DRAFT REPORT ON THE WATER- FOOD-ENERGY-ECOSYSTEMS NEXUS …€¦ · DRAFT REPORT ON THE...

DRAFT REPORT ON THE WATER-FOOD-ENERGY-ECOSYSTEMS

NEXUS IN THE SAVA RIVER BASIN

FOR COMMENTS BY NATIONAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

VERSION 8 APRIL 2015

1

Authors:

Lucia de Strasser, Dimitris Mentis, Eunice Ramos, Vignesh Sridharan, Manuel Welsch and Mark Howells; Royal

Institute of Technology (KTH)

GiaDestouni and Lea Levi, Stockholm University

Stephen Stec, Central European University

Other contributors:

Ad de Roo, Peter Burek, Hylke Beck, Marco Pastori, Giovanni Bidoglio (JRC modelling, chapter 6)

Plamen Peev, Jose Daniel Teodoro (Governance)

Gorana Ćosić-Flajsig, Alma Imamović, Zdenka Ivanović, Lucija Marovt and Marko Pavlović (local experts)

Aizo Lijcklama and Simona Getova (input to desk reviews)

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: the Nexus Assessment in the Sava River Basin ................................................................................ 5

1.1. Intersectoral Challenges and the Nexus approach ....................................................................................... 5

1.2. The Nexus assessment under the UNECE Water Convention........................................................................ 6

1.3. Why the Sava River Basin? ........................................................................................................................... 7

1.4. About this draft assessment ......................................................................................................................... 8

2. Geography of the Sava River Basin ........................................................................................................................ 9

3. Governance Context ............................................................................................................................................ 12

4. Relevance of the basin to regional development ................................................................................................ 32

4.1. Sectors and resources ................................................................................................................................. 32

4.1.1 The energy sector ....................................................................................................................................... 34

4.1.2 Settlements ................................................................................................................................................. 35

4.1.3 Agriculture .................................................................................................................................................. 35

4.1.4 Industry ....................................................................................................................................................... 37

4.1.5 Navigation .................................................................................................................................................. 38

4.1.6 Ecosystems ................................................................................................................................................. 39

4.2. National Development Trends That Impact Will Rely on Basin .................................................................. 40

4.2.1 Water demand growth ............................................................................................................................... 40

4.2.2 Economic expansion and development ...................................................................................................... 41

5. Selected Nexus Issues With Illustrative Quantification........................................................................................ 46

5.1. The Energy-Water-GHG Emission Nexus .................................................................................................... 47

5.1.1. Insights into the power system, its expansion and relation with the Sava River Basin ...................... 47

5.1.2. The SRB and GHG mitigation ............................................................................................................. 52

3

5.2. The Climate Change-Water-Energy Nexus .................................................................................................. 53

5.2.1. Change in Rainfall Patterns .................................................................................................................... 56

5.2.1.1. Low rainfall and competition ............................................................................................................. 56

5.2.2. Flood events ....................................................................................................................................... 57

5.3. Agricultural Expansion ................................................................................................................................ 57

5.4. An example of the implications of reduced water availability .................................................................... 60

5.5. Other Key Issues: Sedimentation and erosion............................................................................................. 61

5.6. Other Key Issues: Groundwater pressures .................................................................................................. 62

5.7. Other Key Issues: Point-source pollution .................................................................................................... 63

5.8. Other Key Issues: Navigation ...................................................................................................................... 64

5.9. Other Key Issues: Ecosystem Services ......................................................................................................... 64

6. Possible inter-sector transboundary solutions .................................................................................................... 65

7. JRC Sava Nexus Modelling Study .............................................................................................................................. 66

7.1 The JRC hydro-economical modelling platform ................................................................................................ 66

7.2 The LISFLOOD setup for the Sava river basin .................................................................................................... 68

7.3 Preliminary results ............................................................................................................................................. 70

7.4 Further work of the JRC Water Nexus ................................................................................................................ 74

8.1 Energy security and efficiency actions ............................................................................................................... 75

8.1.1 Secure flows to hydro power and thermal cooling ..................................................................................... 75

8.1.2 Increasing hydro and pumped storage - a renewable energy enabler ....................................................... 75

8.2 Water efficiency as an energy efficiency measure ............................................................................................. 76

8.2.1 Water efficiency in settlements .................................................................................................................. 76

8.2.2 Water efficiency in agriculture ................................................................................................................... 77

8.3 Valuation of water allocation - across sectors and boundaries ......................................................................... 78

7.3.1 Increasing flexibility - Multipurpose dams .................................................................................................. 78

7.3.2 Understanding and taking into account better ecosystems ....................................................................... 79

7.4 Addressing climate change ................................................................................................................................ 79

7.4.1 GHG mitigation ........................................................................................................................................... 79

7.4.2 Adapting to climate change ....................................................................................................................... 80

7.5 Navigation and sedimentation .......................................................................................................................... 81

8. Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 82

9. References ........................................................................................................................................................... 87

10. Appendix A: Indicators .................................................................................................................................... 93

4

11. Appendix B: Energy Model of the SRB Countries ............................................................................................. 93

12. Appendix C: Calculations ................................................................................................................................. 95

A key step in the nexus assessment process on the Sava was a participatory intersectoral workshop which was organised jointly by the UNECE Water Convention secretariat and the ISRBC in Zagreb on 4-6 March 2014. Some 50 representatives of the relevant ministries and various interest groups from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia participated to identify jointly interrelations between the “nexus” resources and potential opportunities for benefits. As a follow-up to this workshop, selected linkages have been investigated to identify synergies, avoid potential tensions and inform good governance. Thus the need to understand these integrated issues at various scales — including at a transboundary basin level — is crucial. This report suggests possible next steps that are needed to improve coherence in managing water resources and some conclusions that are emerging from the nexus assessment of the Sava River Basin. The report also suggests why increased integration across sectors is important. In addition it highlights nexus solutions that would help take advantage of the integrated nature of the Sava River Basin and national policies in the region.

This draft assessment will be circulated to the national sector administrations of the Sava riparian countries for review and comments from December 2014 to January 2015. Further consultation of stakeholders through ISRBC is foreseen before the revised draft assessment will be presented to the Task Force on the Water-Food-Energy-Ecosystems Nexus in April 2015 and subsequently to the Meeting of the Parties to the Water Convention in November 2015.

5

1. Introduction: the Nexus Assessment in the Sava River Basin

Foreword

This short report seeks to identify selected issues related to water, food and energy resources, environment and ecosystem services. In fact, a nexus assessment focuses on the dynamics between these resources and the intersectoral implications of their management (“nexus issues

1”) that may be of material importance in the

development of the countries in which the Sava river basin lies.

These nexus issues will affect national development of various sectors but current policy processes may not yet capture their management.Vice versa national policies will influence the development in the Sava River Basin and therefore, in the medium to long term, affect its management.

The set of nexus issues that is described here is not exhaustive. Nor are the list of possible actions and solutions. Already the examples provided illustrate benefits from improved intersectoral coordination and policy coherence; however, the suggested next steps would better quantify why increased integration is important.

The“nexus issues” and “nexus solutions” listed in this report are developed on the basis of the dialogue among national authorities of the Sava riparian countries and other stakeholders advanced during the consultation process and in particular during the workshop. The solutions reflect existing opportunities that would help take advantage of the integrated nature of the Sava river basin itself, as well as regional and national policies.

In parallel to the analysis of natural resources and their physical interlinkages, a governance analysis was made to help understanding how the sectors in focus are governed and how intersectoral coordination is set up as well as where there are opportunities to improve coherence of mandates and responsibilities of resource management. This involves also analysing the role and influence of regional legal frameworks and policies in the context of the Sava riparian countries.

1.1. Intersectoral Challenges and the Nexus approach

Land, energy, water and the ecosystems that they support are our most precious resources (Howells et al., 2013). Those resources provide food, energy services, clean water and other essential services. Food, energy and water demands are growing. They are traded in local and global markets. Their scarcity has been at the heart of conflict. They are affected by climate change. The use and production of one affects the use of and production of others (Bazilian et al., 2011).

Further, these resources are commonly managed in national institutional silos (Howells and Rogner, 2014), meaning that energy, land management and water resources planning takes place in isolation, without adequate consideration of what the planned developments require or assume about other sectors, and of what implications – positive or negative – they have. The negative impact from the isolated management of one resource can propagate from one sector to another, as well as a low level of coherence between two sectorial policies involving the use of a

1 The terms “nexus issue”, similarly to “nexus solution”, are used in this assessment to indicate respectively a

problematic situation that has affects more than one sector and an intervention that would benefit more than one sector.

6

common resource can negatively impact both sectors. Inefficiencies or lost opportunities for economic benefits may also prevail.

Interlinkages are significant. To give a sense of scale, (UN, 2014) notes that “at a global level seven per cent of commercial energy production is used for managing the worlds freshwater supply, including for extraction, purification, distribution, treatment and recycling. About 70% of human water use is for irrigation and 22% is for industry, most of which is for thermal cooling in power plants and manufacturing. Roughly four per cent of final energy use is in agriculture, and food processing and transportation uses an increasing additional energy amount. About half demand increase for maize and wheat has been due to biofuel production. Energy use for desalination and pumping for irrigation constitutes a large share of energy use in some developing countries.”

Shortcomings in intersectoral coordination are a major challenge both on the national and transboundary levels, in developing countries, economies in transition as well as in developed countries.

In a transboundary setting, the intersectoral implications propagating across borders reach another level of complexity as the trade-offs and externalities may cause friction between riparian countries and their different interests.

Identifying interrelationships associated with the provision of ecosystem services, the resources they supply and the institutions that govern them, is of great importance. If this is achieved in the correct setting, it will help identify synergies, avoid potential tensions and inform good governance. Thus the need to understand integrated issues at various scales - including at a transboundary basin level - is crucial.

1.2. The Nexus assessment under the UNECE Water Convention

Recognizing the related challenges, the Parties to the UNECE Water Convention decided on an assessment of water-food-energy-ecosystems nexus to be carried out as part of the Work Programme2013- 2015

2. A

representative set of transboundary basins in the pan-European region and beyond — based on proposals from the countries and joint bodies – was selected for the assessment.

The assessment aims at identifying, together with the concerned sectors and relevant stakeholders, 1) hindrances to and opportunities for additional and equitable sharing of benefits from stronger integration across sectors, and 2) practical solutions for improving security and for reconciling the different sectors’ needs. The process has been designed to support ownership by the authorities, meaningful participation of various stakeholders, learning together and exchanging experience between basins. This work has parallels with the national policy dialogue process through which a cross-sectoral and stakeholder approach is also being implemented, under the UNECE Water Convention.

The Parties to the Water Convention established a Task Force on the Water-Food-Energy-Ecosystems Nexus to oversee the nexus assessment.[The methodology applied was developed specifically for the nexus assessment of transboundary basins under the UNECE Water Convention. The main characteristics of this methodology are:

- A clear structure to allow for the replication of work in different basins, consisting of 1) a literature review of relevant sectoral policies and documentation

3 in the basin 2) a participatory workshop involving

representatives of all interested sectors from all the riparian countries 3) the analysis of selected “nexus issues” and “nexus solutions”, with limited quantification 4) the production of a report on the nexus assessment of the basin

2See for example, proposed and agreed actions approved under the UNECE meeting of the parties (UNECE, 2014,

2013, n.d.; UNECE et al., 2013) 3Including projects and studies relative to integrated management of resources, climate change impact, sectoral

strategies for adaptation etc.

7

- A high degree of flexibility in terms of content. Since all basins are different, the nexus assessment can focus in the case of each basin on the most relevant interlinkages, trade-offs and integrated solutions.

- The integration of a governance analysis of the sectors and main institutions, to explore incongruences and potentials for cooperation and coordination at the level of policy development, planning and management.

- A feedback process to allow for the improvement of the methodology after each case study. The current version is available on the website of the UNECE

4. The final methodology will be presented at the third

meeting of the nexus task force on 28and 29 of April 2015 in Geneva.

1.3. Why the Sava River Basin?

The Sava River Basin is an important source of water for settlements, industry, energy, ecosystems and agriculture for all its riparian countries (with the exception of Albania). It is therefore an integral part of the development and support of each of those sectors, and a valuable target for a nexus assessment. The Sava River Basin is also a meaningful example of transboundary basin where transboundary cooperation is advanced and oriented towards intersectoral dialogue. At the heart of this cooperation and coordination is the International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC). The ISRBC has been established for purpose of the implementation of the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin (FASRB). The ISRBC has three main goals for which it provides a cooperation platform for riparian countries

5. They are:

Establishment of an international regime of navigation on the Sava River and its navigable tributaries, Undertaking of measures to prevent or limit hazards, and Establishment of sustainable water management. The latter includes – as reported in the Mission statement of the ISRBC - cooperation on management of the Sava River Basin water resources in a sustainable manner, including integrated management of surface and ground water resources, in a manner that would provide:

● water in sufficient quantity and of appropriate quality for the preservation, protection and improvement of aquatic eco-systems (including flora and fauna and eco-systems of natural ponds and wetlands);

● water in sufficient quantity and of appropriate quality for all kinds of use/utilization; ● protection against detrimental effects of water (flooding, excessive groundwater, erosion and

ice hazards); ● resolution of conflicts of interest caused by different uses and utilizations; and ● effective control of the water regime;

The ISRBC coordinates development of various intersectoral plans, among them the River Basin Management Plan according to the European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD). ISRBC and the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)

6have also done some pioneering work to reconcile better different water

uses, e.g., navigation and environment7, and guiding principles on sustainable hydropower

8.

The strategy for the implementation of the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin provides a basis for transboundary water cooperation in the Sava Basin and envisages further integration of water policies with other sector policies. This orientation and the preparation of a draft River Basin Management Plan for the Sava Basin

4 See page http://www.unece.org/env/water/tfnexus_2014.html#/

5 More information on the role of ISRBC can be found in section 3 of this report, together with other institutions and

programmes, in the framework of governance context. 6the Sava River Basin is a sub-basin of the Danube River Basin.

7 the Joint Statement on Inland Navigation and Environmental Sustainability in the Danube River Basin, produced by

ISRBC in cooperation with ICPDR and Danube Commission. 8 Guiding Principles on Sustainable Hydropower Development in the Danube Basin [2013] Produced by ICPDR

http://www.unece.org/env/water/tfnexus_2014.html#/

8

(SRBMP) make intersectoral (nexus) considerations very timely the nexus assessment provides further stakeholder views and new analytical findings supporting these processes. How further to improve the intersectoral coordination, including tourism, hydropower and agricultural sectors? How compatible are the planned developments and how can the related trade-offs best be addressed? How well does the current infrastructure accommodate different uses? Being already committed to promote transboundary coordination and integrated water management, the ISRBC moves a step further with this assessment, by explicitly involving other sectors -the agriculture and energy sectors in particular -in a dialogue over shared water resources. The assessment of the Sava is the second of a series of assessments carried out under the Water Convention. The methodology developed has been tested on a pilot basin, the Alazani/Ganikh, shared by Azerbaijan and Georgia(KTH & UNECE, 2014). The Sava assessment complements and builds on the pilot assessment and is a logical, progressive next step. The Sava is larger, it counts several riparian countries and it is at a more developed stage of transboundary cooperation.

1.4. About this draft assessment

The objective of this assessment is to underline the importance and need for deep integration in the management of sectors,management that goes beyond standard integrated water resource management (IWRM) touching the integrated management of other sectors. The report does not provide a detailed quantitative assessment, but rather reports the output of a multi-sector transboundary dialogue. That dialogue was hosted by the ISRBC and the UNECE. From the dialogue outputs, it lays a simple foundation with quantitative illustrations indicating the importance of nexus or ‘deeper’ policy integration. As a key step in the nexus assessment, a participatory, intersectoral workshop was jointly organized by the secretariats of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC

9). It included representatives of key ministries as well as other relevant organisations from

different sectors in each riparian country ( Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia). The identification of the organisations that participated to the workshop was guided by the stakeholder analysis carried out in the framework of the RBMP. The workshop participants also included a wide range of other stakeholders, such as international and local NGOs and research institutes. Representatives of each economic sector provided important development outlooks for their sectors. Further analysts provided insights into future impacts on ecosystems, climate change, deep analysis and other aspects.

Scope of work at the nexus assessment workshop During the workshop, stakeholders were part of two working sessions. The first consisted on a sector mapping exercise, where the expansion of one sector was analysed in terms of its impact on other sectors and other sectors’ impact on it. For simplicity, the groups were defined according to the four main areas of the nexus

10: Energy, Water,

Land Use and Ecosystems. Just as a generic example, an ‘energy’ expansion can affect ecosystems with pollution or alteration of habitats, land-use with occupation of land with a certain infrastructure or with energy crops production, water with increased water use, and so on. And at the same time energy expansion will be constrained by other infrastructure, other uses of water, increased standards for environment protection, and so on. . 9 The agenda and presentations of the meeting are available from .http://www.unece.org/environmental-

policy/treaties/water/envwatermeetings/water/task-force-on-the-water-energy-food-ecosystems-nexus-water-

convention/2014/workshop-on-water-food-energy-ecosystems-nexus-assessment-in-the-sava-river-

basin/workshop-on-water-food-energy-ecosystems-nexus-assessment-in-the-sava-river-basin.html

10 These areas can be considered the four main groups of natural resources but also, for this exercise, can be called

simply sectors – that have certain inputs and outputs relative to the other sectors

9

In the second work session, scenarios were developed trying to understand the development of each sector simultaneously. From that, efforts were made to understand if the sector development plans were coherent. And, what would their coherent development require. Again, as a generic example, the energy sector and the agricultural sector can confront their targets and water needs. Importantly, in this session the groups discussed also how to improve the identified problematic situations and realized the need for coordination.

Two key source documents, amongst several others prepared mainly in the framework of ISRBC, have been used as primary sources for this work. They include the draft Sava river basin management plan (ISRBC, 2013) and the water and climate adaptation plan (WATCAP) (Heywood, 2013). The usefulness of this assessment is its role in exploring new opportunities for transboundary and intersectoral cooperation using a “nexus approach” to the management of natural resources. And, by ‘nexus’ approach we mean a better consideration of different resource uses and their implications and related opportunities for benefits. It is hoped that this could eventually inform an improved intersectoral communication and coordination in management, and a deeper integration of policies. By definition, the nexus provides a framework for equalitarian dialogue among sectors, where all perspectives and priorities are simultaneously considered. This sets promising basis for improved dialogue among policy makers and more broadly, all parties interested. This draft is to be reviewed and commented by national authorities of the sectors concerned to validate the information used and fill possible gaps, ensure the relevance of the issues considered and of the findings .

The assessment incorporates some quantification of selected intersectoral aspects, building on the joint mapping and identification of issues in the nexus assessment workshop as well as on the key documentation. One such quantification effort is a comprehensive land and water modelling effort by the European Union Joint Research Centre (JRC) (Bidoglio, 2014), and it is complemented byenergy modelling undertaken by the Royal Institute of Technology in this assessment. In needs to be remarked that the modelling exercise is limited to generic scenarios of development that have been drawn on the directions that the dialogue took at the workshop. Further work would be needed to come to more detailed conclusions in terms of quantification. All assumptions and data used come from official sources: exchange with authorities form the countries and databases that include statistical information from national agencies.

2. Geography of the Sava River Basin

10

Figure 1: The Sava River Basin (UNECE, 2011)

Being a part of Danube River Basin, the Sava River Basin covers considerable parts of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and a small part of Albania. A large part of the population of each of the first four riparian countries live in the basin, ranging from approximately 25% to approximately 75% of the total number of inhabitants (Bosnia and Herzegovina 75.0%, Slovenia 61.4%, Croatia 49.75%, Montenegro 30.5%, Serbia 24.9%).

The Sava River emerges in the mountains of western Slovenia, and flows into the Danube in Belgrade, Serbia. The river is the third longest tributary (about 945 km) to the Danube, and the largest by long term average discharge (1,722 m

3/s, at its mouth). In Croatia, the average discharge of the Sava River immediately upstream from the

mouth of the Sutla River is around 290 m3/s; it is 314 m

3/s in Zagreb, and around 1,179 m

3/s at the point where the

Sava exits Croatia.

The morphology of the terrain of the basin varies. While rugged mountains (the Alps and the Dinarides) dominate in the upperpart, the middle and lower parts of the sub-basin are characterized by flat plains and low mountains. The areas in the south, in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Albania, drained by tributaries ending in the middle section of the Sava watercourse, are characterised by mountainous landscape. Elevation varies between 2,864 m a.s.l. (Triglav, Slovenian Alps) and about 71 m a.s.l. at the mouth of the Sava.

11

Figure (2) shows the different classes of land cover in the Sava River Basin. The Sava receives water from a number of rivers, many of which are also transboundary. The most important is the Drina (itself transboundary); its main tributaries are the Piva, Tara, Lim and Uvac rivers.

The Sava sub-basin hosts large lowland forest complexes and the largest complex of alluvial wetlands in the Danube basin (Posavina - Central Sava basin).

The Sava is a fine example of a river where some of the floodplains are still intact, supporting both mitigation of floods and biodiversity. There are seven designated Ramsar Sites; Cernica Lake (SI), Crna Mlaka and Lonjsko Polje and most important part of it, Mokro Polje, in Croatia, Bardača (BA), Zasavica, Obedska bara and Peštersko polje (RS) and a number of areas of ecological importance are under national protection status(ISRBC, 2013d).

The Sava sub-basin is characterized by diverse geological structures and a complex tectonic setting under which two main units stand out, determining the type of aquifers that occur: the Pannonian area with dominant inter-granular aquifers and the Dinarides

11 with mostly limestone aquifers. Finally, a part of the Sava River Basin belongs to karstic

area (“Sava River basin — TWRM-Med,” n.d.).

Figure 2: Land Cover classes of the Sava River Basin [scale to be added or to be replaced by another map]

11

In most of the countries sharing the Dinaric Aquifer, karst freshwater constitutes by far the main source of drinking water. The dominant flow of the huge groundwater resources contained in the Dinaric Karst Aquifer System is towards the Adriatic and Ionian Seas, while the Eastern extension of the karst chain drains to the Sava river basin. The gradient is steep, over 1%, broken in a stepwise fashion by a series of karst depressions descending from well over 1000 m of altitude, down to 100-200 m asl, creating a very favourable environment for hydropower generation.(DIKTAS, n.d.)

12

3. Governance Context

3.1 Background and introduction

In order to address the “institutional silos” that are the typical form of management of natural resources relevant to the nexus considered in this assessment and to develop the groundwork for resolving conflicts among competing uses, it is necessary to develop an understanding of the needs, opportunities and challenges from a governance perspective. “Governance” can be defined as an inclusive system of institutions and norms that establishes responsibility and accountability in decision-making and builds trust and capacity to cooperate. In a particular context, an analysis of the governance setting may have to take into account the nature of institutions, their inclusiveness and flexibility, the underlying norms and procedures in legislation and policy, the availability of resources, and capacities of various kinds.

The different uses and priorities of the Sava riparian countries are discussed elsewhere in this assessment. The role of the governance analysis is to assess the potential for integration of policies, inter-sectoral coordination, and integrated river basin planning applying the nexus approach, through multi-stakeholder dialogue. Relevant recommendations are found in Section 8, below.

The multi-level governance context of the Sava River Basin includes the global, regional and European levels, the basin level, and national and sub-national levels. At each level the opportunities and challenges for action, and the capacities of relevant actors including authorities, experts, stakeholders and others influence how intersectoral issues can be addressed. At the level of implementation there is a great variation among the Sava riparian states, both in terms of capacities and resources, and in terms of the institutional structures. Variations in the level of decentralization and in the constitutional make-up of societies play an important role.

The extent to which a particular country has mechanisms for intersectoral coordination as opposed to a continued “silo” approach is an important measure of the country’s preparedness for integrated decision-making .Intersectoral coordination bodies may already be established in connection with other processes such as sustainable development planning.

Institutions and mechanisms for governance related to the Nexus approach should go beyond mere integrated river basin management governance.

3.2 Norms, institutions and governance on the global/regional level

At the international global and regional level, the Sava riparian states have engaged in various mechanisms aimed at the implementation of important and relevant global standards, beginning with the concept of sustainable development as set forth in declarations and action plans adopted at global conferences in Rio (1992), Johannesburg (2002) and Rio (2012). The riparian states have adopted national strategies on sustainable development, for example. These strategies often establish platforms for consideration of environmental and social impacts of development plans, and often lead to adoption of national legislation on environmental impact assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA).Other relevant regional regimes include the Espoo Convention on Transboundary EIA (all Sava riparian states are parties) and the SEA Protocol (all Sava riparian states are parties, except Bosnia and Herzegovina which is a signatory).

Also, the membership of Sava riparian states in regional cooperation mechanisms related to river basins, such as the UNECE Water Convention (all riparian states are parties), its Water and Health Protocol (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia are parties, while Slovenia is a signatory), and the International Convention on the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), provides a relevant context. Under these instruments, the riparian states have accepted a set of common standards and governance rules in areas related to international cooperation and river basin management. In the case of some regional instruments, States parties are also obliged to submit periodic reports on their implementation to the relevant convention and protocol bodies.

13

Under the Water and Health Protocol, for example, relevant standards include equitable access, sustainability, water related diseases, fixing vulnerable resources, water safety planning, improvement of water quality, small scale systems, and information and involvement of the public. The Protocol obliges states to set targets and periodically revise them, set priorities, coordinate inter-sectorally, and to proactively inform stakeholders. While many of the provisions of the Protocol overlap with relevant EU rules (see below), the Protocol also applies to enclosed bathing waters (e.g., pools and spa waters) and certain water-borne diseases that are absent from EU legislation, as well as equitable access.

While the Convention on the Non-Navigable Uses of International Watercourses (1997) has come into force in August 2014, among the Sava riparian states only Montenegro is a party.

3.3 Norms, institutions and governance on the EU and basin level

All Sava riparian countries have also taken steps towards accession to the European Union, with Slovenia and Croatia already member states. Consequently, all Sava riparian countries have made commitments towards adoption of the relevant elements of the environmental acquis communautaire and other relevant rules found in European Union law. For Slovenia and Croatia, EU membership means that compliance with the acquis is a matter of treaty obligation, and is enforced by the European Commission as the guarantor of the Treaties. For non-member states, commitments are a part of the closure of particular chapters in the accession process, and are subjected to progress monitoring, without specific sanctions other than delay in accession.

The possibility of derogations for states upon accession should also be taken into account. For example, the deadline for implementation of Directive 91/271/EC (organic pollution) is 2017 for Slovenia and 2023 for Croatia.

Among the relevant EU rules are the following:

Water Framework Directive – with respect inter alia to river basin management approach (including transboundary river basin districts, river basin management planning), drinking water (quality standards, point of compliance, monitoring requirements, remedial actions, use restrictions), pricing for water usage (full environmental cost recovery principle), wastewater treatment (emission limits), extraction permitting, groundwater, public information, consultation and stakeholder engagement. The EU Floods Directive foresees close coordination with the WFD, even, where possible, developing combined management plans. Implementation of the EU Floods Directive improves preparedness by requiring EU member States to prepare plans for flood risk management at the basin level (by 2015)

12.

Energy – EU strategies in the energy sector are driven by global energy security considerations as well as constrained by climate change mitigation targets. Although the legal basis for a common EU energy strategy is well-established, progress has been slow. In 2009 new directives were issued for common markets in electricity and natural gas, which encourage development of renewable energy. The EU also has established several programs aimed at specific outcomes, such as achieving climate change related goals. Specific legislation is aimed at environmental performance of buildings and other matters.

Food Security, Agriculture, Forestry – The EU acquis includes control measures related to food safety. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy includes interventions in certain agricultural product markets in order to maintain price levels and production. It has evolved over the years, in particular to respond to WTO decisions related to specific subsidies, such as that for sugar beets. A potentially important aspect of EU policy in this field is the Rural Development Policy, aimed at stimulating economic, social and environmentally sustainable development in the countryside. A part of this policy is aimed at forestry and combating climate change.

12

The implementation requirements due earlier are inventorying flood risk zones (by 2011) and drawing up flood hazard and risk maps (by 2013). For details, the text of the Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks can be referred to.

14

Pre-accession and structural funds.

The different status of the states vis-à-vis the European Union provides specific opportunities and challenges. For example, Slovenia and Croatia as member states have access to structural funding for infrastructure development. The pre-accession states will have access to European funding through pre-accession instruments, but at different levels and with different priorities. The latter also have access to other bilateral funding and international assistance mechanisms through UN agencies and other international organizations.

Basin level

At the Sava River Basin level, the legal and institutional framework for cooperation is established by the Framework

Agreement on the Sava River Basin (FASRB), under which the International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC)

operates as its implementing body. The FASRB provides a context for further development of the framework regime

through the adoption of protocols. The ISRBC is a forum for representation of diverse interests of the riparian

countries, for example recreation and tourism, industry, agriculture and navigation for coordination of activities of

the countries in these issues and the resolution of issues of common concern. It is also a platform for regional,

basin-wide progress on mostly navigation and water management but also other matters, including those related

to EU legislation as mentioned above.

Cooperation on the level of the Danube basin is relevant for the Sava River Basin, the second largest sub-basins of

the Danube. The EU Strategy for the Danube Region13

has important implications for the Sava River Basin as a

model for cooperation among riparian countries, for strategic planning and priority setting. The ISRBC has played a

role in the implementation of the Strategy. Eleven priority projects of the ISRBC have been recognized within the EU

Danube Strategy implementation process, including an ongoing project on establishing GIS for the Sava River Basin,

supported by the European Commission.14

Another example is the ISRBC’s participation in the work of the Steering

Group for Priority Area 1A15

of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region. This Steering Committee has the goal to

support development of navigation and promote transport on the Sava River as a part of the European Core

Transport Network. The ISRBC is also an observer in the Steering Group for Priority Area 4 of the Danube Strategy

aiming to restore and maintain the quality of waters.

Regional cooperation on the Danube is governed in part by two important conventions - the Danube River

Protection Convention (DRPC), under which the above-mentioned ICPDR is established, and the Convention

Regarding the Regime of Navigation on the Danube (Belgrade Convention), under which the Danube Commission is

established. The FASRB bears a relationship to the Helsinki Water Convention as a multilateral agreement for

implementation of the Water Convention, and also deals with other issues such as navigation. Therefore it bears a

relationship to both the DRPC and the Belgrade Convention. Cooperation between the ISRBC and the two Danube

Commissions (ICPDR and Danube Commission) is formally based on memorandum of understanding signed with

both commissions separately, which provide opportunities for close cooperation and coordination of activities. By

13

www.danube-region.eu 14

To enhance coordination of EU Danube Strategy implementation across riparian countries, the ISRBC organized a meeting with the relevant national coordinators on 10 May, 2013 in Zagreb. 15

http://www.danube-region.eu/about/priorities

15

means of mutual participation at sessions, expert group meetings and other events of the commissions,

coordination of the activities is enhanced. (Report to the 5th MOP16

)

One example of this cooperation is the process of implementation of the Joint Statement on Guiding Principles for

the Development of Inland Navigation and Environmental Protection in the Danube River Basin, coordinated jointly

by the ICPDR, Danube Commission and ISRBC, together with the European Commission. The 5th Meeting on

implementation of the Joint Statement was held in Zagreb, February 4-5, 2014. Involvement of the ICPDR and

Danube Commission in the work of the Committee for monitoring and coordination of the Sava navigation project is

an additional component of the ISRBC’s cooperation with the two commissions.

The ISRBC participates actively in projects and initiatives across the Danube River Basin. For instance, in the area of

prevention of water pollution caused by navigation, the ISRBC supported the work of the EU-funded

COWANDA17

project with the aim to develop a new legal and financial framework for ship waste management in the

Danube River Basin. ISRBC was an observer and a member of the International Advisory Board of the project.

Background Paper No.5 on Significant Water Management Issues to the Draft Sava River Basin Management Plan

provides an example of how the ISRBC facilitates a joint and comparable approach among the riparian states, by

providing a framework for establishment of joint objectives that can be implemented by states in different stages of

development:

“In order to ensure a complementary approach at the basin-wide level which is of use for national planning

and implementation, visions and specific management objectives have been defined for all [Significant

Water Management Issues] and groundwater bodies18

. These provide guidance for Sava countries with

regard to attaining agreed goals of basin-wide importance and also assist with the achievement of the

overall WFD environmental objectives. The visions are based on common values and describe the principle

objectives for the Sava River Basin. The respective management objectives describe the first steps towards

the environmental objectives in the Sava River Basin in an explicit way … Given the specific situation in

non-EU countries, measures to achieve agreed management objectives will be implemented within a

timeframe which is realistic and acceptable for all non-EU countries. In the EU MS (Slovenia and Croatia),

these measures are to be implemented according to the commitments and deadlines set down in the

accession treaties with the EU.”19

Another example of a positive development in this regard is the adoption of the “Policy on the Exchange of

Hydrological and Meteorological Data and Information in the Sava River Basin” at the 5th

MOP of the FASRB, which

resulted in a commitment by Sava riparian states to make “efforts for further development of the platform for the

16

REPORT on IMPLEMENTATION of the FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT on the SAVA RIVER BASIN and WORK of the ISRBC for the Period April 1, 2013 – July 31, 2014 17

COWANDA (COnvention for WAste management for inland Navigation on the DAnube) - https://co-wandaproject.eu/home.html 18

For surface water bodies in the Sava River Basin, the following have been defined as SWMIs in the Sava Basin: Organic pollution, Nutrient pollution, Hazardous substances pollution, Hydromorphological alterations. 19

More specifically, the deadline for implementation of Directive 91/271/EC (organic pollution) is 2017 for Slovenia

and 2023 for Croatia.

16

exchange and use of the hydrological and meteorological data and information in the Sava River Basin, and

ensuring all preconditions for successful finalization of the first phase of implementation of the geographic

information system for the Sava River Basin in accordance with the Sava GIS Strategy” (Final Declaration of 5th

MoP).Relevant in this context is also the Protocol on Flood Protection (2010) to the FASRB which aims to prevent or

limit flood hazard, to reduce flood risk and to reduce or mitigate detrimental consequences of floods, covering both

natural phenomena and discharges from flow regulation.

The World Bank project project “Water and Climate Adaptation Plan for the Sava River Basin” (“WATCAP”)

concluded with a final workshop on a “Water and Climate Adaptation Plan for the Sava River Basin” held in Zagreb

on 11 November 2014, jointly organized by the World Bank and ISRBC. Following the climate and hydrological

modeling of the Basin, five guidance notes for the climate change adaptation of various water sub-sectors

(navigation, hydropower, agriculture, flood protection, as well as an economic evaluation of the climate change

impacts), were prepared under the project. The workshop served to conclude the consultation process on the draft

outcomes, initiated on the ISRBC web-site in 2014. Comments and suggestions, provided by 40 participants from the

water, environment, waterway transport, hydropower and economy sectors of the five countries, completed the

input to be used for finalization of the “WATCAP” project in January 2015. (Heywood, 2013).

However, there are several areas where basin-level coordination is still in beginning stages. For example, it appears

at the present that there is little liaison between the ISRBC and the energy and agricultural sectors, and there is

consequently an opportunity to develop coordination and representation of the relevant sectors in the ISRBC’s work

through different public participation tools foreseen in the public participation plan of the ISRBC.

In the energy field, the EU level is particularly important as the EU is in the process of developing a comprehensive

climate change and energy strategy that will have repercussions throughout the larger region. Recent

developments including disagreements between the EU and Russia over the conflict in Ukraine combined with

European reliance on Russian energy supplies have increased the urgency of energy policy reform. Current

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has made the creation of a European Energy Union one of the

priorities of this Commission. The idea has not met with universal approval, however, among EU member States. In

late 2014 the European Council adopted the 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy Policies that includes, e.g.,

reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% from 1990 levels, increasing the share of renewable energy to at

least 27%, increasing energy efficiency by the same amount, and, most importantly perhaps for the Sava River Basin

countries, proposing a new governance framework based on national plans for competitive, secure and sustainable

energy including a set of indicators. The notion that Brussels would need to approve member states’ energy deals,

however, has not been well received in some quarters. Developments in this area are rapidly unfolding and could

have serious implications for NEXUS issues in the Sava River Basin.

Another important regional agreement in relation to energy is the Energy Community Treaty, with a goal of the

“import of EU energy policy into non-EU countries.” (https://www.energy-

community.org/portal/page/portal/ENC_HOME/ENERGY_COMMUNITY). The treaty provides for the creation of an

integrated energy market (electricity and gas) among the European Union and the contracting parties. All the SRB

countries belong to the Energy Community either as EU member States or parties to the treaty. The Treaty entered

into force on 1 July 2006 and has an initial duration of ten years, subject to extension.

A number of projects are aimed at bilateral or basin-wide cooperation in specific areas. One such project In Croatia

and Slovenia involves a scientific baseline study for biocontamination of the Sava River Basin in the two countries as

17

a step towards developing a common monitoring strategy for invasive species. (EPR Croatia, 2014) Another example

of cooperation, again between Croatia and Slovenia, is joint management of reservoirs where the multi-purpose

nature of infrastructure allows for a distribution of benefits between the two countries20

.

3.4 Norms, institutions and governance on the national and sub-national level intersectoral

The importance of coherence and integration between sectoral policies as well as other policies (e.g. climate change

mitigation and adaptation) at an international, EU and national level is increasingly recognized but a nexus

approach is not reflected directly in national or sub-national policies.

EU and basin-level processes can stimulate inter-sectoral integrated decision-making on the national/regional level

through the application of tools and mechanisms developed for this purpose. While not employing a full NEXUS

approach, such tools and mechanisms can nevertheless help to resolve conflicts between two or more competing

uses. Examples relevant to the Sava River Basin are presented below in two contexts – sustainable hydropower and

navigation/environment.

ICPDR Guiding Principles on Sustainable Hydropower Development in the Danube Basin

Under the ICPDR, these Guiding Principles have been adopted to create a common vision and understanding on the

requirements, the policy framework and issues to be addressed to ensure sustainable use of hydropower in the

Danube basin. The Principles are intended to support a coherent and coordinated implementation of relevant

legislation, in particular for the EU Renewable Energy Directive, the EU Water Framework Directive and other

relevant environmental and water management legislation.

The Guiding Principles have a broader focus than just hydropower production and conservation of the environment.

In the first place, the relevant environment includes not just aquatic ecosystems, but also directly dependent

terrestrial ecosystems as well as landscapes. Moreover, the Principles consider the following other aspects:

– flood protection and water uses (e.g. water supply, irrigation, navigation, recreation, etc.) for people and

communities,

– other national or regional objectives and constraints (social, legal, economic, financial, human health),

– general environmental aspects including changes in freshwater ecosystems on surrounding ecosystems (e.g.

forests) and objectives regarding climate protection or adaptation to climate change (e.g. ecosystem services),

– socio-economic aspects – allocation of revenues, decentralized approaches, employment, paradigm of society

(sufficiency instead of efficiency and economic growth), and

– regional development. (See ICPDR, Guiding Principles)

The Guiding Principles are aimed at the following goals: For new hydropower development, the application of a

strategic planning approach is crucial for integrating water, environment, energy and other key policy objectives.

Application of the Guiding Principles provides opportunities for involvement of stakeholders in priority setting and

planning processes. Not least, good strategic planning can help streamline the authorisation process on proposed

20

This cooperation on shared infrastructure was presented at the International Roundtable on Water and Energy Nexus in transboundary basins in South East Europe, organized by Global Water Partnership and Regional Cooperation Council in Sarajevo in 2013. See also http://www.hydropower.org/blog/multi-purpose-sava-river-development-under-consideration

18

new hydropower developments and improve transparency and predictability for hydropower developers.

The Annex to the Guiding Principles: “Hydropower Case Studies and Good Practice Examples” includes an example

of the Blanca hydropower plant on the Sava River in Slovenia. During the construction of this power plant, measures

were taken to construct mechanisms to aid in fish migration to upstream habitats. Following construction an

assessment showed that 32 fish species out of 40 that are characteristic for that part of the Sava River had

successfully migrated.

Navigation and environment

Rehabilitation and development of navigation on the Sava River is a high priority pursuant to Article 10(4) of the

FASRB and in 2011 the Parties established a committee for coordination and monitoring of implementation of this

project. Committee members include representatives of the competent ministries of the Parties from the water

management, nature conservation/environmental protection and navigation sectors, as well as representatives of

international organizations (ICPDR, Danube Commission) and other stakeholders. The above-mentioned COWANDA

project with involvement of the ISRBC aimed at developing a new legal and financial framework for reducing

pollution from ships is one project under the auspices of this Committee. (See Report to the 5th

MOP)

In addition to national participation in various regional and basin-wide initiatives as mentioned above, the Sava

riparian countries also typically have specific institutions dedicated to EU integration. For example, Croatia has a

Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, while the Serbian government includes a Council on European Integration

as an advisory body to the government, chaired by the Prime Minister.

States may also establish horizontal multi-stakeholder coordination bodies, but these may vary in their

effectiveness. Croatia, for example, according to the 2014 Environmental Performance Review, “has created several

permanent advisory bodies comprising high-level representatives for the purpose of horizontal multi-stakeholder

coordination. However, their activity has been weak or non-existent.” But a new advisory body – the Sustainable

Development and Environmental Protection Council – has recently been formed to “provide opinions on proposals

for documents to be adopted by the Government and Parliament in terms of harmonization … in resolving issues

related to environmental protection, economic development, climate change, etc.” (EPR, 2014). This new attempt

should be closely monitored to see if it could serve as a model for other riparian states as well as for the ISRBC.

While most Sava riparian states have national level institutions and strategies, Bosnia-Herzegovina’s constitutional

framework presents special considerations. Fewer strategies have been developed on the national level, and those

that have face particular problems of implementation through the entity level (or in some cases cantonal)

governments. As 40% of the Sava River Basin is within the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, this is a significant

factor to be taken into account for any basin-wide planning or implementation. For example, where the capacities

of public authorities need to be built up, special additional efforts may be required to address the complexity of

governance in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Monitoring capacities vary widely throughout the basin. There is no basin-level monitoring system, but national

monitoring systems are gradually becoming better integrated. ISRBC gathers some information, including

hydrological (water levels etc.) from the State Parties to the FASRB available in the Hydrological Yearbooks for

example. The above-mentioned policy on hydrological and meteorological data (see previous section) illustrates

19

how the basin-level framework for cooperation can also drive national-level developments. However, the region is

still characterized by highly specialized bodies that possess specific information relevant to their responsibilities,

with few mechanisms for sharing of information, accessibility of information (particularly by the public) and

comparability of information. Some monitoring capacities have improved (e.g., water quality monitoring in the

framework of the ICPDR), while others remain basic (e.g., biodiversity monitoring in Croatia (EPR, 2014)). In Bosnia

and Herzegovina, monitoring takes place at the entity level, and “there has been little progress in developing a

comprehensive monitoring system, an integrated spatial information system or a national environmental

information system including a central database.” (RENA Bosnia and Herzegovina). An important step forward,

however, was the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding on National Environmental Information Systems

signed by MoFTER, the Inter-entity Steering Committee for the Environment, the Inter-entity Commission for Water,

and the relevant entity institutions. Implementation of the MOU had not yet started as of 2012. (Ibid)

Relevant national strategies and action plans, e.g., sustainable development (non-sectoral)

Croatia is typical of the region in terms of adoption of various strategic documents on environmental aspects

relevant to nexus issues, including the Environmental Protection Strategy, the Environmental Action Plan, the

Strategy and Action Plan for the Protection of Biological and Landscape Diversity, the Waste Management Strategy,

and the Waste Management Plan (2007-15), among others. (EPR Croatia, 2014). States typically also issue periodic

state of the environment reports. For example, Serbia’s report on the state of the environment is “an important tool

for planning and policy and serves as an indicator for the required inclusion of environmental protection principles.

It also supports the development of other sectoral policies such as those for industry, agriculture, energy and

others.” (RENA Serbia).

The application of the subsidiarity principle has accelerated the trend towards shifting responsibility for financing of

environmental and other infrastructure towards decentralised local government, particularly for wastewater

collection and treatment infrastructure. However, while public needs may be better identified at the local level,

greater decentralisation has resulted in fragmentation of efforts and in insufficient capacity and resources at the

local level. Slovenia as the longest EU member state in the region may serve as an example of the phenomenon:

“Municipal fragmentation and insufficient oversight at the national level have impeded the balancing, in spatial

planning, of the development needs of local communities and the protection and rational use of natural resources.

This has contributed to growing urban sprawl, fragmentation of habitats, and longer commuting using private cars

in the absence of public transport alternatives. Neighbouring local authorities seldom co-ordinate their land use

plans, and they sometimes compete for industrial and commercial development projects.”(OECD, EPR Slovenia,

2012)

Several riparian states also have environmental funds, including Serbia, which has a fund established under the Law

on Environmental Protection, and Bosnia and Herzegovina where the entity funds authorized in 2002 and 2003

finally became operational in 2010. (RENA reports for Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina).

National policies and laws related to integrated decision making

In general EIA and SEA, particularly in a transboundary context, could be effective tools to assess the impact of

energy, water management and agricultural projects on ecosystems and to synchronize competing objectives, as

well as to ensure proper public participation. While laws on EIA and SEA have been introduced at the framework

level throughout the region, in some riparian countries implementation is not complete and practice is not well

developed. The tools could support, for example, consideration of different alternatives for e.g. hydropower

development projects, as concentration in most perspective areas and outside zones of a high conservation value.

20

Successful development of multi-sector flow regulation projects requires sufficiently early consideration of different

users’ needs so that they can be taken into account in designs and budgets. Only 70 EIAs had been conducted in

Republika Srpska by 2010, for example, mostly related to extractive industries and energy production. (RENA report

Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Institutions

Institutional frameworks vary from country to country. Water management falls under the competences of

different ministries at national level usually at environmental ministry. In fact some countries have strong

environmental ministries and thus concentration of powers concerning water in one ministry like the Ministry of

Environment and Nature Protection in Croatia, of Environment and Tourism in BIH.

But environmental competences could be under one ministerial roof with other sectors like agriculture in Serbia or

even more complex like in Montenegro where the competences in water are divided among 6 ministries with

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development as leading ministry (EPR, Montenegro, draft). Such arrangements

could enhance cooperation and systematic approach across sectors like agriculture and water management though

in practice one sector could take precedence over the other in the real-life policy making. The other threat is

volatility of ministries configuration and their constant restructuring (like the environmental competences in Serbia).

Typically, local governments play a key role in water supply, wastewater collection and sewerage services, and

wastewater treatment, while water management enterprises perform operational activities in the field of water

management.

In Serbia the public water management enterprises “Srbijavode, “Beogradvode” and “Vode Vojvodine” manage

waters within specific territorial boundaries. The in situ tasks related to water management are performed by water

management enterprises and the activities related to municipal water supply and sewerage are performed by a

considerable number of public utility enterprises. (RENA report, Serbia).

In Croatia the legal entity for water management is Croatian Waters, a not-for-profit extra-budgetary government

agency. It is responsible for managing water, the public water estate, and protective and hydro-ameliorative water

structures. “A special water management role is allotted to the National Water Council, a body established

pursuant to the Water Act, with members appointed by the Croatian Parliament. Its duties include systematic

analysis of water management issues, coordination of different needs and interests, and proposing measures for

developing and improving the water system.” (EPR. Croatia). In Bosnia and Herzegovina the constitutional

complexity presents specific challenges. The 2011 RENA report on Bosnia and Herzegovina noted that “institutional

arrangements are not in place at the FBiH level for urban wastewater treatment. FBiH projected that competent

authorities would be identified by 2011.[Question to the authorities: Have the competent authorities been

identified in Bosnia and Herzegovina?] There is no system in place yet for regulation and control of the quality of

discharges from industrial plants into collection systems. Full implementation of the Directive is not foreseen until

2018. In Republika Srpska the date for full implementation of the water related directives is foreseen to be 2021,

except for the Urban Waste Water Directive, where full implementation is anticipated for 2033.” (RENA report on

BiH).

At national level all Sava Riparian countries have ministries of agriculture set up on their own or in combination with

other policy domains. The ministries provide policy and institutional directions for farmers and other actors in

agricultural sector and at the same time cooperate with environmental authorities. Local farmers are also

21

important self-regulating actors who have to apply on voluntary basis good agricultural practices. [Question to the

countries: Are there particular legal requirements to encourage good practices in agriculture?]

“Changes to farming practices will take time to deliver environmental benefits, so action on improving agricultural

management via regulatory, voluntary and incentive schemes must begin now in order to meet WFD objectives. The

WFD will have implications for farming practices and land management as well as water management. Farmers will

need to manage their land carefully to meet the WFD requirements.” (ISRBC, 2013b)

Figure 3: Overview of institutions relevant to managing the resources discussed in this report at the various levels. This draws

upon a compilation of information on the governance setting, made available for reference as Annex 2, but has been

updated.

National inspection authorities play an important role in enforcement and in ensuring compliance with relevant

regimes. While capacities of inspectorates have increased in recent years, understaffing is still a problem.

Moreover there has been a movement in some countries towards establishing independent inspectorates that have

22

broad, horizontal authority over many issues and matters. Bosnia and Herzegovina is one country that has taken

this approach, and while ensuring the independence of the inspectorate is important, attention should be paid to

specialization of inspectors. At present only the special regime of water inspection has a specialized inspectorate.

(Bosnia and Herzegovina RENA report).

Over time the Sava riparian country governments have become more responsive to technical findings on the basin

level undertaken under the auspices of the ISRBC. It is expected that this trend will continue. This development is

demonstrated by evolution of the cooperation mechanism of ISRBC. Under the ISRBC, which is composed of two

representatives of each Party to the FASRB and has a Meeting of the Parties as the highest decision-making body,

there are a number of subsidiary bodies covering the key issues in the Sava River Basin, composed of delegated

experts from each Party. There are currently four permanent expert groups (PEGs), namely on river basin

management, accident prevention and control, flood prevention, and navigation, as well as five ad-hoc expert

groups, dealing with specific issues and tasks – legal issues, financial issues, hydro-meteorological issues,

geographical information systems (GIS) and river information services (RIS). (ISRBC 2011)

International organizations and experts have brought attention to systemic problems due to inability to coordinate

between levels of authorities. For example, in Slovenia the 2012 EPR noted the difficulties in governance

encountered due to the lack of a regional level authority. The EPR authors stated: “The extent of municipalities’

autonomy and the absence of a regional administrative level have led to an important environmental governance

gap between the national and local levels. While efforts are under way to develop common strategies to tackle

priority issues such as local air pollution and waste management, national environmental authorities are often

unaware of the environmental performance of the ever-growing number of municipalities.” (OECD, EPR Slovenia,

2012). Furthermore, they stated: “the adoption of the Balanced Regional Development Act in 2000 encouraged

good co-operation among Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), councils of regions and associations of

municipalities and towns. Greater co-operation among municipalities, and their co-operation with the Ministry of

Environment and Spatial Planning (MESP), is needed to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental

services and spatial planning policies.” (OECD, EPR Slovenia, 2012)

This brings attention to the fact that local and national authorities sometimes have different priorities (e.g., local

tourism vs. national energy strategy; or local agricultural interests vs. national biodiversity strategy). This is

nowhere more apparent than in Bosnia and Herzegovina where good cooperation across entity lines in the field of

monitoring may be contrasted with a lack of inter-entity cooperation on permitting. “Authorities in both entities

have complained about a lack of inter-entity cooperation on permitting… A lack of cooperation in permitting has

been described in the case of large hydropower facilities, in which Republika Srpska unilaterally changed permit

conditions regarding the return of flow to the main channel that had been agreed with the Federation of Bosnia and

Herzegovina. This resulted in a situation where minimum flow was not guaranteed to the downstream Federation of

Bosnia and Herzegovina users. Permits related to large agricultural investments in Popovo Polje have resulted in

increased flooding, according to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina water authorities.” (RENA Bosnia and

Herzegovina).

3.5 Governance aspects of problem-solving on regional/international level

3.5 Multi-sectoral norms, institutions and governance

Various factors contribute to the sharing of governance across sectors and across borders in the Sava River Basin. These can be referred to as multi-sectoral governance factors. Integration of decision-making through consideration of issues that in the past may have belonged to a single sector, improved understanding and means of communication, and shifts in institutional design and procedures have all contributed to a more inclusive, complex

23

and sophisticated governance context. Nevertheless, obstacles to multi-sectoral governance remain. This section uses examples from multiple sectors in the region to highlight some of the advances and outstanding challenges in this area. Among the factors examined are the effect of European integration, strategic planning and assessment, public participation and integrated permitting. - EU integration As a part of the EU context, governance is closely related to application of the subsidiarity principle. In the context of water management this principle can be applied towards responsibility of decentralised local government, particularly for wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure. The local level of governance (as addressed by national policies and by local decision-making and rules) is important for providing a balanced approach to protection and rational use of water and other natural resources of the Sava River Basin by reducing the negative externalities arising from human settlements such as in urban wastewaters, household and municipal waste, and urban sprawl. As the Draft Sava River Basin Management Plan states, “Insufficient wastewater collection and treatment on [the] municipal level, inappropriate waste disposal sites and urban land use” are among the main causes of groundwater pollution in the Sava River Basin. On the other hand, subsidiarity recognizes the appropriateness of decision-making at different levels depending on the level of the problem. The problems of water availability and water demand (identifying areas and sectors with water scarcity) present possible conflicts within and beyond national borders. Their resolution requires policy decisions with a degree of national coordination and international cooperation. The EU acquis communautaire in the field of water management has profound importance for furthering sustainable water use and pollution reduction and control. The Water Framework Directive sets forth the main principles of water management policy in the European Union. It introduces the river basin management approach and requires authorities to achieve good status for all waters. Art.6 of the WFD requires establishment of a register of protected areas (PA), including the details of related water bodies. An area of potential conflict is drinking water quality, with concerns related to human settlements, competing agricultural uses, and ecosystem services for water purification. The reduction of potential disputes over access to clean (drinking) water can be avoided and mitigated at the basin (regional) level through dialogue and coordination. The Sava River Basin countries have made a joint commitment to strive towards a good status of waters, the main objective under the WFD. See Final Declaration of the 5th MoP of the FASRB. : ‘…to contribute to meeting the common goal – achieving a good water status, while being aware of the existing differences between the Parties – EU member states and non-EU member states, in terms of their legal obligations and financial resources”. Another cornerstone of EU water policy is the Urban Waste Water Treatment (UWWT) Directive (91/271/EEC) regulating the collection and treatment of waste water in all agglomerations (e.g. it requires secondary treatment of all discharges from agglomerations of > 2000 population equivalents (p.e.), and more advanced treatment for agglomerations of >10,000 p.e. in designated sensitive areas and their catchments). Slovenia and Croatia, the EU Member States in the Sava River basin, are implementing the requirements of the UWWT Directive according to the commitments and deadlines set down in the respective accession treaties with the EU (i.e., 2017 for Slovenia and 2023 for Croatia). (Draft SRBM Plan) For non-EU riparian Sava countries, progress in the form of basic measures for harmonization with EU requirements should be achieved within a timeframe that is realistic and acceptable by the relevant countries given their specific situations, as follows: - Specification of the number of wastewater collection systems (connected to respective waste water treatment plants (WWTPs)) planned to be constructed by 2015 - Specification of the number of municipal and industrial WWTPs planned to be constructed by 2015 including:

- Specification of treatment level (secondary or tertiary treatment) - Specification of emission reduction targets. (Draft Sava River Basin Management Plan)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/info/glossary_en.htm#agglom

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/info/glossary_en.htm#sectreat

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/info/glossary_en.htm#sectreat

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/info/glossary_en.htm#pe

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/info/glossary_en.htm#sensitivearea

24

The approximation of the water-related directives has advanced at different stages in the Sava countries that are not EU Member states. For example, in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2011 the Water Framework Directive was fully approximated in Republika Srpska and 90% approximated in Federation Bosnia and Herzegovina; while the corresponding figures for the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive were 41% and 35% respectively.” (RENA report on Bosnia and Herzegovina) In Montenegro, implementation of the EU WFD was realized to a 64% according to the third report on the results of transposition of the EU legislative framework [year]. Looking at, for example, the agricultural sector, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the overarching EU policy

document that should be considered. The CAP aims at integrating environmental concerns and reducing the risks of

environmental degradation while enhancing the sustainability of agro-ecosystems. At the same time, for all Sava

riparian countries (EU and non-EU Member States) the EU acquis communautaire in the water sector plays an

important normative and strategic role with respect to agriculture. Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection

of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources aims to protect water quality across Europe

by promoting the use of good farming practices. The implementation of the Nitrates Directive requires (EC website

on the Nitrates Directive21

):

1. Identification of waters that are polluted, or at risk of pollution

2. Designation of "Nitrate Vulnerable Zones"(NVZs)

3. Establishment of Codes of Good Agricultural Practice to be implemented by farmers on a voluntary basis

4. Establishment of action programmes to be implemented by farmers within NVZs on a compulsory basis.

5. National monitoring and reporting.

o Institutions

EU integration at national level in the riparian Sava countries across the nexus sectors is handled by a range of institutions in coordination with the state-level institutions responsible for international relations and EU integration. E.g., in Serbia a Minister without portfolio is responsible for European Integration. Serbia has adopted a National Environmental Approximation Strategy (2011) that includes as a goal the establishment of institutional arrangements for full and effective approximation. The EU integration authorities potentially play an important role in encouraging cross-sectoral cooperation and coordination. The extent to which the institutions set up for EU integration take into account cross-sectoral or multi-sectoral governance issues, or whether they have specific powers and responsibilities to coordinate sectoral authorities with respect to EU integration priorities, is unclear at present.

o Financial aspects

The Meeting of the Parties to the FASRB has considered the financial aspects of water management at the basin

level. The Final Declaration of the 5th MoP stated, inter alia: “Although the planned measures are the responsibility

of the Parties, we request the ISRBC to provide all necessary assistance to the Parties in communication with

relevant international institutions, in order to find out more opportunities and mechanisms for funding priority

projects of the Parties related to the implementation of the Programme of Measures.”

21

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/index_en.html (accessed 8.4.2015)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/index_en.html

25

The EU integration process includes possibilities for financing activities aimed at reaching integration goals. These

possibilities differ in forms and magnitude of funding depending on whether the applicants are EU Member States,

EU candidate countries (Serbia, Montenegro) or potential candidate countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The EU

LIFE program provides funding for environment and nature conservation and biodiversity for Member States,

whereas the Cohesion Fund supports projects related to environment, energy efficiency and renewable energy. For

the non-EU countries the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) has replaced earlier European Union

programmes and financial instruments for candidate countries or potential candidates like ISPA, PHARE and CARDS.

IPA provides support in areas such as cross-border cooperation, regional development and environment.

The water-related directives, especially the UWWT Directive, are expected to place a substantial financial burden on

the Sava riparian countries. In the case of EU Member States the investments may be backed by EU funds such as

the Cohesion Fund for the period 2014-2020. An example of a Cohesion Fund project in the region is the water

supply and sewerage system for Slavonski Brod, Croatia. The objective of the investment from the EU's Cohesion

Fund is to improve the water system in the Danube River Basin by improving the security of the water supply and

ensuring more effective treatment of wastewater. The project will help protect the environment and ensure

conformity to EU environmental standards. (EC factsheet, “Cohesion Policy and Croatia”).

The CAP provides direct payments to farmers. In return, farmers are obliged to carry out agricultural activities in

conformity with standards including food safety, environmental protection, animal welfare and the maintenance

of land in good environmental and agricultural condition. (e.g. European Commission 2013) One of the aims under

the 2014-2020 rural development policy is ensuring sustainable management of natural resources.

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes can provide financing for the protection and enhancement of water

related ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, landscape beauty and biodiversity conservation. For PES

schemes to be implemented effectively, it is important to create mechanisms for valuing (or at least measuring)

services that are currently not valued by markets. A sustainably operating fishpond owner, for example, might

contribute to nutrient retention, carbon sequestration and protection of rare birds. But without a PES scheme,

society may not reward or recognize the owner’s production of “public goods”. PES schemes identify how services

can be provided in a cost-effective way and determine types and amounts of compensation to land managers (e.g.

farmers, aquaculturists) for providing services. (SRBMP)

- Governance mechanisms

Attempts at reducing friction and resolving potential conflicts between uses require the taking into account of

differences in governance frameworks for different sectors or uses. Agricultural practices, for example, are largely

determined through relationships on a national level among farmers (often self-organized into cooperatives) and

local authorities, with linkages to other interest groups such as environmental authorities, consumer groups and

other NGOs. By supporting Good Agricultural Practices, EU funding schemes related to the CAP give credence to the

concerns of the other interest groups based on education, financial incentives and public pressure for sustainable

agricultural practices.

- Relevant national strategies and action plans

Strategic planning is at the heart of water management at national and local level and the respective authorities

have been adopting strategic documents in the field of environment as a whole and in the water management

sector. Strategic planning must take into account international obligations as well as policy choices that are driven

26

by considerations of international relations and domestic priorities. Many strategies and action plans are driven at

least in part by EU or other international funding that requires implementation of certain standards or obligations.

The SRB Management Plan makes the following assumption for 2015 regarding strategies in place in the respective

countries:

“EU Member States (Slovenia and Croatia): Implementation of results of negotiations with the EC by 2015

by realization of wastewater collection and treatment systems in national operational programmes for

implementation of the UWWTD;

Non-EU MS (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro): Implementation of national strategies – taking

into consideration reported number of wastewater treatment plants with secondary or more stringent

treatment to be constructed by 2015.”

Examples can be found on the national level. In Serbia according to the Law on Environmental Protection, planning

and management of environment protection (year) is to be implemented through the National Environmental

Protection Programme adopted by the Government (for the period of ten years) on the 21st of January 2010. (RENA

Serbia).

Croatia in 2008 adopted a Water Management Strategy, a long-term planning document setting out the vision,

mission, goals and tasks of the national policy on water management and a number of indispensable implementing

rules and regulations. The main points of this strategy are the provision of a sufficient quantity of good quality

drinking water for the population, as well as economic aspects, the protection of people against floods, and

protection of the aquatic ecosystem. (EPR. Croatia. 2014)

Sava River countries have special or more general water management strategies which address the protection of

water against pollution from agriculture. In Croatia “in early 2013, the Ministry of Agriculture adopted an action

programme for the protection of water against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources in areas

designed as vulnerable zones under the Water Act. It defines the authorized application of livestock manure on

agricultural land and the periods when applying certain types of fertilizers is prohibited, restricts the land

application of fertilizers according to soil type and slope, climatic conditions, rainfall and irrigation, and establishes

the conditions for land application near water courses, land use and agricultural practice.” (EPR, Croatia).

In the field of biodiversity protection, national biodiversity strategies and action plans have been developed

following the requirements of the Convention on Biological Diversity. At the EU level, the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy,

which is aimed to halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystems in the EU, sets priority targets to

be implemented and influences national strategic planning within EU Member States and also candidate and

potential candidate countries.

- Legislation and norms

Some examples of legislation from the region related to the EU acquis have been mentioned. Water-related rules

and norms are stipulated in the legislation and in strategic documents as mentioned above. They are created and

implemented at national and sub-national level. The national legislation of Sava riparian countries has achieved

substantial progress in harmonization with EU legislation in this area, either through membership or accession.

However, the local level is of special importance for creating rules and norms which are grounded in the specifics of

the locality and implemented by the local authorities.

27

Reforming the current system of extraction and wastewater charges, and making use of these charges more

effectively, should help in the light of budgetary pressures and of reduced EU resources in the long term. In

preparing river management plans, more emphasis should also be placed on better integration of policies for

sustainable use of water in the main water-consuming sectors. (EPR, Slovenia, OECD)

The principle of cost recovery is important to balance water use in many sectors like agriculture, industry, energy,

and public services (households) to achieve cost-efficiency and even to establish cross-sectoral cooperation among

providers and consumers of water services. In its attempts to apply the polluter pays principle, Slovenian legislation

applies an environmental tax on all water users to aim at full recovery of environmental and resource costs. (EC.

2012. Slovenia. Report on Implementation of WFD)

The water and energy sectors are highly regulated. Biodiversity protection is also generally under state supervision,

due to the need to achieve certain protection goals and in some cases to enforce stringent conservation principles.

While water and energy users are often easy to identify and therefore licensing mechanisms can be developed,

ecosystem services and biodiversity protection often have to be affected indirectly through mechanisms including

financial incentives to augment traditional enforcement.

o Self-regulation of private actors

Governance mechanisms involving self-regulation of private actors are especially significant in the agricultural field,

given that “more than 85% of the total agricultural area in the basin is owned by small farmers. The average size of

the arable land of each owner is around 2 ha, the economic importance of the agricultural sector is high.” (Sava

River Basin Management Plan). The policy at national and basin level should be aimed at introducing common

minimum standards for good sustainable agricultural practices and agro-environmental measures as defined in the

CAP and the Nitrate Directives.

- National policies and legislation related to integrated decisionmaking

All riparian Sava countries are parties to international legal instruments on environmental assessments (e.g. Espoo

Convention) and on public participation (Aarhus Convention). They have taken measures to implement these

instruments through national legislation and policy documents like strategies and plans for implementation. For

instance, Serbia adopted in 2011 a strategy for implementation of the Aarhus Convention. All these pieces of

legislation and strategic documents play a vital role in enhancing good governance and integrated decision-making.

At the basin level, EIA is relevant in a transboundary context under the Espoo Convention. Some of the

transboundary EIAs carried out in the Sava region have been related to nexus elements like water management and

energy. For instance in 2010 – 2012 Serbia conducted two transboundary EIAs under the Espoo Convention – one

initiated by Croatia on the Sava River waterway project involving determination of the control lines from Racinovci

to Sisak; and another initiated by Slovenia on Serbia’s National Energy Programme (e.g. hydro power plants, nuclear

power station). (Serbia, EPR III, draft). EIA is also relevant in an EU context through applicable EU legislation

(Directive 2011/92/EU as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU).

The applicability of strategic environmental assessment, or SEA, of public plans and programmes is not as uniform

throughout the region. The international legal framework of the SEA Protocol to the Espoo Convention is applicable

in all Sava countries except Bosnia and Herzegovina. The EU SEA Directive 2001/42/EC has been transposed into the

legislation of Member States Slovenia and Croatia, while harmonization of legislation in advanced in Serbia but not

28

beyond an initial stage in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Montenegro has fully transposed SEA into the Law on strategic

impact assessment. SEA is an instrument with great potential for resolving conflicting demands on water usage.

The EU has adopted SEA for policy-level assessments with multi-sectoral impacts, for example in order to conduct

assessments with relevance to the Habitats Directive.

If we look at the transboundary SEAs conducted in the region most of them are again related to water management

and energy, e.g. concerning the river basin management plan of Croatia (2007-2013), the national physical plan for

the Mokrice hydroelectric power plant (Slovenia, completed in March 2013), the river basin management plan of

Slovenia 2009-2015 (Slovenia, completed in January 2013), the National Energy Programme of Slovenia 2010-2030

(Slovenia, completed in October 2012), and the national physical plan for hydroelectric power plant Brežice

(Slovenia, completed in March 2012). (Croatia, EPR, 2014). In 2010-2012, Serbia participated in a transboundary

SEA for the Energy Development Strategy of Montenegro, and conducted one for Serbia’s new Energy Sector

Development Strategy for 2025-2030. (EPR Serbia, draft)

Even without transboundary aspects, within an individual state national policies should be developed through SEA

and other multi-sectoral assessment processes. National policies on sustainable farming practices are good

candidates for cross-sectoral cooperation. Croatia provides a good example of cooperation between its Ministry of

Environment and Nature Protection and the Ministry of Agriculture. The two ministries jointly develop agro-

environment measures, review and revise cross compliance conditions, and organize training programs to help

farmers apply for incentives. In addition a “working group has been set up with the Payment Agency (the agency

that provides payments to farmers), the Ministry of Agriculture and other relevant institutions in the agricultural

sector to work on agro-environment measures.“ (EPR. Croatia)

In some cases national policies have to be strengthened to resolve existing water allocation conflicts, e.g. regarding

energy and nature conservation. In Montenegro any intended construction of hydropower plants is likely to raise

conflicts, because locations with high energy potential also have excellent ecological quality, connectivity and

hydromorphological conditions. Proposed hydropower installations to be constructed in the Tara River were

abandoned due to environmental and other concerns (e.g. seismic instability). Although hydropower is considered

an appropriate policy instrument to tackle insecure water–energy–food supply scenarios, Montenegro seems to

have rather limited opportunities in practice. (Montenegro, EPR, draft)

o Permitting

Best practices in environmental permitting are promoted through various mechanisms, including EU legislation,

OECD Guidelines such as the “Guiding Principles of Effective Environmental Permitting Systems,” and permitting and

enforcement networks such as INECE, IMPEL, and ECENA. (OECD, 2007). Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial

emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (IPPC) sets environmental standards for permitting of

industrial activities with a major pollution potential, defined in Annex I to the Directive (e.g., energy industries,

production and processing of metals, mineral industry, chemical industry, waste management, rearing of animals;

with special provisions related to energy production such as combustion plants (≥ 50 MW); waste incineration or co-

incineration plants; installations producing titanium dioxide). Certain installations are regulated under the Seveso

Directive due to the potential for major accident hazards. These directives are transposed into the national

legislation of the EU Member States, Croatia and Slovenia from the Sava countries. The rest of the riparian countries

have also introduced IPPC into their legislation. According to Serbia’s IPPC Law new installations must obtain

permits immediately, before commencing operations, whilst existing installations must get permits by 2015. (Serbia,

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32010L0075:EN:NOT

29

EPR, draft). In Bosnia and Herzegovina IPPC is partly transposed but the legislation cannot be implemented because

of a lack of regulations. (RENA, Bosnia and Herzegovina). Montenegro is near full transposition with only

adjustments for existing installations lacking. (RENA, Montenegro).

Standards for permitting, inspection and enforcement with regards to facilities covered under the IPPC and Seveso

frameworks include methodologies for coordination with stakeholder agencies. See e.g. OECD’s Principle 5 of the

Guiding Principles of Effective Permitting Systems22

: “Depending upon the requirements of national legislation and

institutional arrangements, the permitting authority need to consult other authorities with related responsibilities or

interests (the environmental inspectorate, water and health authorities, sectoral ministries, local authorities, etc.).”

In a series of studies conducted in 2011-12 in the pre-accession countries under the ECENA component of the EU’s

Regional Environmental Network for Accession program, information was gathered about controlled installations by

type and capacities for inspection. (RENA, 2012). The relevant information for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and

Montenegro is set forth in the following table.

Table : Controlled Installations in the Sava River Basin countries23

Country No. of

Controlled

Installations

IPPC

+

Seveso

staff total inspectors in

field

inspections

annually

ratio

routine to

non-routine

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

(RS)

280 45 71 (8

MoSPCEE, 63

local)

4 entity + 19

local

320 entity +

1879 local

No info

available

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

(Fed)

~1000 81 ~35 (16 MET,

15-25

cantons)

2 Fed, 17-18

cantons,

“few”

municipal

200 70/30

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

(Brcko)

10

Montenegro 20-21

(14 air, 6-7

water)

(see notes)

12 IPPC,

“few”

Seveso

91

(16 MSDT, 56

EPA, 9 water)

12 EPA, 1

water

inspector

1398

No info

available

22

http://www.oecd.org/environment/outreach/37311624.pdf

23Figures for Croatia are from 2014, figures for Slovenia are from 2012, all other figures are from 2011. Sources:

UNECE, Environmental Performance Review for Croatia (2014); OECD Environmental Performance Review for Slovenia (2012); RENA country assessments (2012).

30

Serbia 3470 176 + ~108 110 100 15,324 3:1

Slovenia 760 156 + 55

Croatia [Could Croatian

administration

please provide

missing data

here?]

200-270

IPPC + 45

SEVESO

15 nature

protection,

163

local

5,931 3:2

Notes:

Montenegro No air permits yet: system of charges. No info on waste! The number of

inspections includes even looking at dossier.

Bosnia and Herzegovina (RS) LSGU CI unknown. Staff total does not include inspectors. Inspection figures

from database tracking system. Does not include Water Inspectorate.

Bosnia and Herzegovina (Fed) Staff total does not include inspectors. Inspector figures do not include Water

Inspectorate.

Serbia Data refer only to State Inspectorate (not AP of Vojvodina and LSGUs)

The water permit is still separate from other aspects of integrated permitting in some countries, e.g., BiH. This

presents a level of difficulty in coordination. The water sector also tends towards a larger number of permits for

various aspects of water use, including the manner, conditions and scope of water use, manner, conditions and

scope of wastewater discharge, storage and release of hazardous and other substances that might pollute water,

and conditions for other works influencing the water regime. A water permit for structures and works is issued by

the body, usually at national level, that issues the water consent. The water permit is issued for a specific period of

time. For the protection of water from pollution, the ministry in change of environment and waters (MEMSP in

Serbia) issues the integrated permit for plants and activities that might have negative effects to water quality

(within the IPPC permit).

- Public Participation

The Aarhus Convention and the EU legislation adopted for its implementation provide an additional measure of

support for coordination and cooperation across sectors. The Sava River Basin countries have developed extensive

practice in implementation of provisions related to access to environmental information and public participation in

environmental decision-making. The definition of environmental information in the Aarhus Convention is broad

enough to encompass most kinds of activities that are relevant to NEXUS assessment.

Aarhus Parties are obliged to promote the application of the Aarhus Convention in international processes. The

activities related to public participation and stakeholder engagement in the framework of the FASRB have

31

consequently increased. Information on FASRB implementation is communicated to the public via its website,

www.savacommission.org, and through various publications and releases. More importantly, the ISRBC has

organized direct consultations and meetings with stakeholders. However, the Public Participation Plan for the SRB,

finished in 2014, presents a good basis for further activities on strengthening the public participation and

stakeholder involvement in the process of implementation of the FASRB24

. A proposed Sava Water Council that

would increase stakeholder involvement and give a greater voice to stakeholders is in the early planning stages.

Where mechanisms for inter-ministerial or trans-authority cooperation are not established, are not implemented or

break down, public authorities themselves can make use of rights established under legislation for implementation

of the Aarhus Convention, such as the right to request information or to participate in decision-making. In some

countries around the world, information laws have actually been used by authorities to gain access to information

held by colleagues in other agencies within the same government.

- Principal gaps: Capacities

For some time international institutions and assistance programs have identified the problems of water

management in some Sava riparian countries. Among them are “inadequate institutional structures, inefficient

operations, lack of infrastructure (water and sewage-treatment plants), outdated water pipelines and sewage

systems, lack of capacity and reduced financial capacity” (World Bank 2003) (Colakhodzic et al. 2011). These

problems are particularly acute in the less developed Sava riparian countries, which have not had access to

infrastructure development funding such as the Cohesion Fund within the EU. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, for

example, the management capacities of the responsible authorities in the field of biodiversity are limited, especially

at the entity level (three staff in FBiH and one in RS) where programmatic decisions, including protected area

designations, should be made. (RENA report on Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Cross-sectoral and multi-sectoral analysis brings attention to the fact that the participation of a particular NGO or

group of individuals tends to be focused on a narrow range of issues within the core interests of the participant. It is

rare that a member of the public has the capacity or the resources to dedicate to participation in the full range of

issues that are pertinent although adjunct to its campaign. This is true even where there is awareness of and

familiarity with multi-sectoral approaches such as NEXUS. It is more a matter of efficiency and the need to focus

limited resources on priority matters than of anything else. Consequently, NGO and public involvement take on a

different character as the complexity of platforms and analytical frameworks increases. NGOs that attempt to have

a representative character at such a complex level may give rise to challenges to their legitimacy and

representativeness.

An effort has to be made, therefore, to aggregate the outcomes of public participation at specific decision-making

levels in order to take these into account at more strategic levels. In addition, public participation has to be

maintained and even strengthened in connection with specific-level decisions that are highly relevant to the NEXUS

level, such as in connection with climate change adaptation. Finally, a major focus of resources in this area should

be on developing broad, open, transparent and efficient platforms for reliable, high-quality data to serve as the

foundation for high-quality decision-making. The development of such platforms is another area where public

24

Importance of public participation was acknowledged by the ISRBC at its 34th

session in February 2014.

http://www.savacommission.org/

32

capacities, knowledge and expertise can be deployed.

4. Relevance of the basin to regional25 development

The Sava River supplies water to key activities in the region. According to the Draft SRBMP these are split between (and in order): Energy (thermal cooling (62%) and hydropower), public water supply 19%, Agriculture (12% of which irrigation is 1%) and industry 7%. The contributions to these sectors differ by country. Further the basin itself provides transport, tourist and ecosystem services. Groundwater reserves are being used increasingly (as irrigated agriculture expands), and need to be studied(ISRBC, 2013c).

4.1. Sectors and resources

In the following paragraphs the sectors that use, need and/or have an impact on the resources of the basin are described. Selected aspects of these sectors that impact SRB and its development (such as pollution or sector policies) are highlighted. As countries rely on these sectors for their development, the importance of the SRB in maintaining those sectors is also highlighted. Thus water needs as they relate to energy security, household consumption and employment in selected sectors are discussed. Reflecting their importance as current and future usage we discuss: Energy, settlements, agriculture, industry, navigation and ecosystems.

An overview of the resource base and significance of the Sava Basin to the riparian countries is presented in the graphic below.

25

Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and a small part of Albania.

34

4.1.1 The energy sector

The five Sava River Basin (SRB) countries have a total generating capacity of nearly 20GW (a breakdown by country is presented in table 1 below). Of which, 43% is hydro and 56% thermal. The Sava basin plays a dominant role in the energy system of all countries in the basin. 26% of the hydro generation capacity in the SRB countries (11% of total) is in the SRB. While 76% of all thermal power plants (42% of total) derive their cooling water from the SRB. In total, 53% of all power installations rely on the SRB. In Montenegro 53% of the hydro installations are in the SRB. While in Bosnia & Herzegovina, Montenegro and Slovenia, over 85% of the thermal power plants are cooled by water from the Sava River. The region’s single nuclear power plant, in Slovenia, is cooled by the Sava River (EIA, 2014). [Concerns about sufficiency of cooling water during some dry years were mentioned at the basin assessment workshop. Question to the countries: Could specific information please be provided about where on the river shortages have been experienced and when.]

Thus the river is of extreme importance, from an energy security point of view, in the region. Should water levels drop or flood events compromise the hydropower generation or cooling, approximately around 53% the entire region’s electricity generation will be affected with high economic, social and security cost.

Importantly, the hydropower potential can play a special role for enabling the region to introduce larger volumes of intermittent variable generation such as solar and wind. (Solar power is available only during the day. Wind power is produced only when wind is blowing. However we demand electricity at times when needs arise. In order to balance this mismatch between supply and demand, storage and scheduling is needed. Both can be provided by hydro (including pumped storage) systems. This is important for the nexus in the Sava River Basin as each country has national RE targets detailed in table 7.

Table 2: Power Generation capacity in SRB (Source: (BFME, 2014, SMEEP, 2013,NREP, 2009a, 2009b; PLATTS, 2012))

Total National Capacity

SRB Hydro SRB Thermal

MW MW % in Total National Capacity

% in National Hydro

Capacity

MW % in Total National Capacity

% in National Thermal Capacity

SI 3 333 209 6 % 18 % 2 106 63 % 99 %

HR 4 119 103 3 % 5 % 1079 26 % 56 %

BA 4 230 554 13 % 26 % 1756 42 % 85 %

RS 7 150 1 028 14% 41 % 3 129 44 % 68 %

ME 908 360 40 % 53 % 225 25 % 100 %

Total 19 740 2 254 11 % 26 % 8 294 42 % 76 %

35

4.1.2 Settlements

The population of the five countries (Albania is not included since only negligible part of the basin area belongs to its territory) in the region is approximately 18 million, half of them living in the Sava River Basin area. The percentage of national population each country within the Sava River Basin is significant. Slovenia has 61%, in Croatia 50%, in Bosnia and Herzegovina 88%, in Serbia this figure is 26% and in Montenegro around one third of the population lives in this basin.

One of the key pressures on the Sava River Basin environment is related to the impact of settlements on water quality

26.Table Draft SRBMP indicates (for settlements of over 2000 people) the incidence of treatment facilities (up

to 2008; ISRBC, 2013b).

Table 3 Incidence of treatment facilities in the Sava River Basin (ISRBC, 2013b). Abbreviations: BA=Bosnia and Herzegovina, HR=Croatia, ME=Montenegro, RS=Serbia, SI=Slovenia, SRB=Sava River Basin

Country Primary treatment

Secondary treatment

Tertiary treatment

With treatment (total)

no treatment

SI 2 41 9 52 37 (42%)

HR 8 7 0 15 89 (86%)

BA 0 5 0 5 243 (98%)

RS 2 4 0 6 102 (94%)

ME 0 1 0 1 6 (86%)

SRB total > 2000 12 58 9 79 477 (86%)

SRB total > 10 000

7 19 3 29 87(87%)

In total around 43% percent of the general pollution load, or around 3 million person equivalents is not treated (SRBMP,2014). Other users and polluters include intensive agriculture.

4.1.3 Agriculture

[The information on agriculture needs to be updated and complemented, taking into account e.g. the publication AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND EUROPEAN INTEGRATION IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE (FAO2014) and Agri-food Sector in Serbia: State and Challenges (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Board for Village & Serbian Association of Agricultural Economists 2013) ]

26

For a complete list of pressures on water quality refer to: background paper n. 3 by the ISRBC: http://www.savacommission.org/dms/docs/dokumenti/srbmp_micro_web/backgroundpapers_final/no_3_background_paper_significant_pressures_in_the_sava_rb.pdf

http://www.savacommission.org/dms/docs/dokumenti/srbmp_micro_web/backgroundpapers_final/no_3_background_paper_significant_pressures_in_the_sava_rb.pdf

http://www.savacommission.org/dms/docs/dokumenti/srbmp_micro_web/backgroundpapers_final/no_3_background_paper_significant_pressures_in_the_sava_rb.pdf

36

The majority of the region’s agriculture is situated within the region of the Sava River basin. While agriculture’s share of GDP is relatively limited, its impact on national employment is highly significant. Employment is an essential for establishing stability. Given the historical volatility as well as recent economic crises, management of agriculture in the region, and its inputs: land and water, will be crucial. Table 4: Employment statistics for agriculture in Riparian countries

Albania Bosnia and

Herzegovina

Croatia Montenegro Serbia Slovenia

Employment

in

Agriculture

57% a 20.60% a 13.30% a 5.60% a 21.10% c 8.80% a

% in the

SAVA

0.59% b 75.80% b 45.20% b 49.60% b 17.40% b 52.80% b

% national

direct jobs

0.34% 15.61% 6.01% 2.78% -- b 4.65%

a. References: (“Albania - Employment in agriculture,” n.d.), (“Bosnia and Herzegovina - Employment in agriculture,” n.d.), (“Croatia - Employment in agriculture,” n.d.), (“Slovenia - Employment in agriculture,” n.d.), (“Serbia - Employment in agriculture,” n.d.), (“Montenegro - Employment in agriculture,” n.d.) b. References: SRBMP (2014)

In fact agriculture is responsible for 24% of the total employment in Serbia (SRBP); and an estimated 16% of total employment in Bosnia and Herzegovina; 6%, 5%, 4% and 3% in Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia and Montenegro respectively. As a key employer of semi and unskilled labour, agriculture contributes to food security as well as providing an economic base for agro industries. The most significant agricultural activities are, in order of importance: corn and wheat production, oil plant production (soy and sunflower), orchards and vineyards. Another major agricultural activity is livestock production, where small production units predominate, especially for cattle, pigs, sheep, goats and horses. Poultry production on the other hand is characterized by large-scale production units. The agricultural sector contributes around 11% of the total national exports of Croatia (1.4 billion USD) and around 25% for Serbia (2.24 billion USD). The Gross Value Added (GVA) of agriculture in the total GDP of the Sava countries is 1.5% in Slovenia, 7% in Croatia, around 10% for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro and around 20% in Serbia. For the entire basin the GVA of agriculture is is 6%, and for the entire basin the average share of employment in the agriculture sector is 11%. (Draft Sava RBM Plan,2013) A number of policies to support agricultural activity by country was collected by IAMO (Volk, 2010). While outdated and published only in 2007, insights were instructive. This is particularly with respect to the types of policy support by country in the region. Some policies encourage agricultural activities in a manner that do not encourage efficient use of resources (such as land, fertilizer or water). Other policies do. Interestingly many farmers receive subsidies that are based on area farmed or animals owned. These types of subsidy can discourage increasing efficiency. This in turn can result in wasteful use of land, and other inputs such as water.

The reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the post-2013 period is expected to alter water use in agriculture in the EU, with implications to the EU Member States in the Basin. Albeit heavily debated, the

37

introduction of a ‘greening payment’ – where 30% of the available national agricultural subsidy is linked to the provision of certain sustainable farming practices, such as permanent grassland and crop diversification – would mean that a significant share of the subsidy would be linked to rewarding farmers for the provision of environmental public goods (EC 2013)

Table 5: Policies and subsidies in Riparian countries

AL BA HR ME RS SI

Direct payments based on outputs x xxx X xx xx NI

Direct payments based on area / animal x xxx Xxx xx xx NI

Variable input subsidies x - X xx xxx NI

Key: Not introduced -

Introduced x

Introduced and relevant xx

Introduced and highly relevant xxx

Not included in the analysis NI

Source Volk, 2007.

4.1.4 Industry

Industry (including agro-industry27

and tourism) is interwoven with the SRB in at least three important levels.

Firstly it requires water for its energy use, both directly as steam is used to supply heat in much of industry. (In the case of the SRB heat is needed for steel production, refining,mining etc.) That steam is produced by heating local water supplies. In addition, there is an indirect use of water, as half of the electricity used by industry is produced using water from the river, either with hydro power or for cooling fossil fuel powered generators. Thus without the SRB, energy supply to much of the region's industry is not possible. (Information on water and energy can be found earlier in this section. Assuming that much industry is located close to settlements, similar splits can be expected. (I.e. percentage of settlements within the basin and industry within the basin.)

Secondly in terms of impact, industry is an identified, but limited polluter, with varying impact throughout the basin. In 2007, a significant number of polluting industrial sites were identified in Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia as well as, in minor number, in Croatia and Montenegro.

28.

27

For a detailed description of Agro Industry in the Western Balkans (WB) please see (Grozdanić, 2013), according to which “Most WBs have

rather a high natural potential… with well integrated economies in the northern part of the Balkan Peninsula (Sava Basin,Danube Basin, Pannonia Plain). This area has favourable soil and climatic conditions for capital-intensive agricultural production. Moreover, it has adequate human capital, developed entrepreneurship, a sufficiently diversified industrial sector and a well-developed infrastructure.” 28

For a list of significant industrial pollution sources refer to Annex 6 of the SRBMP

38

Thirdly industry is dependent on road, rail as well as the Sava river for transport. (Specific types of cargo are mentioned later.)

Further, tourism and ecotourism is a growth area for the region. According to (ISRBC, 2013d) ecotourism is intended to expose visitors to a nature-based experience while simultaneously sustaining or improving the ecology of an area, as well as enhancing the quality of life for peripheral communities. Ecotourism is dependent on the success of nature conservation. Ecotourism facilities are expected to operate in harmony with the ecology of the Sava River Basin, and remain consistent with the culture and social expectations of the people living within the affected communities.

Norms, institutions and governance on the national and sub-national level for the sector

4.1.5 Navigation

The Sava is navigable to larger vessels for 586 kilometres upstream from its confluence with the Danube (ISRBC, 2007). The confluence of the tributary [please specify] marks the westernmost point of the river course designated as a Class IV international waterway in compliance with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's European Agreement on Main Inland Waterways of International Importance (AGN).The classification means that the river course between Sisak and Belgrade is navigable to ships of the maximum length of 80 to 85 metres (262 to 279 feet), the maximum beam of 9.5 metres (31 feet), the maximum draught of 2.5 metres (8 feet 2 inches) and tonnage up to 1,500 tonnes (1,500 long tons; 1,700 short tons). The Sava River downstream of Sisak, is designated as European waterway E 80-12, branching off from the E 80 waterway spanning the Danube and Le Havre via the Rhine. The largest ports on the Sava River are Brčko and Šamac in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sisak and Slavonski Brod in Croatia,and Šabac and Sremska Mitrovica in Serbia. Specific routes that currently exist can be found in the figure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Havre

39

below.

Figure 4: Transport routes in SRB region

Reference: (ISRBC, 2007)

4.1.6 Ecosystems

The Sava River Basin is of significance due to its outstanding biological and landscape diversity, but also because of its cultural heritage. It hosts the largest complexes of alluvial riparian hardwood forests not only in Europe but of the entire Western Palaearctic. A large portion of these floodplains are still intact and support flood alleviation and biodiversity. In particular, the role of wetlands as buffer for water in extreme flood events needs to be highlighted. According to the SRBMP, the large retention areas in the Sava form a very effective (and natural) flood control system

29, very difficult (and costly) to replace with artificial infrastructure. Furthermore, they provide water storage,

which usefulness will increase significantly in case climate change will limit accessibility to water. Finally, wetlands naturally clean and purify water. This function is particularly important when there is a lack of wastewater treatment facilities, which is the case of many areas of the Sava River Basin.

29

The Sava River flood protection system is notable for the preserved large natural retentions(Lonjsko polje, Mokro polje, Kupčina, Zelenik, Jantak, Obedska Bara and Zasavica) (Draft SRBMP,2013)

40

Wetlands are cradles of biological diversity, providing the water and primary productivity upon which countless species of plants and animals depend on survival. They support high concentrations of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrate species.

Wetlands are also important storehouses of plant genetic material. These functions, values and attributes can only be maintained if the ecological processes of wetlands are allowed to continue functioning. This performs also a variety of ecosystem services of vital importance to people. Unfortunately, and in spite of important progress made in recent decades, wetlands continue to be among the most threatened ecosystems, owing mainly to ongoing drainage, conversion, pollution, and over-exploitation of their resources. The basin’s wetlands are simultaneously areas of outstanding living, organically evolved cultural landscapes with exceptional cultural values: it is here where an intact rural culture has taken place adapting completely to the appearance of flooding including vernacular architecture and a today unique pasturing system with autochthonous domestic breeds. Because of the above mentioned ecological and cultural value of the wetlands, the Sava riparian countries have designated seven sites in the Sava River Basin according to The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat or so called Ramsar Convention. For more information please consult ISRBC (2013)

Further, according to the (ISRBC, 2013b) "The Sava River is very important for the Danube River Basin also for its outstanding biological and landscape diversity. It hosts the largest complex of alluvial wetlands in the Danube Basin (Posavina - Central Sava Basin) and large lowland forest complexes. The Sava River is a unique example of river with some of the floodplains still intact, thus supporting the flood alleviation and biodiversity.

4.2. National Development Trends That Impact Will Rely on Basin

In this section we explore potential trends that will impact the basin, and therefore influence its management. It is the intention only to consider trend and scenarios rather than accurately simulate national strategies. (A task that is difficult as many national strategies may have targets that are not easily compared.)

4.2.1 Water demand growth

Water demand is likely to grow with growth in industry and in agriculture as well as energy demand. At the same time that demand is likely to be tapered by a new policy and increased efficiency. Industrial demand is likely to grow significantly. There are plans for increasing agriculture and in particular irrigated areas. However, population growth estimates from the United Nations indicate that the population is not expected to grow.

The energy sector’s outlook has got implications to water demands but energy is discussed in section 4.2.2 under “Energy”.

Navigation routes are expected to increase in number and traffic moved. Environmental flows will be needed to support habitat and hence careful and coordinated management of water levels will continue to be a crucial factor for the Sava River Basin.

41

Table 6: Estimates of growth in water demand between 2005 and 2015 (SRBMP).

Public Water Supply

Industry Thermal and nuclear plant

Irrigation Other agricultural

Total water use

31% 23% - 593% 15% 12%

Table. Estimates of growth in water demand between 2005 and 2015 (Draft SRBMP). [Question to national administrations: How does this correspond with what the actual water demand in this period (or up to 2014) turned out to be? Are there any national predictions —especially for the country that is located within the Sava Basin—about how water demand is expected to develop in the future?

4.2.2 Economic expansion and development

As the region strives to grow, various targets have been put in place. These include, for example Industry Strategy of the Republic of Croatia 2014–2020. At a regional level the objective is to exceed growth rates in Europe-27, by around a 10% by 2020 (SEE 2020, 2014). Assuming compound growth in Europe of around 1.5%, it assumes annual compound growth of around 3% for the region. Scenarios developed by the ISRBC (2007) considered a range of economic growth rates by country (however these were not met due to the economic downturn of 2008 on). Those include a range from 2.8 to 4.4%, with a median of 3.6%. [To be updated with the 2

nd RBMP figures]

Medium term growth is expected to be higher in countries with lower per capita GDP.

Table 7: GDP per capita, PPP (current international $) statistics in 2013 in the riparian countries (World Bank, 201530

)

SI HR BA RS ME

GDP per capita 28 996 21 365 9 536 13 020 14 132

Thus growth in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro is expected to be the highest in the region.

Amongst the sectors that are important or expected to grow are several that will have an impact on the Sava River include:

● Bio-diesel and ethanol production (with planned investments to support external biofuel targets) ● Oil and oil products ● Coal and cokes ● Petrochemicals and fertilizers ● Wood and wood products ● Agriculture and agro industries (including fertilizer) ● Iron Ore, Steel and steel products

ISRBC (2007)

30

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?display=graph%7Ctitle%3D

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?display=graph%7ctitle%3D

42

Energy

The energy sector is expected to expand and transform. It is expected to expand to meet new economic growth targets. It has also been argued that the region may be an important exporter of renewable electricity. The structure of the sector is likely to transform, increasing the amount of renewable energy.

Table 8: Increase in energy demand from current levels to 2020 reported by national projections

Country by 2020

SI 27%

HR 20%

BA 15%

RS -2%

ME 16%

Sources: Historical demand is taken from ((SORS, 2013)(CBS, 2014, 2013; FBHOS, n.d.; RSRSO , 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2008, n.d.) and projections from BFME, 2014)(SMEEP, 2013)(NREP, 2009a, 2009b)

According to the Energy Community, the renewable energy targets by country for 2020 are given below.

Table 9: 2020 Renewable Energy Sources (RES) targets in gross final energy consumption by country.

Countries RES share in 2009 RES share in 2020

Albania 31.2% 38.0%

Bosnia and Herzegovina 34.0% 40.0%

Croatia 12.6% 20.0%

Montenegro 26.3% 33.0%

Serbia 21.2% 27.0%

Slovenia* 19.0% 25.0%

Sources: Energy Community Secretariat (2012). *RES shares for Slovenia from the Slovenian Ministry of the Economy (2011).

At the same time, growth is expected in electricity generation from new fossil fuel plants. While some countries are already more advanced in their exploitation of hydropower, others like Montenegro have not yet realised most of their potential. The exploitation of fossil and hydro based electricity faces opposition from conservation groups and reservations from environmental authorities. Fossil fuel and hydropower potentials plants in existence (dark) and potential (light) are shown in the figures below.

43

According to national estimates31

, the five Sava River Basin countries, energy demand is expected to increase 8% by 2020 compared to 2012. However, when analyzing the countries individually, the projected demand does not always correspond to an increase. In Serbia, for example, the demand in 2020 is expected to decrease by 2% in respect to the 2012 electricity consumption. For all other countries, electricity demand will grow continuously, although at different rates. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the country where the demand is expected to experience a higher increase, 27% in 2020, followed by Croatia, with 2020 demand surpassing the 2012's value in 20%.

Such a heterogeneous – but upward - trend implies the need to invest in new electricity generation options. In the case of Bosnia, the increase in energy demand will be supported by a 3.8 GW expansion of coal and natural gas thermal power capacities. According to the National Renewable Action Plan of Bosnia and Herzegovina, RES capacity increase in 2020, in respect to 2012, is projected to be of 426 MW. As for Croatia, the demand increase relies on the increase of the share of thermal power plants in the electricity generation mix, through the projected installation of 1.3 GW of natural gas and coal power plants, but with a more balanced increase in RES, corresponding to 728 MW.

31

: Historical demand is taken from ((SORS, 2013)(CBS, 2014, 2013; FBHOS, n.d.; RSRSO , 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2008, n.d.) and projections from BFME, 2014)(SMEEP, 2013)(NREP, 2009a, 2009b)

44

Figure 5: Capacity of Existing and Planned32

Power Plants in the Sava River Basin and indication of hydro-related water

importance33

Agriculture

For the region there is a goal of expanding and increasing area under cultivation. The region expects at least twofold increase of share of irrigated agriculture land by 2020 (SEE 2020, 2012). The riparian countries anticipated expansion to be as much six times over the period between 2005-2015 (SRBMP, 2014). [Question to the countries: Is it known what was the actual development up until 2014/2015? Did it differ significantly from what was predicted? If yes, why was that?]

Agriculture land to be irrigated is fragmented, mainly used by small agriculture producers as the land owners, locations of available water for irrigation are frequently inconvenient and agriculture producers are not trained to use modern irrigation systems. Alongside needed investments these are the main reasons why only limited areas of agriculture land are irrigated. Irrigation is important not only to increase yield but also to improve quality of

32

(AE, 2014; BA, 2010; BA n.d.a-i; BA, 2013, BEN, 2014; COWI 2013; EPBiH, 2013, 2014, n.d.a,b; EPS 2011, 2014; EH

n.d; HE na Drini, n.d.; HES Vrbas, n.d.a-b; HESS, 2006, 2011, 2013, 2014a-b; HSE, 2011; HWN, 2014; KPMG, 2010;

ME, 2011; PS, 2014; RCERS, 2014; RCC 2013a-b; SEN, 2013) 33

The importance of 1m3/s in the hydro system in each country is related to the costs for generating electricity by

other sources if 1 m3/s is not available in the chain of hydropower plants. To illustrate, “very low” importance means

lower additional costs as compared to the other countries etc.

45

agriculture products, increase employment and income through export as well as to strengthen security of food supply.

In Croatia droughts occur every three to five years on average, and may, depending on the intensity and duration, cut the yields of various crops by 20-92%. The decade 1981-1991 could be considered a long period of drought that affected almost the entire Croatian territory. (NAPNAV project) Severe droughts were also recorded in 1992, 1995 and 1998, and those of the years 2000 and 2003 were proclaimed natural disasters (CCA, n.d.). As a countermeasure, countries are investigating to expand irrigation schemes. To avoid land degradation, expanding irrigation involved developing drainage channels also. Depending on the technical solutions, these systems could also potentially serve flood protection. To some extent, this will however as well rely on water pumping and may affect the energy sector, both through the electricity demand for pumping and a potential reduction in water availability for hydropower generation and for cooling of thermal/nuclear power generation. An increased water use for irrigation water would occur during low-flow period of the year.

Navigation

In addition to the current state of navigation, discussed earlier, new projects are underway. For shipping and tourism navigation is being supported by inland waterway development projects. An upgrade of the Sava navigation from class III to IV between Sisak and Slavonski Brod (2.5 m navigation depth) and from class IV to V between Slavonski Brod and Belgrade (2.5 m to 2.8m depth) is projected for commercial shipping (annual capacity: 400,000 tonnes) and alternative transport via the new highway and the railroad is available. Potential transport that has been identified includes: Tourism, Oil and oil products, Bio-diesel and ethanol, Wood and wood products, Agriculture and agro industry, Iron ore, steel and products.

Projected volumes are summarised in the figure below. While the river will be navigable to the west from Sisak too Brezice it will be targeted toward tourism.

46

Figure 6: Volumes of traffic on the Sava River. Source: ISRBC (2007)

Climate change

As greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute to climate change, each country in the region is expected to meet targets to reduce (or mitigate) its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. All countries and (once accepted) candidates will be expected to contribute to the EU’s target of a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030 over 1990 levels (EC, 2014). It is likely that targets will adjusted to be country specific.

In order to reduce emissions, key sectors must be targeted. The highest emitting sectors are energy (81%) followed by agriculture (10%), with smaller contributions from industry (5%) and waste (4%).

Table 10: GHG emission by sector in the Sava river basin countries in 2011. Source: (WRI,n.d.)

National

contribution

of GHG

emissions to

SRB countries

Contribution of each sector to national emissions

Agriculture Energy Industry Waste

Albania 9% 19% 68% 7% 6%

Bosnia and Herzegovina 33% 8% 84% 4% 4%

Croatia 31% 11% 78% 8% 3%

Montenegro 4% 7% 78% 11% 4%

Serbia

Slovenia 22% 9% 84% 4% 2%

A changing climate is cause for concern. There are two key issues: increase in the occurrence of (?)_extreme events, such as flooding and lower rainfall. (WMO & GWP, 2014)

According to the IPCC, South Eastern Europe is expected to be strongly affected by climate change. Water flows in summer may decrease by 10% over historic levels, while flows in winter are expected to increase by the same amount, resulting in an overall reduction of the mean water flows. Adding towards Storyline 1 and 2, this scenario will investigate the economic implications for agriculture, energy (e.g., the implications of changes in the hydropower production) and water supply schemes. ) This will point to the need for increased resilience of the agricultural sector to climate change (flood and droughts episodes, rainfall and river flow reduction) – differences by country e.g. Countries like Croatia increasingly face droughts during the last couple of years, with harvest losses up to 70%.

5. Selected Nexus Issues With Illustrative Quantification

During the workshop, a series of policies and stresses were identified that call for attention. To help explore these, the trends and scenarios described earlier are expanded with simple quantifications and insights. As stated before,

47

the issues analysed and partially quantified build on the workshop discussion and provide only initial insights on what type of integrated analysis is possible, and according to us, needed to analyse intersectoral implications of sectoral policies. [ZOI visual representation of sectors and their interlinkages (to be developed from the outcomes of the workshop)]

5.1. The Energy-Water-GHG Emission Nexus

5.1.1. Insights into the power system, its expansion and relation with the Sava River Basin

Energy (and electricity generation in particular) is the major user of SRB water. It is likely to continue and potentially grow. To estimate the extent of the possible relationship we develop a simple projection of the lowest cost expansion of the electricity system, in the shape of a multi-country energy model for the period from 2015 to 2030. We assume that trade in the region is allowed both between countries and to neighbouring countries.

Table 11.Net Transfer Capacities for 2015.

From

To

SI HR BA RS ME AT IT HU RO BG MK AL

SI34

1500 950

680 IT

730 SI

HR35

800 400 100 700 HU

600 HR

BA36

400 100 200

RS37

150 100 100 300

200 RO

150 RS

200 BG

100 RS

100 0

ME38

200 100 200

Data used is consistent with the WATCAP (Heywood, 2013) report. All power plants committed to come into operation within the next few years (according to National development plans and power plant databases

39). They

start operating in accordance to the identified installation or construction dates. After that, however, new power plants needed to be invested in – from around 2020 on. Non-committed, but identified hydropower plants (as well as other generators) were then gradually allowed to be chosen by the model to meet this demand into the long term. The choice of what power plant to operate is made such that the lowest cost (most economic) system is chosen. This is based only on techno-economic criteria (such as the capital, operating, fuel and other costs of the system). The software used to make this estimation was the bottom-up, multi-year energy system model Open Source energy Modelling System (OSeMOSYS). More information on the energy model is provided on Appendix B.

34(ELES, 2015) 35(ENTSO-E, 2015) 36(ENTSO-E, n.d.) 37(EMS, n.d.) 38(USEA, 2014) 39

Platts 2013; BFME, 2014; SMEEP, 2013; NREP, 2009a & 2009b

48

Three scenarios were developed to provide some insight about the possible changes in the generation mix of the countries in the SRB under different conditions - with a special focus on the SRB area.

Firstly, there is a Business As Usual scenario, named Base Scenario. It uses historical climate data.

Changes in rainfall patterns and temperature increase were taken into account in a climate change scenario (identified as RCP45 – explained later in sub-section 5.2).

Lastly, adding to the climate change impacts on water availability, an agricultural expansion scenario was modelled, represented by the maximum increase in irrigation (IRR MAX).

The present section (5.1.1) is dedicated to the discussion of the results obtained for the Baseline scenario. In the Baseline Scenario, historical flow data for the period from 2003 to 2013 was used to estimate the capacity factors of selected hydropower plants in the SRB. These values were then transposed to the remaining

40 hydropower plants in

the SRB (in operation, construction or planned) in accordance to criteria of proximity and upstream-downstream location along the Sava River and its tributaries. As for the hydropower plants located outside the SRB, average capacity factors were assumed to be similar.

An overview of the expected electricity generation mix change in the SRB region, throughout the period of analysis, can be seen in Fig 5 for the years 2015, 2020 and 2025. Common to all countries is the increase in electricity generation with hydropower representing a significant share in the production mix. Serbia's is the only exception with high levels of coal fired generation.

40

The JRC study is focused on 25 hydropower plants in the SRB (22 existing and 3 planned in Slovenia), and does not consider some planned ones or under construction (according to our database). The capacity factors estimated from the available data were assumed to be equal for planned hydropower plants closer to the ones we had data for, which correspond to another 44 HPPs.

49

Figure 7: Generation, in GWh, by fuel type by SRB country (excluding Albania).

The Sava River and its tributaries are the main source of water for hydropower and thermal power plants in that region. Consider Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example. It generates around 11% of its electricity from hydropower plants based in the SRB. Left only to economic drivers – i.e. the lowest cost energy system, it is calculated to grow to 27%, by 2025 (see Fig. 6).The Sava River Basin is central to electricity development in the region. A high proportion of new power plant investment in the riparian countries is expected to be interwoven with SRB water.

In the case of Serbia, coal accounts for much generation. However, the estimated increase in hydro and wind power capacities surpass its contribution 2025. Slovenia, with large potential is expected to increase its hydro generation from 7% in 2015 to over 19% in 2025. The majority of the planned

41 hydropower plants are located in the SRB.

The effects of hydro expansion on river systems, water flow and ecosystems is well described (Jager& Smith 2008) , but not well quantified. With each new power plant, its configuration in terms of structural type, environmental flows, dispatch scheduling, its potential as pumped storage facilities, will have effects on the functioning of the basin, sedimentation, flows, and flood control and water allocations. In the Sava Basin, for the time being, planned expansion of hydropower concern not just the Sava River but also its tributaries

42.

41

PSP Zalog in the Drava River and a few other small plants.

42Bosnia, for example, with HPP projects in the Una (and Sana), Vrbas, Bosna and Drina rivers.

50

a)

b)

c)

c)

e) Figure8 Baseline Scenario projections of the electricity generation in a) Slovenia (SI); b) Croatia (HR); c)Bosnia and

Herzegovina (BA); d) Serbia (RS) and e) Montenegro (ME); for the years 2015, 2020 and 2025. The denominations OS and SS,

used for some technologies, respectively mean "Outside SRB" (OS) and "In SRB" (SS).

51

Figure 8 shows the generation of electricity from hydro power plants, and thermal power plants from the OSeMOSYS model. It is interesting to note that the use of fossil fuels reduces steeply from 2019. This mirrors an increase in the deployment of large amounts of hydropower. This trend is followed by a continuous reduction in the CO2 emissions, mirroring the overall decrease in the use of coal for electricity generation (illustrated at a national level in Figure 6**). From a GHG mitigation perspective, the increase in hydropower capacity, in combination with other RES, allows the reduction of CO2 emissions by 50% in 2030, when compared to 2015. Such emissions reduction potential may become an important driver in the future.

Figure 9.Comparison between CO2 emissions and hydro and thermal power electricity generation, in the SRB countries, for the

Baseline Scenario.

Bosnia and Herzegovina maintains it status as the region´s net exporter, with hydropower replacing the coal fueled

technologies for the production of electricity for exports. Figure 9 provides an overview on the importance of net

electricity imports in the region surrounding the SRB. The amount of energy traded is very much dependant on low

cost electricity surplus produced in Bosnia and Herzegovina. From 2020, Montenegro, due to the expansion of

hydropower and to the lowest demand in the region, starts exporting electricity to neighbouring countries, in result

of the decrease in exports from Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the other hand, from 2020, Serbia's net imports start

increasing in order to meet the country's high electricity demand (figure 11) indicating that its own installed

capacity is no longer sufficient to secure electricity supply.

52

Figure 10.Electricity demand of the countries in the SRB, with exception to Albania.

Figure 11: Net electricity imports of the SRB countries in the Baseline Scenario.

5.1.2. The SRB and GHG mitigation

Electricity based GHG emissions in the Sava region are predominantly due to burning coal. The CO2 emissions drop in the years starting 2019, 2020 and 2021. This is due to the introduction of hydropower plants in different parts of the basin. However, around 2025, the electricity production from fossil fuels starts to grow to satisfy the increasing electricity demand. This would indicate that there would be a drive to fully exploit SRB hydro potential and thereafter, increasing GHG emissions would need to be dealt with.

53

The planned expansion of hydropower plants reaches 492 MWe with a total generation of 1613 GWh on an annual

basis. Since no site specific costs were available to the analysts, generic values were used to estimate the

corresponding expansion costs. These reach approximately 2 million US$. Such an expansion would save 1,2 million

tonnes of GHG emissions per annum.

At the same time, there is the potential to increase the role of other GHG mitigation measures. These all include

interactions with the SRB. We briefly describe some of those below:

● Increasing biofuel production. Biofuel production will increase (subject to meeting ‘sustainability criteria’43

)

water use and place demands for increased agricultural land use. The intrinsic trade off associated with

agricultural expansion again appears.

● Increasing the deployment of solar and wind generators. At present wind and solar is limited, but potential

expansion is through to be significant and form part of Energy Community Secretariat (2012) targets. These

will directly impact the Sava basin in two ways.

○ More solar and wind, may relieve the pressure on hydro as the primary GHG mitigation

technology for Sava countries. Relieving the drive for the expansion of the hydro system with its

associated effects.

○ More solar and wind, will drive up the need for storing energy. The most cost effective way to do

that is increasing pumped storage hydro plants. Another action that will affect the river.

● Increasing energy efficiency options: Overall, investments in measures to improve energy efficiency

measures are more cost-effective than investments into developing new capacity (UNEnergy, 2009). A

special case, for the expansion of energy efficiency, to water efficiency will be discussed again later with

reference to water treatment. However, simplistically, lower energy demand (subject to export situations)

lowers the need for electricity supply and the resources (such as water) on which it relies.

● While less important than energy, agriculture is the number two GHG polluter in the SRB countries. High

proportions of agriculture are dependent on the Sava River Basin, indicating another key interlinkage.

5.2. The Climate Change-Water-Energy Nexus

In the context of the SRB countries, climate change has two main themes. One of those is the mitigation of GHG

emissions. The other is adapting to changes in the climate, changing rainfall patterns, etc. In the Climate Change

Scenario (RCP45) an illustration of the impact of a changed climate is partially captured. Water flow information is

taken from a parallel study by the JRC, based on the IPCC Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5 (RCP45)44

and

data from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), was used to define the scenario. The RCP4.5 data

corresponds to the climate future in which the peak of GHG emissions occurs by 2040, remaining constant until

2100. In that study, an average of the daily water flow was estimated in a detailed land-use and water balance

43

In order to receive government support or count towards mandatory national renewable energy targets, biofuels used in the EU (whether locally produced or imported) have to comply with sustainability criteria. These criteria aim at preventing the conversion of areas of high biodiversity and high carbon stock for the production of raw materials for biofuels. The entire biofuels' production and supply chain has to be sustainable. To this end, the sustainability of biofuels needs to be checked by Member States or through voluntary schemes which have been approved by the European Commission (EC). ((EC, n.d.)). 44http://sedac.ipcc-data.org/ddc/ar5_scenario_process/RCPs.html

54

model, at the location of a set of power plants. The potential flow of water through existing and new hydropower

plants was translated by assuming consistent capacity factors, which were then used for other technologies in

accordance with criteria of proximity and upstream-downstream location along the Sava River and its tributaries.

The water flow was changed as a function of fluctuation in rainfall and use (the dynamics of the JRC study are

described in more detail later). The expected change in electricity generation mix from the results of this scenario

are shown in Figure 11.

Figure 12.Electricity generation changes from the Base to the RCP45 scenario.

The RCP45 climate change scenario does not necessarily result in decreased water availability in all countries (see

JRC study data) – in fact it results in net increase in generation. The decrease in generation in some countries is

balanced by the production from others, through the electricity trade. Figure 12 illustrates the differences between

the net imports in the Base and in the Climate change (RCP45) scenarios, respectively represented in a bold and

dashed line. The reduction in production indicated in (Figure 11) is mainly due to the decrease in production in

Montenegro. Montenegro becomes a net exporter, in 2024, rather than in 2020 in the Base scenario. Added to this,

also the amount of electricity available to be exported by Montenegro is nearly reduced by half. As a result, Bosnia

continues to export at steady levels before a reduction, that is correspondingly delayed by four years.

55

Figure 13 Base and Climate Change (RCP45) scenario comparison of the net imports in the SRB countries.

The hydro generation dynamics in the SRB countries is interesting. In Slovenia, there will be an increase in water

availability indicated by the increase in hydropower production as shown in Figure 12, while the opposite will be

expected in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Figure 13 indicates the overall change in hydro power generation in the

countries in the SRB. The available water for hydropower generation is reduced in certain countries but increases in

some countries over different time periods. While a hydro generation increase is expected in Slovenia under the

RCP45 Scenario, the tendency for Bosnia and Herzegovina is not the same. In this case the results indicate that a

reduction in generation will gradually decrease until 2023, from when the generation from hydro will be less

affected by climate change impacts in water availability.

Figure 14.Relative change in total hydropower generation (TOTAL HYDRO) and in SRB (HYDRO SS) in Slovenia as well as

Bosnia and Herzegovina, for the climate change scenario (RCP45) in comparison to the Baseline Scenario.

56

5.2.1. Change in Rainfall Patterns

Adapting to climate change will include several concerns. Two of those include:

● Reductions in rainfall and a potential water scarcity.

● And, increases in precipitation and flood events.

Both are discussed briefly below.

5.2.1.1. Low rainfall and competition

As indicated the SRB is not water scarce. However, even with a historic climate projected into the future there are potential trade-offs looming for water use. As water resources decrease, either in the long term, or during droughts, trade-offs will need to be made. Focusing on the biggest user, if also non-consumptive water use is considered - energy - we note that costs to that sector can be significant. If policies are set up to try and adapt quickly, cost impacts can be reduced. Policies may include increased use of dry cooling technologies, or low water intensity options such as solar PV and wind. Mean flow reductions and increased variability due to climate change has strong implications. It will affect power production, agriculture, other water demands – as well as competition between these demands. Depending on levels of water availability, “thirsty” technologies in the energy production sector will be vulnerable. Several examples of thermal water cooled plants being switched off have been observed in Europe, due to the need for meeting the water requirements in upstream/other power plants.

The potential implications of low water years can be illustrated with a few examples. Record-breaking temperatures were registered in Central Europe In 2003 and 2006 heat waves [.Question to the countries: Are there any documented observations about how the Sava Basin was affected during the period?] In June and August 2003, ambient air mean temperatures were 6°C above normal, whereas in July 2006, the average maximum temperatures anomalies reached 8°C (Rebetez et al, 2008). These conditions had implications over energy production in different countries. In France, for example, the 2003 heat wave conditioned the functioning of 17 out of the 34 nuclear reactors in operation, with some being forced to temporarily shut down. In July 2006, the Spanish nuclear power plant Garoña had to close for a week due to the high water temperatures of the river that provides water for cooling. In Germany, in the same year, five nuclear power plants had to reduce their production due to high water temperatures and low stream flows. Three of these, located along the Elbe River, were forced to reduce their production by 50% during July and August due to high water temperatures (Förster et al, 2009). Although the previous examples refer only to nuclear power, it is worth mentioning at this point that the water withdrawal demand for nuclear power plants is very similar, if not lower, than the water requirements for fossil-fuel based technologies (IEA, 2012).

Availability of water for countries downstream in low flow periods, eventually conditioned by droughts or particularly dry seasons, may be affected by upstream activities. For example, the intensification of irrigation in upstream regions and of water abstraction for public supply, as well as the existence of water catchments, may lead to a decrease in downstream flows (UNESCO, 2013, Ren et al, 2014). Effects will be felt across different water-using sectors, such as the industrial, agricultural and municipal (public supply) sectors. In dry times energy demand increases as well as irrigation demand. Each of those exerts pressure on regional water supply.

57

5.2.2. Flood events

Recently the Sava River experienced one of its most severe floods (UNISDR, 2014)45

. In Serbia, flood events between April and May 2014, apart from hindering the operation of thermal power plants (BBC, 2014; EPS, 2014a), compromised coal supply due to damages caused to several open-pit mines (EPS, 2014b). Occurrence of extreme hydrological events such as flooding is expected to increase. Even in that case, there will be trade-offs between sectors. Again, pointing to energy, there will be inter-sector tension, as described in UNISDR (2014), BBC (2014), TENT (2014a and b). According to (ISRBC, 2014), floods in May 2014 were the heaviest rainfall since records began 120 years ago. They caused an extreme increase of water levels in the rivers, some exceeding ever recorded maximums. Tributaries of the Sava River – the Bosna,Vrbas,Una and Kolubara caused flooding and landslides and great loss in the area. Floods had particular devastating impact in the towns and villages along the Bosna River (Zavidović, Maglaj, Doboj, etc.). The city of Obrenovac on the Sava some 20 km upstream from Belgrade and the confluence with the Danube was devastated. In Serbia, two coal mines were also flooded whose production is essential for the generation of electricity, and their operation was suspended (UN Serbia et al. 2014).

An approach to buy time or help adapt to a small flooding incidence by lowering reservoir levels during normal operation may be helpful. Tension between optimization of hydropower generation will occur if lower reservoir operating levels in reservoirs are adopted. Low reservoir levels may limit hydro potential operation. Also, low reservoir levels will affect abilities to cope with droughts and affect scheduling potential of power plants, irrigation and maintaining appropriate flow regimes.

The flood reaches its 100 years return period at about 6000 m3/s to the Sava River Basin (2010 Floods in the Danube

River Basin). The reservoir capacities reach 1,752 km3 in the basin. Assuming that the storages are half full, the

centennial flood could be reduced by at least four hours. Further lower impact floods, which often last for up to four days (Komatina, 2014) might be better contained in instances where natural floodplains are complemented by spare reservoir capacity.

5.3. Agricultural Expansion

To expand irrigated agriculture, it is necessary to complete construction of local irrigation systems and micro-accumulations, but also upgrade/expand infrastructure network where irrigation systems are in place in order to make water available to all agricultural producers. Building the low-voltage power network is necessary to ensure secure and cheaper irrigation. Further, as agriculture modernizes and intensifies, increased volumes of fertilizers are expected to be used.

Agriculture-water-energy-climate nexus

Increased agricultural expansion will result in evaporation and evapotranspiration losses. Less water will be available for hydro generation. Less hydro generation will result in increased generation from other sources, including fossil fuels. Increased fossil fuel use, will increase GHG emissions.

To calibrate the experiment we use an aggressive agricultural expansion scenario taken from work with the JRC (Bidoglio, 2014). That effort calculates reductions in water availability for power plants as a function of increased irrigation, combined with the RCP45 climate future scenario. As with the climate change scenario, the capacity

45

ISRBC has collected information on recent floods and the report is under development (discussed within the ISRBC expert groups).

58

factors of specific hydropower plants in the Sava River Basinwere estimated and used to better describe the electricity generation mix in the SRB in maximum irrigation conditions.

Figure 15: Land use and a scenario of new hydropower plant deployment in the Sava River Basin (For data sources, the

footnote of figure 5 can be referred to)

Care was taken to locate the position of all identified and planned hydropower facilities in the region30

. Reductions in flow resulting from water withdrawals expected in the max irrigation scenario of the JRC could then be mapped to those plants. Please note that the JRC work is still underway and these correlations are to be cross checked once completed.

With an increasing demand for water in the agriculture sector, the hydropower generation is once again negatively affected as shown in Figure 15. The difference in hydropower production may not be significant until 2020, but from then on such difference is expected to increase, with less 6,3 PJ being produced in 2024.

59

Figure 16: Difference in generation between the Max Irrigation and the RCP45 scenario

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BA) is the largest net exporter of electricity and has a significant share of its energy production dependent on the Sava River. It is therefore examined in a little more detail.

Figure 17: Electricity trade comparison for Bosnia and Herzegovina, along with hydropower generation, for the different

scenarios. Bosnia and Herzegovina is featured as an example because it is the largest net exporter of electricity.

Across all scenarios in Bosnia and Herzegovina - electricity exports increase with the increase in the capacity of hydropower production. As shown in figure 16, that increase is lower (and at similar levels) for the climate change (RCP45) and max irrigation scenarios. In the case of the Base scenario, from 2020, generation from new hydro power plants gradually impact the amount of electricity traded by Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In the RCP45 and max irrigation scenarios, Montenegro becomes a net exporter from 2024, partially relieving Bosnia and Herzegovina from the responsibility on increasing production to satisfy the needs of Serbia and Croatia.

60

Figure 18: CO2 emissions in Bosnia and Herzegovina along with hydropower generation.

Annual CO2 emissions in Bosnia and Herzegovina are presented across different scenarios in figure 18. It can be

noticed that with the increase in electricity production from hydropower plants, around 2020, the amount coal

burnt in the country reduces, which results in the dropping of CO2 emissions. It can also be noticed the difference in

CO2 emissions in the Climate Change and Max Irrigation scenarios when compared to the Base scenario. This is

directly proportional to the decrease in water available for hydro production and hence increased usage of fossil

fuels. Supporting this analysis is the increase in emissions in the max irrigation scenario, less water available for

electricity generation, when compared to the climate change scenario.

As a result, it is seen that there is in fact a trade-off to be made. However, on the one hand, the value of that trade-off is a function of the electricity price, the cost of alternative power generation options. On the other it is a function of the value of the crops to be cultivated.

Other nexus impacts of agricultural expansion include, amongst others:

● Increase GHG emissions through the use of fertilizer. Note that increased use of fertilizers are associated with greater GHG emissions (in the form of released nitrogen oxides).

● Potential encroaching on forests and wetlands - as agriculture expands. The latter associated with the loss of carbon sinks, flood control, tourism and biodiversity services.

● Plans have been reported for the production of ethanol46

and biodiesel. In this case there is a direct link between agriculture and energy. In particular renewable energy.

5.4. An example of the implications of reduced water availability

Water in the system has a worth as a function of what sector it will be used in. Consider for example the removal of 1m

3/s of water throughout the year in the entire chain of all hydropower plants. This may be due to extra extraction

due to irrigation requirements, or the result of pressures placed on regulating flows for ecosystems, or maintaining water levels. In so doing, it is estimated that approximately 114 GWh less electricity will be generated from

46

Fr example the Swedish company EUREKA intended to start an ethanol production in the industrial area of the Željezara steel plant (ISRBC 2007). Slavonski Brod port authority has signed a Letter of Intent for biodiesel transport (ISRBC 2007).

61

hydropower in the basin (KTH calculations).. This will require extra generation from other sources to cover the demand in the basin, coming from coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power plants. It is expected that such a decrease in the water availability would result in 0,9 million US$ extra costs per annum for the Sava region to generate electricity from other sources and 90 thousand extra tonnes of GHG emissions released to the atmosphere. The additional GHG per country are given on the table below. This table forms the background of the capacity and generation maps shown in this report.

Table 12: Additional Greenhouse gases if 1 m3/s is removed from the entire chain of hydropower plants (KTH calculations)

Country Additional GHG (tonnes)

SI 5340

HR 4370

BA 12311

RS 60236

ME 9061

Similar opportunity costs arise if flows are reduced to agriculture, ecosystems and other users.

Note that our example indicates two general points. Firstly that water economic evaluation is feasible. This is an

important step needed for its management. Secondly that its value differs by sector. It differs also by region, as

upstream uses have important downstream influences.

5.5. Other Key Issues: Sedimentation and erosion

There are economic pressures to exploit the Sava further. Human activities will affect the river's flow patterns. That in turn will affect historic flow patterns in the river system and ecosystem dependent of it (and their services) and these will need to be assessed. Similarly this will affect sedimentation. Sediments that are withdrawn upstream (for use in construction sector) can create a lack of sediments downstream influence the hydromorphology of the river bed. That would be bad for the natural functioning of river ecosystems. However, slowing flows, especially in reservoirs or slower stretches of the river can increase. Sedimentation can affect navigability of the river. A recent sediment balance study in the Sava Basin by ISRBC (2014) states that excavation of material from the Sava riverbed is a relatively important component of processes of sediment load formation and sediment transport, even though the effects of dredging are generally local and depend on the location of the excavation field. River training structures and hydropower plants play a significant role in river bed formation along some stretches of the river. As sediment transport impacts on infrastructure of different sectors, reducing and controlling erosion is a shared interest, and would benefit from efforts of different sectors. Information about effective measures, for example land use and farming practices that reduce erosion, would be valuable. Collectingdata and information is an important future activity, and the sediment balance report included a number of proposals for joint activities to improve sediment monitoring.

62

5.6. Other Key Issues: Groundwater pressures

In the Sava River Basin groundwater is important as a source of public water supply of population and industry, but also as a support for ecosystems. Pressure on groundwater bodies (around cities and agricultural areas mainly) are likely to increase as more water is expected to be withdrawn from them. (ISRBC, 2013c) An assessment of the quality and quantity status of groundwater bodies (GWBs) in the Sava River Basin concluded the following (SRBMP Background paper 2, 2013):

- Regarding chemical status, 11 GWBs (or almost 30%) are possibly “at risk” or have poor status and 30 GWBs are in good status (or not “at risk”)

47

- Based on a quantitative status (or risk) assessment, only three GWBs are possibly “at risk” not achieving good quantitative status, 38 GWBs are in good status or not “at risk”

48

Some 19 transboundary aquifers have been identified in the Sava Basin (UNECE 2011). Some pressure factors have

been identified — depending on the transboundary aquifer —namely hydropower schemes and flow regulation, transport, agriculture, groundwater abstraction, communities, industry, wastewater (septic pits), solid waste disposal, gravel extraction, tourism and mining. Locally lowering of groundwater levels has been observed (UNECE 2011). It is clear however, that groundwater withdrawals will have trans-sector implications. Energy consumption (and therefore price) can be significant as a function of depth. In the figure below we develop a simple illustration calculating the cost of irrigation from groundwater at different depths, were we to irrigate the same quantity of land currently irrigated. Recall that the Draft SRBMP anticipates a six fold increase in the short term.

47

In cases where there was no status information available due to a lack of information (HR, RS, BA and ME), the information based on risk assessment is included. 48

Where there were no information on status information available (HR, RS, BA and ME), risk assessment was used

63

Figure 19: Extra costs incurred for doubling of irrigated agriculture over current levels. The blue line indicates current irrigation

patterns (and volume). The red line assumes drip irrigation.49

Note again that we expect 593% growth in irrigation according to (ISRBC, 2013b), and other sources indicating high

growth. Currently farming and irrigation is fragmented and draws on groundwater. That groundwater is extracted

at different depths. Efficiency has also not been a strong priority Volk (2010).

5.7. Other Key Issues: Point-source pollution

Even though a number of new treatment plants was foreseen to be brought into operation, the share of wastewater discharged to the Sava that is either untreated or has gone through only primary treatment is still significant. This results in important organic, nutrient and other chemical pollution load into the Sava River. Improved wastewater treatment has been highlighted as a goal by each country in the Sava river basin, and the draft SRBMP highlights the crucial importance of the construction and extension of wastewater infrastructure in agglomerations >10,000 PE which generate some 75% of the total organic pollution load (about 112,000 t/a as BOD5 and some 221,000 t/a as COD) (ISRBC 2013). Urban wastewaters are also an important source of nutrient pollution, other important contributors being from industrial facilities the chemical sector and intensive livestock production. Water treatment has a cost and an energy requirement. To treat a unit of city waste water requires approximately 35kWhr per 1000m

3. Indirect effects include increased demand for energy. Increased demand for energy increases

the importance of the SRB on which the energy system relies. Detailed discussion of the water related impacts of water treatment can be found in SRBMP (ISRBC 2013) The low level of wastewater treatment results in negative impact of direct uses, harming ecosystems, aquaculture and other uses.

49

The calculation is provided in the appendix. It is done specifically for the SRB and accounts for the electricity generation mix in the SRB and the corresponding generation costs.

64

As there is still a lot of need to put into place wastewater treatment, these investments to be made are an opportunity to select technologies that are energy efficient. This would include measures in e.g. households to be more water efficient such as implementing low flow appliances (toilets, showerheads, washing machines etc.) These then result in indirect energy savings, as less water is used and processed. In the treatment centres themselves there is scope to use state of the art high efficiency pumps etc. The selected wastewater treatment technology impacts on the energy requirement and some technical solutions would also allow generating some energy (e.g. from biogas). [Do the countries have examples about the application of technical wastewater treatment solutions that generate some electricity or heat that can be beneficially used?]

5.8. Other Key Issues: Navigation

Navigation requires appropriate water depth and control of sediment levels. Maintaining flow levels will require coordinated operation of infrastructure. The operation of that infrastructure for water withdrawals, hydro generation, releases etc. depend on other sectors and the type of infrastructure available. From an ecological point of view navigation is a significant pressure. There are engineering works carried out to maintain and improve the navigation which affect riverine processes (e.g. bedload transport, morpho-dynamic development of the channel network, groundwater regime, etc). Further, navigation can cause pollution to the water environment. The legal framework for navigation and environmental issues in the Sava River Basin includes international conventions between countries as well as the relevant EU legislation, policies and action plans. An important issue for the development of navigation on the Sava River is the development of the River Information System. In this regard, the ISRBC has passed two decisions complying with EU requirements – Decision 03/09 on the adoption of Vessel Tracking and Tracing Standard and Decision 04/09 on the adoption of the Inland ECDIS Standard. Rehabilitation and development of the Sava River waterway is an important project for the Sava riparian countries

for further economic and social development of the region, and the need for joint action —intersectoral and

transboundary coordination — is recognized50

. The Protocol on the Navigation Regime to the Framework Agreement on the SRB constitutes a main pillar for integrated planning. The latter takes into account the Joint Statement on Guiding Principles on the Development of Inland Navigation and Environmental Protection in the DRB, especially the ecological measures required to ensure environmental sustainability. More detailed discussion of the water related flow level and sediment control can be found in SRBMP (2013).

5.9. Other Key Issues: Ecosystem Services

The SRB provides key ecosystem service described earlier. However those services are affected by human activities

and provide important inputs to various sectors. The sectors which they affect (or affected by) include (amongst

others): tourism, GHG mitigation, and agriculture and flood adaptation. Each of these include an important nexus

linkage.

For Tourism wetlands and forests attract visitors to the natural beauty and wildlife. Increased visitors to the region

increase spending, but also potential pollution and impacts. While not costed into tourism per se, clearly the natural

beauty has intrinsic value. From a socio-cultural point of view, links with land and natural environment are strong.

50

This was reconfirmed on 2 December 2014 by the Parties to the FASRB in the 5th

Meeting of the Parties in Zagreb.

65

Cultural and heritage sites provide a valuable bond. Concrete possibilities for developing the touristic sector in a

sustainable manner can be found in the Guidelines for Transboundary Ecotourism that ISRBC has published in 2013.

In terms of GHG mitigation forests and wetlands trap large quantities for carbon, lowering carbon dioxide

emissions. They also provide land that can be used for the production of biofuel. There are trade-offs between

carbon loss if there is a change in land use and the gains from lower carbon emitting bio-fuel.

In terms of agriculture (as with biofuel production), forested areas and wetlands cover land. If the wetlands are

drained and deforested, there is space which could be used by agriculture. Agricultural expansion can thus result in

the loss of these services. Those services have economic value. That value is not always clear, thus not integrated

into decisions. Similarly, agricultural production has economic value. Maximising the trade-off is important.

Flood control services are provided by floodplains. Similarly levels of flood control can be provided by operating and

building reservoirs in a coordinated manner. However, changes in the hydro-morphology from increased use and

management can affect the characteristics of the ecosystem services provided.

Reconciling water needs for hydropower and environment: environmental flow

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has developed a case study in Montenegro for a small hydropower plant on Treskavacki Potok to demonstrate implementation of environmental flow(e-flows) which can make hydropower generation to better account for ecosystem needs and to make it more sustainable. The aim was to determine impact of e-flow regime implementation on electricity generation compared to current practice, which consisted of maintaining only 10% of average annual flow – called biological minimum – in the river at all times. In contrast to biological minimum, e-flow regime mimics the natural variability of flow in terms of magnitude, seasonality, duration and high/low flow events. E-flow regime was recommended by ecological experts in relation to natural flow and existing acquatic and riparian ecosystems, and it generally provided for more water to be left over in the river compared to biological minimum requirements. Comparing biological minimum and e-flow regime to natural flow, available water for hydropower use was determined. A set of engineering equations was then used to calculate how much electricity could be generated, all else equal, by applying the two flow regimes (biological and e-flow).

The outcome of this analysis demonstrated that a small hydropower plant operating on an e-flow regime would produce 2,4% electricity per annum less than if operating on biological minimum. Translated to Montenegrin financial conditions, this would cause a decrease of less than 10.000 EUR per year. While this analysis refers to small hydropower projects and still needs to be scaled up to larger plants, it shows that considering nature as one of water users is not that costly, with all the costs incurred repaid in environmental services spared.

In addition to using e-flow regime specifically to hydropower sector, it is an excellent tool for managing trade-offs between various water users and environment in order to maximize both human and ecological outcomes. Such an environmental water allocation should be used in any basin scale planning and assessments, including Nexus Assessment of Sava River Basin.

[A source reference from WWF?]

6. Possible inter-sector transboundary solutions

The aforementioned nexus issues indicate that there is a need to quantify the trade-offs between water uses across sectors and borders. It also indicates the need for trans sector, trans border cooperation.

66

At a policy level this includes aligning longer term national development with the realities of managing the strategic resource base that is the Sava basin. The basin management plan for example has a limited outlook as it covers six year periods. While national sector policies and (for those countries subject to them) directives, can span decades. Furthermore, implications of infrastructure decisions last for a long time.

The following are some examples of actions in one sector that would positively impact other sectors, creating synergies that can be built on to provide economic benefits. They originate from the dialogue with and suggestions from stakeholders during the assessment workshop. They do not represent a comprehensive list but rather a series of examples of synergic actions. The aim of describing those here is to motivate an extended cooperation between borders and sectors and over temporal scales.

Energy, agriculture, settlement use of water are linked to each other and impacts on water upstream affect uses downstream. Flow regulation and navigation related works are also a case in point that downstream developments can also influence upstream. As the drive to develop sectors is often undertaken in isolation.And these not necessarily with the Sava river basin explicitly in mind.

Concrete opportunities are identifiable and some listed in chapter 8. To compare projects, policy approaches, or come up joint investments or with benefit sharing arrangements. Quantification would inform such intentions.

7. JRC Sava Nexus Modelling Study

The European Commission’s DG Joint Research Centre launched – within their Danube Nexus projects contributing to the EU Danube Strategy – a case study on the Water-Energy-Food-Ecology Nexus within the Sava River Basin, which is executed in close collaboration with the UNECE and the International Sava River Basin Commission.

The aim of the JRC Water Nexus study is to examine various water futures in the Sava River Basin. Climate change and land use changes driven by political, demographical and economic factors will have consequences for the balance between water availability and water demand of various sectors. Further changes in the agriculture and energy sector will also be of influence. In addition, specific measures related to the water sector can be taken e.g. measures to reduce flood risk, measures to increase efficient use of water, re-use of water etc.

JRC has developed a hydro-economical water modelling platform that simulates the hydrological cycle in a spatially explicit manner, while taking into account costs and benefits of measures as compared to the baseline situation.

While this study is still ongoing, an overview and preliminary findings are presented below.

7.1 The JRC hydro-economical modelling platform

JRC has developed a modelling environment to assess optimum combinations of water retention measures, water savings measures, and nutrient reduction measures for continental Europe (De Roo et al, 2012). This modelling environment consists of linking the agricultural CAPRI model, the LUMP/LUISA land use model, the LISFLOOD water quantity model, the EPIC water quality model, the LISQUAL combined water quantity, quality and hydro-economic model, and a multi-criteria optimisation routine.

This modelling platform is used to examine various water futures, and possible combinations of measures that are helpful and economically favourable to reach a sustainable balance between water availability and water demands of the various economic sectors, while ensuring a minimum water availability for an ecologically sound river flow regime as well.

67

The heart of the modelling platform is the LISFLOOD model. LISFLOOD is a GIS-based spatially-distributed hydrological rainfall-runoff-routing model developed at the JRC. It includes a one-dimensional hydrodynamic channel routing model (De Roo et al., 2000; Van der Knijff et al., 2010). LISFLOOD is currently used at the JRC for simulating water resources in Europe, Africa and at the global scale. Driven by meteorological forcing data (precipitation, temperature, potential evapotranspiration, and evaporation rates for open water and bare soil surfaces), LISFLOOD calculates a complete water balance at a daily time step and every grid-cell. Processes simulated for each grid cell include snowmelt, soil freezing, surface runoff, infiltration into the soil, preferential flow, re-distribution of soil moisture within the soil profile, drainage of water to the groundwater system, groundwater storage, and groundwater base flow. Runoff produced for every grid cell is routed through the river network using a kinematic wave approach. Although this model has been developed with the aim of carrying out operational flood forecasting at the pan-European scale, recent applications demonstrate that it is well suited for assessing the effects of land-use change and climate change on hydrology (Feyen et al., 2007; Dankers and Feyen, 2009).

To account properly for land-use dynamics, some conceptual changes have been made to render LISFLOOD more land-use sensitive. Combining land-use classes and modelling aggregated classes separately is known as the concept of hydrological response units (HRU). This concept is used in models such as SWAT (Arnold and Fohrer, 2005) and PREVAH (Viviroli et al., 2009) and has been implemented in LISFLOOD on the sub-grid level. A forest fraction map, water fraction and direct runoff (urban area) fraction have been derived from the 100m resolution CORINE land use maps. Furthermore, the remaining part of an individual grid is divided in irrigated area, rice-irrigated area, and other land use. For future projections of land use, the JRC Land Use Modelling Platform (LUMP) maps will be used in the second part of the Sava study. The spatial distribution and frequency of each class is defined as a percentage of the entire 5 x 5 km grid. To address the sub-grid variability in land use, we model the within-grid variability by running the soil modules separately for fractions of land use.

Figure 20 Overview of the LISFLOOD model. P = precipitation; Int = interception; EWint = evaporation of intercepted water;

Dint = leaf drainage; ESa = evaporation from soil surface; Ta = transpiration (water uptake by plant roots); INFact =

infiltration; Rs = surface runoff; D1,2 = drainage from top- to subsoil; D2,gw = drainage from subsoil to upper groundwater

68

zone; Dpref,gw = preferential flow to upper groundwater zone; Duz,lz = drainage from upper- to lower groundwater zone;

Quz = outflow from upper groundwater zone; Ql = outflow from lower groundwater zone; Dloss = loss from lower

groundwater zone. Note that snowmelt is not included in the Figure (even though it is simulated by the model).

The model has also options to simulate lakes, reservoirs, and retention polders, which are relevant for low-flow analysis (as they tend to increase low flows) as well as for simulating flood protection during high flows.

Furthermore, LISFLOOD now includes a module to estimate irrigation water demand and use, with modules for paddy rice irrigation and irrigation of other crop types. Next, livestock, industrial, energy and public water demand and consumption are embedded in the model.

Further modules for embedding ecological flow and various water allocation schemes are currently being finalised.

The LISFLOOD model output can be any internal variable calculated by the model, either as time series, summary maps or stacked maps over the complete time period.

Examples of LISFLOOD output are:

discharge hydrographs at gauge stations, inflow point of hydropower lakes etc.

timeseries/graphs of soil moisture, groundwater level, snow accumulation etc at specific points;

summary maps of total precipitation, annual runoff, total evapotranspiration, snow accumulation, soil moisture, total water demand, total water use, or groundwater recharge;

indicator maps, e.g. water exploitation index (WEI and WEI+), soil water stress maps, flood return period maps, low flow return period maps

7.2 The LISFLOOD setup for the Sava river basin

For the Sava, at present a 5x5km grid setup is used, while using sub-grid information from the 100m elevation (source: SRTM) and land use data (source: CORINE).

Figure 21 The LISFLOOD and land use setup for the Sava basin: 25km2 major river network, superimposed on the 100m SRTM

elevation data

69

Figure 22 Location of the hydropower and thermal power stations for which discharge outputs are produced

The following data have been used for the simulations presented in this report:

Elevation: SRTM at 100m, resampled to 5km, subgrid information used

Land use: CORINE land cover 2006 at 100m resolution; dominant land use at 5km used, with subgrid percentages of forest, open water, urban area

Irrigated areas: EU28 information as available from Wriedt et al (2010) and from De Roo et al (2012), Non-EU data from FAO Aquastat

Percentage of source of water used for irrigation (surface water, groundwater, or non-conventional): source FAO/Aquastat (available at country scale only)

Meteorology: JRC-MARS-EU-Flood-GIS database 1990-2013 with stations, gridded to 5km

Climate scenarios: CORDEX bias corrected climate scenarios (latest versions)

Discharge data: Sava Yearbooks 2001-2010 (as kindly provided by the ISRBC), appended with available additional JRC station data (source: GRDC, and national hydrological services)

Soil properties: European Soils Bureau gridded data (JRC) (King et al., 1994)

Soil hydraulic parameters: porosity, saturated hydraulic conductivity and moisture retention properties for different texture classes were obtained from the HYPRES database (Wösten et al., 1999).

Water demand/consumption/abstraction: Livestock, Public, Industrial abstractions are taken from JRC Blueprint study (De Roo et al, 2012); Irrigation is simulated

Location of hydropower and thermal stations: Information provided from ISRBC, KTH, missing data derived from internet sources; several steering parameters had to be estimated.

Using the data above, LISFLOOD has been calibrated using the Shuffled Complex Evolution - University of Arizona (SCE-UA) algorithm (Duan et al., 1992) at 42 stations within the Sava basin. A set of 9 parameters that control infiltration, snowmelt, overland and river flow, as well as residence times in the soil and subsurface reservoirs, have been estimated for 42 sub-basins by calibrating the model against historical records of river discharge.

70

Figure 23 Example of the LISFLOOD calibration results for one of the 42 hydrological stations

7.3 Preliminary results

First results of the modelling study are available and have been used to facilitate a dialogue with ISRBC experts and obtain feedback for improvements.

With the calibrated LISFLOOD setup of the Sava basin, model runs have been executed for 5 different climate situations. During the follow up stage it is envisaged to use all available CORDEX scenarios to examine also the spread in the various climate scenarios:

Observed weather 1990-2013 (gridded gauged data)

KNMI Baseline 1950-2005 (1990-2005)

KNMI RCP45 2006-2100

SMHI Baseline 1970-2005 (1990-2005)

SMHI RCP45 2006-2098

Three different irrigation scenarios have for the moment been taken into account:

Current irrigated areas (source: JRC & FAO-Aquastat)

Planned irrigated areas in BA and ME (information from ISBRC national facilitators)

Areas equipped for irrigation (source; FAO Aquastat)

71

Figure 24 Simulated change in the 20-year discharge return period (HQ20) for the KNMI RCP4.5 climate run 2006-2100 as

compared to current climate (green = 0-5% increase, blue = 5-10% increase in HQ20)

Deriving conclusions from the current runs is not feasible. Figure 24 (?) shows increasing flood risk, mainly in the

downstream part of the Sava river basin. However, updated runs and multiple scenarios need to be finalised first to

come to final conclusions.

72

Figure 25 Average daily inflow discharge (m3/s) at selected hydropower stations in the Sava basin, and simulated changes

under the irrigation and climate scenarios

Figure 25 shows some preliminary results of available water to hydropower stations, indicating that for average

inflow no significant changes in inflow are simulated. Effects at a seasonal or monthly basis can be different and will

be further examined. Also, a larger set of climate scenarios will be simulated to cover the spread.

73

Figure 26 Annual Water Demand for current (left) and the optimum maize irrigation scenario (source: JRC 2014)

According to simulations done at JRC with the EPIC model, there is a potential in the Sava river basin to optimize the

yield of e.g. maize. The average simulated maize yield could increase from 5.7 tons/ha at present conditions to 9.9

tons/ha in case of optimum irrigation. To realise this potential crop yield increase, 200-300 mm water would be

needed for the newly irrigated areas.

74

Figure 27 Simulated effects of increased irrigation on groundwater: areas affected by unsustainable groundwater use (left)

and a specific example (lower Croatia) of groundwater fluctuations under current and increased irrigation practices (right)

Increasing irrigation would however have consequences for groundwater (Figure 27), which at least parts of the

year is simulated to become unsustainable. This result is obtained under current climate, but with increased

irrigation.

Figure 28 Changes in low (1st percentile) flow conditions under increased irrigation and current climate

Figure 28 shows that increased irrigation might have substantial effects to surface water and low flow amounts,

especially in the lower Sava basin. This is under the condition that the same percentage of surface and groundwater

is abstracted as is currently the case.

7.4 Further work of the JRC Water Nexus

75

The preliminary results shown in the previous paragraph are meant for discussion purposes only. Further and updated research is ongoing, using river network data updates from the ISRBC, further improved meteorological data, an updated model calibration, and a full set of climate scenarios.

These results are foreseen for 2015.

8.1 Energy security and efficiency actions

8.1.1 Secure flows to hydro power and thermal cooling

Due to the role the Sava is expected to play in the future, the basin is a critical energy security asset. With 10% percent of total hydropower and 39% of total thermal generation in the region, expected to increase, high shares of national generation are dependent on its water. Securing water to the existing and planned energy production use allows benefitting from infrastructure that has already been developed, from an energy perspective, for all countries in the basin. See for example the figures in section 5.1.1. As water use for hydropower is non-consumptive, it does not need to be incompatible with other water uses. Ensuring support to multiple uses of reservoirs arevery important to maximize co-benefits. Of course, environmental protection – and preservation of the valuable ecosystems of the river – needs to be ensured, both in the construction and in the operation of the hydropower plant. As stated earlier, guidance for sustainable hydropower exists for the Danube River Basin as a whole (ICPDR, 2013). Given the presence of thermal power generation facilities in the Sava Basin, ensuring water availability for cooling is necessary to ensure energy security – as long as countries are dependent on it and/or other technologies are expensive to substitute it in case of shortages. The various cooling technologies are diverse regarding their impact in terms of amount of water used

51. Again, environmental protection needs to be ensured with appropriate

assessments of impact for each plant. Thermal pollution52

needs to be monitored carefully because it can heavily affect habitats in the vicinities of the water discharges.

8.1.2 Increasing hydro and pumped storage - a renewable energy enabler

The Sava River Basin is central to riparian countries renewable energy targets. Each country adopts long term RET

targets via EU or Energy Community agreements. Yet, our indicative analysis shows that SRB hydro accounts for a

high proportion of the RE targets to be met by riparian countries. The table below indicates exactly what proportion

of renewable energy is expected to be derived from SRB water. developed by the countries that share the basin.

However, there is a potential mismatch between river basin management activities that typically have a shorter

time horizon (4-6 years) compared to national renewable energy target setting which is typically undertaken with

an outlook that is over a decade long. Given that longer term investment in RET may affect infrastructure that is

being planned at basin level in the shorter term, this infrastructure may need to be later adapted. This may incur

costs. However, those costs will not be ‘visible’ in shorter term planning.

51

See e.g. World Water Development Report 2014 on Water and Energy, figure 3.8 and table 3.2 (available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002257/225741E.pdf) 52

Caused by the difference in temperature between colder water in the river stream and warmer discharge (after the use for cooling)

76

Table 13: Percentage of national RET contributions to be met by facilities dependent on, and in, the SRB.

% RET in 2020 % of national RET on SRB in 2020

SI 44% 17%

HR 69% 10%

BA 60% 25%

RS 46% 23%

ME 100% 36%

Each country has strong renewable energy targets. Power plants linked to dams are characterised by great ramping rates

53 and can be used as a source of operating reserve (obviously, if operated at full capacity they cannot ramp up

any further). Further, the potential for increasing renewable energy potential is increased greatly by the adding pumped storage power plants. When developing new hydropower or improving existing plants, keeping in mind the opportunity to integrate it with other renewable (wind and solar power) will be key in advancing towards renewable targets (and indirectly, towards GHG mitigation targets) responding at the same time to the increasing need of having more flexibility in the energy system. Cumulative impacts of small and medium-sized hydropower facilities should also be considered, and adequate environmental permitting procedures should be ensured to clarify where additional hydropower capacity can be developed and that it is done minimising environmental impacts. "Guiding Principles on Sustainable Hydropower Development in the Danube Basin" were developed and adopted in the framework of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR 2013). The Principles provide information about different planning options, such as modernization and upgrading of existing infrastructures, new facilities with fish passages and minimum ecological flow, analysis of costs and benefits of the project necessary to enable judgment on whether benefits to society outweigh the losses to the environment as well as mitigation measures. Their practical application should now be promoted, to bring increased transparency and openness to the decisions affecting water and energy made by ministries and hydropower companies

54.

8.2 Water efficiency as an energy efficiency measure

8.2.1 Water efficiency in settlements

Improving wastewater treatment is targeted by all SRB countries, spurred partly by the EU Urban Wastewater Directive and transposing EU instruments into the national legislations. This will come with a series of positive

53

The speed at which a generator can increase or decrease its output

54 The priority area 2 of the European Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR), “To Encourage More Sustainable

Energy” includes 2 actions on hydropower: 1. “To develop and set up pre-planning mechanism for the allocation of suitable areas for new hydro power projects”; 2.“To develop a comprehensive action plan for the sustainable development of the hydropower generation potential of the Danube River and its tributaries (e.g. Sava)

77

effects described earlier. Interestingly, increased wastewater treatment provides a policy option with strong cross sector implications.

For funding the necessary infrastructure upgrades and extensions, various possible actions have been highlighted to the Sava riparian countries, for example by UNECE in the Environmental Performance Reviews: ensuring the financial viability of utility companies and internalising externalities by gradually raising the tariffs to levels that allow for a full cost recovery and reflect the real supply costs and increasing bill collection rates (Montenegro, Serbia), regionalising communal utility services to exploit the scope for public-private partnerships in the provision of services (Montenegro), introduce individual metering of water consumption (Serbia),establishment of autonomous institutions operating on a financially sustainable basis and of an independent body to regulate prices and benchmark utility performance (Slovenia), introduce secondary legislation with an unambiguous fee structure and initiate collection of all fees and charges instituted by it (Bosnia and Herzegovina), just to mention a few.

As the treatment of water requires energy, every unit of water reduced also improves energy efficiency. Thus a nexus solution would be to include water saving measures in settlements as part of energy efficiency programs. Water saving efforts can be inexpensive. For example the use of low flow showers, low flow toilets require little extra outlay, but reduce water use and indirectly reduce energy use etc. Including them in the energy efficiency goals of the SRB countries will help realise energy efficiency targets (as well as reduce water withdrawals). Even in the cases where water treatment is not yet in place, water efficiency will help reduce loading on the SRB in times of water stress and low rainfall.

Technology options can be considered that have low energy requirements or use beneficially for example the heat generated.

An illustrative example where such benefits were investigated is a case study on New York City.(While this is far

from the SRB, it is connected as the dynamics of water treatment in settlements are related.) It is estimated that if 2

million low flow toilets were to be introduced. Approximately 50 billion litres of wastewater (flow) every year (more

than 130 mil litre/day) would not need to be treated. This would result in savings of up to up to 80 TJ of electricity

every year and more than 6000 tonne of CO2 (CO2e) emission. While not directly translatable, the principal is clear.

(Segerstrom et al. Forthcoming). Water efficiency not only reduces water, but indirectly (if the water is treated)

energy as well as its associated emissions.

8.2.2 Water efficiency in agriculture

Water saving irrigation will reduce energy use if that water needs to be pumped to the field. Thus, moving to lower flow irrigation from current practice will result not only in lower water abstraction, but also lower energy intensity and lower costs. However, pressurized irrigation systems like drip irrigation have energy requirements and should be assessed carefully.

Complex impacts of modernizing irrigation and the role of energy

Irrigated agriculture in Spain went through a rapid transformation from 2002 to 2009, and currently accounts for 40% of the country’s total water-related electricity demand. The use of drip irrigation systems, involving replacement of gravity irrigation systems, increased by 40% between 2002 and 2008. The net electricity consumed in irrigation increased by 10% per volume unit during the same period. However, from 2006 to 2008 the price for energy increased by 30% to 70% and energy consumption dropped, illustrating the complex dynamics of the situation. Modernizing irrigation systems requires major investment and there is a risk that water consumption will increase and returns will decrease. Consequently, a thorough assessment of possible increases in energy consumption must be made: how they can be met, at what cost and with what impacts on the environment. (Hardy et al. 2012).

Improving water use efficiency can contribute to improving productivity and economic viability of agriculture in the basin, contributing to development.

78

Irrigated agriculture is expected to increase. If groundwater is used, pumping will be required. Pumping uses energy. Therefore reducing the level of water needed to be pumped will reduce energy use.

As with water efficiency in settlements, this would be another instance of a water efficiency measure acting indirectly as an energy efficiency measure.

Thus a nexus solution could to be to include water saving irrigation measures in agriculture as part of water use efficiency programs. Such water saving efforts can be inexpensive,. For example the use of drip irrigation requires little extra outlay, but can reduce water use significantly. The long-term implications of changing energy requirements of irrigation need to be considered, though, as do also water quality requirements. It could be assessed where the Sava River Basin countries application of techniques like drip irrigation would be feasible and beneficial (possibly in vineyards,orchards etc.) and where it could contribute also to energy efficiency targets. In case of groundwater, the depth from which the water is extracted will determine the relationship between the water and energy saving.

8.3 Valuation of water allocation - across sectors and boundaries

[This section needs to be revised]

Evaluation of water resource by sector and region will allow for trade-offs to be made in a rational manner. It also provides a better basis for consultation of different interests and related negotiation. This will be needed to understand the relative importance and cost of all the afore mentioned solutions. Not only will this help allocate key resource, but it will also help focus supporting initiatives, such as improving monitoring, control and flow forecasting and simulation.

That valuation should take place not only in terms of direct economic terms (i.e. the opportunity cost of withdrawing water from the system), but also in terms of strategic value (such as energy security or socially important environmental assets).

As was shown, extracting water in one part of the basin has effects elsewhere. Extracting water upstream, especially in times of water stress, can have potentially strong downstream effects. Direct impacts will include lower hydro-power generation. Similarly, this would affect different water users and various needs: irrigation, sediment control, settlement requirements, navigation, and ecosystem support.

In fig 3 the effects for the biggest user (hydro-power showing the importance of 1 m3/s in the system) are shown.

Similar mapping, not only for energy, but also for other users would help provide the basis for evaluating options. These will be developed under complementary activities of the JRC.

Appropriate tariff structures for water and electricity provides incentives for their more sustainable use. The EU Water Framework Directive (EU, 2000) provides criteria for establishing water pricing schemes, and introduces the concepts of cost recovery, the ‘polluter pays’ principle and incentive pricing. Charging for agricultural water use can have a significant impact on reducing water use, but the societal implications and impacts on food price also need to be considered. The OECD provides guidance for finding the right mix of revenues from tariffs, taxes and transfers as well as for moving towards an improved coverage of operation, management and even investment costs from tariffs (OECD 2009).

8.3.1 Increasing flexibility - Multipurpose dams

Multipurpose dams – not optimum generation, who pays for this opportunity cost?

It has been indicated that water has different values, for different sectors in different parts of the river basin providing the potential to:

● sensibly manage the rational allocation of water (especially in times of shortage or changes is charging and discharge)

79

● enable infrastructure in the basin to cope with flood events ● maintain flows that support the ecosystems

Coordinated reservoir management and multipurpose dams hold great potential. Once transboundary, trans-sector water value has been determined, allocation rules can be developed. Once developed, such reservoirs can help provide a way of usefully allocating water to different uses. To do this, operation and allocation can be harmonised based on projected demands and weather forecasts, reducing spillage. There might also be pre-emptive emptying to adapt to flood events, or buffer. While valuation of water in its different uses can be instructive, not all uses and functions can be meaningfully valued. In any case it should be ensured that the different users interests are considered, sensible needs met, in particular the basin human needs.

8.3.2 Understanding and taking into account better ecosystems

Potential expansion or intensification of agriculture and changes in flow regimes can impact key ecosystem services but this depends on how it is done. These ecosystem service provisions have been discussed earlier. However, their evaluation is critical. For example it is not clear what the value of a forest might be in any given setting as: flood control natural infrastructure, as a carbon sink, or as an integral part of a habitat that houses bio-diverse animals and provides us with oxygen.

There is more potential in all the Sava RB countries to make further use of incentive pricing policies e.g. to encourage enterprises to adopt pollution abatement measures and application of good practices, and to improve the related regulation enforcement. For example, UNECE (2011) recommended Bosnia and Herzegovina in its Environmental Performance Review to strengthen compliance with the “user and polluter pays” principles through adequate penalties and enforcement (UNECE 2011). In a comparable exercise, Montenegro was reminded to take into account the complementary roles of pollution charges and stringent regulation of pollution charges and stringent regulation of pollution sources in achieving an effective environmental policy mix.

The payment of ecosystem services (PES) schemes can provide finance mechanisms for the protection and enhancements of water related ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation and landscape beauty. It is crucial to create mechanisms for measuring/valuing services that are not valued by current markets. In order for PES schemes to be successful, it is necessary to identify how additional amounts of these services can be provided in a more cost-effective way, decided which land managers to compensate for providing more of these services and determine how much to pay them.

Well set-up collection of relevant information about environmental fees as well as impact they have can valuably help focusing efforts effectively.

8.4 Addressing climate change

8.4.1 GHG mitigation

Each GHG mitigation measure affects the Sava River Basin and there is a special relationship with hydropower

(which was discussed in 5.2. An integrated approach that considers these effects holds the potential to develop

strategies that are consistent.

Each country adopts long term GHG mitigation targets or policies via UNFCCC or EU agreements. Yet, our indicative

analysis shows that SRB hydro accounts for a high proportion of the GHG mitigation that takes place in riparian

countries. The table below indicates exactly what proportion of GHG mitigation is expected to depend on SRB water

(this includes hydropower and nuclear power in particular). The SRB is therefore central to GHG mitigation efforts.

However – as with energy - there is a potential mismatch between river basin management activities that typically

have a shorter time horizon (4-6 years) compared to GHG mitigation target setting which is typically undertaken

with an outlook that is over several decades. Given that longer term investment in nuclear and RET may affect

80

infrastructure that is being planned at basin level in the shorter term, this infrastructure may need to be later

adapted. This may incur costs. However, those costs will not be ‘visible’ in shorter term planning.

Table 14: The contribution of SRB infrastructure to meet national GHG mitigation goals.

Est. electricity emissions in 2015 (Mt CO2)

Est. electricity emissions in 2030 (Mt CO2)

% RE/Nuclear in the SRB, i.e.% of that saving attributable to the SRB

SI 6,3 4,8 53%

HR 0,2 1,3 33%

BA 10,3 5,6 48%

RS 18,3 6,2 48%

ME 0,6 0,0 26%

In terms of other, cross sector strategies would include: minimising water and fertilizer use in biofuel crop

cultivation; promoting non-hydro mitigation options (such as wind power, energy efficiency or biomass55

) to release

future impacts on the river; considering active management of the hydro system (and its expansion) and increasing

potential pumped storage schemes, allowing higher renewable potential. Finally, as increased energy efficiency

reduces emissions and stress on energy resources - such as the Sava River Basin water and the dependent

ecosystems - this should be prioritized.

8.4.2 Adapting to climate change

Adapting to a changing climate change effectively requires planning under an uncertain future. There are recommendations on adaptation to climate change that cut across weather it is a drought or flood. These include understanding minimum critical supplies to ensure secure, food, energy, water and shelter requirements.

● Adapting advanced and flexible management regimes. These include improving forecast accuracy and the ability to simulate the effects (both direct and through the nexus) of changes in climate.

● Ensuring operational flexibility throughout the water sector as well as coordination with other sectors. For example, in times of forecasted shortage it is important to ensure that electricity operators are aware that alternative power plants should be readied.

● Valuing the economics of water use in all consuming sectors is needed in order to help proactively develop allocation and operational rules. While water is not valued systematically across sectors or boarders, all sectors need to assess it.

● While ecosystems may provide services (such as forests capturing carbon) that have long term impacts, there are shorter term impacts and services that need to be managed. And to be managed they must be evaluated and measured. However, ecosystems also have intrinsic value.

Noted earlier, the impact of climate change will change trade and investment in the SRB. The effects include a redistribution of generation. Certain countries are likely to generate more, and others less hydro. This effects investment, operation and trade in the region.

55

The Energy Community (2010) estimated the biomass potential (in TWh/a) as follows: Bosnia and Herzegovina 18, Croatia 10.8, Montenegro 4.2 and Serbia 19. [Has the outlook for biofuel since then changed? How do the countries see this?]

81

As summarized by the Guidance on Water and Adaptation to Climate Change (UNECE 2009), there are various reasons which make transboundary cooperation in adaptation to climate change beneficial, reducing uncertainty and costs:

- Prevent negative impacts of unilateral adaptation measures in riparian countries, thereby preventing potential conflict

- Enable more effective and efficient adaptation through: o Wider knowledge base o Larger planning space: take measures in the basin where they have optimum effect o Possibility to share costs and benefits

Drought adaptation

A comprehensive list of drought adaptation measures that would be prudent to adopt can be found at WRU-WMO (2014) and, affect other sectors include (http://www.droughtmanagement.info/literature/IDMP_NDMPG_2014.pdf

● Economic evaluation of the impact of droughts from economic and security point of view ● Understanding the broader nexus impact of droughts: e.g. low electricity generation equalling an

economy shut down. ● Development of an allocation regime under times of stress that ensures water availability for

priority uses. That should include direct effects and broader nexus effects. ● Increasing water and energy efficiency ● Increasing the operational flexibility of water infrastructure ● Maintaining sufficient quantities of floodplains ● Increasing water retaining organic matter in the soils

From a food security perspective, in order to adapt to changed climate conditions it is necessary to ensure sufficient amount of water for the construction of irrigation systems on the agriculture land convenient for irrigation.

Adapting to flood events

Coping with increased flood events can include several direct actions. Given that these are linked to other sectors there are indirect actions that may be useful.

The Draft SRBMP(2013) has identified a key set of measures to adapt to flooding. They include:

Targeted land use and spatial planning regulations

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

In particular the Development of the flood risk management plan for the Sava River Basin in accordance with Directive 2007/60/EC in coordination with the reviews of the river basin management plans provided for in Article 13(7) of Directive2000/60/EC (ibid) is an important and ongoing activity.

8.5 Navigation and sedimentation

Navigation and sedimentation are affected by a number activities and new infrastructure likely to impact the SRB. Key activities relating to navigation will include flow management to maintain river depths. This will necessarily cut across all sectors. Other development will include, as noted in SRBMP (2013) will require special attention related to:

River sections that require fairway development and the related effect on ecological and water status;

http://www.droughtmanagement.info/literature/IDMP_NDMPG_2014.pdf

82

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

Sediment control which requires concerted action from different sectors. An important step to understand how to best tackle this includes the adoption of the Protocol on Sediment Management to the Framework on the SavaRiver Basin; the text of the Protocol was finalized in January 2015. The Protocol stipulates the development of the Sediment Management Plan for the Sava River Basin (to be adopted by the Parties no later than six years after the Protocol enters into force and to be revised in subsequent six year cycles), which will include a set of measures addressing the quality and quantity of sediments.

9. Conclusions and recommendations

Figure 29: Selected interwoven activities in the Sava River Basin

Water use and supply affects and is affected by the use and supply of economic activities including: industry and

mining, agriculture, energy generation, transportation and others. Social development requires water, as do vital as

well as culturally significant ecosystem services.

This work, though purely indicative has indicated where some of these interlinkages are. In summary it is clear that

from a national policy making point of view that the Sava River Basin is critical to ensure energy security, water

security, job security and environmental integrity of the region. The assessment also demonstrates that sectoral

83

policies and plans have got implications across sectoral mandates and require resource inputs that coordinated

management can help ensure to be available.

As water resources of the Sava Basin are fundamental for economic development and impacts from development

propagate across borders, the FASRB and ISRBC as its implementing body provides an important framework for

exchanging information and for coordinating plans to ensure their compatibility and return to investments. The fact

that the ISRBC brings together different sectors’ representatives can help achieve more sustainable development.

Climate change and land use changes driven by political, demographical and economic factors will have

consequences for the balance between water availability and water demand of various sectors. Pressures driving

the utilization of the SRB water, land and ecosystem services are strong. They include increases in demands for

water, energy, agriculture, transport and others. Those pressures are manifest in long term scenarios. The outlook

and long term target setting of many of the sectors is shaped by EU instruments and policies. Many scenarios

developed for resource planning have focused on the long term. The Sava River Basin Management plan is short

term following the WFD requirements, where the 6 years cycles are foreseen. Because of the differences in planning

scope, new integration and ensuring a timely flow of information, sharing of plans and participation of different

users and interests is needed.

While selected and purely indicative estimates of some quantitative intersectoral relationships were made, these

prove to be substantial and warrant follow up. They include the nexus between:

● Water-Energy-Emissions,

● Climate Change-Agriculture-Water-Energy,

● Groundwater extraction and energy use,

● Flooding and droughts as a systemic crosscutting risk. That risk can place stresses on different, related

systems. Sometimes in the same direction, amplifying the effect

● Sedimentation and navigation requiring complex cross cutting management,

● And similarly the building and harvesting of ecosystem services,

Separate models and tools have been developed for specific resource flows and dynamics (water, sediment

transport, climate change etc.), but quantifying the interactions and determining the spatial distribution of effects

in the Sava Basin is difficult with the existing tools. Preliminary results (to be completed) from regional climate

modelling and downscaled impacts on the hydrology suggest an increasing flood risk in the coming decades,

especially in the downstream part of the Sava River Basin. However, the risk is heavily influenced by sectoral

developments in the riparian countries.

Modelling results (JRC) suggest that significant crop yield increases could be obtained in the Sava Basin by

optimising irrigation. Increased irrigation might have substantial effects to surface water and groundwater flow,

especially in the lower Sava basin during dry periods.

There are opportunities for the Sava countries from furthering the inter-sectoral work and seeing the mutual

benefits:

EU and basin-level processes can stimulate inter-sectoral integrated decision-making on the

national/regional level through the application of tools and mechanisms developed for this purpose.

ICPDR Guiding Principles on Sustainable Hydropower Development in the Danube Basin. Some pioneering

work to better reconcile different water uses, for example by bringing together navigation and

84

environment and developing guidance for developing hydropower more sustainably, has been spearheaded

in recent years by the ISRBC and the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.

Putting these into practice systematically will help to reduce intersectoral friction.

Controlling erosion and sedimentation is in the interest of different economic sectors: among them

agriculture, land management, extractive industry, navigation and water management. The recently

completed sediment mass balance study provides a good basis for developed concerted actions, for

example the observance of good agricultural practices and regulating extraction.

Sectoral developments —urban planning, developing flow regulation, dredging — modify the flood

response characteristics of the basin and require careful coordination to avoid increasing vulnerability to

the impacts of flooding. There are still areas in the basin that are in fairly natural state, unconstructed, that

can serve also as flood response. Regarding the legal and institutional basis, the ratification of the Protocol

on Flood Protection to the FASRB, nudged by the major flooding of the Sava in May 2014, and the

implementation of the EU Floods Directive would strengthen the framework for taking action.

The development of small and medium-size hydropower is currently experiencing a boom in some parts of

the Sava basin in particular. Hydropower supports economic development and allows also the integration

of other forms of intermittent renewable energies. Among the drivers are the targets set for the increase of

renewable energy forms in the energy mix in the EU member States. However, hydropower development

risks impacting negatively on ecosystems unless adequately regulated. Clarity about the zones and

conditions of hydropower development would lead to more efficient allocation of efforts and funding, and

would improve coherence between energy and environmental policies.

As financial resources for infrastructure investment are limited in parts of the region, seeking solutions and

designs that support multiple uses is recommended. With the perspective of sharing benefits, sharing costs

can also be discussed.

Several conclusions emerge from the perspective of governance:

• A preliminary mapping has been done of the institutions and actors in the Sava Basin riparian States. Potential

conflicts can occur between upstream and downstream countries based on uses (e.g., hydropower, agriculture),

between sectors within a country (industry, navigation), between local and national authorities within a country

(tourism, energy), and stakeholders can support or oppose conflicting uses.

• In at least some Sava River Basin riparian States, water management continues to suffer from inadequate

institutional structures, inefficient operations, lack of infrastructure (water and sewage-treatment plants), outdated

water pipelines and sewage systems, lack of capacity and reduced financial capacity. There is great variation within

the region in progress towards EU Water Framework Directive harmonization, particularly at the level of

implementation.

• National-level agencies or ministries with responsibility for European integration could play a role in ensuring that

sustainable development principles are taken into account in relevant planning and decision-making, hence

contributing to improving intersectoral coordination.

• Conflicts could be mitigated by mapping competing interests and structuring dialogue. Various processes can be

imagined, such as elaborating on the dialogue on conflicts between navigation and biodiversity interests that has

already been started on the ISRBC level.

85

• Preparation of RBMPs supports valuable engagement with a broad range of stakeholders at the transboundary

level. Opportunities could be explored of how coordination can be improved with the energy and agriculture sectors

to achieve representation of the relevant sectors in the ISRBC's work, and vice versa.

• SRB riparian states could consider improving the online accessibility of environmental information and data,

including by providing direct access to monitoring data and information as well as to the indicators. Access to

information and public participation in compliance mechanisms could be enabled by:

(a) Developing and applying proactive strategies for involving the public;

(b) Strengthening public involvement in the integrated permitting of IPPC installations;

(c) Regularly disclosing compliance and enforcement information and tailoring it to the needs and understanding of

the general public.

•To promote better balancing of economic development and environmental protection, SRB riparian statescould:

(a) Strengthen regular exchange of information at various levels of government as appropriate on the execution of

delegated environmental protection responsibilities and assist them in the execution of such responsibilities through

the provision of necessary guidance and training;

(b) Continuously involve authorities at all levels in the development of environmental policies and legislation within

their purview;

(c) Ensure that efficient mechanisms and adequate resources are provided to authorities at all levels for the

execution of delegated environmental protection responsibilities.

NOTE that the different constitutional structures need to be taken into account.

•A consultation process on national and sectoral development strategies through the ISRBC, taking into account

basin-level impacts, would improve coordination.

• Increased integration in policy- and decision-making will help to increase public participation and stakeholder

engagement in sectors where it is currently weak.

• The FASRB does not specifically adopt certain principles such as decentralization, subsidiarity, gender balance and

poverty reduction. Consequently improvement of performance standards could be made also in the ISRBC context.

• Transboundary EIA and SEA are effective tools to assess the impact of energy, water management and

agricultural projects on ecosystems and to synchronize competing objectives, as well as to ensure proper public

participation. Some of the riparian States do not have well-developed systems for EIA and SEA, particularly in the

transboundary context. Developing quality assurance mechanisms for implementation of EIA and SEA at all levels of

government would improve the situation. In SEA in particular, the involvement of health related authorities should

be ensured.

• The problem of inadequate monitoring systems (e.g., on groundwater, biodiversity, soil, and land use) and

understaffed inspection authorities has an impact on compliance with and enforcement of any measures taken by

the governments to improve the situation. In some areas it is necessary to clarify responsibilities of authorities for

monitoring.

• Greater transparency in the performance of inspection and enforcement authorities would help drive performance improvements, and therefore strengthening these authorities would be beneficial. Assessment, scoping and

86

evaluation of existing environmental monitoring (including monitoring on national borders) systems should be

undertaken, with attention to the links to reporting obligations.

• Accession to existing regional instruments, such as the Water and Health Protocol, will assist in governance and

accountability.

• Information exchange could be enhanced by clearly establishing communication channels and contact person on

horizontal and vertical levels.

From spatial analysis and modelling:

Higher levels of irrigation would reduce water availability for hydropower generationon some of the tributaries. Displacement of hydropower with alternative sources incurs costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

The impact of climate change will change needs for and dynamics of trade and investment in the SRB. The effects include a redistribution of generation. Certain countries are likely to be able to generate more, and others less hydropower. This effects investment, operation and trade in the region.

The SRB is central to electricity development in the region. A high proportion of new power plant investment in the riparian countries is expected to be interwoven with SRB water. Thermal and nuclear power plants require water for cooling. By 2030 approximately 30% of new thermal power plants and 19% of new hydro plants of all riparian countries are expected to rely on SRB water.

The SRB is central to riparian countries renewable energy targets. SRB hydro accounts for a high proportion of the RE targets to be met by riparian countries. It accounts for between 10-36% of SRB country national RET contributions. It is therefore central to the long term energy strategies of each SRB country.

The SRB is central to the SRB riparian countries GHG emissions targets. SRB hydro investments account for a high percentage of the carbon dioxide mitigated. By 2030 this corresponds to almost 43% of the total riparian countries mitigation targets. The SRB is therefore central to the long term GHG mitigation strategies of each SRB country.

With new investment in hydro comes potential new investment in multi-functional reservoirs. Approximately 200 MW of hydro will be built in the region with reservoirs. These may help serve as flood control, maintaining appropriate navigation depths and rationalising investments and maximising the utility to be had from the water.

Flood control will continue to be important for power plant cooling as new thermal power plants will necessarily be built in downstream countries. Yet during times of flooding when power is in high demand, flooded cooling systems can cause generation failures.

A mismatch exists in target setting for GHG mitigation, Renewable Energy deployment and the SRBMP cycles. Both GHG and RE deployment targets are made with several decades in mind and will sharply shape the development of the Sava River Basin. These involve the deployment of billions of Euros. Yet the management plan has only a six year time horizon. Thus it is blind to longer term development. Yet, it both needs to inform it, and be informed by it.

Further insights are provided by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission through hydro-

economic modelling linked to a multi-criteria optimisation toolbox. The JRC effort complements the analysis and

modelling by the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH, Stockholm) by identifying a combination of measures that

would best fulfil the water needs of various sectors.

General recommendations from this assessment include several key needs:

87

● Secure minimum flow requirements for key demands to ensure direct and (nexus) indirect water needs are

met under times of stress

● Develop more, and more detailed, quantified mapping of nexus relationships. These should be carried out

between sectors. They should also be carried out between countries.

● In line with initiatives such as ‘Resource Efficient Europe’ (http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/)

ensure that resource efficiency looks beyond sectoral mandates.

● Consider increasing the time frame of the SRB management planning scenarios. Such that they might react

or inform national economic, social, environmental (GHG mitigation and adaptation), energy, agricultural

and other long term strategy documents.

● Invest in flexible management systems that move across sectors and countries, in order to manage the

nexus. There should be an investigation as to how this would involve cross sector coordination.

● Invest in flexible infrastructure, such as multi-purpose dams allowing increased flexibility in operating and

planning the water of the SRB. Ensure consultation of different interests

● Consider expanding pumped storage, as well as other non-hydro renewables, and assess related

implications carefully.

● Develop detailed management plans that support other sectors meet the goals of the FASRB, or the ISRBC

communicate to actors in other sectors these would include, amongst others:

○ Agricultural extension services that are water, energy, pollution and ecosystem aware

○ Sediment control requires for example, coordination with enforcement to stop illegal quarrying

etc.

10. References

AE, 2014. Annual Report 2013. URL http://www.agen-

rs.si/documents/10926/38704/Poro%C4%8Dilo%20o%20stanju%20na%20podro%C4%8Dju%20energetike%20v%20

Sloveniji%20v%20letu%202013 (accessed 21/10/2014).

Albania - Employment in agriculture [WWW Document], n.d. URL

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/albania/employment-in-agriculture (accessed 11.3.14).

BA - Vlada Republike Srpske, 2010. Energy Development Plan of Republike Srpske until 2030.

BA FIPA, n.d.a. [WWW document] FIPA Investment Project Profile. URL

http://www.fipa.gov.ba/investinbih/index_htm_files/Caplje,Sanski%20Most.pdf (accessed 16/01/2015).

BA FIPA, n.d.b. [WWW document] FIPA Investment Project Profile. URL

http://www.fipa.gov.ba/investinbih/index_htm_files/Babino%20Selo,%20Donji%20Vakuf.pdf (accessed

16/01/2015).

BA FIPA, n.d.c. [WWW document] FIPA Investment Project Profile. URL

http://www.fipa.gov.ba/investinbih/index_htm_files/Vinac,%20Jajce.pdf (accessed 16/01/2015).

BA FIPA, n.d.d. [WWW document] FIPA Investment Project Profile. URL

http://www.fipa.gov.ba/investinbih/index_htm_files/Han%20Skela,%20Jajce.pdf (accessed 16/01/2015).

http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/

88

BA FIPA, n.d.e. [WWW document] FIPA Investment Project Profile. URL

http://www.fipa.gov.ba/investinbih/index_htm_files/Vrletina%20kosa,%20Jajce.pdf (16/01/2015).

BA FIPA, n.d.f. [WWW document] FIPA Investement Project Profile. URL

http://www.fipa.gov.ba/investinbih/index_htm_files/Ivik,%20Jajce.pdf (accessed 16/01/2015).

BA FIPA, n.d.g. [WWW document] FIPA Investment Project Profile. URL

http://www.fipa.gov.ba/investinbih/index_htm_files/Ugar%20Usce,%20Jajce.pdf (accessed 16/01/2015).

BA FIPA, n.d.h. [WWW document] Investment Project Profile. URL

http://www.fipa.gov.ba/investinbih/index_htm_files/Ustikolina,%20Gorazde.pdf (accessed 16/01/2015).

BA FIPA, n.d.i. [WWW document] Investment Project Profile. URL

http://www.fipa.gov.ba/investinbih/index_htm_files/Drina%20I,%20Drina%20II,%20Drina%20III.pdf (accessed

16/01/2015).

BA FIPA, n.d.j. [WWW document] FIPA Investment Project Profile. URL

http://www.fipa.gov.ba/investinbih/index_htm_files/Kovanici,%20Zenica.pdf (accessed 16/01/2015).

BA, 2013. Energy Community - Statement on Security of Energy of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Bazilian, M., Rogner, H., Howells, M., Hermann, S., Arent, D., Gielen, D., Steduto, P., Mueller, A., Komor, P., Tol,

R.S.J., Yumkella, K.K., 2011. Considering the energy, water and food nexus: Towards an integrated modelling

approach. Energy Policy 39, 7896–7906. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.039

BBC News Online, 2014. "Balkan Floods: Fears on new surge on Serbia's River Sava".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27459184 (November 2014).

BEN, 2014. [WWW document] Country Report on Energy Business - Serbia. URL

http://www.erranet.org/index.php?name=OE-eLibrary&file=download&keret=N&showheader=N&id=10229

(accessed 18/01/2014).

Bidoglio, G., 2014. Scientific Support to the EU Strategy for the Danube Region and the Danube Water Nexus

project.

Bosnia and Herzegovina - Employment in agriculture [WWW Document], n.d. URL

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/bosnia-and-herzegovina/employment-in-agriculture (accessed 11.3.14).

Comsar Energy Hidro, n.d. [WWW page] URL http://comsar.com/projects-technologies/hpp-mrsovo (accessed

16/01/2015).

COWI AS, 2013. Update the Basis of the Water Resources Management of the Vrbas River Basin - Module 2.

Hydropower Development Study. URL http://www.wb-

vrbasstudy.com/tl_files/Documents/Final%20Module%202%20with%20Appendices-May%202013.pdf (accessed

18/01/2015).

Croatia - Employment in agriculture [WWW Document], n.d. URL

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/croatia/employment-in-agriculture (accessed 11.3.14).

89

EC, 2013. CAP Reform – an explanation of the main elements. Mem, Brussels, 25 October 2013. European

Commission Press Release Database. URL http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-937_en.htm (accessed

7.4.2015)

EC, 2014. A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative of the Europe 2020 Strategy [WWW Document].URL

http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/

EH, n.d. [WWW document] Energoprojeckt Hidrinzenjering presentation brochure. URL

http://www.ephydro.com/info/downloads/brochures/ephydro-presentation.pdf (accessed 28/01/2005).

EIA, E.I.A., 2014. Country Energy Data [WWW Document]. Countries. URL http://www.eia.gov/countries/

Energy Community Secretariat, 2012. Decision on the implementation of Directive 2009/28/EC and amending Article

20 of the Energy Community Treaty. 10th Ministerial Council, Budva, Montenegro, 18 October 2012. URL

https://www.energy-

community.org/portal/page/portal/ENC_HOME/DOCS/1766219/Decision_on_the_implementation_of_Directive_20

09-28-EC__signed_18-10-2012.pdf (accessed 7.4.2015)

Energy Community, 2012. Energy Community Ministerial Council adopts Renewable Energy 2020 targets.

EPBiH, 2013. [WWW document] Vranduk Hidroenergetski Projekt - Informativni letak o projektu. URL

http://www.elektroprivreda.ba/upload/documents/HE_Vranduk_Informativni_letak_o_projektu-NTS.pdf (accessed

15/01/2015).

EPBiH, 2014. Lista - Registar Podnijetih Zahtjeva Korisnika za Prikljucak na Presnonu Mrezu Naponskog 110 kV, 220

kV i 400 kV [WWW Document]. URL http://elprenosbih.ba/Prikljucak/Lista%20-

%20Registar%20podnijetih%20zahtjeva%20Korisnika%20za%20prikljucak%20na%20prenosnu%20mrezu%2013.11.

2014.pdf (accessed 16/01/2015).

EPBiH, n.d.a. [WWW page] URL http://www.elektroprivreda.ba/eng/page/hydro-power-plant-janjici (accessed

15/01/2015).

EPBiH, n.d.b. [WWW page] URL http://www.elektroprivreda.ba/eng/page/hydro-power-plant-krusevo-zeleni-vir

(accessed 15/01/2015).

EPS, 2011. Strategic and Development Projects of the Electric Power Industry of Serbia. URL

http://www.eps.rs/Eng/Pics/STRAT_RAZV_web_eng.pdf (accessed 21/01/2015).

EPS, 2014. Electric Power Industry of Serbia - Annual Report 2013. URL

http://www.eps.rs/Eng/Godisnji%20Izvestaji/Annual%20Report_EPS_2013_16062014_CD.pdf (accessed

21/01/2015).

Förster, H., Lilliestam, J., 2010. Modeling thermoelectric power generation in view of climate change. Regional

Environmental Change 10(4), pp. 327-338.

Hardy, L., Garrido, A. and Juana, L. 2012. Evaluation of Spain’s water-energy Nexus. Water Resources Development,

28(1): 151–170.

HE na Drini, n.d. [WWW page] URL http://www.henadrini.com/hidropotencijal-sliva-drine/?lang=en (accessed

16/01/2015).

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-937_en.htm

90

HES Vrbas, n.d.a. [WWW page] URL http://www.hesvrbas.com/eng/?p=bl_niska (accessed 21/10/2014).

HES Vrbas, n.d.b. [WWW page] URL http://www.hesvrbas.com/eng/?p=krupa (accessed 21/10/2014).

HESS, 2006. Priloga o HE Krsko. Posavski obzornik, leto X, številka 5. URL http://www.he-

ss.si/dokumenti/priloga/he_krsko_priloga.pdf (15/01/2015).

HESS, 2011. Annex about HE Brezice. Posavski obzornik - leto XV, številka 3. URL http://www.he-

ss.si/dokumenti/priloga/he_brezice_priloga.pdf (accessed 22/10/2014).

HESS, 2013. Annex about HE Mokrice. Posavski obzornik - leto XVII, številka 26, četrtek, 19. URL http://www.he-

ss.si/dokumenti/priloga/he_mokrice_priloga.pdf (accessed 22/10/2014).

HESS, 2014. HESS Annual Report 2013. URL http://www.he-ss.si/pdf/letna-porocila/letno-porocilo-hess-2013.pdf

(accessed 23/01/2015)

Heywood, D., 2013. Water and Climate Adaptation Plan (WATCAP) for the Sava River Basin.

Howells, M., Hermann, S., Welsch, M., Bazilian, M., Segerström, R., Alfstad, T., Gielen, D., Rogner, H., Fischer, G.,

van Velthuizen, H., Wiberg, D., Young, C., Roehrl, R.A., Mueller, A., Steduto, P., Ramma, I., 2013. Integrated analysis

of climate change, land-use, energy and water strategies. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 621–626. doi:10.1038/nclimate1789

Howells, M., Rogner, H.-H., 2014. Water-energy nexus: Assessing integrated systems. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 246–247.

doi:10.1038/nclimate2180

Howells, M., Rogner, H., Strachan, N., Heaps, C., Huntington, H., Kypreos, S., Hughes, A., Silveira, S., DeCarolis, J.,

Bazillian, M., 2011. OSeMOSYS: the open source energy modeling system: an introduction to its ethos, structure and

development. Energy Policy 39, 5850–5870.

HSE, 2011. [WWW page] Construction of HPPs on the middle Sava River. URL

http://www.hse.si/en/projects/hydro/construction-of-hpps-on-the-middle-sava-river (15/01/2015).

HWN, 2014. [WWW page] URL http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2014/03/bosnia-pre-qualifies-firms-to-build-

20-mw-vranduk-hydropower-project.html (accessed 21/01/2015).

ICPDR 2013 Sustainable Hydropower Development in the Danube Basin.International Commission for the Protection

of the Danube River. [available at: http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/hydropower]

IEA, 2012. World Energy Outlook - Water For Energy. Is energy becoming a thirstier resource? Paris: OECD/IEA, pp.

10.

IPA Energy + Water Economics and EPU-NTUA, 2010. Study on the Implementation of the New EU Renewables

Directive in the Energy Community Final Report to Energy Community Secretariat, June 2010. URL

https://www.energy-

community.org/portal/page/portal/ENC_HOME/DOCS/2514179/Calculation_of_revised_2010_RES_targets_cover+

report.pdf (accessed 6.4.2015)

ISRBC 2011. Strategy on Implementation of the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin. April 2011. URL

http://www.savacommission.org/dms/docs/dokumenti/sastanci_strana/3._sastanak_strana_fasrb/strategy_on_im

plementation_of_the_fasrb.pdf (accessed 8.4.2015)

https://www.energy-community.org/portal/page/portal/ENC_HOME/DOCS/2514179/Calculation_of_revised_2010_RES_targets_cover+report.pdf



http://www.savacommission.org/dms/docs/dokumenti/sastanci_strana/3._sastanak_strana_fasrb/strategy_on_implementation_of_the_fasrb.pdf

http://www.savacommission.org/dms/docs/dokumenti/sastanci_strana/3._sastanak_strana_fasrb/strategy_on_implementation_of_the_fasrb.pdf

91

ISRBC 2013c. Sava River Basin Management Plan Background paper No.2 Groundwater bodies in the Sava River

Basin. March 2013.

ISRBC 2013d. Sava River Basin Management Plan Background paper no8.Protected areas in the Sava River Basin.

March 2013.

ISRBC, 2014.Towards Practical Guidance for Sustainable Sediment Management using the Sava River Basin as a

Showcase: Estimation of Sediment Balance for the Sava River.

[http://www.savacommission.org/dms/docs/dokumenti/documents_publications/publications/other_publications/

sediment_booklet/booklet_sediment_balance_en.pdf]

ISRBC, 2007. Pre-Feasibility Study for Rehabilitation and Development of the Sava River Waterway.WitteveenBos.

ISRBC, 2013a. Transboundary Ecotourism Guidelines for the Sava River Basin.

ISRBC, 2013b. Draft Sava River Basin Management Plan. Zagreb.

Jager, H. I. and Smith, B. T. (2008), Sustainable reservoir operation: can we generate hydropower and preserve

ecosystem values?. River Res. Applic., 24: 340–352. doi: 10.1002/rra.1069

Komatina, D., 2014. Activities related to climate change, flood management and projects of the ISRBC.

KPMG, 2010. Central and Eastern European Hydropower Outlook. URL

http://www.kpmg.com/TR/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Central-and-Eastern-European-

Hydro-Power-Outlook.pdf (accessed 30/01/2015).

Ministry of the Economy of Slovenia, Energy Directorate, 2011. Progress Report of Slovenia under Directive

2009/28/EC.

Montenegro - Employment in agriculture [WWW Document], n.d. URL

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/montenegro/employment-in-agriculture (accessed 11.3.14).

OECD, 2009. Managing water for all: an OECD perspective on pricing and financing.

[http://www.oecd.org/tad/sustainable-agriculture/44476961.pdf]

Rebetez, M., Dupont, O., Giroud, M., 2009. An analysis of the July 2006 heatwave extent in Europe compared to the

record year of 2003. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 95(1), pp. 1-7.

Ren, S., Kingsford, R., 2014. Modelling impacts of regulation on flows to the Lowbidgee floodplain of the

Murrumbidgee River, Australia. Journal of Hydrology 519, pp. 1660-1667.

RENA, 2012. Regional Environmental Network for Accession. Working Group 4, Activity 4.2. Country External

Assessment Reports (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia).

RENA, 2012. Country assessments under Working Group 4 (ECENA) of the Regional Environmental Network for

Accession. See www.renanetwork.org.

Sava River basin — TWRM-Med [WWW Document], n.d. URL http://www.twrm-med.net/southeastern-

europe/transboundary-river-basin-management/shared-surface-water-bodies/copy_of_map/new-river-

basins/sava-river-basin (accessed 11.3.14).

92

SEE2020, 2014.South East Europe 2020 Strategy - Jobs and Prosperity in an European Perspective.

Serbia - Employment in agriculture [WWW Document], n.d. URL

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/serbia/employment-in-agriculture (accessed 11.3.14).

Slovenia - Employment in agriculture [WWW Document], n.d. URL

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/slovenia/employment-in-agriculture (accessed 11.3.14).

TENT News, 2014a. "High water levels impede the operation of Thermal Power Plant Morava".

http://www.tent.rs/en/news/769-high-water-level-impedes-the-operation-of-thermal-power-plant-morava

(November 2014).

TENT News, 2014b. "Repair of damage and increase of plant security level". http://www.tent.rs/en/news/807-

repair-of-damage-and-increase-of-plant-security-level (November 2014).

UN Serbia, European Commission and the World Bank Group, 2014. Serbia floods 2014. Belgrade.

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/press_corner/floods/20140715-serbia-rna-report.pdf

UN, U.N., 2014. Chapter 6: Special theme - The Climate Land-Energy-Water-Development nexus, in: Prototype

Global Sustainable Development Report. New York.

UNECE, 2011.Second Assessment of Transboundary Rivers, Lakes and Groundwaters. United Nations, New York and

Geneva.[ http://www.unece.org/env/water/publications/pub/second_assessment.html]

UNECE 2015 (forthcoming). Environmental Performance Review of Montenegro. URL (summary only)

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/cep/CEP-20/EPR.Montenegro.IP.4.e.pdf

UNECE 2015 (forthcoming). Environmental Performance Review of Serbia. URL (summary only)

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/cep/CEP-20/EPR.Serbia.IP.5.e.pdf

UNESCO, 2013. Free Flow - Reaching Water Security Through Cooperation. France: UNESCO Publishing, Tudor

House, pp. 13, 45, 281.

UNISDR (Regional Office for Europe), 2014. "Record Floods challenge Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina".

http://www.unisdr.org/archive/37548 (November 2014)

Volk, T., 2010. Agriculture in the Western Balkan Countries. IAMO.

WMO & GWP, 2014. National Drought Management Policy Guidelines.

WRI, n.d. CAIT 2.0 [WWW Document]. URL http://cait2.wri.org/wri

ME, 2011. Energy Community - Security of Supply Statement for Montenegro. URL https://www.energy-

community.org/portal/page/portal/ENC_HOME/DOCS/1218178/Montenegro_-_SoS-_eng11.pdf (accessed

12/10/2014).

PS, 2014. [WWW page] URL http://zagrebnasavi.hr/nova-koncepcija/ (accessed 23/01/2015).

RCERS, 2014. [WWW page] Registar of Licences for the Construction of Electric Power Objects. URL

http://www.reers.ba/en/node/367 (accessed 16/01/2015).

http://www.unece.org/env/water/publications/pub/second_assessment.html

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/cep/CEP-20/EPR.Montenegro.IP.4.e.pdf

93

RCC, 2013. "Reservoir Granted Concessions for 18 MW Cehotina Hydroelectric Project in Bosnia and Herzegovina".

URL http://www.reservoircapitalcorp.com/i/pdf/2013-01-16_NR.pdf (accessed 14/01/2015).

RCC, 2013. Renewable Energy in South East Europe - Hydro & Geothermal Energy. Investors Presentation [WWW

document]. URL http://www.reservoircapitalcorp.com/i/pdf/Nov-2013-REO-Investor-Presentation.pdf (accessed

30/01/2015).

SEN, 2013. [WWW page]. "Montenegro: Large hydrological projects stopped due to the lack of investors interest". URL http://serbia-energy.eu/montenegro-large-hydrological-projects-stopped-due-to-the-lack-of-investors-interest/?format=pdf (accessed 30/01/2015).

9. Appendix A: Indicators

Please see Appendix A Indicators SAVA Draft 2014 11 20.xls

10. Appendix B: Energy Model of the Sava River Basin Countries

In this section we describe the aspects of the illustrative model developed for aspects of the water-energy analysis.

Note that the model was developed to investigate selected scenarios. It is consistent with and extends work

described in the WATCAP (Heywood, 2013) analysis. The scenarios developed in this model, while technically

consistent, are fictitious thought experiments. They are useful as they provide insights into the techno-economic

value of water in the river, with a special focus on the water-energy nexus. The model is linked with detailed

description of water uses. This includes for agriculture, and is undertaken by the JRC. In combination, they provide a

detailed overview of several aspects of the integrated cross-sector transboundary water use scenarios.

The Sava River Basin Energy-Water (SRB-EW) model was developed using the modelling platform software called

the Open Source energy Modelling System (OSeMOSYS), which is a dynamic, bottom-up, multi-year energy system

model applying linear optimisation techniques. The modelling platform is described in Howells et al (2011), and has

been used for related studies by the World Bank and the United Nations Division for Economic and Social Affairs

(UNDESA). The modelling system is a flexible framework within which the actual model is developed.

The OSeMOSYS requires input of a range of data and involves populating the model with a set of demand

projections and a database of power supply technologies characterised by economic and technical parameters, as

wells as information regarding the existing resource stock and remaining life span. Further, the use of water for

cooling, and water throughput for hydro-generation is explicitly modelled. The SRB-EW model was developed by

populating the OSeMOSYS with the database of energy infrastructure and was calibrated to reflect the energy

systems in each country in the SRB for 2012. The platform allows the model to be guided by so-called “constraints”

that reflect policies, resource availabilities and scenario assumptions. The model calculates an evolution of

technically feasible technology mixes that achieve the least-cost objective (i.e. minimal total system costs) while

meeting the various predefined constraints and set of demands. The model’s “solution” includes, inter alia, an

investment in new technologies, production, fuel use and trade. Economic and environmental implications

associated with the identified least-cost energy systems can be easily calculated with the model.

In the SRB-EW model, each country is modelled as a separate node interlinked by transmission lines. Each node

(representing the power system of a single country) is characterised as shown in Figure 1. The SRB-EW model

includes four types of power generation options: existing power plants; power plants to be commissioned; site-

specific power plants under consideration; and non-site-specific, generic power plants. Trans-border transmission

94

infrastructure is explicitly modelled as well. Each power plant is then identified in terms of whether it is dependent

on the SRB and its location is defined or estmated.

Once the demand is specified, a technically feasible, least-cost combination of energy supply technologies that

meets the given demand while satisfying all the constraints is computed by the model for the specified modelling

period, i.e. 2015-2030 for each year. In order to assess the least-cost system costs, the sum of discounted costs of

investment, operation and maintenance, and fuel costs is taken into account. For these costs a discount rate of 10%

is assumed.

The year is split in twelve seasons, each one corresponding to each month of the year. Each season is characterized

by one day type divided in three blocks (day, night and peak) according to the varying total electricity consumption

and load curves for 2012.

Figure 19. Country Power Sector and water use model structure

In total 145 different types of generation technologies are considered in SRB-EW model, representing a total of 636

technologies identified in the database. For each type of technology and fuel type, two groups were created

according to their location inside or outside the SRB. The only exception were the hydropower plants located in the

basin, which were represented individually for the case of large power plants (more than 10 MW) and, in the case of

Bosnia and Herzegovina, grouped according to the respective Sava tributary As for small hydropower plants in SRB,

for each country, their capacities were added up constituting a separate technology. At this stage, decentralised

options were considered together with centralised electricity production technologies.

In regard to the domestic fuel production technologies, included in the model, these account for the specificities of

each country's endogenous sources profile.

95

11. Appendix C: Calculations

ØInvestment costs in more efficient irrigation methods based on the water value for electricity? How much based on

the normal consumer water value? (Supply costs may need to be added to the water value based on electricity, but

might be negligible)

Agricultural areas cover 42,4% of the total basin area of 41.381 km2. Just 0,3% of the basin area is systematically

irrigate, i.e. 259 km2. The total annual use of water for irrigation is less than 30 million m³, accounting for about

0.6% of the water withdrawals in the Basin and is expected to reach 208 million m3 in the coming years. In case of a

conventional irrigation system, and assuming that the energy requirements for pumping is about 0,0055

kWh/m3/meter and that the groundwater is 50 meters below the surface, the total energy requirements account for

11 GWh (current irrigation)and 76 GWh (expected irrigation).

If drip irrigation is used instead with higher water efficiency as compared to the current irrigation methods, less

water needs to be pumped (6,7 and 46 million m3 less for current and expected irrigation needs respectively) and

less energy to be consumed, i.e. 1,8 and 12 GWh less. The cost of 1m3/s on an annual basis would range from 17

USD to 870 thousand USD depending on the water depth. From the above, one can lead the conclusion that pumping

of groundwater is more economic as compared to withdrawing water from reservoirs.

Furthermore, the shift from conventional to drip irrigation, will lead in savings of electricity generation of

approximately 1 million US$ annually, which could be instead invested in upgrading the irrigation systems.

96

• Centennial flood regulation through reservoirs management (assuming empty reservoirs for simplicity)

The flood reaches its 100 years return period at about 6000 m3/s. (2010 Floods in the Danube River Basin). The

reservoir capacities reach 1,752 km3 in the basin. Assuming that the storages are half full, the centennial flood could

be reduced by 4 hours.

DRAFT REPORT ON THE WATER- FOOD-ENERGY-ECOSYSTEMS NEXUS …€¦ · DRAFT REPORT ON THE...

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT REPORT ON THE WATER- FOOD-ENERGY-ECOSYSTEMS NEXUS …€¦ · DRAFT REPORT ON THE...