Sava River Commission

Transboundary Water Cooperationin the Sava River Basin

Dr. Dejan Komatina,Secretary, ISRBC

UN-Water Conference on Water Cooperation, Zaragoza, 8-10 Jan. 2013 2

Sava river basin


Sava river basin

– Area: 97 713 km2 (the second largest Danube sub-basin; share: 12%)

– Average flow at the mouth: 1722 m3/s (the largest Danube tributary; contribution: 25%)

– River length: 940 km (594 km of which is the waterway)

– Population: approx. 9 millionCountry Share of the

basin (%)Share of the territory (%)

Albania 0.2 0.6

Bosnia & Herzegovina

39.2 75.8

Croatia 26.0 45.2

Montenegro 7.1 49.6

Serbia 15.5 17.4

Slovenia 12.0 52.8


Establishment of cooperation

• Challenge 1

– Need for economic development of the countries in the basin

– Need (and obligation) for environmental protection of the basin

– A well-balanced approach is necessary to use the potential and preserve the existing values simultaneously



• Challenge 2

– Consequences of the geopolitical changes in the region in the 1990-ies

• Sava turned from the largest national river into an international river

• Water management got restricted to national level of the newly established countries

– New, international framework is required for water management on the basin level



• The Sava River Initiative

– Launch of the Initiative:

– Signing the Letter of Intent on Coop. in the SRB:

– Signing the FASRB:

– Est. of the Interim Sava Commission:

– Entering of the FASRB into force:

– Est. of the ISRBC:

– Est. of the ISRBC Secretariat:

• FASRB: the first development-oriented multilateral agreement concluded in the region after the agreements on peace and succession

June 2001

Nov. 29, 2001

Kranjska Gora, Dec. 3, 2002

Brussels, March 12, 2003

December 29, 2004

Zagreb, June 27-29, 2005

Zagreb, January 9, 2006


FASRB

• Key objective:

Transboundary cooperation for sustainable development of the region

• Particular objectives – to establish:

– International regime of navigation

– Sustainable water management

– Sustainable management of hazards (floods, droughts, accidents, etc.)

• Provides the ISRBC with the broadest scope of work among European int’l basin organizations (i.e. int’l river/lake commissions)


Activities of the ISRBC

• Coordination of:

– Development of joint / integrated plans for the basin

– Establishment of integrated systems for the basin

– Development of economic activities (navigation, tourism)

– Harmonization of regulation (national EU)

– Creation of additional protocols to the FASRB

• Cooperation / stakeholder involvement / public participation


Key features of the approach

• Cohesive, providing conditions for:

– Cooperation of the countries after the conflict

– Implementation of joint, basin-wide projects

– Harmonization of national regulation, methodologies, procedures …

– Enhancement of cross-sectoral cooperation on national level

• Integrated

– Geographical scope (whole basin)

– Scope of work (sustainability + development)

– Across the sectors of society (gov., non-gov., academic, business)

• Transparent (public participation, stakeholder involvement)


Key features of the approach

• Aligned with UNECE conventions and EU regulation / strategies

– Water Convention, Espoo Convention

– EU directives (WFD, Flood Directive, INSPIRE, etc.)

– EU Danube Strategy, EU 2020 Strategy

• Subregional (“finer resolution” and complementarity of results with those obtained on a regional, Danube scale)

• Pragmatic and practical – providing the Parties with concrete “products” (strategic plans, integrated systems, development programs, harmonized regulation)


Challenges to implementation

• Differences between the countries

– Status with respect to EU & eligibility for approaching funds

– Level of economic development (financial resources)

– Organizational structure in decision-making process

– Environmental awareness of the public

• Conflict of interests of different users of water (within a country / between countries / climate change)

• Different legal capacity of the ISRBC in the fields of navigation and water management (different perception of the ISRBC decisions and recommendations by the Parties / national institutions)


Challenges to implementation

• Broad scope of the FASRB

– Protocols are necessary to regulate specific issues addressed by the FASRB

– Many focal points and good cross-sectoral coordination and communication within a Party are needed

– Lack of human and financial resources in the Parties

– Considerable efforts are needed to raise awareness in the Parties of benefits and the importance of the existing cooperation


Conclusions

• FASRB appears to be a good framework for Integrated TWRM

• High demand for resources and permanent joint efforts of the Parties

• Considerable benefit for the Parties

• FASRB provides a good basis for the progress towards the achievement of the key objective – sustainable development of the Sava river basin


Contact information

International Sava River Basin Commission

Kneza Branimira 29

10000 Zagreb

Croatia

www.savacommission.org

Sava River Commission

Documents

Transcript of Sava River Commission