spatial Planning and Environment, Govt. Of

Montenegro, 2010 - Initial Communication on Climate Change of

Montenegro to the UNFCCC 2 European Commission – Environment – Flooding

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/index.htm)

1.1.2 Hydrometeorological Extremes in Montenegro

Extreme rainfall from December 2009 to January 2010 in the western Balkans flooded a great number of houses in Montenegro in the area surrounding Lake Skadar, including the township of Golubovci and the municipalities of Ulcinj, Cetinje, Zabljak Crnojevica and Niksic. By 2070 there are expected to be significant increases in low flow periods, leading to water shortages and possible droughts. The European Commission has identified that a combination of water shortages due to uncontrolled demand and the increasing frequency and severity of droughts due to climate change will bring many regions into a situation of severe water stress in the coming decades.

3

Figure 1-1 – Critical Regions for Future Water Shortage in

Europe 2070

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water

As Figure 1‐1 shows, Spain, southern Italy, Turkey and south‐east Europe, (including Montenegro) are likely to be the most affected regions. Figure 1-1 also illustrates that by 2070 the current extreme drought frequency of 1% may double to an annual probability of 2% i.e. an annual equivalent of 1 in 100 to 1 in 50. Strong droughts and increased summer temperatures in Montenegro were recorded in the periods 1981–1990 and 2000–2009. 2007 saw one of the most significant regional droughts in decades, the country experiencing a range of water deficit conditions ranging from moderate in the north to extreme at the coastal fringe.

3 European Commission – Environment – Water Scarcity

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/about.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/index.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/about.htm



For example, Figure 1-2 shows that during the peak of the regional drought in July 2007, the 30-day rainfall deficit (defined by the Standardised Precipitation Index ‐ SPI) reached values of less than ‐2.0 across much of Eastern Europe to the Black Sea, classed as an Extreme Drought. Climate change impacts on national water resources are therefore likely to be severe and will require concerted and relatively urgent adaptation measures. Figure 1-2 – 30 day SPI Values of the 2007 Drought

Source: www.dmcsee.org

The effect of climate change on water resources is reflected through:

reduced volumes of rainfall, thus reducing water availability generally

changes in rainfall regime with pronounced fluctuations of flood and drought periods

reduced volumes of snowfall and consequently reduced water potential for surface and groundwater

shortening of the period of duration of snow cover, which will impact on groundwater supplies

more intensive melting of snow pack, consequently causing hazardous flooding events

increases in evaporation and evapotranspiration, which will have a destructive effect on waterbody ecosystems, especially for smaller hydrological systems in relatively warm areas.

1.1.3 Montenegro in Pre-accession to the EU

A strategic goal of Montenegro is to become a member of the EU. Under Article 72 of the SAA (April 2007), the country committed itself to harmonise its laws with those of the European Union. A key element of any pre-accession strategy is preparing the State, through a process of institution building, to adopt and apply the acquis. The Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) is the main tool used by the Commission to give financial and technical support to reforms in the 'enlargement countries'. Throughout the process leading to accession, the IPA funds build up the capacities of the countries and help the implementation of much needed reforms.

There is an extensive part of the EU acquis related to environmental protection. The establishment of an efficient system for approximating and harmonising with the acquis enhances the legal basis for environmental protection in Montenegro. The most directly relevant Laws to this water sector assessment are:

The Water Law (2007)

The Law on Environmental Protection (2008)

The Law on Hydrometeorological Services (2010) However, the European Commission 2012 progress report on Montenegro

4 emphasises a lack of progress in the

environment sector generally as follows: “Montenegro has made little progress in the area of environment and climate change. There are first signs of improvement with the adoption of legislation on waste management, air quality and chemicals and with regard to the administrative capacity and efforts undertaken towards alignment with the climate acquis. Further attention is needed in the areas of water quality and waste management. The effective implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment acquis needs be ensured.” “Considerable efforts are required to align with and implement environment and climate acquis, as well as to strengthen administrative capacity and inter-institutional cooperation. Environment and climate change considerations need to be more systemically taken into account in other policy fields and planning documents. The lack of political priority and adequate financing as well as limited awareness of environmental and climate requirements are hampering progress in this field. Preparations in this area are still at an early stage.” “With regard to water quality, no progress can be reported. Efforts to develop and adopt water quality legislation should be stepped up. Monitoring networks and water management plans are at an early stage of development, as is the infrastructure for waste water treatment.”

1.1.4 The EU Water Framework Directive

In 2000, the EU adopted the Water Framework Directive (WFD) which established the processes and procedures for the regulation and protection of waterbodies in Europe, comprising rivers, lakes, coastal waters and groundwater.

5

The WFD and the daughter Directives

6 7 8 remain the most

important pieces of European environmental legislation with which Montenegro’s systems and procedures will need to harmonise.

4 European Commission COM (2012) 600 ‘Enlargement Strategy and

Main Challenges 2012-2013’ 5 Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC

6 Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC

7 Priority Substances Directive 2008/105/EC

8 Assessment and Management of Flood Risks Directive 2007/60/EC

http://www.dmcsee.org/



The WFD summarises much of the European experience of pollution, water quality and ecosystem management, and it represents a new and comprehensive way of source-to-sink thinking, where the primary goals are to achieve the desired quality of the water resources, and quantity sufficient to support quality objectives and other varying ecosystem and economic needs. National frameworks for groundwater management, flood prevention and control of hazardous substances in the water environment should be closely linked to the systems and processes of the overall Water Framework Directive. The Directive establishes environmental governance by natural geographical units, known as River Basin Districts (RBDs) to be implemented by River Basin District Authorities (RBDAs), which are the so called ‘competent authority’.

River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) must be prepared for each RBD and should bring together an analysis of the characteristics of the water bodies with a programme of measures to address major problems. RBMPs are revised on six yearly cycles.

It calls on Member States to cooperate on cross-boundary RBDs

The Directive establishes a planning system at the level of RBDs, and calls for extensive public consultation and participation in river basin planning

It establishes the principle of the recovery of the costs of water services, 'including environmental and resource costs' — this effectively recognises the value of ecosystem services.

These measures aim to bring the surface water bodies in the river basin to 'good status' by 2015; good status for surface waters involves both chemical characteristics (chemical status) and the health of their ecosystems (ecological status); groundwater bodies should attain good chemical status and good quantitative status (in that abstractions should not exceed natural aquifer recharge). The relevance of the WFD to Montenegro is that the data collection and information management requirements of developing effective River Basin Management Plans are very considerable, and both the legislative framework and the national environmental monitoring networks must be in a high state of competence (fitness for purpose) in order to deliver all that the WFD requires. In the broadest sense, the WFD may be summarised as ‘an environmental governance framework’ that ensures the sustainable use of national water resources. This is not necessarily the same as developing resilience to climate change.

1.1.5 Developing Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change

According to the IPCC, vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed; its sensitivity; and adaptive capacity (IPCC, 2001).

Vulnerability = f (Exposure, Sensitivity, 1/Adaptive Capacity) The greater the exposure or sensitivity to climate change, the greater is the vulnerability. However, adaptive capacity is inversely related to vulnerability. So, the greater the adaptive capacity, the lesser is the vulnerability. Broadly, Montenegro in common with most of south-east Europe (SEE countries) has a high level of exposure and sensitivity to climate change. Exposure is difficult to reduce. Increased temperatures, reduced water resources and amplified extremes seem inevitable. Sensitivity can be reduced through population and agriculture water use reduction programmes for example, but the most rapid resilience methodology is probably by increasing adaptive capacity. Adaptive capacity refers to the potential or capability of a system to adjust to climate change, including climate variability and extremes, so as to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with consequences. Information technology and communication is generally regarded as a key adaptive measure. The Government’s Initial Communication on Climate Change (2010) identified a significant lack of national preparedness in adaptive capacity: “At this point there are no national strategies or adaptation measures and estimates of the expected mechanisms of self-adaptation” “For now, there is no formal strategy or government policy which treats this problem integrally and provides recommendations for adaptation”.

1

The Montenegro Government however identified in its national communication some urgent corrective measures:

Prepare a cadastre of water resources, map each water resource with all its characteristics and identify areas of potential danger

Water resources of fundamental importance, such as water supply, have to be protected from uncontrolled exploitation and a strategy-plan developed to protect them against the effects of climate change

Establish a high level of information exchange among different institutions dealing with water resources for the purpose of timely identification of any changes in water resources and undertaking adequate protection measures

Provide a modern automated measuring and control system for the management of water resources

Develop numerical models for the purpose of daily monitoring of the status of water resources, including forecasting ability for flood-risk situations



This UNDP assessment is therefore a further step in this process, suggesting practical ways forward, as set out below.

1.2 Terms of Reference of this Report

1.2.1 Scope of Work

The background and scope of the assessment are detailed in Annex 1. Whilst the scope is very wide ranging, the extremely short timescale will be noted. Inevitably therefore each component remains an overview of the key elements established, but important additional detail is included where it has been readily available or is considered particularly relevant. This assessment takes a practical “action plan” approach (as opposed to many of the more high level international reports circulating in Montenegro incorporating long lists of not wholly achievable or practical recommendations). This Report seeks to identify at three levels: ((a) urgent priority needs (b) medium term regulatory needs (c) longer-term preparatory needs), the principal gaps or weaknesses in the data collection systems and the institutional structure and coordination weaknesses that may act as constraints to:

Disaster Risk Reduction and preparedness

Montenegro National Water Master Plan delivery

Water Framework Directive compliance

Climate Change mitigation and adaptive ness

1.2.2 Main Deliverables as per ToR

Hydrology data, hydrology and meteorology variables reviewed and related recommendations prepared

Water quality parameters reviewed and related recommendations prepared

Water sector related GIS data / maps in Montenegro reviewed and related recommendations prepared

Europe GIS data layers covering South Eastern Europe including Montenegro reviewed and related recommendations prepared

Design and structure of Water cadastre for Montenegro developed (schematisation only)

Recommendations on possible institutional arrangements for optimal management of water sector in Montenegro

1.2.3 Report Structure

For clarity, the Report attempts to broadly follow the same framework for each main topic or theme assessed. Typically there is a technical assessment of the issues within the context of the three main drivers of this Report, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), Water Framework Directive (WFD) compliance, and Climate Change.

The main gaps and issues are then identified. The detail contained in these sections will probably be of interest only to specialists. However, at the end of each Section we summarise in Tabular form a general ‘Needs Assessment’, highlighting the gap or need, the recommended remedial measures, and the expected outcome or benefit. The principal driver (i.e. DRR, Water Framework or Climate Change) is listed. Recommendations are made in each case. Each proposal is further prioritised by three time scales, Urgent Remedial Action, Medium Term Necessary and Long Term Desirable. Urgent Remedial Action - The first relates to issues that we have identified that are directly compromising the quality and integrity of the data network, disaster management objectives, Water Framework Directive compliance or climate change preparedness, depending on the Section being reviewed, and in our opinion require urgent attention. Timescale: 12-24 months. Medium Term Necessary – This addresses identified future needs that may not necessarily be at the forefront of Government or Institutional thinking at the present time, but lessons or best practice from other countries strongly suggest that these measures are likely to be required in the near future in order to properly address national requirements, trans-boundary cooperation or international reporting compliance in the medium future. Timescale: 2-5 years. Long-term Desirable – Clearly all States operate in different ways and have different national priorities, technical resources and budgets. Long-term environmental planning may therefore result in different outcomes. Here we list where appropriate some proposals for what may be most suitable for Montenegro in the longer term, again based principally on best practice. Typically these measures are at a higher level and structural, requiring realignment or reallocation of institutional responsibilities. Timescale: 5-10 years. The main Sections are (hyperlink direct): Section 1 - Introduction (this Section) Section 2 - Hydrometeorological Networks Section 3 - Geographic Data Availability and Needs Section 4 – Conceptual Framework for the Water Cadastre Section 5 – Water Sector Coordination and Workflows



2. A REVIEW OF THE HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL NETWORKS

2.1 Hydrometeorological Institute Overview

The Institute of Hydrometeorology and Seismology (IHMS) reports to the Ministry of Tourism and Sustainable Development, (previously reporting to the Ministry of Environment). It also operates under the name of the Hydrological and Meteorological Service of Montenegro. According to the Law on Hydrometeorological Services, the IHMS has a mandate for the following activities:

Observation and analysing of meteorological, hydrological, ecological, agrometeorological, hydrographic and seismic parameters; analysing, processing and storage of measured and observed parameters

Production of studies, analysis and information about climate, state of the ground, air, surface and underground waters and coastal sea

Forecasting and dissemination of data from the fields of meteorology, hydrology, hydrography, ecology, agrometeorology and seismology

Control and estimation of quality of surface and ground waters, precipitation and air quality, based on analysis of physico-chemical, biochemical and microbiological parameters

Providing data, information and reports for the neccesity of maritime, air and road traffic, electro-power industry, water management, agriculture, engineering, tourism, protection of lifes and goods, public and others

Informing and alerting responsible Agencies during emergency situations

Execution of international obligations in the areas of meteorology, hydrology, hydrography, seismology, water and air quality

Figure 2-1 – Institutional Structure of IHMS

Source: IHMS 2013

2.2 Meteorological Network

2.2.1 International Support Initiatives

Dating from the Yugoslav period, Montenegro operated an extensive and high quality network of weather and precipitation observation stations. The earliest records date from 1949, and in essence there are systematic daily records available since that date.



The meteorological department responsible for the meteorological network has benefited significantly in terms of resources and capacity building in recent years from two major initiatives:

South-East European Climate Change Framework Action Plan for Adaptation (SEE/CCFAP-A), 2008. This is the outcome of a joint effort of interested South East European (SEE) countries in creating a common platform for sub-regional cooperation in climate change, funded by the Norwegian Government.

Regional Programme on Disaster Risk Reduction in South East Europe Activity 2 (WMO), IPA 2009. This work was conducted under the IPA/2009/199-922 project “Regional Cooperation in South Eastern Europe for meteorological, hydrological and climate data management and exchange to support Disaster Risk Reduction” funded by the European Commission (EC) Directorate General for Enlargement, through its Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA).

2.2.2 Data Collection from Active Stations

As at 2012, the meteorological observation network in Montenegro (Figure 2-2) consists principally of 9 Automatic Weather Stations (AWS), 15 climate stations, and 18 standalone precipitation gauges. Of the 9 AWS, 4 are linked to the International Meteorological Organisation (IMO) global network (Bar, Nikšid, Podgorica and Pljevlja) where synoptic data are transmitted. Automatic Weather Stations These form the core of the meteorological network, and record data every 10 minutes (1440 per day), which is transmitted via the GSM network to the IHMS server at Podgorica. These AWS are in an impressive state of functionality as data on most meteorological variables is available 24/7 on the IHMS website as a live feed (www.meteo.co.me). The transmitted data are processed and stored using the CLIDATA software package. CLIDATA, developed by the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute is primarily intended for archiving of climatology data and for administration of climatology stations and station observations, and runs in an ORACLE™ database environment. Variables collected at most stations include minimum and maximum air temperature, atmospheric pressure, relative humidity, precipitation quantity, wind speed and direction, insolation and sunshine. Soil temperature is collected at a few stations only. The highest AWS is at Žabljak at 1450m, operated since 1958. Snow depth is measured at all of the 9 AWSs, including the Žabljak and Kolašin stations. A notable variable NOT collected at any AWS or climate station is A-PAN evaporation.

Data stored via CLIDATA on the ORACLE server is accessible through a range of pre-defined interfaces, and virtually any form of aggregated query is feasible, such as n-day averages, monthly and annual totals, or extreme values. Climate Stations At 2010 there were 20 climate stations (since reduced to fifteen by 2012) operated by resident Observers, who take manual readings from WMO standard equipment at 07, 1400 and 2100 hours every day depending on the variable. Data are logged onto hard-copy meteorological logbooks. Data are posted monthly to IHMS in Podgorica where it is added to the CLIDATA database. All hard-copy data is archived. Figure 2-2 – Meteorological Network in Montenegro

Main Automatic Weather Station

Climate Station

Precipitation Station

Precipitation Stations Prior to 2006 there were approximately 80 WMO Standard Precipitation Gauges monitored daily throughout Montenegro. This valuable network has been in operation since the early 1950’s, although the network was much larger in Yugoslav times, reportedly in excess of 100 stations. In 2006 the network was downgraded further from 80 to 65 stations, and thereafter a further 48 stations were closed. In 2012 we understand that there are now only 18 observer operated stations monitoring precipitation (but this excludes automated and climate stations). The highest precipitation station was sited at Trsa at 1480m, operated since 1956. However, we understand that this station was closed by 2012.

http://www.meteo.co.me/



Precipitation is recorded at 0700 hrs each day into hard-copy Logbooks. Data are transferred monthly to Podgorica where it is added to the CLIDATA database.

2.2.3 Processing of Active Data and Data Quality

The short timescale of the study precludes a detailed quality audit of the meteorological data. However, IHMS reports that the following quality control elements are in place:

Measurement via all instruments or manual observations is generally in accordance with the criteria set by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), confirmed by the Consultant.

There are several levels of data quality control operated by the Department. The first is a basic pre-entry check that the values fall between prescribed limits. The software package CLIDATA than conducts formula based checks and flags Warnings and Errors. Operators make judgements on the highlighted data. The highest level of check uses an ArcView™ GIS Module to establish spatial consistency between neighbouring values. Discrepancies are colour coded to facilitate decision making as to accept or reject the data value(s).

IHMS reports that typically within the main AWS and climate stations, for the variables wind-speed and humidity the rate of missing data is less than 5%. For precipitation the data rate is up to 10%, and 15% for sunshine duration. For the manual observation Precipitation stations the missing data rate can be as high as 30%. Calibration of the instrumentation is reportedly carried out once every 2 to 5 years, and we understand that this is carried out by the Serbian Hydrometeorological Institute on an ad hoc basis. However, the Report on the Regional Programme on Disaster Risk Reduction in South East Europe questioned the reliability of the Montenegro meteorological data due to a lack of a national calibration system. As far as we can determine this may still be the case, although generally the data acquisition systems and quality control appear to be at an acceptable standard.

2.2.4 Live Updates, Forecasts and Emergency Warnings

Meteorological data for the 9 AWS such as air temperature, pressure, wind-speed and precipitation are continuously updated with a few hours delay to the IHMS website and demonstrate the effectiveness of the AWS network. The Weather Forecast Unit regularly produces very-short range, short-range and extended short-range forecasts (up to 5 days) for the territory of Montenegro. The monitoring system at HMIS incorporates various alarm thresholds and ‘early warnings’ of potential extreme weather. In such instances these trigger alerts to personnel at IHMS, who than make direct communication (telephone and email) to colleagues at the Sector for Emergency Management and Civil Protection, (a department of the Ministry of Interior and Public Administration).

Figure 2-3 – IHMS Web Update of Live Meteorological Data

The National Strategy for Emergency Situations then defines various levels of response depending on the emergency.

2.2.5 Historical Data Archive and Yearbooks

We have been unable to audit in any detail the historical data archive. This will largely be in the form of Observation Logbooks dating back to the 1950s. It was reported by WMO

9 that a significant amount of the

historical data still remains to be digitised, and that there is a general lack of data availability within accessible and linked databases to other hydrological data such as river flow for example. Although a conventional Hydrometeorological Yearbook has not been produced for many years, IHMS meteorological Department produces an electronic Yearbook focused on climate monitoring and assessment.

2.2.6 Principal Gaps and Issues Identified

Table 2-1 summarises the main technical gaps and issues identified from our brief assessment. Each issue is prioritised by three time scales, Urgent Remedial Action, Medium Term Required and Long Term Desirable. Broadly, within the Meteorological Department there is a priority focus on short-term weather forecasting and monitoring for extreme values. This is of course one of main mandates of the Meteorological Department and is therefore understandable. Data capture and quality control of current data seems to be at an adequate international standard. The single most urgent issue is the persistent closure of daily precipitation stations, now down to only 18 Stations from more than 100 pre-1990. We consider that this has gone well beyond acceptable levels. Precipitation is THE driving force of the national water resources. If precipitation is being inadequately observed spatially, more interpolation of fewer

9 Strengthening Multi-Hazard Early Warning

Systems and Risk Assessment in the Western Balkans and Turkey: Assessment of Capacities, Gaps and Needs, (IPA/2009/199-922).



stations is required, and this interpolation may result in significant errors in water resource calculations. The greater the reductions, the greater the calculation errors, especially in a territory such as Montenegro that has significant variation in elevation and topography.

i) Water resource and water balance calculations that are +/- 30% for example are not helpful to establishing critical national water resources, and therefore also make a nonsense of attempting climate change impacts of say +/- 10-15% i.e. the input data error margins may be greater than the expected climatic changes.

ii) Hydrological assessments of smaller river basins for water resource or hydro-energy assessments will also be particularly affected by a degraded network

With regard to longer term issues, especially: - Rainfall-runoff modelling - Water balance calculations - Climate change modelling It is a main requirement to fully digitise all historical (and current) data, AND make these data accessible via some form of unified database that can be accessed by other IHMS staff. For example, there are no statistical assessments of long-term climate variability available. These will be needed in future. Rainfall-runoff modelling will be required in the future for modelling of floods and droughts (linking meteorological and hydrological data), and critical national water balance assessments are also absent at this time, for which long duration representative time-series of combined meteorological and hydrological data are required.

2.3 Surface Water Hydrometric Network


Dating from the Yugoslav period, Montenegro operated an extensive and high quality network of hydrometric (discharge measurement) stations. The earliest records date from 1948. At its maximum there were approximately 75 stations in operation. A significant number of these stations were discontinued in the period 1992 – 1996 coinciding with the height of the Yugoslav conflict. The hydrology department responsible for the hydrometric stations has benefited significantly in terms of resources and capacity building in recent years from two major initiatives:

Bilateral Project Cooperation Programme – A Masterplan for the Hydrological Network and Data Acquisition for Montenegro, 2006. This is the outcome of bilateral aid from the Norwegian Government exercised through the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE).



Figure 2-4 – Active and Proposed Surface Hydrometric Network Stations with Water Quality Sampling

Automated WL Station without water quality

Automated WL Station with water quality

Non-automated WL Station with water quality

Cehotina

Tara

Lim

Piva

Zeta

Moraca

Ibar

Bojana

Lim

Adriatic River Basin

Black Sea River Basin



The principal objective was to prepare a Masterplan for a rehabilitated national gauging network. The project identified that in the period 1990 – 2005 the network suffered a lack of maintenance, upgrading and modernisation due to a lack of resources. The last formally published Hydrometric Yearbook was in 1987. The improved network proposed 51 stations, 32 in the Black Sea river basin and 19 in the Adriatic river basin. Of the 51 stations, 40 were existent stations in varying states of functionality, and 11 completely new stations. The location of the 51 stations is shown in Figure 2-4. Automated water level stations are shown in Yellow or Blue, depending on whether water quality is also monitored at the station. Related capacity building projects through the same bilateral aid provided funds for automisation of some of the stations, and new stations in catchments where hydro-energy schemes are being considered. The project made reference to the poor state of the national discharge database, and subsequently recommended the installation of the WISKI water management software, which was installed in 2009. Contrary to the donor’s ‘close-out’ report which suggests that the WISKI database is fully and adequately functioning, this assessment has in fact established that the WISKI system is NOT being formally used, there was minimal training given to IHMS staff for this highly complex software, and there is a significant lack of expertise in its use within IHMS generally.

CLEAR Project, 1212.004A‐08, financed by CEI funds (Central European Initiative, Special Fund for Climate and Environment Protection) to establish a Climate and Environment Protection Programme for Montenegro, 2009, see under 2.4.


Automated Water Level Stations These form the core of the surface hydrometric network. Currently there are 9 functioning automatic stations in the Adriatic river basin (including 2 tide level gauges at Bar and Kotor), and 11 automatic stations in the Black Sea basin. In terms of water level only, these 20 stations are in an impressive state of functionality as data is transmitted 24/7 via the GSM network to the IHMS, and thence to the website as a live feed for the two river basins. The equipment used is exclusively from the OTT German hydrometric company (www.ott.com) and IHMS has reported that the quality and reliability of the equipment is generally excellent. Water level at 17 of the stations is detected via an OTT Thalimedes™ float operated shaft encoder. This incorporates a long-duration data logger which can be interfaced to a GSM modem to remotely determine water level.

Other Hydrometric Stations Currently there is one Hydrometric Station in the Adriatic basin manually observed (Gornje polje) and two manual observation Stations in the Black Sea basin (Plav and Gradac). Observations of Stage are recorded daily, and data are collected 4x per year when an IHMS operative visits the Station. Figure 2-4 is the only available map in IHMS of the proposed ‘Masterplan’ for the hydrometric stations. It has been somewhat difficult to establish the precise operational status of the remaining hydrometric stations in Montenegro due to a confusion of data collection and storage methods and software processes. Table 2-1 attempts to simplify the key elements.


The 20 Automated Water Level Stations are linked via the GSM network to a PC at IHMS running the HYDRAS 3 software which controls collection, processing and interpretation of data from sensors and measurement stations. Data are not ‘pushed’ from the station; rather they are ‘pulled’ by manually dialling into the station modem, something of an operational weakness at the present time. At this point a data dump to the HYDRAS database takes place, where data can be interrogated. The Hydrology Department operates a simple ‘control room’ whereby a live feed from any of the 20 active stations can be seen on screen through the HYDRAS graphical interface (see Figure 2-5). SQL type queries of the data stored in HYDRAS allow tabulation and graphical presentation of information, including Daily Mean Flows, annual minima and maxima etc. With regard to water level data accuracy, IHMS report that an engineer visits each hydrometric station approximately 4x per year. Previously this frequency was monthly. Therefore the quality control and error checking of the network has been significantly downgraded due to resource limitations. Water level data are therefore held in HYDRAS which represents the principal hydrometric database at the present time. Although IHMS has one copy of the WISKI software, it is NOT currently used as the main hydrometric database, due to a lack of training in the software. This is discussed further under 2.3.6. It will be evident that the automatic water level data can be presented in classic ‘Year Book’ style, and it would not take significant additional effort to collate these data into a publicly available web-based or PDF format Year Book.

http://www.ott.com/



Table 2-1 – Active and Inactive Flow Gauging Stations with Data Capacity – Adriatic Basin

Station River Basin Operational Status

Data Capture & Telemetry Calibration Highest Flood Stage (m)

Total Current Meterings (n)

Highest Current Meter (m)

Last Current Meter (yyyy)

Q 10

Score

Plavnica Skadarsko jezero Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM - 5.880 - - - 24

Ckla Skadarsko jezero Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM - 5.690 - - - 12

Brodska njiva Skadarsko jezero Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge, no cableway 2.820 116 2.130 2012 (5) 37

Fraskanjel Bojana Active OTT PLS + LogoSens + real-time GSM Staff gauge, no cableway 6.380 0 0 - 23

Međuriječje Morača Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge with cableway 5.270 94 2.320 2012 (4) 48

Pernica Morača Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge with cableway 5.540 89 3.240 2012 (4) 48

Zlatica Morača Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge with cableway 10.32 77 5.560 2012 (4) 38

Podgorica Morača Active OTT PLS + LogoSens + real-time GSM Staff gauge with cableway 12.16 75 9.080 2012 (4) 48

Podgorica Ribnica Morača Not Active None Staff gauge with cableway 2.630 34 1.130 2002 (8) 19

Trgaj Morača Not Active None None - - - - -

Gornje polje Zeta Active Manual Observer Staff gauge, no cableway 1.400 58 0.720 2012 (4) 29

Nikšid Zeta Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Duklov most Zeta Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge, no cableway 2.430 64 2.030 2012 (4) 48

Dučice Zeta Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Rošca Zeta Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Danilovgrad Zeta Not Active None Staff gauge, no cableway 12.950 19 6.620 2012 (4) 24

Vranjske njive Zeta Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Šasko jezero Šasko jezero Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Nudo Trebišnica Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Table 2-2 – Active and Inactive Flow Gauging Stations with Data Capacity – Black Sea Basin

Station River Basin Operational Status

Data Capture & Telemetry Calibration Highest Flood Stage (m)

Total Current Meterings (n)

Highest Current Meter (m)

Last Current Meter (yyyy)

Q Score

Rožaje Ibar Not Active None Staff gauge, no cableway 1.860 81 0.800 2009 (1) 25

Bad Ibar Not Active None Staff gauge, no cableway 1.210 34 0.700 2006 (2) 6

D.Vusanje Grlja Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge, no cableway 1.910 68 0.990 2012 (4) 33

Gusinje Grnčar Not Active None None 1.860 63 0.700 2004 (5) 18

Plavsko jezero Plavsko jezero Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Plav Lim Active Manual Observer Staff gauge, no cableway 2.700 59 1.110 2012 (4) 28

Meteh Komarača Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Murino Murinski potok Not Active None None - - - - -

Andrijevica Lim Not Active None None 3.050 46 1.360 2009 (1) 28

Andrijevica Zlorečica Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge, no cableway 2.500 69 0.660 2012 (4) 27

Berane Lim Not Active None None 5.10 58 2.680 2009 (1) 31

10

Denotes general ‘Quality Score’ of flow data between 1990 – 2012, based on sliding scale: 48=Very Good (up to date and fully processed); 36=Acceptable (Either some missing level data or flow data not processed, or level

based on daily observation); 24=Deficient (Numerous missing years of level data OR level data not processed to discharge); 12=Poor (Manual observation of level but no discharge calculation, or substantial missing data).



Ravna rijeka Ljuboviđa Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge, no cableway 3.110 73 0.880 2012 (4) 48

Bilelo Polje Lim Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge, no cableway 3.980 12 1.340 2012 (3) 38

Gubavač Bjel. Bistrica Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge, no cableway 1.540 65 0.480 2012 (4) 20

Dobrakovo Lim Not Active None None 3.450 31 1.800 2009 (1) 18

Crna poljana Tara Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge, no cableway 3.440 81 2.560 2012 (4) 36

Trebaljevo Tara Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge, no cableway 4.970 53 0.720 2012 (4) 48

Mojkovac Tara Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Bistrica Tara Not Active None None 6.340 46 0.940 2009 (1) 31

Brštanovica Tara Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Timar Bukovica Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge, no cableway 1.940 22 1.000 2012 (4) 7

Bijela Bijela Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge, no cableway 1.940 23 0.590 2012 (4) 7

Šavnik Pridvorica Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Duži Komarnica Not Active None None 6.480 75 3.240 2011 (1) 29

Ribnjak Vrbnica Active OTT Thalimedes + real-time GSM Staff gauge, no cableway 1.430 23 0.740 2012 (4) 3

Dirovidi Dehotina Not Active None None 2.270 56 0.520 2006 (4) 35

Pljevlja Dehotina Not Active None None 2.350 59 0.750 2006 (4) 28

Zabrđe Vezišnica Active OTT Thalimedes + on-site download Staff gauge, no cableway 2.520 83 0.830 2012 (4) 48

Gradac Dehotina Active Manual Observer Staff gauge, no cableway 4.250 66 0.860 2012 (4) 34

Biogradsko jezero Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Crno jezero 1 Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Crno jezero 2 Not Constructed None None - - - - -

Source: IHMS, January 2013.

Table 2-3 – Summary of River Flow Gauging Station Operational Readiness

River Basin Total Flow Stations

Stations active In 2012

Active Stations + cableway

11

Active Stations + cableway + calibration

12

Adriatic River Basin 16 8 (50%) 4 (25%) 4 (25%)

Black Sea River Basin 28 13 (46%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Table 2-4 – Summary of River Flow Gauging Station Data Quality

River Basin Total Flow Stations

Status ‘Very Good’

Q = 40+

Status ‘Acceptable’

Q = 30-39

Status ‘Deficient’ Q = 20-29

Status ‘Poor’

Q = <20

Status ‘No Data’

Q = 0 Adriatic River Basin 16 4 (25%) 2 (12%) 4 (25%) 2 (12%) 4 (25%)

Black Sea River Basin 28 3 (11%) 7 (25%) 7 (25%) 6 (21%) 5 (18%)

11

Denotes a Flow Gauging Station equipped with cableway for current metering of high flows 12

Denotes that a recent Current Metering is available since 2010



Figure 2-5 – Example Output from HYDRAS 3™

2.3.4 Live Updates, Forecasts and Emergency Warnings

As for the early-warning system of the Meteorological Department, HYDRAS incorporates various alarm thresholds and ‘early warnings’ of potential extreme water level. In such instances these trigger alerts to personnel at IHMS, who than make direct communication (telephone and email) to colleagues at the Sector for Emergency Management and Civil Protection, (a department of the Ministry of Interior and Public Administration). Currently the Hydrology Department manually posts water level updates to the IHMS website several times each day. This capability is impressive, and clearly the technical infrastructure is in place and working satisfactorily to deliver some simplistic early warning capability from remote stations. This system could however be significantly improved by increased automation and connection between the IHMS based HYDRAS server and the web-site. Also, alternative software packages such as WISKI offer much greater capability in terms of continuous hydrographs, automatic colour coded water level alerts, and flood forecasting.

Figure 2-6 – IHMS Web Update of Live Hydrometric Data

The IHMS has achieved some impressive capability with very limited staff and resources. However, one should look to ‘state of the art’ hydrometeorological web based services to see what can be achieved through intensive use of information technology, and in this respect the Czech Hydrometeorological Service is one of the world leaders: http://portal.cIHMS.cz/portal On this website the location and operational status of every monitoring station is easily accessible. The level of flood emergency is also shown with an easily recognisable colour code – Green, Yellow, Red etc. Further, under the water quality pages, the Czech NHMS even provides a full assessment of water quality conditions for each waterbody in accordance with the Water Framework Directive. Figure 2-7 – Web Based Flood Warning – Czech NHMS

http://portal.chmi.cz/portal



Source: http://hydro.cIHMS.cz/hpps/hpps_main.php

2.3.5 Historical Data Archive

The historical flow data archive is in a particularly complex and confused status. Traditionally, one of the major outputs from any well resourced and effectively functioning national hydrometeorological service (NHMS) was an annual Hydrometeorological Year Book. Typically this would produce daily, monthly and annual summaries of water level and discharge, and precipitation from most of the important monitoring stations. Not only does such a publication act as a clear indicator of an effective NHMS, but it provides a critical archive of historical data, easily accessible to professionals and the general public alike. We understand that the last formally published Hydrometric Year Book dates from 1987. Since that date, there is no clear evidence that the processing and quality control of critical hydrometric data has received appropriate levels of staffing or resources, particularly with regard to the production of discharge data. This is a significant failure of the system. Although a detailed audit has not been carried out on the historical data, our anecdotal assessment is as follows:

Pre 1987, most water level and discharge data are archived in hard-copy Year Books and have been transposed to ASCII based data files or in some cases EXCEL spreadsheets by IHMS staff. The Yugoslav NHMS of this period operated a world class service, and the quality of the stage and discharge data can probably be accepted without question.

With limited resources and training, IHMS staff have made good attempts to import the historic data into the WISKI database, BUT have done little further analysis on this critical resource, due to a lack of training and direction. For example, there are no statistical evaluations of annual flood maxima, low flow n-day minima etc. We are advised that of the 75 stations historically available, 45 stations have daily stage, daily flow, maximum monthly stage and maximum monthly flow entered into WISKI up to 2004/05. The remaining stations (30) are NOT available in WISKI and remain as unprocessed ASCII/EXCEL data files.

17 of the Automated Water Level Stations also have 15 minute stage data imported into WISKI on an experimental trial basis for the period terminating 2010. However no further action has been taken.

Current Meterings (sometimes also called ‘gaugings’) have also been imported into WISKI for most Stations, but the Rating Curve tool SKED (a module of WISKI) is not used due to lack of training.

Pre-determined Rating Curves have generally NOT been imported into WISKI, only one as an example. Consequently there is no current linkage between

archived (or current) stage data and the all important discharge calculations.

The absence of processed national discharge data for many Stations is an urgent and serious problem, and we have considered this further under its own section, see 2.3.6. Monitoring of water level, which has been carried out to a reasonably effective standard since 2008 approximately (via the automated water level stations), is adequate for rudimentary flood warning and flood frequency analysis but nothing more. ALL national water resource assessments, water balance evaluations, flood discharge estimates and the whole concept of the ecological status of waterbodies under the WFD rely on accurate and up to date discharge computations from the national hydrometric network. It is therefore critical that water level data from all Stations is continuously processed with good quality rating curves, and that the national flow archive is as far as possible both up to date (i.e. not more than 12 months behind), and accessible to environment professionals.

2.3.6 Detailed Audit of the National Discharge Calculation Capability

Due to the critical importance of this aspect, we have in conjunction with the hydrometric staff of IHMS carried out a detailed and objective assessment of the current discharge calculation capability. This assessment will be of use not only to IHMS staff, but also to future Consultants and other external experts engaged to assist IHMS. It contains significant useful information to specialists. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 summarise the gauging station audit for the Adriatic and Black Sea River Basins respectively for the period 1990 – 2012. We have based the assessment on the proposed 51 hydrometric stations proposed under the Norwegian Masterplan. In this case note that several of the Stations are not yet even constructed. Additionally, there are many Stations not listed here which are discontinued but still do have important data records, comprising therefore the ‘historical data archive’, see 2.3.5. The Tables show the operational status of each Station, the exact monitoring equipment used (including telemetry), and various important indicators concerning the quality of flow data. Quality can be defined in a number of ways; however for a discharge measuring Station, the following aspects are critical:

The length of the gauging record. A long record is MUCH more valuable than a short record.

The number of current meter readings. More readings produce a more reliable Rating Curve.

The maximum height of the current meter readings. The closer this value to the highest observed Stage, the more accurate the Rating Curve at high flows.

The date of the latest current meter reading. Out of date readings make the discharge calculation very unreliable, and near worthless.

http://hydro.chmi.cz/hpps/hpps_main.php



On this basis we have developed an indicative ‘Quality Score’ to rate each individual Station, based on an objective scoring method. For example, a score of 48 typically means that the Station records water level automatically (continuously), probably has a long data record, it has a recent set of current meterings to support the rating curve, and the water level data have been converted to discharge values. The expectation therefore is that this Station will have a ‘Very Good’ discharge record. Conversely, a Station with a score of less than 20 will be classed as ‘Poor’, but this may arise through a number of different permutations; for example, the water level data may be continuous, but not processed into discharge data (due to a lack of a rating curve), or there may only be a short period of record. Generally there is enough information in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 to determine the cause of a low score. The detailed breakdowns of discharge calculation on which these Tables are based are available within IHMS (Hydrology). Tables 2-3 and 2-4 give a broad summary which is explained in greater detail in 2.3.7. There are some important positive findings. First IHMS continues to undertake current meterings each year, typically 4 per year. This is critical to maintain the relevance of the rating curve(s). Secondly, most of the Stations have a significant number of current meterings, which provides greatly improved accuracy in the rating curve. However, referring to Table 2-3 and 2-4, the overall position is not ideal, and requires urgent remedial action. For example, in the Adriatic river basin, only four out 16 Stations (25%) are in active use with a cableway to provide a reliable calibration of high flows. In short, 75% of the Stations cannot reliably measure high flows, which is of critical importance for flood risk analysis. The situation is even worse in the Black Sea river basin where there are no Stations at all capable of reliably measuring high discharge. Less than half of the proposed Stations for the Black Sea basin are active in 2012. With regard to data quality, less than 40% of the Stations in the Adriatic basin have a data record that is acceptable or better. In the Black Sea basin, only 3 out of 28 Stations (11%) have a discharge record that can be classed as ‘Very Good’. 37% of the Stations in the Adriatic basin may be classed as ‘Deficient’ or ‘Poor’ in terms of discharge data quality. In the Black Sea it is 46%. It may be expected that a well resourced and properly functioning flow monitoring network should be at least at 75% ‘Very Good’ status.


Equipment Checking and Field Validation With regard to water level data accuracy, IHMS report that an engineer visits each hydrometric station approximately 4x per year. Previously this frequency was monthly. Therefore the

quality control and error checking of the network has been significantly downgraded due to resource limitations. Whilst this is understandable, (and evidence of equipment malfunction will probably be immediately noticed at the control room) there is a continual risk that due to calibration error significant loss of valuable data may occur from any automated station. The point is that without more frequent checking, the precise time at which the error occurred cannot be identified, and hence all the data recorded since the last calibration check would have to be discarded. High Water Level Calibration IHMS is to be commended on the large number of current meterings carried out at most Stations (See Table 2-1 and 2-2). However, it is of critical importance that each Station Rating Curve extends accurately to a high level. This can only be done with a current metering at that same high level to provide a reliable calibration. In the great majority of cases, there is a significant gap between the highest recorded Stage (water level), and the highest current meter value. For example, at Station Zlatica on the Morača, the reliable rating curve extends only as far as 5.56m, whereas the highest recorded Stage is 10.32m. The Rating Curve is therefore being extrapolated by 4.76m, probably with a very high margin of error in the discharge calculation. This degree of separation between observed Stage and calibrated Stage (40-50%) applies to most of the hydrometric Stations in Montenegro, and is a critical problem. The IHMS is fully aware of this issue, but has not found the resources to address the problem. For example, many of the Stations have been vandalised and the cableways stolen. It is not economic to keep replacing them. Even where cableways are in place, the very high velocities of flow in steep river channels make the conventional current metering process very difficult. The modern solution to this problem (and demonstrated by the Norwegian project in Montenegro) is to use transportable boats mounted with Acoustic Doppler Current Profiling (ADCP) technology. These systems essentially profile the river, and measure the flow velocity integrated across the profile. They are accurate and reliable (Figure 2-8). Figure 2-8 – Flow Measurement using ADCP Technology



IHMS reports that the system seemed easy to use and produced reliable results. Such systems are expensive, BUT this cost must be offset against the high cost of installing and maintaining cableways, plus the advantage that the ADCP system is highly portable and can therefore be used in virtually any location. We would strongly recommend that IHMS prepares a Cost-Benefit assessment to evaluate the financial effectiveness of purchasing say two portable ADCP systems compared to restoring at least 20 hydrometric Stations with new cableways. Wirth regard to accurate determination of Rating Curves using statistical methods, the SKED module of WISKI can be used independently to analyse current meterings with sophisticated methods. Staff training would of course be required. Current Flow Data Processing IHMS is encountering a number of technical and resource difficulties with regard to the processing of flow data nationally. First, although many of the Stations are still visited to obtain low level current meterings, there is a significant backlog of processing of the data into useable discharge data. For example, there are only 7 Stations with a maximum quality score of 48 (up to date measurement AND processing of water level to discharge). For the large majority of the Stations, water level data are not being processed into discharge data. This is especially the case after 2003/05, where previously discharge data were available but not since. Stations Zlatica, Podgorica Ribnica, Rozaje, Gusinje, Andrijevica, Berane, Bijelo Polje, Bistrica, Duzi, Cirovici and Pljevlja are all examples of where discharge data are no longer available whereas previously they had long and complete records. This downgrading of discharge processing within IHMS is of significant concern. Systems and resources must be sufficient to maintain the national datasets. A current staff of two who have main responsibility for maintaining the flow database for all of Montenegro is clearly inadequate. Transboundary Stations We have identified that several important ‘trans-boundary’ hydrometric Stations are not functioning in terms of discharge data (see Figure 2-4). These include Bac on the River Ibar, Dobrakovo on the River Lim, Ckla and Fraskanjel on the Moraça, Brštanovica on the River Tara, and Duzi on the River Piva. These are critically important Stations because they are the last points of measurement for discharge AND pollutant load calculations across the national borders. It will be a firm requirement under EU reporting obligations to monitor and report from these locations.

We strongly urge IHMS to fund the rehabilitation and proper operation of these Stations to comply with international obligations. National River Flow Archive We have discussed issues of ongoing data collection and the historical flow archive under 2.3.3 and 2.3.5 respectively. There are major practical issues for many Stations concerning:

Development of high level rating curves

Converting water level to discharge

Storing both historical and current data in a structured and accessible database format.

These practical bottlenecks must be addressed individually and somewhat urgently. Thereafter, it is urgently necessary to establish a systematic and well structured national database of river discharge data. The importance of such a national dataset cannot be overstated. There is little point in collecting any data if it is not being fully processed and made accessible. The development of such a system should be a priority for IHMS. In the ideal, all flow data from any Station for any defined period should be accessible through some form of web browser. Such a tool is not only useful for the general public, but it acts as a valuable resource for all environment professionals who need to use discharge data. Water resources, flood risk and drought risk management, pollution load control and hydropower assessment are all examples of where discharge data are fundamental to the analysis. The National River Flow Archive of the UK is one very good example of best practice where all national flow data (time series and statistics) can be viewed and downloaded over the internet, see Figure 2-9. The archive is never more than 12 months in arrears. Figure 2-9 – Example of Online National River Flow Archive

Source: http://www.ceh.ac.uk/data/nrfa/

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/data/nrfa/



2.4 Groundwater Hydrometric Network


The CLEAR Project, 1212.004A‐08, financed by CEI funds (Central European Initiative, Special Fund for Climate and Environment Protection) was a Feasibility Study to establish a Climate and Environment Protection Programme for Montenegro, focused principally on groundwater issues. This project was implemented through the Czech Republic Development Cooperation, with the support of partner Agencies including the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute. The main objective of CLEAR project was the improvement of the current system of hydrological surface and ground water monitoring in Montenegro as a tool of environmental and climatic assessment and protection against negative impacts. This study concluded that the primary weakness in the hydrometric network was the lack of groundwater monitoring. Measures were also needed to process and make accessible the substantial backlog of historic data on the surface water archive. The Final Report made a number of recommendations, especially to implement increased groundwater monitoring in the six principal hydrogeological regions in Montenegro. However, the project terminated in 2009 and virtually none of the recommendations were carried out. There is also a 2012 proposed IPA Cross-Border project with the Albanian Geological Survey for Skadar Lake and the Bojana River which will promote improved groundwater monitoring and analysis in the Skader Lake area.


In short, there is virtually no systematic monitoring of groundwater level or spring discharges in Montenegro. Water quality sampling of groundwater is undertaken at 9 locations, but no quantitative measurement is undertaken. This is particularly surprising in view of the high reliance on groundwater for public water supplies.


Clearly increased monitoring of groundwater bodies is an urgent national requirement. Previous international support initiatives have identified operational needs, but these have not been implemented by Government, presumably due to budget and staff limitations. However, the Water Framework Directive explicitly recognises that the quantitative status of a body of groundwater may have an impact on the ecological quality of surface waters and terrestrial ecosystems associated with that groundwater body. Groundwater bodies are subject to the same ecological status objectives as surface waters, hence it is necessary to establish a groundwater monitoring programme that quantifies both quantity and chemical status). “The groundwater monitoring network shall be established in accordance with the requirements of Articles 7 and 8. The

monitoring network shall be designed so as to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of groundwater chemical status within each river basin and to detect the presence of long-term anthropogenically induced upward trends in pollutants.” WFD, Annex V, 2.4 Clearly therefore the absence of a groundwater monitoring network is a major gap in the national environmental programme, and must be addressed at the highest level of Government in order to provide appropriate resources.

2.5 Surface and Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network


We are not aware of any significant international initiatives to support water quality monitoring in Montenegro. The European Commission has reported a lack of progress in water quality issues and environmental acquis generally

4.


Physico-chemical water quality monitoring commenced in the River Morača in 1966 approximately. As best as we are able to determine, the monitoring programme operates 36 sampling points in 13 main rivers and 11 sampling points in the three main lakes of Montenegro, Skader, Plavsko and Black Lake. There are a further 16 sampling points along the coastal zone focusing on the main towns and ports. 9 groundwater locations are also sampled. There is currently only one automated continuous water quality station in Montenegro, based at Station Vranjina at Skadar Lake (OTT Hydrolab DataSonde S5). Data are stored at HMIS on spreadsheet. At all other Stations a ‘grab sample’ is taken once a month at each sampling point, and taken to the IHMS laboratory at Podgorica for detailed analysis. The sampling programme typically only operates from June to October each year. 17 standard physico-chemical parameters are analysed, in addition to bacterial and faecal coliforms. The reported water quality value for each sampling point is an average of the two highest concentrations observed in the season. The argument is that during winter months when discharges are higher and concentrations significantly lower, there is little point in sampling because such data would not influence the Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) determination. Of the 36 river sampling points, 24 are at existing or historically established hydrometric stations, where potentially, continuous water level and discharge data should also be available. However, the active correlation between water quality sampling and continuous discharge measurement is not so satisfactory. For example, in the Adriatic river basin, only 7 out of the 11 river sampling points have water level being actively measured at the same location. In the Black Sea river basin, of the 13 water quality sampling points associated with



hydrometric stations, only 4 can be associated with water level data. Groundwater quality is not widely monitored in Montenegro, except for 9 stations. These locations are concentrated in the catchment of the River Zeta, the underlying Karst geology being one of the most important aquifers in Montenegro, and reflect growing pressure on water quality due to intensifying urban, industrial and agricultural water use.


Generally manual sampling programmes are less vulnerable to errors than those arising from continuous field based sensors. Assuming that the sample analysis is carried out within 24 hours, and the laboratory has appropriate accreditation, the quality of the data should be 95%+ reliable. We understand that the IHMS laboratory has received ISO 17025 (Laboratory Analysis) accreditation, which confirms that audited quality assurance and quality control measures are routinely applied during the implementation of these analyses. The water quality sampling programme is commendably extensive and has been operating for some 50 years. Although unavailable in English, we understand that the Regulation on Classification and Categorisation of Surface Waters (2007) has established Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) values for all main rivers in Montenegro, in the format AnSnKn where code A is a category for waters representing basic physico-chemical standards, K is the assessment for bathing waters, and S or C is the assessment for fisheries waters. A waterbody used for all three would have a 3 letter code therefore. Figure 2-10 – Example Water Quality Status Report

The EQS established under Montenegro law are therefore a good starting point for harmonisation with the EU acquis. The very long-term availability of the data provides Montenegro with an excellent basis for analysing long-term changes in water quality. However, there are some obvious and significant deficiencies in the sampling programme that need to be addressed by Government, discussed under 2.5.5.

2.5.4 Historical Data Archive and Yearbooks

Although data are available from 1966 onwards, the IHMS has had insufficient resources to transfer this large and very valuable data-set into electronic format. Some data has been transferred to EXCEL post 2000, but otherwise the majority of it remains in hard copy.

We understand that the Water Quality Department currently produces an electronic annual report of physico-chemical compliance of each river against the EQS targets, see Figure 2-8.


There are four principal issues that require consideration:

1. Historic data not processed in electronic format

2. Sampling Concentrations and Frequency

3. Hazardous Substances under WFD

4. Trans-boundary Pollutant Loads

Historic data While there appears to be a major historical archive of water quality data, it remains largely unprocessed for analytical purposes, and no efforts have been made to transfer the data into electronic format. This requires urgent correction, but is of course a major task requiring significant resources for perhaps 1 year. The WISKI water management package incorporates a highly useful water quality module (KiWQM), and this could potentially be the core database for the quality data. Sampling Concentrations Broadly, a single monthly water quality sample may be sufficiently representative of the average daily concentration of a particular determinand but there are significant risks to this low frequency of sampling. Determinand concentration is totally a function of the quantity of the waterbody. In the case of rivers especially, (and sometimes aquifers), a higher

than usual discharge (or groundwater level) may significantly dilute the determinand concentration, and therefore mask pollution pressures. The reverse is also true i.e. a very high determinand concentration causing a failure of the waterbody EQS may be due to very low (short-term) flow conditions only, rather than an increase in pollution load. Therefore, to be of most value, determinand concentrations must be associated with the water quantity at the same time instant i.e. river discharge or

groundwater level. It should be of particular concern therefore that of the 36 river based sampling points, only 11 are actively recording water level for discharge calculation purposes (7 in the Adriatic river basin, 4 in the Black Sea basin). The effectiveness of the water quality sampling programme is being heavily compromised by the general lack of discharge monitoring. The key point is that without simultaneously measuring discharge (or groundwater level) at the sampling point, pollutant load i.e. the true measure of pollutant pressure cannot be accurately inferred. We comment specifically on the 5 month duration programme concept also. High level research

13

14 has shown

13

Water and Environment Journal, 114-118, 1998



that monthly based spot sampling programmes can produce significant errors in pollutant load calculations. It is also important to note that with regard to seasonal variation, it is highly possible that nutrient loads (orthophosphate, nitrate) actually have greater variation and influence in winter months rather than summer because of higher, more variable flows during the winter and, in some cases, enhanced concentrations due to the autumn leaching of accumulated nutrients from the soil. The absolute values and ranges of loads can be lower in summer than in winter. Such findings argue against a limited 5 month summer based sampling strategy, and in fact more emphasis on winter sampling g rather than summer sampling for some determinands. Sampling Frequency The fact that the IHMS sampling programme runs for only 5 months per year raises significant compliance issues with EU guidance and standards. Depending on river flow variability a single grab sample taken as representative for the entire month may be completely unrepresentative of the true picture. Statistically, to meet EU monitoring compliance standards, if 7 or fewer samples are taken each year, the 95% compliance standard of the EQS will not be met if a single sample fails the standard.

15 This is

highly likely with a 5 month duration single sample programme. In simple terms, there is unlikely to be sufficient data statistically to confirm that the EQS standards set for the river waterbodies are being met. For example, under Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD), the frequency of monitoring required for any parameter shall provide sufficient data for a reliable assessment of the status of the relevant quality element (Annex V, 1.3.4). The suggested maximum interval for physico-chemical element sampling is in any case 3 months, and 1 month in the case of ‘priority substances’

7. In neither case does the current IHMS

sampling programme comply. Similarly, under Directive 91/271/EEC

12 downstream

of all urban areas with population equivalents of 2000 or more, Annex 1(D) specifies that a minimum of 12 monthly samples will be required. For best statistical compliance, rather than a fixed monthly sample, sampling programmes should be risk based. This means that the sampling frequency should reflect the variability of i) the determinand itself ii) the discharge rate. The greater the variability of the concentration, the more frequent must be the sampling in order to achieve 95% compliance. A sound measure of variability is given for any data set by the Coefficient of Variation (CV), which is the Sample Standard Deviation (S) / Arithmetic Mean (x). This measure can be used to design more effective risk based sampling strategies.

14

Water and Environment Journal, 124-129, 1997 15

Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC

Specific Pollutants and Hazardous Substances under WFD The core purpose of the WFD is to ensure long term sustainability of waterbodies by protecting their ‘ecological status’. Ecological status is comprised primarily of an assessment of biological quality elements (supported by physico-chemical and hydromorphological elements) AND chemical status. The structure of ‘overall status’ is shown in Figure 2-9. The Water Framework Directive requires that Member States identify and develop standards for ‘Specific Pollutants’. Specific Pollutants are defined as substances that can have a harmful effect on biological quality, and which may be identified by Member States as being discharged to water in “significant quantities”. Typically such pollutants include hydrocarbons, cyanides, metals, arsenic and biocides, in addition to nitrates and phosphates. To achieve ‘Good’ ecological status, waterbodies must meet the quality standards set out in the Member State legislation. Secondly, Annex II of the Directive on Environmental Quality Standards (Directive 2008/105/EC) (EQSD), also known as the Priority Substances Directive , sets environmental quality standards (EQS) for priority or priority hazardous substances in all surface waters in order to determine ‘chemical status’ of the waterbody. Figure 2-11 – Ecological Status and Chemical Status under WFD

33 substances or groups of substances are on the list of priority substances for which environmental quality standards were set in 2008, including selected existing chemicals, plant protection products, biocides, metals According to Annex V, point 1.4.3 of the WFD and Article 1 of the EQSD, good chemical status is reached for a water body when it complies with the EQS for all the priority substances and other pollutants listed in Annex I of the EQSD. As far as we are aware the IHMS carries out no systematic sampling of the majority of the priority, hazardous or specific pollutants required under the Water Framework Directive. In future years therefore, in order to develop appropriate methodologies to deliver the ecological classifications of waterbodies, the water quality analysis capability of the IHMS laboratory will have to be significantly upgraded.



Trans-boundary Pollutant Loads It is a core requirement of the WFD that Member State impacts on trans-boundary river basins are appropriately monitored at such sites as are required to estimate the pollutant load which is transferred across Member State boundaries, or which is transferred into the marine environment (WFD Annex v, 1.3.1). The parameters to be monitored are identified under Annex II of the Commission’s Information Exchange Communication.

16

This strongly implies that high frequency or continuous monitoring of water quality needs to be carried out in conjunction with continuous discharge monitoring in order that pollutant loads (kg/m³) can be calculated. Monitoring of concentrations alone (mg/l) is insufficient to determine load. Our review suggests that with regard to international obligations the water quality sampling programme may be somewhat deficient. For example, Table 2-2 shows that of the 7 principal rivers draining from Montenegro to trans-boundary basins, only two have the capacity to calculate pollutant loads. Several of the stations are not functioning at all with respect to discharge calculation. The rivers Cehotina, Tara and Piva are not monitoring for water quality near the international boundaries. This matter will require rectification in the medium future. For example, water level monitoring will need to commence at the appropriate hydrometric stations, accompanied by continuous water quality sampling of several key determinands such as temperature, pH, DO, ammonium, nitrate and turbidity. Continuous monitoring is necessary at these locations because it is probable that a monthly spot sample will be insufficiently accurate to determine continuous pollutant loads. Suppliers such as SEBA and OTT all provide multi-parameter water quality sensors that can link into the existing GSM data transmission infrastructure. Table 2-5 – Principal Trans-boundary Monitoring Stations

River Station Discharge Quality Load

Lim Dobrakovo No Yes No

Ibar Bad No Yes No

Cehotina Gradac Partial No No

Tara Brštanovica No No No

Piva No No No

Skader Lake Ckla Yes Yes Yes

Bojana Fraskanjel Yes Yes Yes

Ministry Responsibilities and Montenegro Legislation Technical staff at IHMS were generally concerned to point out that the IHMS effectively operates as a ‘service provider’ for national data collection, the primary legal responsibilty for data collection, its form and its application(s) actually being with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD).

16

Information Exchange Communication 77/795/EEC

Revisions to national data collection programmes in line with this Report would therefore require the inputs of the MARD and the Environmental Protection Agency, and changes to environmental legislation.



Table 2-6 – Hydrometeorological Networks Needs Assessment and Recommendations

Meteorological Data Network

Needs Assessment Driver Priority Recommended Remedial Action Outcomes Precipitation gauge network unacceptably reduced below statistically acceptable levels. 18 stations insufficient to provide accurate interpolation and water balance calculations in most river basins will be inaccurate.

WR CC

Ministry of Environment and Tourism should urgently revaluate budget and restore national network to at least 35 stations. Use defunct stations to maintain record continuity. Carry out statistical interpolation sampling to determine appropriate no of stations

Water balance calculations will be more accurate. Rainfall-runoff modelling can be reliably provided for smaller river basins and target catchments. Climate change impacts on national water resources will be more reliable. Stations at high elevation will especially inform winter snowpack changes.

No Class A Evaporation Pan data are collected from any climate stations. Evapotranspiration is a critical element of national water balance methodologies.

WR

Observed data is required in order to calibrate theoretical Penman-Monteith evapotranspiration calculations. Install at least 3 WMO standard Class A evaporation pans at manned climate stations. These stations also need temperature, wind-sped and humidity.

Theoretical Penman-Monteith water budget calculations can be calibrated with locally observed data to improve water resource estimates and water balance calculations.

Historical meteorological data are not easily accessible for water resource evaluations. High quality continuous data sets are required (in conjunction with continuous data of water discharge) in order to determine hydrological water balances at sub-basin level (e.g. Lim, Tara, Cehotina, Moraça etc).

DRR WR CC

Extract representative meteorological data series from CLIDATA database from earliest available records for all sub-basins, (mainly as mean daily values) and publish these in electronic Year Book form accessible to other Departments.

Electronic Year Book outputs will enable other specialists to access meteorological data series which can be used for extreme events (e.g. floods and droughts), rainfall-runoff modelling, and exam nation of sub-basin level climate change trends.

Surface Water Hydrometric Network

Needs Assessment Driver Priority Recommended Remedial Action Outcomes Current Meterings are absent at high Stage levels for most Stations. Discharge calculations at high Stages are therefore likely to be inaccurate (+/- 30%??), with significant impacts on the reliability of water resources and flood peak calculations.

DRR WR CC

IHMS should undertake Cost-Benefit Appraisal of purchasing 2+ portable ADCP systems for high level flow gauging. Costs to be compared against maintenance of 20+ cableways. If beneficial, purchase ADCP systems with supporting training.

With ADCP systems, high water level checks can be carried out to improve quality of Rating Curves at high discharges. Discharge calculations should be more accurate, therefore improving statistics of water resource assessments and flood analysis.

Rating Curve analysis for many Stations is incomplete (see above), plus most RCs are drawn by eye. RC equations are not based on minimisation of R² and may not be accurate. Discharge is generally calculated by ‘look-up’ Table based on EXCEL spreadsheet, which is computationally inefficient.

DRR WR CC

All current meter data for all Stations should be imported into specialist program such as SKED (already available within IHMS). Discharge data from all Stations can then be re-evaluated. Training will be required in correct use of SKED.

More sophisticated analysis of Rating Curves can be undertaken, based on statistical measures. SKED will facilitate more flexible use of different RCs for different periods. If WISKI is used as the principal database for the national flow archive, discharge data from water level can be more efficiently automated.

Significant backlog of unprocessed data (from water level to discharge). Many Stations have unprocessed data from 2003 onwards. National flow archive must be kept up to date, and long-term records of important Stations must not be discarded. There is no established national flow archive at present.

DRR WR CC

IHMS must recognise the importance of completeness and continuity of all Stations in the national flow archive. Resources and staff must be provided to clear back-log of unprocessed data, and add these data systematically to a properly structured relational database.

Up to date and complete national river flow archive will greatly improve capability of IHMS to make more reliable estimates of water resources in ungauged catchments, and make improved forecasts of climate change trends.

Most trans-boundary discharge monitoring Stations are not functioning. Therefore Montenegro is not able to provide data on discharge or pollutant loads to other European States.

WR WFD

All such Stations should be rehabilitated or constructed from new, and data records restarted. As far as possible original sites should be used in order to reinforce historical records.

Montenegro will be able to provide river basin water balances for all major catchments, and monitor and report on discharges leaving Montenegro. Pollutant loads can also be calculated and reported to EC and other States.

Annual Hydrometric Yearbooks have not been produced for many years. Therefore discharge data not easily accessible to professionals and/or general public.

WR If computerised national flow archive is developed, together with clearance of data backlog, aim to produce an annual hydrometric Yearbook for distribution.

Production of annual Yearbook sets measurable target for IHMS staff. Important data for many resource assessments are easily available. Work of IHMS has higher visibility with general public.



Groundwater Hydrometric Network

Needs Assessment Driver Priority Recommended Remedial Action Outcomes No systematic groundwater monitoring network currently exists. Groundwater bodies used for public water supply must be identified, protected and monitored, and the quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies must also be established under the Water Framework Directive.

WFD WR

The proposed IPA cross-border project with Albania may provide some technical assistance to developing groundwater monitoring tools and methods. WISKI explicitly contains modules for groundwater quantity and quality database management which should be explored.

Groundwater resources can be properly quantified and monitored. Ensures compliance with Water Framework Directive Annex IV and Annex V.

Water Quality Data Network

Needs Assessment Driver Priority Recommended Remedial Action Outcomes Historical water quality data are only in hard-copy. All historic data urgently require transfer to an electronic database so that high quality continuous data sets are available at sub-basin level (e.g. Lim, Tara, Cehotina, Moraça etc).

WFD CC

Initial data processing could be into standardised spreadsheets giving mean monthly values. Data could be presented in Year Book format. Value of data could be significantly increased if data are entered into centralised database e.g. KiWQM module of WISKI package.

Statistical assessments of data (variation and trend) will become possible. Water quality data can be linked to time series of meteorological and hydrological series to better understand catchment processes.

Current sampling programme is extensive with long records BUT monthly spot sample is unlikely to be of sufficient accuracy for international reporting requirements. The statistical reliability of the current sampling programme needs assessment.

WFD Sampling programme should be risk based i.e. sample more frequently in high variation waterbodies. Statistical analysis required of this variation.

Accuracy of the current sampling programme can be determined. Sample points where more frequent monitoring is needed can be objectively assessed.

Current sampling especially downstream of urban-industrial areas is unlikely to comply with statistical accuracy needs of Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. 12 month sampling will be required downstream of urban areas where urban pollution pressures are most significant.

WFD Sampling frequency may need to be increased e.g. to weekly in waterbodies of high pollutant load. 5 month sampling will need to be increased to 12 month sampling to comply with Directive 91/271/EEC.

Pollutant loads from high impact urban areas can be more accurately assessed. Compliance with Directive 91/271/EEC is more likely.

Current sampling programme does not include analysis of priority substances, metals, hazardous substances or specific pollutants as set out under Directive 2008/105/EC). Specific pollutants and priority substances where present in Montenegro waterbodies need to be identified and monitored.

WFD Some new sampling locations may need to be established downstream of intensive urban or agricultural areas, but mainly increased analysis is the requirement. Analytical facilities at the IHMS laboratory will have to be upgraded in future.

Chemical status component of overall waterbody status can be quantified as per Water Framework Directive. Compliance with Directive 2000/60/EC is more likely.

Trans-boundary stations are currently unable to deliver pollutant load calculations. WFD requires reliable assessments of pollutant loads across river basin boundaries. Continuous sampling will be required at international borders and mean monthly loads calculated.

WFD Continuous water quality monitoring will be needed at up to 7 international trans-boundary stations. Consider installing multi-parameter sensors at these locations. pH, EC, ammonia, turbidity and nitrates are the priority. This will require discharge to be continuously measured.

Pollutant loads from trans-boundary river basins can be more accurately calculated. Compliance with Directive 2000/60/EC is more likely.



3. A REVIEW OF GEOGRAPHIC DATA AVAILABILITY AND NEEDS

3.1 The Need for a Spatial Approach in Environmental Governance

3.1.1 Functional and Consequential Mapping

Most environmental professionals would agree that it is virtually impossible to carry out any form of systematic environmental analysis, monitoring or reporting without the benefit of a Geographic Information System (GIS) using geodata. In conjunction with statistical analysis and computer based modelling, geodata is unquestionably one of the critical tools in environmental management. GI systems powerfully combine basic datasets into more useful information, especially in the spatial context. This information can be used primarily in two ways:

a) Functional Mapping – typically these will be simple outputs that show for example ‘functional maps’ of the monitoring network (points), rivers (lines) or features such as catchment boundaries, groundwater regions or floodplain areas (all polygons). Analysis is relatively limited. They simply show locations of objects and their attributes. A key driver for this type of mapping will be operational needs such as locational information about environmental networks or points of discharge (“where things are”), or hazard identification (“how wide is the floodplain”).

b) Consequential Mapping – much more powerful is the GIS relational ability to produce interrelated ‘maps’ that combine some or all of the data objects and attributes of functional mapping, also referred to as ‘thematic mapping’. For example, the determinand concentrations of a particular pollutant from the water quality monitoring network can be factored against flow data from the same locations to produce a pollutant load map for different catchments. Such ‘thematic’ maps therefore combine several data sources to present new spatial information that can be fundamental to an understanding of the pressures operating at the catchment scale (see Figure 3-1).

In spite of this, geodata generally and GIS specifically are not in widespread use in Montenegro within Institutions or Agencies where most would consider that it is urgently required. For example, the Directorate for Water, the Hydrometeorological Institute and the Sector for Emergency Management all have undoubted needs for GIS based information, but currently none have the budgetary resources, software or training to implement such systems. Some limited environmental data IS available in Montenegro, mainly in use by the Sector for Spatial Management, Ministry

of Sustainable Development and Tourism (MSDT), but these data are not widely shared with other institutions, and are very likely not compliant with WFD requirements. This lack of GIS capability will clearly significantly degrade the quality and effectiveness of environmental governance in the country unless it is addressed soon. Figure 3-1 – Example GIS Thematic Map at River Basin Scale

3.1.2 Geodata Defined

Geodata may be defined basically as a database of spatially referenced objects, which may be either points, lines or polygons (vector data) or image data (raster). A Geographic Information System (GIS) vector dataset that contains these features is in itself a ‘geographic’ relational database, because each data object can have an unlimited number of numeric attributes associated with it, and these attributes can all be mapped, quantified or combined in virtually any permutation. The significant power of GIS is that any object can be associated with a data layer, and the interactions between data objects (either on the same or different GIS layers) can then be either visually assessed and/or numerically quantified. To anyone that has used a GIS the informational power of this approach cannot be over-estimated.

3.2 Main Drivers of Spatial Analysis

We recognise two main drivers for the use of spatially referenced data in Montenegro.

The ‘operational needs’ of Montenegro with regard to environmental management and regulation, and disaster risk reduction, expressed both in functional and consequential maps and geodata.

Preparing the National Water Master Plan (NWMP) and Reporting on WFD River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) to the European Commission.

This geodata review focus on the needs and gaps identified under these two main drivers. In fact there is a large degree



of overlap between these two datasets. Where there ARE differences, they have been specifically identified.

3.2.1 Montenegro’s Operational Needs

This national Sectoral Review has itself been made more difficult by the widespread lack of quality mapped information in Montenegro. Basic functional maps are required in every Department simply to show where things are and what attributes they have. For example, what are the densities of monitoring points, where are the effluent discharge points located, which catchments receive the highest precipitation, what are the boundaries and areas of the river basins and the land-cover or elevation distributions within each? These are all critical aspects of what the WFD terms ‘characterisation’ and a spatial mapping tool is the most effective way to carry this out (WFD Annex II, 1.1). Very little ‘operational mapping’ has been carried out to date.

3.2.2 Water Framework Directive Reporting

Integrated Water Resources management (IWRM), one of the core principles of the WFD, emphasises spatial connectedness and integration at every scale of analysis, from a single point source of pollution to the total water resource capacity of an entire river basin for example. GIS is a central tool in delivering the WFD framework in two ways: First, it is simply not possible to analyse the many complex interactions of pressures within a river basin or catchment without using the relational and multi-layered functionality of a GIS, Figure 3-1 being an example. Conveying the ‘identification of pressures’ (WFD Annex II, 1.4) and the ‘assessment of impact’ (WFD Annex II, 1.5) cannot really be carried out without comprehensive GIS based geo-datasets. Secondly, the importance of GIS based analysis across all environmental management institutions is exemplified by the central role that GIS plays in reporting on River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) to the European Commission. The EC generally expects Member States to report on progress of implementing the ‘programme of measures’ (WFD Article 11) for each river basin by way of standardised GIS based maps.

17

3.2.3 EU WFD Common Implementation Strategy Compliance

Since 2001, the EU Member States and the European Commission have jointly developed a common strategy for supporting the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, known as the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS). The main aim of this strategy is to allow a coherent and harmonious implementation of this Directive by using common standards, terms and procedures across all components of the WFD.

17

CIS Guidance Document No: 22 - Updated Guidance on

Implementing the Geographical Information System (GIS) Elements of the EU Water policy (2.1.2, 2.1.3)

The goal of the GIS Working Group set up under the Common Implementation Strategy was to elaborate such specifications and to make them available in the form of Guidance Documents. There are two critical documents:

CIS Guidance Document No. 9 – Implementing the GIS Elements of the WFD, 2003

CIS Guidance Document No. 22 - Updated Guidance on Implementing the Geographical Information System (GIS) Elements of the EU Water Policy, 2009

Figure 3-2 – Common Implementation Strategy - GIS Guidance 22

3.3 Environmental Information Sources in Europe

Montenegro environment professionals should be aware of the numerous EU based environmental information (standards, reference material and data) available through:

European Environment Agency http://www.eea.europa.eu/

EIONET (European Environment Information and Observation Network) (http://www.eionet.europa.eu/)

European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/

These are collectively referred to as EIONET. In addition to the EEA, EIONET includes a number of ‘European Topic Centres’ or ‘Portals’ generally reporting either to the EEA or the JRC. The most relevant of these for Montenegro include:

http://www.eea.europa.eu/

http://www.eionet.europa.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/



3.3.1 Information Management and Data Standards

The European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and Marine Waters provides important links to other subsidiary functions of the EEA, EIONET and the JRC, including water themes, water indicators, WFD and WISE reporting. In particular this is a quick-link to establish the specific GIS Reporting Schema (the data file structures) for all reporting requirements under the various EU Directives. http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/ http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas

The INSPIRE Geoportal is Europe's Internet access point to the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe (INSPIRE). The Geoportal publishes and provides access to metadata and data, and facilitates the delivery, display and analysis of geographic information. http://inspire-geoportal.ec.europa.eu/

3.3.2 Climate Change and Adaptation

Climate-ADAPT (Climate Change Adaptation in Europe) has been developed by the EEA as an information resource and assistance portal for users to determine their vulnerability, identify options and implement adaptation plans. A case-study search tool displays current example projects across Europe. http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu

The European Topic Centre on Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation (ETC/CCA) is a centre of thematic expertise in the area of climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation (CCIVA) across Europe. http://cca.eionet.europa.eu/

The JRC Institute for Environment and Sustainability carries out research to understand the complex interactions between human activity and the physical environment, and how to manage strategic resources (water, land, forests, food, minerals, etc.) in a more sustainable manner. http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

3.3.3 General Environmental Data

The European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) is the new Europe-wide register that provides easily accessible key environmental data from industrial facilities in European Union Member States. It is intended to contribute to transparency and public participation in environmental decision-making. The new register contains data reported annually by some 28,000 industrial facilities covering 65 economic activities across Europe. http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/

The European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity (ETC/BD) reports on Europe's environment by addressing state and trends of biodiversity in Europe and provides the relevant information to support nature and biodiversity policies. http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/

The JRC Digital Observatory for Protected Areas (DOPA) is a set of distributed databases that are combined with open, interoperable web services to provide a large variety of end-users with means to assess, monitor and forecast the state and pressure of protected areas at the global scale http://dopa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.html

The JRC Environmental Marine Information System (EMIS) offers the possibility of providing spatial and temporal information supporting the assessment and monitoring of European regional seas like eutrophication indicators and related physical and biological marine variables http://emis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

The JRC European Soil Portal is an integral part of the European Soil Data Centre and is the focal point for soil data at European level. It contributes to a thematic data infrastructure for soils in Europe. It presents data and information regarding soils at European level. http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

3.3.4 Baseline Background Mapping

The European Topic Centre for Spatial information and Analysis (ETC/SIA) provides the analysis of land use and land cover for seamless European wide spatial reference data. http://sia.eionet.europa.eu/

The River and Catchments Database for Europe (CCM - Catchment Characterisation and Modelling) is a database of European river networks and catchments that facilitates sustainable management of water and land resources. The JRC's CCM activity responds to this need by developing of a pan-European database of river networks and catchments. http://ccm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/php/index.php?action=view&id=23

The JRC CID (Community Image Data) Portal is an online catalogue and archive of satellite remote sensing data and derived products hosted at the JRC. The portal contains the imagery data of several JRC Units, with datasets from more than 20 different satellites and resolutions ranging from 1 km to 0.5 m. http://cidportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home/

The IMAGE2000 and CLC2000 is a joint project between the European Environment Agency and the Joint Research Centre for the updating of the European Land Cover database (CORINE Land Cover). It provides a snapshot of Europe for the year 2000 (CLC2000), using Landsat 7 imagery to create the multi-purpose spatial reference of Europe. http://image2000.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

3.3.5 Floods and Droughts

The JRC European Drought Observatory provides European-wide data on drought relevant products such as precipitation, soil moisture, and photosynthetic activity of the vegetation cover. Continuous simulations within the European Flood

http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/

http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas

http://inspire-geoportal.ec.europa.eu/

http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/

http://cca.eionet.europa.eu/

http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/

http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/

http://dopa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.html

http://emis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

http://sia.eionet.europa.eu/

http://ccm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/php/index.php?action=view&id=23


http://cidportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home/

http://image2000.jrc.ec.europa.eu/



Alert System (EFAS) produce daily soil moisture maps of Europe. http://edo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/edov2/php/index.php

The JRC European Floods Portal brings together information on river floods and flood risk in Europe, including best practice in flood mapping through the EXCIMAP forum. The portal is the result of ongoing research activities carried out as part of the IES' FLOODS Action at the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, combined with local public information provided by EU Countries. http://floods.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

3.3.6 GIS Features Alignment across National Borders

Datasets from national repositories are not necessarily geometrically aligned across national borders or to a pan-European coastline. To connect borders of Units of Management or rivers across national borders, it is strongly recommended for Member States to cross-check local data against the relevant selection of the EuroRegionalMap at scale 1:250 000 AND the CCM rivers data described in 3.3.4. This data selection essentially comprises the national borders, the coastline and hydrological features that cut across national borders. Member States can download these data sets free of charge from a dedicated section of WISE. At 2012 the most recent file is: ERM v 2.2 - 1:250 000 country boundaries.

3.4 WISE – Water Information System for Europe

The Water Information System for Europe (WISE) is a partnership between the European Commission (DG Environment, Joint Research Centre and EuroStat) and the European Environment Agency (EEA). (http://water.europa.eu)

3.4.1 Components of WISE

WISE was launched for public use as a web-based service in 2007 providing a web-portal entry to water related information ranging from inland waters to marine. The web-portal is now grouped into sections for:

EU water policies (directives, implementation reports and supporting activities)

Data and themes (reported datasets, interactive maps, statistics, indicators)

Modelling (now - and forecasting services across Europe)

Projects and research (inventory for links to recently completed and ongoing water related projects and research activities

For users from EU institutions or other environmental administrations WISE provides input to thematic assessments

in the context of EU water related policies. For water professionals and scientists WISE facilitates access to reference documents and thematic data, which can be downloaded for further analysis. For the general public, WISE illustrates a wide span of water related information by visualisations on interactive maps, graphs and indicators. These services are mostly based on reporting from countries as part of implementation of EU directives or via the EIONET framework.

3.4.2 Water Data Centre – European Environment Agency

Most relevant to this Report’s TOR, the Water Data Centre, hosted at the European Environment Agency (EEA) (www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/dc) provides the main European entry point for GIS water related data as part of WISE. The central access point provides:

interactive maps, data and data viewers

European datasets and indicators For the GIS data gap analysis and needs assessment, this review primarily uses the CIS reference datasets as outlined in Guidance Document 22, and the datasets available through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) web-portal, specifically the Water Data Centre.

3.4.3 GIS Reporting Concepts in the WISE Framework

The relevance of WISE to the Montenegro water cadastre is that all GIS data produced should as far as possible comply with the concepts and standards set out under WISE. Since the EU standard for geographic reporting (Water Information System for Europe – WISE) covers all water related reporting, unique identification of spatial objects and spatial datasets is of fundamental importance for data management in the WISE environment. The principles also generally apply to the development of GIS data layers developed as part of RBMPs within the WFD framework. WISE envisages four main types of GIS datasets:

1. Member State (MS) submitted GIS datasets 2. WISE Reference GIS datasets 3. WISE Background GIS datasets 4. External GIS datasets

Here we are concerned only with MS datasets, developed within Montenegro, hosted on the national water cadastre, and of relevance to flood risk management, development of national water master plan and RBMPs under WFD, and climate change. Spatial features in the MS submitted GIS datasets should comply with the following basic distinctions

30:

Hydrological Features - River Basins and sub-basins - Rivers - River segments - Lakes

http://edo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/edov2/php/index.php

http://floods.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

http://water.europa.eu/

http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/dc



Non-hydrological Features - Management Units (River Basin Districts, Protected Areas, Waterbodies) - Monitoring Stations - Object Features indicating point source pollution, discharge points, Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP) - Object Features indicating pressure information, including water abstraction, flow regulation, morphological alterations

Hydrological features should all carry a unique hydrological feature code (Pfafstetter Code). Non-hydrological reference features should be assigned with a non-hydrological unique object identifier but should also carry the code of the hydrological feature to which they are related as a foreign key.

3.4.4 Conceptual Model of the WISE Data Framework

For general understanding of WISE compliant data structures, it is worth noting the following assumptions that influence database structures. Each geographic object (feature) falls into one of five types:

Infrastructure features - the basis of the water environment, e.g. rivers, lakes, groundwater, coastal waters, etc.

Management features – the features used in sub-dividing the water environment into manageable units, e.g. River Basin Districts, water bodies and Sub-units etc.

Influencing features – features that impact upon the water environment, e.g. Urban Waste Water Treatment Plants, Discharge Points, etc.

Measurement features – where measurements are made on the above features, e.g. monitoring stations, gauging stations, sampling points, etc.

Background features – features and objects that provide context to the above, e.g. cadastral maps, CCM, CORINE Land Cover, etc.

Each feature type falls within a feature type hierarchy. For example, <WaterBody> can be sub-divided into <SurfaceWaterBody> and <GroundwaterBody>. As with most databases, each feature type has data associated with it. Data attributes are sub-divided into the following discrete types of data (represented as fields in the database):

Referential data - e.g. description, name

Classification data - e.g. typology

Time series data - e.g. value, unit of measurement, parameter, etc.

Ownership data - e.g. responsible authority, External GIS dataset owner, etc.

Audit data - e.g. date created, date last updated, etc.

3.5 Gap Analysis of GIS Water Related Data

The TOR require separate summaries of GIS data and/or maps a) sourced or currently available from within Montenegro b) sourced or currently available from other sources covering south-eastern Europe. The gap analysis uses a logically layered approach to the data (as per GIS) under the following main themes:

Infrastructure and Transport

Environmental Monitoring and Pressures

Land Cover and Natural Environment

River Basins, Catchments and Waterbodies

Topography and Elevation

Geology and Hydrogeology Figure 3-3 – Conceptual Model of the WISE Data Framework



3.5.1 Local GIS Data and Maps Available in Montenegro

The very limited time-scale of the project has precluded a detailed inventory of all data that might be available within every institution in the country. In some instances we have only been able to identify possible Institutions that may hold data without access to the data itself. Table 3-1 summarises the main GIS water related datasets currently in use in Montenegro (the list is not exhaustive). Without a detailed audit of each file, it is also not possible to indicate the quality (i.e. spatial accuracy and depth of metadata) of the layers, nor the datum and projection used in each case. We have inspected two specific GIS datasets provided by the MSDT In essence, with specific regard to water data, GIS layers are relatively limited. Two localised studies have generated some geodata:

In 2008 EBRD funded a UNDP supervised project to carry out hydrological evaluation of hydropower potential for small rivers. Using the QGIS software a small simplistic dataset of relevant rivers, monitoring points and Municipal boundaries was generated.

In 2013, a Disaster Risk Reduction programme supervised by UNDP investigated 12 Municipalities affected by the major 2009/2010 flooding around Lake Skadar. Early in 2013 it is expected that the project teams will have produced basic polygon layers of the observed floodplains in the affected towns, together with other layers such as affected households, critical infrastructure, transport links and emergency refuge points. It is expected that the GIS data will be held by the Ministry of the Interior (Sector for Emergency Management and Civil Protection).

3.5.2 South East Europe GIS Data and Maps Available Externally

EU level data for Montenegro is not abundant as the majority of EU data generally extends to the boundaries of Member States only. However, Table 3-2 list quite an extensive range of important baseline data covering Montenegro, especially for land-cover, satellite imagery and catchments. The most important pan-European water related GIS datasets relevant to Montenegro as follows:

Image2000 Spatial Reference for Europe The Image 2000 dataset is a satellite imagery dataset, intended to be the main source of data for updating the European Land Cover database (CORINE Land Cover), but are also important reference data in themselves. Primarily derived from Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM+) imagery, they are georeferenced and orthorectified, resulting in a consistent, high quality product. The dataset primarily consists of individual ortho-rectified scenes in the relevant national map

projection system (approximately 1000 scenes, 25m resolution for multi-spectral and 12.5m for panchromatic). A harmonised pan-European dataset from the individual scenes can also be downloaded. This dataset can act as a raster background for all GIS based catchment investigations. Again such data will be essential in future studies such as flood hazard mapping and catchment characterisation. Regrettably the Western Balkans is currently excluded from the dataset, but with several of these countries in the pre-accession pipeline, this is likely to change. http://image2000.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/page/image2000_overview

CORINE Land Cover 2000 seamless vector data The CORINE project (Coordination of Information on the Environment) is one of the main sources of environmental data in the EU. One of these is an inventory of land cover in 44 classes, and presented as a cartographic product, at a scale of 1:100 000. This database is operationally available for most areas of Europe. This dataset will be particularly important in the GIS examinations of hazard mapping and WFD catchment characterisation in Montenegro. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data#c12=corine+land+cover+version+13

CCM - River and Catchments Database for Europe (CCM - Catchment Characterisation and Modelling) is a database of European river networks and catchments developed at the JRC. Version 2.1 was released in 2008. It includes a hierarchical set of river segments and catchments based on the Strahler order, a lake layer and structured hydrological feature codes based on the Pfafstetter system.

Figure 3-4 – CCM Dataset Coverage including Montenegro

The 2002 data sub-set (South Europe) should be used as one of the primary baseline layers for all GIS related outputs in Montenegro, as it acts as a European standard reference, see Figure 3-4. As far as we are aware this dataset is not in common use in Montenegro. One of the priority tasks for

http://image2000.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/page/image2000_overview


http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data#c12=corine+land+cover+version+13

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data#c12=corine+land+cover+version+13



Montenegro will be to implement the European standard coding system for all rivers and catchments, and it is this database that should be used as a starting point. http://ccm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/php/index.php?action=view&id=24

3.6 Public Interface with the Water Information System

As mentioned earlier in this Report, data about the water sector in Montenegro is scattered in different national institutions making it difficult for Montenegrin citizens to find information of interest, such as the water quality of the river near to their homes or schools, the water level or risk of flooding during long and heavy precipitation etc. Water is a vitally important resource not only for human health and security, but also for the country’s economy and further development, especially of the energy and agriculture sectors. The 2012 European Progress Report for Montenegro has noted that “with regard to water quality, no progress can be reported…No progress was made with regard to access to environmental information, access to justice and environmental liability. Public consultations with civil society and other stakeholders need to improve.” Concrete actions should be made towards easier access to information on the water sector for citizens in Montenegro. Citizens are increasingly becoming interested in learning about the quality of the environment and obtaining access to data and information on water resources. The Water Information System should have outreach to all citizens. Data sharing will contribute to improving knowledge and increasing awareness of the necessity to protect this very important resource. Therefore, establishing/creating an interactive public interface should be thoroughly considered. A number of countries in the region have created ‘water information public interfaces’ which allow citizens easy access to information. Mentioned here are best practice examples from Czech Republic, Slovenia, Austria and the UK.

Figure 3-5 – Water Information System of Czech Republic Source: Water Management Information Portal - http://voda.gov.cz/portal/en/ In the Czech Republic the water management information portal is a web platform that unites information from government authorities responsible for different aspects of water management. An interactive map gives the possibility to click on any measurement station and obtain data on water level, discharge, reservoirs, precipitation and water quality. The geospatial representation of data is user-friendly (Figure 3-5). The Austrian Water Information System displays data through different layers. As in the case of Slovenia, the information layers can be combined (Figure 3-6).

Figure 3-6 – Water Information System of Austria

Source: http://gis.lebensministerium.at/wisa/frames/index.php?&gui_id=WisaStandard

The water management platform in Slovenia is also using web based GIS; the data and information about the water resources are organized and displayed in layers. This platform allows citizens to choose layers of data that are displayed geographically, giving the user the possibility to combine two or more layers of interest (e.g. water

protection areas and concessions for the use of water). In addition, the interactive map gives the possibility to click on locations in order to obtain details. http://gis.arso.gov.si/atlasokolja/profile.aspx?id=Atlas_Okolja_AXL@Arso



http://gis.lebensministerium.at/wisa/frames/index.php?&gui_id=WisaStandard

http://gis.arso.gov.si/atlasokolja/profile.aspx?id=Atlas_Okolja_AXL@Arso





3.7 Main Gaps and Issues Identified

3.7.1 Institutional Access to GIS Software

The main environmental uses of GIS data in Montenegro will be for:

Hazard Mapping and Disaster Risk Management

Water Resources Planning

River Basin Management Plans

Climate Change Preparedness

Reporting to EU Commission under WISE Framework It must be self-evident that for environmental professionals working within the four themes listed above, especially those who are concerned with any degree of technical analysis, GIS analysis is a fundamental tool without which many of the elementary tasks cannot be completed. A funded programme to install appropriate GIS software platforms and train staff to competent levels in relevant Agencies and Institutions is urgently required.

3.7.2 Compliance with EU CIS Standards

It is the responsibility of the Member States to collect and compile GIS layers conforming to requested precision, quality and content for use within WISE under an agreed format (developed/clarified through recommended guidance for each layer), including metadata and data IT formats to ensure that an EU wide harmonised layer will be available in WISE.

16

Environment professionals in Montenegro are strongly advised to become familiar with the prescribed EU standards and formats required whenever new GIS layers are prepared. Non-compliance simply creates wasted effort that has to be corrected at a later stage. As an example, the recent studies on floodplain mapping with Municipalities (UNDP 2012) and the Hydropower baseline survey (EBRD 2008) probably make no reference to coded River Basin Districts or waterbody codes, and are therefore a) not WFD compliant b) not easily accessible by other databases in future.

3.7.3 Compliance with WISE GIS Data Layers

It is understandable that without widespread access to GIS software, and supporting data, most of the water related Agencies in Montenegro have not yet produced any significant spatial reference data or national GIS datasets. We point out that in due course, as a minimum requirement, some 40+ GIS based layers are required to be developed and reported to the Commission through the WISE framework (see Table 3-1). Additionally, the National Water Masterplan, the WFD compliant RBMPs and indeed effective water regulation generally cannot take place without a well funded and

properly resourced ‘water cadastre’. A proposed design of this water cadastre is set out in Section 4. It is very important not to confuse national GIS datasets with the published Maps that are required under WFD RBMP reporting requirements. Clearly there are some overlaps, and much of the GIS base data will of course be used to produce RBMP final maps but a clear distinction should be understood between GIS datasets and maps. Typically GIS datasets will be collections of ‘feature types’ as a single layer or database e.g. monitoring stations. However, these features will only make visual sense when combined with other features (e.g. the river systems) in the form of a map. River Basin Management Plan maps (see 3.6.5) are therefore a combination of several/many spatial datasets. As a further example, Table 3-1 shows that ‘Ecological Status’ for individual waterbodies is NOT considered as a compulsory data layer. It IS of course required as a Map under the Water Framework Directive.

3.7.4 The Identification and Coding of National Waterbodies

Waterbodies (Rivers, Lakes, Transitional Waters, Coastal Waters, Artificially Modified and Heavily Modified, Groundwater) are at the very heart of the Water Framework Directive in terms of the characterisation of the river basin, and the achievement of Good Ecological and Chemical Status for all individually identified waterbodies. The Commission has agreed that the European standard for all hydrological features will be a modified version of the Pfafstetter system.

17 The Pfafstetter system follows a

systematic approach as it is derived from topological relationships of the underlying drainage system. The numbering schema is self-replicating from the largest to the smallest drainage system. With Pfafstetter codes it is possible to identify all nested sub-basins within the larger basin and the “parent” basin from a sub-basin. All upstream sub-basins or river segments as well as all downstream segments are identifiable at each location of the river network. Details of the creation of the code are explained in the CIS Guidance Document

18

Object referencing is a critical element of ALL the environmental spatial databases. It means simply that the same waterbody can be identified and linked across many different datasets (e.g. water quality, Water Permits, Hydropower etc). This unique code should act as a primary key in at least one dataset, and must be provided as a foreign key in other datasets. This issue is explained further under Section 4. As far as we understand, the IHMS does not currently use a structured coding system for waterbodies in Montenegro. This is urgently required. A GIS based dataset of all waterbodies in Montenegro with their appropriate Pfafstetter code is a priority task for the Hydrology

18

CIS Guidance Document No: 22 - Updated Guidance on Implementing the Geographical Information System (GIS) Elements of the EU Water policy, Appendix 7



Department of IHMS. The JRC CCM2 database can be used as a starting point.

3.7.5 WFD River Basin Management Plan Output Maps

The agreed Reporting sheets for WFD (Articles 3, 5, 8 and 15) require that Member States report a considerable amount of information in the form of spatial data. This is especially so for the reporting of the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) where the results of the surface water monitoring programmes have to be reported to enable the following maps to be produced:

Map 1: Ecological status class of natural water bodies

Map 2: Ecological potential class for Heavily Modified Water Bodies

Map 3: Status for Protected Areas

Maps 4-8: Achievement or exceedance of Environmental Quality Standards for heavy metals, pesticides, industrial pollutants and other pollutants from the list of Priority Substances.

For groundwater monitoring the following maps are considered a priority:

Map 1: Achievement/exceedance of good quantitative status

Map 2: Achievement/exceedance of good chemical status for nitrates

Map 3: Achievement/exceedance of good chemical status for pesticides

Map 4: Achievement/exceedance of good chemical status based on national thresholds for other pollutants

Map 5: Identification of Groundwater bodies where a significant and sustained upward trend (notifying the relevant substances) has been identified.

The absence of these types of very basic reference maps in Montenegro at the current time is indicative of an environmental governance infrastructure that cannot possibly be considered fit for purpose. In other words, production of these types of maps is an urgent and critical priority so that environmental professionals can better understand and report on their respective tasks.

3.7.6 GIS Data Compliance for Drinking Water Protection Areas

A very significant gap in the current Montenegro GIS data provision relates to the ‘protected area’ requirements of the Water Framework Directive, Articles 6 & 7. Member States shall identify, within each river basin district:

all bodies of water used for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption providing more than 10 m³ a day as an average or serving more than 50 persons

those bodies of water intended for such future use

Member States shall monitor, in accordance with Annex V, those bodies of water which provide more than 100 m³ a day as an average.

Under WFD Annex IV and Annex VII, the summary of the Register required as part of the river basin management plan shall include maps indicating the location of each protected area and a description of the Community, national or local legislation under which they have been designated. Currently as far as we are aware NO such drinking water protection areas have even been designated or mapped in Montenegro. This is a serious gap impacting on public health and spatial planning issues, and requires urgent rectification.

3.7.7 GIS Data Compliance for Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Areas

The EU Floods Directive 19

requires Member States to produce Flood Hazard Maps and Flood Risk Maps (FD Article 6). Under Article 9 it is also stipulated that the development of the first flood hazard maps and flood risk maps and their subsequent reviews as referred to in FD Articles 6 and 14 is carried out in such a way that the information they contain is consistent with relevant information presented according to Directive 2000/60/EC. As an example, waterbodies with an identified historical or potential flood risk should as a minimum have their waterbody and river basin codes included in the attribute data (see Table 3-1). Naturally the GIS data file structure (schema) has an approved EU standard, and GIS professionals developing such flood hazard maps in Montenegro should comply with this standard.

20 21

As far as we are aware, the UNDP supervised project developing flood hazard maps for the 12 Municipalities in Montenegro affected by 2010 flooding has NOT generally complied with the data standards stipulated. This is regrettable as it means that the hard work expended on this project whilst locally useful does not fit with the wider objectives and requirements of the RBMP framework. All GIS and mapping related projects for the environment, particularly those supervised by international Agencies should generally comply with these well defined and established standards for the respective theme.

19

Assessment and Management of Flood Risks Directive 2007/60/EC 20

European Commission – Support for Reporting of Floods Directive

– Guidance on Reporting of Spatial Data, Atkins 2011. 21

European Commission – A User Guide to the Floods Reporting

Schemas, 2011



Table 3-1 – Overview of WISE Framework GIS Data Requested from EU Member States

Policy Area Feature Group Data Layers WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (2000/60/EC)

WFD Management Units River Basin Districts

Sub-units

Competent Authorities

Water bodies categorised by Lake, River, Transitional, Coastal, and Groundwater

Drinking water Protected Areas

Economically significant Aquatic species

Recreational waters Protected Areas

Nutrient-sensitive Protected Areas

Habitats Protected Areas

Birds Protected Areas

Infrastructure River Basins, Sub-basins

Main Rivers

Main Lakes

Transitional waters

Coastal waters

Main artificial waters

Infrastructure layer

Measurement Surface water monitoring stations

Groundwater monitoring stations

Background Eco Regions

WATER INFORMATION SYSTEM EUROPE – State of the Environment Reporting (2007/2/EC)

WISE SoE Management Units WISE-SoE Groundwater bodies

Measurement WISE-SoE River stations

WISE-SoE Lake stations

WISE-SoE Water quantity stations

WISE-SoE Transitional, Coastal and Marine Stations Water Stations

WISE-SoE Transitional, Coastal and Marine Stations Water Flux Stations

WISE-SoE Groundwater sampling sites

Influencing Features WISE-SoE Groundwater saltwater intrusion

URBAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIRECTIVE (91/271/EEC)

UWWTD Management Units Receiving areas

Sensitive area – River, Lake Transitional Water, Coastline, Coast area, Catchment

Less sensitive area – Transitional water, Coastline

Influencing Features Agglomeration

Urban waste water treatment plants

Discharge Points

BATHING WATER DIRECTIVE (2007/6/EC)

BWD Management Units Bathing Water

Measurement Sampling points inland and coastal

DRINKING WATER DIRECTIVE (98/83/EC)

DWD Management Units Water Supply Zones

NITRATES DIRECTIVE (91/676/EEC)

ND Management Units Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

Measurement Monitoring zones on surface water

EUROPEAN POLLUTANT RELEASE AND TRANSFER REGISTER

E-PRTR Management Units Location of Zones

FLOODS DIRECTIVE (2007/60/EC)

FD Management Units Flood Risk Zones

Measurement Extent of Historical Flooding

Flood Damage Maps



Table 3-2 – Local GIS Data or Maps Available in Montenegro


Data Layer Name Description Source Agency Web link Data Type Roadn Highways, main roads, local roads, unpaved roads, bridges, tunnels MSDT Vector

Roadpol Toll gates MSDT Vector Roadflin Road embankments and cuttings MSDT Vector Railway Single track, double track, electrified, bridges, tunnels MSDT Vector Railfpol Railway stations MSDT Vector Railflin Rail embankments and cuttings MSDT Vector

Environmental Monitoring, Anthropogenic Pressures and Water Infrastructure

Data Layer Name Description Source Agency Web link Data Type Waterpnt Springs, reservoirs, hydropower points, pumping stations MSDT Vector

vodotoci Rivers with hydropower potential (rivers) – EBRD project Ministry of Economy http://www.oie-res.me Vector

Mjerna_mjesta Rivers with hydropower potential (measuring points) – EBRD project Ministry of Economy http://www.oie-res.me

Ko Rivers with hydropower potential (municipal areas) – EBRD project Ministry of Economy http://www.oie-res.me

Land Cover, Natural Environment, Hazards and Protection

Data Layer Name Description Source Agency Web link Data Type Landc Cultivated land and forests MSDT Vector

Protected Areas Boundaries of national parks and protected areas EPA Vector

Floodplains? Boundaries of 2010 flooding – 12 Municipalities Ministry of Interior, SEMCP Vector

River Basins, Catchments, Waterbodies and Floodplains

Data Layer Name Description Source Agency Web link Data Type Stream Streams and rivers <5m and >5m, canals, MSDT Vector


Data Layer Name Description Source Agency Web link Data Type Topolin 2.5, 5m, 10m contours, embankments MSDT Vector

Topopnt Trig Points, benchmarks, GPS reference stations MSDT Vector

Toppol ? Real Estate? ?

Geology and Hydrogeology

Data Layer Name Description Source Agency Web link Data Type Geology 1:200 000 geo-referenced mosaic Geological Bureau of

Montenegro

Raster

Hydrogeological Map 1:300 000 Hydrogeological Map of Montenegro Institute of Geology/IHMS Hard-copy

http://www.oie-res.me/





Table 3-3 – SEE GIS Data or Maps Available Externally


Data Layer Name Description Source Agency Web link Type clc00_c122.zip CORINE Land Cover 2000 seamless vector data –

road and rail networks EEA – Data and Maps http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2000-clc2000-seamless-vector-

database-1 Vector

EuroRegionalMap Multi-functional vector based map for Europe www.eurogeographics.org http://www.eurogeographics.org/products-and-services/euroregionalmap Vector

Environmental Monitoring, Anthropogenic Pressures and Water Infrastructure

Data Layer Name Description Source Agency Web link Type Protected Areas?

clc00_c111.zip CORINE Land Cover 2000 seamless vector data – urban fabric cont

EEA – Data and Maps http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2000-clc2000-seamless-vector-database-1

Vector

clc00_c112.zip CORINE Land Cover 2000 seamless vector data – urban fabric discont


Vector

Waterbase_Emissions_v3_mdb.zip EEA Waterbase - Emissions to water EEA – Data and Maps http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/waterbase-emissions-2 Vector

Land Cover, Natural Environment, Hazards and Protection

Data Layer Name Description Source Agency Web link Type European soils Organic carbon content (%) in Europe countries EC/JRC – EU Soil Portal http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/octop/octop_data.html Raster

CORINE 2000 CORINE Land Cover 2000 seamless vector data EEA/JRC - IES http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2000-clc2000-seamless-vector-database-4

Vector

ESDBv2 Vector data of the EU soils database EC/JRC – EU Soil Portal http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/ESDB_Data_Distribution/ESDB_data.html Vector

? 1kmx1km data derived from the EU Soil Database EC/JRC – EU Soil Portal http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/ESDB_data_1k_raster_intro/ESDB_1k_raster_data_intro.html Raster

All_grids_laea.zip 10kmx10km data derived from the EU Soil Database EC/JRC – EU Soil Portal http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/raster_archive/ESDBv2_ETRS_LAEA_raster_archive.html Raster

IMAGE 2000 Individual orthorectified LANDSAT 7 data EC/JRC - IES http://image2000.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/page/image2000_overview Raster

River Basins, Catchments and Waterbodies

Data Layer Name Description Source Agency Web link Type 2002 South River basins, catchments, rivers for south-east

Europe EC/JRC – CCM Programme http://ccm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/php/index.php?action=view&id=24 Vector

EcrRiv.mdb ECRINS Drainage Lines (v1, 2011) EEA-EIONET http://projects.eionet.europa.eu/ecrins/library/hydrography/v1 Vector EcrAncl.rar ECRINS Ancillary coding data (v1, 2011) EEA-EIONET http://projects.eionet.europa.eu/ecrins/library/hydrography/v1 Vector EcrGaz.rar ECRINS Gazetteer river names EEA-EIONET http://projects.eionet.europa.eu/ecrins/library/hydrography/v1 Vector EcrLak.mdb ECRINS Lakes EEA-EIONET http://projects.eionet.europa.eu/ecrins/library/hydrography/v1 Vector EcrFEC.mdb ECRINS Catchments EEA-EIONET http://projects.eionet.europa.eu/ecrins/library/hydrography/v1 Vector EcrAgg.mdb ECRINS aggregated feature classes EEA-EIONET http://projects.eionet.europa.eu/ecrins/library/hydrography/v1 Vector clc00_c512.zip CORINE Land Cover 2000 seamless vector data -

waterbodies EEA – Data and Maps http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2000-clc2000-seamless-vector-

database-4 Vector

clc00_c511.zip CORINE Land Cover 2000 seamless vector data - watercourses


Vector

EcrAgg.mdb European catchments and Rivers network system (ECRINS)

EEA – Data and Maps http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/european-catchments-and-rivers-network Vector

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2000-clc2000-seamless-vector-database-1


http://www.eurogeographics.org/products-and-services/euroregionalmap





http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/waterbase-emissions-2

http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/octop/octop_data.html



http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/ESDB_Data_Distribution/ESDB_data.html

http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/raster_archive/ESDBv2_ETRS_LAEA_raster_archive.html



http://projects.eionet.europa.eu/ecrins/library/hydrography/v1










http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/european-catchments-and-rivers-network




Data Layer Name Description Source Agency Web link Type

Geology and Hydrogeology

Data Layer Name Description Source Agency Web link Type IHME1500 - D5 Budapest 1:1 500 000 Hydrogeological map of Europe – N

Montenegro BGR (Germany) http://www.bgr.de/app/fishy/ihme1500/download.html Raster

IHME1500 – D6 Athina 1:1 500 000 Hydrogeological map of Europe – S Montenegro

BGR (Germany) http://www.bgr.de/app/fishy/ihme1500/download.html Raster

http://www.bgr.de/app/fishy/ihme1500/download.html

http://www.bgr.de/app/fishy/ihme1500/download.html



Table 3-4 – Geographic Data Needs Assessment and Recommendations

GIS Software and Training

Needs Assessment Driver Priority Recommended Remedial Action Outcomes Critical functions such as IHMS (monitoring networks), Directorate for Water (RBMPs) and Sector for Emergency Management (Flood Hazard) all without sufficient access to GIS software. Basic maps cannot be prepared.

DRR NWM

WR WFD CC

Appropriate Agencies should be provided with GIS software (ArcGIS OR MapInfo OR QGIS). Selected staff (2 from each Agency) should be trained in use of basic GIS techniques.

Staff provided with essential working tool to complete critical basic tasks e.g. delineation of river basin boundaries, coding of national waterbodies, preparation of flood risk maps, identification of drinking water protection areas.

GIS Maps produced in Montenegro are generally not compliant with reporting standards of Water Framework Directive and Daughter Directives.

NWM WFD

GIS operatives should be especially familiar with EU Directives and data standards. May require limited training and familiarisation from GIS expert. This Report should be circulated to all relevant staff.

Locally generated maps will be EU WFD compliant, and will enable cross-referencing across datasets for National Water Master Plan and Water Framework Directive RBMP delivery.

Forthcoming proposed ‘Environmental Information System’ (EIS) for Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism (MSDT) MUST take account of the established water specific data needs and processes outlined in this authoritative Report, especially WFD GIS schemas.

NWM WFD WR

Appointed Designer for MSDT EIS should be aware of water cadastre/water information system (WIS) needs and software platforms proposed or in use (e.g. WISKI, WISYS) and ensure full compatibility between EIS and WIS.

EIS and WIS platforms will be compatible. Impacts and pressures on water environment can be more easily and consistently mapped, analysed and presented to stakeholders and general public.

Baseline Critical GIS Layers for Montenegro

Needs Assessment Driver Priority Recommended Remedial Action Outcomes All EU Member States should use a national coding system for waterbodies compliant with the Pfafstetter methodology. A baseline GIS dataset is required for all Montenegro that defines the national standard reference numbers for river basins, rivers and lakes.

NWM WR

WFD

The JRC CCM dataset can be downloaded and used as the starting point. This is a major national exercise to be carried out by hydrologists with appropriate expertise, and must be quality controlled. Other Agencies must be provided with the completed dataset for reference.

All GIS mapping studies can make reference to the national waterbody codes. ALL water datasets (e.g. flood hazard, water permits, monitoring points) should ensure that the waterbody code and river basin code are included as a Foreign Key in the record attributes.

EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) requires Member States to produce maps of Protected Areas. An urgent national priority is the preparation of Drinking Water Protected Areas. None available at this time.

NWM WR

WFD

Establish technical Working Group. Hydrogeological boundaries of groundwater bodies used for water supply must be mapped in GIS, even if first pass is an approximation. Reference data such as Hydrogeological map of Montenegro can be used.

Maps of Protected Areas of groundwater and surface waterbodies can be produced and circulated to all Municipalities and Government Agencies engaged with spatial planning and environmental regulation/Permits.

EU Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) requires Member States to provide ‘flood hazard’ and ‘flood risk’ maps. FHMs are in process with 12 Municipalities BUT data files may not be fully compliant with FD reporting standards.

NWM DRR

Data file schema should be checked and GIS output files should include waterbody code and river basin code as minimum.

Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps will be WFD compliant and can be cross-referenced across national datasets.

Standard Reference Maps from EU Sources

Needs Assessment Driver Priority Recommended Remedial Action Outcomes GIS data layers not in widespread use currently. Many relevant data layers for environment of South Europe are available from EU portals and data centres, especially WISE – Water Information System for Europe, but use of this data needs coordination.

WFD WR

GIS ‘Technical Working Group’ needs to be established in Montenegro to establish inter-Agency cooperation and use of ‘national reference data’ created internally or sourced from EU to ensure national consistency of datasets.

Agencies in Montenegro will use coordinated, nationally consistent datasets.



4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE NATIONAL WATER INFORMATION SYSTEM

4.1 Identified Needs

4.1.1 Information Technology Supporting Adaptive Capacity

The Montenegro Government identified the need for ‘a national water cadastre’ in its initial communication to the UNFCCC. The primary purposes of such a cadastre are:

Water resources of fundamental importance, such as water supply, have to be identified, protected from uncontrolled exploitation and a strategy developed to protect them against the impacts of over-exploitation and of climate change

To establish a high level of information exchange among different institutions dealing with water resources for the purpose of timely identification of any changes in water resources and undertaking adequate protection measures

As set out in the Introduction, information technology is regarded as one of the key tools in developing adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change.

4.1.2 Water Cadastre and Water Information System in Montenegro Law

Article 159 of the Water Law (2007) stipulates that for the purposes of classification of waters, monitoring and improvement of water regime, water infrastructure development planning and water management generally, ‘a Water Information System shall be established’. The Government is still to specify in greater detail the contents and procedures for maintenance of the information system. This Report may play a significant role in that requirement. Article 130 of the Water Law states that various cadastres shall be established to provide data vital for water management, and that these cadastres constitute the integral parts of the Water Information System specified under Article 159. The cadastres referred to are:

Water resources

Endangered areas

Water facilities and systems

Water use

Pollution

Technical documentation Article 131 stipulates that a more detailed Ministerial Regulation will be requiredon the contents and procedures of the management of cadastres, which were further addressed in Decree 33/08 (2008) and Decree 81/08 (2008). Since it is not clear from Articles 130, 131 and 159 that the type, extent, detail and linkages of the data collection and data reporting requirements of the European Directives has been fully understood in Montenegro (and in particular by

the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development who has prime responsibility for these cadastres), we would strongly recommend MARD and other stakeholders to study and consult on the detailed implications of our Report before addressing the detailed design of these cadastres. For example, we have identified 24 separate ‘databases’ that would be required to provide effective river basin management and to comply with EU reporting. We set these out in detail in the following sections.

4.1.3 Water Cadastre Defined Internationally

The term ‘water cadastre’ is not precise and may have widely varying definitions, and indeed is not used consistently within Montenegro at this time. Derived from the concept of a land cadastre, we take a ‘water cadastre’ to be a legally supportable set of records (a database) that define the ownership, the extent, the value or the use of any waterbody or associated water object. Often it is expected that all the individual records within a cadastre will have a spatial context i.e. they can be mapped in terms of location or extent. Spatial data is therefore an essential component of such cadastres, which directly influences how they should be designed and constructed. In this context the ‘value’ of a waterbody might not necessarily be commercial value, but an indicator of the ecological or sociological value of the waterbody (as defined by ecosystem services for example).

22

In this Report, and in line with Montenegro law, we have assumed that a ‘water cadastre’ is synonymous with an individual database, and collectively several cadastres represent a ‘water information system’, which itself might be part of a wider ‘environmental information system’. Some may take the view that a ‘water cadastre’ comprises only a mapping inventory (i.e. the ownership and extent of the waterbody or object in its spatial context). However, this is a short-sighted view. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is likely to become the pre-eminent form of environmental governance in Montenegro, and this framework utilises two key concepts:

The fundamental unit of environmental governance is the river basin

Management principles are based on the IWRM concept, meaning that all processes and their interactions must be considered simultaneously.

It follows therefore that in order to deliver the future needs of the WFD generally and River Basin Management Plans specifically, any water information system (and the cadastres within it) should promote these principles i.e. it is necessary for the data contained to be:

a) spatially consistent with river basins – this means that cross-reference and coding systems, monitoring stations, and time series of data are all categorised under a common spatial framework i.e. river basins,

22

An Introductory Guide to Valuing Ecosystem Services, UK DEFRA,

2007



catchments and sub-catchments, and most importantly, waterbodies, as the smallest unit of management.

b) fully integrated – this means that all numeric data on natural hydrometeorology and water quality (resources) and anthropogenic impacts on water resources (abstraction, discharge and pollution) are accessible in a compatible database structure and across similar timeframes, because within a river basin, there are continuous interactions between natural and anthropogenic influences. Hence all data needs to be analysed together.

The national water information system is therefore a critical tool to quantify, analyse and report on the key WFD components of:

the characterisation of the river basin

identification of main environmental pressures

the implementation of the programme of measures to achieve good ecological status

Clearly the detailed design and structural components of a national water information system, including the data model, would take many man-months to develop, and are beyond the realistic remit of this short-duration assessment. The precise ‘data-model’ will in any case be dependent on the software platform used. Commercial Water Information System (WIS) packages such as WaterWare, WISYS and WISKI will in any case use pre-determined data structures and relationships. However, this Report makes proposals for the principal critical structural elements of such a system, (which may be more extensive than many people realise), and how such a system might be implemented and operated.

4.1.4 Coordination with IPA Component III – Environmental Information System at the EPA

We note the forthcoming proposal under IPA Component III to develop ‘a fully functional Environmental information System’ (EIS) for the Montenegro Environmental Protection Agency, capable of supporting the monitoring, processing and dissemination of environmental data. Although this project has not commenced, there is significant potential for there to be duplication and overlap between a water cadastre and/or information system operated by e.g. IHMS and the EIS operated by the EPA. Both systems should be coordinated in their needs and outputs, and should avoid duplication. It is the responsibility of the supervising Ministry for Tourism and Sustainable Development to ensure this happens.

4.2 Generalised Concepts

4.2.1 Types of Monitoring

The national water cadastre designs and structures should reflect the purpose for which data are being collected. Historically Member States established monitoring programmes for a wide variety of short and long-term objectives. However, monitoring under the Water Framework Directive takes on a special significance, and the focus of national monitoring programmes may need to adjust accordingly. “Member States shall ensure the establishment of programmes for the monitoring of water status in order to establish a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each river basin district.” WFD Article 8. Specifically the monitoring programmes should enable an assessment of the likelihood that surface waters bodies within the river basin district will fail to meet the environmental quality objectives set for the bodies under Article 4. There are three main foci of monitoring:

For surface waters this must include the rate and volume of flow to the extent relevant to establish ecological and chemical status. Member States shall monitor parameters which are indicative of the status of each relevant quality element (specifically biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical).

For groundwater such programmes shall cover monitoring of the chemical and quantitative status. The monitoring network shall be designed so as to provide a reliable assessment of the quantitative status of all groundwater bodies. Frequency of monitoring must take account of short and long-term variations in recharge (Annex V, 2.2).

Bodies of water used for drinking water under WFD Article 7 must be monitored at Points of Compliance (POC) for all priority substances and all other substances discharged in significant quantities which could affect the status of the body of water and which are controlled under the provisions of the Drinking Water Directive

23

To add to the complexity, the Water Framework Directive further defines ‘types’ of monitoring programmes (Annex V). (These are not to be confused with the established national long-term hydrometeorological networks, which may be regarded as the ‘monitoring infrastructure’). This infrastructure (plus additional short-term monitoring sites as required) can be used in several ways: Surveillance Monitoring

23

Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC



Surveillance monitoring is typically based on the established long-term Stations to quantify:

the initial characterisation of waterbodies, and the anthropogenic pressures on them (Annex II)

the assessment of long-term changes in natural conditions

the assessment of long-term changes resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity

However, additional and/or temporary monitoring Stations (sites) may be required under surveillance monitoring because all Waterbody Types (by altitude, size and geology) must be represented in the monitoring programme. It is unlikely that the existing national monitoring programme in Montenegro will cover all such waterbody Types. An example of this is the specific requirement to conduct within each RBMP for a period of at least 1 year surveillance monitoring of biological and hydromorphological quality elements of all representative Waterbody Types in order to establish the ecological status of those waterbodies. Such monitoring is likely to require more Stations than in the basic national network, BUT the monitoring carried out may only be required for a temporary period in order to establish the ecological status for the appropriate waterbody. Figure 4-1 – Monitoring Leading to Overall Status

Source: UKTAG 2009

Figure 4-1 shows that the principal purpose of monitoring is to determine ecological status for each waterbody. As far as possible each water cadastre needs to be designed and structured in such as way as to make this very demanding and time-consuming process quasi-automatic. Operational Monitoring Where the surveillance monitoring programme identifies waterbodies that are at risk of failing to meet environmental

objectives under WFD Article 4 (generally either deteriorating or unlikely to achieve Good Ecological Status), then more intensive ‘Operational Monitoring’ is required. Additional operational monitoring will be required when:

Waterbodies are subject to discharges from priority list substances

24

Waterbodies are subject to significant point pollution pressures

Waterbodies are subject to significant diffuse pollution pressures

Waterbodies are subject to significant hydromorphological pressures

The parameters monitored will depend on the pressure identified. Irrespective of what is monitored, data from such operational monitoring is critical to the RBMP in order to determine the ‘Programme of Measures’ that will rectify observed failures in ecological status. Such data must also be incorporated into the national water cadastre even if it derives from temporary programmes. Investigative Monitoring The most intensive form of monitoring is required when:

The causes of ecological status failure are unknown

To determine the magnitude and impacts of major accidental pollution

Typically such monitoring will be relatively short-term, and may be confined to small catchments. Such data should still be held in a national water cadastre for consistency and reference.

4.2.2 The Importance of Stations with Long-term Records

Long-term continuity of records at a fixed point is extremely important in order to i) provide sufficient data for statistical accuracy ii) analyse long-term trends. The longer the data record at a point, the more valuable it becomes, because the sample size is larger and therefore statistical measures such as Mean, Minimum, Maximum, Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variation have reduced margins of error.

This is especially critical for water resources planning and climate change fluctuations. Stations that monitor multiple variables (e.g. discharge AND water quality) are more valuable than single parameter stations because i) data can be integrated to produce more useful information ii) they are economically more efficient to operate.

24

Priority Substances Directive 2008/105/EC



This should be borne in mind when revisions to the networks are being considered in future especially with regard to Water Framework Directive requirements. Environmental Monitoring Stations (EMS) may therefore be regarded as the structural pillars of the water cadastre, and represent the primary way in which data are referenced and accessed.

4.2.3 Types of Information

The broad design of the national water information system must serve several functions in parallel:

2. Numeric Databases - This principally comprises the numeric databases of the national hydro-meteorological and water quality networks. They must house the quality controlled outputs of these systematic observations, and have the capacity to statistically analyse and graphically present data in order to determine short-term extreme fluctuations and long-term trends (information). As well as ‘live data’, these databases should contain ‘reference sets’ of data for extreme time-series (floods and droughts), and act as the national archive in easily retrievable form.

3. Anthropogenic Influences – The biggest short to medium term impacts on water quantity and quality will arise through artificial (anthropogenic) influences, especially water abstractions and pollutant discharges. It is not possible to analyse the fluctuations or trends of [1] above without close integration to the artificial influences on the waterbodies as well as ‘natural’ behaviour. The principal method for tracking and regulating anthropogenic impacts will be through a national licensing, ‘concession’ or Permit system.

4. Geographic Information Layers - All numeric data should be analysed in the spatial context of the catchment, sub-catchment and waterbody to which they relate. Therefore spatial elements (geographic information) must be closely integrated with the numeric database(s) and the anthropogenic influences. It should be noted that the European Commission expects the Member States to report River Basin Management Plan outputs predominantly through GIS layers; hence the GIS component of the cadastre is critical in terms of WFD compliance and reporting.

In short, a true understanding of the quantity or quality performance of any waterbody must take account of all three elements: the ‘natural’ behaviour, the artificial influences, and the spatial context of both. An isolated database or cadastre that contains only one of these elements will lead to poor understanding of the processes, inappropriate management decisions and poor policy making.

4.2.4 Timescales and Spatial Resolution of Information

A national water information system must also operate effectively at different time-scales, and at different spatial resolutions:

A. Short-term Priorities - On timescales of hours to weeks, incoming data, especially in real-time via the GSM network may indicate hazardous situations developing, especially with regard to extreme rainfall, river flood peaks, prolonged dry periods or hazardous pollution of a waterbody. In this regard it is necessary for the real-time monitoring software to have the capability to set emergency warning thresholds and to trigger automatic alerts when these are reached. The resolution of the analysis will most likely be at individual waterbody and/or sub-catchment scale.

B. Medium-term Regulation – On timescales of months to 6 years, the cadastres need to be used to observe and manage changes in waterbodies generally. This will include determining the ecological status of waterbodies, and monitoring them to ensure achievement of targets set for the 6 year River Basin Management Plan. It will include the allowable criteria for abstraction quantities and/or emission limit values to achieve the environmental quality standards (EQS) for the waterbody for example. This is most effectively done via a national Permit system which is the main tool that should be used to regulate anthropogenic impacts on the water environment (see 4.4). Drought monitoring and planning will require the analysis of m-day low flow values from the data, and the monitoring of drought indices such as the Standardised Precipitation Index (SPI) for example. Flood monitoring and planning will require the analysis of n-year annual flood maxima related to historical flood level observations to identify flood hazard and flood risk in compliance with the EU Floods Directive

25

The resolution of the analysis will most usually be at major river catchment or major hydrogeological region scale, and to accord with best practice, be implemented through a standardised national Permitting system.

C. Long-term Planning – On timescales of 6 years to decades, the longer term changes in meteorological trends, water resources, and disaster risk arising from continuing anthropogenic influences and climate change impacts must be assessed so as to influence Government policy and environmental regulation generally.

25

Assessment and Management of Flood Risks Directive 2007/60/EC



The resolution of the analysis will most usually be at major river basin scale, and should predominantly be implemented through the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) process, so policy targets should logically follow RBMP planning cycles of 6 years (i.e. 2015, 2021, 2027 etc). This time-step should be noted by Government, as Article 23 of the Water Law refers to a 10 year interval for a review of the National Water Master Plan, which is inconsistent with WFD RBMP timescales. In fact most WFD compliant States would argue that RBMPs ARE the national ‘water master plans’. There is no requirement for an additional type of plan if the RBMP has been prepared correctly i.e. with full information and full consultation.

4.3 Environmental Monitoring Database Structure

4.3.1 Environmental Monitoring Data Model

Table 4-1 summarises proposals for the Data Model for the numerically based environmental parameters. The fundamental logical structure is that there are 11 major themes

26, comprised of six sets of routine data

(meteorology, surface water hydrometry, groundwater quality etc.), and five sets of data from short-term or specific monitoring programmes, including for example biological elements to support waterbody ecological status, or flood level data from a major flood event. Each theme may be regarded as a standalone ‘database’ OR a subset of a combination database, depending on how data is collected and processed. Separate databases obviously allow greater flexibility for data management and processing between different Departments. For example, as now the Meteorology Department uses CLIDATA to store and process meteorological parameters, whereas the Hydrology Department uses HYDRAS for water level. However, as is evident in IHMS now, linkages between these data sets are much more difficult, and would require customised software interfaces to be developed between different databases. Using a single multi-parameter software platform such as WISKI™ to host most or all of these subsets would greatly simplify referential integrity and SQL based integrated analysis of raw data. The parameters listed in Table 4-1 represent the minimum compliance levels of data to meet disaster risk management, Water Framework Directive compliance and climate change impact assessments.

Each parameter shown within in each environmental theme (e.g. precipitation, water level, NH4 etc.) will have a unique data table with specified attributes. Most usually the data table will contain the observed raw data (values) as a

26

Text denotes database standard terminology

continuous time-series (records), with additional attributes such as date, time, quality control flag etc. There will be many instances (especially for hydrometric and water quality stations) where a single station records data across multiple themes e.g. water level from Surface Hydrometry, Dissolved Oxygen from Surface Water Physico-Chemical and Benzene from Specific Pollutants. All these data are logically in separate Tables and possibly even separate databases, BUT can be related in a database schema through use of a unique Environmental Monitoring Station (EMS) code. (How data are logically referenced and joined (Entity Relationships) is explained under 4.3.2).

4.3.2 Metadata and Entity Relationship Model

In database terms, all datasets in the national water cadastres require a unique EMS Identification Code to be included as an attribute, and usually this will be the database Primary Key (PK). Every Station in a water cadastre should have an associated metadata Table. Metadata is not a strong feature of current databases in Montenegro, and this must be improved. Fundamentally, Station metadata is how data from different sources can be related to common river basins, catchments and waterbodies. The Metadata Table of Table 4-2 shows a minimum of 20 attributes that will be required just for a Surface Water Monitoring Station. 11 of these are compulsory within the Water Framework Directive. The remainder are optional improvements suggested by the Consultants. Detailed guidance of Metadata attributes to comply with WFD reporting is provided in Guidance Document 9 of the Common Implementation Strategy.

27 28

The Table emphasises the importance of WFD features such as waterbody, unique Station ID at EU level, and the type of monitoring carried out at the Station. It is important to note that the attribute MS_CD (the unique Station reference) is typically designated as the Primary Key for linkages to other data Tables. A Primary Key must be a unique record in a data table. An illustration for entity linkages is also shown. For example, assume that continuous time-series of water level is recorded at Station 040602-7865 (15 minute intervals). This data would be stored in a different Table. In this case the Primary Key might be a composite <DateTime> attribute BUT the Table also contains the Foreign Key <MS_CD> which matches the Primary Key from the Metadata Table. In this way, data Tables (entities) from different sources (e.g. surface water hydrometry and water quality) can be usefully combined through Queries or Reports to produce enhanced information as opposed to just raw data.

27

Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD – Implementing

GIS Elements of the WFD, Guidance Document 9, 2002 28

Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD - Implementing

GIS Elements of the WFD, Updated Guidance Document 22, 2009



For example, assume that there is another Data Table from the water quality monitoring programme which has time series records (hourly) of nitrate concentration NO3 also at MS 040602-7865. These data are recorded hourly. Since this Data Table also stores the MS code as a foreign key, it is possible to perform with SQL a temporary Table or Query that combines relevant records (discharge and concentration) to produce a new attribute column that represents LOAD (which is concentration x discharge). Storing the Monitoring Station code (and possibly other attributes) as part of the individual datasets will then allow many other types of referential queries to be made about data within the spatial context of WFD compliance, such as river basins, waterbodies, ecological status boundaries etc. because this information is stored as part of the Station metadata. Currently most hydrometeorological data in Montenegro consists of independent time-series data, with little capacity for cross-referencing to other datasets. Within the context of the intentions of the WFD, it is extremely important for environmental professionals in Montenegro to appreciate the critical importance of:

a) WFD compliant metadata generally, for all waterbodies and water management objects, in order to provide integrated outputs for the water sector, especially with regard to GIS

b) How data will be cross-referenced and queried by staff across different Departments to produce useable information outputs (generally known as WORKFLOW), prior to finalising the detailed design of the water cadastre.

4.4 Water Permits Database Structure

4.4.1 The Critical Role of Permits in Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs)

Prior to the 2000 implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) across EU Member States, Water Permits for the abstraction of water quantity and the discharge of water effluent were primarily legal documents, with the main criteria of specifying simple quotas (e.g. 50 m³/day) or an effluent concentration limit (e.g. 15 mg/l NO3) at the point of interest. There was relatively little reference to the wider spatial context of the Permit and its impact on the receiving waterbody and the wider catchment. This is still very much the case in Montenegro. Best practice environmental governance in Europe is now emphatically at the river basin scale. This means in practice that all abstractions from and effluent discharges to waterbodies are recognised as having a potential impact on the ecological status of those waterbodies. Quantitative and regulatory metadata and data from Water Permits should be directly accessible within the water cadastre so that the impacts of any particular water use on

the waterbody ecological status can be easily quantified and understood. Equally important, if the impact is seen to be negative, then again it is the Water Permit that should be used to correct this negative impact, for example by reducing the water abstraction quota, reducing the effluent concentration etc. It follows therefore that a well documented, quantitatively based and spatially referenced Permit System should play a central and critical role at the centre of the national water cadastre in order to achieve river basin ecological objectives.

4.4.2 Water Permit Design

Environment professionals in Montenegro should understand that seasonal and spatial aspects of Water Permits must be clearly identified and systematically recorded in a way that allows such data to be easily added to the water cadastre. It is not clear if detailed spatial and seasonal data are routinely collected during the Permit application process but our understanding is that currently Permits are basic in their content, and are certainly not stored in any form of electronic database that can be widely accessed by third parties. The fundamental logical structure proposes that there are 5 main types of Water Permit:

Abstraction

Discharge

Mining & Extraction

Temporary Construction Works

Permanent Structures Abstraction An Abstraction Permit would be required for any removal of water FROM a surface or groundwater body of more than say 10 m³/day.

29 The Permit should show what proportion of the

abstraction is NOT returned to the waterbody i.e. the consumptive use. It should also show the seasonal/monthly variation of the abstraction (if any). Discharge A Discharge Permit would be required for discharge of effluent TO a waterbody. The Permit should indicate the maximum allowable concentrations (MAC) of various pollutant substances that may be in the effluent. Mining and Extraction Uncontrolled removal of sand and gravel from riverbeds is potentially extremely damaging to river hydromorphology and will almost certainly degrade the ecological status of the waterbody. Such activities have to be strictly regulated in terms of WHEN such activities are allowed and how much material can be removed. Temporary Construction Works Generally this will cover Temporary Works in or near to a waterbody, for example highway construction, changes to river banks etc. Primarily this type of Permit is used to ensure

29

Water Law of Montenegro, Article 5 (61) – Protected Areas must

be designated for public water supply abstractions >50m³/day



that the waterbody is safeguarded from accidental pollution or accidental damage to the hydromorphology, both of which will degrade the waterbody ecological status. Permanent Structures ANY structure that is to be permanently constructed in or near a river may have significant impacts on the water regime. For example, a new weir may affect upstream water levels and velocities. New walls or buildings may obstruct the floodplain and cause a loss of floodplain storage. New highway bridges may restrict the rive channel and create increased flooding upstream. All such impacts have to be carefully assessed before allowing the permanent placement of new objects. Figure 4-2 – Example Best Practice Abstraction Permit

Source: www.waterconsultant.com Figure 4-2 illustrates the level of detail that might be contained in a best practice Permit, in this case for commercial water abstraction. The main sections cover Location Details, Abstraction Method and Proposed Usage.

Although the Proposed Usage section may seem excessively detailed, in fact for catchments and waterbodies that may face extreme shortages of water in future, unnecessary or inefficient abstractions of water may significantly impact the ecological status of the waterbody, and therefore it is essential to have a precise understanding of how much water is taken and how efficiently it is used. Therefore it is very important to know for each and every abstraction the exact purpose of the water use and how efficiently the water is being used. This means that the Applicant should set out details of the consumption quantities that can be checked against best available techniques (BAT) reference standards.

With regard to effluent Permits, very high levels of detail regarding effluent concentrations from large operations are in any case required under the IPPC Directive.

30

It should also be remembered that good Permit design assists also with improved quality of inspection and enforcement. The more information that is set out in the Permit, the more able is the Inspectorate to carry out effective control of the process.

4.4.3 Water Permits Data Model

The precise content and design of Water Permits is a complex matter, and may need to be defined in national legislation. However, the central matter for this Report is the essential quantitative and spatial data that should be contained in the Permits in order to make them useful within the water cadastre. Regardless of the design, quantitative data from Water Permits must have a clearly defined logical structure so that these data can be stored and accessed in the database environment of the water cadastre. Table 4-3 summarises proposals for the Data Model for the numerically based Water Permits. Permit Metadata would normally include the Permit ID, details of the Applicant, the relevant Town and Municipality, the Start and End dates of the Permit, frequency of inspection etc. Specific quantitative data that might be used for environmental management within the WFD framework would include (for ALL types

of Permits):

30

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC)

2008/1/EC



The TYPE of abstraction, discharge, extraction or construction

The GPS LOCATION

The Water Framework Directive CATCHMENT and WATERBODY reference codes

For abstraction and discharge Permits it is particularly important to know:

The maximum feasible FLOW CAPACITY of the abstraction or discharge equipment

The AVERAGE DAILY proposed abstraction or discharge

The ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION of the abstraction or discharge across different months

The MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATIONS of the effluent parameters

For temporary and permanent construction Permits, it is particularly important to know:

The OPERATING LEVELS of the structures i.e. minimum, maximum and normal

The DAMAGE flood level, at which point damage to the structure or to adjacent objects may start to occur

For new bridges, weirs and sluices, the CAPACITY of the flow opening should always be calculated and recorded

4.5 Geographic Information Database Structure

4.5.1 GIS Geodata Defined

Here we present concepts and proposals for the third structural element of the national water cadastre, namely geographic information or ‘geodata’. This is principally spatially referenced data that is acquired, analysed and presented in the form of GIS data layers. ‘Features’ or ‘Objects’ shown on GIS layers are still nevertheless data records that can be displayed in a conventional Data Table. As with numeric databases, spatial features can have many attributes associated with a single record (e.g. date, length, value, status) which can also be displayed on the GIS map, usually as a label. We refer heavily to the standards set out under Annex V of the Water Framework Directive and the accompanying CIS Guidance for Implementing the GIS Elements of the WFD.

31

Environment professionals in Montenegro should become intensely familiar with these standards. The CIS guidance framework explains how Member State GIS data should be compiled and reported. Principles of ‘identifier management’ are given in the data specifications of INSPIRE

32 and equally

apply to WISE.

31

Common Implementation Strategy – Implementing the GIS

Elements of the WFD, Updated Guidance Document 22, 2009. 32

INSPIRE Generic Conceptual Model. D2.5, Version 3

This Section also draws largely on the data requirements already discussed under Part 3 – A Review of Geographic Data and Needs and here specifies the common framework for the unique identification of spatial objects (feature classes) represent in GIS layers. Here we basically set out the overall structure of the Data Model.

4.5.2 RBMP GIS Layer Example from the UK

Figure 4-3 gives an example of a WFD compliant GIS data layer from the RBMP for the River Wye sub-basin, UK. The map and data table essentially contain the same data. In this case the GIS layer has been colour-coded to show the ‘Ecological Status’ of all waterbodies. The layout illustrates some important principles. The GIS graphical layer (upper Map) in fact derives from a conventional data table (lower Table). Data records can therefore be accessed via a Table editor or the GIS graphical

interface or by an Information tool.

The data Table contains individual waterbody ‘records’ and each record is uniquely identified by the WFD compliant waterbody code. There are a significant number of attributes associated with each waterbody e.g. altitude, geology, length, ecological status etc. This map is an example of ‘consequential mapping’, whereby many individual GIS datasets have been combined and queried to produce a single new data table that is primarily used for showing waterbody ecological status and the various attributes used to determine this status.

4.5.3 Object Referencing in the WIS GIS Framework

An important aspect for WISE compliant GIS datasets is ‘object referencing’. Unique identifiers must be used as primary keys or foreign keys in geographical datasets and databases to allow the linkage of different spatial objects and to reference tabular information to their respective spatial object. For example, virtually every hydrological and/or non-hydrological feature or object (a data record) should carry as part of the record attributes the River Basin, sub-basin and waterbody unique codes. This allows cross-referencing against all environmental data sets including those submitted to the European Commission as part of RBMP reporting. A simple example is shown in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. Table 4-1 is a simplified extract of a WISE compliant GIS layer WFD_SW2a which reports on Surface Water Bodies. In this case the data file contains one record for each waterbody uniquely identified by its EU waterbody ID (EUCODE). In database terms this is a Primary Key. Note that Table WFD_SW2a is a compulsory Table as part of WFD Member State submissions. However, assume that a different Department (e.g. IHMS Water Quality) has produced a separate database of the Ecological Status of each waterbody. This may be regarded as a local data file as WFD does not require Ecostatus to be reported as a separate data layer. Clearly THIS Data Table may reference many physico-chemical and/or biological



attributes (shown as Fields) that do not need to be contained in the <WaterBody> Table. However, it must be made possible to relate the two Tables because Table <WaterBody> may need specific attributes from Table <EcoStat> and vice-versa for additional analysis or reporting. Table 4-1 – Example GIS Data Structure for <Waterbody>

WFD GIS Data Table <WaterBody> <WFD_SW2a> RECORD ATTRIBUTES or FIELDS

DBID EUCODE (PK) NAME MSCODE

1001 GB109055041920 HUMBER 109055041920

1002 GB109055041930 WYE 109055041930

1003 GB109055041940 WYE 109055041940

In this example the attribute <EUCODE> acts as the Primary Key in Table <WaterBody>. It is a Foreign Key in Table <EcoStat>, and in this way all GIS Data Tables should be related. Table 4-2 – Example GIS Data Structure for <Eco_Stat>

LOCAL GIS Data Table <EcoStat> RECORD ATTRIBUTES or FIELDS

DBID ECOSTAT DRIVER EUCODE (FK)

3074 BAD FISH GB109055041920

3075 GOOD DIATOMS GB109055041930

3076 MODERATE PHOSPHATE GB109055041940

4.5.4 Spatial Reference System and Accuracy

The use of a common geodetic datum (horizontal and vertical) is a first step towards the harmonisation of geographic information across Europe. The adoption of a common reference system makes it possible to maintain seamless distributed spatial data sets. A common geodetic datum is particularly important for GIS users who require a seamless dataset. It will be the responsibility of Member States to provide data according to the proposed European datum. ETRS8930 is recognised by the scientific community as the most appropriate European geodetic datum to be adopted. It is defined to 1cm accuracy, and is consistent with the global ITRS31. ETRS89 is now available due to the creation of the EUREF32 permanent GPS station network and the validated EUREF observations. Vertical co-ordinates should be in metres in the “European Vertical Reference System” realised by EVRF2000. CIS Guidance emphasises the extreme importance of ensuring that national datums and projections are correctly transferred to this datum. At national level, an alternative series of different coordinate reference systems can be used but it is essential that conversion from a national coordinate reference system is done with care. If conversion is not done correctly data will lose positional accuracy. Proper transformation routines have to be observed. The National Mapping Agencies (NMA) (or comparable institutions and organisations) have provided the information for the descriptions of the national Coordinate Reference Systems and for the transformation parameters between the

national Coordinate Reference Systems and the European Coordinate Reference System ETRS89. Formulae can be requested from the NMAs or are directly accessible at: http://crs.bkg.bund.de/crs-eu/

4.5.5 Geodata Data Model

This Section proposes the outline data model for the geodata component of the water cadastre. Detailed data modelling (describing specific data layer attributes, data types and table relationships) would of course take many man-months to plan and prepare. Here we have summarised the main data tables that will comply with WISE and WFD reporting requirements generally. However, it is important to note that substantial reporting resources, guidance, templates and database schema are all available through the EIONET European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and Marine Waters: http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas/dir200060ec/resources

http://crs.bkg.bund.de/crs-eu/

http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas/dir200060ec/resources



Figure 4-3 – Example GIS Layer and Data Table of Ecological Status – Wye River Basin UK



Table 4-6 sets out the fundamental structure of the geodatabases. There are seven principal ‘themes’ for spatially based analysis and reporting, in compliance with the WISE framework for reporting to the European Commission.

Water Framework Directive GIS data in this part of the water cadastre serves equally WFD requirements and the Montenegro national water master plan. The main geographic elements include the definition of river basins, compentent authorities, the waterbody types and protected areas.

WISE State of the Environment Reporting In addition to the GIS data layers required by the WFD RBMPs, Member States are obliged to report separately on the state of the environment. These data files are generally made publicly available through the WISE portal.

Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive Since urban wastewater has a significant impact on environmental pressures, the UWWT layers are the second most numerous to that of the WFD. The identification of sensitive areas and the location of urban agglomerations and wastewater discharge points are all important.

Bathing Water Directive In compliance with Directive 2007/7/EC, all bathing areas require mapping, as well as the water quality sampling points used to determine status.

Drinking Water Directive The boundaries of Water Supply Zones are required. This is NOT the hydrogeological body supplying the water; rather it is the water company defined area which does not have significant differences in water quality. The water quality indicated by sampling within the supply zone should be generally representative of the water quality supplied to the whole area of the zone.

Nitrates Directive Monitoring of nitrates in waterbodies is required because of the significant environmental impact of eutrophication in downstream waterbodies. Nitrate vulnerable areas must be identified and mapped.

European Pollutant Release and Transfer For each facility, information is provided concerning the amounts of pollutant releases to air, water and land as well as off-site transfers of waste and of pollutants in waste water from a list of 91 key pollutants including heavy metals, pesticides, greenhouse gases and dioxins. This is a relatively simple layer showing the location of E-PRTR compliant sites.

Floods Directive This Directive specifically requires Member States to produce maps of flood risk zones, historical flooding and flood hazard areas. Clearly these maps are

fundamental to the operational work of the Sector for Emergency Response, but nevertheless with regard to data reporting the procedures and standards specified in the Flood Directive should still be followed.

Within each of these themes there are a number of specific GIS layers, geodatabases or maps that should be available within the water cadastre. (For example, the GIS layer code e.g. WFD_RBD1) complies with EC CIS guidance

30 and we

strongly recommend that the same convention is used in Montenegro. Within the WISE framework, map datasets are generally divided into sub-categories relating to:

Management units

Infrastructure

Measurement

Background or Influencing Features Table 4-6 shows that there are approximately 60 separate GIS datasets required to comply with the various EU Directives. We consider it unlikely that Montenegro would require any different or additional geodata for its own purposes (e.g. water resources planning, national Water Masterplan etc) other than those also required by EU legislation. We emphasise that the data model shown is a high level structure summary. It does not extend down to the level of individual data schema, which will be required at a detailed design stage. In this respect the CIS emphasis the strong need for hierarchy in the definition of individual datasets or ‘feature groups’. An example for waterbodies is shown in Table 4-6. For example, <WaterBody> is a defined feature group, but it is further subdivided as follows: <Waterbody> <SurfaceWaterBody> <FreshWaterBody> <RiverWaterBody> <RiverSegment> The smallest mappable unit in the water cadastre is therefore a ‘river segment’. Each of the objects in the feature classes listed above should have a unique reference code, which will be based on the Pfafstetter coding principle. From Table 4-6 it will be obvious that the development of a fully operational, up to date and comprehensive geodatabase for all of Montenegro is a very major undertaking, and will require significant Government investment in software, staff training, data collection and GIS dataset creation. Mapping of the national waterbodies and coding them in accordance with the Pfafstetter principles is an absolute priority for the Montenegro water sector.



4.6 Maintaining the National Water Cadastres

4.6.1 Software Options for the Environmental Monitoring Database

National hydrometeorological data are primarily collected by the Meteorological, Hydrological and Water Quality departments of IHMS, (although legal responsibility for the national data collection programme lies with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) but as we have shown in Section 2, even these three departments within IHMS are using quite different systems to store data (CLIDATA, HYDRAS and EXCEL) and these systems are not directly compatible. IHMS has an important remit to monitor extreme events, and provide timely warnings for floods and droughts. There is therefore an understandable reliance on ‘operational’ packages such as CLIDATA and HYDRAS for real-time monitoring. However, this is a short-term focus, and is NOT contributing to the equally important tasks of:

Development and maintenance of the national hydrometeorological archive (including the production of Annual Yearbooks).

Trend and frequency analysis of environmental data for climate change impacts, particularly with regard to changes in water resources availability.

Development of forecasting models (rainfall-runoff) to assist in flood risk management planning.

There are three potential software packages capable of delivering the multi-functional requirements listed above: WaterWare WaterWare™ (from ESS GmbH) is an integrated, model-based information and decision support system for water resources management. The system is designed to support the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) or similar national legislation. It is implemented in open, object-oriented client-server architecture, fully web-enabled and Internet based, supporting the seamless integration of databases, GIS, simulation and optimization models, and analytical tools into a common, easy-to-use framework. http://www.ess.co.at/waterware WISYS WISYS™ (from DHI) WISYS is an ArcGIS based water information system designed to support river basin management and the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (EU WFD). It supports the management of temporal and spatial data in a multi-user information management system and is ideal for sharing information among stakeholders. WISYS includes a spatial data model enriched with information required to support the EU WFD data processing and reporting requirements.

WISYS supports water management authorities in creating and maintaining an overview of river basin features such as river networks, lakes, wetlands, protected areas, waste disposal sites, well fields and different types of administrative and infrastructural data. http://www.dhigroup.com/mikecustomisedbydhi/wisys WISKI WISKI™ (from Kisters GmbH) excels at managing large amounts of hydrometeorological time series data, while giving clients access to numerous integrated modules including hydrological time-series analysis, water quality data, event alarms, data acquisition, task scheduling, modelling and GIS mapping. Particularly useful add-on modules include:

SODA, a telemetry system for remote data collection, therefore a direct substitute for HYDRAS

KiWIS which imports and publishes real-time hydrological data over the Internet

SKED is used for the creation of effective storage capacity curves or for generating stage-flow relations (rating curves). SKED is fully integrated into WISKI but can also be applied as standalone software.

Geared to the ESRI ArcGIS user, the WISKI Extension for ArcGIS is installed on a PC running ArcGIS workstation. The ArcGIS workstation can then access all the time series data, meta-data and water quality sample data stored within the WISKI system to create both static and animated maps for reports, websites, or public presentations.

http://www.kisters.eu/english/html/homepage.html It is important to note that IHMS in fact already has a copy of the WISKI software, but inadequate resources and training was given previously to implement this very powerful package properly within the Institute. We also understand that the licence has at this time not yet been fully paid. These financial issues between Kisters GmbH and the Montenegro Government would clearly need to be addressed first. It would be inappropriate at this point to make firm recommendations concerning the specific software package most appropriate for Montenegro’s need. Each of the three packages highlighted would be able to host the national hydrometeorological data, and all provide integrated GIS functionality. Each has strengths and weaknesses in particular elements. It is more a matter of ease of use, ability to integrate across different departments, web-based access, and of course purchase price and maintenance costs (which can be considerable). This is a priority task for the GIS Technical Working Group to evaluate and decide.

4.6.2 Software Options for the Water Permit Database

A weakness of most commercial Water Information System (WIS) packages is the general absence of Water Permit

http://www.ess.co.at/waterware

http://www.dhigroup.com/MIKECUSTOMISEDbyDHI/WISYS

http://www.kisters.eu/english/html/homepage.html



components i.e. the provision of customisable data entry Forms to record, report and map the technical conditions specified for individual Permits. However, most WIS software allows direct linkages to external databases such as Excel™ spreadsheets or Access™ databases. Provided that the external database is part of the water cadastre intranet, Water Permit data such as that shown in Figure 4-2 can be viewed within the WIS, and locations plotted on the GIS. Linking Water Permits into the WIS/water cadastre will therefore be a technicality only. It is more important at this stage for the Technical Working Group to prepare standards for the quantification of Water Permit technical conditions, and to agree the method by which these data can be linked or incorporated into the national water cadastre.

4.6.3 Software Options for the GIS Geodatabase

There are of course numerous commercial Geographic Information System software packages available. Essentially they all operate under the same principle, namely to map spatially referenced objects by way of vector and/or raster based layers. Data are held as records, the attributes of which can be queried and combined to produce new information layers. Figure 4-4 – Example Concept of GIS Data Layers Source: www.ESRI.com

The most common GIS packages in use for water professionals include: Quantum GIS Quantum GIS (QGIS™) is a powerful and user friendly Open Source Geographic Information System (GIS) that runs on Linux, Unix, Mac OSX, Windows and Android. QGIS supports vector, raster, and database formats. A particular attraction is that it is free to download and use. It is gaining popularity amongst environment professionals

due to its open-source nature, relative ease of use and the high cost of comparative products from ESRI and MapInfo. http://www.qgis.org/ MapInfo MapInfo™ is in reasonably widespread use by Europe environmental professionals, as it is relatively inexpensive (€ 1,500 per single licence) and very easy to use. However, there is increasing perception that MapInfo is being promoted as an infrastructure and customer management type package, and offers less for environmental management ‘plug-ins’ than ArcGIS for example. In this project we have encountered file import difficulties from the EEA datasets (e.g. CCM, based on .shp ArcGIS format) into MapInfo. http://www.pbinsight.com/welcome/mapinfo/ ArcGIS ArcGIS™ from ESRI is without question the pre-eminent GIS package for environment professionals. In addition to conventional mapping capability, ArcGIS has very powerful specialist applications such as ArcHydro™ which are specifically designed to support water resources management. A particular strength is that many Water Information System (WIS) packages such as DHI’s WISYS and Kister’s WISKI operate within or parallel to ArcGIS. This provides enormously powerful analysis and visualisation capabilities of virtually any aspect of the water environment. European Environment Agency (EEA) datasets are also generally available in the ArcGIS format as a default. A major drawback for consideration is the very high cost of a single user licence (€11,000) and the technical complexity of using ArcGIS for specialist applications. The learning curve and training costs are significantly higher for ArcGIS than for other packages. http://www.esri.com/Industries/water_resources As with the numeric data database review, this Report will not advocate a specific software solution. The main criterion for selecting the appropriate software platform should not focus on the mapping capabilities (each package does similar things), the priority is rather that the GIS software should be able to integrate closely with other databases in the national water cadastre i.e. the numeric databases and the Water Permit database. In this respect ArcGIS offers generally a greater range of modules relevant to water management, including basic rainfall-runoff modelling and water quality load prediction to name but two. This functionality comes at significant cost however.


4.7.1 National Water Cadastres Technical Working Group

Obvious first steps should not be overlooked. Consistency of data management and coordination between stakeholders in a project of national importance requires at the very least the

Built Infrastructure

Drainage Infrastructure

Waterbodies

Digital Terrain

http://www.esri.com/

http://www.qgis.org/

http://www.pbinsight.com/welcome/mapinfo/

http://www.esri.com/Industries/water_resources



early formulation of a Water Cadastres Technical Working Group in Montenegro (WC-TWG). The remit of this TWG would be to agree and coordinate:

Which Agencies are responsible for collecting ‘water cadastre data’, and what quality assurance procedures should be used BEFORE data are added to the water cadastre?

How will data be added to the water cadastres and how frequently, and which software should be used?

Which Agency will have primary ownership of the water cadastres, bearing in mind that we have proposed three separate main elements? (1) Numeric databases of environmental data (2) Permit or Licence database (3) Spatial and map database These three elements must be integrated in some form, especially for the development of WFD River Basin Management Plans, which suggests some form of ‘data centralisation’ both in terms of the software platform(s) and the way in which it is operated.

Who will be allowed to access the water cadastre, and by what methods e.g. intranet, public view be pages etc.?

Data files should be in compliance with WFD and WISE standards as exemplified in this Report, but one supervising Agency in Montenegro should have overall responsibility to define the equivalent national standards and ensure compliance. For example, the recent floodplain maps produced by the MSDT, whilst locally useful, are probably not in compliance with the Floods Directive and WISE standards, an issue which could have been avoided if published national standards were available.

Secondary legislation and/or a Ministerial Regulation may be required to formalise the structure and procedures of the National Water Cadastre, and the WC-TWG would have an important role in drafting this legislation.

4.7.2 Selection of Environmental Monitoring Database Software

This component of the water information system needs careful consideration. An absolute priority for IHMS is to properly fund and support the consolidation of the national flow archive (including precipitation data). The poor state of

the national flow archive has been illustrated in Section 2. Water quality data is not stored in any form of relational database. There is a significant backlog of all data that requires processing, quality checking, and then made accessible to technical staff and the general public. The bottle-neck has arisen precisely because appropriate database software has not yet been identified and supported. We would recommend that one of the first tasks of the WC-TWG would be to invite representatives of the major WIS packages to make a formal presentation of the capability of their respective platforms. This Report could be circulated to them as a briefing document.

Figure 4-5 – Flood Hazard Mapping in ArcGIS

The selected database software must contain analytical tools (trend, frequency analysis), and also serve as a repository for the national hydrometeorological data archive. Ideally this data would be accessible (in restricted formats) to the general public. An example of best practice can be seen at the UK National River Flow Archive, where data for any Hydrometric Station for any period can be visualised and/or downloaded. (http://www.ceh.ac.uk/data/nrfa/data/time_series.html?45012

4.7.3 Selection of Water Permit Database Software

Assuming that Montenegro Government supports the principle of an electronic based Permit system, appropriate software has to be used. To some extent this will depend on the choices made for the environmental numeric databases, and whether or not a commercial Water Information System such as WISKI or WISYS will be used, as these will offer some capability to add customised data.

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/data/nrfa/data/time_series.html?45012





Alternatively, a simple and cheap option is to develop a bespoke Water Permit database in Access™ or Excel™, which could be developed by local programmers. Critically however, this database MUST contain coordinates of each Water Permit and the river basin codes and waterbody codes as explained in this Section, and it must be capable of being accessed and mapped by the water cadastre system.

4.7.4 Selection of GIS Database Software

The decision as to which GIS software package to use for the national water cadastre is a major one. It will be a complex mix of technical functionality (what the GIS can do), integration (how will other databases or software be linked to it), accessibility (who will use it and how will they gain access), and of course costs of purchase, implementation and training. In our experience national Governments often significantly under-estimate the ongoing needs and costs of training and support of national water cadastres. Hydrometeorological analysis for water resources and climate change assessments are very demanding of good quality data. However, data are continually updated, and just the maintenance of a complete and high quality national water cadastre will require significant support and resources. Without this the cadastre will fail after some years, as has already happened in Montenegro after the demise of the Annual Yearbooks for example.

4.7.5 National Standards for GIS Mapping and Reporting

From the few examples we have accessed, it is likely that currently in Montenegro GIS datasets do not largely comply with the required standards and formats for Water Framework Directive and WISE. The recommended Technical Working Group must address this failure as a matter of urgency. If the use of GIS within Montenegro is going to increase in the near future, it is necessary to comply with the European standards as far as possible. Tables 4-3 to 4-6 have set out clearly the general data structures that will be needed. The contribution and needs of the various environmental stakeholders in Montenegro with regard to these databases must of course must be discussed and agreed.



Table 4-3 – Environmental Monitoring Data: Outline Data Model

METEOROLOGY

Station Metadata Precipitation Min Temperature Max Temperature Wind Speed Wind Direction Humidity Solar Radiation Sunshine Hours Snowpack Evaporation Soil Moisture

SURFACE HYDROMETRY

Station Metadata Bed Datum Check Current Meter Check Water Level Discharge Water Temperature

GROUNDWATER HYDROMETRY

Station Metadata Borehole Level Wetland Level Spring Discharge Temperature

SURFACE WATER PHYSICO-CHEMICAL

Station Metadata Temperature pH Electrical Conductivity Turbidity Dissolved Oxygen BOD5 NH4

NH3 Cl

-

SO4 PO4 NO3 Phenol Total Coliforms Faecal Coliforms

GROUNDWATER PHYSICO-CHEMICAL

Station Metadata Temperature Dissolved Oxygen pH Electrical Conductivity NO3 Pesticides

Numeric Databases in ORACLE™ Type Server

DRINKING WATER WATERBODIES

Station Metadata Part A, Part B & Part C substances under Directive 98/83/EC

BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENTS (Rivers)

Station Metadata Aquatic Flora Benthic Invertebrates Fish Similar Data Tables for

Lakes

Transitional Waters

Coastal Waters

HYDROMORPHOLOGY QUALITY ELEMENTS

WFD ECOLOGICAL STATUS

SPECIFIC POLLUTANTS

Station Metadata

33 Priority Substances as per Directive 2008/108/EC

Specific Pollutants in significant quantity

WFD CHEMICAL STATUS

Station Metadata Flow Dynamics Groundwater links River Depth & Width River-bed Substrate Riparian Zone Structure

WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE – SURVEILLANCE/OPERATIONAL MONITORING

MAJOR FLOOD EVENT

Station Metadata Date of Event Time of Peak Depth at Peak Water Level at Peak Bed Datum Check Current Meter Check River-bed Substrate Riparian Zone Structure

MAJOR POLLUTION EVENT

Station Metadata Date of Event Time of Event Water Level Concentration P1 Concentration P2 Concentration Pn

DIRECTIVE 2007/60/EC

INVESTIGATIVE MONITORING

DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC

GROUNDWATER HYDROMETRY

Station Metadata Borehole Level Wetland Level Spring Discharge Temperature



Table 4-4 – Example Table Structures and Entity Relationships

MetaData Table – SWstn (Surface Water Monitoring) Attribute Name Type Description + example WFD

33

NAME String (100) Locally used name - Pernica OPT

BDY_CD String (24) Unique code of parent waterbody - 040602 YES

EU_CD String (24) Unique code for Station at EU level - ME040602-7865 YES

MS_CD [PK] 34 String (22) Unique code for Station at MS level – 040602-7865 YES

INS_WHEN Date Date of Table creation - YYMMDD YES

INS_BY String (15) Acronym of Operator - YES

DRINKING Boolean Station Type – Y/N YES INVESTIGATIVE Boolean Station Type – Y/N YES OPERATIONAL Boolean Station Type – Y/N YES HABITAT Boolean Station Type – Y/N YES SURVEILLANCE Boolean Station Type – Y/N YES REFERENCE Boolean Station Type – Y/N YES ELEVATION Real Elevation of Station Datum ASL – 68.5m NO

START_WHEN Date Start Date of Station NO

END_WHEN Date End Date of Station (if terminated) NO GPS_LAT Real WGS84 latitude – 42.652 NO GPS_LONG Real WGS84 longitude – 30.641 NO STAGE Boolean Water level recorded – Y/N NO DISCH Boolean Discharge recorded – Y/N NO QUAL Boolean Physico-chemical monitoring - Y/N NO

Source:

Data Table – 040602-7865_STAGE DateTime [PK] MS_CD [FK] 35 STAGE_VAL DISCH_VAL

1301312200 040602-7865 3.234 34.567

1301312215 040602-7865 3.347 37.931

1301312230 040602-7865 4.216 54.531

1301312245 040602-7865 4.672 59.887

1301312300 040602-7865 4.893 63.531

1301312315 040602-7865 5.002 72.978

1301312330 040602-7865 4.431 57.563

Data Table – 040602-7865_NO3 DateTime [PK] MS_CD [FK] NO3_VAL

1301312200 040602-7865 30.4

1301312215 040602-7865

1301312230 040602-7865

1301312245 040602-7865

1301312300 040602-7865

1301312315 040602-7865 14.4

1301312330 040602-7865

Query Table – 040602-7865_NO3 + 040602-7865_STAGE DateTime [PK] MS_CD [FK] NO3_VAL DISCH_VAL LOAD_VAL

1301312200 040602-7865 30.4 34.567

1301312315 040602-7865 14.4 72.978

33

Denotes that this attribute is mandatory under WFD 34

Denotes that this is the Primary Key for the Data Table 35

Denotes that this is the Foreign Key to link to the Metadata

<JOIN> NO3_VAL + DISCH_VAL <WHERE> MS_CD = 040602_7865 <AND> DATETIME_NO3 = DATETIME_DISCH LOAD_VAL = NO3_VAL x DISCH_VAL

EXAMPLE QUERY



Table 4-5 – Water Permit Administration Data: Outline Data Model O

ABSTRACTION

Permit Metadata Abstraction Type GPS Location Waterbody Code Catchment Code Intake Max Capacity m³/s Method of Abstraction Proposed Daily Quota m³/d Proposed 12 Monthly Quota Consumptive Use %

Permit Databases in ACCESS™ Type Server

DISCHARGE

Permit Metadata Discharge Type GPS Location Waterbody Code Catchment Code Outfall Max Capacity m³/s Method of Discharge Proposed Daily Quota m³/d Proposed 12 Monthly Quota Effluent 1 ELV m g/l Effluent 2 ELV mg/l Effluent 3 ELV mg/l Effluent n ELV mg/l

MINING & EXTRACTION

Permit Metadata Extraction Type GPS Location Waterbody Code Catchment Code Method of Extraction Proposed Daily Quota m³/d Proposed Monthly Quota

TEMPORARY WORKS

Permit Metadata Works Type GPS Location Waterbody Code Catchment Code Min Level of Works (mASL) Max Level of Works (mASL) Works Duration

PERMANENT STRUCTURES

Permit Metadata Structure Type GPS Location Waterbody Code Catchment Code Min Level of Structure Max Level of Structure Operating level (mASL) Onset of Damage level Max Flow Capacity

EXAMPLE SUBSETS

Public Water Supply Commercial Water Use Irrigation Water

EXAMPLE SUBSETS

Public Sewer Outfall Commercial Effluent (IPPC) Commercial Effluent (non IPPC) Hydropower

EXAMPLE SUBSETS

Sands Gravel

EXAMPLE SUBSETS

Coffer Dam Access Bridge Retaining Wall Scaffolding Embankment Equipment Storage Floodplain Excavation

EXAMPLE SUBSETS

Highway Bridge Pedestrian Bridge Building Concrete Retaining Wall Embankment Dam Turbine Housing Weir or Sluice Pumping Station Access Ramp or Jetty

EXAMPLE SUBSETS

Public Water Supply Hydropower Commercial Water Use Irrigation Water




Table 4-6 – Geographic Information Data: Outline Data Model c

GeoMap Layers in GIS Type Server

MANAGEMENT UNITS

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) WFD_RBD1 - River Basin Districts WFD_CA1 - Competent Authorities WFD_2 - Waterbodies WFD_2a - River Waterbody WFD_2b - Lake Waterbody WFD_2c - Transitional Waterbody WFD_2d - Coastal Waterbody WFD_GW2 - Groundwater Body WFD_PA1 - Drinking Water PA WFD_PA2 - Aquatic Species PA WFD_PA3 - Recreation PA WFD_PA4 - Nutrient Sensitive PA WFD_PA5 - Habitats PA WFD_PA6 – Birds PA

WATER FRAMEWORK DIR.

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) WFD3a – Operational Monitoring WFD3b – Surveillance Monitoring WFD3c – Drinking Water Abstr. WFD3d – Investigative Monitoring WFD3e – Reference Monitoring WFD_GW3a – Groundwater WFD_GW3b - GW Op. Chem. WFD_GW3c – GW Surv. Chem.

MEASUREMENT

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) WFD_SU1 – Sub-units WFD_ECO1 - Ecoregions

BACKGROUND

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) SOE5c – Groundwater Intrusion

INFLUENCING FEATURES

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) WFD_RB1 - River Basins, Sub-basins WFD_SW1a – Main Rivers WFD_ SW1b – Main Lakes WFD_SW1c – Transitional Waters WFD_SW1d – Coastal Waters WFD_SW1e – Groundwaters

INFRASTRUCTURE

MANAGEMENT UNITS

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) SOE5a – Groundwater Bodies

WISE SoE Reporting

MANAGEMENT UNITS

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) UWWT4 – Sensitive Area River UWWT5 – Sensitive Area Lake UWWT6 – Sensitive Area Coastline UWWT7 - Sensitive Area Coast Area UWWT8- Sensitive Area Transtn. UWWT9 - Sensitive Area Catchment UWWT10 – Sensitive Area Transtn. UWWT11 - Sensitive Area Coastlin

URBAN WASTEWATER DIR.

MANAGEMENT UNITS

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) BWD1 - Locations

BATHING WATER DIRECTIVE

EuropeanCode Name MSCode EcoRegionCode InsertedWhen InsertedBy RiverBasinCode StatusYear

<WaterBody>

EUSubUnitCode EuropeanCode MSCode Name Lat Long Category (e.g. fresh)

<SurfaceWaterBody>

MSCode TypologyCode Area Length Type (e.g. river)

<FreshWaterBody>

EXAMPLE GIS DATA LAYER SCHEMA (WFD2x - WaterBodies)

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) UWWT1 – Urban agglomerations UWWT2 – Wastewater Treatment UWWT3 – Discharge Points

INFLUENCING FEATURES

shape

<RiverWaterBody>

Shape flowDirection riverSegmentCode riverWaterbodyCode

<RiverSegment>

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) SOE1 – River Stations SOE2 – Lake Stations SOE3 – Quantity Stations SOE4a – Coastal/Marine Stations SOE4b – Coastal/Marine Flux SOE5b – Groundwater Sampling

MEASUREMENT

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) BWD2 – Sampling Points

MEASUREMENT

MANAGEMENT UNITS

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) DWD1 – Water Supply Zones

DRINKING WATER DIRECTIVE

MANAGEMENT UNITS

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) NID1 – Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

NITRATES DIRECTIVE

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) NID2 – Monitoring Zones

MEASUREMENT

MANAGEMENT UNITS

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) EPRT1 – Location of Sites

E-PRTR

MANAGEMENT UNITS

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) FLD1 – Flood Risk Zones

FLOODS DIRECTIVE

Layers Metadata (see Table 4-4) FLD2 – Extent of Historical Floods FLD3 – Flood Damage Maps

MEASUREMENT



Table 4-7 – Water Cadastre Needs Assessment and Recommendations

Database Software and Stakeholder Coordination

Needs Assessment Driver Priority Recommended Remedial Action Outcomes No apparent coordination between environmental regulation Agencies in Montenegro with regard to how environmental data should be processed, stored and accessed especially GIS data.

DRR NWM

WR WFD CC

Priority task is to establish national Water Cadastre Technical Working Group (WC-TWG) to coordinate stakeholder needs, integration and data file standards. Secondary legislation may be required to set out structure, content and operation of the national water cadastre.

Data and information needed by stakeholder Agencies will be better coordinated, made more easily accessible and useable, and will be in compliance with the required standards for WFD and WISE compliance.

GIS platforms and standards in Montenegro not standardised. GIS maps prepared by different Agencies are not necessarily compatible, and are probably not compliant with the required data structures and maps needed for Water Framework Directive Reporting.

NWM WFD WR

WFD CC

WC-TWG should review all environmental GIS based requirements in Montenegro, and agree standard datasets, responsibility of ownership, and common schema. GIS data must be compatible with the environmental monitoring database.

GIS datasets between Agencies will follow agreed standards and will therefore be compatible.

Database Strengthening

Needs Assessment Driver Priority Recommended Remedial Action Outcomes Current national environmental monitoring ‘databases’ are unfit for purpose and not compatible with each other. Meteorological data are stored in CLIDATA, water level data stored in HYDRAS. A national standardised environmental monitoring database is urgently required.

DRR NWM

WR WFD CC

WC-TWG should review options for implementing more powerful water information/cadastre software e.g. WaterWare, WISYS or WISKI, and to decide on structure of WIS/cadastre.

The national hydrometeorological archive (precipitation, discharge and water quality) will be fully computerised, accessible for technical analysis, and made generally accessible via web

Water quality data are held in spreadsheet only, with significant backlog of hard-copy data. WQ data must be added to a relational database, which should be closely integrated into meteorological and hydrological databases.

NWM WFD

Selection of national water information/water cadastre software (hydrometeorology) must also include capability to store water quality data

Pollution impacts on waterbodies can be better identified and mapped. Trends can be better analysed. Ecological status of waterbodies will be more accurately assessed and more easily mapped. Programme of Measures will be more reliable and effective.

National environmental monitoring database should also perform function as the National Flow Archive, allowing retrieval of processed precipitation and/or discharge data for any historical period.

DRR WR CC

Selection of national water information/water cadastre software (hydrometeorology) must also include capability to store historic data and make data available in accessible formats e.g. download facility and/or web viewer.

Hydrometeorological analyses for water resources and water balance trends will be more easily carried out with all historical data made available. Quality controlled data in national archive will be more reliable. Climate change analysis and special investigations (e.g. hydropower) will be quicker

Geodata Mapping and Standardisation

Needs Assessment Driver Priority Recommended Remedial Action Outcomes Montenegro GIS datasets do not largely comply with data formats of EU Water Framework Directive and/or WISE reporting.

WFD Standardisation of formats must be achieved through Technical Working Group. Standard data fields and Primary Keys and Foreign Keys must be agreed

GIS layers will be to agreed national protocols between Agencies and can therefore be shared. Primary Key agreement means that all datasets can be integrated for e.g. river basin planning

WFD defines very structured and comprehensive GIS based information content for River Basin Management Plans. No evidence that these GIS layers are being systematically produced in Montenegro.

WFD Development of national GIS reference layers must be agreed and should comply with basic structure of GIS data required by Water Framework Directive.

All sectors will be provided with the appropriate GIS support information to carry out essential tasks. GIS data will be WFD compliant and therefore will facilitate reporting to EC.




5. A REVIEW OF WATER SECTOR DATA COORDINATION AND WORKFLOWS

5.1 A Snapshot of the Current National Situation

5.1.1 Information Systems in Use in National Institutions

Broadly the current national situation for data management generally appears highly fragmented and unfit for purpose (i.e. to deliver effective coordination and management of disaster risk, National Water Master Plan and Water Framework Directive objectives and climate change impacts). Different institutions have implemented site specific solutions (or none at all) presumably through uncoordinated international support and local initiatives which have not therefore delivered a unified approach to data management. Two examples are the GIS based projects for Sustainable Forestry Management, and Mapping of Flood Hazard Areas. Both of these projects appear to have been carried out independently of any standardised national data framework. Sector for Spatial Management (MoI) This Department inside the Ministry of the Interior appears to be a major user of GIS data, primarily delivering the national land cadastre. Other environmentally relevant layers are held (see Section 3). For example, it promoted the UNDP supervised recent floodplain mapping project of the 12 affected Municipalities. The Department uses the ArcGIS™ software. Institute of Hydrometeorology and Seismology (MSDT) The IHMS is the predominant collector of environmental monitoring data but the data systems are fragmented between Departments with a focus on short-term data collection for forecasting and emergency management. The Meteorological Department accumulates real-time data into the Oracle based CLIDATA software post 2008, with a significant backlog of hard-copy historical data. The Hydrology Department accumulates real-time data into the HYDRAS software post 2008, but with a very significant backlog of historical data, some of which is stored in the WISKI software and also EXCEL. The WISKI system is not used operationally at this time. There is no GIS software officially used in IHMS at this time. Environmental Protection Agency (MSDT) Nominally reporting to the MSDT, the Agency carries out Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) where required, and issues licences for effluent discharge. Issues of water quantity are generally processed by the Directorate for Water (MARD). The principal remit of the EPA is to submit annual reports on environmental indicators both nationally and to the European Environment Agency. It does not have a legal mandate to collect data itself, rather it relies on other Agencies such as IHMS.

Although it operates an impressive and informative website we are advised that it has no internal GIS or database capability (www.epa.org.me). This situation may be rectified with the proposed implementation of a national Environmental Information System (EIS), see Section 4.1.3. Directorate for Water (MARD) This Department (under the Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development) has responsibility for implementing the requirements of the Water Law, including the form and maintenance of national water cadastres and the national water information system. This includes the approval of water abstraction Permits. One of its most significant tasks is the preparation of the National Water Master Plan, and delivery of Water Framework Directive compliant River Basin Management Plans. It would therefore be one of the biggest and important users of GIS and environmental data generally, but we are advised that it currently has no GIS capability and has very limited staff resources. Ministry of Interior and Public Administration The Sector for Emergency Management and Civil Protection has direct responsibility for flood hazard management. It therefore holds copies of any published flood hazard maps, but we are advised that it also does not have GIS capability. In a summary internal Report

36, UNDP proposed that the

responsible Agency for the updating of existing flood hazard maps and the production of future flood risk maps would be the Sector for Emergency Management (Ministry of the Interior), but its technical capabilities seem very limited in this regard.

5.1.2 Main Uses of Environmental Data

The main uses of the Water Information System/water cadastre (WIS) in Montenegro (comprising (i) environmental monitoring data (ii) Water Permit licences (iii) geodatabases will be for:

Water Resources and Drought Planning Water resources are clearly one of the fundamental environmental assets of the country. Water scarcity (which is likely under climate change predictions) may lead to reduced economic outputs and civil unrest as well as ecological degradation. Water resources assessments (for drinking water, ecological sustainability and hydropower) all require access to high quality, long time period datasets to perform the appropriate statistical calculations and/or extrapolations to ungauged river basins.

Flood Hazard Mapping The mapping of historical floods, flood risk areas (at 2% and 1% probabilities), and the control of urban development in floodplains are all critical to the

36

GIS Mapping of Flood Hazards In Montenegro, UNDP, 2012

http://www.epa.org.me/



management of flood risk. Historical flood hazard is easily recorded, but predictive flood mapping and flood assessment risk requires significant analysis of hydrometeorological data, computer hydraulic and hydrological modelling, and topographic surveying. Flood risks are predicted to substantially increase under climate change impacts.

Climate Change Preparedness It is highly likely that Montenegro will encounter increasing environmental extremes within the next 30 – 50 years, manifested by way of reduced water resources, more landslides, increased durations and frequencies of droughts and water scarcity, and increased frequency and magnitudes of river floods. The extent of these changes can only be assessed by computer modelling and forecasting, and testing ‘what if’ type scenarios. The better the quality and quantity of the historical data, the more reliable will be the predictions of the modelling, and the more effective and resilient will be the ‘adaptive strategies’.

River Basin Management Plans RBMPs are the primary method of ensuring the environmental and economic sustainability of river basin in the country, including climate change adaptiveness. RBMPs are therefore highly cross-functional and use virtually every aspect of environmental data collected. Typically a well produced RBMP would assess a range of ‘scenarios’, including permutations of increased/reduced water availability and use, increased/reduced agriculture, increased/reduced economic activity, increased/reduced hydropower etc, + an assessment of climate change impacts on all of the above (so called sensitivity analysis), and present a summary of benefit-cost ‘enviro-economic’ impacts arising from the tested scenarios. The preferred ‘programme of measures’ will of course be determined through what is politically acceptable, but of course should also be ecologically sustainable as well as economically viable.

5.1.3 Institutional Access to GIS Software

The use of a GIS platform will be absolutely essential in five cross-functional respects:

Flood hazard mapping and control of development

Identification of river basin boundaries, waterbody identification and waterbody coding

The identification and dissemination of Water Framework Directive ‘Protected Areas’

The preparation of WFD River Basin Management Plans that identify environmental pressures and assess impacts

Public consultation of RBMP environmental issues and the agreed programme of measures

As far as we are aware none of the ‘front-line’ Agencies in Montenegro responsible for delivering these important and demanding national scale programmes even has GIS software installed in its premises, and most of their staff have no training or familiarity with such software. It must be self-evident that for environment professionals working within the four themes listed in 5.1.2 above, especially those who are concerned with any degree of technical analysis that GIS analysis is a fundamental tool. It appears somewhat premature therefore to present a detailed assessment of GIS data needs (Section 3) and water cadastre design (Section 4) when the majority of staff who would use these data and systems are not even familiar with GIS. We strongly recommend therefore that following delivery of this Report the Government plans a high level workshop with all water sector target Agencies and Institutions to begin the process of identifying:

the necessary GIS ‘data deliverables’ within and between Agencies (who will do what?)

appropriate staff for coordinated training in GIS techniques

users and possible software platforms to identify appropriate GIS software

How datasets will be standardised and exchanged The outcome of this workshop should be the formulation of a formal Water Cadastre Technical Working Group to address the many issues of operational needs, data coordination and data standardisation raised in this review.

5.2 Data Coordination and Workflow Illustration

5.2.1 Conceptual Framework

The first purpose of Figure 5-3 is to show the considerable potential complexity and cross-sectoral integration of environmental data generally. The conceptual framework graphic of Annex 6-1 should also be referred to. Layer 1 (Stakeholder Agencies) shows the main Agencies involved with either data collection or use, or both. Layer 2 (Databases) summarises all of the main databases identified and discussed under Section 4 – Water Information System Design. Layer 3 (Information Outputs) summarises the main outputs or uses for which data are required, individual tasks being allocated to individual Agencies as appropriate. It must be noted that this diagram is conceptual. That is to say that it is a combination of current activities AND also recommended best practice. For example, most of the environmental monitoring databases do not exist at this time. For example, the EPA does not currently process any



biological or physico-chemical data in order to establish ecological status of waterbodies. For example, IHMS does not currently undertake any form of flood risk mapping.

5.2.2 Example – Data Flows to Produce Ecological Status

Figure 5-3 shows the data workflow to produce a map of ecological status for surface waterbodies. Note this is only one single output amongst many other environmental reporting tasks which will be required in future. It requires the work and coordination of at least two Agencies and three Sections (IHMS and EPA), providing data into five different environmental monitoring databases, and 1 geospatial database. These data sources are then combined by the appropriate Agency to produce a single composite GIS based map of ecological status, which then would be used by the Directorate for Water in the development of River Basin Management Plans. This very simple example demonstrates the considerable complexity and data needs and outputs, and emphasises the critical need for clear lines of responsibility in data collection and ownership to avoid overlap, duplication and inconsistent standards.

5.2.3 The Need for Efficient Data Systems

Monitoring networks (and the associated information systems) are very expensive to operate. Multiple Agencies collecting and/or processing environmental data potentially creates overlap, duplication, wasted effort and additional expense. Therefore the Agencies responsible for collecting data and processing it should be restricted. This is not the case in Montenegro at present. For example, IHMS, EPA, the Sector for Emergency Management and the Ministry of Agriculture all operate as ‘national’ data collection Agencies. Why should data collection/processing Agencies be restricted? Apart from general coordination and duplication issues, multiple Agencies means several installations of expensive software such as relational databases and GIS, therefore adding significantly to operational cost, and equally important, multiple Agencies means increased numbers of staff in each location, most of them essentially trained in the same systems and doing very similar jobs. Our understanding is that currently in Montenegro there is a significant shortage of environmental professionals generally; most Agencies are under-resourced in any case, and it is not sensible or affordable to maintain multiple installations of software and staff with high levels of duplicate skills and training in different buildings. This is why most western European States generally operate with a single Agency (the Environment Protection Agency) that is responsible for ALL aspects of environmental governance i.e. environmental monitoring,

information processing, licensing and Permits, and river basin management.


The ToR required that we review institutional arrangements for water sector management, identify ‘bottlenecks’ and propose improved institutional arrangements for optimised water sector management. Institutional restructuring is always challenging and politically sensitive. We have not therefore explicitly proposed where we consider that such changes are required. This will be for the Montenegro Government to resolve for itself, but there are major structural changes required in our view. To assist this process however, we have focused primarily on data collection and usage issues where there are likely to be major resource, technical or coordination bottlenecks in the future and where the current institutional arrangements are unlikely to be fit for purpose. These constraints have to be reviewed and eliminated. The main issues for consideration where we consider that significant structural problems may develop include:

Multiple data collection responsibilities

Transparent environmental regulation

Efficient and coordinated licensing

The delivery of River Basin Management Plans

Hazard mapping of droughts and water scarcity

Hazard mapping of floods and flood risk

River basin mapping and the national waterbody coding system

Water quality monitoring and the capability to determine ecological status

5.3.1 Simplified Data Collection Responsibilities

Good data collection and environmental monitoring is the foundation of environmental governance. It should be clear to all therefore that institutional structures and responsibilities should be designed to fit the main data workflows, not the reverse! There should be a very limited number of Agencies responsible to collect water related data(generally not more than two) in order to minimise costs, reduce overlap and improve coordination and data accessibility. Arguably there should be only a single water information system (WIS) for Montenegro, possibly divided into four principal subsets: meteorology, air quality, and water quantity and water quality. The WIS may of course form a major component of a large Environmental Information System (EIS).

Comment [s1]: You mean water information system?



Water quantity and water quality might together form the ‘water cadastre’ in two separate but linked databases as set out in this Report.

5.3.2 Transparent Environmental Regulation

We emphasise the need for objective and impartial and transparent environmental regulation. Public accessibility to data and the decision making process is fundamental to this, and for this reason environmental data needs to be held in formal structured databases that are generally available on the internet. These include not only general water quantity (resources) and water quality data, but also formal databases of abstraction and discharge Permits. Reinforcing this impartiality, there should also be a clear distinction between regulators of environmental resources (e.g. water), and consumers of environmental resources. For example in Europe it is considered good practice that major users of water such as agriculture, tourism, industry and hydropower are not also directly involved in the legal regulation of water use. This can introduce conflicts of interest for example where a major consumer of water is also its regulator. For this reason the majority of western European States have an independently established Environmental Agency that has primary responsibility for collection of environmental data and the regulation of resources (through concessions and Permits), and is impartial in the allocation of limited water resources. These distinctions are not clearly established in Montenegro at the current time.

5.3.3 Efficient and Coordinated Licensing

The Water Framework Directive (Preamble (19)) reminds Member States that water quantity is integral to water quality. Therefore it follows that changes in water quantity (abstraction licenses) have a direct impact on water quality (Discharge Licenses) and the licensing of abstraction and effluents must take place in an integrated and coordinated way. In our view there is a major disconnect in the Montenegro water licensing system. Abstraction Licensing is processed by the Directorate for Water (but with minimum technical resources, for example there is no database of abstraction licenses, and no GIS system is used to show abstraction locations). Discharge Licensing, specifically effluent control, is carried out by a completely different Agency, namely the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). It is quite clear under the Water Framework Directive (Preamble (40)) that with regard to pollution prevention and control, Community water policy should be based on a combined approach using control of pollution at source through the setting of emission limit values and of environmental quality standards. This combined approach is a technically sophisticated one and requires a close integration of data (i.e. water availability, abstractions and effluent concentrations). The two Agencies have indicated that they ‘cooperate’ in terms of assessing the environmental impact of abstraction or discharge licensing. However it seems

problematic that the highly connected issues of quantity and quality licensing should be carried out by two completely different Agencies in two different locations, particularly as the results of the licensing process (i.e. quantity and quality) are not currently available in any form of database or GIS system. This Report has therefore made a strong and clear case for the Water Licensing system to be an integral part of the water cadastre. There should be one database system of water licensing, and clearly it is far more efficient and cost-effective if this licensing system is operated by one Agency.

5.3.4 The Delivery of River Basin Management Plans

River Basin Management Planning is vastly demanding of information generally, particularly in terms of water usage, environmental pressures and the resultant impacts on waterbody quality. Significant interpretive resources are required (especially in the fields of biology, ecology, hydrology, hydromorphology and economic analysis) to deliver a worthwhile River Basin Management Plan. Significant technical skills and resources in water resources planning, GIS and information retrieval are required. Significant investment is required in environmental information systems (including the water cadastre). Currently the Directorate for Water has the mandate to deliver the national Water Master Plan, and in due course, Water Framework Directive River Basin Management Plans. The resources and capabilities of this Agency would appear to be wholly inadequate to deliver RBMPs, which are at the heart of environmental governance and will require a significant number of staff with access to high quality information and powerful tools such as GIS, none of which are evident this time. Even basic tasks such as the mapping of drinking water protected areas are not being carried out at this time by the Directorate. It is extremely important that the Directorate for Water recognises that under the WFD its primary responsibility is the protection of water and waterbodies as a national resource, not just a commodity to be allocated amongst users.

5.3.5 Hazard Mapping of Droughts and Water Scarcity

There is an understandable focus at this time on flood hazard mapping. However, droughts and water scarcity are equally critical and perhaps of even greater risk to general public health and economic stability. Currently there is no drought monitoring procedure published systematically. Such outputs require the integration of GIS data (river basins and catchments) and monitored precipitation and discharge data to be published in near real-time. Water scarcity is defined as a situation where insufficient water resources are available to satisfy requirements. It refers to long-term imbalances where availability is low



(drought or deficit) compared to the demand for water. Such scarcity requires continuously monitoring and forecasting especially during summer months. As an example of best practice, the UK Environment Agency continuously monitors water resources and water demand to deliver public maps of water stress on a monthly basis (Figure 5-1). Figure 5-1 – Water Scarcity Monitoring in UK

Source: UK Environment Agency

This monitoring (which could be linked to the South East Europe Drought Monitoring Centre) (www.dmcsee.org) is essential in order to establish precisely which regions and sub-regions within Montenegro are experiencing droughts, water deficits and water scarcity and to manage accordingly through Drought Management Plans (DMPs). An appropriate Agency with the requisite skills and resources needs to be allocated this task.

5.3.6 Flood Hazard Monitoring and Flood Risk Mapping

Currently the Sector for Emergency Management is engaged in this task under a UNDP project. Clearly the Sector is legally responsible to use such data to inform Municipalities and the public generally. In this case it is a key user of the flood data, but this does not mean that it should also act as the originator of such maps. Currently it does not appear to have access to GIS software, nor the necessary staff to interrogate and update these maps. Providing these resources within the Sector will involve significant (and unnecessary) training and cost. Clearly the Sector is a key user in the use and coordination of such maps. In virtually all western European States, flood data and flood mapping is carried out by a specialist department of either the national environmental agency or the hydrology institute. Published maps are then circulated regularly to the Municipalities, emergency services and the emergency coordinator. The Floods Directive requires that historical flood data be collected (as for Montenegro 2010), but this is a relatively simple mapping exercise based on historical observations, such as the exercise just carried out with UNDP. However,

in practice flood forecasting and flood risk mapping is considerably more complex. Flood forecasting requires integration of GIS maps AND real-time catchment precipitation and river flows in order to show where potential flood risk is developing. Climate change will undoubtedly increase the frequency and magnitude of floods and droughts in future. The requirement to predict these environmental disasters requires significant datasets and statistical analysis. An example of real-time flood hazard mapping is shown in Figure 5-2, which usefully maps differing risks by individual catchment. Figure 5-2 – Flood Hazard Monitoring in UK

Source: UK Environment Agency

Over time, it will be also be necessary to produce predictive flood risk maps, which show for example the extent and depth of flooding for a range of flood probabilities, usually 50%, 20%, 10%, 2% and 1% annual probabilities. Figure 4-5 serves as an example. Such mapping requires sophisticated hydrological analysis, computer modelling of rivers and floodplains, and associated GIS based mapping. There may be a case therefore for national flood hazard mapping to be carried out within the Hydrometeorological Institute as an additional function. It already has responsibility for flood monitoring and warning activities, as well as the processing of flood peak data. Critically, these data are fundamental also to the water cadastre as proposed in this Report, and therefore it is logical that these data should be processed and held by an appropriately skilled data collection Agency. This will require additional resources and skills inside the IHMS, (see below), but this is likely to be far more cost-effective than establishing yet another mapping department in another Agency.

5.3.7 National Waterbody Coding System

We have shown in previous Sections that river basins and waterbodies are the building blocks of environmental governance under the Water Framework Directive and are

http://www.dmcsee.org/



fundamental to all aspects of environmental monitoring and reporting. This is mainly a spatial process i.e. it requires boundaries and lengths of basins and waterbodies to be identified, coded and mapped. The development of a national GIS based reference dataset of waterbody codes in compliance with the WFD Common Implementation Strategy is a major priority (the Pfafstetter methodology). This can only be done with a Geographic Information System (GIS), and by staff who are appropriately expert in hydrology and hydrogeology as well as familiar with GIS techniques.

5.3.8 Water Quality Monitoring and Ecological Status

Currently only basic physico-chemical data are routinely collected in the IHMS, and these data are basically only used for State of the Environment reporting. However, in future years the need for water quality data of greater complexity will significantly increase. For example, we have shown that significant increases in biological, hydromorphological and hazardous pollutant data will be required under the WFD, in addition to basic physico-chemical data. These data are required to determine the overall status (chemical and ecological) of all waterbodies. The programme of measures designed to improve the status of these waterbodies is at the heart of the River Basin Management Plans. IHMS has not established an electronic database of water quality data, and there is a significant backlog of historic water quality data in hard-copy. Currently IHMS’s processing of these data is limited to relatively simple scoring of whether or not certain rivers meet specified Environmental Quality Standards (EQS). There are no reference data at all concerning the biological and hydromorphological conditions of Montenegro waterbodies. Most of the data are collected for the EPA in order for it to make State of the Environment (SoE) Reports to Government and to the European Environment Agency. Currently in Montenegro it is not at all clear which Agency would therefore collect the data and/or carry out the complex analyses required to determine ecological status. As a further complication, ecological status mapping is a key requirement of WFD reporting, and therefore the Agency with specific responsibility for ecological status assessment very probably needs additional competencies to produce such maps. Figure 4-3 serves as an example.



Figure 5-3 – Conceptual Environmental Data Collection and Workflows for Water Sector

Hydro-Meteorological Institute (Departments)

Directorate for Water (Departments)

Sector for Emergency Management

Section of Meteorology (Data)

Section of Meteorology (Info)

Section of Hydrology

Section of Water Quality

Temperature pH EC Turbidity DO BOD5

+++

Physico-chemical

Temp DO pH EC NO3

Pesticides +++

Groundwater

Directive 98/83/EC Part A, B, C +++

Drinking Water

Biological

Aquatic Flora Benthic Invrt Fish +++

Hydromorphology

Flow dynamics Groundwater River depth River substrate Riparian zone +++

Pollution Event

Date Time Water level Conc P1 Conc P2

Conc P3

+++

Water Permit Database Geospatial Databases

Section of River Basin Mapping

EPA Main Outputs Discharge Licensing/Permits

Environmental Impact Assessments

Surface Waterbody Typology

Type Specific Reference Conditions Determination of Ecological Status

State of Environment Reporting

Section for Licenses

Groundwater Mon Stations +++

WISE SoE

Sensitive Areas Urban Aggl WWTPs Discharge Points

+++

URBAN WW

Locations Sampling Points +++

BATHING WATER

Vulnerable Zones +++

NITRATES

Risk Zones Historical Floods Damage Maps +++

FLOODS

River Basins CAs Waterbodies Protected Areas

+++

WFD

Sites

+++

E-PRTR

Section for Mapping

Meteorology

Precipitation Temperature Wind Speed Humidity Evaporation Snowpack +++

Bed datum Current Meter Water level Discharge +++

Hydrometry

Environmental Monitoring Databases

Section for Licences

Section for Communication & IT

Section for Natural Protection

Section of Ecological Monitoring

Environment Protection Agency

Section for Protected Areas

Section for RBMPs

Supply Zones +++

DRINKING WATER

DfW Main Outputs Abstraction Licensing/Permits

Water Allocation Planning

Designation of Protected Areas

Identification of Pressures

Assessment of Impacts ification of Pressures Economic analysis + cost recovery

Public consultation 1

Draft Programme of Measures

Public consultation 2

Published 6 Year RBMP

SfEM Main Outputs

Pollutants

33 Priority Substances Specific Pollutants +++

Water Level Wetland Level Spring Discharge Temperature

+++

Groundwater

Flood Event

Date Time Depth at peak Water level Bed datum Riparian +++

IHMS Main Outputs Precipitation Monitoring + Warning

Flood Monitoring + Warning

National Precipitation Archive + YB

National Flow Archive + Yearbook

Water Resource Planning

Rainfall-Runoff Modelling

Special Investigations (Hydropower)

Flood Risk Mapping

River Basin Mapping

Climate Change Forecasts

Agency Information Outputs

Type Location Waterbody Code Catchment Code Intake capacity Method Daily Quota 12 month quota Consumptive use

Abstraction

Type Location Waterbody Code Catchment Code Outfall capacity Method Daily quota Effluent 1 ELV Effluent 2 ELV Effluent 3 ELV

Discharge

Type Location Waterbody Code Catchment Code Outfall capacity Method Daily quota Effluent 1 ELV Effluent 2 ELV Effluent 3 ELV

Mining

Type Location Waterbody Code Catchment Code Outfall capacity Method Daily quota Monthly quota

Temp Works

Type Location Waterbody Code Catchment Code Min Level Max level Operating level Damage level Max capacity

Structures

Stakeholder Agencies



6. ANNEXES

6.1 Annex 1 – Water Information System Conceptual Framework Graphical Overview

Presented by the Consultant as an aid to discussion for the March Workshop. The A2 graphical overview is conceptual only, but brings together all the component parts of the Water Information System discussed in the Report.



6.2 Annex 2 – Summary on the Stakeholder Workshop – 14

th March 2013, Podgorica

Montenegro Water Sector Report

Documents

rapid resilience methodology

water balance calculations

adriatic river basin

black sea basin

urgent remedial action

daughter directives remain

disaster risk reduction

mrea kvaliteta vode