LocalLocalLocalLocal totototo globalglobalglobalglobal waterwaterwaterwater vulnerabilityvulnerabilityvulnerabilityvulnerability andandandand resilienceresilienceresilienceresilience,,,, 15hp15hp15hp15hp

Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology

Case Study and Exam Project 1: Case Study and Exam Project 1: Case Study and Exam Project 1: Case Study and Exam Project 1: CatchmentCatchmentCatchmentCatchment----scale vulnerability and resilience assessment scale vulnerability and resilience assessment scale vulnerability and resilience assessment scale vulnerability and resilience assessment

The Sava River The Sava River The Sava River The Sava River –––– vulnerability vulnerability vulnerability vulnerability and environmental and environmental and environmental and environmental

mamamamanagement statusnagement statusnagement statusnagement status

Yoshinori TakahashiYoshinori TakahashiYoshinori TakahashiYoshinori Takahashi

October 2008

Stockholm University

Contents

ABSTRACT..........................................................................................ERREUR ! SIGNET NON DEFINI.

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................ERREUR ! SIGNET NON DEFINI.

1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAVA RIVER BASIN ............................................................... 4

2. WATER BALANCE............................................................................................................................. 5

3. WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND RESILIENCE THINKING....................................................... 8

The Floodplains in the Central Sava Basin.................................................................................... 8

Water Management in the past and the present ........................................................................... 12

Future Plan – possible scenario................................................................................................... 13

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 14

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 14

AbstractAbstractAbstractAbstract

The Sava River is a tributary of the Danube River. The Sava River Basin (SRB) size is 97340km2.

The total river basin water balance as rough estimation can be shown by summing up the water

balance of each of the riparian countries discussed here; 991mm (P) = 453mm (Q) + 538 (ET).

The key vulnerability of the floodplains in the Central Sava Basin (CSB) is phosphorous

transformation. High suspended sediment with a high load of absorbed phosphorus accumulates

during a flood event. Among three floods control strategies planned on the floodplains, keeping the

current situation is the most feasible in terms of flood risk control, and resilient socio-ecological system

management.

The International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC) was founded to cooperate for water

management, flood protection and navigation among the riparian countries in 2005. Good

multilateral cooperation among riparian countries may lead the basin to the best scenario in future.

Especially for the riparian countries of the Sava River basin which experienced warfare among them

recently, this may be the crucial part for the river management.

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction

The Sava River was a domestic river of former-Yugoslavia by 1990. After the civil war

and collapse of the country, the river has become an international river. There was the

period without any trans-boundary treatment of the river more than one decade

(Andjelic. M. et. al. (2007): p.44).

Because the international cooperation for water management and flood risk control has

recently started to work, the trans-boundary cooperation to study the environmental

status as a whole river basin is just at the beginning.

According to Walker and Salts (2006), the socio-ecological system is one interlinked

system where all actors play a role (p.32). The governmental agency shall also take a

role in the management of the system. While explaining the general characteristics,

water balance and socio- ecological system of the Sava River Basin, the status of

trans-boundary cooperation among riparian countries are also focused in this article.

1.1.1.1. General CharacteristGeneral CharacteristGeneral CharacteristGeneral Characteristics of the Sava River Basinics of the Sava River Basinics of the Sava River Basinics of the Sava River Basin

Figure 1: The overview map of the Sava River Basin (ISRBC, 2007)Figure 1: The overview map of the Sava River Basin (ISRBC, 2007)Figure 1: The overview map of the Sava River Basin (ISRBC, 2007)Figure 1: The overview map of the Sava River Basin (ISRBC, 2007)

The Sava River is one of the tributaries of the Danube River. As one of the tributaries,

the Sava River holds the largest water flow, the 2nd biggest river basin area, and the 3rd

longest river of the Danube River. As Figure 1 shows, the river flows from Slovenia to

Serbia through Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H).

The Sava River has two headwaters in the Republic of Slovenia; Sava Dolinca and Sava

Bohinica. It connects to the Danube River in Belgrade. From the longer headwater,

Sava Bohinka, to Belgrade, the total length of the river is 990km. However, the

International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC) officially mentions that the length

is 945km, counting from the confluence of the both headquarters (The ISRBC (2007):

pp.1-2 and PIC (2008): p.11).

The Sava River Basin (SRB) size is 97340km2. The SRB is shared by 6 countries as in

Figure 2.

TableTableTableTable 1111: Share of the Sava River basin area by the riparian countries (Andjelic and Roskar, 2007): Share of the Sava River basin area by the riparian countries (Andjelic and Roskar, 2007): Share of the Sava River basin area by the riparian countries (Andjelic and Roskar, 2007): Share of the Sava River basin area by the riparian countries (Andjelic and Roskar, 2007)

Regarding the water flow, the average discharge in Zagreb, Croatia is 255km3/s, while it

in Belgrade, Serbia is 1722km3/s (Andjelic and Roskar (2007): p.11). The average

discharge of the entire area is 1564km3/s according to the Croatian Water Resource

Management (PIC (2008): p.56).

The climate of the entire area of the Pannonean plain is moderate continental. The

characteristic of this climate is on moderately cold winter, warm summer and 600 to

1200mm precipitation throughout the year (PIC (2008): p.15).

Regarding the morphological features, the Sava River is flown through a low and flat

land. The height from Sisak to Belgrade is approximately 30m, since the highest point

in Sisak is about 104 m above sea level and the height in Belgrade is about 74m above

sea level. These are relatively mild relief characteristics which dominate the whole flow

of the whole of Sava River generally speaking. (PIC (2008): p.14).

The Sava River includes huge floodplains, which were created by the Sava River and

the Bosnian tributaries. The river flows to the east from the Sava Trench and starts to

meander after becoming wider around Sabac. (PIC (2008): p.15)

2. 2. 2. 2. Water BalanceWater BalanceWater BalanceWater Balance

Rough estimation of water balance is done using the water discharge and precipitation

of each riparian country except for Serbia, which only supply the information of

precipitation on the Sava (Andjelic, R. et. al. (2008): p.22, and PIC (2008): pp.25 and 26).

The runoff data of the upstream country, the B&H is used instead. Information

regarding groundwater is included in the estimation from Slovenia (Frantar (2007):

p.32), though it cannot be identified in the other riparian countries.

The formula used in the calculation on this paper is P (Precipitation) = Q (Runoff) + ET

(evapotranspiration). As Frantar (2007) argues with reference to several authors

(Kolbezen et. al. 1998; Frantar et. al. 2005; Berezovskaya et. al. 2005), water storage

changes are important to know the yearly water balance, though it can be neglected to

see the water balance of long term period (Frantar (2007): p. 27).

In Slovenia, the average water balance of the Sava River basin from 1971 to 2000 has

been studied and can be shown as below (Frantar (2007): p.34)

1594mm = 878mm + 716mm

The basin, named Posavje region, has wide spatial distribution of precipitation from the

wettest parts of the Julian Alps with over 3000mm rainfall to high mountain Alps with

about 550mm rainfall annually. Evaporation in the area is less in the north and the

more in the south, 650 to 850mm annually. The runoff is highest in the alpine and

sub-alpine area, over 2500mm, and in the eastern part of the basin, the runoff

diminishes to 300 to 600mm (Frantar (2007): p.35).

In Croatia, characteristic values of the watersheds which can be used for water balance

has been found from the article of Bonacci and Horvat (2004). The watersheds within

the Sava River catchment analyzed in their article are Krapina, Lonja & Trebez, Ilova &

Pakra, Orijava, Kupa, Una and Direct Sava River Basin.

The data at table 2 is the annual water balance of each one of the watersheds from

1961-1990. The size of each of sub-basins is taken into account in calculating the annual

average precipitation, runoff and evapotranspiration. Since yearly average of the

precipitation is 1,055mm and yearly average of runoff is 385mm, the yearly average of

evapotranspiraton is 1,080mm – 402mm = 678mm.

In the B&H, Cengic and Cabaravdic (2002) summarized the water balance (p.122). The

part of the Sava River basin is extracted from their article. Since there is no sub-basin

size information with each measurement sites located, it is assumed that each of the

basin sizes is same. Annual average precipitation from this data is 908mm and annual

average actual evapotranspiration (AET) is 507mm. Therefore, the annual average

runoff is 908mm – 507mm = 401mm. They also noted that because of the low number of

available data owing to the warfare, climate condition in the data is calculated from an

estimated relative evapotranspiration (RET) and potential evapotranspiration (PET):

AET = 0.85 x PET (p.122), though there is no explanation on this relationship in the

article.

Finally for the Republic of Serbia, the annual average precipitation is calculated from

the data of four measurement stations, Valjevo (Andjelic, R., et. al. (2008): p.22)

Sremska Mitrovica, Sabac and Surcin (PIC (2008): pp. 25 and 26). The data of Valjevo is

based on the measurement from 1946 to 1990, and from 1981 to 1990 for the other three

measurement stations.

The average annual precipitation at Valjevo is 770mm. The precipitation in Sremska

Mitrovica is 585mm, the Sabac is 678mm and the Surcin is 652mm. There is again no

information of each of basin size except for Valjevo which is belonged to Korubara basin,

sub-basin of the Sava River basin. The average of the annual precipitations for four

stations is 671mm. Because the average annual run-off from B&H is 401mm as

calculated above, the rough estimation of the evapotranspiration is; 671mm – 401mm =

270mm.

The total river basin water balance as rough estimation can be shown by summing up

the water balance of each of the riparian countries above; 991mm (P) = 453mm (Q) +

538 (ET). The ratio of the river basin sizes are taken into account in this calculation. If

the figures are compared with the figures given by Srebrenovic (1986) quoted by

Pandzic and Trnicic (2000) (p.53), the precipitation is similar, about 1,000mm in

Srebrenovic and 991mm from my rough estimation, though the figure in runoff is

slightly different, about 40% from Srebrenovic (1986) and 46% from my estimation. This

difference may be because of the shortage of the information from Serbia about runoff.

Table Table Table Table 2:2:2:2: Water Balance (WB) of the Riparian Countries of the Sava River Basin and the WB in TotalWater Balance (WB) of the Riparian Countries of the Sava River Basin and the WB in TotalWater Balance (WB) of the Riparian Countries of the Sava River Basin and the WB in TotalWater Balance (WB) of the Riparian Countries of the Sava River Basin and the WB in Total

C ountry Nam e km 2 Share ratio P Q ET

Slovenia 10700 12% 1594 878 716

C roatia 25550 28% 1055 385 670

B&H 38750 43% 908 401 507

Serbia 15341 17% 672 401 270

Total Basin Size 90341 W B in Total 991 453 538

Ratio 46% 54%

Additionally, regarding the maximum flow and the minimum flow as whole of the Sava

River, the lowest season is in August to November and the highest season is from

October to December (PIC (2008): p.58).

3. 3. 3. 3. Water Resource Management Water Resource Management Water Resource Management Water Resource Management and Resilience Thinking and Resilience Thinking and Resilience Thinking and Resilience Thinking

The floodplainsThe floodplainsThe floodplainsThe floodplains in the in the in the in the Central Sava BasinCentral Sava BasinCentral Sava BasinCentral Sava Basin

According to the World Food Ecosystems, the Sava River, with its large lowland forests,

holds outstanding biological and landscape diversity in the Danube basin. A mosaic of

typical floodplain-type natural and cultural landscapes can be found in Central Sava

Basin (CSB) in Croatia, and the floodplains support alleviation and biodiversity on the

river (http://www.waterfoodecosystems.nl/?page=1912).

The huge floodplains have been formed through the changing of the river course though

history with the old riverbeds becoming swamps and ponds (Andjelic M. et. al. (2007):

p.11). Generally speaking, the floodplains are still intact.

The largest wetland area in the Central Sava Basin (CSB) is Lonjsko Polje, which is a

protected wetland under the Ramsar treaty holding an important bird area. The area

measures 510 Mm2 holding various detention areas and floodplains. The largest

detention area is the Lonjsko Polje which measures 237 Mm2 and the estimated

maximum capacity is 634 Mm3 according to Brundic et. al. (2001), quoted by Baptist, et.

al. (2006: p.244).

Walker & Salts (2006) explains the notion of resilience thinking as “things are change –

and to ignore or resist this change is to increase our vulnerability and forego emerging

opportunities (pp.9 and 10). Here I assume that the resilience of the socio-ecological

system of the floodplains has therefore been kept by letting the river flow change as it

flows and by making large retention area.

There have had plans to construct canal or weir on the floodplains for the purpose of

flood risk mitigation. Baptist et. al. (2006) assessed flood safety, ecosystem development

and phosphorous storage on the detention area by examining three floods control

strategies which has existed on this area; 1) the 1972-plan; 2) the WB-plan; 3) keeping

current situation (p.245).

The 1972-plan is based on a large flood management study completed in 1972 by local

and foreign specialists under the support of the United Nation Development Office

(UNDO). The Sava-Odra-Sava (SOS) canal was designed to take in water upstream of

Zagreb and move the flood wave back into the Sava River just upstream of Sisak as it is

shown in Figure 2. And on the opposite side, a sluice at Palanjek fills the Lonjsko Polje

detention area for flood safety of Zagreb. This plan implemented in the 1980s and the

SOS canal was constructed, though further construction has not been done (Baptist et.

al. (2006): p.245).

The study of WB-plan was done by Croatian Waters as an Environmental Impact

Assessment of World Bank in 2001. In the plan, Odransko Polje is transformed into a

detention area, and a weir is proposed in Palanjek to provide capacity to fill Lonjsko

Polje. Additionally, Trebaz II sluice to connect Lonjsko Polje with Mokro Polje is

proposed. This plan is proposed to increase capacity on the detention area from the

consideration of the effect of a 1:100 year flood event in Lonjsko Polje. This plan has not

executed yet (Baptist et. al. (2006): p.245).

Figure Figure Figure Figure 2222: Location of the Lonjsko Polje detention area and flood protection work in CSB: Location of the Lonjsko Polje detention area and flood protection work in CSB: Location of the Lonjsko Polje detention area and flood protection work in CSB: Location of the Lonjsko Polje detention area and flood protection work in CSB (Baptist et. al. (2006):(Baptist et. al. (2006):(Baptist et. al. (2006):(Baptist et. al. (2006):

p.244)p.244)p.244)p.244)

The result of Baptist et. al. (2006) assessment does not support to execute the plans 1)

and 2) further. The reason is at first on the maximum discharge and maximum

detention capacity among the three strategies. The computation of maximum discharge

shows the lowest on the current status among them; 1900 m3s-1 in the current situation,

2400 m3s-1 in the 1972-plan and 2000 m3s-1 in the WB-plan. The maximum discharge in

1972-plan does not secure the safety because the discharge should be below 2200 m3s-1,

according to Baptist, et. al. (2006: p.250). Maximum capacity shows the largest in

current situation; 1005 Mm3 in the current situation, 932 Mm3 in the 1972-plan and

790 Mm3 in the WB-plan (Baptist et. al. (2006): p.250).

The second reason is explained from the factors which affects the sustainability of the

vegetation of the floodplains. That is flood duration, ground water level in the spring,

soil texture and land use (Baptist et. al. (2006): p. 247).

There are three types of land use management, forestry, grazing by a low density of

herbivores, and mowing which affect the vegetation composition and succession (Baptist

et., al. (2006): p. 248). Table 3 shows that the land use management gives the higher

succession rate (the left of slashes is without land management and the right is with

land management).

Table Table Table Table 3333: Vegetation succession rules for mean hydrolog: Vegetation succession rules for mean hydrolog: Vegetation succession rules for mean hydrolog: Vegetation succession rules for mean hydrological years and a flood event threshold (Baptist, et al. ical years and a flood event threshold (Baptist, et al. ical years and a flood event threshold (Baptist, et al. ical years and a flood event threshold (Baptist, et al. ((((2006)2006)2006)2006): : : :

p.248)p.248)p.248)p.248)

¨

The third reason is on the sedimentation of suspended matter from Sava River which

makes the accumulation of fine sediment in Lonjsko Polje. Phosphorus is also brought

into Lonjsko Polje together with the sediment (Baptist et. al.: p.250).

High suspended sediment with a high load of absorbed phosphorus accumulates during

a flood event. The phosphorus is lost through sedimentation from the water to the soil,

or it is released from the soil to the water through transformation to organic phosphorus

via plant uptake (Baptist et. al.: p.250). The organic phosphorous is therefore creating

the basis of the vegetation of the floodplains.

In three strategies proposed above, the estimation of the deposition and the storage of

sediment and phosphorus give, as table 4, the highest values on the current situation.

(Baptist et. al. (2006): p.255).

Table Table Table Table 4444: Deposition of sediment and phosphorus, and storage of sediment and phosphorus, percentage: Deposition of sediment and phosphorus, and storage of sediment and phosphorus, percentage: Deposition of sediment and phosphorus, and storage of sediment and phosphorus, percentage: Deposition of sediment and phosphorus, and storage of sediment and phosphorus, percentage of total input of total input of total input of total input

to Lonjsko Polje and percentage of total load of the to Lonjsko Polje and percentage of total load of the to Lonjsko Polje and percentage of total load of the to Lonjsko Polje and percentage of total load of the Sava.Sava.Sava.Sava. for 1:100 years events and for a mean winter. for 1:100 years events and for a mean winter. for 1:100 years events and for a mean winter. for 1:100 years events and for a mean winter. (Baptist et. (Baptist et. (Baptist et. (Baptist et.

al. (2006): p.254)al. (2006): p.254)al. (2006): p.254)al. (2006): p.254)

Therefore, the current situation offers the highest flood safety for downstream regions,

the highest cover of the important wet vegetation type and the highest nutrient storage

(Baptist et. al. (2006): p.255). One can say that these three are key factors not to

increase the vulnerability of the floodplains by keeping the current cycle of

transformation to organic phosphorous by flooding.

If the 1972-plan were executed fully, too much discharge beyond limitation might

increase the risk of severe flooding at the downstream countries. It is unsure whether

the vulnerability may increase or not which might go beyond the threshold by

disturbing the sedimentation and the phosphorous transformation.

As a summary, to keep the current status is the best solution not to increase flood risk

and not to increase the vulnerability on the floodplains in the CSB among the three

strategies. Organic phosphorous transformed through flooding is key determinant of

vegetation in the flood plain. The resilient socio-ecological system seems to be kept with

the intact floodplains, as I assumed.

Water Resource ManagementWater Resource ManagementWater Resource ManagementWater Resource Management in t in t in t in the past andhe past andhe past andhe past and at Present at Present at Present at Present

The water management on the Sava River was done by Federal Hydrometeorological

Institute (FHMI) by 1990. The FHMI provided information related hydrological forecast,

flood warning, navigation and water quality in the Sava River Basin (Andjelic, M, et. al.

(2007): p.44).

However, after the collapse and disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the FHMI

was disappeared and the hydrological and meteorological observing networks were in

dysfunction. As a result, key water resources as river navigation, flood and drought risk

management, environmental protection, and protection from water related hazards

could not be informed sufficiently any more. (Andjelic, M. et. al. (2007): p.45).

This situation continued until the International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC)

was founded in 2005. After Framework Agreement of Sava River Basin (FASRB) was

finally ratified by Slovenia, Croatia, B&H and Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in

2004, the ISRBC was finally founded after a few years negotiation (Komatina, private

information).

The first priority of the work of the ISRBC was originally on navigation in the process of

FASRB making, since it was the will of Croatia and B&H. However, after claiming from

Serbian government as downstream country to place the same priority on water

management and flood control, the two items finally added on the agreement

(Milovanovic, private information). These three objects are written on the FASRB in

parallel on Article 2, “Object of the Agreement” (FASRB (2004), p.2).

Though the ISRBC only holds power to make decision for navigation, only

recommendation can be given for the water management and flood protection

(Komatina, personal information), the ISRBC starts to coordinate the riparian countries

which had not been done more than a decade. This is an important first step to start

water resources management on the Sava River Basin. The ISRBC is currently

planning the joint survey of the ecosystem of the Sava River Basin in 2009 (Komatina,

private information).

Future planFuture planFuture planFuture plan –––– Possible scenario Possible scenario Possible scenario Possible scenario

Hannerz (2005) argues that “public participation and communication of expert

knowledge with transparent and generally accessible information system”.

Environmental Information System (EIS) including a data and information base is

important for sustainable integrated water management (Hannerz, F, et. al. (2005): p.8).

Cooperation among riparian countries with international support may then be the key

point on it.

Therefore, cooperation among riparian countries leads the basin management to the

best scenario or the worst scenario. Especially on the riparian countries of the Sava

River basin which experienced warfare among them recently, this may be the crucial

part for the river management and to appeal their cooperation internationally.

If the multilateral relation were made with mutual trust and good cooperation, as a best

case scenario, more investments from private companies and international projects of

international organization are expected because their good cooperation gives the

impression that the risk of warfare in the region is reduced. Once the ISRBC gets

enough financial support on these ways, they can use more money for their project of

ecosystem survey, water management plan and flood protection plan. And because the

riparian countries have mutual trust in each other, transparency of the information and

is data are high and the riparian countries can take action after good discussion and

common understanding. The objects of the ISRBC can be achieved easier and good

policy may be provided for the resilience of the socio-ecological system.

If the multilateral relation were further worse than current status, the riparian

countries do not trust each other, the implementation of action will be done separately

without informing each other. The project of ecosystem survey, water management and

flood protection may not go smoothly and take longer term, or even worse, result into

the pending. The work for the total river basin management will be limited in the

country or in a part of the country, which may cause further degradation of water

quality and higher risk of flood and which may increase the vulnerability of the

socio-ecological system.

ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion

Socio-ecological system of the SRB has been discussed focusing on the flood control

strategy of the retention area of the floodplains in CSB and the trans-boundary

coordination among the riparian countries. The resilience of the system is kept by

flooding on the area by helping the transformation of the phosphorus to the organic

phosphorus. The land use management of the area is one of the key factors to increase

succession rate of the vegetation on the area. The trans-boundary cooperation has

recently been started under the ISRBC for water management and flood control. The

mutual cooperation among the countries may be the factor to provide the proper policies

for the flood risk control and water management, and for the resilient socio-ecological

system.

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

Articles:Articles:Articles:Articles:

1) Andjelic, M. and Roskar, J., 2007: “Development and Upgrading of Hydrometeorological Information

& Flood Warning/Forecasting System in the Sava River Basin. WB/ISDR/WMO SEEDRMI

HYDROMET INITIATIVE, pp. 154.

2) Andjelic, R., et. al., 2008: “Characterization Report for Kolubara River Basin”. EU CARDS Regional

Programme 2003, pp. 237

3) Baptist, M. J., Haasnoot, M., et. al., 2006: “Flood detention, nature development and water quality

along the lowland river Sava, Croatia”. Hydrobiologia 565, pp. 243-257

4) Bonacci O. and Horvat, B., 2004: “Water Balance of The Republic of Croatia: Achievements And

Necessities”. BLWOIS 2004, pp.1-7 PDF file downloaded on 13th Oct, 2008 at:

http://balwois.mpl.ird.fr/balwois/administration/full_paper/ffp-2o-009.pdf

5) Brundic, D., Barbalic, D., et. al. 2000: “Alluvial Wetlands Preservation in Croatia the Experience of

the Central Sava Basin Flood Control System. Conference on River Restoration, pp. 109-118.

6) Cengic, I. and Cabaravdic, A., 2002: ”Watershed Management in Mountainous Region in Bosnia and

Herzegovina – A General Overview”. Watershed Management and Sustainable Mountain Development

Working Paper (FAO), pp. 112 – 123. PDF file downloaded on 21st Oct, 2008 at:

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0269e/A0269E05.pdf

7) Frantar, P., 2007: “Geographical Overview of Water Balance of Slovenis 1971-2000 by Main River

Basins”. Acta geographica Slovenka, 47-1, 2007 pp. 25-45. PDF file downloaded on 21st Oct, 2008 at:

http://giam.zrc-sazu.si/zbornik/02-Ags47-1-025-045-Frantar.pdf

8) Hannerz, F, Destouni, G, et. al, 2005: “Flowchart for sustainable integrated water management

following the EU Water Framework Directive”. European Water Management Online, 2005/04, pp. 14.

PDF file downloaded on 5th May, 2008 at:

http://www.ewaonline.de/journal/2005_04.pdf

9) IPC, 2008: “Report on Environmental Impact Assessment for Upgrading Sava River Section

Belgrade – Sisak to Blass IV”. The ISRBC, pp. 186.

10) ISRBC, 2005: Framework Agreement of the Sava River Basin. pp. 29. PDF File downloaded on 19th

Oct., 2008 at:

http://67.205.89.205/~savacomm/dms/docs/dokumenti/documents_&_publications/basic_documents/fas

rb_hrv.pdf

11) Pandzic, K. and Trninic, D. 2000: “Relationship between monthly precipitation, the Sava river

discharge and large-scale circulation”. GEOGIZIKA Vol.16-17, pp.53-63

12) Walker, B. and Salt, D. 2006: Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a

Changing World. Island Press, pp.174

Websites:Websites:Websites:Websites:

13) Water Food Ecosystems: 3. Sava river basin. Website of International Agricultural Center

(IAC)/Wageningen UR, checked at 16:00 on 18th Oct., 2008.

http://www.waterfoodecosystems.nl/?page=1912

Interviews:Interviews:Interviews:Interviews:

14) Komatina, Dejan, Executive Secretary of the ISRBC. Interviewed on 14th July in Zagreb. Tel.

+385-1-488-6961, e-mail: dkomatina@savacommission.org

15) Milovanovic, Miodrag, Assistant Director of institute for the Development of Water Resources

“Jaroslav Cerni”. Interviewed on 24th June, 2008. Tel: +381 11 390 8135, e-mail: mmjerni@eunet.yu