support to water resources management in the drina … report - english - final.pdf · support to...

Consulting Services for

SUPPORT TO WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN THE DRINA RIVER BASIN PROJECT ID NO. 1099991

(FINAL) INCEPTION REPORT

February 2015


SUPPORT TO WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN THE DRINA RIVER BASIN PROJECT ID NO. 1099991

(FINAL) INCEPTION REPORT

February 2015

PROJECT NO. A038803

DOCUMENT NO. 02

VERSION B

DATE OF ISSUE 27thFebruary2015

PREPARED DAHandothers

CHECKED RSS

APPROVED RSS


SUPPORT TO WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

IN THE DRINA RIVER BASIN PROJECT ID NO. 1099991

This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Western Balkans Joint Fund under the Western Balkans Investment Framework. The views expressed herein are those of authors and can therefore in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the Contributors to the European Western Balkans Joint Fund or the EBRD and the EIB, as co‐managers of the European Western Balkans Joint Fund.

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin i

Table of Contents

Page No

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

1.1 Layout of the Inception Report ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Key issues and Objectives of the Project ............................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Brief description of the Drina River Basin ......................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Contracting Activities......................................................................................................................................... 4

1.6 Staff mobilisation ............................................................................................................................................... 5

1.7 Quality Assurance Control Procedures ............................................................................................................... 5

2 Inception Phase ................................................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Meetings with Consultants and Stakeholders ..................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Key experts, Non-key experts and pool of experts ............................................................................................. 7

2.3 Sources of data and information ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.4 World Bank Information not in TOR ................................................................................................................. 8

2.5 Inception Workshop ........................................................................................................................................... 9

2.6 Relations and coordination with other projects .................................................................................................. 9

2.7 Coordination committee ................................................................................................................................... 14

2.8 Site visits .......................................................................................................................................................... 15

2.9 Other Field Reconnaissance ............................................................................................................................. 18

2.10 Options and Timescales for the Study .............................................................................................................. 19

3 Project Context ............................................................................................................................................... 20

3.1 General Particulars of Drina River Basin ......................................................................................................... 20

3.2 Water Resources Management ......................................................................................................................... 21

3.3 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................................ 21

3.4 Hydropower – existing schemes ....................................................................................................................... 22

3.5 Water supply .................................................................................................................................................... 30

3.6 Water quality monitoring and pollution ........................................................................................................... 31

3.7 Solid Waste ...................................................................................................................................................... 32

3.8 Flood Protection ............................................................................................................................................... 33

3.9 Droughts and Sedimentation ............................................................................................................................ 39

3.10 Environmental baseline .................................................................................................................................... 39

3.11 Socio-Economic Factors ................................................................................................................................... 67

3.12 Preliminary Legal and Institutional Issues ..................................................................................................... 103

3.13 River Basin Data Management ....................................................................................................................... 108

4 Communication and Consultation Strategy ............................................................................................... 111

4.1 Communication with the Client...................................................................................................................... 111

4.2 Communication with the Public ..................................................................................................................... 112

4.3 Transboundary Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 112

4.4 Communication Plan: ..................................................................................................................................... 112

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin ii

5 Revised Work Plan and updated Methodology ......................................................................................... 115

5.1 General approach ............................................................................................................................................ 115

5.2 Basin Modelling ............................................................................................................................................. 116

5.3 Climate Modelling .......................................................................................................................................... 119

5.4 Drought and Sedimentation Methodology ..................................................................................................... 123

5.5 Proposal for Multi Criteria Analysis .............................................................................................................. 124

5.6 Outline Table of Contents for Main Report (Country and Basin) .................................................................. 124

5.7 Revised Work Plan, Deliverables and Workshops ......................................................................................... 124

6 Constraints and Critical Success Factors ................................................................................................... 128

7 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 129

8 Annexes ......................................................................................................................................................... 132

8.1 Annex 1 - Comments and Responses to the Draft Inception Report .............................................................. 133

8.2 Annex 2 - Identified Hydropower Projects ..................................................................................................... 152

8.3 Annex 3 Detailed Description of Biodiversity in Protected Areas ................................................................. 158

8.4 Annex 4 – Important Flora Species in the DRB Protected Areas ................................................................... 163

8.5 Annex 5 – Multi Criteria Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................... 165

8.6 Annex 6 – Proposed Contents of Main Reports ............................................................................................. 170

8.7 Annex 7 – Proposed Map Bases for Deliverables .......................................................................................... 176

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin iii

List of Figures

Page No Figure 1-1: Extent of the Drina River Basin ....................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2-1: “Prijepolje” hydrological station and “Radalj”HS .......................................................................................... 16 Figure 2-2: “Zvornik” HPP with dam and “Bajina Basta” HPP with dam and “Perucac” reservoir ................................. 16 Figure 2-3: “Uvac” dam, “Sjenica” reservoir and “Radoinja” dam .................................................................................. 16 Figure 2-4: “Visegrad” bridge and Tara – Zaovine ........................................................................................................... 17 Figure 2-5: Meteorological station on the “Zvornik” dam and command centre of the “Bajina Basta” HPP ................... 17 Figure 2-6: Unit of the “Zvornik” HPP and “Potpec” dam ............................................................................................... 17 Figure 3-1: “Zvornik” dam and HPP ................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 3-2:”BajinaBasta”dam and HPP ............................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 3-3:”Lazici” dam and “Bajina Basta” PSHPP ....................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3-4: “Visegrad” dam and HPP ............................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 3-5:”Radoinja”dam and “Bistrica” HPP ................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 3-6:”Kokin Brod” dam and HPP ............................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 3-7:”Uvac” dam and HPP ...................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 3-8: “Potpec” dam and HPP ................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 3-9:”Otilovici” dam ............................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 3-10:”Piva” dam and reservoir ............................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 3-11: Floating waste on Lim River near confluence with Drina River ("Visegrad" reservoir) 2012 ..................... 33 Figure 3-12: Area Affected by May 2014 Floods ............................................................................................................. 35 Figure 3-13: Mean annual temperature (left panel) and mean annual precipitation (right panel) for the period 1961-1990,

according to the e-OBS dataset ................................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 3-14: Change in the mean annual temperature (left panel) and the mean annual precipitation (right panel) for the

period from 1981 to 2010, compared to the base period from 1961 to 1990 according the e-OBS dataset ............. 41 Figure 3-15: Location of automatic monitoring stations (red dots) in Montenegro .......................................................... 44 Figure 3-16: Location of stations for measuring particles matter in 2012, Serbia ............................................................. 45 Figure 3-17: Geological Map of the Drina Basin .............................................................................................................. 46 Figure 3-18: Mesozoic ophiolitic belts, relicts of oceanic realms in the central part of the Balkan Peninsula ................. 47 Figure 3-19: Seismic Zones of the DRB (Mercali Scale) .................................................................................................. 48 Figure 3-20: Hydrogeology Map of the Drina Basin ........................................................................................................ 49 Figure 3-21: Manganese Deposits (left) and Mercury Deposits (right) in BiH (Kurtanovic 2000)................................... 52 Figure 3-22: Soil Map of the Drina River Basin ............................................................................................................... 54 Figure 3-23: Presence of Aquilegia nikolicii in the DRB.................................................................................................. 55 Figure 3-24: Map of Both Existing and Planned PAs in DRB .......................................................................................... 62 Figure 3-25: Map of both existing and planned PAs in DRB BPK Goražde, 2013, .......................................................... 64 Figure 3-26: Population Distribution within DRB ............................................................................................................ 69 Figure 3-27: Degree of Urbanisation within the DRB region ........................................................................................... 70 Figure 3-28: Demography within the DRB Region ........................................................................................................... 71 Figure 3-29: Montenegro - Average Salaries in DRB Municipalities ............................................................................... 75 Figure 3-30: Montenegro – Employment by sectors in DRB Municipalities .................................................................... 75 Figure 3-31: RS - BiH - Average Salaries in DRB Municipalities .................................................................................... 76 Figure 3-32: RS - BiH – Employment by sectors in DRB Municipalities ........................................................................ 77 Figure 3-33: FBiH - Average Salaries in DRB Municipalities .......................................................................................... 77 Figure 3-34: FBiH – Employment by sectors in DRB Municipalities .............................................................................. 78 Figure 3-35: Serbia- Average Salaries in DRB Municipalities ......................................................................................... 79 Figure 3-36: Serbia - Employment by sectors in DRB Municipalities .............................................................................. 79 Figure 3-37: Land Use for the Drina River Basin ............................................................................................................. 84 Figure 3-38: Montenegro – Final energy consumption, 2011 and 2012 ........................................................................... 86

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin iv

Figure 3-39: Republic of Serbia – Final energy consumption for electricity and natural gas, 2012 ................................. 87 Figure 3-40: BiH - Production of consumable fish in tones, 2012 and 2013 .................................................................... 87 Figure 3-41: Montenegro - Catch of fresh water fish, 2010-2012 ..................................................................................... 88 Figure 3-42: RS BiH - Production of maize, wheat and potatoes, 2003-2012 .................................................................. 91 Figure 3-43: RS BiH - Number of livestock, 2004-2012 .................................................................................................. 91 Figure 3-44: Montenegro - Indices of agricultural production, 2012. ............................................................................... 91 Figure 3-45: Republic of Serbia - Crop production 2006-2012 ........................................................................................ 92 Figure 3-46: RS BiH - Tourist arrivals and tourist nights by year .................................................................................... 92 Figure 3-47: Montenegro – Number of tourist arrivals and overnight stays, 2013 ........................................................... 93 Figure 3-48: Republic of Serbia -Tourists' overnights by regions 2013. ........................................................................... 93 Figure 3-49: Montenegro - Production and consumption of coal in transformation sector (TJ), 2005-2012 .................... 94 Figure 3-50: Republic of Serbia – Final energy consumption for coal and oil derivatives, 2012 ..................................... 94 Figure 3-51: Montenegro - Indices of industrial production, 2005-2013 .......................................................................... 95 Figure 3-52: Republic of Serbia –Industrial production, 2003-2013 ................................................................................. 96 Figure 3-53: Road map of BiH .......................................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 3-54: Road Map of Montenegro ............................................................................................................................. 99 Figure 3-55: Road Map of Serbia .................................................................................................................................... 100 Figure 3-56: Railway Map of BiH .................................................................................................................................. 101 Figure 4-1: Project Organisation Chart ........................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 4-2: Map of Euro Drina Region ........................................................................................................................... 113 Figure 5-1: Updated Work Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 127

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin v

List of Tables Page No

Table 1-1: Subdivision of the Drina River Basin ................................................................................................................ 2 Table 1-2: Quality Assurance Responsibilities ................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2-1: List of Physical Meetings and Skype Meetings Attended .................................................................................. 6 Table 2-2: Draft Agenda for Inception Workshop .............................................................................................................. 9 Table 2-3: Summary of Relevant Planned and Ongoing Projects in the region ................................................................ 10 Table 2-4: Comparative Overview between IPA Capacity Building and WBIF Drina Project ......................................... 13 Table 3-1: Existing dams and hydropower schemes ......................................................................................................... 29 Table 3-2: Annual production of municipal waste into the Drina River (2008) ................................................................ 32 Table 3-3: Mineral Resources of BiH ............................................................................................................................... 51 Table 3-4: Mineral Resources of Montenegro ................................................................................................................... 52 Table 3-5: IUCN status and trends of population of important species of the DRB ......................................................... 60 Table 3-6 : Protected Areas of BiH, Montenegro and Serbia in the DRB ......................................................................... 63 Table 3-7: Summary of Montenegrin Cultural Heritgae Sites within Municipalities of the DRB .................................... 65 Table 3-8: Population Statistics for the Drina River Basin ............................................................................................... 68 Table 3-9: Montenegro - Employment and Unemployment in DRB Municipalities ........................................................ 74 Table 3-10: RS-BiH - Employment and Unemployment in DRB Municipalities ............................................................. 75 Table 3-11: FBiH - Employment and Unemployment in DRB Municipalities ................................................................. 77 Table 3-12: Serbia - Employment and Unemployment in DRB Municipalities ................................................................ 78 Table 3-13: Detail on Health within the DRB Region ...................................................................................................... 83 Table 3-14: BiH RS Production and final consumption of fuels and energy .................................................................... 86 Table 3-15: RS BiH - Production of consumable fish ....................................................................................................... 88 Table 3-16: Largest Trout Ponds on Drina River in Montenegro ..................................................................................... 88 Table 3-17: Republic of Serbia -Basic indicators in fishing statistics ............................................................................... 89 Table 3-18 RS BiH - Hunting grounds and hunters, 2009-2013 ....................................................................................... 89 Table 3-19: RS BiH - Indices of industrial production by section 2008-2012. ................................................................. 95 Table 3-20: Transposition and implementation of WFD in BiH Montenegro and Serbia ............................................... 106 Table 3-21: Transposition and implementation of Flood Directive in BiH Montenegro and Serbia .............................. 106 Table 5-1: Revised Schedule of Report Deliverables ..................................................................................................... 124 Table 5-2: Revised Schedule of Workshops .................................................................................................................. 125 Table 5-3: Revised Schedule of Other Project Deliverables .......................................................................................... 125 Table 8-1: Planned new hydroelectric schemes .............................................................................................................. 153

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAA Analytical and Advisory Assistance BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina BPK Bosnian‐Podrinje Canton ca Approximately CEI Central European initiative CEPRES Centre for Ecology and Natural Resources CH4 Methane CO₂ Carbon Dioxide CORINE Coordinated Information on the European Environment CPS Country Partnership Strategy (World Bank) DIKTAS Dinaric Karst Aquifer System DIR Draft Inception Report DIV Diversion (Hydropower Type) DRB Drina River Basin E Endangered EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EBU‐POM Eta Belgrade University – Princeton Ocean Model ECT Energy Charter Treaty EEA European Environmental Agency EEC European Economic Community EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIB European Investment Bank El Elevation EIONET European Environment Information and Observation Network EN Endemic EOI Expression of Interest EP Elektroprivreda EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPAM Environmental Protection Agency Montenegro EPCG Elektroprivreda Crne Gore (Montenegro) EPS Elektroprivreda Serbia ER Endemic Relict species EU European Union EUR Euro FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FASRB Framework Agreement on Sava River Basin FBiH Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina FCE Faculty of Civil Engineering FCE‐UBG Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Belgrade FEWS Delft Flood Early Warning System FHMS Federal Hydro meteorological Service FIR Final Inception Report GCM Global Climate Model GEF Global Environment Facility GHG Green House Gas GIS Geographical Information System GWh Gigawatt hours Ha Hectare HBV Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning – Swedish HBV Model HEC‐HMS Hydrologic Engineering Centre – Hydrologic Modelling System

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin vii


HEC‐RAS Hydrologic Engineering Centre – River Analysis System HIS Hydrological Information System HMI Hydro‐Meteorological Institute HPP Hydropower Plant IAWD International Association of Waterworks in the Danube Catchment Area IBA Important Bird Areas IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICPDR International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River IDA International Development Association IIS Internationally Important Species Inst Installed INP Institute for Nature Protection IPA Instrument for Pre‐Accession Assistance (EU) IPCC Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change IPF Infrastructure Projects Facility (WBIF) IRBM Integrated River Basin Management ISDS Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet ISRBC International Sava River Basin Commission IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management JCI Jaroslav Černi Institute JV Joint Venture KE Key (staff) KM Konvertible Marks (BiH Currency) Km2 Square kilometres kV Kilovolt kW Kilowatt KWh Kilowatt hour LBAP Local Biodiversity Action Plan LC Least Concern l/c/d Litres per capita per day LOI Letter of Invitation l/s/km2 Litres per second per square kilometre m Metres m³/s Cubic metres per second m³/year Cubic metres per year MAEP Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection ‐ Serbia MAFWM Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management – FBiH MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development ‐ Montenegro MAWMF Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry – RS BiH masl Metres above sea level MCA Multi Criteria Analysis MCS Mercali Scale (Seismic Intensity) MDG Millennium Development Goal MGM Main Geological Map Mm3 Millions of cubic metres mm/a Millimetres per annum MNE Montenegro MNM Memorial Nature Monument MOFTER Ministry of Free Trade and Economic Relations (BiH)

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin viii


MoN Monument of Nature MSPCEERS Ministry of Spatial Planning, Civil Engineering and Ecology Mt Mountain MW Megawatt NACE Nomenclature of Economic Activities NDIV Non‐Diversion (Hydropower Type) NGO Non‐Government Organisation NHDR National Human Development Report NH3 Ammonia NK Non‐Key (staff) NMVOC Non‐Methane Volatile Organic Compounds NO2 Nitrous Oxide NP Nature Park NPS National Park Sutjeska NT Near Threatened NTRB Neretva and Trebišnjica River Basin O3 Ozone OWL Operation Water Level PA Protected Areas PAD Project Appraisal Document (World Bank) PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons PBA Primary Butterfly Areas PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment PEEREA Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects PFS Pre‐Feasibility Study PSHPP Pumped Storage Hydropower Plant (reversible HPP) PID Project Information Document (PID) PM Particulate Matter POP Persistent Organic Pollutants PQ Prequalification PSHPP Pumped Storage Hydropower Plant PWC Public Water Company QA Quality Assurance QM Quality Management RBD River Basin District RBMP River Basin Management Plan RCM Regional Climate Model RCP Representative Concentration Pathways RCSM Regional Climate System Models REC Regional Environmental Centre RFP Request for Proposals RHMS Hydro meteorological Service of Serbia RNP Regional Nature Park RoR Run off River RP Regional Park RS Republika Srpska (BiH) SAP Strategic Action Program SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SEEBAP South East Europe Biodiversity Action Plan SEI Stockholm Environment Institute

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin ix


SEPA Serbian Environmental Protection Agency SFRY Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia SHPP Small (mini) Hydropower Plant SIA Social Impact Assessment SNR Special Nature Reserve SO2 Sulphur Dioxide SRB Sava River Basin SSM Sustainable Sediment Management T Threatened TA Technical Assistance TBD To be determined TDA Drina Rapid Transboundary Diagnostic Scan and Analysis TJ Terajoule TL Team Leader TPP Thermal Power Plant TOR Terms of Reference TTL Task Team Leader (World Bank) UBG University of Belgrade UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Program UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNEP United Nations Environment Program UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change USA United States of America USD United States Dollar UTM Universal Trans Mercator VF Vascular Flora VU Vulnerable WATCAP Water and Climate Adaptation Plan WB World Bank WBDRBMP West Balkans Drina River Basin Management Project WBIF Western Balkans Infrastructure Facility WBIFDM West Balkans Regional Initiative on Flood and Drought Management WEA Water Endangering Activities WEAP Water Evaluation and Planning System by SEI WED Water Endangering Deposition WFD Water Framework Directive WHO World Health Organisation WMO World Meteorological Organisation WMP Water Management Plan WQ Water Quality WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plan

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The Drina River Basin (DRB) is an exceptionally scenic area with abundant biodiversity and its preservation is considered of paramount importance, whilst endeavour-ing to make the Basin more water resource management efficient for the benefit of all DRB users. The River is 346 km long and the basin has a catchment area of about 19,680 km2 and it is the largest tributary of the Sava River Basin. The basin spreads over three riparian states, BiH (divided into RS and FBiH), Montenegro and Serbia, with the exception of Albania which has a small amount of territory in the Basin’s headwaters. The Basin is home to a population of nearly 1 million people, but due to the declining economic situation, which is hindered by the poor transportation infrastruc-ture, there are general migrations out of the basin creating an increasingly ageing population and widespread unem-ployment. An exception is the area around Bijeljina (in RS BiH), which bucks the trend and has a prospering ag-ricultural, industrial and service based economy thanks to its proximity to Serbia and Croatia. Despite this, the Basin is extremely well endowed with natural resources e.g. substantial groundwater resources within the upper catchment and in development potential, particularly hydropower. Furthermore, there are abundant tourist opportunities and a rich biodiversity characterised by several scarce and en-demic species and ancient forests and many national parks including the globally significant Tara Canyon UNESCO World Heritage Site. It is therefore extremely important to balance this devel-opment potential whilst combatting the threats of human encroachment, industrial and wastewater pollution and more than two decades of failing river maintenance. The overarching objective for the project is support to more effective water resources management in the Basin taking into consideration flood and drought mitigation, sustainable water use and environmental management, undertaken within the framework of IWRM, whilst en-suring effective stakeholder consultations and public par-ticipation. Consequently, there are a number of key issues that this Project needs to consider: The wide variety of competing water uses The River maintenance in general The extremes of floods and droughts that are exacer-

bated by climate change Weak cooperation from the riparian states within the

Basin The urgent need for Integrated Water Resources

Management (IWRM) and the need for convergence with EU water directives

REZIME Osnova Sliv reke Drine (DRB) je područje izuzetnih karakteristika, sa obilnim biodiverzitetom čije je očuvanje od izuzetne važnosti, u nastojanju da se upravljanje vodnim resursima sliva učini efikasnijim na dobrobit svih korisnika DRB. Reka je dugačka 346 km, slivno područje je površine oko 19.680 km2, a sama reka je najveća pritoka reke Save. Sliv se prostire preko tri države- Bosne i Hercegovine (podel-jene na FBiH i Republiku Srpsku), Crne Gore i Srbije, bez Albanije koja ima jako malu površinu teritorije u gornjem toku reke. Sliv nastanjuje skoro milion ljudi, ali je, usled pogoršanja ekonomske situacije, koja je dodatno otežana lošom saobracajnom infrastrukturom, izražena opšta migracija iz sliva, prilikom čega se povećava broj starijeg stanovništva i širi nezaposlenost. Izuzetak je područje oko Bijeljine (u RS, BiH), koje protivreči ovom trendu i ima prosperitetnu ekonomiju poljoprivrede, industrije i usluga zahvaljujuci blizini Srbije i Hrvatske. Uprkos tome, sliv je izuzetno bogat prirodnim resursima, npr. postoje značajni resursi podzemnih voda unutar gornjeg sliva i moguć razvoj potencijala, posebno hidroen-ergije. Osim toga, postoje mnogobrojne turističke mogucnosti i bogat biodiverzitet koji karakteriše nekoliko retkih i en-demičnih vrsta, kao i prašume i nacionalni parkovi, uključujuci i globalni značaj kanjona Tare kao UNESCO-ve svetske baštine. Zato je izuzetno važno da se uspostavi ravnoteža u razvoju ovog potencijala sa borbom protiv pretnji od negativnog uticaja ljudskih aktivnosti, industrijskog zagađenja i ot-padnih voda, kao i posledica perioda dužeg od dve decenije bez održavanja reke. Opšti cilj ovog projekta je podrška efikasnijem upravljanju vodnim resursima u slivu, uzimajuci u obzir poplave i ublažavanje suša, održivo korišcenje voda i upravljanje zaštitom životne sredine, koja se sprovodi u okviru Integ-risanog upravljanja vodnim resursima (IWRM) i obezbeđuje efikasne konsultacije zainteresovanih strana i učešce javnosti. Kao posledica, postoji niz ključnih pitanja koje ovaj Pro-jekat treba da razmotri: Širok spektar konkurentnih načina korišćenja voda Održavanje reke Krajnosti kao što su poplave i suše, koje su izazvane

klimatskim promenama Slaba saradnja priobalnih država u slivu Hitna potreba za Integrisanim upravljanjem vodnim

resursima (IWRM) i potreba za usklađivanjem sa direk-tivama za vode EU

Poboljšana koordinacija tokom prikupljanja podataka, kontrole i analize

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin xi

Improved coordination for data collection, control and analysis

Consultant Contractual issues and Mobilisation The Consultant undertaking this project is a Joint Venture comprising COWI AS of Norway as the lead, with Stucky Limited from Switzerland and the Jaroslav Cerni Institute (JCI) from Serbia. COWI are also supported by two Sub Consultants, their local partner CeS COWI in Serbia, and the Faculty of Civil Engineering at the Uni-versity of Belgrade. Following prequalification; which took almost one year to realise in March 2014; tendering closed in June 2014 and the Contract Award was approved in July 2014. The Consultancy Contract was finally signed by the World Bank and the Consultant on 6th and 7th October 2014. The Consultant Team Leader mobilised to the region within 2 weeks from Contract signing. The Consultant had to replace Key Expert 2 at an early stage in the Inception. On 22nd October 2014, the JV lead consultant officially approached the TTL with a replace-ment, and an official approval of this replacement was made on 7th November 2014. Progress during Inception Phase A number of meetings have been convened with key stakeholders covering the three riparian states (four enti-ties). Meetings were held in Belgrade, Banja Luka, Sara-jevo and Podgorica. In addition a meeting was convened with representatives of the International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC) in Zagreb. Substantial amounts of background documentation have already been obtained and has started to be reviewed. Key documents include: the Diagnostic Study prepared by the World Bank

dated from 2012 The REC Inventory of Pollution Sources in the Drina

River Basin from 2011 The Dinaric Karst Aquifer System (DIKTAS) A website has been created and is now operational and can be found at http://www.wb-drinaproject.com/ This is a dynamic site that will be updated as the project progresses and will have all the project deliverables eas-ily accessible and available for download. Important Findings From initial discussions with key stakeholders (Montene-gro excluded) it can be concluded that the preparation of a RBMP for the Drina River, one of the main deliverables at country and roof report level, is not considered neces-sary. From the position of Serbia, they were deeply involved in the process of RBM planning firstly for the Danube (Na-

Ugovorna pitanja Konsultanta i mobilizacija Konsultant koji je angažovan za ovaj Projekat je Konzorcijum koji čine: COWI AS iz Norveške, kao vodeći partner, Stucky Limited iz Švajcarske i Institut za vodoprivredu “Jaroslav Černi” (JCI) iz Srbije. Podršku COWI-ju daju dva lokalna podizvođača- lokalni partner CeS COWI iz Srbije i Građevinski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu. Nakon predkvalifikacije koja se trajala skoro godinu dana (do marta 2014. godine), tenderska procedura je završena u junu 2014. godine, a ugovor dodeljen u julu 2014. godine. Konsultantski ugovor između Svetske banke i Konsultanta je konačno potpisan 6. i 7. oktobra 2014. godine. Vođa tima Konsultanta je izvršio lokalnu mobilizaciju u toku prve dve nedelje od potpisivanja ugovora. Na samom početku Početne faze, Konsultant je morao da zameni Vodećeg eksperta 2. 22. oktobra 2014.godine vodeći konsultant Konzorcijuma je zvanično predložio za-menu koordinatoru Svetske Banke, a zvanično odobrenje ove zamene je dato 7. novembra 2014.g. Napredak tokom Početne faze Održani su brojni sastanci sa ključnim zainteresovanim stranama sve tri priobalne države (četiri entiteta). Sastanci su održani u Beogradu, Banja Luci, Sarajevu i Podgorici. Takođe, u Zagrebu je održan sastanak sa predstavnicima Međunarodne komisije za sliv reke Save (ISRBC). Značajne količine osnovne dokumentacije su već prib-avljene i započet je pregled iste. Ključni dokumenti obuhvataju: Dijagnostička studija Svetske banke iz 2012. godine REC-ov (Regionalni centar za životnu sredinu za Cen-

tralnu i Istočnu Evropu) popis izvora zagađenja u slivu reke Drine iz 2011. godine

Sistem Dinarske kraške izdani (DIKTAS) Napravljena je web- strana, koja je sada u funkciji i može se posetiti na linku http://www.wb-drinaproject.com/ Ovo je dinamička web-strana, koja će se ažurirati kako pro-jekat odmiče i na kojoj će biti lako dostupni rezultati Pro-jekta, a biće omogućeno i preuzimanje istih. Glavni zaključci Iz početnih razgovora sa ključnim zainteresovanim stranama (bez Crne Gore) zaključeno je da se priprema Plana za upravljanje slivom (RBMP) za reku Drinu, kao jednog od glavnih izveštaja na nivou države i krovnog izveštaja, ne smatra neophodnim. Sa gledišta Srbije, oni su već ušli u proces planiranja za up-ravljanje slivom pre svega za reke Dunav (na nacionalnom nivou) i Savu (regionalni nivo), pa shodno tome ne vide po-trebu da ovaj proces ponavljaju u skromnijim razmerama. Srbija je 2009. godine usvojila Plan za upravljanje slivom

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin xii

tional level) and then for the Sava (Regional level), con-sequently they see no need to repeat that process on a smaller scale. Serbia adopted the Danube RBMP in 2009 and has taken this into account in their legislation. They have also reviewed and were consulted on the draft Sava RBMP in 2012. There are a few small issues outstanding with Croatia, but in general the Sava RBMP will be adopted in 2014/2015. The overall BiH position is similar; they respect the Sava RBMP and have embarked on preparation of an overall Sava RBMP for BiH falling within the Sava catchment area, Drina River Basin included. This is being under-taken by the EU IPA Project entitled “Capacity Building in the Water Sector” which commenced in early 2014 and runs until the end of 2015. The stakeholders from the RS part of BiH consider flood protection, IWRM and envi-ronmental protection as important issues. Montenegro believes that groundwater as a source of wa-ter supply particularly for irrigation in the upper catch-ments of Drina River will be especially important. Hence with such groundwater extraction there is also need for aquifer protection. Finally, hydropower is considered an important issue in Montenegro albeit a sensitive one due to the proximity of the Tara Canyon National Park, Man Biosphere Reserve and a UNESCO World Heritage site. From a more regional perspective the ISRBC have also questioned the need for a RBMP at the Drina River Basin Level and believe that the Sava RBMP should be the doc-ument that is respected. These findings indicate that the main deliverables evolv-ing from this Project need to be revised albeit within the framework of the 11 main tasks envisaged on the project. Key documents appear to be the preparation of IWRM re-port for each country and the Basin and an Investment Prioritization Framework document. Synergies and Overlaps The Sava Basin including the Drina River has been the subject of substantial interest since the May 2014 floods that devastated the region causing billions of Euros of damage and significant loss of life. As a consequence, a substantial amount of donor funding has been pledged to the region. It is therefore extremely important that any overlaps are identified early and similarly any synergies are developed. The Consultant has undertaken a review of the known co-financed and parallel project activities, their implementa-tion and coordination arrangements. The following pro-jects with a total value of more than USD 550 million are important to mention: At Basin Scale GEF West Balkans Drina River Basin Management

Project (WBDRBP) 2015-2018: the current WBIF Drina Project would feed into this Euro 10 million

reke Dunav koji ima zakonodavnu ulogu. Takođe, raz-matrali su i učestvovali u nacrtu Plana za upravljanje slivom reke Save 2012. godine. Postoji nekoliko manjih ot-vorenih pitanja za Hrvatsku, ali se očekuje da Plan uprav-ljanja slivom reke Save bude usvojen 2014/2015. godine. Slična je situacija i u BiH; oni uvažavaju Plan upravljanja slivom reke Save i počeli su sa pripremom sveobuhvatnog Plana za BiH, za područje koje pripada slivu Save, uključujući i sliv reke Drine. Ovo se sprovodi pod EU IPA Projektom “Izgradnja kapaciteta u vodnom sektoru” (Ca-pacity Building in the Water Sector), koji je započet početkom 2014. godine i trajaće do kraja 2015. godine. Zainteresovane strane iz Republike Srpske smatraju da su zaštita od poplava, Plan upravljanja slivom (IWRM) i zaštita životne sredine važna pitanja. Predstavnici Crne Gore smatraju da su podzemne vode kao izvor za navodnjavanje u gornjem slivu Drine od velikog značaja. Dakle, po pitanju procednih voda, posebna pažnja se mora posvetiti zaštiti izdani. I na kraju, hidroenergija se smatra važnim pitanjem u Crnoj Gori, ali i osetljivim, zbog blizine Nacionalnog parka Tara, Ljudskog rezervata bi-osfere UNESCO-ve svetske baštine. Posmatrajući sa regionalnog gledišta, ISRBC je postavila pitanje potrebe izrade Plana za upravljanje slivom reke Drine i smatra da Plan za upravljanje slivom reke Save treba da bude dokument koji će se poštovati. Ovi nalazi ukazuju da glavni rezultati ovog Projekta treba da se reviduju u okviru 11 glavnih zadataka koji su predviđeni Projektom. Čini se da će ključni dokumenti biti izrada izveštaja Integrisanog upravljanja vodnim resursima (IWRM) za svaku državu i za sliv, kao i Okvirni dokument za davanje prioriteta investicijama. Sinergija i preklapanja Sliv reke Save uključujući i reku Drinu je značajan predmet interesovanja od majskih poplava 2014.godine koje su uništile region izazvavši milionsku štetu u evrima, kao i brojne žrtve. Kao posledica, značajni iznosi u vidu donacija su se slili u region. Stoga je veoma važno da identifikuju sva preklapanja u ranoj fazi, kao i sinergije koje se mogu razviti. Konsultant je pregledao poznate kofinansirane i paralelne tekuće projektne aktivnosti, njihovo sprovođenje i načine koordinacije. Važno je pomenuti sledeće projekte, čija je ukupna vrednost više od 550 miliona dolara: Na nivou sliva GEF West Balkans Drina River Basin Management

Project (WBDRBP) 2015-2018: aktuelni WBIF pro-jekat za Drinu ulazi u ovaj projekat vrednosti 10 mil-iona evra i predviđa se da će projekat biti operativan do kraja 2015. godine.

TA Balkan / South Europe Energy Strategy 2014 (čeka se potvrda) će između ostalog obuhvatiti i potencijal proizvodnje hidroenergije u slivu Drine. Konsultant je

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin xiii

project, which is projected to be fully operational at the end of 2015.

TA Balkan / South Europe Energy Strategy 2014 (to be confirmed) which will assess among other things the hydropower generation potential in Drina River Basin. The Consultant understands that this project has not yet commenced, but great care should be taken here as there would be substantial overlap with the hydropower study that is presently planned as part of the WBIF Drina Project.

IPA funded Digital terrain mapping and flood risk mapping 2014-2015 that will survey selected parts of the Drina River Valley and the data will be used by the GEF WBDRBP.

EU IPA funded River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) 2012-2014 for the International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC). This draft RBMP has now been accepted

West Balkans Investment Fund (WBIF) Flood Fore-casting Project – with ISRBC. This USD 2 million project for technical assistance needs to be coordi-nated closely with WBIF Drina Project model devel-opment.

At Country Level EU IPA Capacity Building in the Water Sector Pro-

ject which is focused on BiH with a view to develop RBMP for the Sava Part of BiH. This project has a budget of Euro 2.4 million, became operational in March 2014 and is due for completion in December 2015. Note: This project has substantial overlap with the WBIF Drina Project.

IDA funded, Drina Flood Project 2015-2018 for BiH only covering the areas of Gorazde and Bijeljina with rehabilitation of dikes and river bank. This USD 24 million project covering the left bank of the Drina River.

IDA funded Investment – Serbia Irrigation and Drainage II Project 2016-2020 for Serbia only in Zvornik area on right bank of Drina River.

IDA funded investment – Bosnia Agriculture and Rural Development Project (flood component) 2010 – 2016 for protective dikes and bank rehabilitation along Drina River.

EIB funded Sava Flood Project 2013 – 2020 – BiH only – dikes, pumps and bank rehabilitation along Sava and Junction of Drina River in Bijeljina area.

IBRD/IDA Emergency Floods Recovery Project – BiH only. This USD 100 million project has an ob-jective to meet immediate critical needs and restore infrastructure functionality. A sum of USD 2 million is for Technical Assistance which is yet to be allo-cated.

IBRD/IDA Floods Emergency Recovery Project – Serbia only. This USD 300 million project has 4 components, i) energy sector support to dewater lig-nite mines and to rehabilitate the "Nikola Tesla" Thermal Plant which was affected by the May 2014

svestan da ovaj projekat još uvek nije počeo, ali po-trebno je obratiti posebnu pažnju na značajna preklapanja sa studijom hidroenergije koja se planira kao deo WBIF projekta za Drinu.

Digital terrain mapping and flood risk mapping 2014-2015, finansiran iz IPA fondova, koji će istražiti iza-brana područja doline sliva Drine, a podaci će se koris-titi za projekat GEF WBDRBP.

River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) 2012-2014, fi-nansiran iz EU IPA fondova, za Međunarodnu komisiju za sliv reke Save (ISRBC). Ovaj Nacrt plana za uprav-ljanje slivom je usvojen.

West Balkans Investment Fund (WBIF) Flood Fore-casting Project – zajedno sa ISRBC. Ovaj projekat vrednosti 2 miliona dolara za tehničku podršku bi tre-balo da bude u bliskoj koordinaciji sa WBIF Drina pro-jektom iz aspekta modelovanja.

Na nivou države EU IPA Capacity Building in the Water Sector Project-

Projekat izgradnje kapaciteta u vodnom sektoru koji je fokusiran na BiH sa idejom da se razvije Plan uprav-ljanja rečnim slivom Save za BiH. Ovaj projekat ima budžet od 2,4 miliona evra i postao je operativan u martu 2014. godine, a završetak se očekuje u decembru 2015. godine. Napomena: Ovaj projekat se značajno preklapa sa WBIF Projektom za Drinu.

Drina Flood Project 2015-2018 for BiH- Projekat zaštite od poplava za Drinu 2015-2018. g. za BiH se fi-nansira iz IPA fondova. Pokriva samo područja Go-ražde i Bijeljinu i podrazumeva rehabilitaciju nasipa i rečnih obaloutvrda. Ovaj projekat vredan 24 miliona dolara pokriva levu obalu reke Drine.

Serbia Irrigation and Drainage II Project 2016-2020 for Serbia-Projekat navodnjavanja i odvodnjavanja II za Srbiju 2016-2020. godine, finansiran iz IDA fondova, pokriva samo područje Zvornika i to desnu obalu Drine.

Bosnia Agriculture and Rural Development Project (flood component) 2010 – 2016- Projekat za poljop-rivredni i ruralni razvoj (komponenta poplava) Bosna 2010-2016. godine, finansiran iz IDA fondova, zaštitni nasipi i rehabilitacija obaloutvrda duž reke Drine.

Sava Flood Project 2013 – 2020 – Projekat zaštite od poplava za Savu, finansiran iz EIB fonda, samo u BiH– nasipi, pumpe i rehabilitacija duž reke Save i ušća Drine u području Bijeljine.

IBRD/IDA Emergency Floods Recovery Project – Pro-jekat hitne sanacije nakon poplava, samo BiH. Ovaj projekat vrednosti 100 miliona dolara ima za cilj da za-dovolji trenutne kritične potrebe i obnovi funkcionisanje infrastrukture. Iznos od 2 miliona dolara je rezervisan za tehničku podršku koja još nije utvrđena.

IBRD/IDA Floods Emergency Recovery Project – Pro-jekat hitne sanacije posledica poplava, samo Srbija. Ovaj projekat vredan 300 miliona dolara ima četiri komponente: i) podrška energetskom sektoru na sanaciji rudnika lignita i rehabilitaciji termoelektrane

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin xiv

floods, ii) agricultural support, iii) flood protection, and iv) contingent emergency response .

Revised Work Plan Apart from the purely technical studies, one of the main tasks of the project team will be to make sure that the de-velopment of the studies progresses in a balanced way, so that the progressive crystallization of the developed con-cepts happens in a sound and coherent manner. In partic-ular, the technical options will be regularly confronted with the environmental and social requirements or con-straints, to ensure that the project will be developing in an acceptable direction as required by the three riparian states and their respective legislation. The Consultant team will strive to allow a coherent pro-gression of the reflections, in the best case in all fields simultaneously. The nature of the project does not require that special local studies be developed in detail, as long as the general context has not been firmly established. As long also that the articulation of the various meta-compo-nents of the overall concept has not been validated. Consistency and robustness therefore have a central role to play and will be the associating factors of the whole study. The effective application of these considerations must ensure that further developments (e.g. regional con-cepts, local projects) do not hit hidden inconsistencies and incompatibilities. Notwithstanding, it is not envisaged that the key activities will change significantly; consequently the 11 main tasks will still remain as follows Task 0 – Project Management Task 1 – Inception Task 2 – River Basin Assessment Task 3 – Institutional and Legal Assessment Task 4 – Hydrological Simulation Model Task 5 – Scenario Development Task 6 - Inventory of Changes Task 7 – Multi Criteria Analysis Task 8 – River Basin Data Management Task 9 – Capacity Building Task 10 – Stakeholder Consultation and Organisation The deliverables, however, would need to change in scope as already mentioned previously. Likewise, the challenges faced in Drina River basin are mainly connected with a decision of further development of hydropower and of implementation of measure for floods security. Therefore, there is need for a strategic document that would help countries in reaching the agreement regarding this most important issue, of course having in mind the implications on other water manage-ment issues. This is essentially the Hydropower Study forming part of Task 6 above.

"Nikola Tesla", koji su pogođeni majskim poplavama 2014. godine, ii) podrška poljoprivredi, iii) zaštita od poplava, i iv) hitno reagovanje u nepredviđenim situ-acijama.

Revidovan Plan rada Pored izrade čisto tehničkih studija, jedan od glavnih zada-taka projektnog tima će biti da osigura da razvoj studija teče kontinuirano, tako da se razvojni koncepti progresivno uobliče na miran i koherentan način. Konkretno, tehničke opcije ce se redovno suočavati sa ekološkim i socijalnim zahtevima ili ograničenjima, kako bi se osiguralo da se pro-jekat razvija u prihvatljivom smeru kao što zahtevaju tri pri-obalne države i njihovo zakonodavstvo. Konsultant će težiti da obezbedi koherentnu progresiju razmišljanja, u najboljem slučaju u svim oblastima istov-remeno. Priroda projekta ne zahteva da se posebne lokalne studije razvijaju do detalja, dokle god se čvrsto ne ustanovi opšti kontekst. Takođe, sve dok se različite ustrojene meta-komponente opšteg konteksta ne validiraju. Stoga, doslednost i robustnost imaju centralnu ulogu i bice povezujući faktori za celu studiju. Efikasna primena ovih razmatranja mora osigurati da dalji razvoji (npr. regionalni koncepti, lokalni projekti) ne naiđe na skrivene nedosled-nosti i nepodudarnosti. Bez obzira, nije predviđeno da ce se ključne aktivnosti značajno promeniti; kao posledica, 11 glavnih zadataka ce ostati isti: Zadatak 0 – Upravljanje projektom Zadatak 1 – Početak Zadatak 2 – Procena sliva reke Zadatak 3 – Institucionalna i pravna procena Zadatak 4 – Hidrološki simulacioni model Zadatak 5 – Razvoj scenarija Zadatak 6 – Popis promena Zadatak 7 – Višekriterijumska optimizacija Zadatak 8 – Upravljanje podacima za rečni sliv Zadatak 9 – Unapređenje rada institucija Zadatak 10 – Konsultacije sa zainteresovanim stranama i organizacija Ipak, izveštaje će biti neophodno promeniti u obimu kako je to ranije napomenuto. Isto tako, izazovi sa kojima se suočavamo u slivu reke Drine su uglavnom povezani sa odlukom o daljem razvoju hidroenergije i sprovođenjem mera za zaštitu od poplava. Zbog toga postoji potreba za strateškim dokumentom koji ce pomoci državama u postizanju dogovora u vezi sa ovim najvažnijim pitanjem, naravno imajuci u vidu posledice po drugim pitanjima vezanim za upravljanje vodama. Ovo je pre svega Hidroenergetska studija koja je deo Zadatka 6 sa gornjeg spiska.

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin xv

Improvement to Project Organisation and Coordina-tion The Coordination Committee established for the Project covering the three riparian states appears to be finally agreed although this has taken longer than originally en-visaged. It is hoped that the Coordination Committee will become more proactive as the project progresses; how-ever at present there is some reticence to drive the project forward. The JV Consultant believes that using the ISRBC would be an effective way of pushing the project forward. Furthermore ISRBC have a non-partisan ap-proach and are retained by the Riparian Governments of the Sava River Basin and has a mandate to act in their best interests. Constraints and Critical Success Factors The following factors can be considered risks to the suc-cessful completion of the Project: Limited Project Implementation Period – the need to

increase the project duration from 16 months (con-tract currently shown as 13 months) to 24 months. The Inception has shown that coordination with all stakeholders will be extremely challenging and addi-tional time will be needed to arrange planned meet-ings.

Late Project Commencement – (project commenced 4 months later than originally planned), which im-plies that field work will take place during the winter months which is not an ideal situation, as many sites are inaccessible, this is likely to make this part of the project work inefficient and time consuming.

Poor organisation/coordination from the coordination committee and lack of political will from all riparian governments can seriously impact the project result.

Project Financing - Principal financing for project is approved up to the end of November 2015; Project delays may threaten financing if the project extends beyond that date.

Data availability - Data may not be available by the required dates. This also refers to costly data that cannot be obtained due to budget constraints; a very limited budget is available for purchase of data; or for the time in protracted negotiations that are re-quired in order to obtain such data.

Data Sources - Data are required from a myriad of different sources, including ministries, agencies and limited liability companies. Cooperation on access to data may not be uniform across data sources.

Basin Modelling – Establishing the hydrologic and water management models is currently seen as an it-erative process in order to include all possible devel-opment, climate and other scenarios into the models. Definition of the scenarios is in turn related to the timing and availability of information and data from various sources. It is therefore recognized that the model establishment would follow all delays in data acquisition.

Public consultation - Failure to engage the public in consulting on the project deliverables during key

Poboljšanje organizacije projekta i koordinacije Komisija za koordinaciju za ovaj Projekat pokriva tri pri-obalne države i čini se da je konačno dogovorena, mada je ovo oduzelo više vremena nego što je prvobitno planirano. Nadamo se da će Komisija za koordinaciju biti sve aktivnija kako projekat bude napredovao; međutim, u ovom trenutku postoji određena rezervisanost po pitanju napretka projekta. Konzorcijum Konsultanta veruje da bi podrška i oslanjanje na ISRBC bilo efikasan način da se projekat pogura napred. Takođe, ISRBC ima nepartijski pristup, podržana je od strane vlada priobalnih država i ima ovlašćenje da radi u njihovom najboljem interesu. Ograničenja i kritični faktori uspeha Sledeći faktori se smatraju rizicima za uspešan završetak projekta: Ograničen period sprovođenja projekta– potreba da se

trajanje projekta sa 16 meseci (trenutno prema ugovoru 13 meseci) produži na 24 meseca. Početak je pokazao da će koordinacija svih zainteresovanih strana biti ve-liki izazov i da će biti potrebno dodatno vreme da se organizuju planirani sastanci.

Kasno započinjanje projekta– (projekat je počeo 4 meseca nakon planiranog početka), što znači da će se obilazak terena odvijati tokom zimskih meseci, što ne predstavlja idealnu situaciju, jer će mnoge lokacije biti nepristupačne, što znači da će ovaj deo rada na pro-jektu biti neefikasan i utrošiće više vremena.

Nedostatak organizacije/koordinacije komisije za koordinaciju i nedostatak političke volje vlada priobal-nih država ozbiljno mogu da utiču na rezultate pro-jekta.

Finansiranje projekta – Glavno finansiranje projekta je odobreno do kraja novembra 2015. godine; kašnjenje projekta može ugroziti finansiranje ukoliko se projekat produži nakon ovog datuma.

Dostupnost podataka – podaci možda neće biti dostupni do traženih datuma. Ovo se takođe odnosi na skupe podatke koji se ne mogu pribaviti zbog ograničenog budžeta; za nabavku podataka je određen jako mali budžet; ili dobijanje podataka iziskuje dugotrajne pregovore.

Izvori podataka – Podaci su potrebni iz mnogo različitih izvora, uključujući ministarstva, agencije i društva sa ograničenom odgovornošću. Saradnja na pribavljanju podataka verovatno neće biti ista za različite izvore.

Modelovanje sliva– Uspostavljanje hidrološkog i mod-ela za upravljanje vodama se trenutno vidi kao iterati-van process kako bi se u modele uključili mogući razvoj, klimatske i drugi scenariji. Definisanje sce-narija je pak povezano sa rokovima i dostupnosti infor-macija i podataka iz različitih izvora. Stoga je uočeno da će ustanovljavanje modela pratiti sva kašnjenja u prikupljanju podataka.

Javne konsultacije – neuspeh da se javnost uključi u konsultacije o rezultatima projekta tokom ključnih faza

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin xvi

stages of development may result in protests, delays in the project and rejection of government aims in water resources management.

Additional Budget Allocations Required There is a need for additional inputs, and reimbursable costs related to extension of the project period, provision of local language translation for all project deliverables, and increase of provisional sums for data and software purchase and finally for increased printing costs associ-ated with the translation of deliverables. It is intended that this will be submitted to the World Bank in the form of a Variation Order in accordance with clause 2.5 of the Contract.

razvoja može rezultovati protestima, zastojima u pro-jektu i odbijanjem ciljeva od strane vlada za uprav-ljanje vodnim resursima.

Potrebna dodatna sredstva u budžetu Postoji potreba za dodatnim ulaznim podacima i troškovima koji se odnose na produženje trajanja projekta, obezbeđivanje prevoda svih rezultata projekta na lokalni jezik, povećanje okvirnih suma za nabavku podataka i soft-ware-a, kao -i za pokrivanje povećanih troškova štampanja, vezanih za prevođenje rezultata projekta. Planira se da se ovo dostavi World Bank u obliku Variation Order u skladu sa klauzulom 2.5 Ugovora.

World Bank Inception Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Layout of the Inception Report

The Final Inception Report (FIR – Activity 1.8 of technical proposal) has been prepared in line with the requirements stipulated within the Contract No 8005176 between the World Bank and COWI AS of Norway. COWI AS is the Lead Consultant for this assignment supported by Joint Venture partners Stucky SA (STUCKY) of Switzerland and Jaroslav Cerni Institute (JCI) of Serbia. COWI AS is also working with two other organisations as Sub Consultants; CeS COWI of Serbia, and the Faculty of Civil Engineering of the University of Belgrade (FCE- UBG) that are both based in Belgrade.

The FIR is structured as follows:

Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the assignment, describing the background, project objectives, a brief description of the Drina River basin and the tender procedure undertaken to arrive at contract award and mobilisation;

Chapter 2 the activities undertaken during the Inception Phase; Chapter 3 describes the Project context and the characteristics of the basin taken from

documentation gathered so far; Chapter 4 provides an indication on the strategy for public consultation; Chapter 5 provides revised Work Plan and updated methodology; Chapter 6 describes the constraints and critical success factors of the project, and

1.2 Key issues and Objectives of the Project

The key issues and objectives of the Project have not changed substantially from the TOR and are as follows: A wide variety of competing water uses Extremes of floods and droughts Weak cooperation within the basin Need for IWRM and convergence with EU water directives Coordination for data collection, control and analysis The overarching objective of the project is to: support more effective water resources management in DRB taking into consideration flood and drought

mitigation, sustainable water use (by e.g. hydropower, industry and mining) and environmental manage-ment, based on “global best practices” and within the framework of IWRM involving extensive stake-holder consultations to ensure adequate public participation.

This will involve support to water management authorities in BiH (RS and FBiH), Montenegro and Serbia in preparation of the Drina River component of the respective investment plans and the RBMP(s) requested by riparian countries, with a special focus on the preparation of the Investment Prioritization Framework, in ac-cordance with Their respective Water Laws, The EU water policy in general and EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Floods Directive

in particular, The international agreements signed by riparian countries, especially those related to ICPDR and

ISRBC plans and activities, and Integrated river basin management planning applying modern technology and investment scenario

simulation tools.


1.3 Rationale

Water management in Europe is undergoing a period of fundamental change and is increasingly being specified at the river basin level through the formulation of river basin management plans; the principal reason being to significantly decrease the pollution loads to the natural water in order to achieve a good environmental status for all surface and underground water bodies. Water management in the Drina River Basin is no exception and there is need to meet these criteria, under the confines of the laws of Serbia, Montenegro and BiH (involving entities RS and the FBiH), which are being progressively formulated in line with the requirements set forth in the Water Framework Directive of the Eu-ropean Union. The recent devastating floods that hit the region in May 2014 are also an increasing reminder of the need for the riparian countries to pursue an integrated water resources management approach to river basin planning.

1.4 Brief description of the Drina River Basin

The Drina River is 346 km long and is the largest tributary of the Sava River Basin, which in turn is the largest tributary by volume of water of the Danube River Basin that drains into the Black Sea.

Source: REC Pollution Inventory

The Drina River Basin (DRB) has a surface area of 19,680 km2 and spreads over territory within principally three ri-parian states; Bosnia Herzegovina (BiH), which is subdi-vided into two entities (Republika Srpska (RS) and Feder-ation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (FBiH); the Republic of Mon-tenegro and Serbia. This is shown on Table 1-1 below. In addition, Albania accounts for a very small part of the DRB (<1%) and is not included within the scope of this project. The division of territory within DRB is shown in Figure 1-1to the left. In terms of coverage of state/entity territory BiH has a modest 14.3% of its land area within the basin. This rela-tively small share, however, is important for the RS where the DRB covers 25.7% of its (entity) territory.

Figure 1-1: Extent of the Drina River Basin

This share is of rather limited importance for the FBiH where the DRB covers only 3.2% of its (entity) territory in BiH. In the case of Serbia and Montenegro, the corresponding percentages are 7.7% and 45%, respectively, underpinning the great importance of the DRB for Montenegro

Table 1-1: Subdivision of the Drina River Basin

Riparian State Surface Area km2

Portion of DRB

Portion State (entity)

territory

No of Municipalities

in Basin

Estimated Basin

Population

Bosnia and Herzegovina 7,301 37.1% 14.3% 31 520,000 Republika Srpska (6,242) (31.7%) (25.7%) (19) 450,000

Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (840) (4.2%) (3.2%) (12) 70,000

Montenegro 6,219 31.6% 45.0% 10 150,000

Serbia 6,002 30.5% 7.7% 15 300,000

Albania 158 0.8% 0.5% NA NA

TOTAL 19,680 100% 56 970,000


The Drina River originates in Montenegro at an altitude of 2,500 masl between the slopes of the Maglić and Pivska Planina mountains, between the villages of Šćepan Polje (in Montenegro) and Hum (BiH), draining a substantial karst plateau that receives the highest annual rainfall in Europe (about 3,000 mm/a), resulting also in the highest specific runoff in Europe (up to 50 l/s/km²). The three source-rivers of the Drina River are the Tara River (sub-basin area of 2,006 km²), the Piva River (1,784 km²) and the Lim River (5,968 km²). Tara River and Piva River merge at Šćepan Polje along the BiH/Montenegrin border with a combined mean annual discharge of 154 m³/s, whereas the Lim joins the Drina River at the "Višegrad" reservoir with a mean annual discharge of 113 m³/s. The Drina River reaches the confluence with the Sava at an altitude of 78 masl on the Pannonian Plain (Sem-berija and Mačva) after a length of 346 km and a height difference of 350 m (equivalent to an average 1% slope), the mean annual discharge of the Drina River close to Bijeljina is about 400 m³/s, corresponding to a mean annual total volume of 12.6 billion m³ or about 14% of the Nile River discharge volume in Cairo. Almost one million people of various origins live within the Basin (equivalent to about 50 persons/km²), their settlements being concentrated along the Drina River valley and its major tributaries, among them the Tara, Piva and Lim River sub-basins. In Montenegro, an estimated population of 150,000 people are living within the basin arranged into 10 municipalities (equivalent to 25% of Montenegro’s total population). In BiH, some 520,000 people living in 31 municipalities, with 450,000 (86.5%) of them in 19 municipalities of the RS and 70,000 (13.5%) of them in 12 municipalities of the FBiH. In Serbia, about 300,000 people live in 15 townships /municipalities situated in the DRB. In general, the population in the Basin is slowly declining, as there are not many job opportunities and people are moving away to larger cities for work or even abroad. In 2011, the DRB saw unemployment ranging from about 19.7 % (for Montenegro) to 27.6 % (for BiH). Similarly, per capita Gross Domestic Product for 2011 ranged from USD 4,372 in BiH to USD 6,927 in Montenegro, with Serbia being in between at USD 5,759. However, these figures representing the national average are misleading, particularly in the case of Montenegro that has relatively high incomes earned in the tourist sector along the Adriatic coast, therefore they do not necessarily represent per capita GDP within the DRB for Montenegro. The economy of many of the settlements in the DRB tends to be depressed due to the relatively poor transpor-tation network with comparatively long distances to markets, and the perilous state of many of the old local industries and infrastructure. The downstream municipality of Bijeljina (in RS) bucks the trend however and is a comparatively richer part of the DRB, with a prospering agricultural, industrial and service-based econ-omy, thanks to its proximity to Serbia and Croatia. Notwithstanding, the DRB is rich in endowments of natural resources and in development potential, compared to other parts in the Balkans. It has significant hydropower generation potential: the DRB hosts eight medium-to-large hydropower plants (HPP), but an estimated 60% of the potential for hydropower generation remains untapped. The DRB also has abundant tourism opportunities and a rich biodiversity that is characterized by several scarce and endemic species. Many forests in the upper RDB are home to animal species that are endangered in other parts of Europe. The river water, of generally good quality due to its high flow rate and low pollution, abounds in fish - both farm-raised and wild. Angling and hunting for sport have become important commercial activi-ties. A number of natural parks and protected areas are spread throughout the basin and the landscape is dotted with unique glacial lakes and canyons. The Tara Canyon, a UNESCO World Heritage site, is located in Montenegro. Being one of the last “untouched” river basins in Europe, its pristine landscape has considerable scenic value which could make tourism and recreation significant sources of income for the rural communities. The pro-tected nature areas - mostly forests and meadows upstream, and some wetlands - also depend on adequate water provision at very local scale, and are now increasingly threatened by a dominating development desire as well as pollution and two decades of failing river maintenance.


1.5 Contracting Activities

This section briefly describes the recent historical background to the current contract.

1.5.1 Expression of Interest

On 18th March 2013 the World Bank first posted details of the Technical Assistance Project association with the Drina River Basin on their eConsultant2 web site: (https://wbgeconsult2.worldbank.org/wbgec/index.html.

In order to qualify for prequalification (PQ) interested consultants were requested to: Provide information showing that they are qualified in the field of the assignment. Provide information on the technical and managerial capabilities of the firm. Provide information on their core business and years in business. Provide information on the qualifications of key staff. Provide information on familiarity with implementation of studies compliant with European Directives,

and with local experience. The JV partners submitted their Expression of Interest (EOI) prior to the deadline on 8th April 2013

1.5.2 Request for Proposal Almost one year passed before the JV was notified through the same eConsultant2 website that they were prequalified on 13th March 2014. The following documents were downloaded from the website and received as part of the request for proposal (RFP):

Letter of Invitation (LOI) Information to Consultant TOR File Technical Proposal Template Financial Proposal Template Contract Terms and Conditions File Firm Qualification Questionnaire This initial proposal deadline was 10th April 2014. However, on request from Consultants this was subse-quently extended until 23rd April 2014. Three documents were uploaded to the Econsultant2 website prior to the deadline: Technical Proposal Financial Proposal and Completed Firm Qualification Questionnaire

1.5.3 Contract Award The JV was notified of being invited for negotiations prior to award on 11th June 2014. On 26th June 2014, the JV was notified that the recommendation for award had been approved. On 11th July 2014 the Task Team Leader (TTL) from the World Bank confirmed the award. The preparation of the Contract document and the transfer of funds from the WBIF Secretariat took longer than anticipated due to the holiday season in Europe and administrative modalities, hence the contract could not be finalised until 2nd October 2014 with the Bank signing on the 6th October 2014 and COWI as Lead for the JV on 7th October 2014.


1.6 Staff mobilisation

Upon signing of the Contract the Team Leader of the Lead Consultant communicated with the TTL by email on 7th October and had a telephone communication with the TTL on 10th October 2014. The Team Leader for the JV then mobilised and travelled to Belgrade and met with the JV members (includ-ing KE4) and the Sub Consultants during the period 16th – 18th October 2014. Throughout the remainder of October 2014 and November 2014 until submission of this DIR, key personnel have been visiting the region (including KE1, KE2 and KE3) and non-key experts have been engaged in project activities.

1.7 Quality Assurance Control Procedures

As mentioned in the Consultant’s technical proposal, quality in consulting services is highly regarded by the COWI JV and is achieved by committed, motivated and well-qualified professional personnel that seek to understand the Client's needs and expectations. For this assignment COWI's quality management system will apply. COWI's quality management system is described in a Quality Manual, and made operational in a project spe-cific QA Plan that is available for all projects. The main elements in COWI's QA plan are: organisation and management, programme execution procedures, information management and document control, procedures for programme changes and timing of quality reviews. Special emphasis is given to quality check of major reports prior to their submission. The checking of documents is an independent activity to be planned and carried out like all other activities of the assignment. We distinguish 1) a self-check carried out by the author or editor or a document, 2) a disci-pline check, performed by a person who has not been involved in preparing that particular report, and 3) an interface check to ensure that work carried out by different staff under different parts of the assignment is consistent. Table 1-2 below summarises the different responsibilities in the control procedure mentioned above.

Table 1-2: Quality Assurance Responsibilities

Outputs / milestones Verification Activities

Management Documents Self-check Discipline check Interface check

Inception Report Team Members /

Team Leader QA team Team Leader / QA team

Sector Specific Deliverables Team Members QA team Team Leader / QA team

Draft Final Report Team Leader QA team Team Leader / QA team

Final Report Team Leader QA team Team Leader / QA team

Quality control will ensure compliance with the contractual obligations of the assignment, namely: staff in-puts; timely delivery of quality assured outputs; and financial expenditure (including modifications to the contractual provisions, if any).


2 Inception Phase The inception Phase named as Task 1 in the JV Consultants proposal comprised of 9 activities:

Activity 1.1 Kick off meeting Activity 1.2 Data Gathering and Field Reconnaissance Activity 1.3 Review of all relevant documentation Activity 1.4 Identify Synergies and overlaps Activity 1.5 Provide Options for Time Scales for implementation of the Study Activity 1.6 Prepare Communications and Consultation Strategy Activity 1.7 Revise format of outputs /deliverables, methodology and final team composition Activity 1.8 Preparation of Inception Report and revised Work Plan Activity 1.9 Undertake Inception Phase Workshop Throughout this FIR it can be seen that these activities have been undertaken.

2.1 Meetings with Consultants and Stakeholders

Table 2-1 below provides a summary list of meetings held, the participants and the subjects discussed.

Table 2-1: List of Physical Meetings and Skype Meetings Attended

Date Location Participants Subject 10‐10‐2014 London, UK ‐ Skype

David Heywood ‐ COWI Guy Alaerts – World Bank

General introductions and discussion of key project issues.

16‐10‐2014 Belgrade, Serbia

David Heywood ‐ COWI Dragan Milić – CeS COWI Cane Čekerevac ‐ Stucky Zdravko Stojanović ‐ JCI Nikola Milivojević ‐ JCI Jasna Stojiljković‐Milić – CeS COWI

Kick Off Meeting – Activity 1.1 with Consultants Discussion on tasks for Inception Phase

16‐10‐2014 Belgrade, Serbia David Heywood ‐ COWIDragoljub Todić ‐ JCI Zdravko Stojanović ‐ JCI

Discussion on legal and institutional issues and tasks for the Project

17‐10‐2014 Serbian Water Directorate Belgrade, Serbia

Dragana Milovanović – Director MAEP Dušan Dobričić – MAEP David Heywood ‐ COWI Nataša Marinković ‐ Stucky Zdravko Stojanović ‐ JCI Nikola Milivojević ‐ JCI Jasna Plavšić – FCE‐UBG Jasna Stojiljković‐Milić – CeS COWI

Establish contact with Key focal point for Serbia Introduce the project objectives and scope of work

27‐10‐2014 Banja Luka, RS BiH Jasna Plavšić . FCE‐UBGNenad Đukić – Focal Point MAFWM

Meeting to discuss RS requirements on Drina Project

28‐10‐2014 Banja Luka, RS BiH

David Heywood ‐ COWIDragan Milić – CeS COWI Nenad Đukić – Focal Point MAFWM Varinka Marić – Focal Point MAFWM

Establish contact with Key focal point for BiH RS Introduce the project objectives and scope of work

29‐10‐2014 Sarajevo

David Heywood ‐ COWI Dragan Milić – CeS COWI Senad Pločo ‐ Eptisa Aleksandra Šućur Pločo ‐ Eptisa

Brief discussion with Team Leader of EU IPA Project on Capacity Building on the Water Sec‐tor


David Heywood ‐ COWI Dragan Milić – CeS COWI Boško Kenjić ‐ MOFTER Gorana Basević ‐ MOFTER Esena Kupusović – FBiH HMI Amer Kavazović ‐ Sava Watershed Agency

Establish contact with Key focal point for FBIH Introduce the project objectives and scope of work

29‐10‐2014 Sarajevo (via telephone) David Heywood, ‐ COWI Mirjana Karahasanović – World Bank

Brief introduction to by the TL to WB project representative in Sarajevo

30‐10‐14 Podgorica ‐ MARD David Heywood, ‐ COWI Asst Min Velizar Vojinović – MARD Momčilo Blagojević ‐ MARD

Establish contact with Key focal point for MNE Introduce the project objectives and scope of work


Date Location Participants Subject 30‐10‐14 Podgorica

David Heywood ‐ COWI Srna Sudar ‐ REC

Meeting with REC to discuss the Pollution In‐ventory for Drina River Basin

31‐10‐14 London, UK ‐ Skype David Heywood ‐ COWI Guy Alaerts – World Bank

Discussion on findings from tour of focal points and major overlap of the IPA Project in BiH

7‐11‐2014 London, UK ‐ Skype

David Heywood ‐ COWI Guy Alaerts – World Bank Adri Verway – World Bank Consultant Nataša Marinković ‐ Stucky Zdravko Stojanović ‐ JCI Nikola Milivojević ‐ JCI Jasna Plavšić – FCE‐UBG Marko Ivetić – FCE‐UBG

Skype Meeting with Modelling staff to discuss the idealised modelling requirements for the Project

11‐11‐2014 Zagreb David Heywood – COWIDejan Komatina ‐ ISRBC

Discussion on the Drina Project and ISRBC role on this Project

17‐11‐2014 Belgrade

David Heywood ‐ COWI Dragoljub Todić – JCI Stephanie Andre – Stucky Bernard Joos – Stucky Nataša Marinković ‐ Stucky Zdravko Stojanović – JCI Jasna Stojiljković‐Milić – CeS COWI

Discuss plans for Inception Workshop and go through the draft Inception Report

20‐11‐2014 Belgrade David Heywood – COWI Dr Merih Kerestecioglu – IPF Consortium

Discuss WBIF Projects in the region and rele‐vance to the Drina Project

01‐12‐2014 Zagreb Stakeholders of the Drina River Basin Inception Workshop Refer to the minutes of meeting

16‐12‐2014 Podgorica Montenegrin Stakeholders David Heywood, ‐ COWI

Follow up meeting on the DIR and specific is‐sues concerning Montenegro

17‐12‐2014 Belgrade Serbian Stakeholders Follow up meeting on the DIR and specific is‐sues concerning Serbia


Boško Kenjić ‐ MOFTERGorana Bašević ‐ MOFTER David Heywood, ‐ COWI Dragan Milić – CeS COWI Senad Pločo ‐ Eptisa

Meeting with EU IPA Consultant to discuss over‐lapping issues


Boško Kenjić ‐ MOFTERGorana Bašević ‐ MOFTER David Heywood ‐ COWI Dragan Milić – CeS COWI BiH Stakeholders

Follow up meeting on the DIR and specific is‐sues concerning BiH

10‐02‐2015 Belgrade

David Heywood ‐ COWI Jasna Stojiljković‐Milić – CeS COWI Serbia Water Directorate ‐ MAEP Srbija Vode

Follow up meeting on the DIR with Water Direc‐torate and Serbija Vode on specific issues con‐cerning Serbia.

2.2 Key experts, Non-key experts and pool of experts

In line with Activity 1.7 of the Consultants proposal there was need to revise the format of the final team composition-

2.2.1 Key Experts It became necessary to replace one key expert at the time of Contract Mobilisation. The KE 2 Natural Re-source/Ecosystem Expert – Dr Ali Neumann left the employ of Stucky Ltd. According to the main Contract (GCC clause 4.4(a)) there was requirement to provide a replacement of equivalent or better qualifications. On 22nd October 2014, the JV lead consultant officially approached the TTL with a replacement, Dr Stépha-nie Andre. The World Bank responded with official approval of this replacement on 7th November 2014.

2.2.2 Non-Key Experts including Pool of Experts The NKE 2 Hydropower engineer – Ms Biljana Trajković left the employ of Stucky Ltd. She was replaced by Ms Nataša Marinković, civil-hydro-technical engineer with 20 years of experience in design of dams with appurtenant structures, hydro power plants and rehabilitation of existing structures.


The NK7/ Economist - Mr David Toft has been replaced by Ms Jelena Biševac. The Social Scientist – Ksen-ija Petovar from Pool of Experts has been replaced by Ms Jelena Lukić. The NK12 Regional Development Planner – Nebojša Jakšić has been replaced by Mrs Jasna Stojiljković-Milić, The NK6 Terrestrial Forestry Ecologist Mr Vladan Bjedov with Mrs Ivana Bjedov. There is also need for a Geologist/Hydrogeologist to be engaged on the project to specifically investigate issues regarding groundwater abstraction from the Basin.

2.3 Sources of data and information

The collection of data, documents and other information (Activity 1.2) is currently in progress. Several meet-ings have been undertaken with stakeholders that are holders of data and many contacts established. In general, the stakeholders have shown substantial willingness to assist the JV Consultant and have made a significant effort to help in providing the data and documentation. The bibliography at the end of this report shows the documents collected to date. However, some difficulties appeared during collection and processing a large volume of documents, because most of them are available only in hard copy format and often limited to one copy stored either at the ministries and/or at their different agencies. There are not many of the reports mentioned in the TOR that exist in elec-tronic format and many are in local languages. The model for internal exchange of the documents between Team members has been generally agreed and is in preparation. Maps of the Drina River basin with all relevant details (existing and planned HPP, reservoirs, hydrological and precipitation stations, pollution sources, groundwater bodies, irrigation places, etc.) are being prepared. The sources (i.e. Ministries, their Agencies and other Institutions) will send the data, studies and other infor-mation to Consultant. The Consultant is planning to have a cloud based solution for storage of documents and data. At a local level, urban and development and management plans of the Municipalities will be required to coor-dinate the benefit of the WRM in the Drina River Basin at the local scale. Over the last 10 years the Hydro Information System (HIS) of the DRB has been developed by JCI, for the Electric Power Industry of Serbia (EPS), the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of Serbia, and the Water Directorate of the Republic of Serbia. The “Drina” HIS is a distributed hydro-information sys-tem designed based on the service-oriented architecture, created for the decision-making support in manage-ment of the water resources in the DRB. It consists of various data management services, databases and nu-merical modules. The time series database holds most of the available meteorological and hydrological data, as well as data on reservoir management. The data is acquired through everyday use of HIS by several institu-tions, and historical data is also included. A considerable amount of GIS layers is available, and many of the existing and planned objects (mainly related to hydropower) are described in detail. Since the development of HIS has been funded mainly by governmental institutions, most of the data is readily available for use within this project.

2.4 World Bank Information not in TOR

The TOR provided some background information on the Drina River Basin and specifically referred to the Drina River Basin Rapid Diagnostic Study which has been a major source of reference to date. However, there is also other important information available on the World Bank web site concerning the Drina River Basin and other related project which the Consultant has accessed during the preparation of the Inception Re-port. This includes: Project Appraisal documents (PAD) for recent and forthcoming projects in the region, Project Information Documents (PID) for recent and forthcoming projects in the region, Integrated Safeguard Data Sheet (ISDS) for recent and forthcoming projects in the region,


The Country Partnership Strategies (CPS) for the three countries and Recent Aide Memoire from WB Review Mission

2.5 Inception Workshop

The Inception Workshop (Activity 1.9) was held in Zagreb at the International Hotel on 1st December 2014 between 1 pm and 5 pm.

2.5.1 Purpose and expectations The main purpose of the Inception Workshop was to outline the main objectives of the WBIF Drina Project and the intended outcomes. The Key Experts briefly presented their specific components of the project and their specific issues they considered important. One of the very important issues that needed to be discussed was the potential overlap between existing projects and also the final outcome of project deliverables.

2.5.2 Activities The agenda for the Inception Workshop held on 1st December is shown in Table 2-2 below:

Table 2-2: Draft Agenda for Inception Workshop

Time Item 13:00 – 13:10 Introduction of the Participants

13:10 – 13:20 Opening words by Chairman Mr Guy Alaerts, Word Bank TTL

13:20 – 13:35 Main objectives and structure of the Project by Mr David Heywood, Team Leader

13:35 ‐13:50 Legal positions of riparian states towards RBMP By Dragolub Todić, Legal and Institutional Expert

13:50 ‐14:05 Main Environmental and Social Issues By Stephanie Andre, Environmental and Social Expert

14:05 ‐14:20 Main Hydropower Issues By Bernard Joos, Hydropower Specialist

14:20‐ 14:40 Discussion on Floods in the Basin – Climate Change and Structure By Zdravko Stojanović, JCI

14:40 – 15:00 Identification of Overlaps /Synergies with other Project By Mr David Heywood, Team Leader

15:00 – 15:15 Coffee Break

15:25 – 15:50 Open discussion with Stakeholders about their requirements for the WBIF Project and Priorities

15:50 – 16:40 Comments

16.40 – 17.00 Closing of the Inception Workshop

2.5.3 Conclusions The conclusions from the Inception Workshop are shown in the minutes which are available on the Project web site: http://www.wb-drinaproject.com/index.php/document . Following the workshop, the JV Consultant requested comments on the DIR from all stakeholders. The comments made by the stakeholders and the JV Consultant's responses are shown in Annex 1 attached to this report. Most of the comments have been re-ceived from the key stakeholders, however an important player from Serbia has not responded (Serbija Vode) despite numerous attempts of contact from the Consultant. A meeting on 10th February 2015 was held with the Water Directorate, however comments are still awaited. It is hoped that contact will be made with Serbija Vode in the early part of the planning phase (Phase 2).

2.6 Relations and coordination with other projects

The Drina River basin is an excellent example of the area where sustainable development relies heavily upon strong and robust regional cooperation. The three riparian states making up the Drina Basin (Montenegro, BiH and Serbia) have been actively involved and approved (with other states) their respective RBMPs to


comply with EU requirements. These documents were prepared for the ICPDR (in 2007) and the ISRBC (in 2012) and called for more detailed planning for water resources management of the Drina River Basin. Prior to this current WBIF project on Drina which the COWI JV is undertaking (WBIF Drina Project), the World Bank supported a regional policy dialogue and strategic/sector analyses in 2011-2013. The resulting deliverable was the Drina Rapid Transboundary Diagnostic Scan and Analysis (TDA) which included a pre-liminary synopsis of the baseline conditions within the Basin, provided an analysis of important strengths and weaknesses and identified areas and opportunities for investments for the riparian states. An important conclusion of the TDA was that flood and drought risk management concerns should not be approached in isolation from the other water management issues. The TDA performed a rapid assessment of the key issues, notably water use, hydropower management, flood management, protection of water resources, sediment management, bank erosion and climate change. Thus, the TDA is an important and key reference source for the WBIF Drina Project. During the Inception period, the Consultant has been active finding out as much information as possible about other relevant projects being undertaken in the Project area; their scope and their status. Some of these projects have been completed, some are active, some about to start, and some have not yet commenced. In total, there is over USD 550 million of grant or loan financing supporting the Sava Region and the riparian states, some USD 200 million with a predominant focus on IWRM. The following Table 2-3 provides sum-mary information:

Table 2-3: Summary of Relevant Planned and Ongoing Projects in the region1

No Project Dates Funding Amount in

Project Currency

Amount in USD

Million BASIN WIDE

1 WBIF – Drina Project (THIS PROJECT) 2014‐2016 WBIF 2 Euro 0.9 million 1.18

2 The GEF – West Balkans Drina Project 2015‐2018 GEF USD 10 million 10.0

3 Regional Energy Strategy for the Balkans 2014‐2016 WB AAA No data No data

4

Support to Flood Protection/Prevention and Water Man‐agement Project with 2 components: i) hydro forecasting systems for Sava River Basin ii) re‐construction of flood protection infrastructure

2014‐2016 EU IPA Euro 2 million Euro 13 million

19.78

5 TA in the Preparation and Implementation of the Sava RBMP

2009‐2012 EU IPA/ ISRBC

Euro 1.3 1.71

6 Improvement of Joint Actions in Flood Management in the Sava River Basin

2015 WBIF Grant Euro 2 million

(Flood Risk M Plan 200K)

2.64

7 Cross Border Program Serbia and Montenegro through GIS towards better flood risk management in Lim River

2012‐???? IPA Euro 0.455 million 0.60

8 Improving Environmental Monitoring and Disaster Pre‐vention Capacity in Drina River Basin – Phase II

2014 CEI Euro 0.08million 0.11

COUNTRY SPECIFIC

9 Drina Flood Protection Project in BiH 2014‐2020 IDA 28.3

10 Drina Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Project II 2016‐2020 IDA 30.0

11 Sava Flood Protection Project 2013‐2020 EIB Euro 75 million

(Euro 15 million Drina)

98.91 (19.78)

12 Bosnia Agriculture and Rural Development Project No data IDA No data No data

13 Capacity Building in the Water Sector ‐ BiH 2014‐2016 EU IPA Euro 2.35 million 3.17

14 Flood Emergency Relief and Prevention Program ‐ Flood Risk Management in the RS BiH

2011‐to date EIB Euro 98 million 129

15 Flood Risk Management in the RS BiH 2011‐2014 WBIF Euro 2.5 million 3.30

16 Flood Risk Management in the RS BiH Not started WBIF Euro 1.5 million 1.98

17 Preparation of Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps 2015 planned WBIF Euro 1.5 million 1.98

18 IPA 2014‐2020 Action Program – Flood Hazard and Flood Risk Maps

Proposal IPA Euro 3 million 4.96

19 Hydrological Forecasting System SRB ‐ BiH (Bosna Ph 1) Proposal IPA Euro 1 million 1.32

1 The region in this context is BiH, Montenegro and Serbia 2 The allocated amount from WBIF for this project is Euro 1.2 million


No Project Dates Funding Amount in

Project Currency

Amount in USD

Million

20 Technology transfer for climate resilient flood manage‐ment in Vrbas River Basin"

2014‐ UNDP No data No data

21 Floods Emergency Recovery Project for BiH 2014‐2017 IBRD/IDA USD 100 million

(2 million Tech assistance) 100.0 (2.0) TA

22 Floods Emergency Recovery Project for Serbia

2014‐2017 IBRD/IDA Euro 227.48 million 300.0

Note: Euro conversion to USD is 1.318797

2.6.1 Regional Projects Besides the WBIF Drina Project which has regional scope and is covered by this report the other regional projects of relevance are as follows: The GEF – West Balkans Drina Project USD 10 million: - The WBIF Drina Project is the forerunner of

the GEF Project and will have good synergy and directly feed into it. Given the complexity of the issues and the need for intensive consultations, the WBIF Drina Project will require more specific follow-up from late 2015, at the time when the proposed GEF Project would become operational. The GEF West Balkans Drina Project is intended for implementation over a three-year timeframe (2015-2018) and in-cludes selected institutional and capacity development measures. The GEF project will allow decision-makers to prepare and agree on a Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for joint, sustainable management of the Drina basin, including the medium- and long-term investments identified from the WBIF-Drina Project. Institutional Development and Capacity Building (care should be taken to prevent overlap with the IPA Capacity Building Project for BiH – see below) and Support for Flood and Drought Management and Community Participation.

The forthcoming Analytical and Advisory Assistance (AAA) works by the World Bank for the Regional Energy Strategy for the Balkans (2014-2016). The JV Consultant understands that this project has not yet commenced. While this Strategy will cover the whole of the Balkans, the Drina basin’s hydropower gen-eration capability will figure prominently and have synergy in the regional energy strategy.

Support to Flood Protection/Prevention and Water Management, IPA National, 2015-2017 planned, 15 million EUR with two components: i) development of hydro forecasting systems for Sava River Basin, Euro 2 million, and ii) re-construction of flood protection infrastructure, costing Euro 13 million.

Preparation of Flood Hazard Maps, Flood Risk Maps and Support to the PMU of the Flood Risk Man-agement Project, WBIF, planned 2015, Eur 4.88 million with two components: i) Preparation of Flood Hazard Maps, Flood Risk Maps in BiH, including digital terrain modelling, (Eur 3.38 million), and ii) Support to the PMU of the Flood Risk Management Project, Eur 1.5 million.

The WBIF Grant financed Flood Forecasting Project (Euro 2 million) being prepared by the ISRBC. A sum of Euro 200,000 is earmarked for the flood risk management plans in line with EU Floods directive and the remainder (Euro 1.8 million) being channelled into the first phase of flood forecasting develop-ment. These developments are in line with the Protocol on Flood Protection to the FASRB which has been signed by the authorized representatives of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Slovenia in 2010. The Protocol has already been ratified by the Governments of Croatia and BiH, whereas the procedure of ratification by the Governments of Slovenia and Serbia is due to be completed by the end of 2014/early 2015. A common platform with shared data base, data management, forecasting approaches and procedures will be established. Consensus between the Sava Basin countries was reached upon the use of Delft-FEWS as forecasting platform and the use of TOPKAPI-X as the generic distributed hydrological model-ling system for the simulation of precipitation-runoff processes. Delft-FEWS is an open system, which facilitates the integration of the various data collection networks installed in the Sava River Basin, including the various weather models in place, such as ALADIN, COSMO and HIRLAM It allows for the integration of a wide variety of hydrological/hydraulic models


for various river reaches based upon HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS, NAM, MIKE 11, HBV, SOBEK, etc. Adapters for these models have already been developed; Delft-FEWS has been adopted as the core of flood forecasting systems developed by large organizations, such as the Environment Agency in the UK, the National Weather Service of the USA, the Bureau of Meteorology of Australia, as well as a large variety of river basin authorities, such as those of the rivers Rhine, Po, Mekong, etc. In this way, the product has been tested extensively and provides robust func-tioning; the use of Delft-FEWS will leave the SRB countries free to continue the development of their own hydrological/hydraulic models and connect these at any time to the basin wide flood forecasting system.

Cross Border Program Serbia and Montenegro through GIS towards better flood risk management in Lim River commenced in August 2012 and ended in early January 2015. The project was a joint initia-tive of PUC "Srbijavode", Belgrade and the Directorate of Water in Montenegro. One of the objectives is to have an emergency system of preparedness for flood prevention and control. It is hoped that further details of the results and outcomes of this initiative will be forthcoming in the planning phase.

Improving Environmental Monitoring and Disaster Prevention Capacity in Drina River Basin Phase II aims to reduce environmental risks and increase human safety by improving hydro-met monitoring, fore-casting and integrated water management.

2.6.2 Country Specific Projects The relevant projects that are more country specific in nature are summarised as follows:

The IDA funded Drina BiH Flood Project 2015-2018 (along the left-bank of the Lower Drina in Bijeljina [in RS - BiH], and in the Gorazde Canton [in FBiH]) with funding of USD 24 million to provide high-priority no-regret flood protection measures adjacent to Serbian flood protection sites. EIA and EMPs have been prepared for these areas. Different dates and values are shown in the COWI IPF4 report from November 2014.

Furthermore, the IDA funded Drina Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Project II 2016-2020 with funding of USD 30 million that will include the flood protection works along the Lower Drina right bank (down-stream of Zvornik), that will mirror the protection works on the other side in BiH. Both countries are co-operating closely on these works and they represent good synergy and will be taken into consideration by the WBIF Drina Project.

The EIB-financed Sava Flood Protection Project 2013-2020 (total cost Euro 75 million of which about Euro 15 million in the Drina estuary’s vicinity).

The IDA funded Bosnia Agriculture and Rural Development Project that has specific activities targeted towards high priority small protective dikes and bank rehabilitation along the Drina basin. No further data is available.

The Euro 2.35 million EU funded Project Capacity Building in the Water Sector 2014 to 2015 focuses on, among other issues, preparation for RBMP for the Sava Basin within the confined of BiH. A compar-ison of this project with the WBIF Drina Project is provided in the next Section 2.6.4.

The WBIF grant for Flood Risk Management in RS BiH part 1 has been completed and part 2 has not yet started but will provide TA for Emergency Flood Relief and Prevention Project of EIB.

The WBIF grant planned for 2015 provide TA for preparation of flood hazard and flood risk maps in BiH, however this may be merged with another project in BiH.

Currently in proposal stage the IPA Euro 3 million project for production of flood hazard and flood risk maps will support implementation of the Action Plan for Flood Protection and Water Management and increase capacity of stakeholder institutions.

Not strictly related to DRB the hydrological forecasting system for SRB with first phase on Bosna River will support the Action Plan for Flood Protection and Water Management and thus increase capacity of key stakeholder institutions

Not strictly related to the DRB, the UNDP funded project of integrated climate change and reducing flood risk in Vrbas the objective is to develop a hydrological model which includes climate change.


The IBRD/IDA Floods Emergency Recovery Project for BiH with funding of USD 100 million and with an objective to meet critical needs and restore functionality of essential infrastructure public services and economic recovery in flood affected areas. An allocation of USD 2 million for technical assistance has been provided and not yet been allocated. Care should be taken to avoid overlap on technical assistance here.

The IBRD/IDA Floods Emergency Recovery Project for Serbia with funding of USD 300 million cover-ing four components with primary focus on the Energy (coal mine rehabilitation) and agricultural sectors but with some allocation for flood protection in affected regions including the Drina River. It is im-portant that the flood protection measures do not overlap on those planned on other projects.

2.6.3 Identification of synergies and overlaps Moving forward and as part of the task during this Inception Phase (Activity 1.4), the JV Consultant has un-dertaken an analysis of how the WBIF Drina Project sits within the range of other ongoing water based pro-jects in the region with focus on synergies and overlaps. The intention is that the WBIF Drina Project will have a concentrated technical focus to develop a Drina Basin Investment Prioritization Framework that will concentrate on the identification in broad terms of the medium- and longer-term investment opportunities, to establish a sustainable development platform to open up investment dialogue among the countries and seek feasible solutions that are fully based on IWRM. As shown in the previous section there are more than 20 regional and country scale related projects that are ongoing or planned in the region. There are many are related to flood prevention, preparation of flood hazard and flood risk maps etc. It will be very important on the flood prevention component of the WBIF Drina Pro-ject to ensure that no overlap will occur on this and substantial dialogue will be needed between the key stakeholders here. In terms of technical assistance there is one project that appears to be substantially overlapping with the WBIF Drina Project. This is the EU IPA Capacity Building in the Water Sector. A review of this project and potential overlaps with WBIF Drina Project has been made and is presented in the next section. A meeting was arranged with the Consultant for this project facilitated by the MOFTER on 18th December 2014.

2.6.4 Comparison IPA Capacity Building Project vs and WBIF Drina Project

The JV Consultant has reviewed the TOR that was provided by the TA Consultant working on the IPA Ca-pacity Building Project in the Water Sector for BiH and details are provided in Table 2-4 below.

Table 2-4: Comparative Overview between IPA Capacity Building and WBIF Drina Project

Components IPA Project WBIF Project Comments

IWRM and imple‐menting EU Di‐rectives

IPA Task 1 ‐ Assistance in Transposition and Imple‐mentation of Water‐Re‐lated EU Directives

Comparing this component is quite difficult. Our Task 2‐3 and Tasks 5 to Task 8 inclusive deal with this is‐sue

There is overlap here especially re‐garding report outputs.

Also overlap regarding the institutional and legal assessment related to BiH.

Preparation of RBMP

IPA Task 2 ‐Technical Assis‐tance in the Preparation of the Sava River Basin Man‐agement Plan

Comparing this component is diffi‐cult as all WBIF Project tasks work towards preparation of RBMP for the DRB. WBIF Task 10 on stakeholder con‐sultation and organisation is also important here.

There is considerable overlap here es‐pecially regarding deliverables and the country report for BiH which would be a repetition of part of IPA deliverable for RBMP for Sava River Basin.

There is overlap on the economic anal‐ysis component.

Many of the initial tasks on data re‐view and collection and report review will be similar between both projects concerning BIH, but this cannot be changed as they are integral to both studies.

Having consulted with core stakehold‐ers however, we believe the outputs


Components IPA Project WBIF Project Comments (deliverables) of the WBIF project should be changed. There is generally a consensus (majority) that the RBMP for Drina should not be prepared, ra‐ther a “Basis” (commonly used term in the region) that provides for the planned measures to be implemented in the basin that can be used towards RBMP at a higher level.

There is a legal impediment to prepa‐ration of RBMP in Serbia at DRB level who view the RBMP by the ICPDR and ISRBC as the defining documents.

Water tariffs

IPA Task 3. The required output is a Water tariff pol‐icy framework based upon tariff setting at the local level, and a guide‐line pro‐cedure for the determina‐tion of raw water abstrac‐tion charges

Water tariffs are not a specific is‐sue in our terms of reference. Of course, they will be considered in the economic analysis. Tariff policy will also be assessed in our Task 3 – Institutional and legal assessment

We believe there is no specific overlap on this component

Our requirements for information are different to those of the IPA project.

Training/ Capacity Building

IPA Task 4 is extensive; the name of the overall project is “Capacity Building”.

COWI JV has about 3% of all per‐sonnel inputs focussed on capacity building (Task 9), concentrating on:

Hydrological modelling and the use of models i.e. WEAP etc.

Economic analysis techniques in‐cluding MCA etc.

Risk Assessment techniques.

We believe there is limited overlap here

Our focus is on training in modelling and in economic/risk assessment tech‐niques

This component represents a very small percentage of the total input on the project.

Modelling and In‐formation System

IPA Task 5 Review of the current Water Information System (WIS) and prepara‐tion of an Action Plan for enhancement of the exist‐ing or the establishment of the new System;

COWI JV has about 8% of all per‐sonnel inputs with focus on model‐ling (Task 4). The modelling however has im‐portant feedback to our other tasks especially our Tasks 5 and 6.

We believe there is limited overlap here.

COWI JV is undertaking hydrologic modelling of the DRB and hydraulic modelling in some specific areas (flood prone areas).

We believe the WBIF project should fo‐cus on this issue in more depth – allo‐cate more resources.

We believe there is scope for some synergy here

Project Manage‐ment and Back‐stopping

Assume this is included by the IPA Consultant as Task 6

Shown as Task 0 in the WBIF Pro‐ject

There is overlapping, but this cannot be avoided as both projects need to have adequate management,

That said, scope for synergy remains and it is important for good communi‐cations between the different consult‐ants.

Following on from the 18th December 2014 meeting at MOFTER, it was agreed that the JV Consultant would suspend preparation of the country study for BiH until such time that the characterisation report had been prepared by the EU IPA Consultant. This is scheduled to be in June 2015.

2.7 Coordination committee

In order to prepare a communication and consultation strategy (Activity 1.6), a number of meetings have been convened with key stakeholders covering the three riparian states. Such meetings have been held in Belgrade, Banja Luka, Sarajevo and Podgorica. In addition, a meeting was convened with the International


Sava River Commission in Zagreb. Details of the meetings are provided in Table 2.1 above, however the core contacts are listed below: Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations (MOFTER) covering BiH overall at Sarajevo, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (MAFWM) covering FBIH at Sarajevo Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry (MAWMF) covering RS BiH at Banja Luka Sava River Watershed Agency covering FBiH at Sarajevo Public Institution “Waters of Srpska” covering RS BiH at Bijeljina Federal Hydro-meteorological Institute covering FBIH at Sarajevo Hydro-meteorological Institute of RS at Banja Luka Montenegro Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) covering Montenegro at Podgorica Hydro-Meteorological Institute (HMI) at Podgorica Geological Survey of Montenegro at Podgorica Elektroprivreda of Crna Gora (EPCG) at Podgorica Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism (Environment Sector) (to be confirmed) Environmental Protection Agency for Montenegro at Podgorica (to be confirmed) Serbia Water Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection (MAEP) at Belgrade State Hydro-Meteorological Institution at Belgrade Serbian Environmental Protection Agency at Belgrade Ministry of Mining and Energy at Belgrade Public Utility Company "Srbijavode" at Belgrade Electric Power Industry of Serbia

Based on comments received to the DIR, the main stakeholders from the riparian states need to give much more thought to inclusion of a broader spectrum of stakeholders for attending future workshops concerning the project.

2.8 Site visits

The JV Consultant has made limited site visits to the Drina Basin, more concentrating on making contact with the core stakeholders and confirming the structure of the coordination committee by visiting the main centres of the three countries (four entities) as described in previous sections. Notwithstanding, the JV Con-sultant has made some visits as described in the following paragraphs. The DRB covers a significant area (approximately 20,000 km2) and belongs to several countries. During the site visits emphasis was placed on visits to key electricity generation structures and measurement stations on rivers (hydrological stations). Regarding the collection of relevant information on the structures and institu-tions in the DRB, additional emphasis was the identification of adequate collocutors (experts in different fields) who live and work in the DRB.

In November 2014 site visits were organized to the following sites:

"Zvornik" HPP with dam and "Zvornik" reservoir; "Radalj" hydrological station; "Bajina Basta" HPP with dam and "Perucac" reservoir; "Bajina Basta" pumped-storage HPP with "Lazici" dam and "Zaovine" reservoir; "Visegrad" HPP with dam and "Visegrad" reservoir; "Potpec HPP" with dam and "Potpec" reservoir;


"Prijepolje" hydrological station; "Bistrica" HPP with dam and "Radoinja" reservoir; "Kokin Brod" HPP with dam and "Zlatar" reservoir; "Uvac" HPP with dam and "Sjenica" reservoir, As well as to the larger cities in the DRB – e.g. Bajina Bašta, Višegrad, Priboj, Prijepolje, Nova Varoš etc. In the following figures, Figure 2-1 to Figure 2-6, are presented several measurement stations and hydro-power structures located in the DRB.

Figure 2-1: “Prijepolje” hydrological station and “Radalj” HS

Figure 2-2: “Zvornik” HPP with dam and “Bajina Basta” HPP with dam and “Perućac” reservoir

Figure 2-3: “Uvac” dam, “Sjenica” reservoir and “Radoinja” dam


Figure 2-4: “Višegrad” bridge and Tara – Zaovine

Figure 2-5: Meteorological station on the “Zvornik” dam and command centre of the “Bajina Bašta” HPP

Figure 2-6: Unit of the “Zvornik” HPP and “Potpeć” dam

It can be stated that Drina River is a powerful and beautiful river, especially along the middle and upper part of its course and that the Drina River tributaries (except maybe for the Lim River) are fast and torrential. In the DRB there are many river canyons of exceptional beauty. The significant hydropower potential of DRB is obvious but is not completely processed by hydropower structures. One of the primary problems related to the development of the future hydropower plants is flooding associated with their construction.

During the visit period (November) River Drina discharges were lower than average and collocutors sug-gested that it would be necessary to visit River Drina during the period of flood discharges.


2.9 Other Field Reconnaissance

Except for the part of the Drina River basin in Montenegro that was not covered by the site visit, i.e. for which there is a certain lack of information, it can be concluded that the hydropower structures in Republic of Serbia and BiH (occupying the entity of the Republic of Srpska) are functional and that measurements on them and archiving of measured data are organized well. Regarding the historical data, there are certain “gaps” in the data, mostly from the 1990s.The reasons behind these “gaps” are primarily due to weak IT support services at the time and warfare hostilities that prevented proper operation and maintenance.

Rehabilitation of monitoring and power generating units has recently commenced and some installations have been completed on a number of hydropower plants. In the “Bajina Bašta” HPP the rehabilitation was completed in 2013 of all four generating units and the installed power was increased by approximately 52 MW. Four new, modern, turbines from Germany and new generators from Austria were installed. All four transformers were replaced with new ones, as well as the entire high voltage equipment.

At the “Zvornik” HPP during this period (2014) rehabilitation of the generating unit was initiated. After re-habilitation the power should increase by no less than 30 percent from the present 96 MW, i.e. the power of each of four generating units will be increased from 24 MW to 32.4 MW (three operating and one on standby).

At “Visegrad” dam over the last few years Phase I mitigation of seepage has been performed. This has re-sulted in reducing the average discharge from 5% of the average discharge to 1.5% which was measured in November 2014.

The “Radalj” hydrological station (HS) on Drina River (located downstream of the “Zvornik” HPP) and “Pri-jepolje” HS on the Lim River (located in Prijepolje town, upstream of the bridge over Lim) are the two best equipped and probably most important hydrological stations in the Drina River Basin. The State Hydro-Me-teorological Institute of Serbia, responsible for their operation, distributes real-time data to the users.

According to the available information, the operation of the “Foca” HS started again in 2003 (after the end of hostilities which interrupted operation in the 1990s), but there is a problem at this station with the measure-ment profile that has been changed principally due to erosion from heavy floods. This is leading to a certain measurement inaccuracy. Certain rehabilitation activities have been initiated in order to attempt to restart the operation of the “Rudo” HS on Lim River, and the “Basta” HS on Drina River and others, which have been interrupted for more than 20 years.

Despite the number of HS in the Basin, it can be noted that the DRB, although very large, is not covered by a sufficient number of reliable and accurate hydrological stations. So far 57 hydrological stations on water-courses in the DRB were identified and the significant numbers of them are inaccurate or are no longer func-tional or giving unreliable data, i.e. their operation has been interrupted.

The situation with regard to meteorological stations is somewhat better, i.e.in the DRB there is a considera-ble number of accurate and reliable stations (so far, the Consultant has identified exactly 100 stations that record precipitation, air temperatures and other metrological and climate-related parameters). Each dam in the Drina River basin is equipped with a suitable meteorological station (e.g. “Zvornik”, “Bajina Bašta”, “Višegrad”, “Potpeć” and “Uvac” et al.).

It is obvious that the upper parts of the Drina River (occupying the territory of the Republic of Montenegro) where two thirds of the run-off in the basin is generated are very important for the entire DRB. Therefore, it will be necessary to visit this part of the basin to collect relevant information on the condition of the struc-tures (monitoring stations, dams etc.) and all other necessary data and information. It will be necessary to make a site visit to the “Piva” HPP and large Drina River tributaries, for example the Tara River, Lim River, Piva River and Ćehotina River.


2.10 Options and Timescales for the Study

The JV Consultant has discussed internally and considered the options for the time scales for the study taking into consideration short term and long term plans. This relates to Activity 1.5 of Main Task 1 of the Consult-ants proposal. The general consensus for planning for water resources management purposes will be that short term implies the year 2020, whilst long term will be 2050. This was put to the coordination committee at the Inception Workshop and there appears to be general consensus on these planning horizons. When it comes to climate change, however, there are three time periods (each of 30 years) to consider; there is a base period commonly 1961-1990, the near future period 2006 – 2035 (mid-point 2020) and the mid-term future 2036-2065 (mid-point 2050).


3 Project Context This section provides an initial characterisation of the Drina River Basin covering all sectors associated with water resources management. Until more data is obtained in Phase 2- Review and Analysis Phase, some of the data for the time being is at national level, or municipal level.

3.1 General Particulars of Drina River Basin

An important problem in the DRB is the lack of harmonization of interests of various subjects regarding the hydropower water usage. These subjects include the governments of the Republic of Serbia, Republic of Mon-tenegro, BiH (RS and FBiH), electric power companies that generate or intend to generate electricity using the hydropower potential of the Drina River basin, and distribute the electricity on various markets, local govern-ments and utility companies, business entities, diverse organizations interested in preservation of natural values etc. The following unresolved issued can be highlighted: the construction of reservoirs on the Tara River and even-tual transfer of the part of water resources from Tara River into the Morača River, eventual transfer of the part of water resources of the Uvac River and Lim River into the Zapadna Morava River basin, the method of usage of the middle part of the Drina River water course in Serbia, complex use of the lower part of the Drina River watercourse, eventual transfer of the part of the Drina River water resources for use on the territory of BiH, the issue of the potential of use of the Drina River water resources for irrigation of land in the Republic of Serbia and Republic of Srpska in BiH, as well as other open issues. During the last few years (and especially in the years 2010 and 2014) the problems with protection against flood waves (sometimes called flood surges) in the Drina River were noticed. Regarding the frequent occur-rence of significant flood discharges (in 2010 was observed some exceeding 4,000 m3/s and in 2014 some around 3,800 m3/s at the “Radalj” hydrological station profile) considerable damage were identified due to floods, especially along the Drina reach downstream of Bajina Basta to the confluence of the Sava River. The existing reservoir storage upstream of Bajina Basta and on the Drina River tributaries do not have the capacity to mitigate floods of this magnitude, i.e. only on Piva River and Uvac River are located reservoirs (Piva and Kokin Brod) with more significant retention capacities, but they still constitute less than 18% of the total Drina River discharge.3 In the Drina River catchment there are problems related to the protection of water resources from pollution due to wastewater discharge and solid waste. It was observed that there are virtually no plants for treatment of wastewater before release to water courses. This holds true for urban, as well as rural areas, and more isolated industrial plants, too. The use of water for water supply, irrigation etc. is mostly not disputable (it is not very significant having in mind the substantial Drina River water resources), except during the low-discharge periods. In the DRB there are a large number of national parks (e.g. “Tara” on the Tara Mountain, “Sutjeska”, “Tara” on Tara River et al.) that can be considered to be areas of exceptional beauty and some areas have international UNESCO recognition. Drina River is also actively used for recreation purposes (e.g. rafting, fishing etc.). From the issues mentioned above it is clear that a range of conflicts of interest exist in the basin; for example, an individual section of river reach can either be used for rafting (if left untouched) in its natural state or can be used for flow regulation (by building a dam and resulting reservoir); both activities cannot coexist. Construction of reservoirs (which is in several respects are important for the DRB) can result in many chal-lenges (e.g. social problems due to loss of land and property, problems related to environmental protection etc.); and even after many years of years of study dedicated to the determination of the optimum method of

3 The sum of mean discharges at the profiles of the "Piva" reservoir and the "Kokin Brod" reservoir" equals 18% of the mean dis-charge measured at the confluence of the Drina River with Sava River. These two storages can store relatively large volumes of water and can mitigate the effects of floods, but from the point of mean discharges this value is approximately correct.


harnessing the water resources potential in the DRB, there are still many unresolved issues. It is considered of paramount importance that resolution to these issues are prioritized in order that an optimum solution for IWRM within the DRB can be realized.

3.2 Water Resources Management

The prerequisite for integrated management of water resources (IWRM) in the DRB is the knowledge of their quality and quantity and projections of their present and possible future use. The hydrological potential of the watercourses in the basin can be determined at monitoring stations, while used quantities of water are determined at the locations of its consumers (e.g. domestic water supply, irrigation, industry, electricity production etc.). Comprehension of the available water potential and the way it is used over time lead to conclusions about the availability of water resources, i.e. the surplus or the lack of water that occur over time. The use of reservoirs can help in “bridging” deficits in delivery of water to the consumers and can lead to an improvement in water management in the DRB. Furthermore, construction of flood defences can alleviate flooding in urban areas, but may interfere with irrigation or natural wetland ecosystems. In that sense, it is necessary to clearly define criteria and constraints in order to solve optimization problems related to support to better water management in the DRB. The abovementioned facts indicate that it will be necessary to apply numerical modelling of water resources in the DRB. In that sense, the JV Consultant will define quantitative values of discharges in the basin (through representative hydrological series on characteristic profiles). Spatial distribution of characteristic profiles shall depend on the locations of measurement stations on the watercourses and locations of the planned and existing hydropower plants, flood defences and other water management operations in the basin. The JV Consultant will perform all analyses necessary for the integrated measurement of water resources. The JV Consultant will conduct the necessary delineation of the parts of the basin, definition of model parameters, modelling of various water resources management scenarios and harmonization of the interests of different water consumers, including the protection of water resources and protection of adverse water impacts (floods). After the systematization and processing of obtained data it will be necessary to define the recommendations that will contribute to the strengthening of support to integral management of water resources in the DRB. This procedure shall help to identify “weaknesses” in current management of water resources in the DRB, improve the monitoring network, improve flood protection from water surges and protection of groundwater resources in the DRB, as well as to recommend and support further development of hydropower plants. All activities listed above must be harmonized with the legislative in power, including the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and local legal regulations.

3.3 Hydrology

In terms of the available hydro-meteorological information, the DRB falls in the category of basins very-well studied over a relatively long period of time. The first regular water level monitoring was initiated in 1888 by means of three water level metering stations on the Drina River, while the first hydrometric measurement of discharge took place in 1924 at several hydrologic stations on the Drina River, the Tara River and the Rzav River. In the DRB there were 80 official hydrologic stations (Prohaska et al. 2004) in total and they were used for regular, daily, water level monitoring and periodic hydrometric measurement of discharge. Many of these hydrologic stations are not in operation.4 The most frequently monitored meteorological parameter is rainfall, measured on 164 official rainfall stations, followed by air temperature, measured on 26 meteorological sta-tions, while other meteorological parameters are measured on a significantly lower number of stations.

4 Currently in the DRB there are 19 automatic stations with available data. The majority are located within Montenegrin territory (11), then in Serbia (6) and one in each of RS and FBiH entities. The status of the other stations is not fully known and will be found out during the planning phase.


The Drina River is characterized by a mainly "snow-rain" mode with voluminous spring waters generated by snow melt and spring rainfall, with a distinctive minimum in August and September, and an uneven (time- and space-wise) autumn maximum (Prohaska et al., 2004). Regarding the intra-year values, the most "water-rich" period is April-May and, then, November-December, while the driest period is August-September. All tribu-taries mainly follow the intra-year character of the Drina River, except for the Sutjeska River, where the pri-mary maximum occurs in November and December and, secondary occurs in April and May, as well as the Jadar River, with an earlier maximum in February-April period and later minimum in September. The southern segments of the DRB are more water abundant than the central and northern segments (Prohaska et al., 2004). This is not surprising considering the fact that the southern segments of the basin are in the mountainous areas where there is higher rainfall and larger runoff coefficients. The terrain in the upper catch-ment is characterized by specific runoff of more than 15 l/s per km² in some places. Specific runoff in the central segments of the basin range between 10 and 15 l/s per km2, while the runoff in the northern basin segment is below 10 l/s per km2, and in the far north plain basin area (near the Sava confluence) specific runoff is below 6 l/s per km2, dropping even to just 2 l/s per km2. JCI as a member of the JV Consultant is a developer of a large number of hydrology studies, projects and water management master plans and analyses, including such work as the Water Management Master Plans of So-cialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), Serbia and Montenegro, the Hydrology Study of the Sava River, the "Hydro-Meteorological Balance" and "Hydrologic Monograph of the Danube River Basin" and the study of the "Formation of the Weekly Unregulated Hydrologic Dis-charge Series for 1926 - 2012 period on predefined profiles". This has allowed JCI to collect relevant hydro-meteorological data from most of the of-ficial stations in the DRB as of the date of the monitoring station inception up to the present day. Additionally, following the developments in the information technology and water management related appli-cations, JCI have developed the "Drina" Hydro-Information System ("Drina" HIS), i.e. hydrologic model in-tended for modelling of the basin runoff process. The model required a large number of inputs, such as geologic maps, pedology maps, data on land use and meteorological time series. All this data is, either in original form or processed, archived in the "Drina" HIS, which is permanently populated with new data.

3.4 Hydropower – existing schemes

The DRB catchment presently hosts 10 main reservoirs (and many smaller ones) and 9 associated HPPs. The water potential of the Drina River and its tributaries is mostly used for energy production. The total installed capacity of the existing HPPs amounts to 1,980 MW, with an average annual output approximating 6,350 GWh. The main characteristics of the existing facilities are presented in Table 3-1 at the end of this section. The largest structure (dam and reservoir) was built on the Piva River. The Mratinje Dam is one of the highest in Europe and the resulting impoundment of “Piva” reservoir, provides favourable conditions for important discharge regulation. The “Piva” HPP has operated in the “peak-load” mode within regional hydropower sys-tems for many years. In addition to “Piva” HPP, a significant energy production is achieved at the “Bajina Bašta” HPP (with the associated “Bajina Bašta” reversible pump storage (PSHPP) included), the “Zvornik” HPP and the “Visegrad” HPP. Beside Piva, the other 9 main reservoirs have relatively small volumes, i.e. there is a relatively small poten-tial for discharge regulation (or there are small subcatchment areas), but they are very important in terms of hydropower. The reservoirs “Bajina Basta”, built on the Drina River and “Sjenica” and “Kokin Brod”, both built on the Uvac River, provide conditions for weekly and seasonal discharges regulation. Other HPPs, with their corresponding reservoirs, have potential only for daily or weekly discharge regulation. The main pur-pose of all these reservoirs (except the "Otilovići" reservoir) is hydropower. The individual existing HPP are described in more detail below.


3.4.1 “Zvornik” dam and HPP The “Zvornik” dam is a concrete gravity dam located on the lower part of the Drina River (chainage km 93+100). It was built (and its reservoir was formed) in 1955. Dam height is 42 m and its length without the powerhouse is 166.5 m. In the middle part of the dam is located the spillway with stilling basin and along its both sides were built two powerhouses with two units each. Spillway capacity is 9,000 m³/s. Reservoir length is 25 km and its main purpose is energy production. This reservoir provides relatively small regulation possi-bilities (daily and weekly water regulation) due to filled-in storage. Dam’s appurtenant structures include the following: 4 bottom outlets – tunnel for sediment and floods re-lease, tunnel for releasing of timber, fish ladder etc. Bottom outlet capacity is 500 m3/s. The HPP belongs to the run-off -river type. Preliminary design of rehabilitation of the main generating units has been finished in 2009, followed by the tender documents issued in 2013. It is expected that the complete rehabilitation will be finished in 2018. Re-habilitation will increase the total power output of the plant by 30 MW. Also, above the draft tube structure of the right powerhouse was built the new control room with a 110 kV switchyard.

Figure 3-1: “Zvornik” dam and HPP

3.4.2 “Bajina Bašta” dam and HPP “Bajina Bašta” dam and HPP are located on the middle part of the Drina River (chainage km 199+500). Con-crete dam is 90.5 m high and 461 m long along the crest and was built in 1966. Spillway part of the dam is equipped with radial gates. Total number of spillway bays is 5 and their total capacity is 11,600 m3/s. Down-stream from the spillway part is located the stilling basin of the USBR type III. Four bottom outlets with total capacity of 644 m3/s were also built. Reservoir active volume is approximately 218 million m3 and provides conditions for a weekly and partly seasonal water regulation. Powerhouse with four generating units is located downstream of the dam. In the past 8 years, revitalization of the HPP has been performed providing increasing of installed capacity by 50 MW. The revitalization com-prised the rehabilitation of all four generating units.


Figure 3-2:”Bajina Bašta”dam and HPP

3.4.3 “Lazici” dam and reservoir and “Bajina Bašta” PSHPP “Bajina Bašta” pumped storage hydropower plant was built in the 1976–1982 period and comprises the fol-lowing main structures: “Lazići” dam and reservoir – located in the Beli Rzav River catchment area. The dam is a rock fill dam

with central clay core, 130 m high and 218.5 m long, Tunnel – 8 km long and with average diameter of 6.3 m, Penstock – 1,700 m long and with diameter of 4.8/4.2 m, Powerhouse with turbine-pump units with installed capacity of 600 MW and Structures for control and protection and surge chamber. The “Lazići” reservoir provides conditions for seasonal water regulation. Discharges of small tributaries lo-cated downstream from the “Lazići” dam are collected in the “Spajići” reservoir and are transferred by the “Đurići” pumping station into the “Lazići” reservoir. The PSHPP powerhouse is located next to the “Bajina Bašta” HPP powerhouse. The rehabilitation of the generator equipment of both units has been finished in 2005.

Figure 3-3:”Lazići” dam and “Bajina Bašta” PSHPP


3.4.4 “Višegrad” dam and reservoir “Višegrad” dam and reservoir are located on Drina River (chainage km 245+000). The main structures were built in the 1985–1989 period. “Višegrad” dam is a concrete dam, 79.5 m high and 280 m long. Appurtenant structures comprise the following: gated spillway with the maximal capacity of 6,000 m3/s, bottom outlets with the maximal capacity of 5,000 m3/s and stilling basin. Powerhouse is located next to spillway part. In the powerhouse are installed three generating units, with total power of total 345 MW. During its previous operation, this HPP has proved its reliability and worked almost without any major defects. During the last two years have been performed complex rehabilitation works whose objective was to reduce seepage beneath the dam. Based on the results obtained in October 2014, water loss caused by seepage was reduced by ap-proximately 70%.

Figure 3-4: “Všsegrad” dam and HPP

3.4.5 “Radoinja” dam and “Bistrica” HPP “Radoinja” dam is located on the Uvac River (chainage km 62+000) near Nova Varoš city, 12 km down-stream from the “Kokin brod” dam. It was built in 1959. “Radoinja” dam is a rock fill dam with waterproof asphalt concrete screen, 42 m high and 361 m long. In its middle part is located a concrete spillway block. Spillway capacity is 1,400 m3/s. “Bistrica” HPP is a diversion type HPP. Water is conveyed from the “Ra-doinja” reservoir toward the HPP by a waterway which includes: intake, pressure tunnel (with length of 8,030 m and diameter of 4 m), surge tank and penstock (two pipes, each 1,357m long and 2.2/2.1 m in diam-eter). The pre-feasibility study of generating unit’s capacity increase was completed in 2010.

Figure 3-5:”Radoinja”dam and “Bistrica” HPP


3.4.6 “Kokin Brod” dam and HPP “Kokin Brod” dam and HPP are located on the Uvac River (chainage km 54+000). The dam was built in 1962. It is a rock fill dam with a central clay core, 82 m high and 1,200 m long (the main part). Spillway con-crete block is located on the left river bank and presents the joint between the main part of the dam, located in the river, and its auxiliary lateral part, by which the profile is closed. Dam’s lateral part is 25m high long and 720 m long. Spillway capacity is 1,400 m3/s. Flood discharges are conveyed by the chute and ski jump into the river downstream of the HPP. The “Kokin Brod” HPP is located just downstream of the dam. The Pre-feasibility study of generating unit’s capacity increase was completed in 2010.

Figure 3-6:”Kokin Brod” dam and HPP

3.4.7 Dam and HPP “Uvac” “Uvac” dam is located on the Uvac River (chainage km 72+075) and was built in 1979. Upstream of this dam is formed the “Sjenica” reservoir. “Uvac” is an earth fill dam, 110 m high (the second largest rock fill dam in Serbia) and 307 m long.

Figure 3-7:”Uvac” dam and HPP


Next to the right bank was built the spillway (morning glory type) with the maximum capacity of 1,050 m3/s. The “Sjenica” reservoir is 27 km long and is located within the Uvac River canyon which is natural beauty and is protected as a monument of nature. Powerhouse is located next to the dam. The pre-feasibility study of the generating unit’s capacity increase was completed in 2010.

3.4.8 “Potpeć” dam and HPP The “Potpeć” dam is located on the Lim River (chainage km 53+600). It was built in 1967. The dam is a con-crete gravity dam, 46 m high and 218 m long. In the middle part of the dam are located three spillway bays. Gated spillways have a 3,000 m3/s capacity. Energy dissipation is provided by a stilling basin located down-stream of the spillway. Two bottom outlets have a total capacity of 240 m3/s. The powerhouse is located within the dam body next to the spillway. Three generating units are installed within this structure. The pre-feasibility study of generating unit’s capacity increase was completed in 2010. This also included an additional HPP for releasing the environmental guaranteed discharge. The preliminary design of the rehabili-tation was completed in 2012.

Figure 3-8: “Potpeć” dam and HPP

3.4.9 “Otilovići” dam The “Otilovići” dam is located on the Ćehotina River in Montenegro, approximately 7.5 km upstream of the Pljevlja town. It is a concrete arch dam, 59 m high and 143 m long, and was built in 1982. The main purpose of the “Otilovići” reservoir is the supply of water to the “Pljevlja” TPP and the supply of potable water to the population and to the industry located in the Pljevlja town. The free-surface spillway has the total capacity of 280 m³/s and is located in the central part of the dam. Two bottom outlets, equipped with Howell-Bunger gates and with the total capacity of 16 m³/s, are located in the lower third of the dam’s height. Water is re-leased through the bottom outlet flow into the stilling basin. One bottom outlet is partially open at all times in order to allow for the release of the environmental guaranteed discharge (0.8 m³/s). The reservoir volume is greater than the actual water demand. Since a certain amount of water is lost through spilling almost every year, there is available head (difference between existing water levels in the reservoir and the stilling basin) of 35 m and the environmental guaranteed discharge is released without any hydro-power use, there is possibility for construction of new small HPP on the right bank downstream of the dam. During the last ten years has been developed the technical documentation related to this SHPP that includes several design solutions. Its characteristics, based on the last adopted technical documents, are listed later on in this Inception Report (See Annex 2 – identified hydropower projects)


Figure 3-9:”Otilovići” dam

3.4.10 “Piva” dam and HPP “Piva” dam is located on the Piva River (chainage km 10+000), approximately 9 km upstream of Šćepan Polje. It is an arch dam, built in 1976. The dam is one of the highest in Europe, with the height of 220 m, and is 268.5 m long. Flood discharges are discharged through a gated spillway (with the total capacity of 1,670 m3/s) and a low outlet (consisting of three outlets with a diameter of 2.5 m equipped with gates that are lo-cated at half the height of the dam). The maximum capacity of the low outlet is 373 m3/s. There are two bot-tom outlets with a diameter of 2.5 m each and the maximum capacity of 240 m3/s. Due to specific topograph-ical features; the powerhouse is located within the rock mass of the left river bank. The “Piva” HPP has oper-ated for years in the “peak-load” mode. During the last few years a number of activities have been performed in order to improve the energy production and efficiency of this HPP. In addition to the activities related to the rehabilitation and modernization of equipment, the possibility of riverbed dredging downstream of the dam spillway has been analysed. The main goal is to reduce the HPP tail water level and to increase head and energy production of the HPP. Pre-feasibility studies of HPP’s capacity increase have been finished in 2011, and the preliminary design will be finished in 2015, followed by Tender documents for rehabilitation of generating units. Some of the elec-trical equipment has been rehabilitated in 2014.

Figure 3-10:”Piva” dam and reservoir


Table 3-1: Existing dams and hydropower schemes

Item “Zvornik”

HPP

“BajinaBašta” HPP

“Bajina Bašta” PSHPP

“Višegrad” HPP

“Radoinja –Bistrica” Dam HPP

“Kokin Brod” HPP

“Uvac (Sjenica)”

HPP

“Potpeć” HPP

“Otilovići” Dam

“Piva” HPP

Reservoir

River Drina Drina Beli Rzav Drina Uvac Uvac Uvac Lim Ćehotina Piva

Country Serbia

/RS /FBiH Serbia / RS / FBiH

Serbia RS/FBiH Serbia Serbia Serbia Serbia Montenegro Montenegro

Area (km2) 17 423 15 195 13 310 1500 1170 920 3605 352 1758

Discharge (m3/s) 399.4 349 0.55 342 14.4 13.9 11.5 77.6 4.68 74.4

Total volume (Mm3) 47.43 340 170 161 7.6 250 200 27.5 18 880

Active volume (Mm3) 21.32 218 153 101 4.1 209 160 19.8 13 790

Dam crest elevation. (masl) 164.0 292.5 883.4 339.0 816.2 888.5 990.0 439.0 842.0 678.0

Maximum OWL (masl) 160.4 290.2 881.5 336.0 815.0 437.0 841.0 677.7

Regular OWL (masl) 157.3 290.0 880.0 812.0 885.0 988.0 435.6 837.5 675.0

Minimum OWL (masl) 155.0 267.0 815.0 319.0 805.0 845.0 940.0 423.6 822.0 632.0

HPP

Type NDIV NDIV PSHPP NDIV DIV NDIV DIV NDIV Underground

Maximum head (m) 22.7 69.94 609.5 44.4 378.3 73 100 38.4 182.39

Rated head (m) 20.3 65.1 572.0 360.0 97.5 37.6 162.0

Minimum head (m) 17.0 42.9 504.5 344.6 55.0 25.6 138.0

Installed discharge(m3/s) 620 644 129.2 800 36.0 37.4 43.0 165 240

Installed power (MW) 96 368 614 333 102.6 21.4 36 51 342

Annual production (GWh) 500 1650 1200 1010 370 60 72 300 800

Turbine type Kaplan Francis vertical

Francis Kaplan vertical

Francis Francis Francis Francis Francis

Number of units 4 4 2 3 2 2 1 3 3

Managed by EPS EPS EPS ERS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPCG EPCG PSHPP = pumped storage plant ("reversible HPP") – DIV = Diversion ‐ NDIV = Non‐diversion = HPP integrated in the dam or at immediate proximity OWL = operation water level ‐ EPS = Elektroprivreda Serbia ‐ EPCG = Elektroprivreda Crna Gora ‐ Mm3 = million cubic meter


3.5 Water supply

A full review of the water supply within the DRB will be undertaken during Phase 2. This will break down water users into domestic, irrigation, industry and environmental flow.

3.5.1 Domestic Water Supply One of the ultimate objectives for IWRM in the DRB is to provide an adequate supply of potable water for domestic consumption. This implies substantial reconstruction and modernization of the water supply system in the future. The majority of domestic water that is consumed is derived from mountain sources and brought to consum-ers with the help of gravity and without the assistance of pump stations. It implies therefore that water from such sources does not need to go through the entire refining process, generally only requiring disinfection by chlorination. Water supplied to municipalities is mainly provided through a utility company in each settle-ment in charge of water supply and sanitation services. Usually a water distribution network covers major settlements in each municipality as well as villages located closer to it, but they are in a general poor state of repair. Meanwhile villages, farther away from water network, have their own water wells or boreholes. In some settlements surface water is abstracted. Well-water is extracted from the first water bearing layer and is, generally, safe from the chemical standpoint. According to the World Bank Diagnostic Study for Drina the current per capita water consumption is also very high and almost two times average consumption in Western Europe (i.e. up to 160 l/capita/day). Also network losses which include illegal consumption are very high, ranging from 40% to 81%. Recent documentation from the environmental performance reviews for Montenegro and Serbia (UNECE 2014) have also indicated per capita consumption of up to 260 l/capita/day and losses of up to 60%. Trends in water use appear flat as populations are not increasing and losses are not improving.

3.5.2 Irrigation Irrigation in the Drina River Basin is currently of minor importance; however, there are plans to significantly increase the land cover under irrigation in the near future to improve economic conditions in the three states as well as to mitigate against the threat of climate change that is likely to result in reduced rainfall (more drought) and increases in ambient temperatures. So, for the baseline, in Montenegro there is only about 2,000 ha of irrigated land cover, but this is not within the DRB. Irrigation systems in the basin that were developed in the past such as Ovsine-Berane, Brezo-jevica-Plav have been substantially degraded and are not in use. Due to such a situation, often domestic wa-ter supply systems have been used inappropriately for irrigation, thus aggravating the problems in drinking water supply. The Montenegrin government wants to pursue increased irrigation potential by rehabilitating these areas. In FBiH there is a challenge to obtain data in relation to irrigation use and the irrigated crop areas. No DRB specific data is available only the data for the Sava River Basin, where only 362.5 ha of land is irrigated out of a total of 1,612.5 ha irrigated land for the whole of the Federation. One of the most important agriculture area with high quality land is Semberija in RS of BiH situated along the Lower Drina and Sava River with a total area planned for irrigation of about 43,700 ha. The need for irri-gation is obvious as the lowest amount of precipitation are detected in the most fertile area of RS BiH and therefore also in the Drina delta area adjoining the Sava River. In the Drina watershed only one new irriga-tion system has been built after 1991, the so-called Novo Selo irrigation system in the municipality of Bijel-jina covering about 400 ha arable land and using groundwater from shallow/deep aquifers.


In Serbia, agricultural production is the predominant and important economic activity in the DRB. Propor-tions of agricultural land in use range from about 70% in the Municipality of Bogatić to 30% in the Munici-pality of Bajina Bašta. Despite this the total land area under irrigation is insignificant and the delivery sys-tems are simple, with overhead “rain wings” or simple pumps. Mostly these are small and located on private property.

3.5.3 Industry Industrial water consumption has dropped significantly in the last 30 years in BiH as many of the factories and heavy machinery plants have now closed. Whatever water used in industry is quite small and generally comprises small companies. Per capita consumption remains at about 100 l/capita/day. In Serbia, the part of the DRB has generally never been developed with industrial water users, whilst in Montenegro the principal user is the Pljevlja TPP using water for cooling purposes. This has caused signifi-cant water pollution downstream in the Veţišnica River and Ćehotina River in Pljevlja. The only other water use is from six mineral water bottling plants that have insignificant amounts of water demand requirements (330,000 m3/year).

3.5.4 Environmental Guaranteed Flow An inventory of the environmental guaranteed flow will be done for each dam and intake of water in the DRB based on concession, technical and legal requirements for each country. Furthermore, the minimal crit-ical flow to guarantee the survival and the reproduction of the protected aquatic species, as well as the sus-tainability of endangered natural ecosystems will be assessed. These components will then be integrated in the water balance in order to ensure an acceptable environmen-tal flow for the Drina River and its tributaries together with the other water demands and uses.

3.6 Water quality monitoring and pollution

Surface and groundwater quality is a significant parameter for the sustainable water supply in the DRB, but also for the preservation of the aquatic ecosystems and the fauna in general. Analysis of the water quality and of the pollution will lead to prioritizing protection measures in the DRB and to highlight scope for trans-boundary cooperation. At a local level, the JV Consultant will liaise the Municipalities in the Drina River in order to integrate the structural and spatial plans into the chosen IWRM scenarios in the DRB. Water quality monitoring in Serbia is performed by the Serbian Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). According to the annual report of SEPA, there are 5 monitoring stations in the DRB, within the Serbian part of the basin, on the Uvac River (tributary to Lim), at Prijepolje on the Lim River (tributary to Drina), two on Drina, at Bajina Basta and Badovinci, and one on Jadar River, 2 km before the confluence with the Drina. The results from the 5 measurements stations along the Drina River show that the quality of this river is good which can be explained by the low economic activity and the falling population in the DRB in the last two decades. In Montenegro, water quality monitoring is performed by Environmental Protection Agency of Montenegro (EPAM). EPAM maintains 6 monitoring stations on the Lim River, 6 stations on the Tara River, and 4 sta-tions on the Ćehotina River. In BiH, the Public Institution “Vode Srpske” from Bijeljina is responsible for water quality monitoring in Republika Srpska. The monitoring stations in DRB include: 3 stations on the operational monitoring network (Karakaj on the Drina River, Brioni on the Ćehotina River, and Rudo on the Lim River), 2 stations on the transboundary monitoring network (Pavlovica Most and Foca on the Drina River), and 10 stations on the na-tional monitoring network.


Sava River Watershed Agency of the FBiH is responsible for water quality monitoring in FBiH. No infor-mation is currently available on the monitoring stations and scope of the work. The pollution levels in DRB correspond to water class II, and in some parts is lower. There is a difference in river classification in regard to water quality between the countries in DRB. Currently available national re-ports are in part contradictory in describing the water classes and the ecological status and potential. This is clearly a sector for which more information has to be gathered in the next review and analysis phase. Basic water quality parameters are expected to improve in DRB due to a decrease in industrial production in recent times caused by the global economic crisis. According to the inventory of potential pollution sources in DRB by REC (2011), the numbers of water-en-dangering activities (WEA) and the water-endangering deposition (WED) for each country identified as sources of pollution are: In Montenegro: 50 WEA and 26 WED In Serbia 14 WEA 43 WED In BiH (FBiH) 7 WEA In BiH (RS) 9 WEA and 62 WED The major sources of pollution include (the list is not exhaustive): "Pljevlja" TPP (Montenegro), Cellulose Factory in Berane (Montenegro; closed but there is stored haz-

ard waste), Chemical industry in Gorazde (FBiH), Aluminium factory in Zvornik and Glinica (BiH-RS), Factory of viscose in Loznica (Serbia; closed but there is stored hazard waste) etc.

Wastewater and storm water (at the moment there is only one operational wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the whole basin, located in Mojkovac in Montenegro. Another WWTP is under construction in Bijeljina in Republika Srpska).

Many illegal waste landfills are located near Drina River or its tributaries. Up to now, Perucac Lake has been cleaned of waste several times – mostly comprising plastic bottles and bags.

Floating wastes. Wood processing in small private enterprises. Other sources of pollution.

3.7 Solid Waste

Floating wastes are a significant problem for the Drina River. This subject has been analysed in the context of the ICPDR (ref: http://www.icpdr.org/main/publications/drina-rivers-floating-problem ) in 2008. It ap-pears that towns downstream do not have regulated landfill sites and approximately 30% of all floating waste ends up in the riverbed. Table 3-2, from the ICPDR website provides an indication of the volume of floating waste for the year 2008.

Table 3-2: Annual production of municipal waste into the Drina River (2008)

Item BiH Montenegro Serbia Total

Number of towns in basin 10 7 8 25

Number of inhabitants 310,000 146,000 210,000 676,000

Produced waste (tonnes/year) 90,000 35,000 60,000 185,000

Treated waste (tonnes/year) 0 0 0 0

Released into the river (tonnes/year) 20,000 12,000 23,000 55,000

Source: ICPDR 2008


Figure 3-11: Floating waste on Lim River near confluence with Drina River ("Višegrad" reservoir) 2012

This floating pollution of the Drina River and tributaries are a significant concern for the environment as they can negatively affect aquatic ecosystem, but in addition they create major challenges for hydropower and can drastically affect energy production due to ingress of floating debris into mechanical systems (e.g. turbines) causing internal damage. Management of floating waste is therefore of international concern at the river basin level and efforts must be made to reduce this for each riparian state. Pollution from mining activity is also a concern. This is primarily generated by mineral resource processing operations. Serious incidents noted in these areas have included breaches of tailings impoundments at Veliki Majdan and Brskovo, where Drina River and Tara River were directly polluted. Such environmental pollu-tion is principally associated with antimony, lead and zinc mining, processing, and smelting, and with very large operations for the mining, processing, and smelting of copper.

3.8 Flood Protection

Most tributaries in the DRB are characterised by extremely torrential and fast flowing water regimes, with a very rapid formation of flood waves (flood surges) that pass downstream through the basin due to very inten-sive precipitation caused by cyclonic activity. The flood waves (torrents) have characteristically short concen-tration times (for the smaller sub-basins this can be only several hours), and very high runoff volumes, 1 to 1.5 m3/s∙km2, or even more than 2 m3/s∙km2 in cases of smaller tributaries. Flood discharges with a probability of 1% occurrence (100-year return period) are in the case of largest tributaries up to 12 or even 17 times higher than the average discharges, whilst this ratio can in the case of small tributaries be even more extreme more than, than 20 or even 25 times higher. The Drina basin is endangered by: Flood waves passing downstream in rivers (often termed: "outer water masses"); Flooding from inner water masses generated inside protected zones caused by absence, or insufficient

capacity of constructed drainage systems;


Unregulated migration of minor and major river channels (particularly present along the lower part of the DRB; along this reach the Drina River is one of the least regulated rivers in Europe, with a systematic displacement of its river bed to the East), which requires riverbed regulation and stabilization;

Lack of regulation of river banks even in settlement zones, which require "urban type" regulation for safety, as well as for urban planning purposes (settlements do not have a harmonious urban access to river frontage by the means of quays or jetties);

Torrential river flow and resulting erosion processes, with sediment deposited in riverbeds, increased water levels, reduced discharge capacities that increase the probabilities of outflow of larger discharges from the minor tributaries;

Unregulated dredging of sand and gravel that disturbs riverbed morphology and also represents a "trigger" for flow destabilization.

Due to the constant encroachment of settlements, plants and infrastructure toward lower zones, closer and closer to the flood plain (this is particularly present in recent times, especially in Semberija due to migration of the population during the 1990s because of the war causing them to settle in the flood zones as the land was cheaper), there was a very significant increase in flood damage compared to previous times. Currently even the discharge of the Drina River, measured at the "Zvornik" measurement station, of approx-imately 3,500 m3/s, which corresponds to a return period of 1 in 40 years event (flood event from May 2014), can cause substantial damages.

The highest flood discharge so far recorded occurred in November 1896; now certain sources estimate that its occurrence probability amounted to approximately 0.5% (1 in 200 year flood).5 During that event the stone bridge across the Drina River was completely flooded. The hypothetical 0.1%-flood discharge (1 in 1,000 year flood), measured at the "Zvornik" measurement station, can be estimated to approximately 16,000 m3/s, but this is an unreliable calculation. There are records of the following floods (with discharges measured at the "Foca" measurement station): in 1952: 3,220 m3/s, in 1968: 3,950 m3/s and in 1974: 2,850 m3/s. More recent catastrophic floods in the Drina River basin occurred on December 7th, 2010 and on May 15th, 2014, from the confluence with the Sava River upstream to the confluence of Piva River and Tara River that endangered almost the entire area. This included the Semberija area, a relatively flat part of the DRB contain-ing valuable arable areas and land intended for construction. At the "Zvornik" measurement station on De-cember 7th, 2010 a discharge of 4,900 m3/s was recorded, which corresponds to a probability of approximately 2% (1 in 50 years flood). That flood endangered a population of close to 10,000 and caused damage to resi-dential buildings and plants estimated to more than 33 million KM (Euro 20 million). During the latest flood that occurred on May 15th, 2014 the discharge amounted to 3,500 m3/s, that corresponds to a 1 in 40 years return period, but the damages were even more severe (even the streets in the Bijeljina centre were covered with water), because they coincided with an intrusion of floods (back surge) from the direction of the Sava River (see Figure 3-12). Propagation of flood waves/surges in the DRB are somewhat less adverse, as compared to the natural condi-tions, due to the fact that in the upstream zones in Montenegro, Serbia and BiH have some large reservoirs that have been built within the hydropower systems (in the parentheses are given reservoir volumes): "Uvac" HPP (213 million m3), "Kokin Brod" HPP (273 million m3), "Bistrica" HPP (7 million m3), "Potpeć" HPP (44 million m3), "Piva" HPP (880 million m3), "Visegrad" HPP (161 million m3), "Bajina Bašta" HPP (340 million m3) and "Zvornik" HPP (89 million m3 initially, presently is its volume considerably reduced due to sedimen-tation and allows only for the daily discharge regulation). One problem arises from the fact that the calculated flow regulation (developed from mathematical models that can optimise future storage management) are not being correctly applied. Hence the control of water release equipment (sluice gates etc.) during the flood pe-riods that would allow for management in accordance with the minimization criterion Qmax, are not providing the optimal effect. Present management methods, allegedly based upon operator's long "experience", can lead to inefficient management of sluice gates on the dams that can generate a flood wave with a discharge higher

5 The intensity of the 1896 flood is open to debate and conjecture by many sources and will be further reviewed in detail later in Phase 2


than the one under natural conditions. Mitigation of flood waves that propagate toward the Lim River from the direction of the Uvac River is very efficient due to the action of two large reservoirs – "Uvac" and "Kokin Brod".

Source: Al Jazeera News

Figure 3-12: Area Affected by May 2014 Floods

Problems with the realization of protection systems, especially along the lower part of the Drina river course, have an even more adverse effect due to the following facts: The major part of the state boundary between Serbia and BiH no longer runs along the line of the river,

because the unstable and meandering nature of Drina riverbed that has been constantly migrating to the east causing confusion on issues of responsibility.6

Similarly, at the site of the envisaged flood protection works at Semberija (this was planned for 2014 but not yet effected) numerous new structures on the left-hand bank were built by investors from BiH. These were located further away from the river to try and take into consideration the meandering effects. How-ever due to this fact it is now much more difficult to protect these structures from flooding.

Planned flood protection works have been delayed due to, among other reasons, the expectation that along the lower reach of the Drina River course (downstream of Zvornik) there will be new hydropower devel-opments (a cascade system) that will imply higher flood embankments, to mitigate against envisaged flood levels;

In addition, flood protection systems (flood embankments) on the DRB are fragmentary and the works on both river banks have not been harmonized.

The more important flood protection systems are: Along the lower part of the Drina River course, right-hand bank:

6 The Drina River was considered the boundary between Serbia and Bosnia. It is, of course, still the natural boundary between the two countries, but there is also a true, legal, boundary that was very well defined by geodetic survey. Now, with the Drina River riv-erbed moving towards the east, while the legal demarcation line is not. Settlers (refugees...) have now comecome to these areas to start building without any construction permission. Now, various financial institutions want to support the construction of embank-ments in Bosnia (Bijeljina, Gorazde etc.), but not in Serbia. On the other hand, Serbia has a problem with investments aimed at the protection of Bosnian citizens who are illegally building on its territory.


o Embankment from Banov Brod to Crna Bara (length of 6.72 km, degree of protection against flood waves 1% (1 in 100 years flood), protective height, i.e. freeboard 1.2 m);

o Embankment around Crna Bara (7.14 km); o Embankment Crna Bara – Badovinci (7.97 km); o Embankment along the bypass road around Loznica (10.3 km, 1%, 1.0 m), regulation and embankment

from the "Zvornik" dam to Karakaj (4.5 km, 1%, 0.8 m). Along the lower part of the Drina River course, left-hand bank:

o Embankment and parapet wall in Zvornik (2.5 km, 1%, 0.8 m); o Regulated riverbed in Zvornik (2 km), river bank protection structures (5.7 km); o Regulated parts of the Hoca River, Gradina River, Kozlucka River, Trsicka River and Jasenicka River,

along the total length of 3.6 km; these works are fragmented and have to be completed. In the Karakaj area it is important to protect the new Ekonomija settlement.

Other important observations are: The right-hand river bank is protected along a greater length than the left-hand one, but is not connected along its entire length; on neither river bank were realized the works directed at fixation and stabilization of the riverbed, but only fragmented works directed at the protection of certain endangered concave parts, which, due to their isolated nature, did not produce more significant effects under the conditions of extreme riverbed meandering. Along the middle part of the River Drina course (from Visegrad to Zvornik) fragmented works directed at the protection of the tributaries Jadar River, Drinjaca River, Lovnica River, Krizevica River, Crvena River and Glogovska River, were performed along a total length of approximately 6 km. Generally speaking, the works were performed, only at locations where communications were endangered. Jadar River is a highly torrential watercourse and was assigned the first priority in all planning documents. Equally important is the realization of the river bank protection structure on the left-hand Drina River bank in the zone of Bratunac, then regulation of the tributaries Zeleni Jadar River and Studeni Jadar River in Milici, of Drinjaca River and Lovnica River in Sekovici, of Krizevica River and Glogovska River in Bratunac, of Krizevica River and Crvena River in Srebrenica etc. Along the middle part of the Drina River course a string of run of river type (non-diversion type) hydropower plants in a cascade system are envisaged, therefore it will be necessary to harmonize all works with a technical solutions based upon the adopted high water levels of the envisaged dams. That is also one of the reasons behind the delay of some of the works, especially in the zone of Bratunac, because the decision on the cascaded system has not yet been definitively adopted. The upper part of the Drina River course includes the reach from Visegrad to the confluence of Piva River and Tara River. Along this reach further cascade hydropower systems are envisaged; the flood protection structures on the Drina River, as well as in the zones of all its tributaries will be dependent upon the technical solution (i.e. the adopted high water level on the dam) chosen. In this part of the basin the following works are im-portant: In the Sokolac municipality: regulation of the Resetnica River through the urban area of Sokolac (2.5 km,

optimally 5 km), Kajnak (0.8 km) and the completion of the initiated works directed at the regulation of the Rakitnica River in Rogatica (2.1 + 0.5 km);

In Visegrad: completion of all river bank protection structures and the continuation of regulation of the Rzav River, upstream of the performed works (minimum 0.6 km);

In Novo Gorazde: embankments and protection structures of the banks corresponding to the water level for "Visegrad" HPP have been constructed, but are in the greatest danger due to irregular refugee settle-ment, built within the flood zone; hence its protection will be quite complex;

In Cajnice: the completion of regulation of Janjina River and Vrelo River, stabilization of the riverbed and urban regulation;


In the Rudo municipality: endangered by floods is the area of approximately 6,860 ha, within the city area it is necessary to perform urban regulation;

In the Foca municipality: the Ćehotina River course through the city was regulated (a length of 0.4 km) and it is necessary to continue further in an upstream direction and to protect the right-hand bank up to the river confluence, along a length of 1.6 km. “Foča” storage would be located upstream of the Foča city and “Paunci” storage downstream of it, i.e. the city would be located between these two new water storages (aquatories). Such storages sometimes offer some added value, i.e. capacity for recreation etc. This, of course, requires proper infrastructure and other prerequisites, i.e. the city has to be connected to them. In the scope of the works related to the "Foca" HPP and "Paunci" HPP, urban flood regulation of the Drina riverbed will be necessary, in order to connect the town, located between the two structures and make it safer under the conditions of uneven and irregular operating regimes of both HPPs. The “Foča” HPP/storage is envisaged as the compensation basin for the “Buk Bijela” HPP which is intended for peak-load operation, hence without the “Foča” HPP in the town there would be daily water level difference on the order of several meters; and

In Miljevina: Bistrica River endangers Miljevina and it is necessary to build an embankment (0.65 km long) and perform urban flood regulation (a distance of about 1.27 km).

Among the more recent projects, the most urgent one is related to the protection of Semberija against floods; the corresponding Conceptual Design Report with the Feasibility Study developed in 2014 (Zavod za vodoprivredu (Water Resources Institution) from Bijeljina), in accordance with the following design criteria, which are presented here because they are important for other protection projects as well: It is necessary to complete the protection system for the left-hand part of the Drina River riparian area,

using embankments with partitions, in accordance with the concept presented in the study "Regulacija i uređenje rijeke Save u Jugoslaviji" ("Regulation and bank improvement of Sava River in Yugoslavia"), in order to connect that system to the protection system for the area at the right-hand Sava River bank; in this manner will be created an integral and functional "over-partition" protection of Semberija and that part of Posavina (very important, because Semberija on the left-hand, and Podrinje on the right-hand bank of the lower part of the Drina River course, depend upon the degree of protection of the system along the Sava River);

The degree of protection from flood discharges with the probability of 1% (1 in 100 years flood) shall be realized via an increase in the height of flood protection structures of 1.2 m, up to the water level of Sava River, and upstream along the principal course of its main tributary - Drina River, with an increase in height of 0.80 m;

It is necessary to take into account the regimes of flood discharges under natural conditions, without taking into account the action of the reservoirs (this increases the safety level, because the reservoirs are not being managed in the optimum manner);

Embankments shall be constructed exclusively at the BiH territory (Republic of Srpska), bearing in mind the fact that the boundary between BiH and Serbia along certain reaches does not run along the Drina River, but is displaced to the west of it, along the tracks of abandoned watercourses characteristic for Drina River during the Congress of Berlin decision process, which determined the demarcation lines;

Embankment shall be realized with cooperation and coordination with Republic of Serbia, taking into account the new hydrological analyses of flood discharges, not only during design activities, but also dur-ing the execution of the works;

Bearing in mind the great length of the new embankments (approximately 33.36 km), they have to be realized within three phases, in accordance with the priorities determined by damage analysis;

The construction of Phase I and II of protection embankments shall complete the "Kaseta Semberija" ("Partition Semberija") protection system.

Finally, one important note: It is considered very important that the regulation and protection measures planned along the middle and lower reaches of the Drina River must be harmonized with the designs of the envisaged hydropower (cascade) sys-tems along the river course, especially along the reaches.


3.8.1 Protocol on Flood Protection The ISRBC proposed and facilitated the development of the Protocol on Flood Protection to the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin (FASRB) as an international legal basis for regional cooperation of the SRB countries in the field of flood management. The Protocol regulates the issues of sustainable flood pro-tection in the Sava River Basin caused by either natural phenomena, such as high discharges of rivers and ice jamming, or artificial impacts like water discharge from reservoirs and retentions induced by dam collapsing or inadequate handling, with aim to prevent or limit flood hazard, to reduce flood risk and to reduce or miti-gate detrimental consequences of floods. The key joint activities to be implemented based on the provisions agreed by the Protocol are: 1. Development of the joint Flood Risk Management Plan in the Sava River Basin with all preliminary

steps in accordance with the Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks. 2. Establishment of the Flood Forecasting, Warning and Alarm System in the Sava River Basin 3. Exchange of information relevant for sustainable flood protection 4. Other commonly agreed activities, including development of mechanisms for mutual assistance in flood

emergency situations It is important to emphasize that significant steps have already been taken in terms of implementation of this Protocol, even though it has not yet formally entered into force. The draft of the Programme for Develop-ment of the Flood Risk Management Plan has already been prepared at the expert level. The expected timing of adoption is mid-2015 (see Section 2.6 of this report). A joint report on preliminary flood risk assessment in the Sava River Basin has been prepared, which is considered the fulfilment of the obligation to ensure that exchange of information takes place between the competent authorities of states in international river basin districts, as stipulated by the EU framework directive and the provisions of the Protocol. Regarding the in-formation exchange, the ISRBC prepared, in cooperation with WMO, the document "Policy for the Ex-change of Hydrological and Meteorological Data and Information in the Sava River Basin", which was signed by all. In addition, an initial hydrological data exchange system has been developed at the ISRBC web site, with plans to upgrade it to Sava HIS (hydrologic information system), if adequate resources are available.

3.8.2 Current funding on floods Following the devastating floods from May 2014, a substantial amount of funding has been channelled to flood protection schemes in the Drina River Basin. Consequently, the JV Consultant will need to take this into consideration prior to the development of the Investment Prioritisation Framework component of the Project so as to avoid repetition. For example, a review of existing documentation from World Bank sug-gests that the following flood protection measures have already been included in the basin: 1. For the Drina BiH Flood Protection Project (USD 24 million) this has two components: Flood protection works and support for Bijeljina area, and Flood protection works and support for Goražde area. 2. For the Serbia Floods Emergency Recovery project this has four components: Energy sector support Agriculture sector support Flood protection and Contingent Emergency Response The only relevant component for the relating to the WBIF Drina Project is Flood Protection. A total of Euro 16.72 million to support urgent rehabilitation of flood protection and drainage control infrastructure (Euro 14.72 million), and strengthen the technical capacity of government agencies (Euro 2 million) for improved


flood prevention and management. A cumulative total of 71.5 km of flood protection reconstruction/rehabili-tation works are planned between 2015 and the end of 2017, however the actual amount of this work planned within the Drina River Basin is not known at this stage.

3.9 Droughts and Sedimentation

Besides floods, the DRB is also prone to droughts and has suffered prolonged periods of below average rain-fall especially during summer months. Whilst the impact of climate change on the overall magnitude, dura-tion and frequency of floods and droughts cannot be forecasted with precision, evidence exists that extreme wet and dry episodes have increased in recent years in frequency and intensity across the DRB. The drought in 2012 was a substantial challenge for hydropower generation in Serbia. Following the Inception Workshop on 1st December 2014, there was a general feeling that the issue of sedi-mentation and droughts has been substantially neglected. Concerns on further information on sedimentation and droughts were expressed from Serbian, Bosnian (RS) and Montenegrin delegations. Sedimentation is especially a problem in the lower reaches of the river. The JV Consultant is aware of these issues and will be undertaking work on these issues in Phase 2. The JV Consultant is aware that many areas in the DRB experience recurrent seasonal droughts which affects biodi-versity and fisheries, water supply from groundwater (the groundwater levels being affected by the draw-down of hydropower reservoirs, especially in the summer), and agriculture. Climate variability and change are thought to be a critical and already on-going feature for the basin, as the river flow depends on snowmelt and rainfall. Both temperature and rainfall patterns are changing, which is likely to increase the likelihood of water shortages in the summer, and very high water discharges, and flooding, in the other seasons. In addi-tion, the high run-off and geological conditions also cause high erosion that in turn leads to large sediment loads being transported by the river system that accumulate in slow-flowing parts of the rivers and in the res-ervoirs. These sandbars further seriously increase flood risks in many parts of the basin. Consequently, the flood and drought situation and associated risks are one of the main drivers and core inter-ests of this study. However, they need to be studied within the broad framework of IWRM that at the same time also will need to provide realistic and sustainable strategies for the management and development of the other water use activities. Further details on methodology for droughts and sedimentation are provided in Chapter 5. It must also be remembered that ISRBC has developed the Protocol on Sediment Management to the FASRB which affirms the need for efficient cooperation among the Parties and for promotion of sustainable sediment management (SSM) solutions.

3.10 Environmental baseline

The environmental baseline will present the ecological characteristics of the DRB. The first step will focus on making an inventory of the biodiversity, ecosystems and natural resources of the DRB. The issue will be to define the important environmental characteristics (i.e. protected ecosystems a, natural resources to be preserved etc.) of the Basin and the major issues and challenges (e.g. water and air pollution, endangered ecosystems, aquatic or terrestrial habitat disconnection, interrupted fauna corridors). During this characterization stage, care will be taken to ensure a homogeneous description for all three ripar-ian countries, in order to avoid specific bias in our interpretation. Recommendations for environmental measures and strategies will be established first at the country level for the three riparian countries and then expanded to cover the whole DRB.


3.10.1 Climate Climate of the DRB is complex and influenced by general atmospheric circulation, its elongate shape along a meridian, local orography and proximity of the Adriatic Sea. The Southernmost part of the basin has a Medi-terranean and a maritime temperate and humid climate according to the Köppen climate classification. Mod-erately cold and humid continental climate can be found at the altitudes above 1000 m. Mediterranean influ-ence, although mild, can be found in the upper part of the basin, up to Foča. From that point downstream a temperate continental climate prevails with warm summers and moderately cold winters. Generally, from south to north, along the altitude decline, accumulated annual precipitation also decreases, from about 2100 mm measured in Kolašin to 820 mm in Loznica. In the same direction annual mean temper-ature increases, from 4.6 °C in Žabljak to 11 °C in Loznica. Annual distribution of precipitation differs throughout the DRB. Northern parts receive the most rain in the late spring, mainly in May and June, while winter is dry with the lowest precipitation in February. Due to the influence of the Mediterranean climate in the southern parts, maximum rain falls in the late autumn and the minimum during the summer months. The warmest month is July and the coldest is January. An overall picture of DRB climate is given in Figure 3-13, where mean annual temperature and accumulated precipitation are presented for the base period 1961-1990. The data are obtained from e-OBS dataset of daily gridded observations on a 25-km horizontal resolution.

Figure 3-13: Mean annual temperature (left panel) and mean annual precipitation (right panel) for the period 1961-1990, according to the e-OBS dataset

Relative humidity in the DRB is rather uniform, and is at its lowest in the period June-August and the high-est in the December-January period. Snow cover significantly impacts the Drina River water regime due to large amounts of water accumulated in it, with the highest flows recorded in spring time, in April and May. Snow depth in some sections of the lower middle part of the DRB can be as high as 1.20 m (corresponding to a maximum of 200 mm of water) with frequent snow-drifts and in upper sections it can even exceed 5 m. Fogs constitute a characteristic feature of the Drina River valley and can occur throughout the year, but are most frequent in spring and autumn. Complex local topography in the upper course of Drina River signifi-cantly affects and modifies wind direction and speed. Despite this, strong winds are quite rare and are gener-ally of low intensity.

3.10.2 Climate Change Observed climate change During the period 1981 to 2010 in the entire DRB a mean annual temperature increase has been observed compared to the base period 1961 to 1990. The intensity of the warming varies from 0.4 to 0.6 °C in the


middle part of the basin to 0.7 °C at Žabljak and 0.8 °C in Bijeljina. In the same period an increase in mean annual precipitation is measured in the most part of the basin, from 4% at Sokolac to about 6 % in Loznica and Bijeljina. The southern basin experienced a small decrease of annual precipitation between 2% at Žabljak and 3% in Pljevlja. Although the mean annual precipitation change is not large, a change of the distribution within the pluvio-metric regime has been observed in a way that the number of days with precipitation of over 1 mm is dropping, while the amount of precipitation due to extreme events above the 95th percentile is growing. Alongside with an increase of the precipitation increase, more frequent drought occurrence is noted in the past 30 years. Change of the mean annual temperature (°C) and annual precipitation (%) for the period 1981 to 2010 in comparison to the base period 1961 to 1990 in the basin according to e-OBS data is presented in Figure 3-14.

Figure 3-14: Change in the mean annual temperature (left panel) and the mean annual precipitation (right panel) for the period from 1981 to 2010, compared to the base period from 1961 to 1990 according the e-OBS dataset

Projected climate change All three riparian countries in their respective National Communications under the UNFCCC framework have analysed climate change projections using the same coupled regional climate model, EBU-POM, under the A1B (“medium”) and A2 (“strong”) IPCC Special Report Emission Scenarios for the two future periods from 2001 to 2030 and from 2071 to 2100. For the near future period from 2001 to 2030 under the A1B scenario, projected is an increase of annual mean temperature in the entire basin from 0.8 to 1.1 °C relative to the base period from 1961 to 1990. In the southern half of the basin a precipitation decrease up to 5% is projected, while downstream a 5% precipita-tion increase is expected. A temperature increase is projected also for the distant future period, from 2071 to 2100, from 2.4 to 2.8 °C under the A1B and 3.4 to 3.6 °C under the A2 scenario. Precipitation is expected to decrease, from 10 to 20% under the A1B and up to 15% under the A2 scenario.

3.10.3 Air Quality Air pollution is a significant parameter for health of the population of the DRB, but also is harmful for the environment. In particular, ozone (O3) and gaseous emission (acid rain) can damage vegetation and harm plants and tree growth. Local pollution of air can also have direct impact on the water resource (acidification


of lakes). Therefore, air quality is a component of the preservation of the water quality and of the ecosystems in the DRB. The first task will consist in determining air pollution hotspots which can have an impact on the Drina River Basin and in selecting the respective monitoring stations data to be collected. Therefore, specific analysis of the relevant data will be carried with regards to the sources of pollution and impacted water resources and ecosystems in the DRB. The first collected data for the three countries show that it would be a challenge to have air quality data before 1998. As a baseline, the state for environment reports for the three riparian countries give information for air qual-ity monitoring and trends of air pollution. The most recent reports finding at present are from 2012. This in-formation is crossed with data base of the European Environment Agency, since the three countries belong to the European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET). For BiH The principal sources of reference used during the inception have been: UNECE – Environmental performance reviews – Bosnia Herzegovina – UN, 2004 and 2011 (second Edi-

tion) MOFTER, state of the environment report for BiH, 2012 The early data collections on air quality are from 1990. However, it was not until 2010/2011 that major im-provement to monitoring equipment in BiH came into being due to the adoption of the Law on air protection. FBiH: The Meteorological Institute monitors in Sarajevo the following: 1 automatic station of air quality which measures SO2, CO, NO, NO2 and NOx, 1 station which measures particles matter and SO2. The frequency of measurements is daily. In addition, the Cantonal Public Health Institute of Sarajevo monitors 5 stations in Sarajevo which measures also particles and SO2, daily. Outside Sarajevo, the Department of Environmental Protection in Tuzla monitors: 3 automatic stations in Tuzla 2 stations at the thermal power plants of Tuzla. These stations measures SO2, CO, NO, NO2 NOx, O3 and total suspended particles. RS: The Hydro-meteorological Institute is in charge of measuring air quality and radioactivity in the air and in rainfall. There is one automatic monitoring station in Banja Luka which measures SO2, CO, NO, NO2, and NOx. The Institute for Protection, Ecology and Information Science monitors: 7 stations in Banja Luka, 3 stations in Gradiska and 4 stations spread in other municipalities. These stations measure particles and SO2 with a low frequency of 3 times per week. Air quality is then monitored occasionally in some 20% of municipalities within RS including some in the DRB.


It can be also noted that a few companies and industry have voluntary equipped their plants with measuring station. So, they are about 40 monitoring stations in total BiH, but they are almost all concentrated in the main cities Sarajevo, Tuzla and Banja Luka. The measurements are concentrated on particulate matter and SO2. Other toxic air pollutant (ex volatile organic component), acidifying gases and metals are not measured. The differ-ent institutes do not use the same monitoring methods. Therefore, the data gathering for air quality do not represent a clear picture of the state of air quality in the entire country, hence the Consultant will be confronted with non-homogeneous information on air quality. Trends: Air pollution in city areas is mainly caused by emissions from stationary sources (industrial activities), caused by fuel combustion followed by traffic emissions. Although emissions from industrial processes have decreased after the conflict in the early 1990's, emissions from traffic have increased and are rising due to larger number of vehicles on the roads. For Montenegro The principal source of reference material used during the inception phase has been: UNECE – Environmental performance reviews – Montenegro UN 2011 and Draft for 2014 State of Environment in Montenegro, Agency for Environmental Protection of Montenegro, 2011. http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/countries/me/soertopic_view?topic=air pollution The Environmental Protection Agency of Montenegro, in agreement with the Center of Eco-toxicological Re-search of Montenegro are responsible of the air quality monitoring of the country. Since 1998, a network of 14 automatic and semi-automatic stations (24 hours measuring) in Montenegro (the automatic stations are located in Figure 3-15) measure emissions of basic polluting substances to the air: sulphur dioxide (SO2), total nitrogen oxides (NOx), tropospheric ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), phenols the overall content of suspended particles including the content of heavy metals and PAHs, and the con-

tent of heavy metals


Figure 3-15: Location of automatic monitoring stations (red dots) in Montenegro

Since 2007, measurement of particles that have a special impact on human health (PM2.5 and PM10) is being performed in one location. In parallel, each station measures the following meteorological parameters: air temperature, wind speed and direction, and relative humidity. In addition, occasional measuring of basic and specific polluting emissions – sulphur dioxide, nitrogen mon-oxide, nitrogen dioxide, total nitrogen oxides, tropospheric ozone, carbon monoxide, methane, non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), suspended particles and meteorological parameters – is performed at high-traffic intersections and on roads to characterize traffic fume and motor vehicles pollution. Trend: The principal trends in air quality in Montenegro are: Parameters measured on automatic stationary cells in Podgorica, Bar, Nikšić and Pljevlja indicate that the

main causes of air pollution are industry, transport and individual heating during the heating season. Air quality in Montenegro, evaluated in terms of indicators of global sulphur dioxide is very good. Con-

centration of nitrogen dioxide was also below the limit values. Air in urban areas of Podgorica, Nikšić, Pljevlja and Bar is impacted by particulate matter (PM10). These

particles usually occur as a result of industrial plants, combustion fuel in large, small furnaces and internal combustion engines.

For Serbia The principal sources of reference used during the inception are: UNECE – Environmental performance reviews – Serbia – UN, Draft for 2014 Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, Agency for environmental protection State of Environmental report for Serbia, 2012


To be in accordance with the Law on Air Protection, Serbia has developed a national network for monitoring air quality controlled by the Agency for Environmental Protection. Nowadays, the country is equipped with 28 sets of automatic monitoring equipment for air quality. The Agency for Environmental Protection presented the results of the automatic air quality monitoring in real time. The early data collection is done from 1990. The measured parameters are: Emissions of acidifying gases, Emissions of ozone precursors (NOx , CO , CH4 and NMVOC), Emissions of suspended particulate primary and secondary precursors suspended particulate matter (PM10

, NOx , NH3 , SO2), Emission of heavy metals (Cd, Hg, Pb , As, Cr , Cu , Ni, Se, Zn) and Emission accidentally discharged persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Figure 3-16 gives a picture of the location of the monitoring stations for emissions of particles. Very few of these stations are located within the DRB.

Figure 3-16: Location of stations for measuring particles matter in 2012, Serbia

Trend: On a general baseline, it can be seen that emissions of acidifying gases (indicated by the air pollutants NOx, SO2 and NH3) have increased their concentration in the air, which may lead to changes in the chemical bal-ance in the environment. It could have direct consequences on the neighbouring ecosystems. Regarding Emissions of heavy metals, data shows a significant decline from 1990 to 1993 (due to the de-struction of the industry), and then increased from 1994 to 1998, and in the rest of the period, to 2011, emis-sions are constant. The trend is then related to the development of industries in the country.


3.10.4 Geology and Seismic Activity As can be seen from Figure 3-17 below, the DRB has an extremely complex geological composition, due to numerous mountain building epochs and tectonic movements (there have been several orogenesis), trans-gressions and regressions etc.

Figure 3-17: Geological Map of the Drina Basin


In summary, the geology in the upper DRB comprises massive, thinly bedded limestone, dolomitized and sandy limestone, and rarely dolomites, and purely reef organic limestone; marls and shales from the Neo-gene, Cretaceous flysch diabase-chert formation and schists. The middle DRB comprises igneous rocks, ser-pentinites, sandstones, locally sandy and marl limestone. In the lower DRB there are gravels, sandy gravels and gravely sands, and sporadic sands. A more detailed description of the lithological composition of the DRB can generally be divided into several units; the terrain in the lower part of the DRB, downstream of Zvornik, is composed of the youngest for-mations, i.e. Tertiary and Quaternary sediments: sandstone, marl, clay stone and conglomerate belong to the Tertiary, and massive deposits of alluvial-terrace gravel to the Quaternary period (with a negligible share of river sand and slope clay). Upstream to Perućica, the terrain is generally composed of Palaeozoic metamorphic rocks characterised with lower crystallinity (e.g. argillo-schist, chlorite-sericite shale and phyllite). They are locally covered with younger formations or perforated by igneous rocks. Within the younger formations limestone prevails. Trias-sic dolomites, while granodiorite and dacite-andesite are formed of impressed, effusive igneous rocks (dacite-andesite) which are partly covered with pyroclastic rocks. Within the basin from Perućica to Gorazde in the western part limestone rocks of Triassic age prevail, mostly intensively karstified rocks, and in the eastern part three units are present: upper-Cretaceous marl and siltstone; peridotite complex and an ophiolitic melange. The upper part of the DRB, from Gorazde to Foca, consists of two dominant units: Palaeozoic metamorphics (shale with lower crystallinity) and Triassic limestone-dolomites. The farthest upstream part of the basin grade Triassic carbonate sediments (karstified limestone, moderately karstified dolomite and marl. In the south-eastern part of the basin upper-Jurassic limestone prevails. The DRB belongs to Dinaridic and lies on four large geo-tec-tonic units. The unit in the north belongs to the Gruza-Mila-novac structural unit. Upstream of Loznica, up to Zvornik is located the Vardar structural zone. Then, from Zvornik to Pe-rućica the terrain lies on an inner Palaeozoic zone and further continues into the Mesozoic limestone zone and Palaeozoic shale. Contemporary geo-tectonic division of the DRB analyses oce-anic realms during the Mesozoic composed of island arcs and oceanic basins limited with continental blocks. In that sense five ophiolitic belts can be distinguished which differ in terms of their tectonic and lithological characteristics. In the tectonic sketch (Figure 3-18) relicts of oceanic realms in the central part of the Balkan Peninsula are seen. VZM – is the main ophiolitic belt of the Vardar zone; WB – is the Western ophiolitic belt of the Vardar zone; DHOB – is the Dinaridic (Hellenidic) ophiolitic belt; K – is Kopaonik block and ridge; JB is the Jadar block; DIU – is the Drina-Ivanjica unit; and DT – The main Dinaridic trunk

Figure 3-18: Mesozoic ophiolitic belts, relicts of oceanic realms in the central part of the Balkan Peninsula

Earthquake intensity zones Seismic indicators show that the eastern side of the basin is more prone to seismic risk than the left side. Namely, along the right side prevails the intensity of 8 degrees on the Mercali Scale (MCS) with subzones along the part from Ljubovija to Banja Koviljaca and in the part on the left side of the Polimlje area, where it increases to 9 degrees MCS and on the left side all the way to the confluence of Piva River and Tara River the terrain is endangered by earthquakes with the magnitude of 7 degrees MCS, and further to the south it


increases to 8 degrees MCS. Quoted values of earthquake intensity are valid for the 500-year return period. This is shown in Figure 3-19 below

Figure 3-19: Seismic Zones of the DRB (Mercali Scale)

3.10.5 Hydrogeology The following maps were used for the hydrogeological analysis: SFRY Main Hydro-Geological Map, 1:500,000 scale, hydro-geological maps from the Master Water Plans, 1:300,000 scale, as well as the Main Geological Map (MGM), 1:100,000 scale. All these maps date from the 1960's and 1970's. The geological


profiles and geological columns, attached to the MGM, provided the basic information regarding layer thick-nesses. In addition, in order to better understand the hydrogeological characteristics of certain regions with good aquifer potential the publication “Paleo-hydro-geological characteristics of BiH” was also used.

The analysis of hydrogeological characteristics in the DRB allows for the separation of eight environments, based upon the porosity type and the level of water-permeability. These are shown on the map (Figure 3-20) and are summarised below.

Figure 3-20: Hydrogeology Map of the Drina Basin


1. PRACTICALLY IMPERMEABLE TERRAINS (practically free of aquifers): The thickness of the water-per-meable layer is related to the surface decomposed zone of the basic rock and it was estimated that is mostly ranges from 2 to 5 m. Under this zone, the rock can be considered completely water-impermeable. Effective porosity was estimated to approximately 0.3%, because a relatively large share of fractures is filled with the clay-like fill. This group includes mostly Palaeozoic rocks, sandstone and igneous alkaline rocks.

2. GROUP OF TERRAINS WITH DISTINCTLY LOW WATER CAPACITY – terrains with potential local aquifers: The porosity is related to the zone of surface fracturing, fractures with secretion, interlayer fractures in the relaxed part. It can be estimated that the thickness of this aquifer type rarely exceeds 10 m parallel to the terrain surface. Effective porosity of the upper zone is up to 5% and of the lower one up to 2%. Drainage is performed dif-fusely at the contact with the impermeable environment. They are present within the Lower Triassic sediments, diabase-chert formations, acidic igneous rocks, marl and flysch rocks.

3. GROUP OF TERRAINS WITH AQUIFERS WITH MOSTLY LOW MALE WATER CAPACITY – ter-rains with aquifers of the fracture-porosity type: The porosity is related to the zone of surface fracturing, frac-tures with secretion, inter-layer fractures in the relaxed part. It can be estimated that the thickness of this aquifer type rarely exceeds 30 m, parallel to terrain surface. Effective porosity of the upper zone is up to 5%, of the middle zone 1to 3%, and the lower zone under 1%. Drainage is performed diffusely at the contact with the impermeable environment. This terrain type develops within serpentinites and clay-marl limestone.

4. MEDIUM KARSTIFIED TERRAINS – medium water transmissivity: In this terrain group are included the rocks in which dominates the karst-fracture porosity type, where the karstification process is dominantly developed in the zones of larger fractures and fault structures. The distribution of the change in effective porosity as a func-tion of an increase in depth was performed in accordance with the division by Stepanov (1989), by adopting the lower values of effective porosity at the terrain surface. They are present within Palaeozoic and Middle-Triassic dolomites and dolomitic limestone.

5. INTENSIVELY KARSTIFIED TERRAINS – high water transmissivity: For this group is characteristic a high degree of development of the karstification process, with the presence of evident karst forms, not only on terrain surface, but also in the underground. Upon the change in effective porosity with an increase in depth 6 categories (in accordance with the division by Stepanov – 1989) were separated. For comprehension of the water flow through this environment je is important the part of the rock mass within which were formed the dynamic (renewa-ble) groundwater reserves. Taking into account the large velocities of water flow through the karst environment, it can be supposed that the major part of the water infiltrated into the underground will be drained through the upper zone, i.e. toward the local erosion basis. They are present within massive banked and layered limestone of the mid-dle and upper Triassic and upper Cretaceous age.

6. ENVIRONMENTS WITH VARIOUS LEVELS OF WATER CAPACITY (MOSTLY SMALL) – aquifers with various levels of water capacity: According to the porosity type they belong to inter-granular environments. Filtration characteristics vary depending upon the grain size. For these environments is characteristic the vertical alternation of layers with smaller thicknesses. Due to that fact, this environment cannot be considered isotropic. At this level of analysis is possible the averaging to the value of the filtration coefficient K of approximately 10-6 m/s in the horizontal direction and K of approximately 10-7 m/s in the vertical direction. They have developed within Neogene and Quaternary sediments.

7. INTER-GRANULAR ENVIRONMENTS WITH MEDIUM WATER CAPACITY – aquifers with medium water capacity: Aquifers that belong to this porosity type can be considered homogeneous and isotropic. Filtration characteristics are defined by transmissivity (T = 10-4 to 10-3 m2/s (T=Kh)). They are present within the alluvial and terrace sediments.

8. INTER-GRANULAR ENVIRONMENTS WITH HIGH WATER CAPACITY – aquifers with high water capacity: Aquifers that belong to this porosity type can be considered homogeneous and isotropic. Filtration char-acteristics are defined using transmissivity T > 10-3 m2/s. They are present within the alluvium along the lower Drina River course.

Water transfer from one catchment into another In the course of the analysis of hydrogeological characteristics of the DRB it was noticed that there are areas where the surface and underground basin boundaries do not coincide. Three zones of mismatch between the surface and underground watershed were noticed. One area where water leaves the topographic DRB can be determined. This is the Han Pijesak area, where groundwater from the DRB flows into the Bioska River ba-sin.


Contrary to this, two areas can be determined where water from the neighbouring basins flows underground though aquifers into the DRB. These are in the southern part of the basin, in the Komarnica River area, where water from the Morača River basin flows into the DRB; and in the central part of the DRB where an aquifer from the Neretva River basin flows into the Bistrica River Basin sub-terraneously.

3.10.6 Material Assets – Natural Resources The characterization of natural resources in the DRB is relevant for the following reasons: To evaluate the long-term status of natural resources of the riparian states and the potential for impact on

the economic and social development of the Basin, To determine the existing mining processes that can directly impact river water and ecosystems through

pollution, To define future development scenarios that are planned in the DRB and to evaluate the impact on the

water quality and ecosystems To propose an optimal use of material assets which is undertaken in line with IWRM. This should take

into consideration minimize transport costs in order to reduce air pollution, noise and traffic disturbance during construction.

Details on the magnitude of natural resources (type of mining, activity period, and volume of proven and non-proven reserves) and location will be provided in more detail during the next phase. BiH The main source of reference was the State of environment report, BiH, 2012. As a general baseline the main resources in BiH are reported in the following Table 3-3 but there is limited information.

Table 3-3: Mineral Resources of BiH

Type of Deposit Geological reserve

(mill. tons)

Exploita‐tion

(mill. tons)

Balance reserve (mill tons)

Potential reserve

(mill tons) Type, mining

Coal deposits (brown coal and lig‐nite deposit)

BiH: 5,647 FBiH: 77% RS: 23%

1,774 2,540 2,488 Industrial (energy) Exploited since end of 19th century

Metallic ore deposits

Silver ore deposits Mined since Ancient roman period

Lead, Zinc, Copper

Iron ore deposits BiH: 452.2 26.7 222.7 202.8

Mined since Ancient roman periodReserve of BiH represented 89 % of total deposit of the ex‐Yugoslavia in 1960.

Manganese deposit Exploited for Ancient Roman period to 1960

Mercury

Non‐metallic ore de‐posit

Rock salt BiH: 54.7 375 342 Exploited since 2002 to replace highly polluted salt water mining

Magnetite 1.678

Barite Mining stopped in 1991

Bauxite Mining for fire protection industry and bauxite powder for industry

Stone deposits (dolomite, lime‐stone)

For construction (architectural and technical)


Figure 3-21: Manganese Deposits (left) and Mercury Deposits (right) in BiH (Kurtanovic 2000)

Serbia Hydrocarbons Serbia is notably deficient in hydrocarbons. Some coal has been developed in the northeast, and the possibil-ity exists for the expansion of mining there. The little petroleum that has been discovered is located in the Vojvodina area, outside the DRB. Metallic ores Serbia has some of Europe’s largest resources of copper. Concentrations of copper ore are located in the Car-pathian Mountains near the borders with Bulgaria and Romania, outside the DRB. In 2008, the production of Copper was 18,800 tons/year. In addition, substantial amounts of iron ore also are present in this area (iron production for 2009 was about 1 million tons). North-western Serbia, in the vicinity of the town of Krupanj, contains up to one-tenth of the world’s supply of antimony, though there is now little demand for the product. Precious metals The production of gold in 2009 was about 500 kg and of about 4 tons for silver. Montenegro Montenegro is endowed of about 28 various mineral raw materials, among them 23 are economically signifi-cant. However, only 15 types of mineral materials are exploited. The main types of deposit are summary in the following Table 3-4:

Table 3-4: Mineral Resources of Montenegro

Type of Deposit Geological reserve (millions of tons)

Comments

Coal, micro lignite 232 Industrial (energy)

Coal, charcoal 100 Industry (energy)

Peat 3 Energy, balneology, agronomy and chemical industry

Metallic ore deposits

Lead and Zinc 70

Copper 7

Mercury 0.005


Type of Deposit Geological reserve (millions of tons)

Comments

Non‐metallic ore deposit

Red bauxite 96

White bauxite 2.9 Paint, cement, chemical industry

Architectural‐building stone 50 million m3 Decorative stone

Technical building stone 38

Travertine 0.425 million m3

Pebbles and sand Alluvial origin, exploited from Morača, Tara, Lim and Ćehotina river beds

Brick clays 20

Bentonite 1.7

Dolomites, limestone 88

3.10.7 Soils BiH Soil classification is done through the FAO classification based on soil properties. The Drina Basin domi-nant soil types are as follows: Dystric Cambisol – Dystric Leptosols – acid brown soils on shale Vertisols in the vicinity of Ugljevik Rendzina on single limestone west of Višegrad Podzolic and parapodzolic soil in the vicinity of the lower reaches between Zvornik and Ugljevik Chernozem on a small section on the western extremity of the Drina catchment Fluvisols - Recent alluvial sediment/sandy soils along the main river courses Serbia There are six soil principal types in the Serbian part of the Drina Basin:

Dystric Cambisol – Dystric Leptosols – acid brown soils on shale Podzolic and parapodzolic soil in the vicinity east of Loznica Chernozem in large sections from Sjenica to Nova Varoš and north of Priboj Eutric Cambisols –brown forest soils (on loess) on very lower reaches of Drina near Sava confluence Planosols – Luvisols – small section on Drina near to Sava confluence Fluvisols following the Drina River downstream from Bajina Bašta until Sava confluence Montenegro There are fiver principal soil types in the Montenegrin part of the Drina Basin:

Dystric Cambisol – Dystric Leptosols – acid brown soils on shale Eutric Cambisol – Mollic Leptosols on Limestone Rendzina on single limestone in the vicinity of the Ćehotina River Planosols – Luvisols – small section on Drina between the Ćehotina and Lim rivers Fluvisols - Recent alluvial sediment/sandy soils along the main river courses A soil map of the Drina Basin is shown in Figure 3-22 below.


Figure 3-22: Soil Map of the Drina River Basin


3.10.8 Biodiversity and ecosystems in the Drina River Basin This section concerns an overview of the biodiversity and ecosystems in the DRB. It will lead to the assess-ment of the main biodiversity and ecosystems which depend on surface and underground water resources, as well as to the prioritization of the biodiversity to protect and to mitigate in order to ensure a sustainability of the Basin in response to the water resources management. Ecosystems are diverse and complex in the DRB. To describe then in a simply way, the CORINE Land Cover categories (EEA, 2006) are used (see land use section 3.11.9). The main categories represented in the Basin concern agricultural areas, forests, semi natural areas, and wetlands. Considering the large surface it covers, as well as the diversity of habitats and altitudes, DRB has very diverse flora and fauna: In the upper parts, in the region of the rivers Tara and Piva, mostly situated in MNE and BiH, the area comprises mountain scenery of limestone massifs carved by glaciers and deeply dissected by rivers, spectacular mountain ranges exceeding 2500 meters as well as river canyons and underground streams, in-cluding the Tara river canyon being the deepest gorge in Europe. Further downstream, the Drina River forms a natural border between Serbia and BiH, with the Drina canyon being its most distinctive feature. In the end, under the accumulation Perućac, Drina River acquires some of the characteristics of slower rivers (e.g. mean-ders), which culminates in the Pannonian plain, where Drina meets Sava (UNEP, 2010). FLORA Endemic and protected species The Drina basin has a very rich flora with a high number of endemic species, distributed throughout the basin. The most famous endemic species in the DRB is a tree: the Serbian spruce (Picea omorika) that can be found on mountains Tara and Zvijezda, as well as in a few other localities in BiH and Serbia, such as Radomišlja and Mileševka. The number of endemic and relict plants is exceptionally high in the southern part of the basin, in the karst massifs surrounding rivers Piva and Tara, where endemic plant diversity reaches up to 96 species per one UTM 10x10 square (LUBARDA, B. et al., 2014). In the whole Basin, the number of endemic plant species exceeds 130.

As an example, in the RS part of BiH, important endemic plant species are: Daphne malyana, Saxi-fraga rocheliana, Centaurea incompta, Dianthus kitaibelii, Cerastium lanatum, Centaurea derven-tana, Aquilegia grata, Amphoricarpus autariatus, Valeriana braun-blanquetii, Campanula balcan-ica, Adenophora liliifolia, Cirsium wettsteinii, Cicerbita pancicii, Melampyrum hoermanianum, Teucrium arduini, Iris bosniaca. (“IG L.L.C., 2014). In particular, the Aquilegia nikolicii is a strictly protected plant species in the DRB as shown below: Aquilegia grata is a strictly protected plant species in Serbia according to Annex 1 of the Law on Na-ture Protection (Official gazette of the Republic of Serbia: 36/2009 i 88/2010).

Source: Niketic et al., 2013

Figure 3-23: Presence of Aquilegia nikolicii in the DRB

Since 2013 botanists split the species into two different species: Aquilegia grata and Aquilegia nikolicii. The map above (Figure 3-23) shows the presence of Aquilegia nikolicii in the DRB.


Forests in the DRB In the lower parts of the DRB, as well as in the upper parts, there are mostly deciduous forests, including tree species like the Turkey oak (Quercus cerris), the Hop Hornbeam (Ostrya carpinifolia), the Oriental Hornbeam (Carpinus orientalis) and the Manna ash (Fraxinus ornus) In the canyons of the DRB are mesophile forest including tree species such as the Common beech (Fagus sylvatica) and the Balkan beech (Fagus moesiaca), the Oriental Hornbeam (Carpinus orientalis) and European ash (Fraxinus excelsior). In the canyons of Tara and Komarnica rivers, it is possible to find also forests of Black pine (Pinus nigra) and Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) mixed with Norway spruce (Picea abies) and the Silver fir (Abies alba). At altitudes over 2,000 m due to unfavourable conditions only shrub vegetation occurs. The Forest ecosystem directly related to the water resources management is the alluvial forest. BiH On the territory of BiH in the valley of the Drina River small stands of alluvial forests are located. Black alder (Alnus glutinosa) is dominant species in these forests. The species willow (Salix alba) is dominant species in alluvial forests situated peripheral along the Drina River. This type of vegetation is recorded sporadically. At higher altitudes, concluding and fragment communities of European beech, silver fir and spruce (Picea - Abieti - Fagetum) occur. Serbia On the territory of Serbia, alluvial forests are dominant in the valley of the Drina River. Different willows (such as Salix purpurea, Salix elagnos, Salix pentandra, Salix purpurea, Salix alba, Salix amydalina, Salix triandra) are the dominant species in these forest types. These willows are followed by hygrophilous shrubs and small threes like the Black popular (Populus nigra) or the common alder (Alnus glutinosa). At lower altitudes in alluvial forests (bayou of Drina in Mačva) the dominant trees are: white willow (Salix alba), white poplar (Populus alba), black poplar (Populus nigra) and silver poplar (Populus canescens). Also in some stands forest of grey alder (Alnus incana) are located. At these lower altitudes, termophilous deciduous forests are also present. Dominant species in this forest are termophilous oaks (Quercus pubescens, Quercus virgilliana, Quercus cerris, Quercus frainetto, Quercus petraea, Quercus daleschampi or Quercus pedunculi-flora) or other termophilous deciduous trees (such as Ostrya carpinifolia, Carpinus orientalis, Acer campestre, Acer hyrcanum, Acer monspessulanum, Acer obtusatum, Acer tataricum, and Fraxinus ornus). At higher altitude mono-dominant or mixed forests with domination of Fagus moesiaca are presented. Apart from this species, species Juglans regia, Quercus petraea, Tilia argentea, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphyllos, Ilex aquifolium, Ruscus aculeatus etc. have important abundance. Also, an important part of the DRB, in Serbia are under mixed forest with domination of termophilous decid-uous trees, such as Ostrya carpinifolia, Carpinus orientalis, Acer campestre, Acer hyrcanum, Acer monspes-sulanum, Acer obtusatum etc. This association is located up to 1450 masl. At 1100-1700 masl are presented dark monodominant coniferous forest in which the Silver fir (Abies alba), the Norway spruce (Picea abies) or the Serbian Spruce (Picea omorika) are dominant species. These forests are located on colder exposition. Montenegro Data are still required and will be obtained in the planning phase.

Invasive plants species The most noticeable invasive plant species in the DRB are Ambrosia artemisifolia, and Reynoutria sp. (japon-ica). Ambrosia artemisifolia is already well established in the whole lower part of the DRB, while Reynoutria


is a great threat for the riparian vegetation and is spreading in the lower part of the region (Anđelković et al., 2013). A great threat for the natural habitats located on steep slopes of canyons and gorges is an invasive tree species called Ailanthus altissima. Its current distribution is not wide, but the species is present on both sides of the Drina River, especially in the Municipalities Višegrad and Bajina Bašta (Municipality of Višegrad, 2013). Another invasive species that is most likely present in the DRB is Asclepias syriaca. It is probably the most common invasive plant species after Ambrosia artemisifolia in the lower parts of the DRB. FAUNA Because of its high variety of habitats, the DRB covers a large variety of fauna including fish, amphibians, mammals, birds and insects. Fish in the DRB General data about fish ecology in the Drina River is scarce and outdated. Population size and distribution of fish species is largely unknown Up to date publications are presenting the result of newest research about very specific issues concerning salmonid fish species (grayling, brown trout, and Danube salmon). They have specific goals (genetics, growth etc.) and do not give data about the general state of fish ecosystems in the Drina River. As a general description, it can be highlighted that with approximately 350 kilometres of water flow, Drina River offers a variety of different habitats and ecosystems and is inhabited by more than 50 fish species which is approximately half of all freshwater fish species found in all three countries. Drina River represents one of key fish diversity locations within the Balkans. In upper parts of the basin there are mountain streams and small water flows with clean and cold water in-habited by Salmonid fishes primarily. There are also Drina tributaries that are important part of its water flow. At these locations one can see brown trout, bullhead and brook barbel. These species are mostly af-fected by small dams, overfishing, especially brown trout, and from a moderate amount of nutrients coming from nearby fish farms. In middle parts of the DRB the river water is a bit warmer with moderate water flow and smaller gravel size. These waters are mainly inhabited by a combination of Cyprinid and Salmonid fishes. At these locations can be observed Danube salmon, grayling and even brown trout as representatives of Salmonid fishes. There is also rainbow trout that have escaped from nearby fish farms and this directly affects mainly brown trout by competing for food. All these species have been affected by pollution and overfishing pressure for the last 50 years. Barbel, Nace, Danube roach, Chub, Bullhead, Zingel and many more species are also observed in this section of the basin. In lower parts of the DRB near the confluence with the Sava River exhibit lowland characteristics with flooded areas that are inhabited by typical limnophylic species. Typical lowland species can be found as carp, pike, bream and catfish but we can also occasionally see Danube salmon. In flooded areas there are also crucian carp, tench, weather loach and even mud-minnow (reported for Gromzelj). Endemic and endangered fishes: Fish are among the most endangered vertebrates and preserving the rich fish ecosystems of the Drina River would enable the protection of a high proportion of the Balkan and European fish species and their genetic diversity.


For example, the Danube Salmon (Hucho hucho), is one of the most endangered European fish species (IUCN Red list), endemic for Danube drainage. The Drina River is a very important habitat for this species. Its migration routes are interrupted with dams, and populations are showing a disrupted structure, whilst the population size has decreased significantly. Other important fish species present in the basin are the Greyling (Thymalus thymalus), The Brown trout (Salmo labrax) and at only one locality (Gromiželj in BiH), the European mudminnow (Umbra krameri). A widely introduced species is the Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from California and Arctic Char (Salvelinus alpinus). Both species have been introduced to the mountain glacial lakes where they have been feeding on newts: aquatic salamanders of the Pleurodelinae subfamily, making them disappear. Invasive fish species: In DRB, the following invasive fish species can be found: Oncorhynchus mykiss, Salvelinus alpinus, Cte-nopharyngodon idella, Ameiurus nebulosus (Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2009). Introduction of fish to glacier lakes is a common problem in Durmitor area, although this directly violates National Park regulations. Triturus alpestris serdarus, an endemic subspecies of Alpine Newt, Triturus al-pestris found only on the locality of Zminjicko Lake in Montenegro between the Sinjajevina and Durmitor Mountains might become extinct because of the introduction of fish to glacier lakes (IUCN, 2005). Amphibians and reptiles in DRB The amphibians and reptiles are present with at least 35 species. The most remarkable amphibians observed are the Olm (Proteus anguinus) and the Alpine Salamander (Salamandra atra). They strongly depend on the water resources. The most remarkable reptilian is the Meadow Viper (Vipera ursinii) and the endemic Mosor Rock Lizard (Dinarolacerta mosorensis). Mammal in the DRB In the forests of the upper catchment of the Drina river live charismatic mammal species such as the Brown bear (Ursus arctos), the Eurasian wolf (Canis lupus), the chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra), the wild cat (Felis silvestris), the Eurasian Lynx (Lynx, Lynx), the European otter (Lutra lutra). These species are rare and en-dangered. The Basin holds also two endemic species, the Blind Mole (Talpa caeca) and the Balkan Snow Vole (Di-naromys bogdanovi). There are also more common species of mammals such as the fox, the marten, the badger, the wild boar, the deer, the rabbit etc. Bat species are also well represented in the DRB. Probable number of species in DRB is at about 30-32, and Drina River represents a corridor for the migration of bats. This has been confirmed in August 2012, above Perućac Lake. However, information on bats throughout the region is scarce and is complete only for Tara NP in Serbia as well as Durmitor at a certain level. In Tara NP, especially important species are Barbastella barbastellus and Myotis bechsteinii, because they represent indicators for the quality of forest habitats and both are very abundant in the NP Tara. Also, DRB holds some very rare species for the region, such as Eptesicus nilssonii and Tadarida teniotis. Birds in the DRB Birds are present in the DRB with at least 230 species, with the most important site until now being Durmitor with 172 recorded species. Knowledge of birds in DRB is not equal throughout the basin, and can be improved drastically in some parts of the area, especially in protected areas along country borders. There are some species of birds directly related to the water resources of the Basin, like the Cormorants (Pha-lacrocorax carbo), which during winter months are gathering on the lakes of the Drina River, being in conflict with local fishermen, who see them as a pest feeding on fish stocks. Further downstream, the Drina River is characterized by numerous gravel islands, some of them hosting small colonies of Little Tern (Sterna albif-rons) and of Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) that are unique in the DRB. The colonies of Little Tern are even unique in Serbia.


Other main bird families in the DRB that can be indirectly affected by the water resources management are; on very high elevations, above 2000m, typical representatives can be found, such as the Shore lark (Ere-mophilla alpestris), the White-winged Snow Finch (Montifringilla nivalis), the Alpine Accentor (Prunella collaris). The most charismatic bird species of the forests of DRB are the owls: the Ural Owl (Strix uralensis), the Pygmy Owl (Glaucidium passerinum), the Tengmalm's Owl (Aegolius funereus) and the woodpeckers and the flycatchers: the White Collared Flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis) and the Red-breasted flycatcher (Ficedula parva), all of them indicators of forest quality. In addition, the Black grouse (Tetrao urogallus) is threatened by disturbance and hunting. Out of the bird species that inhabit cliffs, the most important is the Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus), which breeds in three different colonies in DRB, all of them in Serbia (Trešnjica, Uvac and Mileševka). Currently, this species is dependent on conservation measures, most of all supplementary feeding. Being the only Balkan endemic bird species, it is important to mention the Rock Partridge (Alectoris graeca), which is declining throughout the region. Insect in DRB The diversity of both butterflies is exceptionally high. Other groups of insects are also remarkable because of the high number of endemic sub-species present in the DRB. For example, there are at least 45 endemic species of Carabidae (Coleopterea) and most of them are confined to the Dinarides and present in the DRB. Endemic species of insects can also be observed, such as the Pančić grasshopper (Pyrgomorphella serbica), arachnid (Chthonius pancici), 5 species of Myriapods, 5 vrsta stonoga (centipede) which can be found in local caves. Invasive insect species Even though the number of invasive species among Arthropoda is the highest, it is not very well recorded. One notable infestation happened in the mid-nineties when a corn pest, Diabratica virgifera appeared on the agricultural fields of the lower Drina flow (Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2009).

3.10.9 Population trends for fauna and flora and threats Population trends for fauna and flora species in the DRB are difficult to assess due to lack of past and present data. However, based on the IUCN status and trends of population of important species of the DRB (see Table 3-5), it can be seen that many flora and fauna species are decreasing over the past few years. For the Danube Salmon (fish), the Serbian Spruce (tree) or bird species like the Rock Partridge and rare Wood-peckers such as the Three-toed and the White-backed Woodpecker, data are sufficient to say that populations are declining. It is also observed that some bird species that were breeding in the past in the DRB are not breeding in the DRB anymore. This is the case of the Common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) that does not breed anymore on the lakes of Durmitor NP for 50 years because of tourist pressure. One of the aims of the Drina project will be to assess the trends and the key component of the observed changes in order to define the likely impact of the water managements and the protection measures to ensure the envi-ronmental sustainability. At this stage, it can be supposed that the main threats are: Human pressures Dams: creation of lake which change the water ecosystem (fast flowing waters become stagnant or slow

moving waters), disturbance of upstream fish migration due to impassable barriers or insufficient environ-mental flow, disturbance of the flow and the sediment natural regimes on habitats.

Fish farms: Pollution of the water due to the nutrient precipitators, drying of rivers due to the water deri-vation for the fish farms.


Gravel mining: destruction of breeding areas of fishes in the rivers, pollution of the water resources, and destruction of natural sediment regimes.

Hunting and fishing. Tourism activities (disturbance of habitats and corridors). Forestry activities with a loss of habitats. Solid waste and industrial pollution. Introduced fishes. Invasive species. Environmental factors Drought: Droughts affect in particular the small tributaries of the Drina River. For example, in 2012 and 2013, during extreme droughts hundreds of kilometres of salmonid streams were left without water, which led to mass migration of fish from secondary flows toward main watercourses and reservoirs. In addition to this vertical migration, within each larger watercourse there was a horizontal migration - from shallow to deeper waters and from the rapids to the whirlpools. Solid waste and industrial pollution. These movements of fish in conditions of extreme drought result in dramatically increased concentration of fish in a small space, putting pressure on the food resource for fish. It leads to overfishing at the places of high fish density. In addition, droughts increase the negative effects of water pollution by increasing the concentration of pollutants in the wastewater. During drought period, the risk of forest fires is increased with the destruction of large areas of habitats. Extreme floods: The effects of extreme floods that dominated the spring of 2014 are yet to be assessed (Travar, 2014). Floods can destroy habitats or lead to massive pollution as in 2014 when flood damaged the barriers between Korenita river (tributary of Jadar river) and tailings deploy site from an Antimony mine “Stolice”, which led to the massive pollution of the Jadar and the Drina rivers with heavy metals (B92, 2014).

Table 3-5: IUCN status and trends of population of important species of the DRB

Latin Names English Names IUCN Status IUCN Pop Trend

FAUNA

Mammals Canis lupus Grey wolf LC Stable Dinaromys bogdanovi Balkan Snow Vole En + VU Decreasing Felis silvestris Wild cat LC Decreasing Lutra lutra Eurasian otter NT Decreasing Lynx lynx Eurasian Lynx LC Stable Rupicapra rupicapra Northern chamois LC Unknown Talpa caec Blind Mole En + LC Unknown Ursus arctos Brown bear LC Stable

Fish Abramis brama Common bream LC Unknown Barbus barbus Barbel LC Unknown Carassius carassius Crucian carp LC Decreasing Chondrostoma nasus Common nase LC Unknown Cottus gobio European bullhead LC Unknown Esox lucius Northern pike LC Stable Gobio gobio Gudgeon LC Unknown Hucho hucho Danube Huchen E Unknown Lota lota Burbot LC Stable Salmo trutta Brown Trout LC Unknown Scardinius erythrophthalmus Common rudd LC Unknown Silurus glanis Wels catfish LC Unknown Squalius cephalus Chub LC Unknown Thymallus thymallus Grayling LC Unknown Tinca tinca Tench LC Unknown

Birds Aegolius funereus Tengmalm's Owl LC Stable Alectoris graeca Rock partridge En + NT Decreasing Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle LC Stable Circaetus gallicus Short‐toed snake eagle LC Stable Dendrocopos leucotos White‐backed Woodpecker LC Decreasing


Latin Names English Names IUCN Status IUCN Pop Trend Eremophila alpestris Shore lark LC Decreasing Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon LC Stable Ficedula albicollis White Collared Flycatcher LC Increasing Ficedula parva Red‐breasted flycatcher LC Stable Glaucidium passerinum Pygmy Owl LC Stable Gyps fulvus Griffon Vulture LC Increasing Montifringilla nivalis White‐winged Snow Finch LC Stable Picoides tridactylus Three‐toed Woodpecker LC Stable Prunella collaris Alpine Accentor LC Stable Scolopax rusticola Eurasian woodcock LC Stable Sterna albifrons Little Tern LC Decreasing Sterna hirundo Common Tern LC Decreasing Strix uralensis Ural Owl LC Stable Tetrao urogallus Black grouse LC Decreasing

Bats Barbastella barbastellus Barbastelle NT Decreasing Myotis bechsteinii Bechstein's bat T Decreasing

Insects Pyrgomorphulla serbica Pančić grasshopper En

Amphibians Proteus anguinus Olm En+VU Decreasing Salamandra atra Alpine Salamander LC Decreasing

Reptiles Dinarolacerta mosorensis Mosor Rock Lizard En+VU Decreasing Vipera ursinii Meadow Viper VU Decreasing

FLORA

Trees Abies alba Silver fir LC Stable Carpinus orientalis Oriental Hornbeam LC Unknown Fagus moesiaca Balkan beech Fagus sylvatica Common beech Fraxinus excelsior European ash Fraxinus ornus Manna ash Ostrya carpinifolia Hop Hornbeam Picea abies Norway spruce LC Unknown Picea omorika Serbian Spruce E and En Decreasing Pinus nigra Black pine LC Stable Pinus sylvestris Scots pine LC Stable Quercus cerris Turkey oak

Other plant species Alacsya sendtneri En Aquilegia nikolicii En Centaurea deventana En Cephalaria pastricesis En Verbascum bosnense En

LC Least Concern VU Vulnerable NT Near Threatened E Endangered T Threatened En Endemic

3.10.10 Protected Areas Protected areas provide the sites with the richest biodiversity and landscape value. The protected areas that are located within the DRB are shown in Figure 3-24 and in Table 3-6. A more detailed description of the protected areas is shown in Annex 3 whilst details of the flora species in the DRB is shown in Annex 4. Plans for new protected areas are in progress and are being considered by the riparian state governments.


Only protected areas directly or indirectly related with IWRM will be analysed in detail, in order to define the main pressures and changes that need to be taken into account.

Source: Biodiv, 2014 Figure 3-24: Map of Both Existing and Planned PAs in DRB


Table 3-6 : Protected Areas of BiH, Montenegro and Serbia in the DRB

Name and type of Protected Area Size (km2) Date Formed BiH: Federation

Plans in progress (See below)

BiH: Republika Srpska

Sutjeska: NP, IUCN: II 160.52 1962 (2012) Planned extension

Gromiželj: SNR, IUCN: Ib Bijeljina municipalityConfluence of the Drina and Sava rivers

8.33 2011

Perućica (located within NP Sutjeska): SNR, IUCN: Ia 14.34 1954

Tara canyon and Ljubišnja: NP not yet protected

Drina: NP not yet protected

Drina: Biosphere reserves not yet protected

around 25 other PAs (see map) not yet protected

Montenegro

Biogradska gora: NP 56.5 1952

Durmitor: NP, UNESCO world heritage site, IBA 390 1952

Prokletije: NP 166.3 2009

Komovi: RP, IUCN: VI 195.04 2014? not yet protected

Piva: RP, IUCN: VI 200? 2014? not yet protected

Serbia

Tara: NP, Emerald site, IUCN: II 191.7 1981

Šargan – Mokra Gora: PP 108.14 2005

Part of the area of the village of Tršić and Tronoša Monastery: MNM

1965

Trešnjica River Gorge: SNR Trešnjica River Gorge

5.95 1995

Mileševka: RNP 4.57 1976

Uvac: SNR Canyon of the Uvac River

74.53 2006

Slapovi sopotnice: MoN Waterfalls of Sopotnica River 2005

Many other MoN (small objects)

Zasavica7: SNR, IUCN:IV Sremska Mitrovica and Bogatić municipalities

18.25 1997

Legend: MNM: Memorial Nature Monument; MoN: Monument of Nature; NP: Nature Park; RNP: Regional Nature Park; RP: Re‐gional Park; SNR: Special Nature Reserve;

Future Protected areas in the Federation of BiH The spatial plan of the FBiH for the period 2008-2028 presents 15 new protected areas (page 206), but none of them are in the DRB (Federal Ministry of Physical Planning of the Federation of BiH, 2013) (see Figure 3-25). Draft versions of the Spatial Plan of the Bosnian-Podrinje Canton (BPK) Goražde from 2010 sug-gested the creation of 2 Nature parks (BPK Goražde, 2010). The second draft from 2013 (BPK Goražde, 2013) suggested the creation of 8 small protected areas under the status “Protected Landscape”: “Kanjon Prače, Pavlovac, Crni Vrh-Pogled, Borovac-Rada Glava-Stolac, Stećansko Polje (Goršić Polje), Presjeka, Okolišta, Dio toka rijeke Drine (Zubovići-Modrani”(see picture here under). The Ministry will be contacted to confirm/correct and to complete the creation of the mentioned proctected areas.

7 The JV Consultant still needs to confirm if SNR Zasavica is part of the DRB


Source: Taken from Map “Protected objects and natural heritage areas and areas for remediation” (draft)

Figure 3-25: Map of both existing and planned PAs in DRB BPK Goražde, 2013,

Future NP Drina in the Republic of Srpska, BiH Parts of Rogatica territory have abundant specific variety and preserved natural and cultural historic values. The most interesting are the localities of Serbian spruce or Panciceva omorika (Picea omorika) designated as special botanical reserves (Nature Protection Act of Republika Srpska (Official Gazette 113/08): Mt. Mehra Sjemec, Goli Vrh Vratar, Panjak, Javor, Mt. Novo Brdo Tesla. Visegrad Municipality is recognised for its rich diversity of plants and animals and it is widely known as a centre of endemism, and a centre for a range of tertiary flora and fauna species. From the conservation perspective, the most important species in Visegrad municipality is Serbian spruce. Its natural habitat is in Veliki Stolac (altitude 1540 m) in the territory of Vise-grad. According to the Nature Protection Act of Republika Srpska (Official Gazette 113/08), major localities of Serbian spruce are designated as special nature botanical reserves: Gornja Brstanica, Cerova, Ravan, vil-lage Klasnik, Rakovac, Tovarnica, Stule Karaule, Bozurevac, Veliki Stolac and Gostilja. These localities have also been designated as Important Plant Areas in Central and Eastern Europe (Plant life International, 2005). The Emerald Network in the DRB The Emerald Network is the first ecological network that has been implemented in Europe. This initiative was adopted in 1979 by the Council of Europe in order to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats in the countries that are party to the Convention, including Serbia, Montenegro and BiH. The objective of the Emerald Network is to ensure the long-term survival of the species and habitats of the Bern Convention requiring specific protection measures. These habitats and species are listed respectively in Resolution 4 (1996) and Resolution 6 (1998) of the Standing Committee to the Bern Convention. In the DRB, 4 Emerald sites have been proposed for BiH, 14 sites have been proposed for Montenegro and 61 sites have been proposed for Serbia. The implementation of the Emerald Network in the DRB might push governments to protected more effectively the species requiring specific protection measures according to the Bern Convention. Other ecological Networks in the DRB Montenegro and Serbia are aiming to become part of the European Union. In this case, they would have to implement the Natura 2000 network according to the Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) and to the Bird Di-rective (79/409/EEC).


Serbia is also implementing a national ecological network (Law on Nature Protection of the Official Gazette of Serbia 36/2009 i 88/2010; Decree of the Official Gazette of Serbia: No: 102/2010). The sites in Serbia that should be part of the national ecological network have not yet been defined.

3.10.11 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage The DRB has been inhabited by early man for many millennia and evidence from charcoal burning can be seen in some of the caves that are interspersed along the Drina River valley. The listing by country of im-portant archaeological and cultural heritage sites follow. Most of these sites have been abstracted from web sites and spatial plans and they go by municipality. Some of the sites mentioned therefore may not fall within the DRB, but this will be checked in later phases of the study. BiH – Cultural and historical capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina is heterogeneous, including cultural goods created in a wide range, from prehistoric and ancient to medieval, Ottoman and modern times. They were created, because of the geographical position of BiH, by participation in four major civilization of Europe: Mediterranean, Central European, Byzantine and Oriental-Islamic. Cultural heritage in BiH is very important compared to other countries in the region primarily due to the period of conflict between 1992-1995 where a large number of sacral, secular and monumental sites, have been de-stroyed or damaged. Some of the institutions in the field of heritage lost their status, budgets, documents and experts. The Mehmed Pasha Sokolovic Bridge in Visegrad located in the DRB is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, The oldest cultural heritage in BiH comes from the Palaeolithic period, but the sites near Bosanski Brod and near the mouth of Usore near Doboj are outside the DRB. Sites from the Neolithic culture in BiH are frequent and there are 12 locations, of which the Neolithic settle-ment of Butmir "Butmir Culture" is the most famous. According to data cited in a study of the long-term development of tourism in BiH, in addition to the above sites from the Palaeolithic and Neolithic times, there are a number of sites from prehistoric archaeological finds (94 sites), ancient Greek sites (13 sites), objects and locations from the Roman period (78 sites), from the Bronze Age (1 sites) and over 60,000 stecaks-medi-eval memorial monuments, representing exceptional and original appearance of the art of the Middle Ages in this region. For Montenegro - According to the current legislation, cultural heritage within the municipalities of DRB contains a total of 38 archaeological, historical, architectural, artistic, construction, ethnological and technical monuments (Table 3-7). In the first category (monuments of exceptional importance) there are 7 of them - cultural monuments of exceptional importance include those on the UNESCO World Heritage List, and others. In the second category (monuments of great importance) there are 14 of them, and in the third category (mon-uments of local importance) there are 17 monuments.

Table 3-7: Summary of Montenegrin Cultural Heritage Sites within Municipalities of the DRB

Municipality

Category Types of Cultural Monuments

I II III

Urban

complex

Old town

Sacral

monument

Secular

monument

Fortification

monument

Archae

ological

monument

Ethnological

monument

Technical

monument

Memorial

monument

Total.

Andrijevica ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Berane 1 2 2 ‐ ‐ 3 1 0 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5

Bijelo Polje 2 3 1 ‐ ‐ 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6

Zabljak ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1

Kolašin 1 ‐ 2 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 1 3

Mojkovac ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1


Municipality

Category Types of Cultural Monuments

I II III

Urban

complex

Old town

Sacral

monument

Secular

monument

Fortification

monument

Archae

ological

monument

Ethnological

monument

Technical

monument

Memorial

monument

Total.

Plav ‐ 2 4 ‐ 4 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6

Pljevlja 2 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ 6

Plužine 1 1 1 ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3

Šavnik ‐ 1 6 ‐ 5 1 1 7

TOTAL 7 14 17 0 0 29 3 1 2 0 2 1 38

In the cultural and historical sense, Berane is known for its monastery, (Djurdjevi stupovi - Monastery of the tracts of St. George), which is a centre of cultural life in this area, and it is a UNESCO site. Also, the Roman Castrum-Dolac, which is the source of the rich archaeological findings from the era of Roman rule in the region, is a monument of special interest. In Bijelo Polje there is one of the oldest buildings which represent Balkans church architecture - the Church of St. Peter. The Church of St. Nicholas from the seventeenth century is also an important cultural monument of the city. One of the finest examples of the monastery painting in the Balkans is Monastery Morača and it is located in Kolašin, but this is outside of the DRB; within the Morača River catchment. Vinica Hill is also in this munic-ipality, it is the site of the ruins of the Turkish powder magazine, as well as bridge of Prince Danilo on Mrtvica, a third category profane cultural monument. However, these are outside of the DRB and in the Morača River catchment. The oldest preserved building in Plav is Redzepagića Tower. Church of the Holy Trinity in Brezojevica and Old mosque are also monuments of significance in this city. In cultural and historical sense, one of the most important monuments in Pljevlja is Hussein Pasha Mosque from the XVI century, which has a minaret 42m high. Then, there is Monastery of the Holy Trinity, with a rich treasure-hiding-places with many hand written and printed books. On the territory of the municipality Šavnik there are several cultural and historical monuments: Podmalinsko monastery, the monastery of St. George in Bijela, a memorial park "Vuk's roots" - dedicated to Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic in Petnjica, memorial house of Novica Cerović in Tušinja. In Plužine one can find Piva monastery, one of the pillars of Orthodox Christianity in Montenegro, in Žabljak there is the Church of the Holy Transfiguration, and in Mojkovac - Monastery of St. George. For Serbia8 - In the Kolubarski and Mačvanski administrative district, the following cultural property is pro-tected: 1. Of great importance - Downtown "Tešnjar" in Valjevo; The memorial chapel with mausoleum in Prnjavor,

Šabac, Memorial ossuary Tekeriš, Memorial House of Vuk Karadžić in Tršić, Memorial Complex Bela Crkva, Memorial Complex Stolice, Krupanj and memorial stone ossuary in Mačkov kamen;

2. Very important - wooden church in the village of Milicinica, Pustinja monastery at Rebelj, Church of St. John in Jovanje, monastery Ćelije, Nenadovića tower on Kličevac, famous place Brankovina; Bogovađa monastery; Birthplace of Duke Mišić with garden in Struganik, memorial houses in the village Robaje; complex building with a courtyard in Bastav; Šabačka fortress, the old hospital building, the Church of the Transfiguration Krivaja, building Gymnasium; Tronoša Monastery, Monastery Čokešina, monument and

8 Data for Macvanski, Kolubarski, Zlatiborski and Moravicki administrative districts (Regional Spatial Plans)


ossuary executed in Draginac; Monastery of the Ascension in Slavkovići;The old bridge on the river Ljuboviđa; Monastery of the Ascension in Dokmir;

3. Protected goods - spatial cultural and historical sites: Prince Miloš street in Valjevo, Bebića Luka; Vuji-novača hamlet of village (city of Valjevo); Gospodar Jevremova street in Sabac, complex of Banja Kovil-jača, Jovan Cvijić Square in Loznica; places of interest: memorial cemetery from the First World War, 1914-1918 (City of Valjevo), Monument on Brankovacki Vis, Monument at Mišaru (city Sabac), Memo-rial ossuary Tekeriš, Monument at Gučevo (city Loznica); Ditch on Baurić, Gornja Bukovica (Ljubovija municipality); other monuments;

4. Archaeological sites: archaeological site Petnica, late antique buildings Babina Luka, Medieval town of Valjevo, the stadium Krušik, prehistoric mound Zabari (City of Valjevo); Dumfries village of Slatina, Ilic hill - Čučuge (municipality Ub); Kik, Svileuva (municipality Koceljeva); Panagyurishte village Komirić (municipality Osečina); Saltpeter caves, Brežđe (Mionica municipality); City Gradačac, Jalovik (munici-pality Vladimirci); early Byzantine fort Konjuša on Cer (city Loznica)

In the Zlatiborski and Moravicki administrative district, there are protected cultural goods of four kinds: cul-tural monuments- 148, spatial cultural and historical sites- 2, archaeological sites-19, and places of interest- 3. From 172 cultural goods, of great importance there are 20: Mramorje at Perućac, Wooden Church in Dub, St. Ahilija Church.at Arilje, Church St. Nikolas at Dabru, monastery complex Milesevo, ruins of Partisan hospital beneath the hill Karoshevine in Prijepolje, birth house of Dimitrije Tucovic in Gostilje, Church. of St. Peter and Paul in Sirogojno, Old Village complex in Sirogojno, memorial complex Boško Buha at Jabuka, historical buildings in Užice, Moljkovića Han in Kremna and Kadinjača, prehistoric tumul Trnjaci in Pilatovići, Gornja Dobrinja, a wooden church in Takovo, home of Miloš Obrenović in Gornja Crnuća, Takovski grm in Takovo, memorial complex in Ljubić and wine cellar in Atenica), 44 very important goods (Monastry Rača, Church of Saint Elijah in Brekovo, the church of St. Archangel in Poblaće, the remains of the monastery in Mažice, the monastery complex in Davidovici, Kolovrat, a wooden church in Donja Jablanica, Bela Crkva in Karan, me-dieval castle, a church with a bell tower of St. Mark, the old power plant in Uzice, wooden churches in Kučani, the wooden church in Radijevići, tumuli (Mionica and Skakavci, Kosjeric), Blaškovina, Vesovina, Krčevina, Varošište, Bolnica, Savinac in Visibaba, birth house of Kristina Leković in Svračkovo, Godovik, wooden church in Ljutovnica, wooden church in Pranjanima, Vraćevšnica monastery complex, the church of the Holy Trinity in Gornji Milanovac, the church of St. Sava in Savinac, building of District Authorities in Milanovac, Gavrović blockhouse in Pranjanima, the Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Monastery Sretenje at Ovčar (Dučalovići), the monastery complex Jezevine, the lord John's lodgings in Cacak, the monastery Nikolje in Rosca, Annunciation monastery in Ovcar, the monastery complex Vujan, District Authorities building in Čačak, house of Aleksija Lužanin in Miokovci, church of the Ascension of Christ in Čačak, the Church of the Transfiguration in Pridvorica, the Church of Archangel Gabriel and Michael in Kovilje, church of St. Nicholas in Brezovi and part of the city centre in Ivanjica) and 108 are protected. In the settlements are represented and other elements of cultural heritage, as well as valuable samples of rural architecture, ethnological features of the area, objects of autochthonous materials and more.

3.11 Socio-Economic Factors

One of the objectives of the IWRM is to ensure sustainable socio-economic development in the three riparian countries of the DRB. The next planning phase will commence with a general description of the present so-cio economic factors in the DRB in order to ascertain the present and future water supply and water demand from all water users.

3.11.1 Population The area of DRB includes parts or the entire territory of 56 local government units (municipalities and cities), in which, according to the last census lives a population of approximately 1,100,000 inhabitants. The admin-istrative boundaries of municipalities and cities include a larger area (22,948 km2) than the DRB area (19,680 km2), so the indicators relating to population, at this stage, are calculated on the basis of available data at the level of administrative territorial units. The Table 3-8 provides the current statistics from the DRB.


Table 3-8: Population Statistics for the Drina River Basin

Riparian State/ Surface Area Population (2013)

Density

Administrative Area km2 persons/km2

DRB 23181.69 1091359 47.1

BiH (FBiH) 982.6 58120 59.1

Foča‐Ustikolina 169.4 2213 13.1

Goražde 248.8 22080 88.7

Pale‐Prača 86.4 1043 12.1

Sapna 118 12136 102.8

Kladanj 331 13041 39.4

Teočak 29 7607 262.3

BiH (RS) 7324.09 371461 50.7

Foča 1134.58 19811 17.5

Čajniče 274.6 5449 19.8

Novo Goražde 119 3391 28.5

Rudo 347.63 8834 25.4

Pale 492.8 22282 45.2

Sokolac 693.45 12607 18.2

Han Pijesak 322.9 3844 11.9

Višegrad 448.14 11774 26.3

Rogatica 645 11603 18

Vlasenica 234 20075 85.8

Milići 279.31 12272 43.9

Srebrenica 526.83 15242 28.9

Bratunac 293.49 21619 73.7

Šekovici 237.2 7771 32.8

Zvornik 376.14 63686 169.3

Ugljevik 165.17 16538 100.1

Bijeljina 733.85 114663 156.2

MONTENEGRO 6872 154873 22.5

Andrijevica 283 5071 17.9

Berane 717 33970 47.4

Bijelo Polje 924 46051 49.8

Kolašin 897 8380 9.3

Mojkovac 367 8622 23.5

Plav 486 13108 27

Pljevlja 1346 30786 22.9

Plužine 854 3246 3.8

Šavnik 553 2070 3.7

Žabljak 445 3569 8

SERBIA 8003 506905 63.3

Bogatić 384 28883 75.2

Šabac 798 115884 145.2

Loznica 612 79327 129.6

Osečina 319 12536 39.3

Krupanj 342 17295 50.6

Mali Zvornik 184 12482 67.8

Ljubovija 356 14469 40.6

Bajina Bašta 673 26022 38.7

Užice 668 78040 116.8

Čajetina 647 14745 22.8

Priboj 553 27133 49.1

Nova Varoš 581 16638 28.6

Prijepolje 827 37059 44.8

Sjenica 1059 26392 24.9


The total area of DRB is relatively evenly divided into three administrative units, so that the participation of Serbia is 34%, Montenegro 30% and BiH 36%. But from total population of the DRB in Montenegro live only 14% inhabitants, while in Serbia live 47% and in BiH live 39%. The area of DRB in Montenegro is located in mountainous terrain which is characterized by low population density of 22 inhabitants/km2. Extremely low population density is seen at Šavnik and Plužine municipalities, which is less than 4 inhabitants/km2. The highest population density is in the Serbian part of DRB, is approximately 63 inhabitants/km2, although there are significant differences in population density between municipalities, where municipalities of Sjenica, Nova Varos and Cajetina have less than 30 inhabitants/km2 (also due to the hilly and mountainous terrain), while cities of Sabac, Loznica and Uzice have a high population density of around 145 inhabitants/km2, 130 inhabitants/km2 and 117 inhabitants/km2, respectively. The population density in the RS BiH is 51 inhabit-ants/km2, while in the FBiH it is 59 inhabitants/km2, in the area covered by DRB. The highest population density in BiH and in the whole DRB, has the municipality Teocak with 262 inhabitants/km2. High density of population in the territory of BiH has also been seen in Bijeljina (165 inhabitants/km2), Zvornik (169 inhabit-ants/km2) and Sapna (102 inhabitants/km2). Low population density is seen in municipalities Han Pijesak, Foca (FBiH and RS), Pale (FBiH), Rogatica, Sokolac and Čajniče, with less than 20 inhabitants/km2. Figure 3-26 shows this information graphically.

Figure 3-26: Population Distribution within DRB

Distinction between urban and rural BiH - The average level of urbanization in the RS and FBiH is approximately the same - 37%, while the dif-ferences at the municipal level are significantly higher. Greater participation of urban compared to rural pop-ulation is characteristic for municipalities of Foča (62%), Pale (62%), Han Pijesak (53%) in the RS and the municipality of Goražde (57%) in the Federation. Municipalities Novo Gorazde in the RS and Foča and Pale in FBiH do not have urban centre or urban population due to the new administrative division. These new mu-nicipalities were parts of the former larger municipalities, whose municipal centres and urban settlements are now located on the territory of RS (for Foča and Pale), and in the Federation (for Novo Goražde).

34%

30%32%

4%

36%

Administrative Areas of DRB

Serbia Montenegro Rep. Srpska Fed. BiH

47%

14%34%

5%

39%

Population of DRB

Serbia Montenegro Rep. Srpska Fed. BiH


Montenegro - According to the Spatial Plan of Montenegro from 2008, the total number of Montenegrin ur-ban settlements is 40 and 1216 rural, while their spatial dispersion is very uneven. The densest network of settlements is in Coastal region, with 15 settlements on 100 km2, while the lowest is in the Northern region with 7.8 settlements on 100 km2. Approximately 61% of total population of Montenegro lives in urban areas. Broken down by region, degree of urbanization in the Central region is 78%, in Coastal region 62%, and in the Northern region 41%. The lowest level of urbanization is in municipalities of Andrijevica (18%) and Šavnik (19%) which are located in DRB. Serbia - In the area of DRB which belongs to Serbia, approximately 41% of the people live in urban areas and 58% in rural areas. The municipalities of Bogatić, Osečina and Ljubovija do not have urban centres or urban population, while the highest level of urbanization is in the City of Uzice (approximately 77%). Greater participations of urban compared to rural population are in municipalities Priboj (55%), Nova Varoš (53%) and Sjenica (53%). This information is shown graphically in Figure 3-27.

Figure 3-27: Degree of Urbanisation within the DRB region

Gender and Age Structure BiH - In the area of DRB, or municipalities that are in the scope of DRB, there is no data on the gender structure of the population, and at this stage there is only the data for whole BiH territory available. In BiH live more women than men, in the ratio of 51.3% female compared to 48.7% of male population. Montenegro - The population age structure is relatively balanced for all municipalities in DRB. The largest percentage share of the male population has municipality of Šavnik (51.7%) compared to females (48.3%), while the largest percentage share of female population is in municipality of Pljevlja (50.8%), compared to the male population (49.2%). The total area is characterized by slightly higher share of male (50.2%) com-pared to female (49.8%) population. Such a trend was present in previous decades, so there are no significant changes in the gender structure of the population. Serbia - For DRB territory in Serbia is characteristic a greater participation of female population in relation to the male, as follows: 50.5% female and 49.5% male population. The largest percentage share of the male population (51.5%) is in the municipality of Osečina, while the highest percentage of female population is in the City of Užice (51.5%). Looking at the absolute values of the municipalities / cities DRB has about 6,000 more women than men. This information is shown graphically in Figure 3-28 below.

41

41

37

37

59

59 63

63

S E R B I A MONTENEGRO FB I H R S

URBANIZATION

Urban Rural


Montenegro BiH Serbia

Population

T 650036 3871643 7209764

M 323806 1886711 3515095

F 326230 1984932 3694669

Age structure

0‐14 years

T 15.2 13.7 14.8

M 48231 272812 549469

F 50659 256152 515988

15‐24 years

T 10.8 12.7 11.6

M 33085 255074 432471

F 37029 238428 407367

25‐54 years

T 47.1 46.7 41.6

M 164644 906265 1512888

F 141380 899870 1488099

55‐64 years

T 12.9 13.7 14.7

M 41765 253045 511516

F 42075 276769 551117

> 65 years

T 13.8 13.3 16.9

M 36081 199515 508751

F 55087 313713 732098

Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Figure 3-28: Demography within the DRB Region

Observing the level of the states in the region of DRB, highest average age of the population is characteristic for Serbia (41.9 years), for BiH it is 40.8 years, while the lowest is in Montenegro- 39.2 years. In all three countries, the average age of female population is greater (Serbia 43.6, BiH 42.2, Montenegro 40.5) than for male population (Serbia 40.2, BiH 39.4 and CG 40.5). Population growth rates are negative in all three cases (Serbia-0.46, BiH -0.11 and Montenegro -0.49). The birth rate is highest in Montenegro with 10.59 births/1000 population, while the lowest is in Bosnia with 8.89 births/1000 population. In Serbia, the birth rate is 13.9 births/1000 population. In contrast, the mortality rate is highest in Serbia, where it is 13.71 deaths / 1000 population, while the lowest is in Montenegro- 9.3 deaths/1000 population. The mor-tality rate in BiH is 9.64 deaths/1000 population. Data on life expectancy at birth are available for Serbia (75


years) and BiH (76.3 years). Life expectancy is greater for female (Serbia 79.55 years and BiH 78.8 years) than for the male population (Serbia 72.17 years, BiH 73.33 years).9

3.11.2 Demographic trends BiH - The main problem in BiH are unfavourable demographic picture of the structure and distribution of the population, with a negative population growth rate and emigration of young people. There is a possibility of a slight recovery of demographic resources which depends on appropriate economic and social development. Population aging is especially characteristic of rural areas, while the primacy in the reproduction of the popu-lation takes place in urban areas. According to the Spatial plan, in the RS least favourable situation is in the Sava River and Drina River valleys due to major changes in the field of population. On the one hand, the entire system of settlements in the RS for a short period of time has been changed (in many cases former central settlements of the previous state have become border settlements in the new territorial division), demographic transition was performed by mechan-ically and naturally, the economy was weakened significantly, infrastructure destroyed, etc., and on the other hand, a planned preparation for the new situation was not carried out, and the settlements were left to the self-organization and getting along with the problems. Due to the consequences of the war, huge problems have rural settlements in the Sava River and Drina River valleys. Fragmented network of rural settlements in mountainous regions is a special problem, because, as such, it cannot be the basis for significant economic and social development of the village. The most difficult problems are the position and the situation of small municipalities on the border with FBiH, which were di-vided by the Dayton Agreement, and which today are the poorest because their most important resources stayed in former urban centres in the Federation. Also, according to estimation done for the purposes of Spatial Plan, RS in 2013 has a population of 1258418, which is 22.5% less than in 1991. RS is facing complex demographic problems that manifest by constant reduction in the birth rate and negative population growth, by reducing the number of pupils in primary schools, by processes of depopulation, the disappearance of villages, aging population, and emigration of fertile and working population abroad. In the last decade of the last century area of RS was characterized by processes of refuge, and then the return of refugees and displaced persons, which affected one third of the population. Analysis of the distribution of refugees and displaced households by region indicates the immigration pressure on the economically devel-oped areas, such as Banja Luka and Bijeljina region, where in 1996 was concentrated around two-thirds or more than 62% of the total number of refugees and displaced persons in the RS. Exile was one of the key factors of ethno-demographic and socio-economic processes and regional distribution of the population of this area. Some analyses suggest that in the RS, there are some municipalities which registered a positive migration balance, as a result of intensive process of return of refugees and displaced persons. However, analysis of the age structure of returnees indicates that in the future the return process will not significantly affect the increase in the demographic potential of this area. Internal migrations in this area are carried out by conventional directions i.e. from underdeveloped, isolated and neglected areas to the economically developed regions with better living conditions. The causes of these migrations are different, and usually are associated with better job opportunities, more money, promotion and education. Therefore, they are directed to the larger urban centres. Montenegro - Low population density in DRB is a consequence of urbanization and population migrations from North to Central and Southern regions. Internal migrations or displacement within Montenegro are very intense in the municipalities of Šavnik, Zabljak, Plužine, Berane, Andrijevica and as well as demographic trend of discharging Northern Region, which covers 11 municipalities and nearly 53% of the total territory of Montenegro. The only slight positive net migration has the municipality of Plav. In addition, there is also a significant drain of the population from the Northern Region to foreign countries. The largest outflow was

9 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/


recorded in the municipality of Bijelo Polje, where the number of inhabitants living abroad has increased by over 700% compared to 1991. A similar trend is also present in other municipalities (Andrijevica, Berane, Žabljak, Pljevlja, Šavnik, etc.). One of the most important demographic problems is the migration of younger population from rural to urban areas, and thus there are significant changes in their structure. Montenegro is already facing the problem of aging population, i.e. the increase of the population older than 60 years in the total population, which increased from 13.3% (1991) to 16.8% (2001) and, according to pro-jections, this trend will continue in the upcoming period (until 2021). Serbia- The largest number of municipalities in the DRB are characterized by profound demographic aging (Bajina Bašta, Čajetina, Nova Varoš, etc.), while some municipalities belong to the category of "demograph-ically old" (including the municipalities of Sjenica, which has one of the lowest average age of the popula-tion). One of the biggest limitations is a permanent and continuous demographic decline, followed by a very unfa-vourable age, educational and occupational structure of the population. Due to the poor economic situation in Serbia, in the last thirty years there were numerous population migrations and "emptying" of villages which resulted in the deterioration of the age structure of villages and of a greater part of the area. According to the Regional Spatial Plan for the Zlatiborski and Moravicki administrative districts, by 2025 it is expected a slight increase in population in regional and district centres, in Užice (2%) and Čačak (3%), while the largest demographic decline is expected in the municipality of Sjenica (29.5%), Priboj (28%) and Prijepolje (21%). These estimates of population represent a scenario that assumes no significant changes in the socio-economic structure of the population. The municipalities Osečina, Ub, Koceljeva, Krupanj and Ljubovija recorded a negative migration balance in the period 1991-2002, while the total population growth with a positive migration balance was recorded only in the cities of Loznica and Sabac and municipality of Mali Zvornik. The main feature of the settlement net-work is the concentration of population, economic activities and public infrastructure in regional, sub-re-gional centres, suburban and peri-urban settlements, some of the larger villages on one side, and demo-graphic fragmentation, depopulation, traffic isolation, underdeveloped structure of activities, inadequate in-frastructure in the villages of mountain areas, on the other

3.11.3 Employment and Unemployment BiH - According to data in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina labour force numbered 678,000 persons and there were 964,000 inactive persons. Among the labour force there were 501,000 persons in employment and 191,000 unemployed persons. The unemployment rate was 27.6% (27.1% for men and 28.4% for women), while in the same period in 2012 it was 29.4% (27.9% for men and 32.2% for women). Unemploy-ment rate was the highest among young persons aged 15 to 24 years. It was 58.9% (58.8% for men and 59.1% for women). The activity and employment rates in 2013 were 41.8% and 30.3%, while in the same period in 2012 that were 42.4% and 30.0%. Both rates were higher for men than for women. The activity and the employment rates were by far the highest in the age group 25 to 49 years (68.4% and 50.8%). The struc-ture of persons in employment by sectors of activity in 2013 shows that 54.5% of them worked in services, than in industry 32.9% and 12.7% in agriculture. The labour market in RS BiH is still negatively affected by the global economic crisis. After the unemployment rate dropped from 25.2% in 2007 to 20.5% in 2008, in 2009 it started to rise again. The unemployment rate in 2009 increased by 0.9 %, in 2010 by 2.2 %, in 2011 by 0.9 %, and in 2012 it increased by 1.1%. By gender, the female unemployment rate in 2012 was 1.7 % higher than in the previous year, while male unemployment rate increased by 0.8 % during the same period. Structure of employed persons by group of sections of activities in 2012 was as follows: agricultural 31.7%, industrial (non-agricultural) 24.7% and services 43.6%, while by


employment the structure was: employed persons (employees) 62.7%, self-employed persons 29.2%, and un-paid supporting family members 8.1%. Male employment rate in 2012 was 44.1%, and it was 16.9 % higher than female employment rate, which is a common divergence in this region. Half of all employed persons in RS BiH work in Manufacturing, Trade and Public Administration. Every second employee has completed secondary education, and every fourth has completed a higher education school or has a university degree. Every sixth employed person is under 30 years of age, while one in four employed persons is older than 50. Montenegro - According to data received through the Labour Force Survey conducted in 2013, labour force in Montenegro consist of 250.9 thousand of active population. From that number, there were: 201.9 thousand persons in employment or 80.5%; unemployed persons 48.9 thousand or 19.5%. The number of persons in employment in comparison with the previous year has increased 0.4% and the number of unemployed per-sons has decreased 1.0%. The activity rate for the 2013 is 50.1%, the employment rate is 40.3% and unem-ployment rate is 19.5%. Measures of the activity of the population for 15-64 age groups are: the activity rate is 58.9%, the employment rate is 47.4% and the unemployment rate is 19.6%. The structure of the unem-ployed by age is as follows: 19.86% of unemployed people are up to 24 years, 49.32% are between 25 and 49 years, while 30.82% are from the age group over 50 years. The share of long-term unemployment is 56.55%.The labour market is characterized by an increased engagement of non-resident people Serbia - The total number of employees in the Republic of Serbia, who have formal-legal employment con-tract, decreased in 2013 by 0.7%, when compared with 2012. The total number of employed women is down by 0.6%, and the total number of employed men by 0.8%. Legal entities (enterprises, institutions, coopera-tives and other organisations) saw a decrease of 0.2% in employment, of 2.3% in the number of entrepre-neurs - persons who perform the activity independently and in the number of their employees. Observed by sections of activities, the largest fall in employment in 2013, compared to 2012, was recorded in the follow-ing sections: Other service activities (17.1%), Construction (5.6%) and Financial and insurance activities (5.2%). Increase was recorded in the sections: Administrative and support service activities (16.5%), Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities (5.1%) and Professional, scientific and tech-nical activities (4.2%). The average salary of employees in 2013, compared with 2012, registered a nominal increase of 5.7% and real decrease of 1.9%. Nominal salary increase in this period was recorded in all activity sections and the highest one was in the following ones: Other service activities (nominal increase of 10.3% and real increase of 2.3%), and in the sections Information and communications, and Professional, scientific and technical ac-tivities (nominal increase of 9.1% and real increase of 1.2%). The lowest nominal salary increase was regis-tered in the following sections: Administrative and support service activities (nominal increase of 0.1% and real decrease of 7.1%), Construction (nominal increase of 2.8% and real decrease of 4.6%), Financial and insurance activities (nominal increase of 3.8% and real decrease of 3.7%). Data by municipalities that are in the scope of area of DRB are given in the following tables and figures:

Table 3-9: Montenegro - Employment and Unemployment in DRB Municipalities

MONTENEGRO Municipalities Employment rate (%) 2011 Unemployment rate (%)

Andrijevica 24.3 43.7

Berane 28.5 41.3

Bijelo Polje 30.4 36.6

Kolašin 40.0 27.2

Mojkovac 31.7 35.0

Plav 22.2 50.4

Pljevlja 39.2 30.6

Plužine 50.5 25.6

Šavnik 43.2 22.4

Žabljak 43.3 23.9

In the area of DRB which belongs to Montenegro, employment rate was the highest in the municipality of Plužine (43.3%) and the lowest in the municipality of Plav (22.2%), the regional average being 37.7%. Beside the municipality of Plužine, employment rate above the regional average can be observed in the municipalities


of Žabljak (43.3%), Šavnik (43.2%), Kolašin (40%) and Pljevlja (39.2%). Unemployment rate in the Monte-negro was the highest in the municipality of Plav (50.4%) and the lowest in the municipality of Šavnik (22.4%), the average being 46.2%. Further details are shown in Table 3-9 above. The highest average gross and average net monthly wage, was in the municipality of Plužine (Euro 800 and Euro 524), which is above the average in comparison the Drina River basin (Euro 581 and Euro 379.8). The lowest average gross and average net monthly wage, was in the municipality of Bijelo Polje (Euro 609 and Euro 404), which is still above the regional average. Further details are shown in Figure 3-29 below.

Figure 3-29: Montenegro - Average Salaries in DRB Municipalities

Figure 3-30: Montenegro – Employment by sectors in DRB Municipalities

According to NACE classification: manufacturing, mining and quarrying, electricity, gas, steam and air con-ditioning supply, water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities, construction, whole-sale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles, transportation and storage, accommodation and food service activities, information and communication, Information and communication, financial and insur-ance activities, real estate activities, professional, scientific and technical activities, Administrative and support service activities have a proportion of employment with 54.3% of total employees among the Montenegrin’s part of DRB, this rate is below the regional average (58.8%). The sectors of public administration and defence; compulsory social security, and defence, education, human health and social work activities, arts, entertainment and recreation and other service activities are the second most important categories of employment and have a share of 36.8 %, which is around the regional average (35.1%%). Agriculture, forestry and fishing have a relatively important role in the Montenegrin part of DRB with 6.7%, which is below the regional average (7.9%).

Table 3-10: RS-BiH - Employment and Unemployment in DRB Municipalities

REPUBLIC OF SRPSKA Municipalities Employment rate (%) 2010 Unemployment rate (total %)

Bijeljina 60.6 41.8

Bratunac 38.3 64.7

609 651 609 655 651 642

782 800

664 680

405 432 404 435 432 427515 524

440 450

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Average gross salaries Average net salaries

0,0 50,0 100,0 150,0 200,0 250,0 300,0 350,0 400,0 450,0

ABCDEFGHIJ

KL

MNOPQRS

Employees by sections of activities 2011.

Andrijevica

Berane

Bijelo Polje

Kolašin

Mojkovac

Plav

Pljevlja

Plužine

Savnik

Žabljak

Bijeljina


REPUBLIC OF SRPSKAMunicipalities Employment rate (%) 2010 Unemployment rate (total %)

Višegrad 53.2 49.9

Zvornik 61.0 39.2

Milići 58.0 44.2

Novo Goražde 50.2 45.7

Pale 58.3 41.0

Rogatica 56.9 46.3

Rudo 29.0 73.0

Sokolac 58.3 45.1

Srebrenica 51.9 43.2

Ugljevik 65.5 35.6

Foča 53.8 47.7

Han Pijesak 62.3 38.6

Čajniće 46.6 56.4

Šekovići 41.4 60.1

For DRB territory in Republica of Srpska employment rate was the highest in the municipality of Ugljevik (65.5%) and the lowest in the municipality of Rudo (29%), the regional average being 37.7%. Beside the municipality of Ugljevik, employment rate above the regional average can be observed in the municipalities of Han Pijesak (62.3%), Zvornik (61%), Bijeljina (60.6%) and others. Unemployment rate in the Republica of Srpska was the highest in the municipality of Bratunac (64.7%) and the lowest in the municipality of Ugljevik (35.6%), the average being 46.2%. The municipalities of Han Pijesak (38.6%), Zvornik (39.2%), Pale (41%) and others had unemployment rates below the regional average.

Figure 3-31: RS - BiH - Average Salaries in DRB Municipalities

668,2

597,2

707,1

618,6 618,6 631,4688,2

570,6

722,4

653,4 663,1

913,1

756,2

617,6673,9

534,3

403,4362,5

424,9389,6 374,3 377,3

414,6

345,1

434,6394,7 399,3

556,8

451,5

374,3404,9

328,2

0,0

100,0

200,0

300,0

400,0

500,0

600,0

700,0

800,0

900,0

1000,0


0,0 50,0 100,0 150,0 200,0 250,0 300,0

ABCDEFGHIJ

KL

MNOPQRS


Bijeljina

Bratunac

Višegrad

Zvornik

Milići

Novo Goražde

Pale

Rogatica

Rudo

Sokolac

Srebrenica

Ugljevik


Figure 3-32: RS - BiH – Employment by sectors in DRB Municipalities

The highest average gross and average net monthly wage, was in the municipality of Ugljevik (Euro 913.1 and Euro 556.8), which is above the average in comparison the Drina river basin (Euro 581 and Euro 379.8). The lowest average gross and average net monthly wage, was in the municipality of Šekovići (Euro 534.3 and Euro 328.2), which is below the regional average. Further details are shown in Figure 3-31 above. According to NACE classification: Manufacturing, Mining and quarrying, Electricity, gas, steam and air con-ditioning supply, Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities, Construction, Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles, Transportation and storage, Accommo-dation and food service activities, Information and communication, Information and communication, Financial and insurance activities, Real estate activities, Professional, scientific and technical activities, Administrative and support service activities have a proportion of employment with 63.6 % of total employees in the DRB territory in Republica of Srpska, this rate is above the regional average (58.8%). The sectors of Public administration and defence; compulsory social security, and defence, Education, Human health and social work activities, Arts, entertainment and recreation and Other service activities are the second most important categories of employment and have a share of 31.2 %, which is below the regional average (35.1%%). Agriculture, forestry and fishing have a relatively important role in the DRB territory in Republica of Srpska with 5.2%, which is below the regional average (7.9%).

Table 3-11: FBiH - Employment and Unemployment in DRB Municipalities

FEDERATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Municipalities Employment rate (%) 2010 Unemployment rate (total %)

Foča 34.5 61.6

Goražde 57.0 35.4

Pale 38.0 62.2

Kladanj 39.8 60.4

Sapna 21.8 82.2

Teočak 15.1 80.7

In the area of DRB which belongs to Federation of Bosnia Herzegovina, employment rate was the highest in the municipality of Goražde (57.0%) and the lowest in the municipality of Teočak (15.1%), the regional aver-age being 37.7%. Beside the municipality of Goražde, employment rate above the regional average can be observed in the municipalities of Kladanj (39.8%) and Pale (38%). Unemployment rate in the Federation of Bosnia Herzegovina was the highest in the municipality of Sapna (82.2%) and the lowest in the municipality of Goražde (35.4%), the regional average being 46.2%. Only the municipality of Goražde had unemployment rate below the regional average.

Figure 3-33: FBiH - Average Salaries in DRB Municipalities

578,3 587,5553,7

504,6

593,6 594,6

381,4 384,0 367,1336,9

394,7 394,7

0,0

100,0

200,0

300,0

400,0

500,0

600,0

700,0

Foča Goražde Pale Kladanj Sapna Teočak



Figure 3-34: FBiH – Employment by sectors in DRB Municipalities

The highest average gross and average net monthly wage, was in the municipality of Goražde (Euro 587.5 and Euro 384), which is above the average in comparison the Drina river basin (Euro 581 and Euro 379.8). The lowest average gross and average net monthly wage, was in the municipality of Kladanj (Euro 504.6 and Euro 336.9), which is below the regional average. According to NACE classification: Manufacturing, Mining and quarrying, Electricity, gas, steam and air con-ditioning supply, Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities, Construction, Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles, Transportation and storage, Accommo-dation and food service activities, Information and communication, Information and communication, Financial and insurance activities, Real estate activities, Professional, scientific and technical activities, Administrative and support service activities have a proportion of employment with 69.2% of total employees among the FBiH part of DRB, this rate is the highest, and it is above the regional average (58.8%). The sectors of Public administration and defence; compulsory social security, and defence, Education, Human health and social work activities, Arts, entertainment and recreation and Other service activities are the second most important categories of employment and have a share of 26.6%, which is below the regional average (35.1%). Agriculture, forestry and fishing have a minor role in the FBiH part of DRB with 1.8%, which is below the regional average (7.9%).

Table 3-12: Serbia - Employment and Unemployment in DRB Municipalities

REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

Municipalities Employment rate (%) 2012 Unemployment rate (total %)

Bogatić 14.0 56.3

Krupanj 13.3 58.4

Loznica 26.0 45.4

Ljubovija 25.6 45.9

Mali Zvornik 17.3 61.2

Šabac 31.2 31.9

Osečina 16.7 45.9

Bajina Bašta 24.0 38.3

Nova Varoš 22.1 51.5

Priboj 24.4 53.0

Prijepolje 22.9 53.6

Sjenica 25.7 53.5

Užice 39.6 22.7

Čajetina 37.3 18.0

2%

0%

46%

1%2%3%

10%3%

3%2%

1%

0%

1%

1%13%

7%6%

0%1%

Bosansko-podrinjski kanton (Foča, Goražde, Pale)Employees by sections of activities, 2012.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J


For DRB territory in Republica of Serbia employment rate was the highest in the municipality of Užice (39.6%) and the lowest in the municipality of Bogatić (14%), the regional average being 37.7%. Employment rate above the regional average can only be observed in the municipalities of Užice. Unemployment rate in the Republica of Serbia was the highest in the municipality of Krupanj (58.4%) and the lowest in the municipality of Čajetina (18%), the regional average being 46.2%. The municipalities of Užice (22.7%), Bajina Bašta (38.3%), Loznica (45.4%) and others had unemployment rates below the regional average.

Figure 3-35: Serbia- Average Salaries in DRB Municipalities

Figure 3-36: Serbia - Employment by sectors in DRB Municipalities

The highest average gross and average net monthly wage, was in the municipality of Užice (Euro 522.2 and Euro 376.1), which is below the average in comparison the Drina river basin (Euro 581 and Euro 379.8). The lowest average gross and average net monthly wage, was in the municipality of Priboj (Euro 298.6 and Euro 230.3), which is below the regional average. According to NACE classification: Manufacturing, Mining and quarrying, Electricity, gas, steam and air con-ditioning supply, Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities, Construction, Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles, Transportation and storage, Accommo-dation and food service activities, Information and communication, Information and communication, Financial and insurance activities, Real estate activities, Professional, scientific and technical activities, Administrative and support service activities have a proportion of employment with 65.4% of total employees among the Serbian part of DRB, this rate is above the regional average (58.8%). The sectors of Public administration and defence; compulsory social security, and defence, Education, Human health and social work activities, Arts, entertainment and recreation and Other service activities are the second most important categories of employment and have a share of 32.3%, which is below the regional average

405,8357,8

392,1

511,7

427,7

494,3

403,1449,2 432,9

298,6

388,4

446,0

522,2

405,8

294,6261,9

284,8

368,9

308,3357,5

292,1324,9 313,1

230,3

283,3322,8

376,1

293,0

0,0

100,0

200,0

300,0

400,0

500,0

600,0


ABCDEFGHIJ

KL

MNOPQRS

0,0 50,0 100,0 150,0 200,0 250,0 300,0 350,0 400,0


Bogatić

Krupanj

Loznica

Ljubovija

Mali Zvornik

Šabac

Osečina

Bajina Bašta

Nova Varoš

Priboj

Prijepolje

Sjenica

Užice


(35.1%). Agriculture, forestry and fishing have a minor role in the Serbian part of DRB with 2.3%, which is below the regional average (7.9%).

3.11.4 Ethnicity and Religion The religious structure of the DRB population deviates very slightly from the ethnic structure. Generally, it can be assumed that almost all Serbs are Orthodox, whilst almost all Bosniaks are Muslims, with the exception of a small undefined number and some atheists. BiH - Since BiH consists of the FBiH and the RS, there is a significant difference in the ethnic composition of these two entities populations. In the FBiH the majority are Bosniaks (Bosnian, Muslims) (about 95%), while Serbs and Croats together make up about 2% of the total population. In the RS, Serbs are the majority with 88%, while Bosniaks account for about 11% of the total population. Montenegro – Within Montenegro, the majority of the DRB population are Serbs (Serbs and Serb-Montene-grin) - 42%, followed by Montenegrins (27%) and Bosniaks (Bosnian, Muslim, Muslim-Montenegrins, Bos-nians-Montenegrins, etc.)- 25%. Serbia - In the Serbian part of the DRB, the largest ethnic group are Serbs that make up about 88% of the population, followed by Bosniaks with approximately 9%, while other nationalities make up less than one percent. There are large deviations at local level however, for example in the municipality of Sjenica the majority of the population are Bosniaks, with approximately 79%, while in the municipality of Nova Varoš Bosniaks make up almost half the population (44%).

3.11.5 Administrative Regions BiH – At state level BiH is administratively divided into two principal entities: FBiH with 51% of the terri-tory and RS BiH with 49%, whilst Brcko District makes up the remainder, but is a separate administrative unit over which BiH institutions have sovereignty. RS makes up the largest proportion of land for the DRB covering 6,242km2 compared with FBiH with 840km2. FBiH is divided by cantons, so that municipalities that are totally included in DRB belong to the Bosnian Po-drinje Canton Goražde and Tuzla Canton. In RS, the largest municipality belonging to the DRB is Bijeljina with approximately 115,000 inhabitants, while in FBiH the largest is municipality of Goražde, with about 22,000 inhabitants. The war that occurred in the region (1992-1995) caused forced migration and large displacement of population. The Dayton line of demarcation between the two entities (the RS and the FBiH) caused huge changes in terri-torial organization and administration. Montenegro - In administrative terms, the whole of Montenegro is divided into municipalities that lie within three regions: North, Central and Coastal. The area of DRB includes 10 out of 11 municipalities of the Northern region. The largest municipality in the Montenegrin part of the DRB is Bijelo Polje with approxi-mately 46,000 inhabitants, followed by Berane with approximately 34,000 and Pljevlja with approximately 31,000 inhabitants. Serbia - DRB territory is located in Western Serbia Region and includes parts of three administrative dis-tricts- Macvanski, Kolubarski and Zlatiborski. The largest is City of Sabac with approximately 116,000 in-habitants. However, less than 10% of the City of Šabac’s territory belongs to the DRB- parts of three villages which are sparsely populated rural areas. The next largest is the City of Loznica with approximately 79,000 inhabitants, over 90% of whose territory belongs to DRB. Užice is the centre of the functional area, which includes the settlement network of some municipalities from the Zlatiborski administrative district: Arilje, Bajina Bašta, Kosjerić, Požega and Čajetina. Weaker functional impact, Uzice has on municipalities Priboj, Nova Varoš and Prijepolje. Sjenica is focused mainly on the city of Novi Pazar.


3.11.6 Education

BiH10- According to the results of the Census 1991, 9.9% of the BiH population were illiterate. The data from the Living Standards Measurement Survey, (UNDP, 2001) show that approximately 5% of the BiH population are illiterate. Therefore, currently there are no reliable data on the BiH population literacy rate. Furthermore, there are no reliable data on the structure of BiH population according to education levels. Ac-cording to the data provided by the BiH Household Budget Survey (UNDP, 2004), 8.7% of BiH citizens are without any education, 34% have completed primary education only, 49.7% secondary, 5.1% post-secondary and 4.3% have completed higher education. At present, conditions of school facilities in BiH are not favourable. A large number of school buildings were constructed more than thirty years ago. War-torn buildings were mainly reconstructed using international com-munity loans and donations but without taking into account the need to equip schools with modern teaching aids. Specific problems relating to the maintenance of school facilities, and especially to capital construction of the upbringing educational institutions, are not being adequately resolved due to the lack of financial re-sources. In the academic year of 2005/2006, the total number of teachers working in BiH primary education was 22 258. The pupil-teacher ratio was 17.2 pupils per a teacher. 305 teachers worked in primary education for children with special educational needs and the ratio was 4.5 pupils per teacher. There were 11,170 teachers working in secondary education and the pupil/teacher ratio was 15 pupils per teacher. Montenegro - Population structure by education level had the fastest transformation compared to other structures, especially regarding to population with higher levels of education (secondary and higher). The share of population with tertiary education increased from 5% (1991) to 7.5% in 2003, with higher edu-cation from 3.8% to 5.09%, while the share of the population with secondary education increased from 34.9% to 48.44%, respectively. The illiteracy rate dropped from 5.6% (1991) to 2.5% in 2003. Serbia - In 2012/13 school year, total of 1,280,187 persons participated in any of the education levels, whereof preschool education comprised 14.7%, primary and lower secondary education comprised 44.4%, upper secondary 22.2% and tertiary 18.7%. As regards the coverage of generation on various education lev-els, program of obligatory preschool education is the same as in the previous school year. Primary and lower secondary education (compulsory attendance) covers about 97.24% and noted the increase relative to the pre-vious year. All pupils (100%) continue education after completing primary and lower secondary education, but the generation coverage in upper secondary education is about 88.5% because there is a dropout of pupils after enrolment to upper secondary schools. The number of pupils in primary schools shows further decrease in 2012/2013 school year, which is a common trend in recent years, mainly because birth rate's decrease in the country. Regarding upper secondary education, the number of pupils/students in 2012/2013 decreased by approximately 1%, when compared with the previous school year. Number of students in tertiary education increased by about 3.1% in 2012/2013 school year. Coverage of generation attending faculties and higher schools is about 46%, showing further tendency of slight increase. As regarding the teaching staff, almost 100,000 teachers were employed in primary, secondary and tertiary education. About 54% of all employed teachers work in primary and lower secondary education, 31% in upper secondary and about 15% in tertiary education. Out of those in primary and lower secondary education, 60% are full-time teachers. In upper secondary education, 58% are full-time teachers and in tertiary education, almost 89% are full-time teachers and assistants. 10 There are no available data for Education from the Census 2013 for BiH. As it is written in footnote, the text for BiH are taken from EU-ICBE Project: Technical Assistance to the Education Reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2008 (Funded by the European Union).


According to Census 2002, the educational structure of the population in the Kolubarski and Macvanski ad-ministrative districts is below the national average in almost every category of education. The area is only by participation of persons older than 15 years who have only completed primary school (about 24% of the pop-ulation) equal to this average. There is a great participation of the adult illiterate population (5.5%), as well as participation of people who have incomplete primary education (25%). Relative favourableness is slightly larger share of population with completed secondary education (36.5%), while there is unfavourable low pro-portion of people with higher (3.4%) and high (3.5%) education. The educational structure of the population in the area of Zlatiborski and Moravički administrative districts is quite unfavourable, because of the high share of the population with incomplete (15%) and complete primary education (21.6%) and very low proportion of inhabitants with higher (3.15%) and high education (3.5%). There is especially expressed low share of highly educated population compared with national average of 5.5%.

3.11.7 Crime Criminal activity has a bearing on the development of the DRB as it directly affects such sectors as tourism; tourists are put off when crime is endemic in an area and this negatively affects the economic prosperity.

BiH – The total number of reported criminal offences by adult perpetrators in RS in 2012 was 12,448 cases, which is by 5.47% less than in 2011. Numbers of accused and convicted slightly increased in comparison to the previous year, and there were 4,717 accused and 4,294 convicted persons. Most reported crimes were crimes against property (47.38% of all reported cases). Only 5.5% of all reported offenders were females. Unknown perpetrators were reported in 3,506 cases (around 28% out of all cases). In the FBiH during 2012 there were 15,088 reported criminal acts by adult offenders, which is by 7.4% higher rate than in 2011. The number of accused (9,441 persons), slightly decreased in comparison with the previous year, as well as the number of convicted persons (8,488). Most reported crimes were crimes against property (39.78% of all reported cases), but acts against public order were also notable (12.7%). Montenegro -There was 4,613 reported adult perpetrators of criminal acts in 2013 in Montenegro, which is 17.8% less than in 2012. Female offenders committed 12.5% of this total number of criminal acts. Number of unknown perpetrators of criminal acts was 1,584 (25.6% of all reported cases). The number of accused persons decreased by 9.7% compared with the previous year, and number of convicted decreased by 8%. To-tal number of accused persons counts 9.9% of adult females, and total number of convicted persons counts 9.1% of them. Criminal acts against property were most reported acts of crime in 2013, and there were 24.6% out of all reported cases, 24.5% out of all accused and 24.7% out of all convicted. Serbia - Total number of reported adult perpetrators of criminal acts in 2013 decreased by 2% as when com-pared with 2012. The number of adult persons charged increased by 10%, and the number of irrevocably sen-tenced (decree absolute) by 3%. In the structure of criminal offenses committed by adults, the largest number goes to crimes against property: reported - 50.2% (unknown perpetrators included), charged- 26.7% and convicted - 30.2% of all crimes com-mitted in 2013. As far as the most serious crimes are concerned - crimes against life and limb, 4.1% of perpe-trators were reported, 8.1% were charged and 7.4% of adult perpetrators were irrevocably sentenced. In 2013, one adult person was irrevocably sentenced to 40-year imprisonment. Imprisonment covers 34.8% of all convictions and conditional sentence (imprisonment) includes 53.2%. The total number of crime reports against juvenile offenders in 2013 decreased by 2% compared to 2012. The number of proposals submitted to the council for the imposition of sanctions (charged minors) increased by 12% and the number of convicted juveniles (criminal sanctions, sentence pronounced) increased by 15%. In the structure of criminal acts committed by minors, crimes against property proved the most numerous: reported - 61.3%, charged – 59.7% and convicted – 60.7% of all crimes. As for the most serious crimes -


crimes against life and limb, reported perpetrators involved 10.5%, 11% were charged, and to 10.6% perpetra-tors, sanctions were pronounced. In 2013, for 8 minors the punishment of juvenile imprisonment (0.3%) was pronounced

3.11.8 Health The following Table 3-13 provides a summary of the health within the three countries (four entities)

Table 3-13: Detail on Health within the DRB Region

Serbia MNE FBiH RS

Main health issues

1. Ischemic heart disease 2. Cerebrovascular disease (stroke) 3. Lung cancer 4. Traffic accidents 5. Chronic obstructive pul‐monary disease 6. Unipolar depression 7. Breast cancer 8. Diabetes

1. Diseases of respiratory system 2. Diseases of circulatory system 3. Symptoms, signs and patholog‐ical clinical and laboratory find‐ings 4.Diseases of urinary‐genital sys‐tem 5. Diseases of muscular‐skeletal system and connective tissue 6. Diseases of digestive system 7. Diseases of skin and subcuta‐neous tissue 8. Infectious and parasitical dis‐eases

1. Hypertensive diseases 2. Mental disorders 3. Diabetes 4. Other dorsopathia 5. Chronic obstructive dis‐ease 6. Ischemic heart disease 7. Gastritis and duodenal ul‐cer 8. Malignant neoplasms

1. Diseases of circulatory system 2. Diseases of respiratory system 3. Diseases of muscular‐skeletal system and connective tissue 4. Diseases of urinary‐genital sys‐tem 5. Diseases of digestive system 6. Diseases of endocrine glands, nutrition and metabolic diseases 7. Symptoms, signs and pathologi‐cal clinical and laboratory findings 8. Injuries, poisoning and conse‐quences of external factors

Causes of

prema‐ture death

1. Diseases of the heart and blood vessels 2. Malignant tumours 3. Injuries and poisonings 4. Diabetes 5. Obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma 6. Insufficiently defined conditions 7. Other

1. Diseases of circulatory system 2. Malignant neoplasms 3. Symptoms, signs and patholog‐ical clinical and laboratory find‐ings 4. Injuries, poisoning and conse‐quences of external factors 5. Diseases of respiratory system 6. Diabetes Mellitus 7. Other

1. Diseases of circulatory sys‐tem 2. Malignant neoplasms 3. Endocrine and metabolic disorders with eating disor‐ders 4. Diseases of respiratory sys‐tem 5. Symptoms, signs and pathological clinical and la‐boratory findings

1. Diseases of circulatory system 2. Malignant neoplasms 3. Symptoms, signs and pathologi‐cal clinical and laboratory findings 4. Diseases of endocrine glands, nutrition and metabolic diseases 5. Injuries, poisoning and conse‐quences of external factors 6. Diseases of respiratory system 7. Diseases of digestive system

AIDS Since 1985 until 2013: Total cases ‐ 1692 Total deaths ‐ 1061

Since 1989 until 2011: Total cases ‐ 126 Total deaths ‐ 35

Since 1986 until 2012: Total cases ‐ 223 Total deaths ‐ until 2009. 39 deaths

Until 2011: Total cases: 69 Total deaths: 16 During 2012: 8 HIV+ and 1 AIDS cases

The most important health issues involve circulatory and respiratory disorders.

3.11.9 Land Use

Land use for the DRB is shown on the attached map (Figure 3-37 ). CORINE land cover has been used in this process.


Figure 3-37: Land Use for the Drina River Basin


BiH - Forests and forest land in RS occupy an area of 1,294,186.64 ha, or 52.5% of the total area of the terri-tory. The state-owned forest cover 1,000,040.11 ha (77.27%) of forests and forest lands and private forests and forest land occupy 294,146.53 ha (22.73%) of total forest. In the eastern part of RS the largest area under forest cover is in the area of the municipalities of Han Pijesak, Sokolac, Pale, Tarnovo, Rogatica and Višegrad, and in the eastern area of the municipalities of Šekovići and Vlasenica and gornjopodrinjskom area in the municipalities of Foca, Cajnice, Rudo and Kalinovik. Land use is an approximation of agricultural, forest and other land since up to date cadastral base in FBiH has not yet been established: agricultural land covers 9,966.32 km2 or 38.2%, forest occupy 14,432.31 km2, or 55.3% and other land occupies 1,687.24 km2, or 6.5%. Montenegro - Agricultural land covers about 5,145 km² and covers 37% of the national territory, forests cover approximately 6,225 km², or 45%, while settlements, roads, water, rocks and other categories occupy 2,442 km² or 18% of the country (data from the Spatial Plan, 2008). Forests and forest land in Montenegro cover an area of approximately 738,000 ha, or about 53.4% of the total land area. Of that, under forest vegetation is 622,000 ha, which forms forested area of 45%. This percentage of forested area is very favourable in terms of protecting and improving the environment. According to their basic purpose, forests are classified into three categories: commercial forests, protection forests and special purpose forests. Of the total area of state forests into commercial forests have been allocated 79%, 18% in protective and 3% special purpose forests. Forest structure in North forest area is much more favourable than the southern area (high forest in this area cover 65%), as it contains best quality and also most productive forest ecosystems which make significant raw material resources. Serbia - About 56% of the total territory of the Zlatiborski and Moravički administrative district is under ag-ricultural land (about 516.3 km2), which is considerably less than the state average (63.7%). The total forest area is approximately 1,435 km2 (about 25% of the area of Zlatiborski and Moravički administrative district). According to available data, Kolubarski and Mačvanski administrative district have approximately 390,000 ha of agricultural land (Kolubarski District - 170.8 thousand ha and Mačvanski - 219.4 thousand ha), which occupy 67.9% of its total area (69% and 67%, respectively, in two regions). The share of agricultural in total area, as a rule, decreases in parallel with increasing altitude, in favour of increasing the percentage of forest cover. Forests cover 29.6% of total area (29% in the Kolubarski district and 30% in Mačvanski district), which is below the optimum afforestation projected in Spatial Plan for Republic of Serbia (34% of Kolubar-ski and 37% for Mačvanski district).

3.11.10 Landfills/dumps No details on landfill and wild dumps has so far been made available, but this will be reviewed in the plan-ning phase.

3.11.11 Energy BiH - In the area of DRB, or municipalities that are in the scope of DRB, there is no data at this stage there is only the data for whole RS BiH territory available. In the past two years, a decrease in production of electricity in hydroelectric power plants was recorded RS BiH is an important exporter of electricity on the regional market. Unfavourable hydrologic conditions which characterised 2011 continued also in 2012, which resulted in a decrease in production of electricity in hydro-electric power plants. Realised net production of electricity in 2012 amounted to 5,130 GWh, out of which 1,878 GWh or 36.6% was produced in hydropower plants, and 3,252 GWh or 63.4% in thermal power sta-tions. In the period between 2006 and 2012, a slight increasing trend was recorded in final consumption of electricity.


Gross electricity production in 2013 was 6,693 GWh, out of which 3,657 GWh or 54.7% was produced in thermal power plants, 3,014 GWh or 45.0% in hydropower plants, and 22 GWh or 0.3% was produced in car manufacturing plants. The biggest final consumers of electricity were households with a share of 55.1% in the final consumption. Other consumers had a share of 23.5%, industry had a share of 18.8%, while total consumption in the sections construction, transport and agriculture was 2.6%.

Table 3-14: BiH RS Production and final consumption of fuels and energy

Montenegro - In the gross domestic consumption of energy the largest share takes coal with 41% (15,952 TJ) of which about 98% is spent for producing electricity (15,611 TJ), and the rest for final consumers, for industry and households. Final consumption of energy consists mainly from consumption of electricity (39%) and oil products (35%), followed by energy from firewood (25%) and coal (1%). Final consumption compared to 2011. (30,534 TJ), decreased by 2.5%. Coal consumption has increased by 28% and firewood by 1%. Consumption of oil products decreased by 2% and consumption of electricity by 6% (see Figure 3-38). The total available quantity of electricity for final consumption (11,592 TJ), compared to the year 2011 (12,290 TJ), decreased by 6%. Production in "Pljevlja" TPP was 4.921 TJ, which is 6% less than last year. Due to favourable weather conditions, the production of hydropower is significantly increased compared to the pre-vious year. Achieved hydropower production in 2012 was 5,317 TJ, compared 4,334 TJ in 2011, an increase of 22%.

Figure 3-38: Montenegro – Final energy consumption, 2011 and 2012

Serbia - The largest share in energy commodities production in the Republic of Serbia in 2012 is related to the production of coal, 45.76%. Oil and oil derivatives participated in import with 50.23% in 2012, and elec-tricity participated with 54.46% in export. In 2012, within final consumption, coal was most consumed in the


section of industry-40.41%; oil derivatives were most consumed in transport section 60.55%; electricity was most consumed in section of households 53.44% and natural gas in section of industry 64.70%. Detailed data in physical units of measurement and TJ (terajoules) are available on the website of the Statistical Office www.stat.gov.rs

Figure 3-39: Republic of Serbia – Final energy consumption for electricity and natural gas, 2012

3.11.12 Fisheries /Hunting

Fisheries BiH - In the area of DRB, or municipalities that are in the scope of DRB, there is no data for FBiH, and at this stage there is only the data for whole BiH and RS BiH territory available. In BiH in 2013 the total production of fish decreased by 20.4% compared to 2012. Production of carp decreased by 45.0% and production of trout decreased by 15.0% in relation with 2012. Of the total production of con-sumer fish, 11.1% referred to carp, 83.5% to trout and 5.4% to other fish (see Figure 3-40). In RS, economic fishing activity is allowed only on Sava River, while on the other watercourses and lakes, sport fishing is allowed. Fishing is mostly based on the natural growth except of fish stocking done by some HPP or fishermen associations. The only significant fish farm in DRB in RS is the trout fish farm on springs of Krupica, near Foca. There is also some natural growth fisheries at reservoirs: "Visegrad" (with an area of 890 ha), "Bajina Bašta" (1,030 ha) and "Zvornik" (1,380 ha), where about 25-35 kg/ha of fish are estimated to be available. Besides natural growth, "Bajina Bašta" and "Zvornik" have some cage fisheries present. The future fishery development in RS is planned to include fish farms in lower course of Drina (cyprinids) and extension of cage growth in all lakes along Drina River. Data on production on consumable fish are presented in Table 3-15.

Figure 3-40: BiH - Production of consumable fish in tones, 2012 and 2013


Table 3-15: RS BiH - Production of consumable fish

Carp fishponds Trout fishponds

number of fish‐ponds

area in ex‐ploitation ha

production of consumable

fish, t

number of fish‐ponds

area in exploi‐tation, m2

production of consumable

fish, t

2008 6 2815 1901 7 47847 1609

2009 6 2669 2783 9 48049 1594

2010 6 2462 1616 9 52007 1565

2011 6 2278 964 10 50126 1847

2012 6 2130 626 10 51926 1963

Montenegro - There are conditions for cage fish breeding, particularly trout. Freshwater fish breeding is done in fish ponds and cage systems. The four largest trout ponds on the Drina River are shown in Table 3-16.

Table 3-16: Largest Trout Ponds on Drina River in Montenegro

Site River Area m² Prod

ton/yearWater need

m³/day Šavnik „Šavnik“ Savnicka Ri-

jeka 1,100 35,000 18.500

Plužine “Vrbnica” Vrbnica 1,700 30,000 28.500 Berane “Buce” Lim 10,000 250,000 168.000

The total fish catch in rivers, lakes, and fishponds in 2012 is 610 tonnes, and it decreased by 23.8% in com-parison with 2011, when there were 800 tonnes of fish caught. Out of the total fish catch in 2012, the production of trout is the largest, i.e. 202 tonnes, what makes 33.1% of the total caught fish in rivers, lakes, and fishponds (see Figure 3-41).

Figure 3-41: Montenegro - Catch of fresh water fish, 2010-2012

The area of trout ponds exploited in 2012 decreased by 20.8 % in comparison with 2011. The consumption of nutrients in 2012 is 321 100 kg, and it decreased by 26.8% in comparison with 2011. Serbia – The municipalities within the DRB strategic plans indicate future investments in the agricultural sector, and, in particular, fisheries. There are plans to increase production in the Municipality of Mali Zvor-nik) regarding fisheries – through > volume and quality. There are plans for organization of farmers through cooperatives and clusters; for the construction of carp rearing ponds and cages for trout farming; for estab-lishment of smaller processing plants based on primary agricultural production Fishing statistics is intended to monitor related trends of basic indicators such as data on the production of consumable and young fish in ponds, data relate to number of employees in the fishing area, area of fishing


farms and fish ponds, production of young and consumable fish and etc. These data are presented in the Table 3-17.

Table 3-17: Republic of Serbia -Basic indicators in fishing statistics

Data 2011 2013

Employees 798 948

Carp fish ponds

Utilized area (ha) 8,517 8,690

Production of young fish (t) 2,457 856

Production of consumable fish (t) 6,833 5,080

Trout fish ponds

Utilized area (m2) 33,255 42,742

Hunting BiH - In the area of DRB, or municipalities that are in the scope of DRB, there is no data at this stage there is only the data for whole Republika Srpska territory available The hunting industry in the RS BiH occurs within 87 hunting areas, on total area of 2.433 million ha, of which 2.207 million ha is hunting area, the non-hunting area 227,000 ha and under forests is 1,098,000 ha. In hunting industry is constantly employed 321 workers, of which forestry engineers and technicians 52, gamekeeper and forester 179, workers to breeding game 24 and administrative and other workers 67. Data on hunting grounds and hunters are presented in the Table 3-18.

Table 3-18 RS BiH - Hunting grounds and hunters, 2009-2013

Hunting grounds

Hunters Year Number

Area (thousand ha)

Total Hunting Non‐hunting Under forests

2009 88 2.454 2.211 244 1.107 21.621

2010 91 2.462 2.228 233 1.099 21.576

2011 90 2.465 2.236 229 1.112 21.439

2012 90 2.468 2.230 238 1.099 21.674

2013 91 2.468 2.229 239 1.099 21.670

Montenegro - The main hunting areas in Montenegro are: 1. Mediterranean hunting area encompasses territory of municipalities of Herceg Novi, Tivat, Kotor, Budva,

Bar and Ulcinj; 2. Sub-Mediterranean hunting area covers the territory of municipalities: Podgorica, Podgorica and Cetinje; 3. Central hunting area encompasses territory of municipalities of Kolašin, Nikšić and Mojkovac; 4. East hunting area covers the territory of municipalities of Bijelo Polje, Berane, Andrijevica, Rožaje and

blue, partly within the DRB; 5. North hunting area covers the territory of the municipality of Pljevlja, Plužine, Savnik and Žabljak, within

the DRB. According to the data of the relevant ministry, the hunting grounds of Montenegro, with a total area of 1,285,991 ha, are being used by 27 hunting organizations and 3 (Bar, Ulcinj and Crikvenica) public compa-nies (founded by the relevant Municipalities), special purpose hunting grounds are being used by state au-thority responsible forest management - which is a total of 31 users of hunting grounds. Total number of hunters hunting in 2013/14 was 3,466; most of them, 445, were from Nikšić, and then 325 from Bar, 287 from Pljevlja, 280 form Ulcinj, 222 from Herceg Novi, 206 from Cetinje, and so on. The average area per member (hunter), at the national level, was about 370 ha. Estimated number of seasonal (migratory) species that may reside on the hunting grounds of Montenegro in the hunting season 2014/15, was given empirically by members, based on the estimates from previous hunting years: quail - 92,160 individuals, Eurasian wood-cock - 74,494 individuals, snipe - 22,200 individuals, wood pigeon - 19,450 individuals, turtledove 15,285 individuals, greylag goose - 1,040 individuals, wild duck (mallard) - 27,870 individuals, Eurasian widgeon -


6,150 individuals, gadwall - 6,000 individuals, pochard - 2,450 individuals, Tufted duck - 1,500 individuals, Eurasian teal - 22,950 individuals. Serbia - The biological diversity of the Republic of Serbia is very high, although its total area of 88,361 km² represents only 2.1% of Europe mainland. On that territory 67% of the mammal fauna and 74% of the bird fauna of Europe can be found. There are 94 species of terrestrial mammals which are grouped into 6 orders (Insectivora, Chiroptera, Carnivora, Artiodactyla, Rodentia, Lagomorpha) which represent 67% of mammal fauna of Europe. Twenty-nine mammal species have status of wildlife. Out of 360 bird species that can be found on Serbian territory, which is 74% of the species that inhabit the European continent, 260 species are nesting birds. Since around 300 bird species inhabit Balkan Peninsula that means that 87% of Balkan bird population can be seen on Serbian territory. Thirty-three out of all bird species have the status of wildlife. At the time of adopting Strategy for the development of hunting, on the territory of Republic of Serbia existed 390 hunting grounds. Majority of these hunting grounds, 205, are situated in the territory of central, 152 hunt-ing grounds are in the territory of AP Vojvodina and 33 hunting grounds are in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija. In some recent past, it was estimated that there were 75,000 - 85,000 hunters in Serbia. In the hunting season 2012/2013, there were 76,396 hunting cards distributed to hunters (53,566 in Serbia without AP Vojvodina and 22,860 in Vojvodina), which means that 76,369 hunters were authorized for individual hunting on the territory of the Republic of Serbia for the specified hunting season after acquiring this document.

3.11.13 Agriculture BiH - In the area of DRB, or municipalities that are in the scope of DRB, there is no data for Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and at this stage there is only the data for whole BiH and Republika Srpska terri-tory available. In 2013, in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the structure of the total sown areas cereals account for 58%, industrial crops 2%, vegetables 15% and feed crops 25%. The total production of wheat increased by 17.8%, rye by 12.2%, maize (grain) by 48.0%, buckwheat by 46.0%, soy-beans by 18.7%, tobacco by 21.3%, potatoes by 23.7% and cucumbers by 20.2% in relation with the same period of 2012. According to fruit and grapes production data in 2013 year the total yield increased as follows: apples by 70.2%, pears by 81.5%, plums by 104.4%, cherries by 37.4%, sour cherries by 44.0%, peaches by 8.1%, apri-cots by 1.7%, quinces by 57.5%, walnuts by 61.8%, almonds by 15.9%, raspberries by 29.4% and grapes by 22.6%. The share of agriculture in the structure of Gross Domestic Product of Republic of Srpska has been decreasing constantly in the past years, but it remains high when compared with developed and highly developed coun-tries. In 2012, the share of agricultural Gross Value Added in the Gross Domestic Production formation was 8.4%, which was 0.5% lower than the share realised in the previous year and 1.7% lower than that from 2008. Observed separately by individual crop, the structure of sown arable land was dominated by areas under maize, which covered 143,024 ha, or 45.1% of the total sown arable land in 2012. Area under maize increased slightly compared to the previous year (by 0.3%) and to the ten-year average (by 0.8%). Prices of agricultural products in Republic of Srpska were 33.9% higher in 2012 than in the base year 2005, and 7.3% higher than in 2011. This increase in prices of agricultural products was mainly caused by the in-crease in prices of crops by 55.7% compared to 2005 and by 5.3% compared to the previous year. Prices of livestock and livestock products were 16.8% higher than in 2005 and 9.6% higher than in 2011. Cereals, as a group of products, realised the highest increase in prices. This increase was 89.9% compared to 2005 and 10.7% compared to the previous year. Data on production of maize, wheat and potatoes and data on number of livestock are presented in Figure 3-42 and Figure 3-43.


Figure 3-42: RS BiH - Production of maize, wheat and potatoes, 2003-2012

Figure 3-43: RS BiH - Number of livestock, 2004-2012

Montenegro - The total agricultural production in Montenegro in 2012 compared to the previous year de-creased by 12.7% because of decreasing crop production by 13.7% and 11.4% for livestock. In crop produc-tion, there has been a significant decrease in the production of cereals, vegetables and fodder crops while there has been increased in the production of fruits and grapes. In livestock production decreased signifi-cantly in the production of cow and ewe milk and accrual of pigs. The share of crop production in total agri-cultural production in 2012 was 56.6% and 43.4% of livestock production.

Figure 3-44: Montenegro - Indices of agricultural production, 2012.

Serbia - In 2013, the share of crop production in the total value of agricultural production equalled 67.4% and that of livestock production 38.1%. When compared to 2012, the net index of physical volume of agri-cultural production increased by 21.7%. In relation to the previous year, crop production increased by 25.6%. Within crop production, the values of crop farming, viticulture and fruit growing grew by 41.6%, 11.7% and 41.4% respectively. The value of livestock production in relation to the previous year grew by 2.9%. In the structure of livestock production, the value of cattle breeding fell by 0.6%, the value of sheep breeding grew


by 14.3%, poultry breeding by 4.6%, and pig breeding by 3.7%. In 2013, arable land participated with 64.6% in the total agricultural area, orchards with 4.7%, vineyards with 1.0%, permanent grassland with 12.8% and pastures with 16.2%. In the structure of sown areas of arable land, cereals participated with 58.2%, industrial crops with 13.2%, vegetables with 7.8%, and fodder crops with 13.4%. When compared to 2012, in 2013 recorded was an increase in the total production of wheat by 34.6%, sunflower by 40.0%, maize by 66.0%, and sugar beet by 28.2%. Compared to the previous year, the number of livestock units grew by 2.3%, while the production of cow milk fell by 1.7%, and the production of meat fell by 2.0%. In 2013, producer prices of agricultural products decreased by 1.3% on average, compared to 2012. The larg-est decrease was noticed in the following product groups: Industrial crops (16.1%), Fruit (6.2%) and Cereals (2.4%).

Figure 3-45: Republic of Serbia - Crop production 2006-2012

3.11.14 Tourism BIH - In the area of DRB, or municipalities that are in the scope of DRB, there is no data for FBIH, and at this stage there is only the data for whole BiH and RS BIH territory available. In 2014, there were 102,727 tourist arrivals in BiH representing an 8.5% increase compared to 2013. How-ever, there were 223,849 tourist nights, 3.4% lower; compared to 2013. The domestic tourists' share of the total number of overnight stays was 28.6% and foreign tourists share was 71.4%. The majority of foreign tourists were from Croatia (13.8%), Serbia (10.6%), Italy (8.5%), Turkey (8.1%) and Slovenia (5.6%). The remaining 53.4% were from other countries. Tourism activity in RS BiH has continued its increasing trend, which has been characterised by a constant increase in number of tourist nights in the past five years. In 2013, an increase in number of both tourist arri-vals and tourist nights was recorded. The number of arrivals was 1.4% higher and the number of nights 2.4% higher. Out of the total number of foreign tourist nights, tourists from Serbia realised the most nights (35.9%), followed by tourists from Croatia (18.9%) and Slovenia (8.3%).

Figure 3-46: RS BiH - Tourist arrivals and tourist nights by year


Montenegro - In 2013, there were 1,492,006 tourist arrivals which is 3.6% more in comparison with the pre-vious year, while they made 9,411,943 overnight stays which is 2.8% more than in 2012. In 2012, overnight stays of domestic tourists represent 10.6%, while the foreign tourists represent 89.4%. Concerning the struc-ture of overnight stays of foreign tourists, in 2013, the most of them were realised by tourists from Russia (28.1%), Serbia (25.1%), BiH (7.5%), Ukraine (5.6%), Kosovo (3.3%), Poland (2.7%), Germany (2.3%) and France (2.2%). Tourists from other countries realised 23.2% overnight stays. Concerning the structure of overnight stays by type of resort, the most of them were realised in seaside resorts (97.0%), in capital city (1.2%), in mountain resorts (1.1%), in other tourist resorts and other resorts.

Figure 3-47: Montenegro – Number of tourist arrivals and overnight stays, 2013

Serbia – The total number of tourists in 2013 amounted to 2.2 million and was 5.4% higher than in 2012. The majority are domestic tourists (1.3 million) was up by 0.1%, while the number of foreign tourists (922,000) was substantially higher at 13.8% compared to 2012. The number of tourist nights was 6.6 million and was up by 1.3% compared to the previous year. Domestic tourists amounted to 4.6 million a fall of 2.3% compared to 2012, while the number of overnight stays of foreign tourists was by 10.7% higher than in 2012 and it amounted to 2 million tourist nights. Out of total number of tourists’ nights (6.6 million), 32.5% were recorded in spas and 23.7% in mountain resorts. This information is provided in the figure below.

Figure 3-48: Republic of Serbia -Tourists' overnights by regions 2013.

3.11.15 Mining BiH - In the area of DRB, or municipalities that are in the scope of DRB, there is no data at this stage there is only the data for whole RS BiH territory available. Over 95% of the total available amount of coal was consumed for production of energy in RS BiH. Brown coal and lignite represent significant natural resources in RS BiH. Out of the total available amount of coal, 95% was consumed for production of energy, while the rest was used in mass consumption. Given the fact that RS BiH does not have its own production of natural gas, all the necessary amounts are imported. The largest


final consumer of natural gas was industry, which accounted for 86.9% of the consumption, while the remain-ing 13.1% of natural gas was consumed by households and other consumers Montenegro - Coal production in the 2012 compared to the 2011 decreased by 9% and the final consumption is 28% higher compared to the 2011 year. The share of consumption of coal in power plants for electricity production shows the trend over the period since 2005– 2012, ranging between 92% and 95% of the gross domestic consumption. The remaining part is allocated to the final consumption of final consumers, and to industries and households.

Figure 3-49: Montenegro - Production and consumption of coal in transformation sector (TJ), 2005-2012

Serbia - Industry comprises activities of the following sections of the Classification of Activities: Mining and quarrying, Manufacturing and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply. In 2013, compared with 2012: section of Mining and quarrying – increase of 5.3%. The largest share in energy commodities production in the Republic of Serbia in 2012 is related to the production of coal, 45.76% and within final consumption, coal was most consumed in the section of industry-41.1%.

Figure 3-50: Republic of Serbia – Final energy consumption for coal and oil derivatives, 2012

3.11.16 Other Industry BiH - In the area of DRB, or municipalities that are in the scope of DRB, there is no data for FBiH, and at this stage there is only the data for whole BiH and RS BiH territory available. In September 2014, compared to September 2013, industrial production in BiH, the calendar adjusted, is in-creased by 1.7%. Broken down by divisions of activities (rates are calculated from calendar adjusted indices) in September 2014 compared to September 2014, the highest growth is recorded in the following divisions: division 32 - Other manufacturing (50.0%) and division 18 -Printing and reproduction of recorded media (40.7%). The largest decline in industrial production in September 2014 compared to September 2014 was recorded in the following divisions: division 26 -Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products (68.5%) and division 11 - Manufacture of beverages (16.4%). Industrial production in RS BiH decreased by 4.0% in 2012 compared to 2011. After quite a long period of the growth of industrial production, between 2008 and 2011, a decrease by 4.0% was recorded in 2012, com-


pared to 2011. Industry had a significant share in the GDP (14.1%), while the biggest share was that of man-ufacturing (7.8%). Total seasonally adjusted industrial production in RS BiH in September 2014, compared to September 2013, total working-day adjusted industrial production in RS BiH increased by 9.1%. In Sep-tember 2014, compared to August 2014, seasonally adjusted production of Energy was 26.8% higher, of In-termediate goods 7.2% higher, of Non-durable consumer goods 6.0% higher and of Durable consumer goods 2.3% higher, while production of Capital goods was 7.4% lower. In September 2014, compared to Septem-ber 2013, working-day adjusted production of Durable consumer goods was 26.2% higher, of Energy 21.5% higher, of Capital goods 12.3% higher, of Non-durable consumer goods 4.4% higher and of Intermediate goods 0.8% higher. By section of the KD 2010, working-day adjusted industrial production in September 2014, compared to September 2013, increased in Electricity, gas, water, steam and air-conditioning supply by 31.0%, in Manufacturing by 5.4%, while in the section Mining and quarrying it decreased by 0.2%.

Table 3-19: RS BiH - Indices of industrial production by section 2008-2012.

Montenegro - Industrial production in Montenegro in December 2013 increased: 34.0% compared to average monthly production from previous year, 14.5% compared with the same month of previous year, 10.6% for period January-December 2013 compared with the same period of previous year and 8.7% compared to the previous month. In 2013, the production of the following industrial products in Montenegro increased compared with the pro-duction from 2012: wheat flour with an increase of 40,312 t to 96,693 t, (139.8%), pasteurized milk an increase of 20.045 hl to 39.891 hl (99.0%) and fresh meat with 1,398t to 2,717 t, (94.3%). In 2013, there was a decrease of production among the following products when compared with the production from 2012: steel ingots with 20,180 t to 19,723 t, (2.3%), aluminium in ingots from 74,813t to 47,951 t, (35.9%), and infusion fluids with 1,325 t to 1,137 t (14.4%). Of sixteen industrial sub-sectors, four recorded production growth and accounted for 12% of total industrial output. The highest growth was recorded in the manufacturing of tobacco products of 276.7%, the manufac-turing of basic pharmaceutical products of 37.7%, the manufacturing of rubber and plastic products of 6.3% and the manufacturing of other machinery and equipment by 10.8%.

Figure 3-51: Montenegro - Indices of industrial production, 2005-2013

Serbia11 - In 2013, compared with 2012, industrial production in the Republic of Serbia increased by 5.5%. The volume of industrial production in 2013, compared with 2012, growth in 12 divisions was noted, with a

11 Industry comprises activities of the following sections of the Classification of Activities: Mining and quarrying, Manufacturing and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply.


share of 55% in the structure of industrial production, while fall was noted in 17 divisions with a share of 45%. Observed by sections, in 2013, compared with 2012, the following trends were recorded: section of Mining and quarrying – increase of 5.3%; section of Manufacturing – increase of 4.8% and section of Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply - increase of 8.1%. Data on industrial production by MIGs in 2013 compared with the previous year expressed growth in the production of: energy (by 13.2%), capital goods (by 27.6%) and durable consumer goods (by 13.6%), while fall was noted in intermediate goods, energy excluded (by 1.0%) and non-durable consumer goods (by 3.3%). The largest influence on industrial production growth in 2013 compared to 2012 had the divisions of: manu-facture of motor vehicles and trailers, manufacture of refined petroleum products, generation of electricity, manufacture of chemicals and chemical products and manufacture of electrical equipment.

Figure 3-52: Republic of Serbia –Industrial production, 2003-2013

3.11.17 Transport Networks Transport network components are important for IWRM in the DRB because i) they can be the source of lo-cal water pollution, ii) they can affect/isolate "water-land" connections and the habitats of specific fauna and flora, iii) they can induce requirements of flood protections, and iv) they can reduce the natural flood plain of the river. Furthermore, the transportation network is important for the social and economic development. Development of particular activities, such as tourism, is reliant upon good connections with the surrounding area. Trans-portation networks determine, also, the quality of life and could increase the territorial attractiveness both for living and for tourist visits. Transport networks have been divided into airports, roads, railways and waterways Airports BiH - On the territory of BiH, there are four airports - Sarajevo, Mostar, Tuzla and Banja Luka. Sarajevo is the busiest airport and the main international hub. The airport Tuzla is closest to DRB. Montenegro - The primary airport network of Montenegro consists of the airports of Podgorica and Tivat neither of them in the DRB: • Podgorica Airport has a runway 2,500 meters long and 45 m wide. Generally, the airport complex has

adequate spatial capacity for current needs. • Tivat airport has a runway 2,500 m long, 45 m wide. Secondary airport network includes:


• Airport Berane which is in the DRB and was in commercial use from 1961 to 1976, but it is currently used only as a sports airport. The airport has the basic infrastructure: runway with asphalt cover 1,900 m long, taxiway and platform, also with asphalt cover;

• Airport Nikšić (Kapino polje) is used as a sports airport. It has a grass runway 1,200 m long; • Airfield Ulcinj has a grass runway 760 m long, and it is used for sports activities and agricultural aviation.

Limitation of the airport location is nearness of the state border. Airport Zabljak (which is in the DRB) currently exists only as a location. Serbia - From facilities intended for air traffic in the area of Zlatiborski and Moravički administrative dis-tricts, there are military airports in Uzice and Sjenica (both in DRB) and sports airports in Preljina (City of Čačak) and in Prijepolje (DRB). Military airports have a paved concrete runway, which require reconstruc-tion and have the potential for enabling civil aviation. In the Kolubara and Macva administrative districts, there is a sports airport in Divci (Valjevo). Near the set-tlement Bogatić (DRB), there is also a private sports and recreation airfield. Roads BiH - Construction of the Pan-European corridors is planned by European development policy of transport systems in Europe. One of these corridors will be passing through BiH. It is corridor Vc which includes: 1. Highway Metković - Mostar - Sarajevo - Doboj - Vukosavlje; 2. Railway Metković - Mostar - Sarajevo - Doboj - Šamac; 3. Airports Sarajevo and Mostar; 4. Fairways of the rivers Sava, Bosna and Neretva. In addition to these routes, the construction and improvement of the following roads is of international im-portance: 1. E-661 Gradiška - Banja Luka - Mlinište - toward Split (Croatia); 2. E-761 Bihać - Mrkonjic Grad - Jajce - Sarajevo - Višegrad - Vardište (border with Republic of Serbia); 3. E-762 Sarajevo - Brod on Drini - Šćepan Polje (border with Montenegro).

Figure 3-53: Road map of BiH


The road network in RS BiH and FBiH is among the poorly developed in Europe. This is evident both from data on the density of the network (0.468 km/km2 which is 2.5 to 4 times less than in Western Europe) and from technical parameters, elements of the road route, longitudinal and transverse road profiles. Despite the efforts made in the pre-war period (when 78.5% of the main and regional road networks are modernized), by maximizing the usage of existing roads and with limited available resources, the current condition of the roads does not suit the increased requirements and this situation will be worse every year if serious measurements are not undertaken. Poor development of roads of a higher level of service and connectivity with neighbouring countries contrib-utes to bad traffic road network functionality of BiH. From a total of 1,768.36 km of the main roads, there are about 21.06 km of the roads that are not covered with modern surfacing. This means that 1,747.30 km, i.e. 98.81%, of the main roads are covered with asphalt surfacing, and 21.06 km, i.e. 1.19%, with macadam. The regional roads condition is much worse. This was particularly contributed by changing the status of 1,500 km of local roads into regional at the end of 1990, although they did not meet even the basic requirements for a new category. From a total of 2,147.83 km of the roads, 1,741.29 km is with asphalt surfacing (81.07%) and the remaining of 406.54 km with macadam and dirt surfacing (18.93%). Local roads of particular importance are defined as a separate category in the road network of Serbia. Those are local roads which got traffic im-portance by new administrative division of BiH but their categorization is not changed in the meantime. Their length is 223.14 km of which 123.95 km is with asphalt surfacing (55.55%) and 99.19 km with macadam and dirt surfacing (44.45%). As per the significance of the road for the network considering transport and socio-economic aspect, there are two main road routes which are mostly used. These are so-called "northern route", which connects Croatian border, Novi Grad, via Prijedor, Banja Luka, Derventa, Modrica, Brčko and Bijeljina with the border of Serbia, and so-called "eastern route", which stretches from Bijeljina, via Zvornik, Vlasenica, Han Pijesak, Istočno Sarajevo, Rogatica, Novo Goražde (link to Visegrad and Serbia), Foča, Gacko to Trebinje where it branches toward borders of Croatia and Montenegro. Length of "northern route" is about 335 km and "eastern route" about 390 km. Parallel to "northern route" is the route that intersects Republika Srpska two times - part of the route from Ključ, via Mrkonjić Grad to Jajce (road route M5) and from East Sarajevo, via Trnovo and Foča to the border with Montenegro (road M18) as well as southern routes which stretches from Mostar, via Nevesinje to Gacko and via Stolac and Ljubinje to Trebinje. The road network is completed with three more routes in the north - south direction, as follows: from Gradiska, via Banja Luka, Bihać, to Mrkonjic Grad in the west, Livno in the south and Travnik and

Jajce in the east, from Šamac, via Modrica and Doboj to Zenica, Sarajevo and Mostar in the south (direction of corridor

Vc), from Bijeljina to Tuzla and Sarajevo in the south. Montenegro - The overall length of roads in Montenegro is 6,928 km (846 km main road, 950 km regional and 5,132 km local roads), of which 1,729 km is paved. The roads in Montenegro are categorized by high-ways, main roads, regional roads and local roads:


Figure 3-54: Road Map of Montenegro

Highways- There are currently no roads built to highway standards, but two highways are currently in planning stages: Bar - Boljare highway and Montenegrin section of Adriatic–Ionian highway. Main roads- roads connecting bigger cities and regions of Montenegro. Most of the main roads of Montenegro are listed with International E-road network, and are locally labelled with M letter followed by a number. Typically, these are paved roads of single carriageway type, featuring one lane per direction, with frequent addition of a third overtaking lane on sections with steep gradients. Curve radii usually allow speeds of up to 80 km/h, and width of a single traffic lane is usually at least 3 m. Main roads listed with International E-road network in Montenegro are: Route E65/E80, locally M2 (Debeli Brijeg/Croatia - Petrovac - Podgorica - Kolašin - Berane - Rožaje -

border with Serbia) Route E762, locally M18 (Border with Albania - Bozaj - Tuzi - Podgorica - Danilovgrad - Nikšić - Plužine

- Šćepan Polje - border with Bosnia & Herzegovina) Route E763, locally M21 (Bijelo Polje - border with Serbia) Route E851, locally M2.4 (Petrovac - Sutomore - Bar - Krute - Ulcinj - Sukobin - border with Albania) Sections of E65/E80 (Debeli Brijeg - Petrovac) and E851 (Petrovac - Ulcinj) together make up for the

Montenegrin section of Adriatic Highway. Regional roads- these are road connections between regional centres, and connections of the regional centres with the network of main roads. Typically, these are paved roads, but with smaller curve radii and narrower lanes than those of the main roads. Thus, lower speed limits are more common on regional roads. These roads are locally labelled with R letter followed by a number. Local roads- local roads connections of villages and other settlements of local communities. Quality of road infrastructure varies wildly between local roads, so these can be both unpaved dirt roads, as well as roads re-sembling regional roads in quality and appearance. Serbia - Zlatiborski and Moravicki administrative districts establish connections with the surrounding area by network of national roads of category I and II and by railways. Length of categorized road network is 5,922 km in total, of which 685 km belongs to NR of I category (11.6%), 1,274 km to NR of II category (21.5%) and


3,963 km to municipal roads (66.9%), of which only 1,817 km (45.85%) are covered with asphalt. The density of the road network is 0.65 km/km², which is above the national average (0.42 km/km²).

Figure 3-55: Road Map of Serbia

The national roads of Category I (former magistral roads) in this area are: NR of I category no. 5: Republika Srpska (Vardište)-Kremna-Užice-Požega-Čačak-Kraljevo-Trstenik-

Kruševac-Pojate-Paraćin-Zaječar-Bulgaria; this road is a connection with Pan-European Corridor X; NR of I category no. 8: Montenegro (Jabuka)-Prijepolje-Uvac-Sjenica-Novi Pazar; NR of I category no. 19.1: Mali Zvornik-Ljubovija-Rogačica-Bajina Bašta-Dub-Dupci; NR of I category no. 21: Vojvodina-Šabac-Valjevo-Kosjerić-Požega-Uzice-Čajetina-Rzav-Nova Varoš-

Prijepolje-Montenegro (Gostun); NR of I category no. 21.1: Požega-Arilje-Ivanjica-Kumanica-Brnjci-Tuzinje-Ugao-Montenegro; NR of I category no. 22: Vojvodina-Beograd-Lazarevac-Ljig-Gornji Milanovac-Čačak-Kraljevo-Raška-

Novi Pazar-Ribarići; NR of Category I no.: Mali Požarevac-Mladenovac-Topola-Kragujevac-Mrčajevci. Railway BiH - On the territory of BiH, there are 1,032 km of railways, of which on the territory of RS are 425 km, i.e. 41% of the total railway network, while in FBiH are 607 km, or 59%. The main railways on the territory of BiH are: Novi Grad-Banja Luka-Doboj-Živinice-Zvornik, Šamac-Doboj-Sarajevo-Ploče, which is the best

equipped railway in BiH with modern cc devices and tele-remote traffic management; Sunja-Dobrljin-Novi Grad-Blatna-Bihać-Knin, with branches Omarska-Tomasnica, Brezičanin-Ljubija,

Bukovav-Brčko-Croatia and branch Modrica-Gradačac which still is not operational. Branches of railroads Bjeljina-Rača and Jablanica-Štrpci on the railroad Beograd-Zagreb.


The important influence on the railway system of BiH have two European railway lines: 1) Е–70 Paris-Trieste-Zagreb-Sunja-Beograd, and Banja Luka-Doboj-Zvornik; 2) Е–771 Budapest-Subotica-Šamac-Doboj-Sarajevo-Ploče.

Figure 3-56: Railway Map of BiH

Montenegro - Current railway network consists of single-track railways with normal length: 1. Vrbnica-Bar, part of railway Beograd-Bar which passes through Montenegro. 2. Podgorica-Tuzi– state border (part of railway Podgorica-Skadar). 3. Podgorica-Nikšić. Total length of railways is 248.6 km, and counted with station tracks 327.6 km. The electrification railways are 167.4 km long, which means 67.34% of total railway length. Serbia - The railway network on the DRB and surrounding area consists of: Magistral single-track electrified railway E-79: Beograd-Pozega-Vrbnica-Montenegro. This railway is a

part of railway axe 9 and it is a connection between the Montenegro and Pan-european Corridor X; Regional single-track railway Stalac-Kraljevo-Požega. The section from Požega to Kraljevo is electrified

and it is connected with railway Beograd-Niš (Corridor X) near town of Stalać; Part of old railway Beograd-Sarajevo which is used for tourism. Regional non-electrified railway Ruma-Šabac-Loznica-Mali Zvornik. Waterways Navigation on waterways is limited to small sections near the confluence with the Sava River. The text be-low is therefore for national level and included for completeness.


BiH - The Sava River is used to represent an important inland waterway, and navigation on this river until 1990 was relatively well developed. Port of Brcko, Šamac and Brod (as well as Port Sisak in Croatia) were the most important ports in the region and the largest volume of transportation was accomplished through the port Brod (for the transport needs of the nearby oil refinery). From the confluence of the Sava to Brčko, lo-cated at river kilometres (rkm) 225, navigability according to AGN was in class IV, and from Brčko to Sisak in class III. In general, waterways of class IV and above are considered as waterways of international importance. Today Sava river is the border with Serbia, BiH and Croatian, with a total length of 332.4 km, from rkm 175.0 (con-fluence of the Drina) to rkm 507.4 (Donja Gradina) and, at the same time, it is only possible waterway freight transportation in FBiH. The Sava River flows from the territory of FBiH from rkm 231 to rkm 304.8 and from rkm 306 to rkm 338.8. On these two sections, with total length of 106.5 km, there is no river port. Montenegro - There is no navigation on the Montenegrin part of the DRB. The only maritime traffic is car-ried out on the Montenegrin coast: Port of Bar, Kotor harbour, Zelenika harbour, Port of Risan and port Budva, as well as ports for domestic maritime transport, marinas and moorings on the coast. Serbia - The Sava River is an international waterway categories III and IV, depending on the sector flow, and through the Republic of Serbia is navigable in the length of 211 km for vessels up to 1500 tonnes capacity. The Waterway of Sava River, at its section through Serbia, is used for approximately 330 days a year (accord-ing to weather conditions). Luke "Šabac" is located on the Sava River waterway, 103 km upstream from Belgrade and 33 km downstream from Sremska Mitrovica. In Sabac, next to the pier, "Šabac", in the eastern industrial zone is dock "Zorka", and dock which belongs to city bakery that is not currently used. The gravitational field of the port "Šabac" covers Mačvanski district, part of Srem and the eastern part of the RS. Dock has its own rail infrastructure and locomotives

3.11.18 Housing The information for housing for the time being is at national level.

BiH - According to the preliminary results of the 2013 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in BiH the total number of enumerated households is 1,163,387 out of which: in the FBiH 721,199 households; in the RS 414,847 households, and in Brcko District B&H 27,341 households. The average household in BiH consists of 3.26 members; in FBiH 3.29 members; in RS 3.20 members, and in Brčko District BiH 3.40 members. According to the preliminary results of the 2013 Census of Population, the total number of enumerated Households and Dwellings in BiH is 1,617,308, out of which: in the FBiH 991,384 dwellings; in the RS 588,241 dwellings, and in Brčko District BiH 37,683 dwellings Montenegro According to Census 2011, the total number of households in Montenegro is 192,242 with an average of 3.2 members / household. Of the total number of households in the Northern Region 52,884 are registered or 27.05%, with an average of 3.4 members per household. Of the total number of households 78.2% are owners or co-owners of the apartment in which they live; house-holds that are rented or leased the apartment in which they live make up 9.6%, while with parents, children or other relatives live 5.7% of households. The least sub-tenants' households are in municipality of Andrijevica (1.8%). Of the total number of dwellings for permanent residence in Montenegro (247,354) 214,401 or 87% are owned by inhabitants, 4,855 or 2% are owned by the institutions of the state or local government, businesses, etc., while 28,098 or 11.4% have no data on ownership of the dwelling. The number of dwellings in Montenegro


has increased by about 77,000 in the period from 1991 to 2011 (in 1991 the number of dwellings in Montenegro amounted to approximately 170,000) From dwellings for permanent housing, there are 51,927 temporarily unoccupied dwellings and 7,051 aban-doned dwellings. Serbia - In the Republic of Serbia, in the Census of Population 2011 enumerated were 2,487,886 house-holds, and when compared to 1948 their number has increased by about 1.7 times (growth index is 168.9). Over 1948 – 2002 there was continuous increase of households accompanied by constant decrease of their average size: in 2002, an average household in the Republic of Serbia had for the first time less than three members. In the last inter-census period, a decrease of the total number of households has been recorded for the first time, and the results of the Census 2011 shows that the decreasing trend of the average household size has continued. According to the Census 2011, two-person households (every fourth household, i.e. 25.6%) are the most nu-merous, followed by one-person households with a share in the total number of households of 22.3%, then by three-person households (19.2%) and four-person households (18.3%). Multi-family households are most present in the Region Sumadija i Zapadna Srbija: every third two-family household (34.1%), i.e. every third households with three and more families (37.0%) is in this region. Total number of dwellings in the Republic of Serbia, according to the results of Census 2011 is 3,231,931. Relative to the results of 2002 Census, the number of dwellings increased by 9.3% (i.e. 275,415 dwellings). If observed by type of settlement, the share of the dwellings for permanent habitation in urban settlements is 59.3%.

3.12 Preliminary Legal and Institutional Issues

The full legal and institutional assessment will be undertaken following the inception phase. The following paragraphs provide a general introduction to the subject and the current status in the Drina River region.

3.12.1 General characteristics The general legal and institutional framework is determined by several factors that are common to the countries in the Drina River Basin (DRB), as well as by some developing specifics of countries in the region. The most significant common factors of the state are legal heritage, EU integration goals, the results of economic tran-sition in the last two decades, the change in ownership structure, i.e. privatizations, which are conducted in all countries of the region. Hence, we can talk about the more common characteristic of the state of legal regula-tions and ways of organizing of institutions dealing with activities in the field of water resources management, environment, energy, agriculture, etc. in all the three states of the region.

3.12.2 Strategic documents EU Membership is part of the strategic orientation of all countries in the region. Accordingly, all countries in the region have adopted some strategic documents in the field of water management, energy, environmental protection, agriculture or in other relevant fields. However, there are certain differences in the development level of strategic determinations, as well as in the way they are prescribed. The Water Resources Development Master Plan of the Republic of Serbia is the basic strategic document for the use of water resources, water protection and protection against harmful effects of water ("Official Gazette" of RS, No. 11/02). Apart from that, Serbia has adopted a number of basic strategic documents relevant to the environment, as for example the National Environmental Approximation Strategy ("Official Gazette of RS", No. 80/11), National Environmental Protection Programme ("Official Gazette of RS", No. 12/2010), Biodi-versity Strategy of the Republic of Serbia for the period 2011–2018 (2011), National Waste Management Strategy for period 2010–2019 (2010), Strategy on energy development of the Republic of Serbia till 2015,


National Strategy of protection and rescue in emergency situations, 2011, Strategy on agriculture and rural development of Republic of Serbia, July 2014, etc. The preparation of a new strategy in the energy sector (till 2025, i.e. 2030) is underway. In Montenegro several of strategic documents, plans or programmes have been adopted or brought to a final phase of preparation, including: National Strategy for Sustainable Development (2007); Strategic Master Plan for Solid Waste Management (2005); Master plans for wastewater drainage and treatment for the Southern region, and for the Central and Northern region respectively (2004–2005); Master plan for water supply (2006); Tourist master plan (2006), etc. Besides the Energy Efficiency Strategy of the Republic of Montenegro (2005),

the Strategy for development of energy sector in the Republic of Montenegro by 2025, was adopted in 2007 and the Strategy for development of small hydropower plants was adopted in April 2006, as well as the Action Plan for its implementation. For BiH at state level, there is no specific strategic document governing water resources, environmental pro-tection or sustainable development. However, there are several documents whose purpose is to regulate, inter alia, environmental protection and sustainable development issues. The National Human Development Re-port/BiH Millennium Development Goals (NHDR/MDG) was developed in 2003 for the 2003-2015 period. The National Action Plan for the Protection of the Environment in BiH - NEAP was adopted in 2003. In the Republic of Srpska of BiH several strategic documents have been adopted (The Nature Protection Strat-egy from 2011, The Air Protection Strategy from 2011, The Strategy for Agricultural Development of the Republic of Srpska by the Year 2015, dated from 2006, The Republic of Srpska Chemical Safety Strategy for the 2012-2016 period, The Republic of Srpska Energy Development Strategy by 2030, dated from 2012, etc.). In accordance with the FBiH Law on Environmental Protection, the FBiH Environmental Strategy was adopted, together with an action plan for the 2008-2018 period, consisting of: FBiH Nature Protection Strategy, FBiH Air Protection Strategy, FBiH Waste Management Strategy, and FBiH Water Management Strategy. The Republic of Srpska Energy Development Strategy by 2030, has been adopted 2012. Brčko District Development Strategy for the 2008-2017 period was adopted in 2009.

3.12.3 International law The current situation in terms of membership in international treaties in the field of the environment (including water resources management) and energy may be assessed relatively uniformly. However, it should be noted that in the past there was a significant lag behind of some countries in the region in a number of ratified international treaties in the field of environment and water resources management. Now all three countries are signatories of some the most important international agreements in the field of water management and environmental protection. For example: Convention of the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River, Sofia, 1994, Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Ramsar, 1971, Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Trans-boundary Context, Espoo, 1991, Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice, Aarhus, 1998, etc. Serbia and BiH are members of the Convention on the Protection and Use of Trans-boundary Watercourses and International Lakes, Helsinki, 1992. Probably, the greatest achievement in terms of international legal regulation of relations between the countries in the region can be considered as the conclusion of Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin (FASRB) with protocols (Kranjska Gora, 2002). Montenegro's member-ship is not fully regulated. It is estimated that all possible cooperation resources are not exhausted in the frame-work of this agreement. Presently several bilateral agreements, concerning water use and protection between neighbouring countries are in the preparation process.


Regarding the state of mutual contractual regulation of relations in the region, it can be concluded that there is no general regional international treaty in the field of environment that brings together all (or most) countries of the region. There are several projects in which the regional countries participate, funded from various sources, which are aimed (primarily) to strengthen cross-border cooperation between the countries of the re-gion. Similar to that can be characterized and state of cooperation in the field of flood protection, although some measures are taken in terms of improving the state in this area. There are some agreements between certain countries (Agreement between Serbia and Montenegro on cooperation and protection in case of natural and other catastrophe, 2010, Memorandum of Understanding on the Institutional Framework of the Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative for South Eastern Europe, 2010, Agreement between Serbia and Croa-tia, 2014, Agreement between Montenegro and Croatia, Agreement between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, etc.) and there are plans to conclude new agreements. All three countries implement activities arising from the membership in Treaty Establishing Energy Commu-nity. BiH ratified the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and the Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Envi-ronmental Aspects (PEEREA) in 2001.

3.12.4 The Internal Law The legal infrastructure in the field of water management, environmental protection, as well as in the field of energy is developed in all three countries of the region. Basic water laws were adopted in all three countries (in BiH in both Entities and in Brčko District) in the last few years. These are as follows: In Montenegro - Law on Waters ("Official Gazette of the RMNE", No. 27/07, "Official Gazette of MNE",

Nos 32/11 and 47/11); In Serbia - Law on Waters ("Official Gazette of RS", Nos 30/10 and 93/12); In BiH - Law on Waters ("Official Gazette of FBiH", No. 70/06); Law on Waters ("Official Gazette of

RS", Nos. 50/06 and 92/09); and Law on Water Protection of the Brčko District of BiH ("Official Gazette of BD BiH", Nos. 25/04, 01/05 and 19/07).

A series of subordinate legislation (bylaws) were adopted in each of these respective legal systems. The specific laws on environmental protection are adopted in the framework of the activities that are associated with the candidacy and potential for EU membership. These are the following: Law on Environment ("Official Gazette of MNE", Nos. 48/08, 40/10 and 40/11); Law on Environmental Protection ("Official Gazette of RS", Nos. 135/04, 36/09, 72/09, 43/11 and 71/12); Law on Environmental Protection ("Official Gazette of FBiH", Nos. 33/03 and 38/09); Law on Environmental Protection of the Brčko District of BiH (Official Gazette of BD BiH", Nos. 24/04, 19/07, 1/05 and 9/09). In the last few years, all three countries have adopted new laws in the field of energy, i.e. renewable energy sources. Montenegro: Law on energy ("Official Gazette of MNE", No. 28/2010), Law on energy efficiency ("Official Gazette of MNE", No. 29/10); Serbia: Law on Energy ("Official Gazette of RS", Nos. 84/2004, 57/11, 80/11, 93,12 and 124/12), Law on Energy Efficiency, ("Official Gazette of RS", No. 25/13; Republic of Srpska: Law on renewable energy sources and efficient cogeneration ("Official Gazette of RS", No. 39/13), Law on energy efficiency ("Official Gazette of RS", No. 59/13); FBiH: Law on use of renewable energy sources and efficient cogeneration ("Official Gazette of FBiH", No. 70/13).

3.12.5 Harmonisation with EU regulations All the countries in the DRB carry out different activities that are associated with the process of harmonization of national legislation with the EU legislation. The different level of harmonization was reached. Basic assess-ments of the harmonization level are contained in the annual European Commission progress reports, as well as in various other strategic documents and reports. However, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the proce-dure of transposition of EU legislation into national legal system from the opportunities to provide conditions for consistent compliance of the regulations that have already been harmonized with EU regulations. In that sense, all countries in the region have certain problems, not only in the part related to transposition, but above all in the part related to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and other relevant regulations.


In the European Commission reports (for the last few years, including the report for 2014), it is estimated that the situation in all three countries require significant additional efforts and financial means. Problems related to the application of regulations, monitoring, waste water treatment, i.e. lack of facilities for waste water treat-ment, preparation of the river basins management plans, etc. are particularly emphasized. Notwithstanding, the recent WBIF IPF4 publication from November 2014indicated that the transposition of WFD is more advanced than the transposition of the Floods Directive. 12 Table 3-20 and Table 3-21 taken from this report show the targets for implementation. It has to be highlighted that some of the data in these tables are ambiguous and other publications such as the Environment and Climate Regional Assession Network did not declare any target for the full implementation of the WFD and Flood Directives.

Table 3-20: Transposition and implementation of WFD in BiH Montenegro and Serbia

TARGETS FOR IMPLEMENTATION BiH MNE SER

Defining RBDs C C C Legal effect to administrative arrangements C C C Designating competent authority/ies. C C C Meeting environmental objectives 2027 2025 TBD Establishing a register of Protected Areas C 2025 2017 Analysis of the characteristics of the RBD C 2025 2015 Review of environmental impact of human activity 2014 2025 2015 Economic analysis of water use 2014 C 2015 Establishing programmes for monitoring WQ 2014 2016 2020 Establishing programmes of measures for RBDs 2015 2025 2015 Publishing draft RBMP including public comments 2014 2025 2014 Publishing RBMP 2015 2025 2015 Effective enforcement system. C C 2018

Full implementation. 2027 TBD TBD

LEVEL OF TRANSPOSITION % 98 67 76 TBD = to be determined. C = Completed

Table 3-21: Transposition and implementation of Flood Directive in BiH Montenegro and Serbia

TARGETS FOR IMPLEMENTATION BiH MNE SER

Setting up of administrative arrangements C 2007 C

Description of floods C 2018 2018

Assessment of potential adverse consequences C 2018 2018

Preparation of FHM and FRM 2015 2021 2021

Establishing appropriate objectives for FRM 2017 2025 2025

Establishing measures for FRM 2017 2025 2025

Coordination of 2007/60/EC and 2000/60/EG 2017 2014 2014

Publishing PRA FHM FRM 2017 2025 2025

Full implementation. 2017 TBD TBD

LEVEL OF TRANSPOSITION % 71 52 71

12 COWI IPF4 - November 2014


3.12.6 Existing institutional framework Competence to perform tasks in the field of water resources management and the environment is regulated differently in the countries of the region. However, there are common elements and some similarities. Several bodies have certain responsibilities in relation to the water resources management (in addition to Agriculture, Water and Forestry, these are the authorities responsible for the environment, energy, health care, etc., from the national to the local level). In Serbia and Montenegro, the main competencies has the Directorate for Water, which is part of the Ministry responsible for agriculture and forestry activities, as a special government administration authority. In the case of Serbia, activities in the field of the environment are within the same authority, while in Montenegro envi-ronmental protection activities are under jurisdiction of the other Ministry (for sustainable development and tourism). In both countries, a substantial part of the activities takes place within the Environmental Protection Agency. One of the specific jurisdictional issues in Serbia is connected with the fact that part of the work is under the jurisdiction of the province. According to the Approximation Strategy for the Water Sector in Serbia (2012) the Water Directorate, had “only 25 staff, and the water unit in the Ministry of Environment … only 4 staff.” However, “the greatest institutional constraint in the sector is the capacity of the Public Utility Compa-nies, which are responsible for the provision of water services.” The Institutions responsible for the field of water resources management in BiH are organized in accordance with the specific state organization and constitutional responsibilities. The entities have primary jurisdiction. Specific jurisdictions are assigned to BiH Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations (MOFTER) over environmental protection under the Law on Ministries and other administrative bodies of BiH. One of the eight divisions within the Ministry is the Division for natural resources, energy and environment protection. The total number of employees in the Division for natural resources, energy and environment protection is 34.13 The Federal BiH Ministry of Agriculture, Water-Management and Forestry, and FBiH Ministry of Environ-ment and Tourism have responsibilities of water management and water protection. FBiH Ministry of Health has the authority to make regulations pertaining to quality of water and chemicals. All of the 10 cantons in FBiH have their own environmental bodies with 2-9 employees, except Sarajevo Canton (27) and Herze-govina-Neretva Canton (44). In the 10 cantonal ministries responsible for water sector, there were 30 employ-ees. FBiH Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry had a total of 98 employees, 12 of them work in water management sector (October 2012). The Agency for Water Area of the River Sava (Sarajevo) employs 70 people (October 2012), and the Agency for Water Area of the Adriatic Sea (Mostar) employs 22 people. Water-management competences in the RS belong to the following ministries and other institutions: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, i.e. the agencies within its structure and the RS Hydromete-orology Institute; the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Civil Engineering and Ecology, the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, as well as local communities. The Division for Water Management (in RS Ministry of Agri-culture, Forestry and Water Management) had 3 employees and 7 systematized work posts (October, 2012).14 The two Ministries competent for the water issues are each responsible for the FBiH Water Agencies and the Public Institution 'Waters of Srpska" in RS or public water sector institutions in their administrative areas. The Water Agency for Sava River District had 35 systematized work positions, and 38 employees (October 2012). The Water Agency for Trebišnjica River District had 19 systematized work posts, and 5 employees.15

13 BiH Council of Ministers, Answers to the List of EU Questions on Chapter 27, Environment, Sarajevo. 2012., http://www.dei.gov.ba/dei/dokumenti/uskladjivanje/?id=10919. (22.6.2014), p. 31. 14 Ibid, p. 37. 15 The budget of RS Water Agency for Sava River District for 2012 is BAM 7,500,000, and the budget of RS Water Agency for Trebišnjica River District is KM 740,000. Ibid.


The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of BD Government is responsible for agri-culture, forestry and water management, and administrative capacities are defined by the organisational plan of the Government of BD BiH. Energy is separated as a special authority in all three countries. In Montenegro Ministry of Economy is responsible for the activities in the field of energy, including, ‘energy policy; establishment of directions and dynamics of energy development; preparation of energy balance sheet of the Republic’. In Serbia, main institution competent for rational use of energy is Ministry of mining and energy. Based on the constitutional structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina, energy efficiency as a sector is under jurisdiction of entity governments i.e. entity ministries responsible for energy and spatial planning.

3.12.7 Basic problems and challenges The basic challenges in the function of stakeholder institutions in all three countries are generally described as inefficiency caused by various factors (not precisely defined responsibilities, coordination problems, weakness of the inspection supervision, the capacities of the relevant institutions, insufficient number of employees, training of the employees in relevant institutions, training of economy representatives, i.e., companies, etc.). There is a different level of strategic elaboration of goals of certain countries in the region. In the case of BiH, reports of the European Commission and other international organizations often point out problems of absence of a common policy, i.e. instruments of a common policy at the state level as a whole. There are problems in coordination of the policies which are under the responsibility of the entity (RS and FBiH), as well as problems in horizontal coordination. Regarding BiH Federation, specific problems exist in relation to the coordination of activities between the Federation and Cantonal bodies. Further harmonization of national legislation with the EU legislation remains a key strategic challenge. All three countries are at the beginning regarding the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and other relevant regulations. It is estimated that all three countries, similar to how states that have already joined the EU have done, will negotiation about transitional measures for application of certain EU regulations. Since it is about infrastructure activities, it is estimated that substantial financial means will be needed. The procedures of preparation and adoption of regulations and strategic documents do not provide the full participation of interested parties. Harmonization of regulations with EU legislation and the adoption of secondary legislation is not followed by an analysis of real possibilities of the economy and institutions. During the work on the project, possibilities for enhancing regional cooperation will be discussed with stake-holders from the riparian states, as well as other countries in the region. Also will be pointed out on the key legal and institutional assumptions and cooperation determinants. It is also necessary to more clearly delineate the circumstances that are associated with the presence (or absence) of short-term political will for cooperation improvement, from the recognition of the long-term potential interest associated with the achievement of de-velopment goals in the region.

3.13 River Basin Data Management

Monitoring and measurements of hydro-meteorological phenomena in the Drina River Basin are officially performed by respective Hydro-Meteorological Services. In the former SFRY monitoring, measurements and archiving of hydro-meteorological data were performed by Republic Hydro-Meteorological Services (of Ser-bia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina). The Federal Hydro-Meteorological Service (FHMS) collected data gathered by Republic Hydro-Meteorological Services only on selected meteorological and hydrological stations and published them in the form of “Hydro-Meteorological Service of Yugoslavia Yearbook” (“Mete-orological Yearbook I”, “Meteorological Yearbook II”, “Hydrological Yearbook” etc.). The FHMS had also developed the “Database of Hydrological and Meteorological Data”. Partial databases that included hydro-meteorological data have also been developing in Republic Hydro-Meteorological Services. The contents of these databases, as well as their condition and possibilities of access to them by potential users are not known to the wider professional audience.


After the breakup of former SFRY Republic Hydro-Meteorological Services assumed the authorities related to publishing and distribution of hydro-meteorological data collected on their respective territories. Starting with 1991 the RHMS of Serbia regularly publishes its data in meteorological and hydrological yearbooks and works on the development of its own database that includes hydro-meteorological data. Until 2014 the data gathered on the territories of Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina was stored only in the archives of these institutions. The situation with the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina was considerably more complicated, because the data is, starting with 1991, stored in the Hydro-Meteorological Service of Republic of Srpska (in Banja Luka) and in the Hydro-Meteorological Service of Federation of BiH (in Sarajevo). Due to well-known war activities on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina the volume and types of available meteorological and hydrological data are not known to the wider professional audience. It can be assumed that most of the data from the period after 1991 does not exist and that the remaining data can be procured under market con-ditions, which differ considerably among the republics (i.e., states). The volume of certain data, such as mete-orological data, that can be ordered is very short. In the Drina River Basin was established a network consisting of more than 80 hydrological stations and man-aged by Hydro-Meteorological Services of Republic of Serbia, Republic of Montenegro, Federation of and Republic of Srpska. The largest number of stations was established on the territory of Montenegro (34), fol-lowed by Republic of Srpska (24), Republic of Serbia (21) and Federation of BiH (1). The longest running hydrological stations were established in 1888, during the period of Austro-Hungarian administration over the part of the Drina River Basin. The major part of the stations started their operation after the World War I (in 1926), followed by another large number of stations after the World War II (in 1947 and 1948). A number of hydrological stations (more than 20) stopped their operation due to the construction of reservoirs that flooded them and for other reasons. On the Drina River was established a network that consists of 14 hydrological stations and 10 out of them are not operational any more. On the Lim River were established 11 stations and the operation of one of them was terminated after the construction of the "Višegrad" reservoir. On Tara River out of 7 established stations only two are still in operation. On the Piva River (together with the Komarnica River) were established 3 stations and all of them stopped their operation. On the Ćehotina River, out of initial 5 stations, only two of them are still active. On the Uvac River (with the Vapa River) were established 5 stations and only one of them is still active. On all other Drina River tributaries were established no more than two stations. Currently in the Drina River Basin there are 19 automatic stations with available data. The major part of sta-tions is located at the Republic of Montenegro territory (11), then on the Republic of Serbia territory (6) one on each of Republic of Srpska and Federation of BiH territories. In order to update the information on currently active hydrological stations in the Drina River Basin will be developed a questionnaire that should be filled by all authorized institutions (Hydro-meteorological Services of Republic of Serbia, Republic of Montenegro, Republic of Srpska and Federal Service of BiH, Electric Power Industries of Serbia, Montenegro and Republic of Srpska, state-owned or private companies that have a legal obligation to measure discharges at watercourses in the Drina River Basin) in relation to the following data: Name of the authorized institution that owns the hydrological station, Type of measured data (discharge, water level, water temperature, sediment, water quality etc.) Equipment installed in the station (staff gage, limnigraph etc.), Equipment manufacturer, Method of data archiving, Method of data transfer, Frequency of hydrological measurements, Frequency of geodetic measurements (gauging station profile), Description of operational problems etc.


Upon the gathered information will be created a "passport" for each individual hydrological station. Passports for all hydrological stations will be stored in a database, i.e., will constitute a part of the corresponding reports. Creation of hydrological stations' passports will allow for more correct use of hydrological data to be used for hydrological analyses to be performed in the scope of the current project.


4 Communication and Consultation Strategy

4.1 Communication with the Client

The Communication with the Client and the Coordination Committee are very important. The World Bank has secured the financial resources for the Project (from the WBIF) and is the Client and the coordinator of the information exchange and sharing with other Government parties, relevant to the Project.

The Coordination Committee established for the Project covering the three riparian states appears to be fi-nally agreed although this has taken longer than originally envisaged. This is as follows:

Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations (MOFTER) covering BiH overall at Sarajevo, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (MAFWM) covering FBIH at Sarajevo Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry (MAWMF) covering RS BiH at Banja Luka Sava River Watershed Agency covering FBiH at Sarajevo Public Institution “Waters of Srpska” covering RS BiH at Bijeljina Federal Hydro-meteorological Institute covering FBIH at Sarajevo Hydro-meteorological Institute of RS at Banja Luka Montenegro Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) covering Montenegro at Podgorica Hydro-Meteorological Institute (HMI) at Podgorica Geological Survey of Montenegro at Podgorica Elektroprivreda of Crna Gora (EPCG) at Podgorica Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism (Environment Sector) (to be confirmed) Environmental Protection Agency for Montenegro at Podgorica (to be confirmed) Serbia Water Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection (MAEP) at Belgrade State Hydro-Meteorological Institution at Belgrade Serbian Environmental Protection Agency at Belgrade Ministry of Mining and Energy at Belgrade Public Utility Company "Srbijavode" at Belgrade Electric Power Industry of Serbia

It is hoped that the Coordination Committee will become proactive as the project progresses; however, at present there is some reservation to drive the project forward. The JV Consultant believes that using the ISRBC would be an effective way of pushing the project forward. Furthermore, ISRBC have a non-partisan approach and are retained by the Riparian Governments of the Sava River Basin and has a mandate to act in their best interests. Client communications and relations on the Project will be executed through regular contact between the Team Leader and the Client’s representative (World Bank TTL). In addition, communication will be through: Regular Meetings E mail communication Exchange of Letters Brief, Monthly Progress Reports of no more than 2 pages that will be provided at the end of the Inception

Phase.

Figure 4-1 below shows the Project Organisation Chart which is self-explanatory.


Figure 4-1: Project Organisation Chart

4.2 Communication with the Public

In defining the communication strategy, the following points are relevant:

Public participation is one of the most important elements of the project. All riparian states are signatories and have ratified the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information,

public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Respecting true values of a democratic system, the Consultant developed the Communication Plan (see

Section 4.4) for securing a wider public and stakeholder involvement in the implementation of Project Activities.

4.3 Transboundary Issues

In accordance with the WFD and in respect to Espoo Convention, the JV Consultant is aware that any trans-boundary issues associated with the Project will need to be highlighted and communicated to the Client, the Coordination Committee and the ISRBC in a timely manner. Furthermore, such information should be suffi-cient to satisfy the requirements of the respective legislation from the three riparian states.

4.4 Communication Plan:

4.4.1 Stakeholder meetings (initial and follow up meetings) Stakeholder meetings have and will continue to be convened with the following: ISRBC State Authorities from the Riparian States Local Authorities (Municipalities) NGOs


4.4.2 Questionnaire The Consultant will develop a questionnaire which will be distributed to concerned stakeholders in the sec-ond phase of the project. This questionnaire focuses on legal and institutional issues regarding the require-ments of the WFD. Other questionnaires will be developed for the economic analysis.

4.4.3 Site Visits Visits to existing and planned sites within the Drina River Basin have commenced. This has included those sites mentioned in Section 2.8: Further site visits will take place during the review and analysis phase.

4.4.4 Public Meetings The JV Consultant anticipates that there will need to be public meetings held within the Drina River Basin during the earlier stages of the review and analysis phase when the IWRM report has been produced for the three riparian states and then later on when the Investment Prioritization Framework has been produced. According to the plan these meetings will be held; one in each of the three states (there may be need for two in BiH, one in each entity) and are anticipated to have a large number of stakeholders present including the general public. In addition, the documents will be uploaded to the Project website for review and a feedback via the web site will be provided. The public hearings will be organised by the Client, the Coordination Committee, and the ISRBC with the close cooperation of the Consultant, who will present the relevant documentation to the public for any ques-tions or clarifications.

4.4.5 Meetings with stakeholders During the second phase the JV Consultant will make a concerted effort to engage with the other main stake-holders including municipalities and other concerned organisations.

The JV Consultant considers communication with the Public and other stakeholders important. In this regard, the JV Consultant in-tends to make early contact with the Euro Drina Region. This organisation was established in January 2012, and is a rela-tively new player with some 17 municipalities united in a local NGO presided by the Mayor of Foca (for a two-year term) and supported by the European Union. However, the Consultant be-lieves it is a good way to obtain speedier feedback, opinions and views of the general public living within the Basin. For the time being, it is dominated by municipalities situated in Serbia and the RS BiH, but efforts are undertaken to bring the Bosnian Podrinje Canton with the three FBiH municipalities Go-razde, Foca-Ustikolina and Pale-Praca as well as those municipali-ties situated in the Lim River sub-basin in Montenegro on board.

Figure 4-2: Map of Euro Drina Region


The Drina Euro Region encourages local development based on tourism (fishing, wellness, trekking, rafting), production of local specialties ("labelling", quality control, marketing), and improvement of living standards (education, health, transport, flood protection, pollution control, exploitation of minerals and sediments). It is not yet a "key driver" in the context of DRB development but has the potential to become one.

4.4.6 Preparation a Web Site A web site providing the stakeholders and the public with information on the project is under development. The following link can be used to gain access: http://www.wb-drinaproject.com/ A number of web pages are available to readers and the site will be used as one of the main media outlets for providing information to the public on project events. All finalised and approved report deliverables will also be available for review through the website.

4.4.7 Monthly Reports In accordance with the technical proposal the JV Consultant will prepare a short monthly report to the Client and the Core stakeholders once the Inception Phase has been completed and finalised and when the planning and assessment phase (phase 2) has commenced. These reports will also be uploaded on the web site for view by the general public, if the coordination committee so wish it.


5 Revised Work Plan and updated Methodology The majority of the work plan as shown in the JV Consultant’s technical proposal remains as it is. The fol-lowing section provide more specific details of the modelling which was a specific requirement of the TOR, some details on the multi criteria analysis and proposal for the contents of the country and basin reports.

5.1 General approach

5.1.1 Project reference line The project shall be developed along simple and clear lines. The three general principles that will be applied are the following: Three study priorities: Consistency, robustness, minimal biases Purpose of optimizations: General optimisations, if any – no detailed considerations General approach: Top-down rather than bottom – up

The three highest priorities of the analyses will first be to ensure a large consistency of basic hypotheses, ap-proach, results and interpretation. The depth of the analysis will be harmonized, to avoid ending up with some unnecessarily detailed elements, whereas others remain insufficiently scrutinized. The second prevail-ing principle is to apply robust methods. A moderate change of a parameter or basic condition shall not end up modifying radically the results of the analysis. Should this be the case, the approach will be modified to guarantee stability and reliability. Finally, the biases will be chased, as explained below. If any optimizations are required by the project, they will be carried out on a basic level, comparing simple indicators. An example of such optimization is provided in the sub-section on specific issues related to hy-dropower (Influence of the installed capacity). The general approach of the study will then start from the top and gradually extend downward, making sure that each layer of new elements present a consistent picture, as well internally as with respect to preceding (higher) layers. Simple indicators will be relied upon to guarantee that the cornerstones of the analysis are respected. This step-by-step approach will ensure that the developed solutions progress in a coordinated manner. It will also contribute to limiting the biases in the analysis.

5.1.2 Operational framework of the study A number of important issues must be addressed at the onset of the project: it is equally important that they be accepted and become a dynamic component of the overall process. Consistency, robustness Apart from the purely technical studies, one of the main tasks of the project team will be to make sure that the development of the studies progresses in a balanced way, so that the progressive crystallization of the de-veloped concepts can be achieved. In particular, the technical options will be regularly compared with the environmental and social requirements or constraints, to ensure that the project can develop in an acceptable direction as required by the three involved riparian countries and their respective legislation. All important aspects of the project shall be addressed, analysed, quantified and finally validated. Con-sistency plays a major role in this process. Constant attention shall be placed on sectoral options developed by the project specialists and the respective compatibility of the proposed solutions between themselves. This has to be ensured very early in the project, well before detailed options are imagined. The project team will strive to allow a coherent progression of the considerations simultaneously throughout all fields of the investigation. The nature of the project does not require that special localised studies be de-veloped in detail, as long as the general context has not been firmly established. As long also that the articu-lation of the various meta-components of the overall concept has not been validated.


Consistency and robustness have a central role to play and will be the federating factors of the whole study. The effective application of these considerations must ensure that further developments (regional concepts, local projects) do not hit hidden inconsistencies and incompatibilities. Biases In particular, all alternatives will be treated in a similar manner; great care will be taken not to introduce bi-ases in the alternatives comparison. Indeed, the hunt for biases and the identification of crucial risks will also represent an important undertaking for the project team. In all complex studies (not only them, in fact), biases and pétitions de principe16 are one of the greatest dan-gers popping out on the way. A great deal of attention will be spent on bringing flawed estimations to light, detecting and correcting erroneous reasoning. Accuracy This item generates more often than not discussions that should normally not have to take place. The project Owner often wants to get as many specific details of projects as early as possible, even when the general lay-out is still partially under discussion and some key decisions have not yet been taken. The approach that will be adopted for the study is generally not compatible with such an inversion of the process. The priorities will clearly be set on: Performing a very consistent study and establishing a robust general concept Delineating specific concepts for implementation of the concept Reliably designing the implementation projects, without details Introducing details into the design only if really necessary.

Time step The few reflections enounced above are valid for the general line to be followed for such projects. Mutatis mutandis, they can also be adopted for the present project as a whole. A last point is to address: only reliable orders of magnitude are really meaningful at this stage. To this pur-pose, both reservoir operation studies and power and energy analyses will be performed on at least a monthly time-step basis. The monthly or daily inflow mean and variability (standard deviation) values that will result from the analysis of the hydrological time series will constitute the basis for the reservoir operation studies and the power and energy analyses.

5.2 Basin Modelling

Following a discussion at a Skype telephone conference on 7th November 2014 between the Project model-ling specialists and the World Bank, there was need to redefine the methodology for undertaking the model-ling and this is defined below.

5.2.1 Introduction Multipurpose water management of a river basin involves application of both structural and non-structural measures aimed at: Increasing reliability of water supply to municipal, industrial and agricultural users in both temporal and

spatial terms, Protecting against floods, Improving water quality, Producing hydropower, and

16 A pétition de principe (petitio principii) is a type of fallacious reasoning which, based on some in general untold premises, follows a logical deduction pattern and applies rigorous reflections to end up to a conclusion that just concords with the premises. In some way, it may be related to a sophism. Usually it is consciously expressed to convince a partner, or unconsciously to reassure the per-son making the reasoning.


Providing for recreation and other activities as appropriate for the particular basin. The goal of the river basin management plan is to provide identification of the measures for development and management of the water resources system by identifying the type of measures needed, their temporal and spatial frames and their combined economic, environmental, ecological and social impacts. The process of the water resources planning and management is best supported by various models that should serve the need for exploring the sustainable management options within the competing sectors. This section proposes a methodology for establishing the modelling tool and to perform simulations with the various scenarios that would support the IWRM of the DRB.

5.2.2 General modelling approach For integrated river basin management, a systems view is needed. Such a view requires modelling of multi-ple basin components, so that these models can be used to analyse alternative designs and management strat-egies for the integrated multi-component system. The multi-component system should integrate the natural system components (e.g. surface water and groundwater, quantity and quality, land- and water management, etc.) and the upstream and downstream water-related demands or interests. The natural system components can generally be modelled with models of a different level of complexity that are specifically developed for a particular component (e.g. groundwater models). However, watershed hydrologic models are usually employed to model water balance components. Although water quantity and quality aspects should be considered jointly in water management, they are usu-ally modelled separately. Watershed models focusing on water quantities are mostly used to investigate whether sufficient water is available to satisfy the different water uses (off-stream and in-stream), and to identify measures to match supply and demand. While most river basin models keep track of the water bal-ance in the whole river basin, water quality is mostly analysed “off-line”, using an appropriate model for a specific part of the system, e.g. a river stretch, reservoir or groundwater system. Using separate water quality models for parts of the system makes it possible to include more temporal and spatial detail and to include more complex water quality processes. When water quantity modelling is separated from water quality as-sessment or modelling, the watershed hydrologic model should be established first since it provides neces-sary input for water quality analysis. In contrast to this, there is little feedback from water quality to quantity except in cases where minimum flows are required to maintain a minimum water quality level. Environmen-tal flow requirements can be included in river basin models by defining specific flow regime demands (quan-tity, velocity, dynamics and the like) at certain locations in the river basin. Similarly, the hydraulic models can be used “off-line” for more detailed analysis of potential flooding at vul-nerable river stretches. However, simple routing schemes that are usually part of the hydrologic models are sufficient for the water balance assessment within the basin. Therefore, a comprehensive model of a water resources system can generally consist of a set of various mod-els, but the principal chain consists of the hydrologic model and the water resources management model. Other types of models could be used “off-line” if specific problems need to be addressed more precisely. The principal chain of two models also includes an intermediary step in which water demands by the users and other constraints should be defined either for the actual basin, riparian state or for a particular development scenario. These steps are described below. HYDROLOGIC MODEL The water quantity aspect should be covered with the watershed hydrologic model, which describes the hy-drological surface water and groundwater system, as well as the operation of reservoirs and possibly other structures and facilities that interfere with the natural hydrologic regime in the basin. The following natural system components are covered by a hydrologic model:


1. Elements of the hydrological cycle: surface runoff, infiltration into soils and percolation into aquifers, streamflow. The hydrologic models can also be used to estimate the impact of changes in land use and land cover on the runoff.

2. Lakes and reservoirs are sites in a basin where surface water storage needs to be modelled.

WATER DEMANDS AND CONSTRAINTS The socio-economic functions in a river basin include:

1. Domestic, municipal and industrial water demand 2. Agricultural water demand 3. Hydropower production 4. Flood risk reduction 5. Recreation and tourism Major withdrawals include domestic or municipal uses, industrial uses (including cooling water) and agricul-tural uses (including irrigation), either from a river system or from other surface or groundwater body. Re-turn flows (discharges) can be of altered quantity and quality. Water can also be allocated to in-stream uses that alter the distribution of flows in time and space (including: reservoir storage, flow augmentation, hydro-power electricity production). All these relate to different scenarios of development and climate change etc.

WATER RESOURCES SYSTEM PLANNING AND EVALUATION MODEL. Each of the previous components can be combined into a model of the water resources system. One of the first tasks in modelling the basin as the water resources system is to identify the actual and potential system components and their interdependencies. The model should then address all the issues being discussed and of concern to the stakeholders. The modelling approach can use simulations and/or optimizations. The river ba-sin simulation packages (such as WEAP by SEI or other) support the development of a system schematiza-tion consisting of a network of nodes connected by links. The nodes represent reservoirs, dams, weirs, pumps, hydropower stations, water users, inflows, artificial and natural bifurcations, intake structures, natu-ral lakes, and so on. The links transport water between the different nodes. Such a network represents the ba-sin’s features that are significant for the planning and management problem at issue. Multiple simulations allow defining a range of alternative development or management strategies, so that the system performance is evaluated in terms of water allocation, shortages, electricity production, overall river basin water balance, crop yields, production costs etc.

5.2.3 Water resources system modelling The Consultant proposes that a simple, but a comprehensive tool such as WEAP by SEI (Water Evaluation and Planning System by Stockholm Environmental Institute) should be used for water resources system modelling in this project. The WEAP model operates on the basic principle of water balance accounting (SEI, 2011). It is applicable to both single sub-basin and complex river systems. It uses an integrated approach to simulate water systems by addressing both the water supply and the demand side of the equation, and it provides for examining alterna-tive water development and management strategies. On the demand side, WEAP considers water use pat-terns, water re-use, hydropower energy demand, equipment efficiency, prices, allocation priorities, etc. On the supply side it considers streamflow, groundwater, reservoirs and water transfer. WEAP can also address water conservation, water rights, reservoir operation, ecosystem requirements, and the project cost-benefit analysis. Application of WEAP is accomplished in several steps: Study definition: setting up the time frame, spatial boundary, system components and configuration of

the problem. Current state definition: actual water demand, pollution loads, resources and supplies for the system.


Creation of alternative sets of future assumptions: these are based on policies, costs, technological devel-opment and other factors that affect demand, pollution, supply and hydrology such as climate change.

Construction of scenarios: the scenarios consist of alternative sets of assumptions or policies. Evaluation of scenarios: evaluation is made in regard to water sufficiency, costs and benefits, compatibil-

ity with environmental targets, and sensitivity or uncertainty in key variables. In the proposed methodology, the WEAP model would use the outputs from the hydrologic model described this section to describe the water supply. The WEAP model would then be used to set up the demand side and define different scenarios under which water management options and alternatives could be explored.

5.2.4 Delivering the model to the counterparts in the basin The hydrological model will be delivered as Windows executable numerical module with appropriate user application for calculation management. The corresponding documentation on the numerical implementation and theoretical background will also be delivered, as well as the user manual for user application. Further details on the methodology for delivering the model will be provided in the final version of the Inception Re-port following discussion at the Inception Workshop.

5.2.5 Hydraulic modelling Hydraulic modelling with an aim to identify flood risks in the Drina River basin is proposed to be performed independently from the main chain of the basin modelling. Analysis of the flood risk in the Drina River basin is strongly connected to operation of the existing and planned reservoirs. The role of hydraulic model in this project would therefore be to analyse the flood risks under assumptions and scenarios that could contribute to flooding. Such are the situations of the sudden releases from the reservoirs that coincide with high down-stream water stages and also the coincidence with floods in the Sava River. The flood prone areas of the Drina River Basin are mainly limited to the lower basin part downstream of the Bajina Bašta reservoir. These areas generally include the Semberija region and the Macva region, which are at risks from both fluvial and groundwater flooding. At this stage of the project, the Consultant believes that 1D hydraulic model is sufficient to provide a good insight into the potential flooding problems and will use standard software packages such as HEC-RAS to perform hydraulic analysis of the vulnerable reaches.

5.3 Climate Modelling

Climate in the DRB is very spatially variable, mainly due to its complex topography. Therefore, the assess-ment of climate change should be undertaken using Regional Climate Model (RCM) simulations, instead of Global Climate Models (GCMs). Although GCMs used in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report have overall higher resolution than those from the previous generation of climate simulations, it is still too coarse to re-solve fine local climate characteristics. Another point is that, as stated above in Section 3.10.1, the DRB climate is strongly affected by the Mediter-ranean Sea. Thus, it is not enough to downscale only the atmospheric part of the climate system, but it would be of great benefit to also include its relations with the nearby sea. For that purpose, the dynamical downscaling can be done using RCMs with fully coupled atmospheric and oceanic models, so called Regional Climate System Models (RCSMs). All the above requirements are met in the Med-CORDEX initiative. In this study, an ensemble of fully coupled RCMs available through Med-CORDEX initiative will be used. The exact number of models within ensemble depends on its availability at the moment of producing the DRB climate scenarios. Three x 30-years’ time slices will be used under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios used in the IPCC Fifth Assessment report, namely: 1961 to 1990 as the base period,


2006 to 2035 for the near future and 2036 to 2065 for the far future These scenarios are the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) for GHGs concentration by the end of 21st century. RCP4.5 predicts an increase of GHGs emission until 2040 and a decline afterwards, causing CO2 concentra-tion to increase until 2080 and then stay stable. In the RCP8.5 both GHGs emission and concentration con-tinuously rises until the end of the century. So far there was no climate change studies performed in the DRB using simulations driven by the RCPs scenarios. Outputs from the coupled RCMs runs will be statistically corrected in order to remove BIAS, a statistical er-ror that exists in every climate model. The correction will be done by comparing the measurements of the daily mean 2m temperature and accumulated precipitation to the simulated values of the model grid point closest to the meteorological station, over the base period 1961-1990. A corrective function will be built-in, in order to equalize cumulative density function of simulated time series with observed. This method is often referred to as “quintile mapping”. Corrective functions will be calculated for each model, station, month and variable, and afterwards applied to simulated future time series. Statistically corrected time series for all three periods will be an input to the hydrological model mentioned in the section above, while change of cli-mate parameters will be analysed using a “delta approach”, i.e. in comparison to the base period.

5.3.1 Hydropower modelling Hydropower modelling will be based on available hydrological data, locations and characteristics of HPPs defined in the existing technical documentation, adopted priorities for each actual HPP site, restrictions and regulations defined by relevant authorities (if such exist) and regarding the other water uses/demands (irriga-tion, water supply, flood control etc.). Hydropower production, as result of hydropower modelling, will be analysed as one of the sustainable uses in the context of water management, as well as all other impacts in-volved by its implementation in the Basin. Hydropower modelling will be performed in the following main steps: Gathering of data and documentation, Definition a common platform, especially regarding hydrological data, Definition of HPP priorities, Critical analyses of technical solutions from the available documentation, Updating energy production analyses/estimations regarding the actual hydrological data Updating of construction costs in relation to actual prices. GATHERING OF TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION All available technical documentation related to the projects is listed at the end of this section. The most re-cent available documentation, with the highest possible level of project development, will be used (at least at the pre-feasibility or feasibility study level). In addition to the technical documentation, the following documents and information will be necessary: Existing relevant planning documentation prepared in the region of interest and Databases from relevant institutions such as: state hydro-meteorological organization, local and state

topographic and cadastral organizations, public water/other companies (for example: PWC "Srbijavode", PWC "Vode Srpske", local PWC for water supply and sewerage etc.) –it is assumed that relevant data-bases are available.

Also, it is assumed that relevant documentation is available in the stakeholder institutions (e.g. ministries, public companies, municipalities or other relevant local authorities etc.) and that it will be submitted on JV Consultant request.


Analyses will be performed for the SHPPs located on the Drina River and its main tributaries, such as Piva River, Tara River, Lim River, Ćehotina River and Sutjeska River. A minimum power rating of 2 MW for each SHPP will be considered, i.e. the powers below this limit will not be reviewed. Data on planned SHPPs will be gathered in cooperation with the relevant stakeholder institutions responsible for energy. Further-more, only the SHPPs that are subject to administrative processing, i.e. the ones for which some relevant acts (Energy Permit etc.) have been issued, will be considered. DEFINITION OF A COMMON PLATFORM It can be expected that the solutions given in the available technical documentation will be based upon some-what different inputs, primarily different hydrological data. Eventual differences can be expected primarily in the range of medium discharges (which can influence the equipment rating), as well as flood discharges (which influence sizing of reservoir outlets and spillways). Therefore, the Consultant shall start by developing a common platform for hydrological data that will be used for the analysis of the existing technical solutions. The Consultant will adopt common criteria for definition of data relevant for design of reservoir outlets and spillways. Based on the adopted relevant data, characteristics/capacities of reservoir outlets and spillways, which have been proposed in existing documentation, will be checked and corresponding comments will be issued. DEFINITION OF HPP SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS The proposed hydropower schemes shall respond to specific requirements and priorities of the three involved riparian countries. First, it is necessary to identify the key driving factor for this development. It can be: To enable a national increase in energy consumption, or To enable security of local electricity supply, or The need for peak-load generation. Second, it is important to understand whether a synergy between flood protection and hydropower is sought, i.e. whether the construction of new hydropower facilities should also alleviate the flood-related problems. Third, it is necessary to recognize that there are limitations due to environmental reasons or demands of the local community if such exist. Fourth, it is necessary to define a list of each country’s priorities that will serve as criteria for proper defini-tion of the layout and characteristics of new hydropower schemes. These criteria are elaborated below. Energy vs. power This criterion defines whether it is more important for a country to get more energy to supply or to have more reserve power to cover consumption peaks. Under the conditions of the limited project cost this crite-rion will also be used for the selection between, for instance, a higher head (through a higher dam) or equip-ment with higher power. Total vs. primary energy This criterion shall define the preference between the total average energy produced during a single year and the amount of energy that is available (guaranteed) most of the time (nine years out of 10, or 19 out of 20). The total electricity production cannot not be guaranteed (in some years it will be higher, in some lower), while the primary amount of electricity can be guaranteed and will be smaller than the total energy (in gen-eral an additional, but not guaranteed amount of energy can also be produced). Energy price vs. quantity


More energy is not synonymous with the economy of scale and a larger energy production may not always be concomitant with a lower price. This criterion shall define whether it will be more beneficial for the coun-try to produce a larger quantity of energy (even somewhat more expensive), or to produce less energy (but minimize its price). Summer vs. winter supply This criterion shall define the season which will be more important for electricity production and is related to the issue of seasonal water transfer (whether the river flow during the preferred season will be lower than during the other one). In case when reservoir can provide seasonal regulation, HPP operation will be defined in order to satisfy two criteria: asked water demands regarding with water supply and maximal water elevation into reservoir as much as it is possible. It should be noted that in order to ensure its seasonal regulation a significant volume of the reservoir has to be provided. Regulation vs. run-off-river A run-off-river energy production is entirely conditioned by the river regime, day after day.Those kinds of HPPs can operate only in the “base-load” mode. Project optimization will be performed in accordance with this information and the role of particular HPP within electrical grid. In other words, if such kind of HPP has to provide some contribution to grid regulation, additional power must be provided which will induce in-creasing the average energy price for actual HPP. Benefits vs. inconveniences This is a fundamental criterion that defines the general philosophy of a project: whether the benefits brought by the new HPP should be maximized (even though serious problems would still subsist), or should the gen-erated inconveniences be minimized (even though the pure benefits of the project would be reduced)? Centralized vs. decentralized production This criterion defines the preferred layout for a given target production, or installed capacity - one large HPP concentrating all the production, or a series of smaller plants sharing the load. Local consumers vs. export This criterion defines where the produced energy should be consumed - locally/regionally or would it be ex-ported (both options could be possible, depending on the season). Profitability vs. long term vision This criterion defines whether a hydropower scheme should be designed as to satisfy the short-term profita-bility of the investment, with the minimum investment costs and without further possibilities of extension, or shall the room for further extensions be envisaged. For instance, an underground HPP could initially be equipped with three units, but its cavern would be able to accommodate the fourth one. Reduction of water loss vs. expenses In general, only part of the river water can be processed and will contribute to the energy production. The rest of the water can be considered a loss. Usually, the augmentation of the processed water volume implies a higher project cost. This criterion defines whether water losses should be reduced (but the project cost in-creased) or the project cost should be lowered (and the water losses increased). Individual return vs. integrated production This criterion is used in case of a cascade of several power plants is planned and defines, how the production pattern should be defined – to maximize the individual return of each plant (in general linked to a decrease of the global cascade production) or to support an integrated production pattern that treats the cascade as a com-mon production entity (with each power plant contributing a way or another to the common output). All criteria defined above will be used for the analysis of relevant hydropower projects.


Critical analysis of technical solutions It is well known that the technical solutions for the existing and future HPPs on the Drina River are exhibit-ing a serious lack of harmonization regarding the parameters listed above. The Consultant shall: • Perform hydropower calculations based upon the main HPP characteristics such as: rated discharges,

relevant heads, equipment efficiency etc. quoted in the available documentation and adopted/updated hydrology and

• Provide comments upon the capacities of outlets and spillways given in the available documentation and the ones that would be obtained by the adopted methodology.

In this manner, the Consultant shall provide a consolidated overview of the existing and future hydropower plants on the Drina River and provide comments upon the opportunities regarding the harmonization of the existing technical solutions. For all solutions shall be developed brief excerpts from the documentation, including the main data that should facilitate the comparisons between various solutions. For all solutions shall be provided comments related to their compatibility with the legislative in power and strategies developed for the basin. The influence of construction of plants upon the problems of floods and droughts shall be the subject of a separate hydraulic analysis. Possible influence of construction of SHPPs upon the dynamics of variation of water levels in the reservoirs shall also be investigated. UPDATING OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS IN RELATION TO ACTUAL PRICES All investment costs will be expressed in a single currency (Euro), based upon the evaluation prices for the items listed in Bills of Materials and Bills of Quantities in the documentation. Considering the time elapsed since the development of certain projects the prices quoted in them should not be simply revaluated. For all analysed solutions shall be provided the results of the basic economical/financial analysis and corre-sponding ranking.

5.4 Drought and Sedimentation Methodology

The following documentation on drought and sedimentation has been reviewed during the Inception Phase: West Balkan Flood and Drought Management Initiative – Drina River Basin - Rapid regional diagnostic

and investment scan study “The preliminary analysis of dredging possibility on Drina, Južna, Zapadna and Velika Morava for the

purposes of issuing water acts”, Notebook 1: Drina, JCI, Belgrade 2012 Data on sediment borrow pits, the water management's consent on the sediment exploitation for the pe-

riod between 2005 and 2010, Srbijavode. Report on the strategic assessment of “The impact that Drina riverbed sediment management has on the

environment“, purchaser PWMC Srbijavode, the executor JCI, March 2005 Report – The basic characteristics of the basin area of the Drina river, Srbijavode - WMC “Sava-Dunav”

2012 “Filling of accumulations in Serbia – Problems and the directions of solutions”(M. B. Mladenović et all),

JCI and Energoprojekt, 2003

In Activity 3.4, which falls under Main Task 3 – Institutional and Legal Assessment, Sedimentation Manage-ment processes will be addressed as part of the identification and analysis of the core institutional and legal issues for WRM.


Under Task 5, Activity 5.1 will identify key drivers for future development scenarios which will include an analysis of drought events. Later in the same main task Activity 5.9 will review needs and options for coop-eration including flood and drought forecasting. Later under Main Task 6 which review the inventory of proposed changes to IWRM in the DRB the JV Con-sultant will assess the flood and drought resilience of the basin, and the sub-basins. Flood and drought objec-tives will also be taken into consideration on the HPP operation concessions. Activity 6.11 will review the effect of infrastructure on floods and droughts, including a review on the options and existing documentation of infrastructures and plans for reservoirs, flood protection measures, groundwater storage and abstraction systems (with aquifers used as water storage), mineral springs water, etc. as they would support, or otherwise affect the flood and drought objectives for the basin and the sub-basins. Later in Main Task 6 under Activity 6.16 the JV Consultant will review the existing and available data for each of the shortlisted projects and based on this information it may be considered necessary to propose addi-tional studies such as the measurement of the suspended sediment load and the bed load. However, such ac-tivities cannot be covered under the present budget of the Consultant.

5.5 Proposal for Multi Criteria Analysis

As part of main Task 6 the Consultant has to conduct a multi criteria analysis (MCA) on the development options chosen for the DRB. The Consultant proposal provided details of the MCA steps to be undertaken. Time has been spent during the Inception Phase in refining the MCA process and the methodology to be adopted. This is contained in Annex 5 to this report.

5.6 Outline Table of Contents for Main Report (Country and Basin)

Taking into consideration the issues raised by the stakeholders regarding RBMP, the Consultant has prepared a table of contents that can be adapted for the main report at country level and at basin level taking into con-sideration the IWRM study and plan and then including the Investment Prioritization Framework which will be undertaken later on in the Project. The draft table of contents for both reports are shown in Annex 6. In addition, the JV Consultant has considered the layout of maps for the reports at the country level and at the basin level. Annex 7 provide an indication for the base maps prepared so far.

5.7 Revised Work Plan, Deliverables and Workshops

The Work Plan from the Proposal has been reassessed and simplified for inclusion within this Inception Re-port. As stated previously the eleven tasks remain, but the duration of some of them have changed. This is particularly the case for the country report for BiH which following the meeting in Sarajevo on 18th Decem-ber 2014, will now have to wait until the characterisation report being produced by the EU IPA Consultant has been prepared. The revised Work Plan is shown in Figure 5-1 below. The schedule of deliverables will also change as a result in the change of the work plan. The following Table 5-1 provides an update. Table 5-1: Revised Schedule of Report Deliverables

Prefix Codex

Task Ref # Title of Report Deliverable Draft Due

PR# Task 0 Monthly Progress Report (electronic form only) Every 4 weeks

after Inception

IAR Tasks 0‐5 Intermediate (Annual) Report End of Month 9

RPC Task 10 Report on Preliminary Consultations End of Month 12

DFR Tasks 0‐10 Draft Final Report End of Month 23

FR Tasks 0‐10 Final Report including report on Final consultation Workshop End of Month 24

DIR Task 1 Draft Inception Report and Revised Work Plan 15th of Month 2

FIR Task 1 Final Inception Report and Revised Work Plan End of Month 5


Prefix Codex

Task Ref # Title of Report Deliverable Draft Due

DBP BiH Tasks 2‐5 Draft IWRM Study and Plan – Background Paper – BiH (FBiH+RS) End of Month 12 DBP Ser Tasks 2‐5 Draft IWRM Study and Plan – Background Paper – Serbia End of Month 9 DBP MNE Tasks 2‐5 Draft IWRM Study and Plan – Background Paper – Montenegro End of Month 9 FBP BiH Tasks 2‐5 Final IWRM Study and Plan – Background Paper – BiH (FBiH+RS) End of Month 16 FBP Ser Tasks 2‐5 Final IWRM Study and Plan – Background Paper – Serbia End of Month 14 FBP MNE Tasks 2‐5 Final IWRM Study and Plan – Background Paper – Montenegro End of Month 14 DIWRMP Tasks 2‐5 Draft IWRM Study and Plan at Basin Level End of Month 17

FIWRMP Tasks 2‐5 Final IWRM Study and Plan at Basin Level End of Month 17

DIPF ‐ BiH Tasks 6‐8 Draft Investment Prioritization Framework – BiH (FBiH + RS) End of Month 22 DIPF ‐ Ser Tasks 6‐8 Draft Investment Prioritization Framework – Serbia End of Month 20 DIPF MNE Tasks 6‐8 Draft Investment Prioritization Framework – Montenegro End of Month 20 FIPF ‐ BiH Tasks 6‐8 Final Investment Prioritization Framework – BiH (FBiH + RS) End of Month 23

FIPF ‐ Ser Tasks 6‐8 Final Investment Prioritization Framework – Serbia End of Month 23 FIPF MNE Tasks 6‐8 Final Investment Prioritization Framework – Montenegro End of Month 23 DDBRR Tasks 6‐8 Draft Drina Basin Roof Report End of Month 23

FDBRR Tasks 6‐8 Final Drina Basin Roof Report End of Month 24

DPCR Task 7 Public Consultation Report – Draft End of Month 22

FPCR Task 7 Public Consultation Report – Final End of Month 24

The schedule of workshops will also change as follows in Table 5-2 below Table 5-2: Revised Schedule of Workshops

No Task Ref #

Title/Reason for the Workshop (WS) No of Days

Estimated No of

Participants Timing

1 Task 0 Kick Off Meeting/Workshop 1 15 Start Month 1

2 Task 1 Inception Workshop to discuss DIR 1 40 End of Month 2

3 Tasks 2‐5 Present IWRM DBP for BiH (FBiH + RS), Serbia + MNE 3 20 Month 11

4 Tasks 2‐5 Broad scale WS for IWRM DBP ‐ BiH (FBiH + RS) 1 60+ Month 12

5 Tasks 2‐5 Broad scale WS for IWRM DBP ‐ Serbia 1 60+ Month 12

6 Tasks 2‐5 Broad scale WS for IWRM DBP ‐ MNE 1 60+ Month 12

7 Tasks 2‐5 Finalise IWRM FBP – at Basin Level 1.5 45 Month 17

8 Tasks 6‐8 WS for D IPF for BiH (FBiH + RS), Serbia + MNE 3 20 Month19

9 Tasks 6‐8 Broad scale WS for DIPF ‐ BiH (FBiH + RS) 1 60+ Month 22 10 Tasks 6‐8 Broad scale WS for DIPF ‐ Serbia 1 60+ Month 21 11 Tasks 6‐8 Broad scale WS for DIPF ‐ MNE 1 60+ Month 21 12 Tasks 6‐8 Finalise F IPF – at Basin Level 1.5 45 Month23 13 Task 9 Training workshop for Modelling 1 15 Month24 14 Task 9 Training workshop for Economic evaluation/risk 1 15 Month24

There are also some small changes to the schedule of the other project deliverables as shown in Table 5-3 be-low.

Table 5-3: Revised Schedule of Other Project Deliverables


Task Ref # Title of Deliverable Month Due

Task 6 Scope of Work for Additional Investigations Month 22

Task 7 Multi Criteria Analysis Model Month 14 Task 8 Updated Data Records for Drina River Basin Month 24

Task 9 Training Manual for Hydrological Model Month 24 Task 9 Hydrologic Model Month 19

Task 9 Training Materials for Modelling Month 22 Task 9 Training Materials for Economic Evaluation and Risk Assessment Month 22


Figure 5-1: Updated Work Plan

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

O N D J F M A M J J A S O D J F M A M J J A S O

Task 0: Project Management and Coordination

Task 1: Inception

Task 2: River Basin Assessment

data gathering will take longerTask 3: Institutional and Legal Assessment

needs a second round of input once scenarios developedTask 4: Model Development

data gathering will take longerTask 5: Baseline and Future Scenario Development

Task 6: Inventory of Changes

Task 7: Multi Criteria Analysis of Development Options

Task 8: Inventory of Changes

Task 9: Capacity Buildingdefer until end

Task 10: Stakeholder Consultation and Organisation

Original Schedule as proposal Additional time allocated to task Original schedule moved

Description of Task


6 Constraints and Critical Success Factors The Consultant would like to raise his concern over constraints and critical success factors (Risks) that could affect the successful completion of the Project. These are summarised as follows: Limited Project Implementation Period - The proposed project implementation period according to the

TOR is 16 months (scheduled for completion in February 2016), but the present contract period is only 13 months (completion set for November 2015). The Consultant’s Contract therefore needs to be rea-ligned with the TOR. Notwithstanding the present experience in gaining stakeholders inputs and feed-back is very challenging and the Consultant believes the Project should be extended to enable full con-sultation and feedback on all report deliverables. Consequently, a period of 24 months is considered to be more realistic.

Late Project Commencement - The project commenced 4 months later than originally envisaged and this implied that field reconnaissance has had to take place during the winter which is not an ideal situation, as many sites are/will be inaccessible in the coming months.

Project Financing - Principal financing for project is approved up to the end of November 2015; Project delays may threaten financing if the assignment extends beyond that date.

Data availability - Data may not be available by the required dates. This also refers to costly data that cannot be obtained due to budget constraints; no budget is available for purchase of data; or for which protracted negotiations may be required in order to obtain such data.

Data Sources - Data are required from a myriad of different sources, including ministries, agencies and limited liability companies. Cooperation on access to data may not be uniform across data sources.

Basin Modelling – Establishing the hydrologic and water management models is currently seen as an it-erative process in order to include all possible development, climate and other scenarios into the models. Definition of the scenarios is in turn related to the timing and availability of information and data from various sources. It is therefore recognized that the model establishment would follow all delays in data acquisition.

Public consultation - Not engaging the public in the consultation process on the deliverables during key stages of development may result in protests, delays in the project and rejection of government aims in water resources management.

Awaiting information from third parties – Following the outcome of the meeting in Sarajevo on 18th De-cember 2014, the JV Consultant has to await the submission of the characterisation report from the EU IPA Consultant. This implies that the timing of the Planning Phase (Phase 2) could be substantially de-layed.


7 References

1 Analitika, Which parts of the territory will be included on the new Regional Park Komovi, October 15 2014: http://portalanalitika.me/drustvo/vijesti/165771-koje-djelove-teritorije-obuhvata-novi-regionalni-park-komovi On line information website

2 ANĐELKOVIĆ, A. et al., 2013, Invasion pathways along the rivers in Serbia –The eastern corridor of Reynoutria spp., Zaštita bilja Vol. 64 (4) № 286 (str 172-220) Beograd, 2013.: http://www.izbis.com/casopis/2013/Zastita-bilja-vol.64(4)-2013.pdf

3 BENDA, P., 2004, First record of Myotis aurascens and second record of Myotis brandtii in Montenegro, Lynx (Praha), n. s., 35: 13–18 (2004), http://www.nm.cz/download/pm/zoo/benda_lit/Benda2004lynx.pdf

4

BiH: Republika Srpska Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism, 2009, Overview and state of biological and landscapes diversity in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia And Herzegovina: Land Of Diversity, First national Report of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the Convention on biological Diversity, Sarajevo, 2009: http://aoa.ew.eea.europa.eu/tools/virtual_library/bibliography-details-each-assessment/an-swer_2133408925/w_assessment-upload/index_html?as_attachment:int=1

5 BiH: Republika Srpska Ministry of Physical Planning, Civil Engineering and Ecology of Republika Srpska, Amendments to the Spatial Plan for the Republic of Srpska 2025, 2013, http://nasprostor.org/dokumenti-2/pro-storni-plan-republike-srpske/see the map in Annex 9.1 “Protected areas”:

6 BiH: Republika Srpska Municipality of Višegrad 2013, Local action plan for the biodiversity of the municipality of Višegrad (LBAP): http://www.seebap.com/contentDocs/sr/49872_bah_visegrad.pdf

7 BiH: RS Public Enterprise for Water Management “Vode Srpske”: http://www.voders.org General information on fauna and flora and a map of DRB in BiH an in Serbia : http://www.voders.org/index.php/sliv-drine

8 BiH: Republika Srpska Public Enterprise Uvac Nature Reserve « Uvac Rezervat d.o.o.”: http://www.uvac.org.rs/istorija.html see info about the NR

9 BiH: Republika Srpska Public Enterprise Sutjeska NP: http://www.npsutjeska.net/see info about biodiversity in the NP: http://www.npsutjeska.net/stranica.php?id=13&naziv=fauna&jez=en

10 BiH: Republika Srpska -Public enterprise of the Republic of Srpska for Water management: http://www.vod-ers.org/index.php/sliv-drine; translated by Biodiv.

11 Biotope d.o.o., 2012, Inventory of bat species in Tara NP, report of Biotope d.o.o., December 2012, (the PE Tara NP has the study)

12 Bird Life International: http://www.birdlife.org/ see the map of the IBAs in BiH, Serbia and Montenegro

13 Bistro 2014, http://www.bistrobih.ba/noviforum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=1707 see picture 5 “Map of PAs in BiH” in paragraph 2.5 “Overview of Bosnian protected areas” and read PAs description (Bistro BiH is a Fishing associ-ation from Sarajevo, BiH)

14 CEPRES, 2011, Emerald Network in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Presentation PPT hold by the Centre for Ecology and Natural Resources (CEPRES), Faculty of Science, Sarajevo University in Paris on January 26, 2011: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/EcoNetworks/JP/Documents/2011/ppt/Bosnia_Emerald.pdf

15 CIECHANOWSKI et al., 2005, First records of Tadarida teniotis (Rafinesque, 1814) (Chiroptera, Molossidae) from Serbia and Montenegro and from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mammalia 69, 257-260

16 COWI IPF (2014) "Multi-Criteria Prioritization of Flood Management Projects", COWI IPF Consortium, 2014. 17 COWI IPF (2014) Present Situation of Flood Management in West Balkans, COWI IPF Consortium, Nov 2014 18 IPA (2014) IPA Application Form for the Project "BiH Support to Flood Protection & Water Management, 2014.

19 Đjurđević V, Rajković B. 2008. Verification of a coupled atmosphere-ocean model using satellite observations over the Adriatic Sea. Annales Geophysicae. 26(7): 1935-1954.

20 Đjurđević V, Rajković B. 2010. Development of the EBU-POM coupled regional climate model and results from climate change experiments, in Advances in Environmental Modelling and Measurements. Eds. Mihajlovic TD, Lalic B. Nova Publishers. pp.23-32, ISBN:978-1-60876-599-7

21 IPCC. 2007. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).Geneva. Switzerland.

22 ISRBC (2009) Sava River Basin Analysis Report, International Sava River Basin Commission, September 2009. 23 ISRBC (2010) Sava River Basin Analysis Summary, International Sava River Basin Commission, Dec 2010

24 ISRBC (2014) Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in the Sava River Basin, the International Sava River Basin Commission, July 2014

25 IUCN 2005, Saving the Montenegrin endemic subspecies from extinction, IUCN South-Eastern European e-Bul-letin, Issue 4, March 2005

26 Jaroslav Černi Institute and Energoprojekt, 2003 - Filling of accumulations in Serbia – Problems and the direc-tions of solutions” (M. B. Mladenović et all).

27 Jaroslav Černi Institute March 2005 - Report on the strategic assessment of “The impact that Drina riverbed sedi-ment management has on the environment“, purchaser PWMC Srbijavode.


28 Jaroslav Černi Institute, 2011 - The Drina Hydro-information System, Hydro-Information System and Manage-ment of Hydropower Resources in Serbia, D. Divac, N. Grujovic, N. Milivojevic, Z. Stojanovic, and Z. Simic, Journal of the Serbian Society for Computational Mechanics / Vol. 3 / No. 1, 2009 / pp. 1-37.

29 Jaroslav Černi Institute, Belgrade - 2012 - “The preliminary analysis of dredging possibility on Drina, Juzna, Za-padna and Velika Morava for the purposes of issuing water acts”, Notebook 1: Drina“

30 Kržić A, Tošić I, Đurdjević V, Veljović K, Rajković B, 2011, Changes in some indices over Serbia according to the SRES A1B and A2 scenarios. Climate Research. 49(1): 73-86.

31 Kultura, 2014, Biodiversity of the SNR Gromiželj: http://ekulturars.com/posebni-rezervat-prirode-%E2%80%9Egromizelj%E2%80%9C,233.html?sLang=la

32

Leščešen, I; Kotrla, S; Otašević, K; Pantelić, M; Josimov, A and Čeperković, M. Assessment of Water Quality Parameters of Drina River (West Serbia) in the Period 2004-2011 European Researcher;2013, Vol. 61 Issue 10-2, p2555, http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/94332147/assesment-water-quality-parametres-drina-river-west-serbia-period-2004-2011

33

LUBARDA, B. et al., 2014, Chorological characterization and distribution of the Balkan endemic vascular flora in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botanica Serbica, 38 (1): (2014) 167-184UDK 581.9:497.15: http://www.aca-demia.edu/7026653/Chorological_characterization_and_distribution_of_the_Balkan_endemic_vascu-lar_flora_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

34 Millennium Development Goals in BiH 2010

35 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of RS (2010): Forestry Development Strategy Draft for period 2011-2021, Banja Luka, May 2011

36 Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry of FBiH (2010): Information on forest management in the Federation in 2009 and Forest management plans for2010, Sarajevo, May 2010.

37 Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina (2011): Draft Water policy in BiH, October 2011

38

Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina (MOFTER BiH), Ministry of Spa-tial Planning, Civil Engineering and Ecology (MSPCEERS), Ministry of Environment and Tourism FBiH (MET FBiH), UN Development Programme (UNDP) (2009):Initial National Communication (INC) of Bosnia and Her-zegovina under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Banja Luka, Octt2009.

39 Ministry of Industry, Energy & Mining RS (2012): Energy Development Strategy- RS until 2030, Banja Luka.

40 MNE (2011) Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) Following the November – December 2010 Flood Disas-ter in Montenegro – Draft Final Report, the Government of Montenegro, June 2011

41 Montenegro Info centre Natura 2000, 2001, Emerald Network map for Montenegro: http://natura2000infocen-tar.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/emerald-mreza-u-crnoj-gori.pdf

42 Montenegro Montenegrin Institute for Nature Protection (INP), Protection Study for Komovi Regional Park, No-vember 2013: http://www.andrijevica.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Studija-Regionalni-park-Komovi.pdf Nota Bene: the INP of Montenegro has been dissolved in 2013.

43

Montenegro. Montenegrin Institute for Nature Protection (INP), Protection Study for Piva Regional Park that will include the PAs: Bioč, Maglić and Volujak on the municipality of Plužina, May 2011: http://www.regionalnipar-kovi.me/doc/Studija%20RP%20Piva%20-%20sa%20upravljanjem%2031%20maj%202011.pdf Nota Bene: the INP of Montenegro has been dissolved in 2013.

44 Montenegro Public Enterprise National Parks of Montenegro “Nacionalni Parkovi Crne Gore”: http://www.npar-kovi.me/sajt/ datasheets about national parks: http://www.nparkovi.me/sajt/np-durmitor

45 Montenegro Public Enterprise National Parks of Montenegro, Management Plan od Durmitor NP for the period 2011-2015, http://www.nparkovi.me/sajt/images/stories/Dokumenti/np%20durmitor%202010-2015.pdf

46 Montenegro - Ministry of Economy Nov 2013; SEA for the Draft Energy Development Strategy In Montenegro by 2030 – COWI / REC

47 Montenegro State of the Environment Report for 2011

48 Niketić, M., Cikovac, P. et Stevanović, V. 2013: Taxonomic and nomenclature notes on Balkan columbines (Aq-uilegia L., Ranunculaceae). In: Bulletin of the Natural History Museum Belgrade, 6: 33-42, http://www.nhm-beo.rs/upload/images/Glasnik/Bulletin%202013-02.pdf

49 PAPP, B., et SABOVIJEVIC, M., 2002, The Bryophyte Flora of Tara National Park (W Serbia, Yugoslavia), Studia bot.hung. 33,pp25-39, 2002: http://www.academia.edu/2981434/The_Bryophyte_Flora_of_Tara_Na-tional_Park_W_Serbia_Yugoslavia_

50 REC, July 2011, Pollution in the Drina River Basin: An Inventory of Potential Sources.

51 Prohaska S, Ristić V.2002. Hydrology through the theory and practice. Faculty of Mining and Geology. Univer-sity of Belgrade. Serbia

52 Prohaska S. 2006. Hydrology II. Faculty of Mining and Geology. University of Belgrade. Serbia

53 Prohaska S, Simić Z, Orlić A, Ristić V. 2004. The basic hydrographic and hydrologic characteristics of the Drina river basin and Hydrological data. Water Management 36(1-2): 21-38.


54 SEI (2011) WEAP – Water Evaluation and Planning System, User Guide, Stockholm Environment Institute, U.S. Center, Somerville, MA

55 Serbia Geoportal “GeoSerbia”: http://www.geosrbija.rs/ it is possible to get GIS information about DRB in Ser-bia by selecting the GIS layer “slivovi veći”: http://www.geosrbija.rs/rga/default.aspx?gui=1&lang=3#

56 Serbia Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Serbia, First National Report of the Re-public Of Serbia to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, July 2010: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/cs/cs-nr-01-en.pdf

57 Serbia Municipality of Bajina Bašta, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Local Sustainable Development in the Western Balkans, Municipal profiles, Draft outline of the review report for SEE BAP, http://www.seebap.com/contentDocs/en/95365_serbia_bajinabasta.pdf

58 Serbian Institute for Nature Protection (INP): http://serbia.gdi.net/zzps/ show the maps of the PAs in Serbia: 59 Serbia State of the Environment Report for 2012

60 Srbijavode. 2010. Data on sediment borrow pits, the water management's consent on the sediment exploitation for the period between 2005 and 2010.

61 Srbijavode - WMC “Sava-Dunav” 2012 - Report “ The basic characteristics of the basin area of the Drina river”

62 UNEP, 2010. Feasibility Study on Establishing a Transboundary Protected Area Durmitor – Tara Canyon – Sut-jeska, UNEP Vienna ISCC, http://www.mtnforum.org/sites/default/files/publication/files/durmitor_study_25-10-210.pdf

63 UNEP (2011): Review of legal and institutional framework of environmental protection in Bosnia and Herze-govina (Final report), Bosnia and Herzegovina, April 2011.

64 UNEP (2011): Towards a green economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, ISBN: 978-92-807-3143-9

65 UN Economic Commission for Europe - UNECE (2011): Environmental Performance Reviews Bosnia and Her-zegovina Second Review, ECE/CEP/162, ISSN 1020-4563. United Nations publication: New York and Geneva. (available at: http://www.unece.org/env/epr/epr_studies/bosnia_and_herzegovina%20II.pdf )

66 UNECE Environmental Performance Review for Serbia - 2007 – 2nd Review 67 UNECE Environmental Performance Review for Serbia - 2014 – 3rd Review – DRAFT 68 UNECE Environmental Performance Review for Montenegro - 2014 – 3rd Review – DRAFT

69 UN OCHA Coordinated Assessment Support Section Geneva – Situation Analysis Report for Floods Eastern Eu-rope/Balkans May 2014

70 Witkowski, A. et al., 2013, Past and present of and perspectives for the Danube huchen, Hucho hucho (L.), in the Danube basin, 2013, Archives of Polish Fisheries: Archives of Polish Fisheries, Arch. Pol. Fish (2013) 21:129-142, http://www.infish.com.pl/wydawnictwo/Archives/Fasc/work_pdf/Vol21Fasc3/Vol21Fasc1_w03.pdf

71 World Bank Draft Aide Memoire on Improvement of Joint Flood Management Actions in the Sava River Basin

72 World Bank, 2003- Water Resources Management in South Eastern Europe, Volume 1: Issues and Directions, Volume 2: Country Water Notes and Water Fact Sheets.

73 World Bank/GEF, May 2008 - Baseline Studies for the Preparation of the Montenegro Tara and Lim River Basin Management Project – Draft final Report.

74 World Bank – 2012 - West Balkan Flood and Drought Management Initiative – Drina River Basin - Rapid re-gional diagnostic and investment scan study

75 World Bank – RPF Flood Protection Project In Goražde Area BiH

76 World Bank Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Jan 2014 - Project of construction of the protective embankment on left bank of the Drina river, from Balatun upstream to Glavičica

77 World Bank 2006 - Environment Impact Assessment in the Neretva and Trebišnjica River Basin (NTRB) 78 World Bank PAD Drina Flood Protection Project April 2014 79 World Bank PAD Serbia Floods Emergency Recovery Project Sept 2014

80 World Health Organization – WHO (2006): Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (electronic source): incorpo-rated 1st and 2nd addenda, Vol.1, Recommendations – 3rd edition, Geneva, 2008. ISBN 978 92 4 154761 1. (available at: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3rev/en/

81 World Health Organization - WHO: BiH Country data. Available at: http://www.who.int/tb/country/data/ down-load/en/index.html accessed: 11 July 2011

82 Young Researchers of Serbia: http://www.mis.org.rs/vss/pages/sr/naslovna.php see the map of the Emerald Net-work in Serbia: http://www.mis.org.rs/vss/pages/sr/ekoloski-programi/natura-2000/emerald-mreza/emerald-mreza-u-srbiji.php


8 Annexes Annex 1 – Comments and Responses to the Draft Inception Report

Annex 2 – Identified Hydropower Projects

Annex 3 – Detailed description of Protected Areas

Annex 4 - Important Flora species in DRB

Annex 5 – Multi Criteria Analysis Methodology

Annex 6 – Proposed Contents of the Main Reports

Annex 7 – Proposed Maps for the Deliverables


8.1 Annex 1 - Comments and Responses to the Draft Inception Report

The following pages (in landscape) contain all the comments from the stakeholders. The JV Consultant has also made responses to explain answers to questions and to indicate what changes (if any) have been made to the final version of the Inception Report.


COMPILED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON INCEPTION REPORT

Stakeholder In‐stitution and Reviewer

Details of the Comments made by Stakeholders Response/ Action Taken by JV Consultant

EU Delegation to Bosnia and Herze‐govina and the EU IPA 2011 funded project “Capacity

building in the Water sector in BiH” ‐con‐solidated comments

General comments: There is a continuous emphasis throughout the report on using "Integrated river basin management planning" approach aimed at optimising interaction of some water uses with the main emphasis on hydropower generation. However, there is no information in the Report which methodology and criteria have been used to preselect only some of the relevant water uses. Such an approach may be questioned (as frequently used for some developing countries but not for Europe), especially as regards Trans bound‐ary river basins. The main reasoning behind such an European approach is based on the fact that with the introduction of EU Water Framework Directive, all countries in Europe (including both EU member and non‐member states) follow the common EU set‐up for preparing the RBM Plans which do not request optimisation of the water uses in the river basins. Therefore, water/environment sectors in all European coun‐tries are not any more in command of prioritising the use of water resources. Nowa‐days, water/environment sectors in all European countries define only boundary con‐ditions (quantitative and qualitative) for using water resources, which must be re‐spected by all water users. And, based on such preconditions, all water users are enti‐tled to prepare their own development strategies for using national water resources. Accordingly, it would be very beneficial if the Consultant can elaborate in more details why the Drina river basin does not follow such an European approach and what is the justification to advocate for preparation of the so‐called Integrated Water Resources Management Report which does not have the form of RBM Plan as required by the EU WFD but, at the same time, can introduce some difficulties for riparian countries when they start preparing WFD‐based RBM Plans for the part of the Sava river basin belong‐ing to each of these countries. Simply, it can happen that methodology that will be used for Drina basin will not fit adequately to the rest of the Sava basin in each of these countries.

First of all, it is necessary to note that the ToRs for WB and IPA projects are very different. WB project is aimed at the unified approach to integrated water re‐sources management in the entire basin, using the methodology that is acceptable for Serbia, Montenegro and the two BiH entities (FBiH and RS) The IPA project is BiH‐oriented only, with different objectives and has more diverse objectives (ca‐pacity building, water tariffs etc.). It also envisages separate plans for the two enti‐ties. Although some tasks listed in the respective ToRs look similar, different objectives, approaches and beneficiaries of these two projects make them barely comparable. At the same time, the "overlaps" are very important for both projects, they consti‐tute their core and basis for other envisaged analyses. The parties met in Sarajevo on the 18th December 2014 and agreed to certain resolutions to ensure that over‐lap would be limited.

Concerning hydropower production, this component is one of the key drivers of water uses and demands in the Drina River Basin. In the DIR, no conclusion was made about HPP priority and during the Inception workshop; the question was highlighted regarding the role of HPP development for each country in order to evaluate the significance of this component in the project. Hydropower produc‐tion potential will be analysed as one of the sustainable uses in the context of wa‐ter management, as well as all the impacts involved by its implementation in the Basin.

The Consultant sees integrated water management as an ultimate goal for both Drina and Sava River basins, in which a balanced approach is applied between the competing requirements of various users and stakeholders. The current WB Drina project considers the EU WFD as one of the important environmental objectives in the basin. However, in accordance with its ToR, the project will also consider other issues and activities of importance (as indicated by stakeholders) in the de‐cision‐making process which aims for the water‐conscious development in the Drina River basin. The project is meant to heavily involve stakeholders and inter‐ested parties and therefore the Consultant believes that the project will reflect the realistic management options in the Drina basin.

EU Delegation to BiH and the EU IPA 2011 project consolidated

comments

Based on the Contents for investment prioritisation framework and Contents for IWRM report as given in Annex 2 of the Draft Inception Report (DIR) it is obvious that many overlapping activities shall take place between the EU‐funded "Capacity building in the Water Sector in BiH" project and the WB Project. And this is especially problematic be‐cause both projects intend to develop some sort of Programme of Measures. Due to

Since the overlapping of the two projects has been detected, it must be used as a constructive help of the two projects. And if the two projects are well coordinated during their development, is should not pose an impediment to progress. After the 18th December 2014 meeting in Sarajevo, the JV Consultant has agreed to





time constraints that both projects have at their disposal and different work‐plan that both projects have for these, potentially overlapping, activities it will be hardly possible to harmonise corresponding activities resulting most likely in the design of some con‐tradictory measures proposed by these two projects.

suspend preparation of the BiH Country Report until the characterisation report has been prepared by the EU IPA Consultant


comments

There are many statements in the report referring to the whole Drina river basin alt‐hough they can be attributed only to the territory of one of the riparian states (mainly to the Republic of Serbia).

The Data Collection concerns all the DRB covering the three riparian countries. At the stage of the DIR, there were data gaps that could not be filled in the time available for preparation of the report. For later deliverables including the country studies a more balanced approach will be adopted and all data obtained will be included in the respective report.


comments

In conclusion, we strongly believe that the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Re‐lation (MoFTER) of Bosnia and Herzegovina should take prompt action and call for the meeting of relevant parties and clarify how these two projects can potentially go "hand in hand" but including not only water sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina but energy and industry sectors as well.

A meeting between the EU IPA Consultant and the WBIF Consultant was held at MOFTER in Sarajevo on 18th December 2014. A number of resolutions were made at this meeting and MOFTER will inform the World Bank accordingly.


comments

Specific comments: 1. Pg. xv, statement in the DIR: “… however at present there is some reticence to

drive the project forward….”: Additional explanations would be highly desirable especially in the light of the gen‐

eral comments given above. To secure Project success, it would be especially ben‐eficial to get official project support from the relevant national Ministries (Serbia and Montenegro) and Entity Ministries in BiH responsible for energy, industry, wa‐ter, environment, …) because there is no legal basis in any of the riparian countries to prepare types of plans/documents as advocated by the WB Project.

At commencement of the Project, the Consultant contacted the key stakeholders in the riparian states and requested them to provide a list of key stakeholders for inclusion in the Coordination Committee for the WBIF Project. The Consultant ad‐vised that a broad spectrum of stakeholders needed to be included in the commit‐tee including the power and the environmental sectors in addition to the water sector. The riparian states now have representatives from energy and environ‐ment. Regarding the issue of a legal basis, the Consultant is responding to the re‐quirements of the TOR provided by the World Bank. The legality of such is a mat‐ter for the World Bank to answer. The following is documented from TTL “the “le‐gal” requirements only talk about the mandatory RBMPs, but these tend to be quite single‐minded on the water quality and ecological quality, not on flood pro‐tection, and the trade‐offs between HPP and other uses.”


comments

2. Pg. 8, statement in the DIR: “Maps of the Drina river basin with all relevant details (existing and planned HPP, accumulations, hydrological and precipitation stations, pollution sources, groundwater bodies, irrigation places, etc.) are being pre‐pared...”

Please kindly elaborate on your plan to avoid duplication/overlapping in prepar‐ing some of these maps (e.g., pollution sources, groundwater bodies …) with the EU‐funded "Capacity Building in the Water Sector in BiH" project because they should also be prepared for Drina river basin in BiH.

GIS maps are one of common component of the two projects for BiH. However, for Drina project the maps concern the three riparian countries. Coordination be‐tween the two projects will permit to confirm /to complete the GIS layers for BiH. It’s positive for both projects.

EU Delegation to BiH and the EU IPA 2011

3. Pg. 10, Table 2‐3: Summary of Relevant Planned and Ongoing Projects in the re‐gion, and heading 2.6.1 Regional Projects:

These point s are noted and Table 2.3 and descriptive paragraphs will be cor‐rected.





project consolidated comments

Please note that there are only two relevant IPA National / WBIF projects in the pipeline, as follows:

a) Support to Flood Protection/Prevention and Water Management, IPA National, 2015‐2017 planned, 15 mln EUR with two components:

‐ development of hydro forecasting systems for Sava River Basin, 2 mln EUR ‐ re‐construction of flood protection infrastructure, 13 mln b) Preparation of Flood Hazard Maps, Flood Risk Maps and Support to the PMU of

the Flood Risk Management Project, WBIF, planned 2015, 4.88 mln EUR with two components:

‐ Preparation of Flood Hazard Maps, Flood Risk Maps in BiH, including digital ter‐rain modelling, EUR 3.38 mln EUR

‐ Support to the PMU of the Flood Risk Management Project, EUR 1.5 mln EUR. Therefore, information presented in the above indicated table and heading

should be corrected.


comments

4. Pg. 13, 2.6.4 Comparison IPA Capacity Building Project vs and WBIF Drina Project: Unfortunately, we are convinced that there are plenty of activities in both pro‐

jects where the overlapping will take place. We believe that we should discuss them as soon as possible at meeting to be organised by MOFTER.

This was discussed at a meeting at MOFTER on 18th December 2014 and resolu‐tions were made and are to be made


comments

5. Pg. 14, 2.7 Coordination committee: For Bosnia and Herzegovina only "water sector" is included in Coordination com‐

mittee. Please elaborate on how do you plan to generate integrated river basing management solutions (especially for hydropower generation) without involve‐ment of other sectors in BiH (energy, industry...)?

So far, MOFTER identified no relevant stakeholders from the (general) industry. We will try again to get in touch with the representatives of the electric power in‐dustry.


comments

6. Pg. 19, An important problem in the DRB is the lack of harmonization of interests of various subjects regarding the hydropower water usage:

We are all aware of this problem for a long time, and therefore we believe that without official commitment from the riparian countries (signed by the Govern‐ments, not by some Ministries) to look for a joint solution of this problem, this Project might easily produce results that nobody will respect (especially the en‐ergy sector).

The DRB project will base its methodology on stakeholders and public consulta‐tions, it will be a step to fill the nowadays lack of harmonisation between the vari‐ous uses of the Basin and the different countries. This participative methodology and development have not been continuously done before which can explain the lack of joint solution. It is reminded that the project consists on defining bases for IWM and not to pro‐vide an inter‐countries legal statement.


comments

7. Pg. 19 – 44, 3.2 Water resources management; 3.4 Water supply; 3.4.3 Other wa‐ter uses:

25 pages are used in total to describe current water uses in Drina River Basin. 24 pages out of these 25 pages are used to describe the water use for hydro energy

It is obvious that there is no link between the number of pages in the report and the prioritization of the components. The Final Inception Report will consider these comments. As is mentioned above, HPP production is one part of IWRM within DRB.





purposes and only 1 page to describe all other water uses. Not clear why this dis‐proportion has been introduced since the project strongly advocate an integrated water management approach. Flood protection is the second issue which receives more elaboration in DIR (5 pages). Accordingly, it might be prudent to redefine the objectives of the WB project and streamline all project activities under the ti‐tle: "Baseline study on hydropower generation and flood protection in the Drina River Basin". This would also assume exclusion of all activities which overlap with the activities to be undertaken by each riparian country on preparing WFD‐based RBM Plan for the part of the Sava river basin.


comments

8. Pg. 51, 3.7 Environmental baseline: Majority (approx. 90%) of the activities will fully duplicate the outputs to be pre‐

pared within the EU‐funded "Capacity Building" project. At the same time, there are plenty of information given in Section 3.7 of the Draft Inception Report which are not relevant for water resources management ‐ they might be relevant for some ecological studies and research. For example, the EU WFD clearly indicates that planning for water resources management should take into account only aquatic flora and fauna and terrestrial flora and fauna directly dependent on wa‐ter resources such as, for example, wetlands. This means that water resources management plans/studies do not need to address, for example, ecological corri‐dors for birds or biodiversity problems of some eagles high in the mountains. Moreover, type of protected areas to be addressed is also very well defined in EU WFD ‐ so, no need to address all protected areas in the river basin as given in the DIR.

The methodology required by the TOR requires a global view on the basin charac‐terization in order to assess and then to focus on the main components involved in the support of IWRM of the Drina basin. By only focusing in water ecosystem, one can neglect or forget significant indirect impacts of the water management and climate change. Take ecological corridor is an example. Water management can affect very locally a fauna migration that could impact, for long term duration, a whole corridor. Therefore, we maintain that it is important to: A) have a whole vision of pressures due to water managements, B) to contribute to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environ‐

ment with a rational use of surface and ground water, It is necessary to have a global vision of the basin ecosystems and biodiversity.


comments

9. Pg. 52, 3.7.3 Air Quality: We are not aware of any River basin management plan or any other water re‐

sources management study in Middle and Eastern Europe where air pollution was addressed as a management issue. In our opinion air quality would be an issue if the title of the project would be "Support to the environmental management in the Drina River Basin" or "Support to the biodiversity protection in the Drina River Basin"

Local pollution of air can have direct impact on the water resource (acidification of lakes for example) and then on the aquatic ecosystem. Therefore, we consider that air quality is a component of the preservation of the water quality and the re‐lated ecosystem. In addition, the Consultant has to propose an outline table of contents for an SEA. All components which can have a direct or indirect impact on the water resource and the environment have to be assessed.


comments

10. Pg. 87, 3.8 Socio Economic Factors: It is not stated whether population figures presented for BiH are based on the last

population census held on 2013.

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the Consultant. Presented figures are based on the last population census form 2013. It will be noted more clearly in the FIR.






comments

11. Pg. 100, 3.8.4 Ethnicity and Religion; Statement from the DIR:“…On the territory of DRB largest ethnic group are Serbs who make up about 76% of the total popula‐tion, followed by Bosniaks (Bosnian, Muslims) with 17%.:

We are not aware of any river basin management plan or water resources man‐agement study in which ethnicity and religion of population living in the river ba‐sin is indicated. We believe, this must be taken out of the report because EU WFD deals with citizens irrelevant of their ethnical and religious background.

We agree that Ethnicity and Religion, Crime, are not components which can di‐rectly impact the water demands and uses. As for environment, we think it is important to have a global description and view of the Social context of the DRB and of the impacts of human activity on the water resources, before to focus on the key driver components for defining bases for water resource and environment managements. Furthermore, Ethnicity and Reli‐gion are usually a regular part of Social and Economic analysis that are connected with other indicators such as the number of dwellings, natural population growth, etc. They are also important for understanding culture and tradition of some area and its inhabitants.


comments

12. Pg. 101, BiH6 – “According to the results of the most recent census, carried out in 1991”:

The most recent census in BiH was held in 2013.

There are no available data for Education issues from the Census 2013 for BiH. As it is written in footnote, the text for BiH are taken from EU‐ICBE Project: Technical Assistance to the Education Reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2008 (Funded by the European Union). For clarification, the noted sentence can be rephrased in FIR


comments

13. Pg. 102, 3.8.7. Crime: It is not clear what kind of connection could crime have with the water resources

management.

As the DIR contains Social and Economic Analysis, the indicators for crime are reg‐ular part of it, having an effect on quality of life. Using a variety of indicators for Social and Economic Analysis of this Report, we tried to implement holistic ap‐proach to perceive all aspects of population and living conditions in DRB.


comments

14. Pg. 104, 3.8.9. Land use: Pls indicate the source used for preparation of land use map and for all other

maps covering part of Drina river basin in BiH. The sources for all maps will be included in the FIR


comments

15. Pg. 116, 3.8.16. Transport Networks: Importance and suitability of addressing airports, roads and railways as relevant

issues for water resources management is not clear.

Transport network components are relevant since: A) They can be the source of local pollution of the water B) They can affect/disconnect water‐land connections and then the habitats of

specific fauna and flora C) They can induce requirements of flood protections D) They can reduce the natural water space of the river Roads are relevant for the prefeasibility of implementation measures (access dur‐ing the work, to maintain the measures,..) Furthermore, transportation network is important for social and economic devel‐opment of some area. Development of particular industries, such as tourism, is based on good connections with surrounding area. Transportation networks de‐termine, also, the quality of life and could increase the territorial attractiveness both for living and for touristic visits. There are a lot of different reasons why we consider all kind of transportation in DRB and wider area.






comments

16. Pg. 123, 3.9.2. Strategic documents: The most important water‐related strategic documents for RS and FBiH have not

been mentioned

?

It would be appreciated if the Reviewer provided indication of what the most im‐portant strategic documents are. We assume this is: “Water management strategy of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina”, Sara‐jevo, March 2012 The main documents in the field of water management in RS are the Framework Plan of Development of Water Management of the RS and the implementation Action Plan. The Framework Plan defines the criteria, conditions and obstacles for further development of the water infrastructure and management of the entire water sector, covering the planning period 2007 ‐ 2016. The preparation of the corresponding strategic documents for the development of the water sector until 2020 in RS has not yet started


comments

17. Pg. 126, The following Table 3‐21 and Table 3‐22 taken from this report show the targets for implementation:

The majority of figures presented in these tables are not valid anymore for BiH.

More explanation is needed by the Reviewer. The Consultant will obtain the most up to date information that is available. The tables in question were taken from a recent publication under the IPA 4 Project.


comments

18. Pg. 133, Statement from the DIR: “The goal of the river basin management plan is to provide identification of the measures for development and management of the water resources system by identifying the type of measures needed, their tem‐poral and spatial frames and their combined economic, environmental, ecological and social impacts.”:

On some other places in DIR it is stated that none of the countries is willing to de‐velop a "self‐standing" Drina RBM plan.

The terminology of the phrase will be changed and clarified.

Federal Hydro‐Mete‐orological Institute

(BiH)

We accepted Minutes of Meeting from Inception Workshop which was held in Zagreb on 1st of December. We believe that it is not necessary in these comments again writeite the observations which were already in discussion and have already been mentioned in the report, and we will give our further observations, comments and sug‐gestions.

This is a general statement from the Reviewer and no further comment is neces‐sary.

The Inception report contains a lot of valuable information, especially given the short time that was available for its development. We have found that certain data are miss‐ing, so below we point these out, appreciating the opportunity to express their views and influence the quality of the preparation of the study.

The JV Consultant appreciated the statement from the Reviewer and no further comment is necessary.


(BiH)

In the IR data on the monitoring of water quantity missing, we believe that this issue in the study should separately describe. It is necessary to present information on the

We agree that data on water quantity is important and also on the state of moni‐toring within the basin. These details will be provided in further details in the country reports that will be prepared for the three countries in the Drina Basin





state of monitoring, including the number and density of stations, equipment, organi‐zation of collecting, processing and archiving hydrological and meteorological data, the (un) availability of database software and GIS, equipment for field measurements (measurement of flow in small, medium and large waters, measuring cross and longitu‐dinal sections of watercourses, other hydrometric works including river sediment.) Hy‐drological and meteorological monitoring in the Drina River Basin in FBiH is not suffi‐ciently developed. During the discussion at the meeting, we heard that the situation is similar in RS. In the Federal Hydro meteorological Institute there is a lack of appropri‐ate software database and GIS.

Data on the quality of water quality monitoring in the FBIH missing. Page 44 of the Report: "No information is currently available on the monitoring sta‐tions (in FBiH) and scope of the work." We think it is certainly necessary to provide the missing information.

We agree that data on water quality are missing and we will provide them for the country report. We will analyse them in order to have a homogenous and compa‐rable description of the water quality indicator of the Drina and its tributaries. Same as above. The missing information on water quality data will be obtained during the preparation of the country reports.


(BiH)

Lacks of certain information relating to the protection of the environment, including protected areas in the Federation of BiH (For example Protected Landscape "Konjuh", whose area includes the upper basin of the river Drinjača, left tributary of the Drina). We believe it is necessary and suggest that in the future work ensure the participation of representatives of the Federal Ministry of Environment.

The JV Consultant will address these issues for the FIR and in the future delivera‐bles on the Project During the next phase (characterization of the Basin and of the key components), we will consult the Ministry of Environment of the three countries.

It is necessary to consider the problem of "wild“landfills. Solid waste will be addressed in later deliverables on the project


(BiH)

The need for an integral approach at the basin level, the Drina River, but also Sava River Basin as a whole. It is necessary to define the role of institutions. It is necessary to involve the local community.

The JV Consultant agrees and will involve institutions and local community in fu‐ture phases of the project

It is necessary that the forecasting model to be harmonized at the level of the Drina River Basin, and the Sava River Basin;

The JV Consultant is aware of the forthcoming ISRBC Flood Forecasting Project. It will therefore be emphasized in the report for the necessity to harmonize the forecasting models between the riparian countries.

Vedran Furtula

JU Vode Srpske Bijel‐jina, RS

On the list of most important Beneficiaries as defined in the Terms of Reference, even though on the last place (ToR, Annex 1, Pg. 1 of 2), relevant institutions in the fields of water, environment, energy, etc. have been recognized. Accordingly, it is urgently nec‐essary to include the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Mining, or professional team that consist of at least one participant from Elektroprivreda RS (ERS), ZP Hydroelectric power plants on the Drina and the Geological Institute RS Zvornik, in this order, the most important phase of the project, they could present their suggestions and com‐ments on the Inception Report. Hereby, with this Report significantly changes the con‐tent of the Plan, as defined and permitted in the Terms of Reference (ToR, Scope of

At commencement of the Project, the Consultant contacted the key stakeholders in the riparian states and requested them to provide a list of key stakeholders for inclusion in the Coordination Committee for the WBIF Project. The Consultant ad‐vised that a broad spectrum of stakeholders needed to be included in the commit‐tee including the power and the environmental sectors in addition to the water sector. The riparian states now have representatives from energy and environ‐ment. It rests with the key stakeholders in the riparian states to ensure that the important sectors are represented at relevant meetings.





Services, Pg. 7 of 10). Listed Beneficiaries should be an integral part of the Coordina‐tion Committee, along with representatives from other relevant institutions of RS (e.g., Ministry of Spatial Planning, Civil Engineering and Ecology, the Fund for Environmental Protection RS, etc.), as well for the other two countries that share the river Drina basin (SRB, MNE), as specified in the IR (Inception Report, 2.7 Coordination committee, Pg. 14).

Vedran Furtula


In order for Drina River management Plan to be:

"conductive" by the entity institutions (RS and FBiH) that implement the relevant laws in the field of water, energy, spatial planning, and environmental protection in their territories and so on;

‐integrated into planning, strategic and other documents at the entity level (RS and FBiH);

‐possible to accept at the level of entity governments (RS and FBiH); It is necessary for it in all its segments to respect all the specifics of the constitutional and legal order of BiH i.e. in all its elements Plan (analytical part ‐ textual and tabular data and graphic part – spatial data), as well as annexes to basic document (Back‐ground documents, Roof report Country Progress Report etc.) adequately present and process the data relating to entities of BiH (RS. FBIH), such was for instance done at pg.2 (Table 1‐1), p. 68 (Table 3‐5) and etc.

This information will be taken into consideration in later stages on the Project.

Vedran Furtula


In Tables 3‐1, 3‐2, 3‐3 (p. 29 and p. 32‐36), it is necessary to add a column with the heading for affiliation listed existing and planned HPP with appropriate State / Entity electrical energy management system (ERS, EPCG and so on).

This data will be added in the FIR in accordance with available information.

Vedran Furtula


1. If this is not the copyright work of the author or significant modification of an ex‐isting one, it is necessary to reference the section 5.1.2 General modelling ap‐proach (p. 133).

The appropriate reference will be provided in the next version

Vedran Furtula


The Inception Report must contain clearly defined scenarios, in accordance with the Terms of reference (ToR, Annex 2, Task 5, Pg.3 of 7).

The scenarios cannot be provided until further assessment has been made in Phases 2 and 4 of the project.





Vedran Furtula


2. Proposed methods for multi‐criteria analysis (Inception Report, Annex 1) and weights coefficient analysed within the Expert method will be subject to addi‐tional analysis during the preparation of the Plan by the proposed extended Ben‐eficiary team ‐ project monitoring team (in accordance with a comment 1).

This comment is acknowledged. Weightings and MCA methods will be further dis‐cussed later on in the project when the characterization for the Basin has been completed and prior to the commencement of the investment prioritisation framework. All key components will be assessed in coordination with the stake‐holders.

Vedran Furtula


All comments and conclusions from the initial workshop (in accordance with sec‐tion 2.5.3 Conclusions, Pg. 9), as well as comments in written form, should be an integral part of the Inception Report (in the form of a separate Annex‐a).

The Consultant concurs with this comment and will include such information in an appropriate annex

Vedran Furtula


If it comes to the realization of some of the key stages and relevant project phases that overlaps with this project, it should be given the possibility for a fur‐ther extension of the deadline (no cost extension) in order to update the project (11 defined tasks) if it would significantly and / or have positive effect on the final project result or some of its segments.

The Consultant has indicated that the extension of time will be 8 months from that indicated in the TOR. However, the Consultant cannot agree with the com‐ment of “No Cost Extension”. Any extension of time on the project carries an ele‐ment of cost such as office rental and other monthly operational costs as well as additional inputs necessary for attending meetings etc.

Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Water Management and

Forestry (FMAWMF)

In attachments are comments by FMAWMF and first of all, we want to point out that within the document is included a detailed analysis of available data. It was noted that hydrological analysis is missing (including meteorological data ‐ precipitation), and analysis of surface water quality. We expect that the Consultant will offer as a result a plan (strategy) in what direction should be used the water resources of the basin in or‐der to ensure the highest socio‐economic effects of the catchment area, to determine the direction for good development of this region. It should be noted that the direction of development can be directed to other sectors of the economy beside the develop‐ment of hydropower, it should be processed and analysed within the study, by not put‐ting only priority (highest weight) to hydropower. In this direction we will continue to follow the implementation of this project.

The JV Consultant can also confirm that all water users in addition to hydropower will be taken into consideration and given specific importance. ”The aims of the support of the water resources management are to ensure bene‐fits for the population security, for the socio‐economic development and the sus‐tainable environment, for the whole Basin and the three countries. The importance of overall social‐economic effects is fully understaood and Chap‐ter 3.8. Social and Economic Factors shows very detailed analysis of current socio‐economic situation in DRB.


Forestry (FMAWMF)

We would like firstly to express a positive opinion on the prepared document and the information gathered for this report, which is very important and comprehensive. This is a very good start up for the study that will be carried out. However, following the main objectives of the study, the analysis must be based on water quantity (hydrologi‐cal) data and that part is missing as well as plan how it would be done and what is available. The data about climate conditions, precipitation, and other meteorological data are missing as well. Also ,the analysis of the surface water quality should be pre‐pared with the more details.

The comment by the Reviewer is noted. Some additions on climate conditions will be included in the baseline. The water quality characterization will be also detailed in the next phase.

Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Water

This study should identify the measures for the development and management of the water resources in the Basin. This implicate two major objectives: - Environmental protection and sustainability of the basin

This information will be taken into consideration by the JV Consultant. The JV Consultant can also confirm that all water users in addition to hydropower will be taken into consideration and given specific importance.





Management and Forestry (FMAWMF)

- Socio‐economic development of the basin Concerning that analysis will be based on the general modelling approach and the es‐sential is the water resources system planning and evaluation model, it is necessary to ensure that other water using activities such as tourism and agriculture have the same weight compared with hydropower as the most favoured.

As mentioned above, the environment protection and mitigation and the socio‐economic development in the Basin are direct components of the water resources management. The importance of overall social‐economic effects is fully understood and Chapter 3.8. Social and Economic Factors shows very detailed analysis of current socio‐economic situation in DRB.


Forestry (FMAWMF)

Finally, to avoid duplication of work and inconsistency of the data and results it is nec‐essary to ensure close cooperation with the consultant on the project "Water Capacity Building in BiH" and the team that prepares RBM Plan for the Sava River. It is necessary to harmonize the activities, in order to provide benefits for the both projects. It could be recommended to consider the measures proposed in the Sava RBM Plan for BiH re‐garding water quality and good water status (including assessment of the costs of the measures) and to incorporate them in the Integrated Water Resources Management Plan for the Drina River Basin, rather than to discuss other proposal.

The JV Consultant had meetings with the IPA Capacity Building project in Sarajevo on 18th December at MOFTER. Some resolutions were made at the meeting in terms of phasing the deliverables associated with the BiH part of the Drina Basin

Darko Novakovic Hy‐dromet and Seismol‐

ogy Institute

We do not agree with the Consultants comments that the cooperation between the countries is not good. The coordination between the hydromets is correct, however the technology of coop‐eration, the way of cooperation needs to be improved. There needs to be an estab‐lished system. There needs to be a model of cooperation established which sets ground rules. Montenegro would like the Consultant to spend some time on this issue.

The Consultant will make some amendments to the terminology in the appropri‐ate places I the DIR.

There is need to review the hydrology associated with the DRB water management. Undertake an analysis and assessment of the damage currently caused to the monitor‐ing network.

The JV Consultant is intending to undertake this analysis and assessment as part of the future work on the project

In terms of the future database for the DRB, the project should define how data is stored and used. In this regard the Montenegro Hydromet believes the system called WISKI used in Serbia should be adopted and the system can be extended to other sec‐tors. The Consultant should consider including this training element in the capacity building part of the project.

The JV Consultant thanks the Reviewer for these comments however WISKI is very complex and purchasing the software and performing training for it is beyond the scope of work of the TOR and would be too expensive considering the budget available to the Consultant. However, the comment is noted and the Consultant recommends that the WB consider this issue on the forthcoming GEF project for DRB or to be considered as part of the ISRBC flood forecasting project.

Tamara Brajovic En‐vironmental Protec‐tion Agency Monte‐

negro

EPA Montenegro concurs with the views expressed by Hydromet. However, EPA be‐lieves the best approach for the Consultant is to engage the public and NGOs at an early stage in the project. This should be undertaken during the preparation of the background paper on Montenegro.

The JV Consultant agrees with this approach and intends to engage the public and NGOs at a stage when the draft country reports are prepared so that necessary feedback can be obtained.

It is important that the Ministry of Environment is kept informed about the project at all times.

The JV Consultant concurs, and has requested the Ministry of Environment to at‐tend all meetings. Unfortunately, no one has attended meetings to date.





Nikola Vukotic EPCG

From the side of Montenegro, the planned HPPs that are listed in table 3.2 of the DIR is not correct. The Consultant should take the Energy Strategy by 2030 which has been adopted by Montenegro as the correct document.

Planned HPPs, listed in Table 3.2 of the DIR are based on information obtained from the “Water Resources Master Plan on Montenegro” (2001), which is still a legally valid planning document. Since, in the meantime, the “Declaration on Pro‐tection of Tara River” (2004) and “Energy Development Strategy of Montenegro by 2030” (2014) were adopted, these documents will be listed and discussed within FIR. In defining of the relevant variants of planned HPPs active participation of EPCG and other institutions of interest will be very helpful.

EPCG concurs with EPA that early stakeholder and public involvement should be in‐cluded at an early stage.

The Consultant agrees with this approach as mentioned above.

Enes Alagic Sava Wa‐tershed Agency

Sarajevo

How will the WBIF project deal with flood forecasting issues?

Our ToR includes flood management only and in that context the Drina river reaches prone to flooding will be considered for hydraulic modelling. However, the JV Consultant is aware of the forthcoming ISRBC Flood Forecasting Project and will therefore emphasize the need for development and harmonization of the hy‐drologic forecasting model in its report.

The Sava Agency do not wish to see another hydropower study as was prepared for the Vrbas Project

The JV Consultant needs to clarify an issue here, The TOR have requested a hydro‐power study a part of a much larger study on IWRM in the DRB. The JV Consultant also intends to view other WRM issues such as floods, irrigation, tourism, etc. with equal importance. There prioritization will be defined according to the con‐sultations and deliberations with the stakeholders from the three riparian coun‐tries.

What is the strategy for the forthcoming stakeholder meetings in the three countries (four entities)?

There will be further meetings between the coordination committee stakeholders when draft country reports are produced. The intention is to rotate the workshop venues within the basin so that each country/entity hosts at least one workshop.

It is important to have all reports prepared in the local language in order to get the full feedback from stakeholder institutions

The Consultant concurs and had included a cost estimate that will be provided in the Variation Order to the Client (World Bank).

Amer Husremović Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry, Sarajevo

Is the plan of accumulation (reservoir) management to be envisaged on the WBIF pro‐ject or on the larger GEF project on Drina? If it is determined in the WBIF project then it should have two phases; the first phase should look at only the existing project such as HPP Mratinje (HPP), and in the second phase are the planned reservoirs and HPPs. The WBIF project should be undertaken in a way to solve the issues in the basin be‐tween 3 countries.

The subject of the current project is both existing and future reservoirs in the DRB. The management over the existing reservoirs will first be studied as a part of the baseline analysis and future reservoirs will then be included into the envis‐aged plant construction scenarios.

Almir Bjedić Federal Hydro‐meteorologi‐cal Service BiH, Sara‐

jevo

Will the water resources management of the Drina Basin be integrated at Basin level or at country level?

The TOR for the study require WRM at country level (preparation of country re‐ports) but also there is a roof report required covering the complete Drina Basin

Why is there a drive to use models for the Project from outside of the Balkans (such as from Sweden and Denmark)?

The particular model specified in the DIR (WEAP) from SEI in Sweden, was actually mentioned in the TOR. The JV Consultant is only responding to the TOR. Please





also bear in mind that the software is also quite a low price compared to other models. Local models with similar capabilities could only be developed from scratch, which is both costly and time consuming.

The issue of pollution from solid waste management (wild dumps) is one of the largest problems in the Drina Basin and should be given priority.

The JV Consultant concurs that solid waste is an important issue in the Drina Ba‐sin. It will therefore be treated accordingly in the forthcoming analysis.

Vukota Jojić “HE na Drini” Višegrad

In order to prevent any of uncertainties and misunderstandings, the terms that are used in the Project must be clearly defined. For example, “planned HPP” or “struc‐tures” or “modified water bodies” etc.

The JV Consultant concurs with this point. A glossary of terms will be provided in the deliverables (country reports and roof reports).

It is important to define the legal obligations of riparian states to dumping of solid waste.

The JV Consultant concurs and will consider all legal obligations pertaining to solid waste disposal in the Drina Basin.

Irvina Numic PE Elektroprivreda

BiH, Sarajevo

What approach to HPP does this WBIF Project have? (HPP Subordinate of HPP Prior‐ity)? The approach should be multidisciplinary and multipurpose nature, to provide a realis‐tic situation. HPP should satisfy all requirements.

As cited in some of the responses above “Concerning hydropower production, this component is one of the key drivers of water uses and demands in the Drina River Basin. In the DIR, no conclusion has been given regarding the priority of HPPs. And during workshop, question has been regarding the role of HPP development for each country in order to evaluate the significance of this component in the pro‐ject has been raised. Hydropower production potential will be analysed as one of the sustainable uses in the context of water management, as well as all the im‐pacts involved by its implementation in the Basin.” Therefore, the multidiscipli‐nary integrated management approach is adopted.

Access to definition of the proposed hydropower in this Project is considered to be only in the context of multidisciplinary integrated management endeavouring, as far as possible, to reconcile the interests of different sectors concerned.

Please refer to answer immediately above.

In the project is necessary to give an overview of existing studies that have processing with the use of hydroelectric power in the Drina River in which are given the different variants of that use.

Data presented within Table 3.2 are based on the existing studies and planning documents. Available information about data source is listed in the table's bottom row.

In the context of reviewing compensation of society after the construction of the planned hydroelectric power in the FBiH it is need to apply the existing Law on Conces‐sions in FBiH, which defines fees.

The JV Consultant appreciates the comments from the Reviewer and agrees that all relevant legislation relating to compensation within each riparian state should be applied to each specific case. In addition, the World Bank Environmental and Social Safeguard measures also need to be adhered to regarding compensation.

Inform You that PE Elektroprivreda installed two automatic hydrological stations in 2013, upstream of Ustikolina and on the locality of confluence of Osanice into the Drina River. The stations are measuring the water level and flow, and water quality pa‐rameters.

We appreciate this information. Data will be integrated in the analysis.





It would be very helpful to analyse the operational plans of the existing reservoirs with power plant, especially reservoirs on the river Piva, which has a significant impact to downstream.

We agree that the operation of the "Piva" reservoir, as well as the operation of other existing reservoirs downstream from it, will have a significant impact on the flow along the downstream part of the river course. This analysis will come in the characterization phase.

In order to overcome disagreements and misunderstandings of schedule of power sta‐tion in the enclosed survey maps it would be useful to mark different flow and small hydro power plants.

Maps with all analysed HPPs will be prepared within the corresponding Report.

Esena Kupusović Federal Hydro‐mete‐orological Service

BiH Sarajevo

In order to avoid overlap with the ISRBC Flood Forecasting Project, how will the WBIF Project cover issues such as data handling?

The JV Consultant is aware of the forthcoming ISRBC Flood Forecasting Project. Data handling will be undertaken in accordance with the declaration already agreed and signed by the 5th Meeting of the Parties at Zagreb on December 2nd 2014.

Dragana Milovanović Water Directorate MAEP Belgrade

Is the Inception Report prepared in relation to the TOR? In the DIR there are no paragraphs related to drought and sedimentation. Please elaborate and use available documents.

The JV Consultant will provide more information on drought and sediment in the Final Inception Report

Generation and transportation of sediment needs to be discussed among the stake‐holders. It is important for bilateral cooperation from RS BiH. On the 16th January the sedimentation protocol on the FASRB will be adopted. There is a need to respect all the processes and planned projects and not to overlap etc.

Thank you for this information. We will make reference to this issue in the FIR.

Please collect all data and existing studies on droughts in addition to the World Bank Diagnostic Study on droughts. This includes the recently forwarded draft UNECE Envi‐ronmental Performance Review

The Consultant’s effort to identify recent systematic analysis of droughts in the ri‐parian countries failed. We will try and review other documents, but they are lim‐ited.

Srbija Voda is an important stakeholder for consultation on this project and in the im‐plementation process. It is important that they are consulted.

The JV Consultant will endeavour to meet with PUC “Srbijavode” to ascertain their comments before finalising the FIR.

In terms of the table of contents for the IWRM report. Future Infrastructure Project (regional and national) need to be mentioned in the chapter at the end of report. In the characterisation sections on the report need to mention terminology from Sava RBMP. There should also be a chapter on the monitoring network, especially for groundwater.

The JV Consultant thanks the Reviewer for this information and will endeavour to ensure that the points raised are included in the future project deliverables.

In terms of the proposed later stakeholder /public consultation, we recommend con‐tacting World Wildlife Fund and “Young Researchers” who have a good network of contacts and good understanding of environmental issues. The ISRBC have a list of stakeholders they contacted for their meeting in Serbia, to discuss the RBMP for SRB. Involve them in the process it is easier to discuss with them.

The JV Consultant appreciates this information

The Serbian delegation supports the consultant’s recommendation to extend the pro‐ject to 24 months

The JV Consultant appreciates this comment. No further response is necessary.





The DIR contains much data details on hydropower plants etc., but not on other issues. More balance needed between content.

The Consultant will take this point into consideration.

Chapter 7, additional activities can be mentioned but the additional costs are not of concern to the stakeholders as these are WB /Consultant contractual issues.

The JV Consultant agrees and the additional costs associated with the additional activities will not be included in the Final Inception Report. In accordance with the contract between WB and JV Consultant a Variation Order for the changes will be sent to the World Bank directly.

Dejan Lekic Serbian Environmental Pro‐tection Agency, Bel‐

grade

State of the Environment 2013 report will be available very soon and may be of rele‐vance for the Project. Nature protection institute together with Ministry is concerned with biodiversity is‐sues. In 2011 part of the water quality monitoring moved to SEPA. Much of the piezometers are with RHMSS so this is done in conjunction with them. Groundwater monitoring in general is not well run. Responsibility is not well coordinated.

The Consultant will obtain the State of the Environment Report for 2013 when it is available. The JV Consultant thanks the Reviewer for this information on change of organisa‐tion regarding monitoring.

There is an Italian funded project on the application of WFD concepts and improving the monitoring network in DRB but with a small budget. The consultant should be aware of this.

The JV Consultant appreciates this information and would like to obtain a copy of the study from SEPA.

Srđan Marjanović Republic Hydro‐me‐teorological Service

of Serbia

RHMZ would like to see more their role on the project. Is it one of providing historical data? or can we expect some future monitoring stations

GEF project will provide the funding for monitoring station improvements in the future. This project can emphasise the problem on the monitoring and make recommen‐dations on the improvements to the networks since we agree that there is no wa‐ter management without monitoring networks

Tina Savić Ministry of Agricul‐ture and Environ‐mental Protection ‐ Dept. of Water Pro‐

tection

In terms of ECRAN and RENA these are projects that the Consultant needs to be aware of. Croatia Waters are managing these ongoing projects – there is good cooperation with EPTISA on this

The Consultant will certainly take these issues into consideration in the prepara‐tion of future deliverables

Mr Mladen Roba‐jčević

EPS Republic Serbia

The EPS has interest in this project and especially in the collaboration with other coun‐tries and stakeholders involved. EPS use Drina water for their everyday production. At the present moment, the main usage is HPP on Drina and there are problems with O&M of the HPPs. There is no coordination between the stakeholders and interchange of data is at personal level and there is no protocol established. This is more evident under extreme conditions. The EPS would like to see improvements to this issue.

The JV Consultant thanks the Reviewer for this information. This will be taken into consideration for the next project steps.

Mr Radisav Matić EPS

Bajina Bašta HPP

River Drina not the only transboundary river. EPS would like to know about more experience of how this is done in an international context.

Other examples of experiences with water management and transboundary rivers will be included in the appropriate sections of later reports on the Project.





The Drina Project should be a model of how the project should be organised and passed onto others.


Dear Sirs, After an interesting meeting in MoFTER BiH (after Zagreb‐on Sava), which can be re‐duced to a "Deja vu from WB" And that raises the question of the purpose of the pro‐ject, which is ultimately a fee consultants and WB; I give the following comments

General comment requiring no response.


In accordance with the conclusions of the NEXUS (flood, Energy, environment ...) round table in Sarajevo in 2013, should only be considered "feasible" hydro potential, and not all possible potential, and noted in his opening statement (Inception Report). So should specify those HPP and SHPP that really have a chance to build a (serious concessions, given approval, considering all aspects and others.). I cite an example HPP Ustikolina in the Federation, which has not received approval for the construction of the Parties from imposing local community

The Consultant intends to analyse all projects listed in the relevant documenta‐tion (Water Master Plans, Energy Sector Strategies,). Further information on the projects will be gathered from the authorized Ministries (Ministry of Energy, Min‐istry of Finance...) regarding Energy permits, Concessions etc. The impacts on the environment will be assessing as well as the benefit or impact on the floods and droughts. Should the construction of any particular plant prove to be disputable, the Consultant will contact relevant institutions and stakeholders and ask for clari‐fication, validation, and prioritization.


On the other hand, it is indeed sad that the most beautiful national park in Europe ‐ "Sutjeska National Park" plans to build 8 SHPP, especially when we consider the envi‐ronmental damage in relation to the use of these small plants. And that in such a natu‐ral jewel? What are these integrated management then we are talking here? Is the ba‐sis of this study only current? What Montenegro also recognized the protection of na‐ture and others, and introduced restrictions, and gave comments on the preliminary report!

The Consultant is only considering hydropower projects listed in existing docu‐mentation but will consider in the project all conflicts between hydropower and other water and environmental issues. The TOR have requested a hydropower study, however, the JV Consultant also intends to view other WRM issues such as floods, irrigation, tourism, environmental protection etc. with equal importance.


After the reactions of the FBiH, and also at the end of the meeting and Mr. Pločo, topic of the meeting has turned to the integrated flood management and energy, particu‐larly in view of climate change in BiH in 2014, the year, and these problems are consid‐ered. This especially because in the procedure Project urgent measures WB flood pro‐tection, which is on the Drina in the Federation and in Bijeljina (RS) need to build pro‐tective structures for VV 1/100. Taking into account climate change, study and applied hydrological model should consider whether it is possible to enable the control HP Mratinje reduction Vala High Water on the level 1/100 at this point, and after the con‐struction of small hydro BUK Bijela and other facilities upstream from Foča?

The problem of flood control in DRB will be analysed within the envisaged hydrau‐lic analyses. Consultant will analyse all possibilities for flood retention/control within existing and new reservoirs taking into account all water consumers and existing re‐strictions. Based on available information, there are real concern that flood con‐trol will not be able to provide within the existing and/or new reservoirs and will have to look for other methods such are embankments


If the above is possible, then through this project should establish a mechanism be‐tween BiH and Montenegro to manage HPP Mratinje (and future planned hydropower plants in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro) in order to reduce the impact of flooding on the blue r. Drina. Otherwise give other recommendations for flood protec‐tion.

The current project will establish relevant technical and legal recommendations related to flood control. The actual bilateral contracts and mechanisms require political actions and lie beyond the scope of the project. Resolution of trans‐boundary issues will be a significant theme of this project.






How Mr. Pločo considers that there is no way that HPP Mratinje at present put under the control for the purposes of flood protection on the river Drina, then this project this question should consider with Montenegro and give appropriate Conclusion and results in this regard, because the purpose of the project is to support the manage‐ment of water resources, and at this point is imperative flood protection on the Drina river basin and in the region. If, however, the project turns out to be controlled up‐stream (current and planned HPP) for the purpose of flood protection is not possible because of the interests of power utilities and others, downstream, then neither the next project of WB on the Drina, which also carried out by the WB and GEF SCCF's, and through which is to draw up a Management Plan reservoirs on the Drina will not be re‐quired, because there will be no mechanism with its establishment at the regional level.

The Consultant intends to analyse all projects listed in the relevant documenta‐tion (Water Master Plans, Energy Sector Strategies,). Further information on the projects will be gathered from the authorized Ministries (Ministry of Energy, Min‐istry of Finance...) regarding Energy permits, Concessions etc. The impacts on the environment will be assessing as well as the benefit or impact on the floods and droughts. Should the construction of any particular plant prove to be disputable, the Consultant will contact relevant institutions and stakeholders and ask for clari‐fication, validation, and prioritization


Accordingly, the main output of the project in the present moment should be NEXUS‐current flood management ‐ in addition to climate change, and establish mechanisms or the establishment of the same, if possible. If that isn’t a project, it should be clearly said, and then it had no purpose other than to waste time and money.

General comment requiring no response.

Enes Alagić Amer Kavazović Sava Watershed

Agency Sarajevo

Dears, As you already know, at the meeting of the project "Support to water resources man‐agement in the Drina River Basin", which was held in Zagreb, representatives of AVP Sava were not able to be present. At the presentation of the Draft Inception Report of the Project in Sarajevo they took active participation and on this occasion gave some suggestions that have already joined and submitted in the minutes.

This is a general comment and no responses are necessary. However, the Consultant thanks the Reviewer for the comments made at the meeting in Sarajevo.


Agency Sarajevo

This project was approved "back" 2012 and till today it is still quite lost its importance. Immediately after the flood of 2010 activities have been initiated on the river Drina by the World Bank. At the initial meetings (Sarajevo, Bijeljina) was suggested by future us‐ers (Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia) to immediately initiate activities to renew or on the restoration or establishment of hydro‐meteorological network of ob‐servation stations. Till today in this field has been done almost nothing. So, the project will focus on collecting of hydro‐meteorological data from the previous period, and these are mostly pre‐war data. The World Meteorological Organization recommends a series of data for the period 1961‐1990 which is possible to collect, but today is a 2015 year and how to analyse climate changes based on the recommended series. Perhaps a

The JV Consultant thanks the reviewer for this background and insight into the status of the hydro meteorological network in the Basin. The Consultant is aware of the large data gaps in BiH and the consequence of these gaps on hydrologic and the climate change analyses. The project will describe the existing hydro‐me‐teorological networks and give recommendations for their improvement, thereby emphasizing the importance for upgrading the networks for better water man‐agement in the basin. However, the funding for new equipment is not included in the project.





grand intro, but the question is whether the recommendations of the Project (end of 2016) find as well as activity on reconstruction of hydro‐meteorological network for which the funds could be operational at the end of the 2020.


Agency Sarajevo

The project envisages the making of a hydrologic or hydraulic simulation model. Please explore the models that are made in other basins in the three countries considered, what is it most compatible for users and by the end, what are using the country of the Sava River Basin; what is the position of the Sava Commission. For Drina River, as well as for all other water bodies is very important making of models of early warning of flood events and the prediction of floods in real time. These models are under devel‐opment in Slovenia and Croatia, so in order to harmonize approaches to modelling in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia, as well as the countries of the Sava River basin, should perform the necessary consultations on this issue.

The Consultant thanks the reviewer for this comment. The Consultant will liaise with other projects where modelling is being undertaken. The Consultant will also work closely with the ISRBC who are embarking on the establishment of the flood forecasting and early warning system. However, the Consultant must emphasize that developing a forecasting model is not the goal of our project. Our task is to develop a hydrologic/hydraulic simulation model and a water management model and as such these models are meant for planning purposes only. Still, such a mod‐elling exercise will provide useful data and experience for building forecasting models in future projects.


Agency Sarajevo

Each international project in the water sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and perhaps in Montenegro and Serbia, briefly considered the institutional aspects and the same things are constantly repeated. We do not believe that this aspect should be com‐pletely omitted, but it should be kept to a reasonable level.

The Consultant will endeavour to prevent repetition, however, there is a need to bear in mind that there will be three separate country reports produced for each of the riparian countries. It therefore follows that the institutional aspects need to be provided for each state so that they can eventually be placed into each of the country reports.


Agency Sarajevo

At the initial meetings related to the launching of the project Drina was requested that all documentation is submitted at one of the local languages. This would be achieved by faster communication, the problem would be available to a wider audience and there would be no misunderstanding in order to "ignorance" of the English language. It would be good to accept this suggestion, so perhaps need to consultant approved ad‐ditional funds for translation. Users should agree what is "local language" to avoid fur‐ther translation into Bosnian, Serbian or Montenegrin language.

The Consultant concurs and has provided an estimate of the translation costs as‐sociated with such measure. For obvious reasons, due to office base etc., the Con‐sultant would prefer to have the local language as Serbian, however we respect the democratic right of the stakeholders to select the local language, bearing in mind that the costs for Bosnian and Montenegrin may cause additional expense.


Agency Sarajevo

There were estimated significant funds for the purchase of data necessary for the Pro‐ject. Perhaps this lacks clarification on what information is concerned since all partici‐pants in the project are obliged to put existing data available to the consultant.

The Consultant increased the provisional sum for the purchase of data in the event that this will be necessary. It is a Provisional Sum and therefore will be ring fenced until such a time that it would be required. If all the data can be provided free of charge then this will be very good, but the Consultant’s experience from previous and similar projects suggests that this is not the case.


Agency Sarajevo

We think that in the Coordinating Committee on the side of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be present representatives of the ministries of energy or power company enti‐ties. In this project participation should take and the ministries responsible for the en‐vironment as well as the Ministry of Spatial Planning because any activity in the basin cannot be realized without their participation

The Consultant concurs and has already recommended to the Steering Committee representatives from each of the riparian states that representatives of energy companies and ministries of environment/spatial planning should be invited to at‐tend meetings and be on the Steering Committee. However, it is up to the Steer‐ing Committee to make this happen.

Enes Alagić Amer Kavazović

The project will be led by the end of this one way or another. The AVP Sava there are major "concerns" about the project at the following aspects:

The JV Consultant needs to clarify an issue here, taking into account the requests of the three countries. The TOR have requested a hydropower study, however the





Sava Watershed Agency Sarajevo

the possibility that the project is converted into energy project because of the im‐pression of the Introductory reports that energy was "older brother" (experience with the project "Vrbas")

that nothing will be done regarding to the definition of a management plan with the existing reservoirs in the basin as well as the harmonization of their work (the reservoir should work plan aligned with existing plans)

That analysis of the energy aspects of the basin should take into account all hy‐dropower facilities that can build up in the basin, instead it is completely logical, hydropower facilities that have entered into a strategic document of individual countries in the basin.

JV Consultant also intends to view other WRM issues such as floods, irrigation, tourism, environmental protection, etc. with equal importance.


8.2 Annex 2 - Identified Hydropower Projects

A significant part of the water potential of the DRB has only partially been utilized for power generation. In the previous period, numerous studies and projects of hydropower facilities were made for the main river and its tributaries. Based on the obtained results, there is a potential in the catchment area for constructing new HPP facilities with a total installed capacity of approximately 2,500 MW and a possible average annual pro-duction larger than 7,500 GWh. All riparian countries located within the basin are therefore considering the construction of new HPP facilities as part of their spatial development plans and/or valid water management plans. The Drina River and its tributaries have many competing priorities for water management, such as a source of water supply for drinking water and irrigation, a source of hydropower development, a source of high tourism potential, etc. Consequently, a fine balance has to be found between these competing priorities and hence it is likely that the full potential of hydropower development cannot be fully realised due to the need to mitigate with other factors such as environmental protection. The usable hydropower potential of the Drina River has been significantly reduced due to existing structures or protected areas in the basin; this is especially so along the middle and lower reaches. The declaration of further protected areas, especially in Montenegro, has also significantly reduced potential hydropower devel-opment. Consequently, planned HPP facilities have to be adjusted in accordance with these existing struc-tures (for example the planned main reservoir elevations have to be reduced and /or the location of dams with appurtenant structures are significantly limited). Furthermore, some of potential HPPs are either tempo-rarily suspended or permanent stopped due to significant socioeconomic and environmental reasons. Based on the available documentation, numerous future HPP projects have been identified; they are pre-sented in the following section of this annex and presented in Table 8-1at the end of this section. This in-cludes all planned HPPs located on the main river course and its main tributaries with an installed capacity of 2 MW or over. It must be clarified that the HPPs that are shown in Table 8-1 below are cited within valid planning docu-ment sources. This does not imply that all of these sites will be developed. Indeed, some of the sites still re-main a point of conjecture and may need a different variant to arrive at an acceptable solution for all con-cerned. It is therefore apparent that further consultations with relevant stakeholder institutions of Serbia, BiH (RS and FBiH) and Montenegro. Taking Montenegro as an example, the main stakeholders (e.g. MARD, EPCG and Ministry of Economy) need to decide the official position regarding hydropower development.


Table 8-1: Planned new hydroelectric schemes

Item Kozluk Drina I Drina II Drina III Rogačica Tegare Dubravica Ustikolina Goražde

Reservoir

River Drina Drina Drina Drina Drina Drina Drina Drina Drina

Country SER/RS/FBiH

SER/RS/FBiH

SER/RS/FBiH SER/RS /FBiH

SER/RS/FBiH

SER/RS/FBiH

SER/RS/FBiH

RS/FBiH

RS/ FBiH

Area (km2) 15.159 15.437 15.997 6.248

Discharge (m3/s) 369 369 369 369 330.2 333.5 340.4 204.7

Total volume (Mm3) 49.8 8.55

Active volume (Mm3) 15.0 2.7

Dam crest elevation (masl) 136.5 122.5 108.5 94.5 223 203 178 375.5

Maximum OWL (masl) 373

Regular OWL (masl) 135 121 107 93 220 200 175 373

Minimum OWL (masl) 218 198 173 371

HPP

Type NDIV NDIV NDIV NDIV NDIV NDIV NDIV NDIV Maximum head (m) 117.2

Rated head (m) 14.0 12.50 12.5 12.50 17.39 18.83 13.86 14.7

Minimum head (m) 11.80 11.25 11.75 10.40 10

Installed flow (m3/s) 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 450

Installed power (MW) 88.5 87.7 87.8 101 113 121 87 60 30/60

Annual energy (GWh) 376 363.7 379.8 469.1 413 448 335 250 169

Type of turbine Kaplan bulb Kaplan bulb Kaplan bulb Kaplan bulb Bulb Bulb Bulb Bulb

Number of units 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

Will be managed by EPS/ERS EPS/ERS EPS/ERS EPS/ERS EPS/ERS EPS/ERS EPS/ERS EPBiH

Status of documentation Conceptual Design with Preliminary Feasibility Study for construction of HPPs in the lower Drina River basin, Ener‐

goprojekt Belgrade, 2013

Conceptual Design with Preliminary Feasibility Study, Jaroslav Černi Institute for the Devel‐opment of Water Resources, Belgrade, 2010

Preliminary Design I phase, JV Energo‐invest & IPSA & POYRY, 2013

PSHPP = pumped storage plant ("reversible HPP") – DIV = Diversion ‐ NDIV = Non‐diversion = HPP integrated in the dam or at immediate proximity OWL = operation water level, Mm3 = million cubic meter EPS= Electric Enterprise Company of Serbia ERS=Electric Enterprise Company Republic of Srpska EPFBiH=Electric Enterprise Comp. of FBiH EPCG= Electric Enterprise Company of Montenegro


Table 8-1: Planned new hydroelectric schemes (continued)

Item Buk Bijela (Low)

Buk Bijela (High)

Foča (Low) Foča (High)

Paunci Buk BIjela PSHPP

Sutjeska Mrsovo Falovići

Reservoir

River Drina Drina Drina Drina Drina Drina Sutjeska Lim Lim

Country RS/FBiH RS/FBiH/MNE RS /FBiH RS /FBiH RS /FBiH RS/FBiH RS /FBiH RS/FBiH RS/FBiH

Area (km2) 4.158 4.158 4.692 4.692 5.690 5.570

Discharge (m3/s) 163 163 178 178 212 110

Total volume (Mm3) 15.7 410 6.7 7.6 8.9

Active volume (Mm3) 11 328 4.6 4.6 101.26 7.7

Dam crest elevation (masl) 436 406.8 385.5 1,022.00 358

Maximum OWL (masl) 434 500 404.2 384 355

Regular OWL (masl) 434 403 404 532.00 355

Minimum OWL (masl) 420.5 460 396 398 935.00 347

HPP

Type NDIV NDIV NDIV NDIV NDIV Pumped storage NDIV

Maximum head (m) 32.65 17.35 11 P 601.10 / T 595.90 20.3

Rated head (m) 29 84 13.7 14 P 586.90 / T 566.00 14.5

Minimum head (m) 15.22 6.69 P 507.40 / T 486.60 10

Installed flow (m3/s) 350 600 350 450 450 P 80 / T 120 260

Installed power (MW) 93.52 450 44.15 55.5 43.21 P 600 / T 600 44 36.8 9.3

Annual production (GWh) 332.3 1,150 175.9 195 166.9 95.62 137

Type of turbine Kaplan Francis Bulb Kaplan Bulb Pump‐turbine Kaplan

Number of units 3 3 3 3 3 2 3

Will be managed by ERS ERS/EPCG ERS

ERS/EPCG

ERS ERS ERS ERS

Status of documentation

Preliminary Design with Hydraulic Model and Feasibility Study, 2012, STUCKY in cooperation with Jaroslav Černi Insti‐tute, Department of Dams, Hydropower, Mines and Roads

Main Design, En‐ergoprojekt

Preliminary Design with Hydraulic Model and Feasibility Study, 2012, STUCKY in co‐operation with Jaro‐slav Černi Institute, Department of Dams, Hydropower, Mines

and Roads

Main De‐sign, Ener‐goprojekt

Preliminary Design with Feasibility

Study, 2013, Energopro‐jekt Bel‐grade

Preliminary Design with Feasibility

Study, 2013, Energopro‐jekt Bel‐grade

In phase of construction by COMSAR Energy Ltd

SHPP = pumped storage plant ("reversible HPP") – DIV = Diversion ‐ NDIV = Non‐diversion = HPP integrated in the dam or at immediate proximity OWL = operation water level EPS = Mm3 = million cubic meter EPS= Electric Enterprise Company of Serbia ERS=Electric Enterprise Company Republic of Srpska EPFBiH=Electric Enterprise Comp. of FBiH EPCG= Electric Enterprise Company of Montenegro



Item Brodarevo I Brodarevo II Prijepolje Priboj Lukin Vir Andrijevica Plav Komarnica Tepca

Reservoir

River Lim Lim

Lim Lim Lim Lim Lim Piva/

Komarnica Tara

Country SER SERa SER SER MNE MNE MNE MNE MNE

Area (km2)

Discharge (m3/s) 78 78 80 104 21.6 21.6 71.4

Total volume (Mm3) 4 10

Active volume (Mm3) 1 7.2 12 82 0 220 1050

Dam crest elevation (masl) 521 490.4

Maximum OWL (masl)

Regular OWL (masl) 519 488 472.00 394.5 740 830 906 818 740

Minimum OWL (masl) 517 478

HPP

Type NDIV/RoR NDIV/RoR NDIV/RoR NDIV/RoR DIV DIV DIV NDIV NDIV

Maximum head (m)

Rated head (m) 20.3 25.6 14.0 8.4 153.4 168

Minimum head (m) 13.9 7.5

Installed flow (m3/s) 150 150 190 165 80 100 40 130 220

Installed power (MW) 26 32.4 22.4 10.6 13.3 51 24.2 168 316

Annual production (GWh) 102 130 85 56 50.3 140 90 232 893

Type of turbine Kaplan vert. Kaplan vert. Kaplan bulb Kaplan bulb Francis

Number of units 3 3 2 2 2

Will be managed by EPS EPS EPS EPS EPCG EPCG EPCG EPCG EPCG

Status of documentation FS prepared by Energoprojekt, 2012Stopped due to environmental and

social reasons Basic Design, Energoprojekt,2001 Study

P SHPP = pumped storage plant ("reversible HPP") – RoR = Run of River ‐ DIV = Diversion ‐ NDIV = Non‐diversion = HPP integrated in the dam or at immediate proximity OWL = operation water level Mm3 = million cubic meter EPS= Electric Enterprise Company of Serbia ERS=Electric Enterprise Company Republic of Srpska EPFBiH=Electric Enterprise Comp. of FBiH EPCG= Electric Enterprise Company of Montenegro



Item Ljutica Mojkovac

Bakovića Klisura

Opasanica Žuti Krš (High)

Žuti Krš (Low)

Mateševo Trebaljevo Koštanica Reservoir

River Tara Tara Tara Tara Tara Tara Tara Tara Tara

Country MNE MNE MNE MNE MNE MNE MNE MNE MNE

Area (km2)

Discharge (m3/s) 52 26.5 25.52 6 16.62 16.62 12.56 26.34

Total volume (Mm3)

Active volume (Mm3) 316 85 7 45 198 50 145 4.5 198

Dam crest elevation (masl)

Maximum OWL (masl)

Regular OWL (masl) 770 920 932 1,160 1,000 980 1,050 903 980/340

Minimum OWL (masl)

HPP

Type NDIV DIV NDIV DIV NDIV NDIV NDIV DIV

Maximum head (m)

Rated head (m) 125 147 26 102 59 46 67 78.6

Minimum head (m)

Installed flow (m3/s) 200 80 80 12 80 80 40 70 92

Installed power (MW) 212 100 20 10 40 46 23 59 552

Annual production (GWh) 484 271 49.4 43 73 57 63 154 1,332

Type of turbine

Number of units

Will be managed by EPCG EPCG EPCG EPCG EPCG EPCG EPCG EPCG EPCG

Status of documentation P SHPP = pumped storage plant ("reversible HPP") – DIV = Diversion NDIV = Non‐diversion = HPP integrated in the dam or at immediate proximity OWL = operation water level Mm3 = million cubic meter EPS= Electric Enterprise Company of Serbia ERS=Electric Enterprise Company Republic of Srpska EPFBiH=Electric Enterprise Comp. of FBiH EPCG= Electric Enterprise Company of Montenegro



Item Vikoč (Luke)

Otilovići (Pljevlja)

Gradac Mekote Milovci Kruševo Reservoir

River Ćehotina Ćehotina Ćehotina Ćehotina Ćehotina Piva

Country RS /FBiH/MNE

MNE MNE MNE MNE MNE

Area (km2)

Discharge (m3/s) 20.7 4.68 12.56 15.39 17.18 75.8

Total volume (Mm3) 146 18 25.4

Active volume (Mm3) 13 85 74 386 18.00

Dam crest elevation (masl) 842

Maximum OWL (masl) 574 841

Normal OWL (masl) 837.5 742 657 650 495

Minimum OWL (masl) 822

HPP

Type DIV DIV DIV NDIV (DIV) NDIV

Maximum head (m) 40

Rated head (m) 86.4 35 70 (77) 62 117 (114) 60

Minimum head (m) 25

Installed flow (m3/s) 50 9 38 38 50 240

Installed power (MW) 33.3 3.25 23 (25) 26 50 120

Annual energy (GWh) 130 11.4 65.5 (72.0) 70.6 149.7 (145.8) 321.9

Type of turbine Francis Francis

Number of units 2 2

Will be managed by EPCG EPCG EPCG EPCG EPCG

Status of documentation Preliminary Design

Energoprojekt 2001

Basic Design, Elektroprojekt, Ljubljana, 1973

SHPP = pumped storage plant ("reversible HPP") – DIV = Diversion NDIV = Non‐diversion = HPP integrated in the dam or at immediate proximity OWL = operation water level Mm3 = million cubic meter EPS= Electric Enterprise Company of Serbia ERS=Electric Enterprise Company Republic of Srpska EPFBiH=Electric Enterprise Comp. of FBiH EPCG= Electric Enterprise Company of Montenegro


8.3 Annex 3 Detailed Description of Biodiversity in Protected Areas

Name and type of Protected Area

Size (km2) Date Formed Main biodiversity and landscape characteristics

BiH: Federation

Plans in progress (See below)

BiH: Republika Srpska

Sutjeska: NP, IUCN: II 160.52 1962 (2012) Planned extension

Fauna: - Invertebrates: Lepidoptera which has a great diversity in the Park due to the large diversity of wild plants - Fishes:

Indigent species: Salmo labrax, Tymallus tymallus, Phoxinus phoxinus.

Introduced species: Onchorhynchus mykiss (from California) in two mountain lakes, Salvelinus alpinus (from the Alps). The fish population of NPS has not been carefully monitored and very little is known about the history of their life in this region. No fish stocking has taking place in the Zelengora lakes since 1991.

- Amphibians and reptilians: they may be grouped into two zoogeographical elements: Arctic‐ Alpine northern group (ex. Bufo bufo, Rana temporaria) and Mediterranean‐Central European group (ex. Salamandra salamandra, Triturus al‐pestris). The first group of species is inclined to colder ecosystems at high altitudes, while the second group is prone to warmer, lower, southern ecosystems. In addition, there is an important endemic species, a salamander called Olm (Pro‐teus anguinus).

- Birds: Some 114 bird species have been registered in the NPS, which makes 36% of the overall number of known spe‐cies in BiH. 61 species reside and nest in the Park, 32 species visit the Park only in summer, but also nest there. 16 spe‐cies are migratory birds which traverse the Park in spring and autumn going north where they nest, while they spend winters in southern regions. 5 species usually appear only in winter. The final list of bird species in NPS should reach the number of 135‐150 species if several observations are carried out in different periods of the year. A main group is linked to high altitude, sheer cliffs and rocky habitats, not directly related to water resources of the Basin. The charismatic woodpeckers are observed, with about nine species, including Three‐toed and White‐backed Woodpecker. An important species to be conserved in the park is the Corncrake (Crex crex).

- Mammals: Little is known about mammals in NPS. The species registered so far are considered typical for woodland, sub‐alpine and alpine habitats of south‐eastern Europe mountain regions. It can be observed:

bat species (ex. Rhinolophus hipposiderus), emblematic and remarkable species like the Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx)

rare and endangered species like the European otter (Luta lutra), the chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra)

endemic species like the blind mole (Talpa caeca) and the Balkan Snow Vole (Dinaromys bogdanovi). Flora: Flora of the NPS and its environs has been very well researched in the past. The Park is located in a mountain region re‐nowned for a large number of endemic species and subspecies. More than 2,600 species of vascular plants appear in NPS, in 670 genera, 123 families, 52 orders and 7 classes.




Gromiželj: SNR, IUCN: Ib Bijeljina municipality Confluence of the Drina and Sava rivers

8.33 2011

Fauna: The most important value of this area is the fish species Umbra krameri. It is a very rare and endangered species. Through‐out Europe Umbra has the status of endangered species and under the strictest regime of protection (EN) on the list of protected species under Berne Convention it is listed in Appendix I ‐ Annex I. It inhabits wetland and ditches, vegetation‐rich parts of the waters with the muddy bottom. Flora: This area is characterized by significant floristic diversity. This is one of the few remaining lowland peat lands which have been recorded about 400 species of ferns and gymnosperms. Among these species there are ones of international im‐portance, endemic and relict. At the Preliminary List of vascular plants of the Red Book of BiH (Šilić, 1992‐96) are the spe‐cies Hottonia palustris, Telypteris palustris Schott., Nuphar luteum Sm. with a vulnerable IUCN status (VU). From relict spe‐cies, the most important is Urtica kioviensis, which is found only here in the territory of BiH. Urtica kioviensis is on the Red List of Europe as a rare and endangered species.

Perućica (located within NP Sutjeska): SNR, IUCN: Ia

14.34 1954

Tara canyon and Ljubišnja: NP

not yet protected

Drina: NP not yet protected

Drina: Biosphere reserves not yet protected

around 25 other PAs(see map)

not yetprotected

Montenegro

Biogradska gora: NP 56.5 1952

Durmitor: NP, UNESCO world heritage site, IBA

390 1952

Fauna: - Invertebrates: Lepidoptera are present with 130 species, including one endemic species Coenonympha arcania

ssp.philea. There are been observed also 5 endemic species of Coleoptera. - Fishes: Ichtiofauna in Durmitor area is not very well researched.

Introduced fishes in lakes: 4 species of fish have been introduced to the previously fish‐free mountain lakes: Salvelinus alpinus (lake trout); Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout); Salmo labrax m. fario and Phoxinus phoxinus. They are also observed in the Tara River.

Endemic Species in Tara River: eight species of fish have been recorded in the last decade, among, the endemic endan‐gered Hucho Hucho has been observed. The main fishes in Tara River belong to the Salmonidae, Thymallidae and Cy‐prinidae families.

- Amphibians and reptilians: Unique and richness of herpetofauna of Durmitor area was one of the most important argu‐ments for the inclusion of the NP "Durmitor" to the list of World Natural and Cultural Heritage by UNESCO, especially




when it comes to the phenomenon of neoteny and the presence of rare, relict and endemic forms. Indeed, more than half of the representatives of the herpetofauna of the Balkan Peninsula are obsereved in this small area. Among them, the remarkable protected amphibians‐Salamandra atra, the Alpine newt‐Triturus alpestris, the Green Toad‐Bufo viridis, the Terrapin‐Emys orbicularis, the Anguis fragilis, the endemic Mosor lizard; the Common and the Podarcis muralis ‐ wall lizards, the Smooth snake Coronella austriaca and the Meadow Vipera ursinii.

- Birds: Presence of the 172 bird species in the NP"Durmitor" has been confirmed, 112 of which are nesting birds. The increased presence of humans (tourism) and timber harvesting has caused disappearance of several species. As an example, the Bucephala clangula hasn't been nesting on Durmitor lakes for the last 50 years as well as the Tetrao tetrix, which was discovered on the rim of the canyon of Tara and Komarnica hasn't been nesting on Durmitor for the last 40 years. Some species are primarily endangered like the Tetrao urogallus, Aegolius funereus, Dendrocopos leu‐cotos and Picoides tridactylus.

- Mammals: it has been found 37 species of mammals in this area. Among them, it can be held the Eurasian lynx, the Grey Wolf, the Brown bear. The observed rare, declining, endemic and endangered species mammals are species of bats, mole rat (endemic Talpa caeca, Balkan Snow Vole,) and otter (Lutra lutra).

Flora: This area is characterized by a large diversity of Montenegrin and Balkan endemic and rare species which are listed in An‐nex 4

Prokletije: NP 166.3 2009

Komovi: RP, IUCN: VI 195.04 2014?not yet protected

This area is mainly characterised by important internationally and endemic flora species whose are planned to be pro‐tected. The list is given in Annex 4

Piva: RP, IUCN: VI 200? 2014?not yet protected

This area is mainly characterised by important internationally and endemic flora species whose are planned to be pro‐tected. The list is given in Annex 4

Serbia

Tara: NP, Emerald site, IUCN: II

191.7 1981

Fauna: - Invertebrates: Mt Tara is on the list of Prime Butterfly Areas in Europe (PBA). Within the Tara NP, 115 species of daily

butterflies are observed. - Fishes: 27 species of fishes have been finding in Tara NP. Among them, there are three important fish species that con‐

tribute highly to diversity of the ichthyofauna: the endemic Danube Huchen (Hucho hucho), the brown trout (Salmo labrax), and the Grayling (Thymallus thymallus).

- Amphibians and reptilians: There are 12 species of amphibians and 12 species of reptiles. Some important species are Salamandra salamandra, Rana graeca, Bombina veriegata, Zootoca (Lacerta) vivipara, Vipera ammodytes.

- Birds: The territory of Mt. Tara is on the list of Important Bird Areas of Europe (IBA) with about 135 species of birds. It represents the densest population of the charismatic Golden Eagles in Serbia, with 5‐7 breeding pairs. It also holds the most important currently known population of Ural Owl Strix uralensis, Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinim and three‐




toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus in Serbia. An important species to be conserved in the park is the Corncrake (Crex crex), the White‐backed Woodpecker and the Black grouse (Tetrao urogallus).

- Mammals: the area is characterized by 60 species of mammals, including 25 species of bats. It can be highlighted the presence of the Brown bear, the Grey wolf, the Chamois, the Wild cat and (recently) the Eurasian Lynx. The Brown bear (estimated population of 30 individuals nowadays) is the symbol of Mt. Tara and is a characteristic resident of the western part of the mountain. It has been observed near the clean waters of the area, the presence of the rare and endangered European otter. The park is the only habitats in Serbia of the great vole (Microtus multiplex) in the area of Kameno Brdo, elevation of about 1100 m, and region of the Beli Rzav at 900 m.

Flora: Tara NP is mainly characterized by mixed mountain and highland ecological systems. Forests are the most important habitat type. In lower elevations the oak forests are predominant, while the plant communities near water flows are dominated by Salix and Alnus species. The vegetation includes more than 35 different communities of deciduous forests, mixed (deciduous‐coniferous) forests, and coniferous forests as well as 19 meadow communities. Many of them, especially those with Picea omorika have a relict or endemorelict character. The region of Mt. Tara is characterized by high species diversity and high indices of species densities of the analyzed taxa. The flora of the National Park Tara is composed of 171 species of mosses, 96 species of lichens and 1013 species of vascular plants, representing almost 1/3 of all flora of Serbia. In some parts of the Tara Mt, especially canyons, it is fond unique refugees where many primeval relict communities from Tertiary have survived. When it comes to forests, the mixed association of Fir, Norway spruce and Beech dominate on the mountain Tara. Beside them, in the national park, associations of Black and Scots pine can be found, usually mixed in associations with deciduous trees like Maple, Oak, etc. Six species of bryoflora are included in Red Data Book of European Bryophytes. The list of species is given in Annex 4

Šargan – Mokra Gora:PP

108.14 2005

Part of the area of the vil‐lage of Tršić and Tronoša Monastery: MNM

1965

Trešnjica River Gorge:SNR Trešnjica River Gorge

5.95 1995

Mileševka: RNP

4.57 1976

Uvac: SNR Canyon of the

74.53 2006




Uvac River

Slapovi sopotnice:MoN Waterfalls of Sopotnica River

2005

Many other MoN (small objects)

Zasavica17: SNR, IUCN:IV Sremska Mitrovica and Bo‐gatić municipalities

18.25 1997

The SNR Zasavica is situated on the territory of South Voivodina, at the east of the Drina River. The backbone of the Re‐serve is made up of Jovaca and Prekopac canals, Batar creek, and Zasavica River. Zasavica River is also supplied by ground waters from the Drina. Zasavica is a part of a national network of Ramsar sites River. The aquatic and wetland ecosystems with fragments of flooded forests are dominant.

17 The JV Consultant still needs to confirm if SNR Zasavica is part of the DRB


8.4 Annex 4 – Important Flora Species in the DRB Protected Areas

8.4.1 Durnitor National Park, Montenegro Montenegrin endemic species: Gentiana laevicalyx, Edraianthus glisicii, Verbascum durmitoreum, Verbascum nikolai, Carum valenovsky, Viola nicolai, Daphne malayana, Valeriana braunii-blancuetti. Balkan endemic species: Daphne blagayana, Acer heldreichii, Pinus heldreichii, Moltkea petraea, Iris bosniaca, Pancicia serbica, Phyteuma pseudoorbiculata, Potentilla montenegrina, Amphoricarpus autariatus, Crepis incurnata, Euphor-bia montenegrina, Acontium toxicum, Micromeria croatica, Lilium bosniacum, Viola speciosa, Aubrietia croatica, Edraianthus jugoslovicus, Gardius ramosissimus. Rare species: Leontopodium alpinum, Swertia perenis, Taxus baccata, Adenophora lilifolia, Gentiana laevi-calyx, G. crispata, G. ciliata, G. kochiana, G. lutea ssp. synphyandra. In Barno jezero, there are also some rare plants, not very characteristic for the other parts of the country: Urticularia minor, Eleocharis autrianea, Carex curta and Sparganium minimum.

8.4.2 Komovi and Piva regional Parks, Montenegro Internationally important and endemic flora species

Species Locality Group Type Endemism

Acer heldreichii Maglić, Volujak, Vučevo, Prepelička gora, Milogora, Ljeljenak

VF ER

Acer intermedium Piva, Komarnica VF ER

Acer obtusatum Piva, Komarnica VF ER

Amphoricarpos neumayeri Piva VF IIS

Cephalaria pastricensis Vrbnica VF IIS SFRJ, Al

Corydalis ochroleuca subsp. leiosperma Piva, Komarnica VF E SFRJ

Crepis dinarica VF E D

Daphne blagayana Vučevo VF E

Daphne malyana Piva, Komarnica, Tara, Sušica, Volujak, Maglić, Bioč, Vučevo

VF IIS SED

Edraianthus serpyllifolius Piva, Komarnica VF ER D

Edraianthus sutjeskae Sutjeska, Maglić, Volujak VF E SED

Eryngium palmatum Piva, Komarnica VF IIS

Euphorbia pancicii Piva, Komarnica VF IIS

Genista sylvestris subsp. dalmatica Piva, Komarnica VF E D

Gentianella laevicalyx VF IIS

Geranium dalmaticum Piva, Komarnica VF IIS SFRJ, Al

Geranium dalmaticum Piva, Komarnica VF E SFRJ, Al

Hieracium blecicii VF IIS

Hieracium maglicense Maglić VF IIS

Hieracium pseudotommasinii Mratinje VF IIS

Lilium bosniacum Vučevo VF ER

Listera cordata Vučevo VF IIS

Lonicera formanekiana subsp. hectoderma VF IIS

Micromeria croatica Piva, Komarnica VF E D

Moltkia petraea Piva, Komarnica VF ER D

Pancicia serbica Vučevo, Maglić VF IIS, ER

Pedicularis brachyodonta VF E D


Species Locality Group Type Endemism Petteria ramentacea Piva VF E

Platanthera bifolia Piva, Komarnica VF IIS

Potentila montenegrina Maglić, Volujak VF E B

Potentila speciosa VF E B

Rhamnus orbiculatus Piva, Komarnica VF E D

Scabiosa silenifolia VF E B, A

Valeriana brauni‐blanquetii Piva, Komarnica VF IIS

Verbascum durmitoreum VF IIS

Vicia montenegrina VF IIS SFRJ

Viola elegantula VF E D

Viola zoysii Maglić, Volujak, Durmitor VF E SEA, D Legend

Al Albania IIS Internationally Important Species B Balkans SEA South East AlpesB.A Balkans and Apenines SED South East Dinarides D Dinarides SFRJ Ex‐Yugoslavia E Endemic VF Vascular flora ER Endemic relict species

Source: Montenegrin Institute for Nature Protection (INP), Protection Study for Piva Regional Park that will include the PAs: Bioč, Maglić and Volujak on the municipality of Plužina, May 2011

8.4.3 Tara National Park, Serbia ‐ Paleoendemic species:

One of them is Picea omorika, the living fossil of European dendroflora, also Holly (Ilex aquifolium), sweet columbine (Aquilegia nikolicii var. nikolicii, Aquilegia nikolicii var. pancicii), Dervent cornflower (Centaurea derventana), as well as, Potentilla visianii, Aquilegia grata, Edraianthus graminifolius aggr., Gypsophila sperguliifolia,, Onosma stellulatum, Halacsya sendtneri, Cephalaria pastricensis, Haplophyllum boisserianum, Daphne blagayana, Hieracium waldsteinii, and Acer heldreichii.

‐ Endemic and subendemic species: Euphorbia subhastata, E. glabriflora, Satureja subspicata, Cerastium decalvans, Moehringia bavarica, Stachys anisochila, S. scardica, St. chrysophaea, Thymus jankae, Gentiana dinarica, Pseudofumaria alba, Potentilla mollis, P. malyana, Silene monachorum, Pedicularis heterodonta, Dianthus petraeus, D. sylvestris papillosus, Genista friwaldskyana, Linaria rubioides, Arabis procurrens, Verbascum bosnense, Lathyrus binnatus, etc.

‐ Widely spread relict species: Cheilanthes marantae, Taxus baccata, Ilex aquifolium, Juglans regia, Ostrya carpinifolia, Staphyllea pinnata, Daphne laureola, Ruscus hypoglossum, R. aculeatus, Erica herbacea, Spirea cana, Waldstenia ternata, Asarum europaeum, Cardamine waldsteinii, Paeonia officinalis, P. corallina, Saxifraga marginata, Lonicera alpigena,

‐ Boreal relicts on the south border of their diffusion: Goodyera repens, Corallorhiza trifida i Listera cordata

‐ Bryoflora in Red Data Book of European Bryophytes: Among them, 4 are in the rare (R) category: Anamodon rastratus, Dicranella humilis, Lophozia ascedens, Weissia rostelata and 2 are vulnerable (VU): Buxbaumia viridis and Orthotrichum philiberti. Three species are European endemics: Tortela densa, Ulota bruchii and Ulota calvecens.


8.5 Annex 5 – Multi Criteria Analysis Methodology

Before the beginning of the process for evaluation the decision maker must in advance define the alternative solutions (or at least provide their own insights into the solutions) to form an attitude (or preference) through: “the adoption of an hierarchically arranged list of objectives, criteria, indicators and their relative weight in the designer`s proposal ranking in order of importance and / or defining the relative weight of individual objec-tives, criteria and indicators” The notion of relative weight is related to the methods of multi-criteria evaluation. These methods are used to solve multi-dimensional problems (e.g., evaluation of investment projects in the public sector). Defining the relative weight may be technical and preferential. Preferential definition of weight is used to determine weight at higher hierarchical levels (weight objectives, possibly criteria), while the technical definition of weight is applied to determine the weight of the lower level (weight indicators, possibly criteria) based on the calculation of technical character and / or assessment expert committees or experts who are directly involved in the project. Preferential defining of weight based on the subjective priorities, where it tends to minimized subjectivity of a group of representatives in the evaluation. Preference weights are determined: directly - survey of selected population groups, or indirectly - by analysing previous estimates, decisions, reactions and behaviour of certain groups of the population. The resulting weight objectives or criteria shall be determined on the basis of the results of the statistical analysis of weight estimated by some members of the group representatives. The re-sulting weight is calculated as the arithmetic mean of individual weights, with the elimination of extreme values (for example 15% lowest and 15% highest values set by individual representatives). In order to reduce the influence of the subjectivity of the individual group members, in addition to provide an independent determination of weight without reviewing individual representatives in other attitude, approach and determining the weight without the knowledge of the opinions of other representatives. Often both methods are combined, so that the first stage individual representatives separately determine the weight, and the next phase of the resulting weight when members of the group are determined it by working together. Table 1 gives an overview of the field of application of technical procedures and preferential defining the relative weight and structure of individual participation in decision-making system and the definition of weight in the process of project development. Table 1: Domains of application procedures and preferential technical definition of relative weight and par-ticipation in decision-making structure of the system

HIE

RA

RC

HY

LE

VE

L

DEFINITION OF WEIGHT

PARTICIPATION IN THE DEFINITION OF

WEIGHT

PROFESSIONAL PROFILES

Objectives Preferential

Decision maker Other

Criteria Expert Commission

Indicators Technical The design team The design team

METHODS PREFERENCES OF DEFINING RELATIVE WEIGHTS Methods of defining preferential weight to a much greater extent affect the final results of the comparison of the data defined by weight, so it takes to devote special attention to its determination. The most commonly used methods are:


a with an independent determination of weight: - Direct determination of weight, - The comparison of pairs,

b with influential determining the weight: - The exchange of opinions (Brainstorming), - The expert method (Delphi method).

To determine the relative weight of objectives the Consultant recommends the method of comparison pairs and Delphi method, and both methods can be combined. For example, the Delphi method can be based on the results of the methods of exchanging opinions, Method of Comparison pairs on the results of the Delphi method, and a method of exchanging opinions can be based on the results of the direct method of determining the weight. The application of computer technology gives the possibility of relatively simple and quick assess-ment of the statistical analysis of the results, both in determining the weight defined by individual representa-tives as well as in determining the resulting weight. DIRECT METHOD OF DETERMINING THE WEIGHT For the direct method of determining the weight is characteristic that representatives based on their subjective attitude determines the relative weight of these, so that the sum of all the weight on one hierarchical level is Σ wi = 1.00. Weights can be determined directly, in the form of definite value, or based on defined relationships of certain weight where the reference value is used as the smallest relative weight; w1=3w5; w2=w5; w3=2w2=2w5;w4=0,5 w3=1.5w5;w6=w4=1.5w5 (1) where the values of certain weight can be calculated by substitution of relations (1) in the expression: w1+ w2+w3+ w4 +w5 +w6=3w5+ w5+2w5+1.5w5+1.5w5=10w5=1.00 (2)

→ w5=0.10 (3) Table 2 outlines the objectives and their weights.

Table 2: Determination of weight objectives Objec-tives

O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 Sum

Weight 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.15 1.00 The process according to this method can be continued for a number of criteria within each of the objectives. METHOD OF COMPARING PAIRS Method of comparing pairs (method of determining the relative weight ranking objectives in order of im-portance) based on a comparison of each of the objectives with all the others in terms of importance. A method of comparing pairs can be done in different ways. In the simplest case, means in pairs to achieve the goal that is more important to him and assigns a value of 1, while the aim of lesser importance assigned the value 0. The weight of each of these objectives is determined by dividing the number of points Pi allocated to each of the objectives of the total number of comparisons with. The process of determining the relative weight ranking objectives in order of importance is realized in several steps:


I step - Adoption of objectives and the formation of the matrix II step - Comparison of the relative importance of objectives

On-1 > On→ Zn-1,n = 1 (4) On-1< On→ Zn-1,n = 0 (5) On-1 = On→Zn-1,n = ½ (6) Step III - Ranking and calculation of partial summation points (Table 3)

Ri = 1 → highest rank R = n → lowest rank Table 3: Ranking and calculation of partial sums of points

O1 O2 O3 O4 O5Point

Pi Rank

Ri

O1 - 1 0 1 1 3 2

O2 0 - 0 0 0 0 5

O3 1 1 - 1 1 4 1

O4 0 1 0 - 0 1 4

O5 0 1 0 1 - 2 3

Step IV - Checking the triad and calculate the total amount (Table 4) Checking triad O3> O2 if O3> O1 and O1> O2 (7) Calculation of the total sum

S ∑ Pi-

S ∑ Pi-

∑ (8)

where: Pi - points to the objectives n - the number of objectives

Table 4: Checking the triad and calculate the total amount

O1 O2 O3 O4 O5Point

Pi

Rank Ri

O1 - 1 0 1 1 3 2

O2 0 - 0 0 0 0 5

O3 1 1 - 1 1 4 1

O4 0 1 0 - 0 1 4

O5 0 1 0 1 - 2 3

Step V - Normalizing weight (Table 5)


-Directly across the points Pi -Over the rank Ri

(9)

where: Ri - rank objective n - number objectives

Table 5: Normalizing weight

Point Pi

Weight wi (a)

Rank Ri

Weight wi (b)

O1 3 30 2 27

O2 0 0 5 7

O3 4 40 1 33

O4 1 10 4 13

O5 2 20 3 20

10 100 - 100

According to this method, the process can be continued for a number of criteria within each of the objectives. Another possibility is that the representatives who evaluate and express their opinion based on the relationships the each two objectives by granting them a certain number of points, when comparing pairs, according to their importance. METHOD OF EXCHANGING OPINIONS (BRAINSTORMING) Method of exchanging opinions is effective method that is based on a systematic, well organized discussion between representatives, and it encourages spontaneous confrontation of ideas. It starts from the fact that with a larger number of proposals made in the course of the discussion, and the development of ideas through discussion and mutual improvement of the proposal, and with idea to combine results of individual participants, it increases the probability of finding the optimum. THE EXPERT METHOD (DELPHI METHOD) Expert method is used to determine the relative weight objectives, but can also be applied to the lower level to define the relative weight of criteria. Delphi method is characterized by teamwork expert, interdisciplinary approach, the anonymity of responses of experts iteratively implemented process of harmonization of individ-ual responses to reaching a satisfactory coincidence of thinking, statistical presentation form individual atti-tudes within the group. Based on a survey of decision makers and / or experts who are offered a prepared set of objectives and / or criteria with the task of any order with respect to the importance of joining a numeric value. The condition is that the sum of all values is 100. The number of participants (N) by the rule must be greater than 25 in order to achieve a satisfactory reliability. Based on the statistical analysis of responses are defined: mean (Tsr), standard deviation (S) and coefficient of variation (v). Error in estimation is calculated by:

e*

(10)

where: e - error in the estimate, t - argument from tables of normal distribution for the adopted probability,


N - number of participants in - the coefficient of variation of the response. The best-known modified version of the Delphi method, a method of Probes I, II and Probes Cross - Matrix Analysis. The main disadvantages of the Delphi method, reflected in determining the criteria for the selection of experts, formulating a simple, clear, non-leading form of survey, the number of iterative methods depending on the desired degree of consensus, is the duration of the procedure. Formation of the survey form is an im-portant step in the realization of the method, since the way in which to formulate questions can be suggestive, incomplete, and so on. Figure 1 shows an example of the survey form for the purpose of defining the relative weights of the objectives of the project with appropriate explanations submitted to the participants of the sur-vey. PROPOSAL FOR THE FORM OF INTERVIEW BY METHOD EXPERT 1. Consider the stated objectives and, if it is necessary, add objectives that you consider important and / or

turn off some of the objectives, calculating their importance as zero, 2. Form their own idea of the relative importance of each objective and enter the evaluation of its im-

portance in the range from 0 to 100. 3. The higher score means more the importance of the objectives (if, for example, Objective 1 assessment

date 20, a Grade 10 Objective 2, this means that Objective 1 is two times more important than Objective 2),

4. When all grades from these and possibly add objectives added up, the sum must be equal to 100.

Sequence Number

Objective To Be Achieved Objective Assessment Of Importance

1. Get To Users 2. Environmental Impacts 3. Socio-Economic Impacts If you feel it is necessary to add some text, a objective that you consider important, and is not in the list

The structure of the respondents can be divided into three groups:

1) The first group consists of representatives of investors and designers who do not participate in the pro-ject.

2) In the second group should be included planners, urban planners, experts from the area of environmental protection, economists, agricultural engineers ...

3) The third group includes representatives of Government and economy to a wider area (represented in the City Council, city department directors, directors of major companies etc.).


8.6 Annex 6 – Proposed Contents of Main Reports

CONTENTS FOR INVESTMENT PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Scope of Work and TOR 1.3 Layout of the Report 2 Physical characteristics of the Drina River Basin 2.1 Main properties of the Drina River Basin 2.2 Morphology and topography 2.3 Hydrography 2.3.1 Description of Surface water bodies and groundwater bodies 2.4 Climate 2.4.1 Precipitation 2.4.2 Air temperature 2.4.3 Evaporation and evapotranspiration 2.4.4 Air quality 2.5 Geology and soil 2.6 Seismic conditions 2.7 Land use 2.7.1 Agriculture 2.7.2 Forest 2.7.3 Other areas 2.8 Biodiversity 2.8.1 Data Sources 2.8.2 Flora 2.8.3 Fauna 2.8.4 Birds and mammals 2.9 Protected areas 2.9.1 Overview of protected areas 2.9.2 Main pressures on protected areas 2.9.3 Water dependent ecosystem services 3 Socio‐economic characteristics of the Drina River Basin 3.1 Natural resources 3.1.1 Agriculture, food, textile and leather industry 3.1.2. Fish farming 3.1.3 Mining + Mineral and non‐mineral deposits 3.1.4 Metallurgy and metal processing 3.1.5 Chemical industry 3.1.6 Electrical industry 3.2 Cultural heritage and national monuments 3.3 Demographics 3.3.1 Settlements 3.3.2 Population numbers 3.3.3 Population structure 3.3.4 Population projections 3.4 Human health 3.4.1 Data sources 3.4.2 Findings 3.4.3 Causes of death and infectious diseases 3.4.4 Water borne diseases 3.5 Education 3.5.1 Access to pre‐school education 3.5.2 Primary education 3.5.3 Secondary education 3.5.4 Higher education 3.6 Employment and unemployment 3.7 Crime


CONTENTS FOR INVESTMENT PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK 3.8 Local economy and accessibility 4 Surface Water Hydrology 4.1 Meteorological data 4.1.1 Review and assessment of the existing meteorological data 4.1.2 Processing and reconstruction of meteorological data 4.1.3 Analysis of precipitation regime in the basin 4.2 Hydrological data 4.2.1 Review and assessment of the available hydrological data 4.2.2 Processing and reconstruction of hydrological data 4.3 Hydrological model 4.3.1 Methodology of hydrological modelling 4.3.2 Overview of calibration and verification of the hydrological model 4.3.4 Overview of results – mean weekly discharges 4.4 Hydrological analyses 4.4.1 Trends and multi‐decadal oscillations 4.4.2 Analysis of mean monthly and annual discharges 4.4.3 Analysis of flood discharges 4.4.4 Low flows and environmental flows 4.5 Adopted hydrological statistical parameters 5 Groundwater 5.1 Geological characteristic in Drina River Basin 5.1.1 Geo‐tectonic composition of the Drina River Basin 5.2 Hydro‐geological characteristics in the Drina River Basin 5.3 Porosity of the Drina River Basin 5.4 Main aquifers and their availability 5.5 Main directions of groundwater flow and sinkholes 5.6 Condition of groundwater protection 5.7 Assessment of groundwater vulnerability 5.8 Groundwater use in irrigation 5.8.1 Lower parts of the Basin 5.8.2 Middle Basin 5.8.3 The Upper Basin 6 Water quality 6.1 Water quality in the Drina River Basin before 1990 6.2 Water quality in the Drina River Basin after 1995 6.2.1 Results of quality parameters analysis 6.3 Hotspots 6.3.1 Municipal hot spots 6.3.2 Industrial hot spots 6.3.3 Landfills and dumping sites 6.3.4 Agricultural hot spots 6.3.5 Contaminated soil 6.4 General classification of hot spots 7 Water use 7.1 Water management regions in the Drina River Basin 7.2 Water demands in the Drina River Basin 7.2.1 Public and industrial water supply 7.2.2 Water supply for irrigation 7.2.3 Fish farms 7.5 Identification of key drivers 8 Hydropower 8.1 Electricity generation and consumption structure in basin states 8.2 Existing hydropower plants in the basin 8.3 Management of hydropower plants (reservoirs) 8.4 Unused hydropower potential 8.5 Computation methodology 9 Flood hazards and risks


CONTENTS FOR INVESTMENT PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK 9.1 Flood prone areas in the Drina River Basin 9.2 Flood protection infrastructure and measures 9.3 Hydraulic modelling of the flood prone areas 9.4 Current flood hazards and risks assessment 10 Climate change 10.1 Climate change scenarios 10.2 Impact of climate change on hydrological regime 11 Monitoring 11.1 Monitoring infrastructure 11.2 Organization of monitoring 11.3 Data exchange 12 Legislative Setup and Framework 12.1 National water legislation 12.2 Other legislation relevant for water management and protection 12.2.1 Environmental legislation 12.2.2 Energy legislation 12.2.3 Construction and spatial planning 12.2.4 Agriculture legislation 12.2.5 Business and investment legislation 12.3 Harmonization of the national with the EU legislation 12.4 International water treaties concerning Drina Basin 12.4.1 Multilateral treaties 12.4.1.1 Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin 12.4.1.2 Convention on Danube River Protection 12.4.1.3 Other treaties 12.4.2 Bilateral treaties 12.5 Other international treaties relevant for water management 12.5.1 Environmental treaties 12.5.2 Energy treaties 12.5.3 Business and Investment 12.6 Other forms of international/regional cooperation 12.7 Most important water management documents 12.8 Strategy of energy sector and development as a whole 12.9 Future institutional framework in DRB 13 Institutional Assessment 13.1 Roles and responsibilities at the State level 13.1.1 Capacities of the authorized institutions 13.2. Role of the other relevant subjects 13.2.1 Local institutions 13.2.2 Organisations of the civil societies 13.3 Future institutional framework in DRB 14 Conclusions and recommendations 14.1 Conclusions 14.2 Recommendations 15 References


CONTENTS FOR INVESTMENT PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Scope of Work and TOR

1.3 Layout of the Report

2 Main issues that influence the development of water resources – key drivers

2.1 Core water management issues and primary objectives

2.1.1 Water supply to main users

2.1.2 Environmental protection

2.1.3 Reduction of adverse impacts of floods and droughts

2.1.4 Hydropower production

2.1.5 Recreation, tourism, fish farming and fishing

2.1.6 Navigation

2.1 Legal and institutional issues

2.1.1 Policies and strategies (WFD, Flood directive...)

2.2 Socio‐economic issues (urbanization, land use change/spatial planning, migration, population growth, water de‐mands, industrial development, ...)

2.4 Environmental issues (ecosystems development...)

2.4.1 Water quality and water pollution

2.4.2 Groundwater pollution

2.4.3 Hydro‐morphological alterations

2.4.4 Environmental flow

2.4.5 Solid waste management issues

2.5 Climate change issues

3 Setting core water management development targets – key objectives

3.1 Provision of sufficient quantity of potable water

3.2 Provision of sufficient quantities of water for other economic needs

3.3 Environmental protection

3.4 Reduction of adverse impacts of floods and droughts

3.5 Structural development options

3.6 Non‐structural development options

4 Water management development options

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Inventory of identified development projects

4.2.1 Hydropower

4.2.2 Flood control

4.2.3 Water supply

4.2.4 Irrigation

4.2.5 Other

4.3 Structural development options

4.3.1 Reservoirs

4.3.3 Hydropower plants

4.3.2 Demands


CONTENTS FOR INVESTMENT PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK 4.4 Non‐structural development options

4.4.1 Reducing water use

4.4.2 Changes to construction permits and building codes

4.4.3 Reduce energy use

4.4.4 Forest management

4.4.5 Technical education and capacity development

4.4.6 Institutional and legislative changes

4.5 Development scenarios (here or as Chapter 6)

4.5.1 Planning horizons

4.5.2 Baseline scenario

4.5.3 Criteria for formulation of scenarios

4.5.4 Overview of formulated scenarios

5 Modelling the impacts of development options: NEEDS TO BE REVISED!!!

5.1 Water resources system modelling

5.5.1 Use of the WEAP software

5.5.2 Results (indicators of the system performance: water allocation, water quality, costs...)

5.2 Flood risk assessment

5.2.1 Methodology

5.2.2 Results

5.3 Modelling of power effects

5.5.1 Calculation methodology

5.5.2 Results of analyses and calculations

5.5.3 Sensitivity to climate change

6. Scenarios may be here or in 4.5, alternatively

7 Multi‐criteria analysis of development scenarios

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Methodology

7.3 Water resources development objectives

7.4 Defining development option evaluation criteria

7.5 List of evaluation criteria

7.5.1 Threshold criteria

7.5.2 Water management / financial criteria

7.5.3 Environmental criteria

7.5.4 Socio‐economic criteria

7.6 Scoring and weighting criteria

7.7 Results of the MCA

7.8 Sensitivity analysis of the MCA

7.9 Costs and benefits of Development Options

7.9.1 Costs and benefits of development options

7.9.2 Benefits transfer

8 Final proposal of basin development

8.1 Recommendations regarding hydropower investments


CONTENTS FOR INVESTMENT PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK 8.2 Recommendations regarding flood control investments

8.3 Recommendations regarding investments in water supply to population, industry and agriculture

9 Improvement to monitoring of water resources

9.1 Reliability of the existing data and need for their improvement

9.2 Further improvements to hydraulic modelling

9.3 Improvement to the monitoring network and data exchange

10 Conclusions and recommendations

11 List of referent documentation


8.7 Annex 7 – Proposed Map Bases for Deliverables

Country Reports Map 1 ‐ Bosnia and Herzegovina Map 2 ‐ Montenegro Map 3 ‐ Serbia Basin Report Map 4 Drina River Basin


Country Report –Base Map 1 for BiH


Country Report – Base Map 2 for Montenegro


Country Report – Base Map 3 for Serbia


Roof Report – Base Map 4 for Drina River Basin