Sava River Basin Management Plan - Sava Commissionsavacommission.org/dms/docs/dokumenti/srbmp_micro_web/backgrou… · Sava River Basin Management Plan Background paper No.9: Integration

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this

document are the sole responsibility of the beneficiaries and can under no circumstances be regarded as

reflecting the position of the European Union.

Sava River Basin Management Plan

Background paper No. 9

Integration of water protection in developments in the Sava River

Basin

(Floods, Navigation, Hydropower,

Agriculture)

March 2013


Background paper No.9: Integration of water protection in developments in the Sava RB

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

2 Linking Flood Risk Management and River Basin Management in the Sava River Basin .......................................................................................... 1

2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 1

2.2 Setting the scene ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.3 Floods in the Sava RB .............................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Flood management in the Sava RB ..................................................................................... 5

2.4.1 Floodplains ................................................................................................................. 5

2.4.2 Flood defences ........................................................................................................... 5

2.4.3 Targets and measures ............................................................................................ 6

2.5 EU Directive on an assessment and management of flood risks ............................ 7

2.6 Linking EFD to RBM – potential impacts on ecological status ................................ 7

2.7 The way ahead ........................................................................................................................ 10

2.8 Best practices to achieve the environmental objectives ......................................... 11

2.9 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 12

2.10 References ................................................................................................................................ 13

3 Navigation in the Sava River Basin ........................................................... 14

3.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 14

3.2 Sources of information ......................................................................................................... 15

3.2.1 International level ................................................................................................ 15

3.2.2 National / Sub – basin level ............................................................................... 16

3.3 Recommendation for future actions ............................................................................... 16

3.4 Future status of navigation ................................................................................................ 17

3.4.1 Transport needs .................................................................................................... 17

3.4.2 Design/construction criteria ............................................................................ 20

3.4.3 Further development of planned works ...................................................... 21

3.5 References ................................................................................................................................ 24

4 Hydropower and River Basin Management ........................................... 26

4.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 26

4.2 Setting the scene ..................................................................................................................... 26



4.3 Hydropower and its impacts on the river basin management in the Sava River Basin ................................................................................................................................ 26

4.3.1 Hydropower in the Sava River Basin ............................................................. 26

4.3.2 Impacts on longitudinal continuity and habitat interruption ............. 27

4.3.3 Hydrological alterations ..................................................................................... 28

4.3.4 Water use ................................................................................................................. 29

4.3.5 Future infrastructure projects ......................................................................... 29

4.4 Interactions between hydropower and RBM .............................................................. 31

4.5 Notes on hydropower development under the WFD ............................................... 32

4.6 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 35

4.7 References ................................................................................................................................ 37

5 Integration of water protection with agriculture in the Sava River Basin ........................................................................................................ 38

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 38

5.1.1 General overview .................................................................................................. 38

5.1.2 Status of agricultural sector in the Sava River Basin .............................. 40

5.2 Pressures and impacts from agriculture on the water status .............................. 40

5.2.1 Fertilizers and livestock manure .................................................................... 41

5.2.2 Pesticides .................................................................................................................. 44

5.2.3 Organic pollutants and pathogens .................................................................. 45

5.2.4 Heavy metals ........................................................................................................... 45

5.2.5 Atmospheric decomposition and biological nitrogen fixation ............ 46

5.3 Measures towards integrated RBM management in the Sava RB ....................... 47

5.3.1 Technical measures .............................................................................................. 47

5.3.2 Non-technical measures ..................................................................................... 48

5.3.3 Economic instruments ........................................................................................ 49



List of Tables Table 1: Forecast throughput: new ports of Zagreb (Rugvica) and Brežice..................... 20

Table 2: Prioritized list of projects, studies and policy actions ............................................. 23

Table 3: Basic data on hydropower plants in the Sava River Basin (2005) ..................... 28

Table 4: Average nutrient excretion coefficients per head of animal ................................. 42

Table 5: Total number of livestock in the Sava countries ........................................................ 42

Table 6: Total amount of Nitrogen production via animal manure in the Sava RB ....... 42

Table 7: Total amount of Phosphorous production via animal manure in the Sava RB ................................................................................................................................................. 43

List of Figures

Figure 1: Indicative map of important flood prone areas along the Sava River (SRBA Report, 2009) ........................................................................................................................ 4

Figure 2: Cumulative traffic volume per main segment (minimum and maximum estimated volumes for year 2027) ............................................................................ 19

Figure 3: SCC requirements for a class IV and class Va waterway ................................... 21

Figure 4: General Action Plan implementation lines ............................................................. 22

Figure 5: CAP and EU WFD interlinkage..................................................................................... 39

Figure 6: OECD elements in calculation of gross nutrient balance .................................. 44


Background paper No.9: Integration of water protection in developments in the Sava RB 1

1 Introduction A central objective of the WFD is to improve integration between environmental, economic and social aspects of water management, striking a balance between the often competing claims. This requires more effective coordination between water management and other sector policies. Hydropower, navigation, agriculture and flood defence are recognised in the EU as important and legitimate water uses policies and initiatives. Therefore within the WFD implementation in the EU a process to secure a better integration of environmental objectives with other policies was initiated.

Each sector represents a driver imposing pressures on the water bodies which may cause failure to achieve the environmental objectives. Therefore it is of particular importance that environmental requirements are considered as an integral part of planning and implementation process especially when introducing new infrastructure projects. Interlinkages between the WFD and hydropower, navigation, agriculture and flood defence are addressed by current EU policies and strategies (EU Floods Directive, Common Agricultural Policy, EU Strategy for the Danube Region). The dialogue between the WFD and other sectors is ongoing also at the ICPDR level and such initiatives are essential to be launched or maintained in the Sava River Basin. The future development activities in the Sava River Basin in hydropower, navigation, agriculture and flood defence may have negative impacts on water status by 2015 and beyond and therefore they are addressed in the RBM Plan.

There is an obvious need in the Sava RB to apply integrated multimodal approach to the future infrastructure projects in cases when one complex project covers more sectors (typically hydropower, navigation and flood protection). Here, an additional factor to be taken into account is climate energy package with direct impact on all the above sectors.

2 Linking Flood Risk Management and River Basin Management in the Sava River Basin

2.1 Background

Since the start of work of the International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC) in 2006, the sustainable flood protection in the Sava River Basin has been coordinated by the Permanent Expert Group for Flood Protection (PEG FP) on the basin-wide level. The most important document prepared by the PEG FP is the proposal of the Protocol on the Flood Protection, which should serve as the key document for all common activities in the Sava River Basin. By adoption of this Protocol, the riparian countries shall agree, while taking into account the FASRB, the Directive 2007/60/EC and the Action Programme for Sustainable Flood Protection in the Danube River Basin, on cooperation in:

Preparation of the Program for Development of the Flood Risk Management Plan in the Sava River Basin;

Undertaking of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment;

Preparation of the Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps;



Development of the Flood Risk Management Plan in the Sava River Basin;

Establishment of the Flood Forecasting, Warning and Alarm System in the Sava River Basin;

Exchange of information significant for sustainable flood protection.

The Protocol on the Flood Protection in the Sava River Basin is signed, its ratification is expected in due course. The ISRBC shall adopt a Program for Development of the Flood Risk Management Plan in the Sava River Basin within six months as of the entry into force of the Protocol.

The Protocol stipulates among others that in the process of Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, the FASRB Parties shall exchange all relevant data, in principle, through the ISRBC or bilaterally, as appropriate. Based on the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment, each Party shall, on the part of the Sava River Basin on its territory, identify those areas for which it concludes that potential significant flood risk exists or might be considered likely to occur. The ISRBC shall coordinate the activities on harmonisation of these areas shared by two or more Parties, if they are identified by the Parties as the areas of mutual interest for flood protection. Each Party shall then prepare Flood Maps for the areas identified in the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment for the part of the Sava River Basin under its jurisdiction, taking into account the Directive 2007/60/EC. The respective Parties shall agree upon the methodology for mapping of the areas having potential significant flood risk shared by two or more Parties, and, thereof, inform the ISRBC. The Parties may, for purpose of joint implementation of the flood mapping activities agree to develop a joint methodology for preparation of Flood Maps for the whole Sava River Basin. In such case the ISRBC shall coordinate the development of the mapping methodology. As the final step the Parties shall prepare the Flood Risk Management Plan for the Sava River Basin, in accordance with the content defined by the Directive 2007/60/EC, and taking into account all relevant aspects of flood risk management. The Flood Risk Management Plan shall, in particular, define the goals of the flood risk management of common interest on the Sava River Basin level, measures to achieve these goals, mechanisms of coordination on the basin-wide level and a mode of joint cooperation of the Parties in flood defence emergency situations. Taking into account the principle of solidarity and the no harm rule in accordance with the Article 9 of the FASRB, the Flood Risk Management Plan for the territory of one Party shall not stipulate measures that may, by their magnitude or impact, significantly increase the flood risk on the territory of the other Party, unless those measures are coordinated and agreed between the Parties concerned.

The ISRBC is the coordinating platform to compile basin-wide issues of the Sava River Basin Management Plan (RBMP). The first milestone of the Sava RBMP was the Sava River Basin Analysis (SRBA) Report that reflected a comprehensive analysis of the Sava River Basin including the characterisation of transboundary surface- and groundwater bodies, identification of their significant anthropogenic pressures/impacts as well as the aspects of water quantity, water use, flood management and navigation. The analysis report thus addressed all relevant aspects of the integrated river basin management and forms a good basis for any further steps to compile the Sava RBMP including the Programme of Measures. The issues of flood management were addressed in the SRBA Report as well.



2.2 Setting the scene

Current activities of the ISRBC in the field of flood management include:

Comprehensive assessment of current flood management practices in the Parties;

Process of ratification of the draft protocol regulating flood protection in the Sava River Basin;

Following up the on-going project activities and preparation of new project proposals.

The assessment activity had been performed by collecting the most relevant information on:

Hydrology, hydraulics and mapping practices in the Sava countries;

Regulatory and institutional setup and responsibilities;

Flood protection structures.

This joint activity resulted in an assessment report, comprising the following main outputs:

Basic information on flood-prone areas in the Sava River Basin;

Characteristics of flood events in the Sava River Basin;

Responsibilities in flood management in the Parties;

Flood protection structures and their state;

National flood prediction and warning practices;

Review of strategic plans and regulatory acts.

This assessment has been annexed to the SRBA Report.

In order to enable continuation of the already started activities, the first (initial) draft of the Action Programme for Preparation of the Sava RB Flood Risk Management Plan has also been prepared.

Cooperation with the USACE is ongoing in order to prepare the ToR for the joint flood mapping study for the Sava River.

In 2009 the ICPDR published 17 sub-basin flood action plans, which include a flood action plan for the Sava River Basin. They provide the first ever comprehensive overview of actions to reduce flood risk in the Danube River Basin. In drawing up the plans, measures were first elaborated at the national level in each of the 13 ICPDR states. Joint discussions between countries sharing particular sub-basins then took place to create a harmonized plan for the entire area of each sub-basin.

The finalised action plans review the current situation and set targets and respective measures for reducing adverse impacts and the likelihood of floods, increasing awareness and level of preparedness and improving flood forecasting. The targets and measures are based on the regulation of land use and spatial planning; increase of retention and detention capacities; technical flood defences; preventive actions (e.g. flood forecasting and flood warning systems); capacity building; awareness and preparedness raising and prevention and mitigation of water pollution due to floods.



The flood action plan for the Sava River Basin was prepared under coordination of the ISRBC with PEG FP as the leading body and has been adopted by the Ministers of Sava countries in February 2010.

2.3 Floods in the Sava RB

According to the SRBA Report floods in the basin usually appear in the spring and in the autumn. Spring floods are the result of snow melting, while autumn floods are caused by heavy rainfall. Depending on the cause, these types of flood exhibit different features. Spring floods last longer and they do not have large maximum discharges, while autumn floods are of shorter duration and have very high extreme flows, when floods go over the river bank they last longer periods of time and become more flat.

Flood duration depends on the flood volume hydrograph and the size of the catchment. According to Sava River Basin Analysis Report flood duration of the Sava River near Zagreb (HR) is 10-20 days and 40-70 days near Sremska Mitrovica (RS). A significant difference in the flood travelling time on the Sava River between the earliest (1933, 1934) and subsequent (1962, 1964) floods are noticed. Former floods have routing periods of 8-9 days, while subsequent ones have considerably shorter travel time - only 4-5 days.

Shorter routing periods are the result of embankments construction along the Sava River, which led to shorter concentration times and larger maximum discharge in the channel. By reviewing the data from the flood hydrograph it can be asserted that intensive floods occur over limited space. Most floodprone areas are regions called Donje Posavlje, downstream of Županja, or Srednje Posavlje, from Zagreb to Županja, or upstream from Zagreb. The only floods covering the whole region from Belgrade to Zagreb occurred in 1933, 1937, 1940 and 1947. Most severe floods occurred in 1932, 1942 and 1970 in the Lower Sava region and in 1937, 1944 and 1974 in the Middle Sava region.

Figure 1: Indicative map of important flood prone areas along the Sava River (SRBA Report, 2009)



2.4 Flood management in the Sava RB

2.4.1 Floodplains

There are 44 major floodplains (protected and unprotected) along the Sava River and along the most downstream sections of its 1st order tributaries, with the total area of 57,594 km2. Important flood prone areas of the right transboundary tributaries of the Sava River (Kupa, Glina, Korana, Una and Drina River) cover 705 km2. On the left side of the Sava River valley, besides the Bosut River, there is only one flood prone area on a transboundary river – Sutla/Sotla River, with a total area of 16 km2.

2.4.2 Flood defences

Historically, the protection against floods in Slovenia was mainly performed through a regulation of watercourses, by increasing the cross-section of the channel and building bypass channels, dikes, detention and retention reservoirs. Majority of dikes was built along the Sava River near Krško, Brežice and Čatež, along the Savinja River above the town of Celje, and for local flood protection on some short sections along the Sava River and its tributaries Savinja, Mirna, Sevnična, Kamniška Bistrica, Sotla River and others. The dikes were made through time with different designed level of protection. Retention and detention reservoirs were designed for flood reduction, mostly on smaller rivers, with volume capacity from a few thousand to a few million of cubic meters for improvement of a local flood protection. Volume reserved for flood reduction in these reservoirs is about 25 million m3. Construction of hydropower stations on lower section of the Sava River in Slovenia involved maintenance, restoration, improvement and construction of new structural flood defences (dikes, detention reservoirs) for flood protection of existing settlements.

The existing protection systems in the Sava River Basin in Croatia are rather complex and comprise of a large number of regulative and protective water structures. Along national watercourses there are around 1,600 km of protective dikes, whereas local watercourses are protected by around 200 km of different protective structures. In cooperation with various water and land users, multipurpose reservoirs were constructed with the total volume of 73 hm3 and mountain retention storages with the total volume of 2.5 hm3; partially also five large lowland retention storages in the Sava River Basin (Lonjsko polje, Mokro polje, Zelenik, Kupčina, and Jantak) with the total volume of 1,590 hm3, which have, together with the system of relief canals (the three main are: Odra, Lonja - Strug and Kolpa/Kupa), a large positive impact on the flood regime in Croatia, and also in the downstream countries. Currently, the only city adequately defended against the Sava River flooding is the City of Zagreb, which is estimated to be safe from floods of a 1,000 - year return period. On the other hand, Zagreb is protected from Mt. Medvednica torrential streams only against floods of 20 to 50 - year return periods. The other areas along the Sava River are generally insufficiently protected. Upstream of Zagreb, towards the Slovenian border, protective dikes have not yet been erected, what causes frequent flooding of several settlements in the lower area of wider Zaprešič and Samobor region. Downstream of Zagreb, all the way to the border with Serbia, many areas along the Sava River have a lower protection



level than required against floods of a 100 - year return period, due to the fact that the existing dikes are not high enough, or are in many places of inadequate quality.

Constructed flood protection systems along the Sava River in Bosnia and Herzegovina consist of Sava River dikes and dikes along the Sava River tributaries in lower (flood prone) part of the course. Flood zones were formed in polders, so called ”kasete“ which are independently protected against floods. The total length of the Sava River dikes is 202.85 km. Regulatory level of protection is generally for 1 %- annual-chance flood event, but some sections of the dikes need reconstruction in order to provide adequate defence. Furthermore, war damages on the flood defence structures are not completely repaired yet. Protection against external upland waters and inland waters is provided by 19 pump stations in total capacity of 136.4 m3/s. For collecting the external (upland drainage) waters a system of main boundary canals was constructed in total length of 223.24 km, and for collecting inland waters in the zone of the Sava River protected area, a main canal network has been constructed of 230.2 km length in total. Total protected area in the Sava River system is covering 919.9 km2. There are also the sections without flood protection and they present inundation zones along the Sava River, thus still remaining with a (limited) natural function of accepting and transforming part of the flood wave volume.

The history of development of the flood protection system along the Sava River in Serbia is very long, and related to establishment of numerous settlements and agricultural development. The levee reconstruction towards so called “Sava levee profile” was initiated after extremely difficult and expensive flood mitigation actions in 1974 and 1981. Reconstructed levees within the backwater zone of the “Iron Gate 1” HPP have ballast on the protected side. However, reconstruction of the flood defence lines along the Sava River and its tributaries in the mouth sections has not been completed so far. The left-bank dikes of the Sava River protect the lowland area of Srem. The defence line is discontinuous, with three different sectors: first from rkm 0 to rkm 56, second from rkm 56 to rkm 135.2 and third from rkm132.2 to rkm 209.8. The reconstruction in the first sector has not been completed yet. Only two short stretches of the second sector are protected. The natural reserve “Obedska bara” is situated in this area. All levees in the third sector (from Sremska Mitrovica to the border with Croatia) are reconstructed and ensure suitable safety level.

The defence line along the right bank of the Sava River is also characterized with three different sectors: first from rkm 0 to rkm 55.1, second from rkm 70.3 to rkm 101.8 and third from rkm 101.8 to rkm 168. Flood protection line is interrupted by numerous smaller and larger tributaries and generally required safety level is not provided in the central Belgrade zone. In the second section (Skela-Šabac) only short dikes are built to protect agricultural land and small settlements. In the third section (Šabac – Drina River mouth) only about 50 % of levees were reconstructed, while the rest are below required safety level. Numerous sluices and pumping stations are weak points in flood defence system.

2.4.3 Targets and measures

The flood action plan for the Sava River Basin provides detailed description of targets and measures for all riparian countries using the following structure:



Regulation on land use and spatial planning;

Reactivation of former or creation of new retention and detention capacities;

Technical flood defences;

Preventive actions;

Capacity building of professionals;

Raising awareness and preparedness of general public;

Prevention and mitigation of water pollution due to floods.

2.5 EU Directive on an assessment and management of flood risks

In September 2007 a Directive of the European parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of flood risks (EFD) was finally adopted by the European Council. The aim of the Directive is to reduce and manage the risks that floods pose to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. The Directive requires Member States to first carry out a preliminary flood risk assessment by 2011 to identify areas at risk of flooding. For such areas they would then need to draw up flood risk maps by 2013 and establish flood risk management plans focused on prevention, protection and preparedness by 2015. The Directive applies to inland waters as well as all coastal waters across the whole territory of the EU. The Directive shall be carried out in coordination with the WFD, notably by flood risk management plans and river basin management plans being coordinated, and through coordination of the public participation procedures in the preparation of these plans. All assessments, maps and plans prepared shall be made available to the public. Member States shall furthermore coordinate their flood risk management practices in shared river basins, including with third counties, and shall in solidarity not undertake measures that would increase the flood risk in neighbouring countries. Member States shall take into consideration long term developments, including climate change, as well as sustainable land use practices in the flood risk management cycle addressed in this Directive.

2.6 Linking EFD to RBM – potential impacts on ecological status

Article 9 of EFD stipulates that Member States shall take appropriate steps to coordinate the application of this Directive and that of Directive 2000/60/EC focusing on opportunities for improving efficiency, information exchange and for achieving common synergies and benefits having regard to the environmental objectives laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC. In particular:

The development of the first flood hazard maps and flood risk maps and their subsequent reviews as referred to in Articles 6 and 14 of EFD shall be carried out in such a way that the information they contain is consistent with relevant information presented according to Directive 2000/60/EC. They shall be coordinated with, and may be integrated into, the reviews provided for in Article 5(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC;



The development of the first flood risk management plans and their subsequent reviews as referred to in Articles 7 and 14 of EFD shall be carried out in coordination with, and may be integrated into, the reviews of the river basin management plans provided for in Article 13(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC;

The active involvement of all interested parties under Article 10 of EFD shall be coordinated, as appropriate, with the active involvement of interested parties under Article 14 of Directive 2000/60/EC.

Meeting the objectives of the WFD involves a fundamental shift towards defining water quality in terms of biological and related eco-system quality, supported by physico-chemical and hydromorphological considerations. EFD also requires consideration of water quantity, and variations in this, as it affects aquatic organisms and the essential ecosystem processes and functions that affect them throughout the catchment and the adjacent transitional and coastal waters.

Although flooding is a natural occurrence changes to flood frequency, duration, timing and water quality (e.g. runoff pollution) as a consequence of management practice can significantly affect the ecological status by influencing the biological and hydromorphological quality elements. Stabilisation of the physical environment, reduction in habitat diversity and changing water quality and quantity directly affect aquatic organisms and the ecosystem processes. In addition, the linkage within biological communities and the interdependence of species means that organisms and/or processes can also be indirectly affected. The extent of these effects is determined by the strength of the linkage and the dependence of the organisms (or life cycle stage) on the processes in the system.

In the context of the WFD, the key issue is to recognise the links between flood management and the ‘effectors’ of water quality objectives. By doing so future flood management designs can positively engage with the concept of ecological status and look towards integrated solutions, such as providing areas with a diversity of habitats for organisms that will also act as flood storage.

Important components of flood management which have implications for the ecological status of water involve following interventions:

To control the risk of flood generation on land surfaces;

To convey waters through the hydraulic system in order to prevent or minimise damage to people and property; and

To provide temporary storage of flood waters where these exceed conveyance capacity.

The WFD refers to flood defence activities as a potential source of anthropogenic pressure within the characterisation of river basins, particularly regarding ”flow regulation and morphological alterations”. It also refers to diffuse pollution associated with run-off from urban and agricultural land. Specific mention is made of the effect of land use, flood protection and land drainage on groundwater. Thus, while recognising the importance of managing the risk of flooding to people and property, the WFD confirms that the way in which the function is carried out has important implications for overall water resource and environmental management.

Flood generation can be closely linked to diffuse pollution where the pathways are surface run-off or subsurface movement of water. The control of diffuse pollution,



especially from agricultural land, is considered as one of the primary requirements for achievement of the good or high potential ecological status of water bodies defined as targets in the WFD. Diffuse pollution control is a matter of altered land management, either through changing use, or inputs, or transfer routes of pollutants from land to water bodies be they at sub-surface or surface. Many of the actions which might be envisaged as a means of reducing diffuse pollution input, may also have a direct impact on the generation of floods at the land surface. Similarly, actions taken to reduce urban flooding may also, as a by-product, help to mitigate diffuse pollution inputs to rivers.

Flood managers commonly use temporary storage of flood waters to reduce the risk of unwanted flooding. These involve ‘engineered’ off-line storage reservoirs, wetlands, on-line impoundment, as well as the use of the natural storage facility offered by the flood plain. The methods employed depend on the degree of hydraulic control required to deliver a given standard of flood service. Under the WFD, flood managers must consider the impact on these interventions on the ecological status of waters, not only as they determine hydromorphological conditions such as river levels and flows, but also physico-chemical and biological impacts, and impacts on groundwater.

Storage methods can have negative and positive impacts depending on local circumstances. On the positive side, storage and controlled release can help to regulate flows to relieve anthropogenic pressures associated with abstractions and discharges, as well as reducing the risk of contamination during peak flows when sediment and pollutant loadings can be high. EFD specifically identifies river restoration and wetland recreation as possible measures to achieve ecological objectives. This should encourage flood managers to explore the extent to which such options can be developed in ways which simultaneously mitigate floods and enhance ecological water quality. This is likely to involve the management of water regimes beyond the flood event itself.

On the negative side, storage can interfere with otherwise natural hydromorphological processes, possibly leading to concentration of sediments and contaminants within the storage areas, limiting their ecological potential and negatively affecting groundwater quality. Furthermore, the requirement to evacuate water quickly to maintain a storage facility may prejudice opportunities to meet good status in the storage area, although steps can be taken to retain some surface water for ecological purposes. It is likely therefore that some storage facilities will be designated as ‘heavily modified water bodies’ and others granted time-bound exemptions because their flood defence functions are not entirely compatible with good status. In other cases, the WFD may promote the use of wetlands as natural storage areas which can serve multiple purposes.

The WFD requires competent authorities to ”encourage the active involvement of all interested parties”….”especially concerning the identification and review of measures to deliver the targets at river basin level”. It requires involvement of the public and other stakeholders. Stakeholder involvement is mainly concerned with understanding the anthropogenic pressures on the water environment, and helping determine the programme of measures to deliver the objectives of the WFD.

With respect to flooding, stakeholder participation will identify the potential synergy and conflict that might arise between WFD ecological water quality objectives and flood management for people and property. Synergy might arise for example where integrated wetlands can simultaneously deliver flood storage and biodiversity. Conflict might arise, however, where a requirement to achieve good ecological status involving, say, long



duration inundation could be perceived to compromise the standards of flood services to local communities.

The above mentioned issues of cross-linking between river basin management and flood risk management should be explored when preparing and planning any future flood protection activities in the Sava River basin.

2.7 The way ahead

Flood-risk management is probably the policy with the best potentialities for synergies with other aspects of water management, provided that adequate strategies are implemented. In some cases, traditional engineering solutions (dams, channelization or dykes) have not delivered the expected results. The occurrence of floods cannot be reduced completely and the consequences of future floods are likely to have an increasing social and economic impact. Moreover, the prioritisation for locating flood defences to protect particular sites or land uses is being reviewed. Thus, another approach of flood-risk management is now promoted: an integrated flood risk management focusing on prevention, protection and preparedness (including forecasting). In this framework, making space for river flooding in the areas where the human and economic stakes are relatively low represents a more sustainable way of dealing with floods. The conservation and the restoration of the natural functions of wetlands and floodplains, with their ability to retain floodwaters and reduce the flood pulse, are a key feature of this strategy, thus allowing important opportunities for synergies with WFD implementation.

This strategy needs to be supported by:

Close co-ordinations with land-use planning policies restricting developments on flood-plains and designating areas for flood water storage, thus maintaining enough space for flood expansion and decreasing the need for local flood defence infrastructures;

Conservation and/or return of agricultural or forestry activities that are compatible with an increased retention time of water at certain periods of the year. Rural Development Programmes can support such activities.

Effective flood risk management has also to take account of the river basin scale and long-term trends (e.g. in climate). Thus, there are obvious advantages of making use of the national and international river basin planning systems being set up under the WFD.

Concrete proposals for the Sava River Basin include following topics:

Flood protection is one of the key driving forces causing river and habitat continuity interruption. A usual part of flood action plans are the intentions to implement measures for technical flood defence (construction of new dikes and consolidation of the banks). These plans must however be combined with the efforts to restore river and habitat continuity interruptions. Appropriate regulations on land use and spatial planning (e.g. limitations related to land use in flood prone areas) have to be adopted in parallel with the flood protection activities.

Accidental pollution due to flooding is an important issue. Accidental pollution can originate from operating industrial facilities, but also from pollution from



sites contaminated by former industrial activities or waste disposal. Flood events should be managed in such a way that water surplus-related pollution is reduced via suitable preventive measures considering the land use management of floodplains/wetlands. A survey in 2002 identified 261 potential risk sites in the Danube River Basin, and as a consequence, a methodology was developed to screen their risk potential. It was agreed upon by the Danube countries that sites with a high risk potential should be investigated further to create a more concrete risk estimation and ranking.

Wetlands can play an important role in flood and drought mitigation as well as in nutrient reduction. They act as sponges, soaking up rain and storing floodwater and runoff. Wetlands slowly release flood waters back into streams, lakes and groundwater, making the impact of flooding less damaging. The efforts should be undertaken to restore wetlands and to reconnect former floodplains.

2.8 Best practices to achieve the environmental objectives

It is foreseen that the sustainable flood protection in the Sava River Basin will be developed without compromising the environmental objectives of the WFD. All flood risk management activities should be planned and carried out in line with the article 9 of the Directive 2007/60/EC, which requires taking appropriate steps to coordinate the application of the EFD with the WFD, focusing on opportunities for improving efficiency, information exchange and for achieving common synergies and benefits having regard to the environmental objectives of the WFD.

The concrete measures are in conformity with the Flood Action Plan for the Sava River Basin and cover following sectors:

Regulations on land use and spatial planning

These measures in floodplains and areas designated for flood water storage help maintaining space for flood expansion decreasing thus the need for structural measures. Conservation and/or return of agricultural and forestry activities leading to an elevated retention time of water. Key activities in this sector include:

Decree on conditions and limitations for constructions and activities on flood risk areas in Slovenia;

Criteria for identification & zoning of the terrain and for limitation restrictions in the use of the water estate in Croatia;

Application of agro-technical measures, forests managing measures and land in accordance with the nature protection in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

Land use limitations applied in Serbia.



Improvement of efficiency of existent and/or creation of new retention and detention capacities

Making space for rivers in areas with low human and economic activities will allow decrease risks in highly populated and industrial areas downstream. Key activities in this sector include:

Reducing flood risk in the area southwest of Ljubljana where detention reservoirs are planned to be built in the current floodplains;

Preservation of the existing large lowland retention storages in the Sava River Basin (Lonjsko polje, Mokro polje, Zelenik, Kupčina and Jantak having total volume of 1,590 hm3) as well as the existing natural retention areas along Sava and Drina in Serbia.

In general it is essential to reverse the negative trend of loss of active floodplains. From the overview of proposed restoration areas prepared recently by WWF focussing on new restoration sites outside the existing flood protection dikes it is apparent that there is a remarkable retention potential in the basin (WWF, 2010).

2.9 Conclusions

Flooding and flood plain management are integral to determining the ecological status of a catchment, from upland to the coast. The management of hydromorphological conditions and related flood regimes are therefore key measures to help deliver the objectives of the WFD. WFD implies that flooding has to occur to maintain or enhance the ecological status of aquatic systems. Therefore flood management practice needs to develop an understanding of how it can beneficially influence the ecological processes and functions within a catchment.

Within the river basin districts and their constituent catchments, flood managers must now consider the two way relationship between flood management functions and the ecological status of water. That is, not only how flood management impacts on surface and groundwater quality, but also how the quality objectives set by the WFD affect the way that flood management functions are designed and implemented into the future.

In practical terms, the synergy between river basin management and flood risk management has to be achieved through the following concerted actions:

Ensuring a coordinated approach in land-use planning;

Reactivation of former wetlands and floodplains to achieve increased water retention along with good surface water status. As start-up actions, available data should be collected on e.g. inventory of floodplains; floodplains which are dis- or reconnected to their rivers; potential flood retention areas; future flood infrastructure projects etc.;

Prevention of accidental pollution during floods affecting the storage facilities of dangerous substances;

Preparation of an overview of the implementation of future measures to achieve the WFD environmental objectives while ensuring appropriate level of flood protection.



2.10 References

1. Action Programme for Sustainable Flood Protection in the Danube River Basin, ICPDR, 2004.

2. Addressing Flooding in the Danube Regions, ICPDR, 2009.

3. Annual Report on Work and Activities of the Sava Commission for the Period April 1, 2008 –

March 31, 2009, ISRBC.

4. Assessment of the restoration potential along the Danube and main tributaries, WWF

International, Danube-Carpathian Programme, 2010.

5. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_restoration_potential_danube_1.pdf.

6. Coordination aspects of EFD implementation in the Danube River Basin, Draft 1, ICPDR, 2010.

7. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000

establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

8. Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the

assessment and management of flood risks.

9. Environmental Aspects of Integrated Flood Management, WMO, 2008.

10. EU WFD CIS Policy Paper on WFD and Hydro-morphological pressures, 2006.

11. Flood Management and The Water Framework Directive, Joe Morris, PhD, Tim Hess, PhD, Andrew

Gill PhD, Peter Howsam, PhD, Sue White, PhD., Institute of Water and Environment, Cranfield

University, Silsoe, Bedford, MK45 4DT.

12. Integrated Tisza River Basin Management Plan, Draft 7, ICPDR, June 2010.

13. Sub-Basin Level Flood Action Plan for the Sava River Basin, ICPDR/ISRBC, 2009.

14. The Danube River Basin District Management Plan, ICPDR, 2009.

15. The Sava River Basin Analysis Report, ISRBC, 2009.

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_restoration_potential_danube_1.pdf



3 Navigation in the Sava River Basin

3.1 Background

Importance of transboundary cooperation for sustainable development of the Sava River Basin is seen in the FASBR through achievement of three main goals:

- Setting up an international navigation regime on the Sava River and its navigable tributaries;

- Setting up sustainable water management that would provide sufficient water quantity and quality for aquatic eco-systems and various water utilization, protection from damaging effects of water, resolution of conflicts of interest and effective control of water regime;

- Carrying out measures to prevent or mitigate hazards and reduce and eliminate adverse consequences such are floods, ice hazards, droughts, introducing of hazardous substances to water, etc.

The FASRB is implemented through the ISRBC that was established as a joint institution with the Secretariat as its executive body.

In accordance with the FASRB international navigation is available on the Sava River in the length of 586 km and six tributaries: the Kolubara River, Drina River, Bosna River, Vrbas River, Una River and Kolpa/Kupa River.

Navigation is one of the significant pressures from an ecological point of view. This could be seen through pollution caused by navigation, as well as through river works aimed at improvement of navigation conditions that impair downstream conditions (e.g. bed-load transport, morpho-dynamic development of the channel network, groundwater regime, and others).

The Secretariat of the ISRBC has developed the technical requirements for the inland waterway vessels, the Draft Technical Rules for the Vessels on the Sava River Basin and the Draft Rules for the Transport of the Dangerous Goods in the Sava River Basin, which are currently under discussion. The Draft Technical Rules for the Vessels on the Sava River Basin are based on the EU Directive 2006/87/EC that set technical requirements for inland waterway vessels. The Draft Rules for the Transport of the Dangerous Goods in the Sava River Basin propose the application of the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterways (ADN). Above rules present a basis for implementation of highest technical standards for shipbuilding and transport of dangerous goods that will considerably improve the navigation safety and environmental protection.

The ISRBC, together with the Danube Commission and ICPDR was involved in the implementation of the Joint Statement on Guiding Principles for the Development of Inland Navigation and Environmental Protection in the Danube River Basin. This document was adopted in December 2007 (ICPDR, DC) and January 2008 (ISRBC).



As a follow up, the ISRBC launched two projects related to rehabilitation and development of the Sava River waterway - the Prefeasibility Study for the Rehabilitation and Improvement of the Sava River Waterway and the Feasibility Study and Project Documentation for the Rehabilitation and Development of Transport and Navigation on the Sava River Waterway.

Sediment, floods and droughts are tightly connected issues to the navigation but not considered within this document.

An importance of the navigation issue is clearly highlighted in the text leading to the establishment of the ISRBC based on the following: ...“Taking into consideration, inter alia, the Directive 2000/60/EC of the EU Parliament and of the Council of October 23 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive), Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (European Habitat Directive), Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (Waste Directive), Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives and European Agreement on Main Inland Waterways of International Importance (AGN)“.

3.2 Sources of information

The legal framework for navigation and environmental issues in the Sava River Basin includes international conventions between countries as well as relevant EU legislation, policies and action plans.

There are several main sources of information and references, including documents at different levels and domains of relevance, as follows:

3.2.1 International level

The Danube river basin is the broadest domain which has to be considered for the issue of navigation at the Sava River. Thus, the first three documents that should be considered are:

The Danube River Basin Management Plan (ICPDR 2009);

The Sava River Basin Analysis Report (ISRBC 2009);

Feasibility Study and Project Documentation for the Rehabilitation and Development of the Transport and Navigation on the Sava River Waterway (ISRBC 2008).

In addition several EU policies build the legal framework for water and river basin management in Europe, with the WFD as most significant regarding the protection of surface waters and groundwater. This includes a requirement for the development of the first river basin management plan for the entire Danube river basin by 2009. By 2015 the main environmental objectives of the Directive have to be achieved by the implementation of the programmes of measures, which inter alias address hydro morphological alterations caused by navigation.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/index.htm

http://untreaty.un.org/unts/144078_158780/9/5/2638.pdf

http://untreaty.un.org/unts/144078_158780/9/5/2638.pdf



One of the highly informative and comprehensive to wide range of stakeholders, action programme is NAIADES (PLATINA), 2006-2013, which could create a sound platform for dealing with the navigation issues in the Sava RBMP. It sets actions to be implemented from better integration of inland water transport, usage of modern information and communication technologies for navigation improvement and development of adequate waterway infrastructure.

At the Sava River Basin level navigation is an emerging issue concerning operation of the projects and studies, some of which are documents adopted by the ISRBC. Decision 30/07, adopted on November 13 - Navigation rules on the Sava River Basin, 2007 and Decision 13/10, adopted on June 8, 2010 – Rules for definition of winter ports and winter shelters in the Sava River Basin, Protocol on prevention of water pollution caused by navigation to the FASRB, have to be therefore taken into account.

One of the important issues for development of the navigation on the Sava River is development of the River Information System. In that regard the ISRBC issued two decisions complying with the EU requirements – Decision 03/09 on adoption of the Vessel Tracking and Tracing Standard and Decision 04/09 on adoption of the Inland ECDIS Standard.

As an additional source of information, results of international research and implementation strategies/activities could also help in developing strategies for the Sava RBMP. Among the examples could be mentioned IFI (2009), ISI (2010), IHP UNESCO, UNDP and EC Framework Programme (FP6 and FP7) research projects.

3.2.2 National and Sub basin level

At the national level there are documents which should to be taken into consideration in order to overcome the period until the Sava RBMP is established. Among the “old” plans, which are still valid are, e.g. “Vodoprivredna osnova Srbije” – VOS (Water Master Plan of the Republic of Serbia, 2002).

An example of important developments at the sub-basin level can be mentioned the Kolubara river training and navigation, among the other issues within the Draft Kolubara River Basin Management Plan [Directorate, SIDA, 2010].

3.3 Recommendation for future actions

Integrated planning approach is necessary for improvement of navigation and river system protection in the Sava River Basin. Common philosophy that would be implemented by all Sava countries through various disciplines is essential. Interdisciplinary approach should include environment, water management, transport, river engineering, ecology, spatial planning, tourism, economics, as well as involvement of stakeholders.

Actions to improve the current situation should focus on the following:

River sections that require fairway development and related effects on the ecological and chemical status;

River sections that require ecological preservation/restoration and related effects on navigability.



An environmental assessment has to be performed prior to any decision making. This is required by the Strategic Environmental (SEA) Directive (2001/42/EC) for qualifying plans, programmes and policies and required by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (85/337/EEC) for qualifying projects.

This should be governing action towards future series of projects and studies at the waterways of the Sava River Basin.

Recognising a potential conflict between development of inland waterway transport and WFD implementation, the ICPDR has linked up with the Danube Commission, and the ISRBC to initiate an intense, cross-sectoral discussion process, which led to the adoption of `Joint Statement on Guiding Principles on the Development of Inland Navigation and Environmental in the Danube River Basin´.

The Joint Statement summarises principles and criteria for environmentally sustainable inland navigation on the Danube and its tributaries, including the maintenance of existing waterways and the development of future waterway infrastructure. The `Joint Statement´ is a guiding document:

For the development of the `Programme of Measures´ requested by the EU Water Framework Directive;

For the maintenance of the current inland navigation;

For the planning and investments in future infrastructure and environmental protection projects.

The Joint Statement contains the List of navigation needs, respective measures, their general effect and specific pressures on ecology. Ecological measures to achieve and ensure the environmental objective/sustainability are included. These measures should be referred to in future setting of the Programme of Measures for the Sava RB.

The sustainable development of navigation is addressed in the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, Priority Area 1: “To improve mobility and multimodality”. The environmental aspects of navigation are primarily included in the Action 3: “To modernize the Danube fleet in order to improve environmental and economic performance”; and the Action 7: “To improve comprehensive waterway management of the Danube and its tributaries”. The EU Strategy for the Danube Region creates thus an excellent platform for cross-sectoral policies in the Danube RB.

3.4 Future status of navigation

3.4.1 Transport needs

A cease of the transport activities on the Sava River and economic changes in the region during the last two decades caused a significant drop of the cargo transport on the Sava River.

However, the expected growth in river traffic is notable and clearly warrants the investments and initiatives. An issue that has been investigated in detail was the question whether the rehabilitation efforts should concentrate on upgrading to Class IV or directly to Class Va.



The cargo forecasts after upgrading to Class IV on the sector between Belgrade and Sisak confirm the growing positive appreciation regarding traffic volumes on the Sava River between now and the year 2027. During the year 2012 (representative of post-upgrading of the Sava River to Class IV navigation), commercial cargo traffic is expected to reach between 3.5 million and 7.9 million tonnes, depending on realization of low or high economic growth scenarios. These volumes are likely to increase to 6.1 million and 15.3 million tonnes in 2022, and to ultimately reach between 7 million and 18.7 million tonnes during year 2027, again depending on the low and high growth scenarios, respectively. This positive future is not a consequence of the progress of one particular port along the Sava River, but the results of a combined strong performance of all river ports.

From a purely traffic volume perspective, the immediate upgrading to Class Va has a notable additional positive effect on the estimated future cargo volumes.

Keeping the same evaluation base, the total additional cargo volume that is generated during the reference period and via an immediate upgrading to Class Va ranges from 1.5 million additional tones in the high growth scenario to 2.5 million tonnes in the low growth scenario.

Assuming possible benefits obtained from economies-of-scale equalling respectively 5% and 10% on total base traffic, the benefits markedly increase under all economic scenarios and the pattern of benefits also increases in time. For example, with a 5% traffic benefit, the immediate upgrading would lead to 3.4 million tonnes of additional cargo in 2012 according to the low growth scenario, increasing to 6.2 million additional tonnes of cargo in 2027 according to the high growth scenario. Assuming a 10% scale benefit, the benefits of an immediate upgrading to Class Va would reach 4.3 million tonnes in 2012 according to the low growth scenario, climbing to almost 11 million tonnes by 2027 assuming a high growth scenario.

The traffic estimates after rehabilitation to Class Va suggest that for the year 2027 high growth scenario without any economies-of-scale benefits taken into consideration, 20 million tonnes may be transported along the highest activity segment (between Danube River and Šabac International Port). Figure 2 presents the range according to minimum and maximum economic growth scenario of potential cargo volumes per river section in year 2027.



Figure 2: Cumulative traffic volume per main segment (minimum and maximum estimated volumes for year 2027)

In terms of ton kilometres, based on river kilometres within the Sava River, the year 2027, high growth scenario for Class Va suggests that, on a cumulative basis, some 5,605 million ton kilometres may be expended along the highest activity segment (between Danube River and Šabac International Port). This would increase to the order of 6,177 million ton kilometres under the base condition plus 10 percent commercial cargo scenario.

The number of ships passing along any given segment of the Sava River is a critical determinant of operational sufficiency. Several considerations influence this calculation and the analysis of vessel movements should be for a „fail safe” condition; that is, the „worst case” demands. Loadings on all Sava River segments, under 2,000 ton average loads, base case plus 10 percent demand scenario, and high economic growth range from 66 for the Šabac International – Danube River segment of the Sava River, to 23 for the short (one kilometre) Slavonski Brod – Bosanski Brod segment. The total number of vessel movements is less than the upstream Sisak – Slavonski Brod segment since the latter, which extends over roughly 220 river kilometres, has a much higher net level of dredging activity. Hourly one-way peak directional vessel movements for the Šabac International – Danube River segment, under an equivalent 22 hour day, and 60 percent directional peak hour factor, would be 1.8 vessels per hour; that is, in the peak hourly direction, a ship every 33 minutes. Similar headways for the medium and low economic growth scenarios would be a ship every 50 and 85 minutes, respectively.

The issue of commercial navigation upstream Sisak has until now never been seriously investigated and no assessment was ever made of the potential volumes river traffic could capture on the river section upstream Sisak. This first effort in estimating possible cargo volumes of river transport upstream Sisak is subject to a number of preliminary observations.

Results for year 2027, under the high economic scenario, indicate a potential Brežice activity of some one million tons (but considerably less under other growth scenarios) and near two million tons for Zagreb / Rugvica (Table 1).



These findings raise several implications. There exists an argument (although not an overly dominating one) for implementing Rugvica Port, depending on adopted economic growth rates. However, some of the Rugvica throughput would (more than likely) be at the expense of Sisak Port and Slavonski Brod Port. Justification for implementing a commercial cargo-based port at Brežice is highly questionable except under the highest economic growth scenarios if one accepts an industry benchmark that 500,000 annual tonnes are needed to support any sort of port. However, there exist and undeniable nautical tourism potential that calls for the appropriate infrastructure to accommodate high-order nautical tourism by means of locks for the planned hydroelectric dams and guaranteed Class II or Class III navigability, concurrently low-order commercial services (perhaps) are possible.

Table 1: Forecast throughput: new ports of Zagreb (Rugvica) and Brežice

Economic scenario Thousand Tons per Annum

2012 2017 2022 2027

Brežice

Low 100 150 180 210

Medium 210 300 370 440

High 450 690 870 1,060

Zagreb (Rugvica)

Low 190 280 340 380

Medium 390 550 680 810

High 850 1,280 1,620 1,980

Note: Totals exclude sand and gravel.

3.4.2 Design/construction criteria

The ISRBC has adopted and made decisions on Detailed Parameters on Waterway Classification and Classification of the Sava River Waterway which define design criteria.

Since the conclusion of the Feasibility Study and Project Documentation for the Rehabilitation and Development of Transport and Navigation on the Sava River Waterway is that the Sava River waterway should be improved to a Class Va, only these criteria will be presented and compared to Class IV. The differences are rather small and still not yet completely clear (depends on various factors) if the Class Va will be apply on a whole stretch of the Sava River.

The design requirements for the fairway dimensions and safety clearances for improving the Sava to a SCC Class Va waterway are almost similar to the design requirements for a SCC Class IV waterway (Figure 3).



Figure 3: SCC requirements for a class IV and class Va waterway

The differences are:

The depth of the fairway is 2.4 m for SCC Class Va and 2.3 m for SCC Class IV (at low navigable water level);

The width of the waterway in bends is 90 m for SCC Class Va instead of 75 m for SCC Class IV; and

The horizontal clearance below bridges is 55 m for SCC Class Va and 45 m for Class IV.

3.4.3 Further development of planned works

The Feasibility Study recognized that 21 stretches required dredging and training works, 20 stretches required bands improvement, 3 bridges have to be reconstructed in order to meet SCC Class Va requirements and marking system have to be completed (in spring 2009 river section from rkm 335 to rkm 150 is not marked, but it is expected that fully operational marking system on the whole Sava River, including navigable part of Kupa River, will be established).

Beside of these „basic” requirements, the following miscellaneous works can significantly improve the state of fairway conditions:



Removal of ship wrecks or obstacles (total of 3 ship wrecks have to be removed);

Cleaning of areas from UXO (unexploded ordnance);

Implementation of River Information Services;

Upgrading of winter ports.

The general lines of the development of waterway on Sava River are schematized in Figure 4.

Figure 4: General Action Plan implementation lines

The comprehensive rehabilitation program for the Belgrade – Brežice section of the Sava River can be divided into two principal groups of initiatives. The first group is associated with the restoration of commercial navigation on the river section between Belgrade and Sisak. The second group of works involves the development of alternative river utilizations, principally focusing tourism and recreation and is coupled to the river section between Sisak and Brežice.

However, above characteristic distinction between the two river sections is not exclusive, given that several sections of the river offer opportunities for integrated developments:

The river section between Sisak and Rugvica (Zagreb), where a policy decision is possible to develop a river port in Rugvica, hence necessitating the development of commercial traffic. Such evolution could emerge in addition to the opportunities for tourism development and the high environmental value of that river section; and

Several cities along the Sava River already have developed, have started to develop, or offer high development potential for waterfront landscaping and for the creation of tourism and recreational water-based infrastructures, improving the link between river and city.

HIGH PRIORITY MEDIUM PRIORITY LOW PRIORITY

DETAILED DESIGN STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

UPGRADING TO CLASS Va

MASTER PLAN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL USE OF

SAVA RIVER

TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN SELECTED AREAS OF SAVA RIVER

MASTER PLAN FOR TOURISM USE OF SAVA RIVER

ENVIRONMENTAL USE DEVELOPMENT OF SAVA RIVER

STUDY OF CONDITIONS FOR CONTAINER

TRANSPORT

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FOR

CONTAINER TRANSPORT



The realization of a comprehensive river development program, covering transport, tourism / recreation and environment, is a long-term initiative comprising a range of concrete actions and projects, each having its own characteristics, dynamic and timeframe.

A wide range of projects, studies and policy actions emerged from the Feasibility Study and are listed in Table 2.

The list of initiatives is ranked in accordance with the estimated priority of the initiative and reflects not only the intervention logic which imposes a certain sequential order, but also considers the possible economic, environmental or social value of specific actions.

It should be emphasized that several of these initiatives, in particular when considering policy actions, are closely inter-related and could be combined under the „project preparation” label.

Table 2: Prioritized list of projects, studies and policy actions

Group Intervention name / description Intervention type Priority

1 Approval of Feasibility Study results Policy action High

2 Agreement on management and coordination structures

Policy action High

Financial sources and donors Policy action High

3 Detailed Design Study Study High

Environmental Impact Study Study High

Marking (Study) of fairway

Study/ Physical works

High

RIS Final Design Study Study High

4 Financing rehabilitation works Policy action High

Preparation rehabilitation works (tendering, selection)

Policy action High

5 Rehabilitation works (dredging and training) Physical works High

Other infrastructure works Physical works Medium

RIS development Physical works Medium

6 Sava River Tourism Master Plan Study Medium

Sava River Environmental Master Plan Study Medium

Sector Development Plan Study Medium

Sava River Port development Policy action Medium

7 Sava River Tourism development Policy action Medium/ low

Sava River Environmental development Policy action

Medium/ low

8 Regional development Policy action Low

Container transport development Policy action Low



3.5 References

1. FASRB, The Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin, Kranjska Gora, Slovenia, 2002.

2. ISRBC, Protocol on Navigation Regime to the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin,

Ljubljana, 2004.

3. ISRBC, Joint Statement on Guiding Principles for the Development of Inland Navigation and

Environmental Protection in the Danube River Basin. December 2007 (ICPDR, DC) and January 2008

(ISRBC).

4. ISRBC, Decision 19/08 on adoption of Classification of the Sava River Waterway.

5. ISRBC, Decision 37/08 on Amendments to the Decision 29/07 on Adoption of the Marking Plan for the

Sava River and its Navigable Tributaries for Year 2008.

6. ISRBC, Decision 02/09 on Adoption of the Marking Plan for the Sava River and its Navigable

Tributaries for Year 2009.

7. ISRBC, Decision 03/09 on adoption of the Vessel Tracking and Tracing Standard.

8. ISRBC, Decision 04/09 on adoption of the Inland ECDIS Standard.

9. ISRBC, Decision 30/07, adopted on November 13 - Navigation rules on the Sava River Basin, 2007.

10. ISRBC, Decision 13/10, adopted on June8, 2010 – Rules for definition of winter ports and winter

shelters in the Sava River Basin.

11. ISRBC, Protocol on prevention of water pollution caused by navigation to the FASRB.

12. Convention on the Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River (Danube

Protection Convention), Sofia, 1994.

13. Convention regarding the Regime of Navigation on the Danube, Belgrade, 1948.

14. EU WFD Articles 3.4 and 3.5.

15. The Danube Basin – Rivers in the Heart of Europe, Vienna, 2004.

16. European Agreement on Main Inland Waterways of International Importance (AGN,

ECE/TRANS/120/Rev.1, UN/ECE, 2006).

17. Strategic Environmental (SEA) Directive (2001/42/EC).

18. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (85/337/EEC).

19. Water Law, Croatia, 2009.

20. Water Management Strategy, Croatia, 2009.

21. Water Law, Serbia, 2010.

22. Government of Serbia, 2002. Vodoprivredna osnova Srbije – VOS (Water Master Plan of the Republic

of Serbia), Belgrade.

23. ICPDR, 2004. Flood Action Programme. Action Programme for Sustainable Flood Protection in the

Danube River Basin.

24. EC, 2006. WFD and Hydro morphological Pressures. Technical Report. Good practice in managing the

ecological impacts of hydropower schemes; flood protection works; and works designed to facilitate

under the WFD.

25. EC, 2006/2010. Action Programme PLATINA/NAIADES.

26. ICPDR, 2007. The Tisza River Basin Analysis.

27. ICPDR, 2009. “DRBM Plan 2009” - The Danube River Basin Management Plan.

28. Brils J. and Harris B. (Eds.) Toward Risk-based management of European River Basins: Key findings

and recommendations of the RISKBASE project, EC FP6 reference GOCE 036938, Dec 2009, Utrecht,

Nederlands.

29. The Sava River Basin Analysis Report (ISRBC, 2009).

30. The Integrated Tisza River Management Plan (ICPDR, 2010).

31. Towards Risk-Based Management of European River Basins – key findings and recommendations of

the RISKBASE projects.

32. IWRM Guidelines at River Basin Level (UNESCO, IHP UNESCO).



33. Directive 2005/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on

harmonised river information services (RIS) on inland waterways in the Community [Official Journal

L 255, 30.9.2005].

34. IFI (2009) International Floods Initiative, IHP UNESCO, Paris.

35. ISI (2010) International Sediment Initiative, IHP UNESCO, Paris.

36. ISRBC, 2008. Feasibility Study and Project Documentation for the Rehabilitation and Development of

the Transport and Navigation on the Sava River Waterway.

37. Republic Directorate for Water and SIDA, 2010. The Kolubara River Basin Management Plan.

38. Development of Inland Navigation and Environmental Protection in the Danube River Basin (ICPDR,

ISRBC, 2008).

39. Collection of decisions related to navigation (ISRBC, 2009):

Navigation Rules on the Sava River Basin;

Rules on Minimum Manning Requirements for the Vessels on the Sava River Basin;

Rules on Minimum Requirements for he Inssuance of Boatmaster’s Licenses on the Sava River Basin;

Rules for Waterway Marking on the Sava River Basin;

Detailed Parameters for Waterway Classification on the Sava River;

Classification of the Sava River Waterway.

40. Communication from the Commission on the Promotion of the Inland Waterway Transport -

„NAIADES” An Integrated European Action Programme for Inland Waterway Transport – 2006.

41. Project PLATINA, 7th Framework Programme.

42. Action Plan of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, December 2010.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi%21celexplus%21prod%21DocNumber&lg=en&type_doc=Directive&an_doc=2005&nu_doc=44



4 Hydropower and River Basin Management

4.1 Background

A range of uses and interests exists in rivers that are frequently overlapping or competing. The WFD Article 5 reports carried out in 2005, showed that hydromorphological pressures and impacts are one of the most important risks of failing to achieve WFD objectives. Hydropower belongs to the main hydromorphological driving forces identified in the risk analyses. This chapter addresses the relevant issues for better integration of hydropower development and river basin management policies.

4.2 Setting the scene

The WFD (Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council established a framework for European Community action in the field of water policy) sets a framework for the protection of all waters with the one main goal of reaching a “good status” of all Community waters by 2015. The risk assessments carried out by the Member States in 2005 (Article 5 reports) in each river basin district have shown that hydro-morphological pressures and impacts are one of the most important risks of failing to achieve WFD objectives.

To secure energy supply and to tackle climate change, the EU has developed a policy of renewable energy sources. The recent EU policy paper promoting renewable energy sources is the Green Paper on “A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy”, COM(2006) 105. This paper proposes a new Road Map for renewable energy sources in the EU, with possible targets beyond 2010, in order to provide a stable investment climate to generate more competitive renewable energy sources in Europe.

According to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources each Member State shall ensure that the share of energy from renewable sources, calculated in accordance with Articles 5 to 11 of the Directive 2009/28/EC, in gross final consumption of energy in 2020 is at least its national overall target for the share of energy from renewable sources in that year, as set out in the third column of the table in part A of Annex I of the Directive 2009/28/EC. Such mandatory national overall targets are consistent with a target of at least a 20% share of energy from renewable sources in the Community’s gross final consumption of energy in 2020.

4.3 Hydropower and its impacts on the river basin management in the Sava River Basin

4.3.1 Hydropower in the Sava River Basin

There are 20 hydropower plants in the Sava RB larger than 10 MW. In Slovenia, most of the plants are located on the Sava River, while in the other Sava countries the plants have been built on major tributaries (Drina, Vrbas, etc.). There are a large number of small and micro hydropower plants in Slovenia. The total installed capacity of the plants



is 2,449 MW with yearly production of 6,445 GWh/year. Basic data on the existing power plants is given in Table 3.

4.3.2 Impacts on longitudinal continuity and habitat interruption

The hydropower is a key driving force causing river and habitat continuity interruption in the Sava RB, representing 78% of all interruptions. Of the 31 barriers, 28 are dams (see Map 7 of the Sava RBMP).

The course of the Sava River is interrupted by six existing hydropower dams in Slovenia (Moste, Mavčiče, Medvode, Vrhovo, Boštanj and Blanca), also used for flood defence. These dams disrupt the longitudinal continuum of sediment transport, as well as migration of aquatic organisms. HPP Mavčiče and HPP Vrhovo are not passable by fish, but are equipped with fish catch and transport facility. Downstream reaches of the Sava River are free-flowing.

Significant number of hydropower dams is also present in the Drina River sub-basin. Chain of dams on the Drina River consists of large dams Višegrad (BA), Bajina Bašta and Zvornik (RS). Zvornik is a single dam equipped with fish migration aid, but its performance should be monitored. The key migration route for migratory fish species in the Upper Sava (between 42.9 and 189.7 km from the river source) is interrupted, impacting the development of self-sustaining populations. Fish migratory routes are also interrupted on the tributaries, e.g. by dams on tributaries: Sotla/Sutla, Kupa/Kolpa, Dobra, Una, Vrbas, Pliva, Lašva, Spreča, Bosut (gate), Drina, Ćehotina, Piva, Uvac, and Lim.

Slovenia reported 13 structures located on tributaries. Hydropower use is specified for Završniško jezero, while the others have multipurpose use. Ten of those structures are equipped with functional fish migration aid.

For a full overview of HPPs in the Sava RB and status of their fish”pass ability” see also Annex 7 of the Sava RBMP.



Table 3: Basic data on hydropower plants in the Sava River Basin (2005)

Name of the Sava

RB Country

Name of the plant

River

Capacity installed

2005 (MW)

Installed discharge

(m3/s)

Average yearly

production [2005-2007]

(GWh/year)

Countries share in average

total productio

n

Countries share in installed capacity

SI

Moste/ Završnica Sava 21 35 64

9% 8%

Mavčiče Sava 38 260 62

Medvode Sava 26.4 150 77

Vrhovo Sava 34 501 116

Boštanj Sava 33 500 115

Blanca Sava 43 500 160

HR Gojak Donja Dobra 55.5 57 192

4% 4% Lešće Dobra 42 2x60 +2.7 94

BA

Bočac Vrbas 110 240 308

29% 21% Višegrad Drina 315 800 1,120

Jajce I Pliva 60 74 259

Jajce II Vrbas 30 80 181

RS

Zvornik Drina 96 620 515

46% 52%

Uvac Uvac 36 43 72

Kokin Brod Uvac 21 37 60

Bistrica Uvac 103 36 370

Bajina Bašta Drina 360 644 1,691

Potpeć Lim 51 165 201

RHE Bajina Bašta* Drina 614 129 n/a

ME Piva Piva 360 240 788 12% 15%

Total Sava RB 2005 2,449 6,445 100% 100%

* Reversible HPP

4.3.3 Hydrological alterations

Hydropower generation can be identified as one of the main drivers causing hydrological alterations in the Sava River Basin.

Slovenia reported 18 hydrological alterations affecting 14 water bodies on the Sava River and tributaries impacted by impoundment, water abstraction and hydropeaking.

There are 8 hydrological alterations in Serbia - one on the Sava River (impoundment by the Iron Gate I reservoir) and others on tributaries.



4.3.4 Water use

Thermal and nuclear power plant cooling represents the major use of water in the Sava River Basin – about 3.3 billion m3/year. Major plants in the Sava River Basin are: NPP Krško, TPP Obrenovac 1 and 2, TPP Nikola Tesla A, etc. Cooling systems of TPP and NPP generally can be with and without recirculation. Cooling systems with recirculation are using specifically much less water, but represent a large consumptive user. It is not possible to specify the consumptive use of the water for thermal and nuclear power plant cooling at this moment. Most of the water for this purpose comes from rivers and reservoirs. It can also be noted that thermal pollution of the rivers downstream of major plants could be problem during the low water periods.

4.3.5 Future infrastructure projects

Future infrastructure projects (FIPs) in the Sava RB (e.g. navigation, hydropower and flood protection) may have negative impacts on the water status and must therefore be addressed accordingly. In order to prevent and reduce basin-wide and trans-boundary effects from FIPs in the Sava RB, the development and application of BAT and BEP is crucial. For new infrastructure projects, it is of particular importance that environmental requirements are considered as an integral part of the planning and implementation process. An assessment of the impact of developments in the water-related areas on river basin management has to be undertaken and particular attention has to be given to ecological status.

Transboundary impacts of all existing infrastructures and FIPs shall be assessed within the work of bilateral commissions using all available tools (e.g. WFD, FD, etc.) and international mechanisms (e.g. ESPOO Convention, FASRB).



Overview of renewable energy sources policy

The key priorities for the European Union energy policy are to address the Union’s growing dependence on energy imports from outside the Union, to tackle climate change as well as meet EUs overall and Member States individual targets to reduce CO2 emissions. The promotion of renewable energy has an important role to play in these tasks.

Over the last decade, different EU policy papers have been adopted to enhance the development of renewable energy sources:

The 1997 White Paper “Energy for the future”, COM (1997) 599, which has set a target of doubling the share of renewable energy in the primary energy consumption from 6% in 1997 to 12% in 2010;

The Green Paper on the security of supply “Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply”, COM (2000) 769;

The Green Paper on “A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy”, COM (2006) 105;

Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.

The Directive 2009/28/EC establishes a common framework for the production and promotion of energy from renewable sources.

Each Member State has a target calculated according to the share of energy from renewable sources in its gross final consumption for 2020. This target is in line with the overall '20-20-20' goal for the Community. Moreover, the share of energy from renewable sources in the transport sector must amount to at least 10 % of final energy consumption in the sector by 2020.

The Member States are to establish national action plans which set the share of energy from renewable sources consumed in transport, as well as in the production of electricity and heating, for 2020. These action plans must take into account the effects of other energy efficiency measures on final energy consumption (the higher the reduction in energy consumption, the less energy from renewable sources will be required to meet the target). These plans will also establish procedures for the reform of planning and pricing schemes and access to electricity networks, promoting energy from renewable sources.

Member States can “exchange” an amount of energy from renewable sources using a statistical transfer, and set up joint projects concerning the production of electricity and heating from renewable sources. It is also possible to establish cooperation with third countries. The following conditions must be met:

The electricity must be consumed in the Community;

The electricity must be produced by a newly constructed installation (after June 2009);

The quantity of electricity produced and exported must not benefit from any other support.



The Directive is part of a package of energy and climate change legislation which provides a legislative framework for Community targets for greenhouse gas emission savings. It encourages energy efficiency, energy consumption from renewable sources, the improvement of energy supply and the economic stimulation of a dynamic sector in which Europe is setting an example.

Hydropower dominates currently the renewable energy sources generation in the EU. As for future potential of renewable energy sources, recent analyses suggest that wind energy and biomass have a leading role. The baseline and the choice made by the different Member States to reach their national indicative targets on renewable electricity may vary considerably. Thus, the importance of further development of hydropower is likely to be different in various Member States. Part of the potential for development may also come from the modernisation of existing hydropower facilities.

Large scale hydropower with storage reservoirs might still be an attractive option when seen in the context of all the synergies arising from multi-purpose uses of reservoirs (water supply, flood defence, irrigation, and recreation). In a narrower sense, seen only as a source of electricity, the merits of large hydropower (meeting peak demand, providing ancillary services) should not be neglected.

However, hydropower has been identified as one of several drivers to hydromorphological alterations and it is therefore important that hydropower is carried out in an appropriate manner in order to avoid and minimize the potentially negative effects on water bodies.

4.4 Interactions between hydropower and RBM

At a first glance, there might be a risk of conflict between the implementation of different policies:

The WFD puts a strong emphasis on the quality of hydro-morphological conditions as they support the type specific aquatic communities that constitute good ecological status;

The past developments of hydropower generation, navigation infrastructures and activities, and flood defence facilities have often required major hydro-morphological changes.

However:

Whilst impacting on aquatic ecosystems, such activities can also deliver important environmental benefits in other areas (e.g. reducing the impacts of climate change) or benefits to human safety and/or generate or secure employments;

Many damaging consequences on aquatic ecosystems are caused when those responsible for undertaking/regulating such activities either do not recognise or take insufficient account of environmental protection as part of the multi-purpose uses of water bodies.

In other words, different policies do not always have to automatically conflict and there is room for significant progress in policy integration by enhancing the recognition of the



different interests, fostering the co-operation between the different competent authorities and stakeholders, and promoting more integrated development strategies. This will require efforts and acceptance from all parties involved.

The development of the hydropower sector is currently driven by the need to achieve the objectives of EU climate and energy policies which strongly promote renewable energy. The most recent development in this respect is the adoption of Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, which sets ambitious targets for all Member States, in order for the EU to reach a 20% share of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

The Directive also aims at improving the legal framework for promoting renewable electricity and requires Member States to develop by June 2010 national action plans that establish pathways for the development of renewable energy sources. In this context, some Member States have recently experienced increasing demands for the development of new hydropower facilities, in particular for small and micro hydropower stations. In addition, some stakeholders refer to the WFD as an instrument that prohibits the development of new hydropower facilities.

The European Commission prepared a document which highlights key elements from previously agreed guidance documents, developed in the framework of the CIS process: "Note of the Water Directors on WFD and Hydropower Generation – Recalling relevant CIS guidance". The aim of this document is to assist all those working on integrating hydropower development and environmental protection.

The following questions that were discussed by the EU Water Directors at their 2010 meeting in Segovia are also relevant to be addressed by the Sava RBMP:

How does the situation on hydropower development look like in your country? Are there major developments of small/large hydropower facilities on the way, e.g. because of the establishment of the renewable energy action plans?

What is the strategy in your country to realize a given increase in hydropower production until 2020? How is environmental protection requirements according to the WFD integrated? For example, how is a balance between the benefits of renewable energy and environmental protection established and how are alternatives assessed?

4.5 Notes on hydropower development under the WFD

It is important to ensure that existing and forthcoming EU policies to promote hydropower ensure coherence with the WFD/other EU environmental legislation and clearly consider the ecological impacts on the affected water bodies and the adjacent wetlands. More holistic approaches for hydropower use are needed. The focus should be on catchment level and not only site-specific or on water body level.

During WFD implementation, an environmental assessment based on WFD criteria is required for all water bodies including those with hydropower plants. This assessment includes other environmental criteria and a socio-economic assessment. In addition, in the RBMPs, all water uses have to be taken into account.

Hydropower development should take into account future climate change impacts. Possible future conflicts between new hydropower priorities due to climate change



impacts and the aims of the WFD to achieve GES or GEP should be taken early into account.

National and European instruments (such as tradable certificates, feed-in tariffs, support schemes for renewable or ecolabelling) to support and promote hydropower development should be linked to ecological criteria for the protection of water status. There should be a clear insight into all costs & benefits of hydropower. This insight will help sustainable decision-making on hydropower projects and implementing the polluter pays principle.

The 2007 workshop on the WFD and Hydropower in Berlin identified three practical approaches for integrating good water status and utilisation of hydropower. For new plants, best available techniques (BAT) should be defined and utilised. For old plants which are to apply for new permits, environmental concerns should be addressed while issuing the new permit. For old plants with continuing long-term permits, financial incentives may be helpful. Monetary or non-monetary compensation should be considered for long-term concessions. The pre-planning mechanisms to facilitate the (proper location) identification of suitable areas for new hydropower projects are considered as essential. These pre-planning mechanisms should take into account WFD and other environmental criteria as well as socioeconomic aspects, including other water uses. The use of such preplanning systems could assist the authorisation process to be reduced and implemented faster, provided that the criteria of WFD Art. 4.7 are met.

Biological continuity (upstream and downstream migration) and ecologically acceptable flow were identified as priority considerations for the improvement of water ecological status. Hydro-peaking is also of importance (e.g. erosion and habitat degradation). As regards biological continuity, for upstream migration, many solutions are available (e.g. fish passes and fish ladders, but also fish lifts, fish stocking, catch & carry programmes etc.) to mitigate the negative impact of migration barriers – but more work needs to be done on evaluation and monitoring of effectiveness. Much research leading to technical innovations has still to be undertaken, especially related to downstream migration in combination with turbine damage. The approaches to determine ecologically acceptable flow have been developed and are being further developed by several European countries. There is no one-size-fits-all approach - a combination with other mitigation measures is often necessary. The use of compensating measures together with mitigating measures is highly recommended.

Some studies identify serious ecological consequences of hydro-peaking, but there are still knowledge gaps. Mitigation options are limited and often involve high costs due to the loss of peak-load capacity and their designated function. However, examples for the successful implementation of mitigation measures also exist (like coordination between hydropower plants). Some degree of standardisation at European level is desirable, but solutions for mitigation measures will have to be largely site-specific (e.g. definition of ecologically acceptable flow). Exchange of information should be promoted on standards that have been developed by different countries or organisations (e.g. for continuity).

New hydropower projects are compatible with the WFD as long as they comply with the Art. 4.7 tests. For new hydropower projects, external effects – e.g. on the water environment – should be taken into account properly by the use of the Art. 4.7 test. There is relatively little experience across Member States with the use of this test. Exchange of experience is needed to develop a transparent approach.



Criteria for prioritising action in regions affected by hydropower should consider different scales. On the European level, species and habitat issues of ecological importance should be identified, for example via the Natura 2000 designation process. Other criteria on an international level are lateral connectivity regarding wetlands and management of water and sediment flow. On the catchment and regional level, longitudinal continuity or key migrating fish is especially important. On the level of water bodies/groups of water bodies, we should also consider lateral connectivity, the geographical scale of impact and severity and we should identify trends (to prevent deterioration). Measures that bring the highest improvement potential, calculated as e.g. river length, should be prioritised.

We should aim at achieving self-sustaining populations of migrating fish species where possible/needed and where historically verifiable at the catchment level, in particular aiming at delivering interconnectivity in combination with habitat and spawning ground conservation/restoration. Interdependency of measures should be regarded as well as the risk of negative impacts of measures, such as introduction of alien species and climate change.

In addition to the definition of ecological priorities, we should use socio-economic analysis to define a cost-effective programme of measures. This work should ideally be undertaken at a catchment or sub-catchment level, so as to maximise the ecological potential and the energy production. Economic aspects for hydropower should include a wide range of benefits (e.g. economic importance of species, economic uses of water) and costs (financial cost of measures, environmental and resource costs). Social aspects also bringing benefits include recreational/amenity value, tourism, multifunctional use for hydropower, flood protection, fisheries as well as public views on the relative importance of benefits/costs (public participation).

The EU Water Directors at their meeting in May 2010:

Recalled the importance of the environmental objectives of the WFD, including the preservation of hydromorphological characteristics of water bodies, and the mechanisms the WFD includes to balance high levels of environmental protection with the development of economic activities that use water.

Recognised the important role of renewable energy sources, including hydropower, for the achievement of the objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the EU and welcomed ongoing discussions in the Member States on national renewable energy action plans to be developed by June 2010, according to Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources.

Took note of the fact that hydropower has been identified in the first implementation report of the WFD as one of several drivers to hydromorphological alterations and that there is a risk that significant water systems degradation and biodiversity loss will continue in the future if infrastructure developments are implemented without taking fully into account the requirements of the WFD.

Stressed that whilst the development of renewable energy, including hydropower, should be strongly supported, it is equally important that such development take place in a manner which is compatible with environmental protection requirements.



Underlined that meeting the requirements of Article 4.7 of the WFD is in particular relevant for cases where further exploitation of hydropower potential is envisaged by installing new facilities and a deterioration of status is to be expected.

Recalled the CIS guidance documents endorsed by the Water Directors, underlining the key recommendations which should be followed in order to achieve hydropower development and ensure the environmental objectives of the WFD are met:

o Pre-planning mechanisms allocating “no-go” areas for new hydro-power projects should be developed. This designation should be based on a dialogue between the different competent authorities, stakeholders and NGOs.

o In order to minimize the need for new sites, the development of hydropower capacities could be supported by the modernisation and the upgrading of existing infrastructures.

o The development of hydropower should be accompanied by an improvement of water ecology, through clear ecological standards for new facilities, or for existing facilities through their modernisation as well as the improvement of operation conditions. New hydropower plants should for example all have fish passages and they should respect a minimum ecological flow.

o An analysis of costs and benefits of the project is necessary to enable a judgement on whether the benefits to the environment and to society preventing deterioration of status or restoring a water body to good status are outweighed by the benefits of the new modifications. This does not mean that it will be necessary to monetise or even quantify all costs and benefits to make such judgement.

o The size of the project is not the relevant criteria to trigger Article 4.7. The relevant approach is to assess if a given project will result in deterioration of the status of a water body. Thus, projects of any size may fall under article 4.7.

These agreements recalled the key elements from previously agreed CIS guidance documents related to hydropower. The major aim of the statements of the EU Water Directors was to assist those working on integrating hydropower development and environmental protection.

4.6 Conclusions

Integration between water, energy, transport and flood management policies is beneficial since it will create synergies and avoid potential inconsistencies and mitigate possible conflicts between water users and environmentalists. It is paramount that the different policies are implemented in a coordinated way, because it will otherwise result in delays, increased costs and/or lowest levels of ambition for all of them. Recognition of the need and the legitimacy of each policy is the pre-requisite for integration. In addition to policy definition and project implementation, the planning and programming level is a main key to success to ensure integrated development strategies.



Enhancement of the dialogue and the co-operation processes between the different competent authorities, stakeholders and NGOs is a priority task in order to take into account all the interests and to achieve a good balance between water uses and protection.

The sustainable development of hydropower is addressed in the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, Priority Area 2 – “To encourage more sustainable energy”. The Action “To develop a comprehensive action plan for the sustainable development of the hydropower generation potential of the Danube River and its tributaries (e.g. Sava, Tisza and Mura Rivers)” would pave the way for the coordinated and sustainable development of new power stations in the future and retrofitting the existing ones in the way that would minimise the environmental impact and the impact on the transportation function of the rivers (navigation). The options for using hydropower to respond to fluctuations in the electricity demand should be explored – using dams to maintain high water level in preparation for the demand peak. Another relevant Action is “To develop and set up pre planning mechanism for the allocation of suitable areas for new hydro power projects”. This pre planning mechanism and its criteria would pave the way for new hydropower plants by identifying the best sites balancing economic benefits and water protection. It should also take into account climate change impacts (e.g. lower or higher water levels).

This should be based on a dialogue between the different competent authorities, stakeholders and NGOs. In the suitable areas, the permits process could be streamlined.



4.7 References

1. The Sava River Basin Analysis Report (SRBAR), ISRBC, 2009.

2. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the

promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently

repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC.

3. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000

establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

4. Water Framework Directive & Hydropower, Key Conclusions of the Common Implementation

Strategy Workshop, Berlin, 4-5 June 2007.

5. EU WFD CIS Policy Paper on WFD and Hydro-morphological pressures, 2006.

6. Note of the Water Directors on Hydropower Development and the WFD, May 2010.

7. Action Plan of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, December 2010.



5 Integration of water protection with agriculture in the Sava River Basin

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 General overview

Seen as the biggest challenge for the sustainable management of water resources, agricultural sector is under the great pressure. Necessity to design effective and sustainable linkage between the two management policies arouses multiple challenges. One of paradigms, within this context, is how to minimize the impacts of the agricultural sector on the water while maximizing its economic return.

First attempt to deal with this management objectives was set under the umbrella of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy (EU CAP), established in 1963 as part of the Treaty of Rome that was signed in 1958. Even though, the EU CAP is one of the most controversial European Union policies, with latest revisions (1992, 2000) it identified three priority areas for action to protect and enhance the EU's rural heritage:

Biodiversity and the preservation and development of 'natural' farming and forestry systems, and traditional agricultural landscapes;

Water management and use;

Dealing with climate change.

Set as one of the key issues of the EU CAP, since the revision from 1992, protection of water resources aims to avoid water pollution through agricultural activity, mainly through actions set in two pillars of the EU CAP:

Pillar 1 which links direct payments to farmers to the compliance with existing legislation. This so called “Cross Compliance” (Council Regulation No 73/2009) is seen as an important step towards protecting European Waters on a broader scale and towards applying the Polluter Pays Principle to farmers;

Pillar 2 aims to place agriculture in a broader context, which also takes into account the protection of the rural environment, the quality of produced food, and the attractiveness of rural areas to young farmers and new residents.

Additionally, with the introduction of the WFD a legal framework for sustainable management of water resources across Europe was set in motion. According to this directive, countries have to prepare river basin management plans (RBMPs) and respective programmes of measures (PoMs) which will tackle the environmental problems in the river basins to achieve the ultimate goal – good ecological and chemical status of all EU waters.



Figure 5: CAP and EU WFD interlinkage

Source: ICPDR, 2008

Agriculture is defined as one of the major, if not the most important, source of deterioration of the water bodies’ status according to the WFD. The pressure generated from the agricultural sector affects both surface and ground water bodies in terms of quality and quantity. Water quality is negatively affected by the presence of pesticide residues, nutrients from fertilizers, or sediments from soil erosion. In case of water quantity, on average, 44 % of total water abstraction in Europe is used for agriculture.

Based on the RBM plans submitted recently by the EU MS it is possible to group the pressures caused on water by agricultural practices as follows:

Pollution - A distinction can be made between point sources of pollution such as direct spillage of the contents of a farm slurry store into a river and diffuse sources such as application of nitrogen, phosphorous or pesticides on agricultural land;

Alterations of hydrologic regimes - Activities such as irrigation, drainage and land reclamation can cause the disturbance of the natural water balance or magnify the effects of pollution;

Hydromorphological modification - Intensification of farming practices and inappropriate grazing regimes have contributed to the loss of wetlands and floodplains, resulting in hydromorphological modification of surface waters. Such modifications aggravate different extreme events such as floods;

Soil erosion - Soil erosion and the delivery of contaminants to water (and air) influence the quality of surface waters, groundwater’s (and air), and, in turn, freshwater ecosystems and human health. In some Danube basin countries based on Danube River Basin Management Plan, 52% of total P inputs are derived through erosion.



5.1.2 Status of agricultural sector in the Sava River Basin

Sava River Basin Analysis Report (SRBA Report, 2009) shows that agricultural area covers 42.36% of total basin area. Out of 97,713.2 km2 of the basin area, 6,162.43 km2 or around 6.3% is covered with non irrigated arable land; around 6% is covered with pastures, 17% with complex cultivated patterns, 12% with land principally occupied by agriculture with significant areas of natural vegetation and 2% with natural grassland.

From the SRBA Report around 55% of catchment area is covered with forest or semi – natural land. Consequently, large parts of the catchment do not receive any fertiliser application other than atmospheric deposition, which indicates a low potential to actively influence nitrogen emissions.

In general, cereal production is the most significant agricultural activity in the basin (corn and wheat plants), followed by oil plants with soy and sunflower dominating. Of importance are also fodder crops, orchards and vineyards. Another key agricultural product is livestock where small production units prevail, especially for cattle, pig, sheep goat and horse keeping. Poultry production is, on the other hand, characterized by large-scale production units.

More than 85% of total agricultural area is owned by small farmers. The average size of the arable land per owner is around 2 ha, still the economic importance of agriculture, taken as a sector in total is very high. The Gross Value Added of agriculture in total GDP of countries varies from 1.5% in Slovenia, 7% in Croatia, around 10% for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro up to 20% in Serbia. For the entire basin GVA is 6%.

Agricultural sector covers from 11% of total national export in Croatia (1.4 billion USD) up to 25% in Serbia (2.24 billion USD). Agriculture in total employs less than 4% of working population in Bosnia and Herzegovina up to around 24% in Serbia. For the entire basin the average is 11%.

5.2 Pressures and impacts from agriculture on the water status

The main pollution sources in addition to industrial and municipal wastewater include chemical fertilisers, manure and use of pesticides in farming operations.

Nutrients are applied to agricultural land in different forms and come from various sources, including:

Mineral fertilizer in a dry or fluid form, containing nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, secondary macro and micronutrients;

Livestock manure from animal production facilities including bedding and other wastes added to the manure, containing N, P, K, secondary nutrients, micronutrients, salts, some metals, and organics;

Legumes and crop residues containing N, P, K, secondary nutrients, and micronutrients;

Irrigation water;

Biological nitrogen fixation by legume crops or pasture (e.g. field beans, soybeans, etc.) and nitrogen fixation soil organisms;



Atmospheric deposition of nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulphur.

In addition, decomposition of organic matter and crop residue may be a source of mobile forms of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other essential crop nutrients.

Surface water runoff from agricultural lands may transport the following pollutants:

Particulate bound nutrients, chemicals, and metals, such as phosphorus, organic nitrogen, and metals applied with some organic wastes;

Soluble nutrients and chemicals, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, metals, and many other major and minor nutrients;

Particulate organic solids, oxygen-demanding material, and bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms applied with some organic waste; and

Salts.

Ground water infiltration from agricultural lands to which nutrients have been applied may transport the following pollutants:

Soluble nutrients and chemicals, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, metals;

Other major and minor nutrients;

Salts;

Bacteria and other pathogens applied with some organic waste.

5.2.1 Fertilizers and livestock manure

Data taken from the World Bank database show that the average consumption of nutrients (N, P2O5, K2O) originating from all types of fertilizers in the whole territory of Slovenia was 322 kg/ha in the period of 2005-2007. For Croatia, in the same period, the average nutrient consumption level was on 214 kg/ha in total but this number varies substantially depending on regions (e.g. Vukovarsko – Srijemski region uses around 476 kg/ha, while Primorsko – Goranska region uses only 6 kg/ha). In Bosnia and Herzegovina the average nutrient consumption was around 53 kg/ha for the whole territory, and in Serbia it amounted to 116 kg/ha for the same period. However, these data, derived from the World Bank dataset are of a limited value because in the period from 1990 to 2000 the records show that the average consumption of nutrients from fertilizers was lower in some countries by more than 300% when compared to the EU average being 98 kg/ha (e.g. Serbia 36 kg/ha in 1994).

The animal waste – livestock manure, includes the faeces and urinary wastes; process water and the feed, bedding, litter, and soil with which they become intermixed. As far as nutrient pollution is concerned the following pollutants are contained in manure and associated bedding materials and could be transported by runoff water and process wastewater from confined animal facilities: nitrogen, phosphorus, and many other major and minor nutrients such as K, Ca, Mg, S, etc.

Production of nutrients originating from livestock manure is calculated by multiplication of total number of live animals (cattle, pigs, sheeps, etc.) and respective nutrient excretion coefficients per animal.

Although the chemical composition of fresh manure varies widely according to its nature and moisture content, for calculation purposes it must be set at constant values



for groups of animals. Based on different sources (OECD, MONERIS, FAO), tentative default values for nutrient coefficients from excretion per head of animal are shown in Table 5.

Table 4: Average nutrient excretion coefficients per head of animal

Animal IPCC Report

(kg N/year)

MONERIS and OECD

Slovenian*

(kg N/year)

MONERIS and OECD

Slovenian*

(kg P2O5/year)

Cow 70 52 8.2

Sheep 16 NA NA

Pig 20 16 3.2

Poultry 0.6 0.6 0.3

* Data were extracted from the project which was carried out by the Institute for water, Republic of Slovenia in 2005 and available MONERIS user’s manual.

Tables 6 - 8 show the total number of livestock in the Sava countries and average total values of nutrient (N and P2O5) load per country calculated based on yearly data obtained from the national Bureaus of Statistics for each livestock category. Since it was not possible to obtain precise data on the number of animals per country area belonging to the Sava RB, the total number of livestock for a country was divided by the percentage of the country’s territory belonging to the Sava RB (SI – 52.8%, HR – 45.2%, BA – 75.8%, RS – 17.4% and ME – 49.6) and then multiplied by the input numbers as presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Total number of livestock in the Sava countries

Animal Slovenia Croatia Bosnia and

Herzegovina Serbia Montenegro

Cow 470,012 423,000 459,218 938,038 100,835

Sheep 138,958 717,000 1,003,514 1,475,295 199,764

Pig 432,000 1,236,000 502,197 3,488,738 12,377

Poultry 4,575,277 9,372,000 16,184,730 20,156,110 N/A

Table 6: Total amount of Nitrogen production via animal manure in the Sava RB

Animal Slovenia

(kgN/annum)

Croatia

(kgN/annum)

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

(kgN/annum)

Serbia

(kgN/annum)

Montenegro

(kgN/annum)

Cow 12,953.51 9,898.20 18,096.31 8,292.32 2,621.74

Sheep 1,178.37 5,162.40 1,220.27 543.34 1,598.11



Animal Slovenia

(kgN/annum)

Croatia

(kgN/annum)

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

(kgN/annum)

Serbia

(kgN/annum)

Montenegro

(kgN/annum)

Pig 463.36 8,899.20 6,106.70 9,489.36 99,01

Poultry 1,454.94 2,530.44 7,380.24 2,055.92 N/A

TOTAL 99,944.73 kg N/annum

Table 7: Total amount of Phosphorous production via animal manure in the Sava RB

Animal Slovenia Croatia Bosnia and

Herzegovina Serbia Montenegro

Cow 2,042.70 1,560.87 2,853.65 1,307.62 413.43

Sheep 191.49 838.89 1,982.94 88.29 259.69

Pig 732.67 1,779.84 1,221.34 1,897.87 19.80

Poultry 727.47 1,265.22 3,690.12 1,027.96 N/A

TOTAL 23,901.86 kg P2O5/annum

The amounts of approximately 100 kt N/annum and 23 kt P2O5/annum of produced nutrients via livestock manure in the Sava RB. These amounts are not values of total annual emissions of nutrients in the Sava RB, they represent one of the nitrogen and phosphorous inputs into the equation of nutrient balance of the agricultural area shown in Figure 6 applied to the nitrogen balance only.



Figure 6: OECD elements in calculation of gross nutrient balance

Source: OECD National soil surface nitrogen balance, 2001

5.2.2 Pesticides

Pesticides usually contain one or more biologically active substances with a controlling effect on crop pests, diseases or weeds. Pesticide use by farmers depends on a multitude of factors, such as climatic conditions, the succession and variety of crops, pest and disease pressures, farm incomes, pesticide cost/crop price ratios, pesticide policies and management practices. Agricultural pressures due to pesticides are less well-known than nitrate pressures because of insufficient follow up tools and data on the multiple types of pesticides. Pesticides are often also harmful to non-target organisms, and their presence in food can have a negative influence on both human and animal health. Therefore, in many countries, pesticides have been subjected to strict authorisation procedures for placing on the market, stringent use requirements and severe control measures already for a long time1.

The primary routes of pesticide transport to aquatic systems are through: Direct application;

Runoff;

Aerial drift;

Leaching;

Volatilization and subsequent atmospheric deposition;

Uptake by biota and subsequent movement in the food web.

1 In the EU, the placing on the market and use of plant protection products is ruled by Council Directive 91/414/EEC. Moreover, the EC Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) requires pesticide concentration in drinking water not to exceed 0.1 μg/l for a single pesticide and0.5 μg/l for total pesticides.



The amount of field-applied pesticide that leaves a field in the runoff (either dissolved or adsorbed) and enters a stream primarily depends on:

The intensity and duration of rainfall or irrigation;

The length of time between pesticide application and rainfall occurrence;

The amount of pesticide applied and its soil/water partition coefficient;

The length and degree of slope and soil composition;

The extent of exposure to bare (vs. residue or crop-covered) soil;

Proximity to streams;

Soil loss/erosion rate;

Soil organic carbon content;

The method of application;

The extent to which runoff and erosion are controlled with agronomic and structural practices.

Pesticide losses are generally greatest when rainfall is intense and occurs shortly after pesticide application; a condition for which water runoff and erosion losses are also massive.

Throughout the entire Sava River Basin information about pesticide use is not available. Therefore, only an estimation of the use of pesticides in the basin can be made based upon the data on national production and import of pesticides.

5.2.3 Organic pollutants and pathogens

There is increasing concern on the release of microbiological pathogens and organic pollutants from agricultural activities (e.g. from animal manure, residues of veterinary preparations) into waters, as they could pose a serious threat and represent an unknown long-term risk to human health. In many countries (especially in the new Member States, cf. Karaczun et al., 2003), the improper management of liquid manure causes serious risk for human health through the increasing number of microbiological pathogens (e.g. Giardia, Cryptosporidium) in soil and water (Karaczun and Indeka, 1999: 221).

Furthermore, organic pollutants such as endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) are capable of modulating or disrupting the endocrine system of water fauna, which can result in adverse effects to growth, development, or reproduction.

5.2.4 Heavy metals

Some heavy metals (cadmium, copper, lead etc.) are essential trace elements for plants and animals. However, high concentrations of metals in water can be toxic to living organisms. Agriculture and the related chemistry sector are a source of heavy metals. Metals (mostly Cd) are present in the ores used for production of P fertilisers, animal food (leading to their presence in manure), biocides (for instance for wood protection), and pesticides. Their use increases concentration of heavy metals in soils. Some



minerals move easily from soil complex to ground water, and thus heavy metal pollution can travel over long distances.

5.2.5 Atmospheric decomposition and biological nitrogen fixation

Detailed analysis of the long range air pollution in the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme Assessment Report (EMEP) was carried out under the „Co-operative programme for monitoring and evaluation of the long – range transmission of air pollutants in Europe”:

1. For the period of 1980 – 2000 regional time series shows that the emission of oxides nitrogen component in to the air decreased from 3,500 to around 2,500 kt of NOx per year (around 26% for NOx). The trend of decrease in the Sava River Basin countries follows the global EU decrease trend.

2. The reduction of European ammonia emissions from 1980 to 2000 is similar to that of NOx. For the period of 1980 – 2000 regional time series shows that the emission of reduced nitrogen component in to the air decreased from 2,200 to around 1,800 kt of NH3 per year (around 12% for NH3 emission).

Total nitrogen deposition is defined as the sum of both input data (oxidized and reduced nitrogen) as followed:

NOx + NH3 = Natm

On the other hand, concentrations of nitrogen in precipitation have generally decreased over the period 1980 - 2000, although the variations between years are large and trends in most cases are not statistically significant.

Based on presented formula the sums for total nitrogen deposition for the Sava River Basin countries were calculated:

BA – 42.44 Giga grams (Gg) in 2007 for entire territory or 8.3 kg Natm /ha/annum;

HR- 50.03 Gg in 2007 for entire territory or 8.8 kg Natm /ha/annum;

SI – 24.58 Gg in 2007 for entire territory or 12,2 kg Natm /ha/annum;

RS – 70.60 Gg in 2007 for entire territory or 8 kg Natm /ha/annum;

ME- 11,23 Gg in 2007 for entire territory or 8.35 kg Natm /ha/annum.

On the Sava River Basin level the average deposition is around 9 kg Natm /ha in year 2007.

For the purpose of developing a scientific background for the preparation of River Basin Management Plans, Slovenian Institute for Water developed a modified OECD methodology in which, based on the outcomes of the project carried out by the Biotechnical Faculty in Ljubljana in year 2002, an average deposition was set for 15 kg Natm/ha/annum.

Outcomes of the MONERIS model, which was developed for calculation of point and diffuse pollution in the Danube River Basin Management Plan, show that for the period of 1980 -2000 the average deposition on the Sava RB level ranges from 10 to 15 kg Natm



/ha/annum. The highest amount was observed in Slovenia, followed by Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro.

Total P-deposition rate, depending on land use of the concerned area, may range between 0.3 and 3.0 kg P/ha per annum. Detailed analysis of statistical data in the Sava River Basin is still needed to verify the value of P deposition rate.

Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) is the process whereby atmospheric nitrogen (N=N) is reduced to ammonia in the presence of nitrogenise (a biological catalyst found naturally only in certain microorganisms).

Depending on the level of interactions between the microsymbiont and the leguminous plants mainly corresponding edaphic (soil moisture, drought, soil acidity, etc.), climatic (temperature and light), and management factors, level of nitrogen fixed in soil via BNF is in the range of 10 – 30 kg N/hectare per year.

5.3 Measures towards integrated RBM management in the Sava RB

In general the Programme of Measures includes a wide range of measure types: legislative enforcement, changes of practice, investigations, metering and tariffs, awareness raising, education, codes of good practices, voluntary agreements, etc. According to the WFD, basic measures (minimum requirements to be complied with), and supplementary measures have to be distinguished. In practical terms the measures can be divided into:

Technical measures;

Non technical measures and;

Economic instruments.

5.3.1 Technical measures

Technical measures consider application of input reductions related measures, hydro-morphology related measures, soil erosion control measures, multi-objective measures and water saving measures.

Most commonly used types among these measures are:

Buffer strips/zones along the water body ( belonging to multi-objective measure group this type can include restrictions of one or more of the following: fertiliser applied, plant protection products, no cultivation, no livestock grazing allowed, no farming at all, particular plants or types of plant must be grown/allowed to grow, etc.);

Training & advisory of farmers (other measures);

Reduction in spraying (input reduction measures);

Storage capacity for manure (input reduction measures);

Creation of wetlands (multi-objective measures);

Catch crops (input reduction measures);



Re-meandering of streams (morphology measures);

Spraying technologies (input reduction measures);

Water saving irrigation practices (water savings measures);

Water storage capacity increases (water savings measures); Catalogue of measures to address the diffuse pollution from agriculture (with two

main starting points:

A) Based on the different agricultural pressures identified the user can identify measures that have the potential to reduce this pressure;

B) Individual measures can be searched to obtain more information and to learn from experiences of other EU country in implementing this measure.

For each measure the catalogue provides the following information: general description, primary effect, water related side effects, other environmental benefits, geographical scale, time until implementation, time until effective, adaptability level, certainty level, Investment costs, operating costs, wider economic costs and benefits, synergies to other measures).

5.3.2 Non-technical measures

This type of measures includes actions related to the implementation, enforcement and transcription of existing EU laws related to the water management. Overall unique goal of this type of measures is to support the actions and activities related to the technical measures. Primarily by introduction of:

1. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy (WFD). The WFD is fully transposed in all Sava basin countries legislation with the exception of ME.

2. Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Nitrates Directive. Fully transposed in national legislation in Slovenia where Action Programme is set for the entire territory. In Croatia deadline for full implementation is set for 2019. Currently, identification of vulnerable zones was set. In Serbia it is in the process of preparation of Strategy and Action plan for transposition. In Bosnia and Herzegovina identification of vulnerable zones is set until end of 2012 and full implementation is expected at the end of 2021.

3. Directive 90/642 on the setting of maximum residue levels of pesticides in products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables.

4. Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

5. Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption.

6. Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture.

Measures such as introduction of code of agricultural practice and awareness rising in relation to the status of water bodies aiming to reduce water pollution by nutrients and/or pesticides are available on following links:



1. HR– www.hzpss.hr/adminmax/File/vijesti/kodovi%20za%20tisak_web.pdf

2. RS – www.drepr.org/Pravila%20dobre%20poljoprivredne%20prakse.pdf

3. SI – http://zakonodaja.gov.si/rpsi/r02/predpis_NAVO692.html

4. BA - Information available only for Federation part of the BA territory http://www.heis.com.ba/life/materijali/Okvir%20za%20primjenu%20BAP%20u%20kontroli%20difuznog%20zagadjenja.pdf

On the Danube River Basin level, International Commission for the Protection of Danube River (ICPDR) developed “Recommendation on Best Available Techniques at Agro-industrial Units”. This document together with the outcomes from the UNDP/GEF Danube/Black Sea Basin Strategic Partnership on Nutrient Reduction project represent a basis for the development of the Code of agricultural practice in the Sava River Basin countries.

5.3.3 Economic instruments

To achieve its environmental objectives and promote integrated river basin management, WFD calls for the application of economic principles (e.g., the polluter-pays principle), economic approaches and tools (e.g., cost-effectiveness analysis) and instruments (e.g., water pricing). This type of action should:

Support the selection of a programme of measures for each river basin district on the basis of cost - effectiveness criteria;

Assess the potential role of pricing in these programmes of measures –implications on cost-recovery;

Evaluate the costs of process and control measures to identify a cost-effective way to control priority substances.

Type of action on this level includes compensation for land cover, cooperative agreements, water pricing, nutrient trading, tax on pollution emission (charges per kg of emission), tax on fertiliser inputs (inorganic fertiliser’s taxes) and linkage between the agriculture measures and national/regional rural development programmes.

http://www.hzpss.hr/adminmax/File/vijesti/kodovi%20za%20tisak_web.pdf

http://www.drepr.org/Pravila%20dobre%20poljoprivredne%20prakse.pdf

http://www.heis.com.ba/life/materijali/Okvir%20za%20primjenu%20BAP%20u%20kontroli%20difuznog%20zagadjenja.pdf

http://www.heis.com.ba/life/materijali/Okvir%20za%20primjenu%20BAP%20u%20kontroli%20difuznog%20zagadjenja.pdf

Sava River Basin Management Plan - Sava Commissionsavacommission.org/dms/docs/dokumenti/srbmp_micro_web/backgrou… · Sava River Basin Management Plan Background paper No.9: Integration

Documents