E1123
1 2 , 7 < $ ' 7 8 , / 7 , 6 % t n 7 $ e & m + e $ ( g a 3 5 n a 0 M ( , r e * t / a $ r W e $ t a 1 i d a 7 b n , 7 r a W e 1 $ & y r S r o ( t 5 ( f f s o e e - ' 0 t r c i a o l 2 r 1 F b o ' , u t 5 p e 2 c r e 3 1 e u 5 R r t i l $ , D u c i 9 r 1 g 1 A 2 ( f , o y 7 . r t 5 $ s i n * i 2 , M : 5 ( 5 , 0 $ $ 5 , ) % 5 ( 6
Belgrade, 2005
Public Disclosure Authorized Authorized Disclosure Disclosure Public Public Authorized Authorized Disclosure Disclosure Public Public Authorized Authorized Disclosure Disclosure Public Public Authorized Authorized Disclosure Disclosure Public Public FRAMEWORK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY SERBIA IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE REHABILITATION PROJECT
Directorate for Water Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management Republic of Serbia
Belgrade, March 3, 2005 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
ACRONYMS
ACRONYM FULL NAME Ag Agricultural land Amsl Above mean sea level CAS Country Assistance Strategy CEE Central and Eastern Europe DCR Directorate for Commodity Reserves DfW Directorate for Water DTD Danube-Tisza-Danube Hydrosystem EA Environmental Assessment EAR European Agency for Reconstruction EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Site Environmental Management Plan EU European Union FAO/CP Food and Agriculture Organisation FPRY Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia FRY Federal Republic of Yugoslavia GDP Gross Domestic Product GoS Government of Serbia HSS Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICPDR International Convention for Protection of Danube River IDA International Development IDRP Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project MAC Maximum allowed concentration MAFWM Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management MCM Million Cubic Meters MIU Minor Irrigation Unit MIS Marketing Information System MoH Ministry of Health MSEP Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection NEAP National Environmental Action Plan NGO Non-government organisation NPK Nitrogen-Phosphorus-Potassium
2 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
ACRONYM FULL NAME O&M Operation and Maintenance PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PIU Project Implementation Unit PWA Public Water Authorities RoS Republic of Serbia SD Serbian Dinar SFRY Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia TA Technical Assistance TSS Transitional Support Strategy WB World Bank WFD Water Framework Directive WUA Water Users Association
3 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND CONTEX...... 8
1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEX ...... 10
1.1. THE SERBIA IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE REHABILITATION PROJECT...... 10 1.1.1. Introduction...... 10 1.1.2. Flood Control...... 11 1.1.3. Drainage ...... 14 1.1.4. Irrigation...... 14 1.2. OBJECTIVE OF THE FRAIMEWORK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT ...... 18 1.3. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ...... 19 1.4. INSTITUTIONAL, POLICY & LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE WATER SECTOR...... 20 1.4.1. Most Directly Related Institutions...... 20 1.4.1.1. Directorate for Water ...... 20 1.4.1.2. Srbijavode...... 23 1.4.1.3. Vode Vojvodine...... 23 1.4.1.4. Water services...... 25 1.4.1.5. Jaroslav Cerni ...... 28 1.4.1.6. Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia (HSS)...... 28 1.4.1.7. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture...... 29 1.4.1.8. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Civil Engineering ...... 29 1.4.1.9. Other Ministries with Mandates Affecting or Affected by the Water Sector...... 29 1.4.2. Water Sector Policies...... 29 1.4.3. Legislation Relative to the Water Sector ...... 30 1.5. INSTITUTIONAL POLICY & LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SECTOR...... 31 1.5.1. Most Directly Related Institutions...... 31 1.5.1.1. Directorate for Environmental Protection ...... 31
4 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
1.5.1.2. Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia...... 33 1.5.2. Policy Relative to the Environmental Sector ...... 33 1.5.3. Legislation Relative to the Environmental Sector...... 33 1.6. PROCEDURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED UNDER SERBIAN LEGISLATION...... 35 1.7. PROCEDURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED UNDER WORLD BANK REGULATIONS ...... 37 1.7.1. General ...... 37 1.7.2. EA Instruments...... 38 1.7.3. Environmental Screening...... 38 1.7.4. Public Consultation...... 39 1.7.5. Disclosure ...... 39 1.7.6. Implementation...... 39 1.8. PROJECTS ON INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS...... 39 1.8.1. Applicability of Policy ...... 39 1.8.2. Exceptions to Notification Requirement...... 41
PART II: BASELINE STUDIES...... 42
2. BASELINE STUDIES...... 42
2.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ...... 42 2.1.1. The project area ...... 42 2.1.2. Project description ...... 42 2.1.3. Works...... 44 2.1.3.1. Drainage and flood control construction...... 44 2.1.3.2. Minor irrigation component...... 45 2.1.4. Construction materials, quarries and clean-up of working sites...... 45 2.1.4.1. Materials...... 45 2.1.5. Disposal of replaced materials and equipment...... 46 2.1.6. Local impact of working crews ...... 46 2.2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT...... 46
5 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
2.2.1. Climate...... 46 2.2.2. Water ...... 47 2.2.3. Soils ...... 48 2.2.4. Biotic environment ...... 48 2.2.4.1. Significant eco-regions and conservation...... 48 2.2.4.2. Flora ...... 49 2.2.4.3. Fauna ...... 52 2.3. STAKE HOLDERS...... 53 2.3.1. Water services...... 53 2.3.2. Water users ...... 53 2.3.3. Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia...... 54 2.3.4. Society of Ecologists of Serbia...... 54 2.3.5. EKO Studio-Society for the Promotion and Conservation of Wildlife and Environment ...... 55 2.3.6. Eko Forum-Forum for Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection...... 55 2.4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT...... 55 2.4.1. General ...... 55 2.4.2. Agriculture in the State of Serbia...... 57 2.4.3. Institutions...... 58 2.4.4. Regional Agricultural Stations under the Ministry of Agriculture ....60 2.4.5. Anticipated changes in production patterns ...... 60 2.5. HISTORICAL AND/OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONUMENTS ...... 63 2.6. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 63 2.6.1. Flood Control...... 63 2.6.2. Drainage ...... 63 2.6.3. Irrigation...... 64 2.6.3.1. Large scale irrigation...... 64 2.6.3.2. Small scale irrigation...... 65
PART III: IMPACTS, MITIGATION & MONITORING ...... 67
3. IMPACTS, MITIGATION & MONITORING...... 67
6 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
3.1. EXPECTED IMPACTS ...... 67 3.1.1. Construction phase...... 68 3.1.2. Operations phase...... 75 3.2. OUTLINE MITIGATION AND MONITORING SCHEDULE...... 80
PART IV: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND CONSULTATION PROCES...... 85
4. SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND CONSULTATION PROCESS...... 85
4.1. THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND CONSULTATION MEETING IN BELGRADE ...... 85 Early warning system ...... 86 4.2. THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND CONSULTATION MEETING IN NOVI SAD ...... 87
5. LITERATURE ...... 90
PART V: ANNEXES...... 92
ANNEX I: SERBIAN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ...... 93 ANNEX II: DANUBE STATES TRANS-BOUNDARY WATER AGREEMENTS 95 ANNEX III: INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS CONCERNING PROTECTION OF BIODIVERSITY AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS RATIFIED BY SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO...... 103 ANNEX IV: SOIL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE KNOWN PROJECT LOCALITIES...... 104 ANNEX V: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS TO THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE MEETINGS ...... 107
7 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND CONTEX
8 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Figure 1. The Republic of Serbia
9 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEX THE SERBIA IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE REHABILITATION PROJECT
Introduction
The Government of Serbia (GoS) has requested support from the World Bank (WB) for the financing of an Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project. The project would help the GoS to initiate and significantly contribute to the recovering of the agricultural sector, improve the safety from flooding and would assist in improving economic conditions in rural areas. The Republic is shown in Figure 1.
The project as such will be in line with the Transitional Support Strategy (TSS) for Serbia and Montenegro which was updated and approved by the World Bank Board on March 16, 2004 (IDA / R2004-0035) and CAS approved by the World Bank in December 2004. The proposed project would help support two of four of the GoS’s Near and Medium Term Reform Agenda goals as contained in the TSS: (i) stimulating near-term growth and creating the basis for a sustainable supply response; and (ii) improving governance and building effective institutions.
Based on the current design and present agreements with the GoS, the proposed Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project would include the components described in the following sub paragraphs.
Component 1. Rehabilitation and Improvement of Water Resources Infrastructure The rehabilitation and improvement works would include: • Rehabilitation of the flood control defences and the upgrading of the flood forecasting facilities; • Rehabilitation of the drainage facilities; • A minor irrigation and drainage programme.
Component 2. Technical Assistance This component would include: • A study for requirements and constraints for future irrigation sub-sector development, and the initiation of measures to remove these constraints, including a feasibility study of priority areas and for a pilot minor irrigation system; • Institutional reform, capacity building, and improved water sector management; • Upgrading of the flood forecasting and warning system and • Training.
Component 3. Project Implementation This would include provision of equipment for flood forecasting and warning system, O&M and office equipment and vehicles.
10 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Flood Control
Large areas of the country, especially adjacent to the large rivers on the flood plains, are subject to flood damage. It is estimated that this covers some 1.57 million ha over the whole country, of which 1.45 million ha occur in Vojvodina and the plains east of Belgrade, with the balance in Central Serbia. Over the country, this implies that about 30% of agricultural land is vulnerable. To meet this hazard, some 3,434 km of flood amelioration dykes and 30 flood control reservoirs were constructed. However, in spite of this enormous effort, the lands protected by those dykes will always be subjected to some risk of inundation by extreme floods and crop loss due to flooding range from marginal to total, depending on the inundation period. Due to lack of maintenance on the dykes, dams, and their appurtenant structures, the system requires rehabilitation, while on some locations, older dykes need modest heightening to meet more stringent protection criteria. There are no constraints, which would inhibit the immediate reinstatement and improvement of flood protection infrastructure. Under the scope of the project are two major interventions comprising the rehabilitation of a major section of the Danube left bank embankments under Vode Vojvodine, and the completion of the Sava and Drina embankments in Macva under Serbia Vode. These are considered separately below.
Danube Upper Left Bank Embankments: Three sections of this embankment system will be rehabilitated and made secure under the project. These are under the Zapadna Backa Sombor and Dunav Backa Palanka District Level Water Services. Their locations are shown in Figure 2. The works are summarised as follows: • Zapadna Backa Sombor: (Zone 1 in Figure 2) An aggregate length of 1 428 m in six segments will be undertaken; • Dunav Backa Palanka Section 1(Zone 2 in Figure 2). An aggregate length of 1 624 m in seven segments will be undertaken; • Dunav Backa Palanka Section 2 (Zone 3 in Figure 2). An aggregate length of 3 426 m in one continuous segment will be undertaken.
Sava-Drina Right Bank (Macva): The flood embankment on the right bank of the river Sava is divided in responsibility between Serbia Vode and Vode Vojvodine. The section under the latter is already up to the 1:100 year probability flood protection level, and is in sound condition. The sections under Serbia Vode however are not to this standard, and protect mainly against the 1:25 year flood only. They also require to be stabilised and protected against seepage failure. The locations of the sections under Serbia Vode, which will be included under the project, are shown in Figure 3.
As the funding allocation under the Bank funded project is inadequate to complete the desired works on the entire flood embankment sections under Serbia Vode, it is proposed to divide them into Bank funded (Project) sections and State funded sections. The Bank funded works are as follows: • Western Zone, Section 1, 6.12 km from the confluence of the rivers Drina and Sava up to the Vode Vojvodine section. • Eastern Zone, Sections 1 and 2, segment of 7.73 km and 8.50 km from a point north of Sabac town to the State funded reach.
11 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Figure 2. Location of Embankments for Rehabilitation in Vojvodina Upper Danube Left Bank
12 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Legend: 1+800 Location of embankment World Bank Srbija Vode
Figure 3. Location of Embankments for Rehabilitation in Serbia, Drina-Sava Right Bank
13 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Drainage
Over the country some 2.67 million ha of agricultural land, representing about 52% of the total, are affected by poor drainage. In Vojvodina specifically, due to its level terrain some 1.61 million ha are affected, representing about 90% of agricultural lands. To address the drainage and water logging threat, some 2.08 million ha nationwide have been provided with drainage facilities over 400 drainage areas, and incorporating 210 pumping stations and 22,600 km of drainage channels. Over 58 000 ha are equipped with tile sub-drainage. The DfW has planned to extend this coverage to 2.46 million ha. A summary of the schemes is given in Table 1.
Due to neglect caused principally by lack of funds during the period of disintegration of the FRY, the drainage channels have generally deteriorated by siltation and weed growth, and the associated structures and pumping stations have also deteriorated. Figures 4 to 7 show the existing situation of selected schemes. Widespread rehabilitation is required. It is estimated that for field crops, which would be most affected, correction of defective drainage would result in crop yield increases of between 20% and 30%.
Irrigation
Under the former FRY, irrigation development had achieved coverage in the RoS of some 120,000 ha in 288 schemes. This represents only about 3% of the arable land of the country. The majority of schemes (198), covering some 90,278 ha were in Voj- vodina, with the balance located in Central Serbia, mainly in the Drina-Save enclave near Belgrade, and in the Morava valley. Today, due to various factors outlined below, only about 35,000 ha are actually fully utilized, with a further 47,000 ha partially functional. Schemes have ceased to function optimally or totally, due to lack of maintenance, breakdown in management, disaggregation and privatisation, disincentive due to lack of markets, etc.
In Central Serbia in the valleys, with their more sloping terrain and smaller private farms, a combination of sprinkler, drip and surface methods is practised.
14 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Table 1: Scheme Summary Details Cost of Rehab1 Ag. Land Protected Scheme Region (US$ ‘000) (ha net) Vojvodina 1. Dunav Backa Palanka Backa 2, 028 12, 000 2. Tamis Dunav Pancevo Banat 601 92, 000 3. Galovica Zemum Srem 928 3, 600 4. Zapada Backa Sombor Backa 325 33, 750 5. Podunavlje Kovin Banat 108 2, 950 6. Gornji Banat Kikinda Banat 698 18, 000 7. Bosut Srem 3, 350 37, 0002 Total 8 037 199, 300 Serbia 1. Macva Interceptor Drain Macva 1,223 19,350 2. Central Macva System Macva 856 25,540 3. Stojsica Bogaz Macva 977 4,320 West 4. Kolubara 392 2,790 Central Central 5. Velika Plana 148 13,500 Serbia Eastern 6. Negotin Plain Serbia - Area K 270 6,900 - Area B 2,479 5,140 Total 6,344 77,540 Grand Total 14,381 276,840
1 This cost applies only to project funding, and do not include farmer costs for tertiary and quaternary drain rehabilitation. The cost includes works, engineering and administration and physical contingencies. 2 In Serbia. The area benefiting in Croatia is approximately double this size.
15 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Figure 4. Scheme Dunav Backa Palanka - Main canal , 19+650 km
Figure 5. Scheme Dunav Backa Palanka - Main canal, near pumping station "Plavna-nova"
16 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Figure 6. Scheme Central Macva System – Central Macva Canal
Figure 7. Scheme Kolubara -Upstream of the bridge in village Banjani near Valjevo
17 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Preliminary crop water analysis indicates that wheat and certain other early maturing crops would give acceptable yields in most years without irrigation. In the lower rainfall areas and on the lighter soils, however, yields in most years would be significantly improved with supplemental irrigation later in the summer for the longer duration crops. Although the Bank was initially requested by Government of Serbia (GOS) to consider including under the project the immediate start to a rehabilitation and a new construction programme, there were strong reasons why this would be premature at this time, which have been presented in FAO, 2004a.
A preliminary selection of 3 pilot schemes of about 250 ha each have been made for the municipalities of Blace, Pecka and Aleksandrovac, while the locations for 4 more schemes are to be investigated. Technical studies are still undertaken and no more specific data are currently available.
OBJECTIVE OF THE FRAIMEWORK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT
The project’s main objectives are: • To reduce the risk of damage to land, crops, property and infrastructure from flooding; • To increase agriculture productivity through support to high priority rehabilitation and drainage infrastructure, and • To improve water resources management and strengthen the associated water resource management institutions and policy.
The above objectives are in accordance with the recommendations of current policy studies, as agreed by MAFWM, notably those of the Policy Advisory Unit under the EU funded European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR).
The objectives of the current framework environmental assessment are to: • Identify all environmental and social issues related to the project; • Outline preventive, mitigation and/or compensatory measures for issues identified; • Inform the public about the project and its expected and/or potential impacts in preparation of public hearings in compliance with procedures under World Bank regulation. • Outline an adequate monitoring programme.
It should be emphasized that this assessment is a framework environmental assessment, which implies that, while not all project sites and designs have been made yet, it is not possible to process a detailed EIA for all elements of the project at this stage. The DfW and the Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection (MSEP) are currently analysing the appropriate EIA procedure for the project under the new environmental impact legislation, which will be applied after approval of the project. For existing designs for drainage and floodcontrol schemes, and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) will be written.
18 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
The following EIA report has been structured as follows: • Part I (chapter 1, remaining subchapters 1.4 to1.7) presents the institutional, policy and legal context for the EIA including procedures for EIA under Serbian and Bank regulations; • Part II (chapters 2.1 to 2.6) presents the results of the baseline studies carried out, the stakeholder context, and the results of the analysis of alternatives; • Part III (chapters 3.1 and 3.2) presents the results of the analysis of environmental impacts of construction and operation phase, proposed mitigation measures and monitoring together with institutional development. • Part IV represents summary information relevant to public disclosure and consultation process. • Part V (Annexes I to V), presents supporting materials for some of the chapters such as Serbian water quality standards and Danube states trans-boundary water agreements. Annex V contains information and documents relevant to public disclosure and consultation process.
19 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
INSTITUTIONAL, POLICY & LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE WATER SECTOR
Most Directly Related Institutions
This section presents a summary of the current institutional, policy and legal setting for the proposed irrigation, drainage and flood control projects.
Directorate for Water Although there are many Ministries/Agencies in Serbia that deal with water, ranging from planning for its utilisation, distribution for various uses throughout the country, monitoring its quality, and managing water reuse, the main responsibility for water management in Serbia lies with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (MAFWM) through the Directorate for Water (DfW). It oversees the use and functioning of all water resources, their monitoring, use, allocation, protection etc. The Directorate for Water includes the following departments: • Department of Analytical Studies and Regulatory Affairs; • Department of Water Supply and Water Protection; • Department for the Flood Protection and Drainage; • Water Inspectorate and • Administrative, Legal and Financial Department. The organisation chart shows the division of responsibilities in Figure 8.
Under DfW are the two Public Water Authorities, which are the implementation agencies of the Directorate: Srbijavode (Serbia Water) for Central Serbia area, and Vode Vojvodine (Waters of Vojvodina) for Vojvodina. The latter is also under the direction of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Resources Management of the Autonomous region of Vojvodina. Their areas of jurisdiction are shown in Figure 9.
Pursuant to the Water Act, as amended (RoS Official Gazette, Issue 54/96), the Public Water Authority, Srbijavode, was set up and began its operations on 1 January 1997. Its mandate was to perform water resource management activity. Based on an act that defines various jurisdictions of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, the Public Water Authority, Vode Vojvodine, was set up on 1 March 2003 to perform water resource management activity for Vojvodina. These public water authorities have also been entrusted with the management of the water infrastructure, which is comprised of public assets and state assets.
Field operations are carried out by 45 water services under contractual arrangements with Srbiavode and Vode Vojvodine.
20 Figure 8. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management Organisation Diagram
21 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Figure 9. Territorial Responsibilities for the Agricultural Water Sector
22 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Srbijavode The Srbijavode head office has some 170 staff, 60% of whom are high school level and above. Referring to Figure 8, showing that the Srbijavode has two Water Centres for smaller magnitude works, licences etc. The Danube-Sava Centre in Belgrade is responsible for the areas bordering the Danube outside Vojvodina, the Drina-Sava enclave, and other areas outside of the Morava valley. The Morava Centre in Nis is responsible for the areas in the Morava valley. Srbijavode has some 20 Water Services, which control and administer works and maintenance in their hydro-geographic areas.
Vode Vojvodine The organisation of the head office of Vode Vojvodine, with about 440 staff is shown in Figure 10. For operations, it has 18 semi-private Water Services throughout Vojvodina. Their locations are shown in Figure 11. They are autonomous institutions under Serbian law, whose mandate is currently subject to revision. They control the water distribution and maintenance of facilities in their domains, and work under financing provided by Vode Vojvodine through annually renewable contracts.
23 Figure 10. Organisation of the Vode Vojvodine
24 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Water services As outlined in an earlier section, there are 45 socially owned water services and 10 other SERVICES (Socially-owned enterprises are those whose ownership structure is not state owned nor private) A large number of these services have a long tradition in the water management sector, since they evolved from former water communities. Water services manage the following water infrastructure: • Flood control systems including dykes, dams/river reservoirs partly intended for flood control, regulated riverbeds, etc.; • Drainage systems; • Multi-purpose regional water systems; • Riverside protection systems from back water caused by building of the HEPP Djerdap; • Erosion and torrent control structures and measures.
Services provided by water services The water services, each on its own territory, perform the following water services: • Flood and ice control; • Inland water control; • Water supply to various users (irrigation, industry, fishponds, etc.); • Evacuation of wastewater (from industry, farms, fishponds, public sewers, etc.); • Emergency contingences during dyke breaches.
Operations of water services The operations of water services can be classified into two categories: management function and executive function. Operations with a management function include: • Monitoring of infrastructure and updating databases on its territory; • Keeping inventories of various users of water services (protection against the adverse effects of water, water use, wastewater discharge, etc.), which serve as a basis for assessing dykes; • Monitoring and inspection of operational status of infrastructure on the territory; • Management and monitoring of the water regime; • Preparation of plans, programs and design documents for maintenance and repair; • Participation in the issuance of water criteria, water authorisations and water permits, and monitoring of their implementation; • Maintaining custody of technical documentation relating to infrastructure on its territory; • Participation in international cooperation activities involving issues relevant to its territory; • Participation in preparation of action plans for flood control and inland water control.
Operations with an executive function include: • Routine maintenance of water infrastructure based on annual programs;
25 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
• Operation and maintenance of water infrastructure on its territory (pumping stations, weirs, etc.); • Overhaul and emergency repair as needed and • Implementation of inland water control and flood/ice control.
Water services must have the necessary human resources (engineers, technicians, water infrastructure crews, dredger crews, construction workers, etc.) to carry out the above- mentioned operations. They also must have suitable machinery and other tools needed for their work (dredgers, bulldozers, motor pool, water and land mowers, mechanical workshops, etc.)
Based on the current organisation, water services perform their services under contract with public water services. Reduced finance for maintenance work and difficult collection for services have undermined the position of these companies, and they are forced to work under contract for organisations outside the water sector.
26 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Figure 11. Vojvodina - Locations of Water Services
27 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Article 14 of the Water Act Amendment Act stipulates that the public water service will take over from socially-owned companies the structures, facilities, plants and other assets owned by the state, as well as absorb the employees who worked in these structures, facilities and works. This provision has not yet been fully implemented, since the study required by the Act has not yet been prepared. As a result, the status of many water services remains unclear, even though they perform significant water functions in water districts of the Danube, the Sava and the Morava and their work is paramount for the safety of about a third of the territory of Serbia.
Finally, water services share the destiny of the entire water sector and, although they emerged from former water communities and became socially-owned water services, they have been and still are a focal point of operations and development in the water sector. These services in a reorganized form should to continue to fulfil their tasks for the water sector.
Jaroslav Cerni The Institute for the Development of Water Resources “Jaroslav Cerni” was established in 1947 to provide technical support for water resources studies, designs, investigations etc. The Institute has been involved in nearly all hydraulic works in the former Yugoslavia and in many studies abroad. It has some 200 staff, many of whom have academic qualifications.
The Institute has workshops, and laboratories for electronics, soil physics, rock mechanics and structural models, water quality, and sedimentation. It has a large hydraulic model-testing hangar suitable for all types of tests for rivers and estuaries, spillways, structures etc. Field surveys and investigations are carried out on hydrology, meteorology, geotechnics etc. The Institute is well equipped in both facilities and staff to undertake most studies in the water sector in support of the proposed project. As a quasi-private organisation, it is funded by charging for work under contract.
In support of the activities of DfW and its subordinate agencies are various institutes and universities, principal among these is the Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia, the Water Resources Institute “Jaroslav Cerni”, the engineering and agricultural faculties of the universities, and others. These agencies assist sub-agencies of DfW as required, usually on a contract basis.
Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia (HSS) The HSS was established some 116 years ago, and has been recording hydrological and meteorological data for 80 years. It is considered to be the leading institute in the Balkans, but over the past decade, many qualified staff has left to work abroad. It has a staff of 730 technical specialists, including 250 graduates. It has some 3500 volunteers and field observers. This Service is well qualified to support development in the water resources sector. It requires certain items of equipment to upgrade its capabilities, especially in the field of flood forecasting, which are proposed for inclusion under the project.
28 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture In this faculty the Institute of Land Management has expertise in irrigation systems operation, water management, soils, and crop water requirements. Its other departments also have expertise in agronomy, crop production, plant protection etc, which could be invoked for specialised studies and programmes under the proposed project.
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Civil Engineering This Faculty assists the Government and private enterprises in Serbia as required with more complex engineering problems on a professional basis. It has well equipped laboratories.
Other Ministries with Mandates Affecting or Affected by the Water Sector From the state administration, the following ministries are in charge of various activities having to do with water: • Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection; • Ministry of State Administration and Local Self-Administration; • Ministry of Health; • Ministry of Capital Investment; • Ministry of Mining and Energy; • Ministry of Finance. The jurisdictions of the various ministries have not been fully delineated. There is a major overlap of mandate between the DfW and the Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection. Under the new Law on Environmental Protection (December 2004), the latter also performs state administration functions relating to protection and sustainable use of natural resources (air, water, land, minerals, forests, fish, wild animal and plant species); the preparation of strategic research documents, plans and programs in the area of sustainable use of natural resources; the preparation of research programs in the area of fundamental geological research addressing sustainable use of resources; and the preparation of detailed ground water research projects, etc. In addition the Ministry of State Administration and Self- Administration is responsible for utilities, including water supply and sewerage treatment.
Water Sector Policies
The major elements of the national policy and strategy for the water sector have been defined in several strategic documents: • The Water Master Plan of the Republic of Serbia (approved by the Serbian Government in 2002); • Study of Sustainable Development of the Serbian Water Sector (prepared in 2003 for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management); • Blueprint for the Reorganisation of Water Management in the Republic of Serbia (prepared in 2003 for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management).
29 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
The above strategic documents provide the basis of a long-term development policy for the Serbian water sector. The documents define a strategy of sustainable use and protection of water resources through the year 2020. To improve the state of the Serbian water sector (as outlined above), specific activities were undertaken in 2003, aimed at reforming this sector. The fundamental water sector reform objectives and tasks include the following: • Adoption of a platform for legislative and institutional reforms of the water sector; • Preparation of a new Water Act of the Republic of Serbia; • Preparation of a new Water Sector Funding Act of the Republic of Serbia; • Institutional and territorial organisation of the Serbian water sector; • Definition of legal status and ownership transformation of water services.
Furthermore, strategic plans also include a concept for flood control and protection from internal waters in lowlands.
Legislation Relative to the Water Sector
Water sector in the Republic of Serbia is under the mandate of the Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (MAFWM) and the Directorate for Water. In the Vojvodina, this responsibility is extended toward the Provincial Secretariat for Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management. Considered as a mineral resource as well, ground waters are to certain extent under responsibility of the Ministry of Mining and Energy and related the Provincial Secretariat for Energy and Mineral Resources. Policies and procedures related to the water sector are generally proposed by ministries and secretariats, while executive decisions are made by state and provincial governments. Policies related to water use are defined by Water Law, which serves as an umbrella document for most actions and measures undertaken with regarding national waters.
The Law of Agricultural Land and several Government Decrees and Regulations are used to implement policies and procedures in the water sector. Laws, decrees and regulations are prepared by the mandated institutions of the Republic and they are executed by the public water authorities, Srbijavode and Vode Vojvodine and aforementioned water services. There are a variety of laws and decrees related to the Water Sector. The most relevant ones in the context of this project are listed, some of which are summarized in the Annex I: • Law on Water, (“ Official Gazette RoS”, No. 46/91, 53/93, 67/93, 48/94 and 54/96); • Law on Usage and Protection of Water Supply Sources, (“Official Gazette SRS”, No.27/77, 24/85 and 29/88); • Law on Water Regime, (“ Official Gazette RoS”, No. 59/98); • Law on Planning and Construction, (“ Official Gazette RoS”, No.47/03); • Decree on classification of waters, inter-republics waterflows, inter-statal waters and Yugoslavia's coastal sea, (“Official Gazette of SFRY”, No.5/68); • Decree on water flows categorisation, (“Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Serbia” No. 5/68);
30 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
• Regulation on dangerous substances in waters, (”Official Gazette SRS” No. 31/82) • Regulation on allowed concentrations of hazardous and harmful substances in soil and water for irrigation and on methods for their determination, ("Official Gazette of RoS” No. 23/94) • Plan for Water Pollution Prevention, ("Official Gazette of RoS” No. 6/91); • General Plan for flood Control, ("Official Gazette of RoS” 34/03); • Operational Plan for Flood Control for Year 2004, ("Official Gazette of RoS” No. 6/04); • Regulation on Technical Measures and Conditions for Construction of Flood Control Facilities, ("Official Gazette of SFRY” No. 20/70); • Law on Ratification of Convention on Cooperation for the Sustainable Use of Danube River, ("Official Gazette of Serbia and Montenegro”, No. 2-2/2003).
INSTITUTIONAL POLICY & LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SECTOR
Most Directly Related Institutions
Directorate for Environmental Protection In Serbia and Montenegro, the environmental sector is organized at the federal level and the republican level. The Federation provide a framework for environmental protection, while executive legislation and execution is organized at the republican level. The Directorate of Environmental Protection, placed under the Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection (MSEP) of RoS, is the main institution in Serbia responsible for environmental issues. The organisation chart in Figure 12 shows the division of responsibilities. Certain lower level environmental aspects and projects may be regulated under municipal jurisdiction.
31 Figure 12. Organisation chart of the Directorate for Environmental protection
32 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia The Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia had originally been founded to carry out research and to monitor nature. Over the years it has developed into an institution mandated with the conservation of nature, to which it applies principles of sustainable development and biodiversity protection in an integrated fashion. Its primary mandates concern the following: • Protected areas; • Biodiversity protection; • Biodiversity research and monitoring; • Conservation education and communication; • Visitor centres and museums of natural history.
Policy Relative to the Environmental Sector
In Serbia, the NEAP (National Environmental Action Plan) process started in late 2003, with the support of the European Union. The NEAP provides a set of tools that enable systematic effective and integrated policy reform at all levels of governance. In December 2004, the draft NEAP has been completed and sent into an international coordination procedure, after which it will be put through a formal consultation process. Adoption of the first NEAP document for the Republic of Serbia is planned for the last quarter of 2005.
Legislation Relative to the Environmental Sector
On December 14, 2004, the National Assembly of Serbia accepted the new Law on Environmental Protection (“Official Gazette RoS” No. 135/2004). The Law is comprehensive and ambitious. Its objectives are to develop a consistent and modern legal and institutional system for environmental protection, which is harmonized with the EU’s framework, and which will improve horizontal and vertical cooperation and raise responsibility and efficiency. Since this is a new law, not all requirements have been regulated yet and where this is the case, the regulations of the previous law with the same name (“Official Gazette RoS” No. 66/91 and 53/95), are still in force.
Local governments cannot independently adopt their own laws or regulations, as environmental protection is under the mandate of the Republic. Further, the municipalities largely lack adequate institutional capacity, sufficient knowledge base and equipment to enforce environmental legislation. However, communities can regulate some local issues, such as local programs for environmental protection, but always in accordance with legislation of the RoS.
In addition to the new law on environmental protection, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia has adopted three more laws concerning environmental protection issues: • The Law on Environmental Impact Assessment • The Law on Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment • The Law on Integrated Environmental Pollution Prevention and Control.
33 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
The first law regulates the procedure for environmental impact assessments for projects, such as the contents of the studies, the participation of stakeholders and public and private institutions, monitoring and other relevant issues, as well as transboundary information procedures for projects with significant impact on the environment of any foreign country.
Subjected to environmental impact assessment are all projects which are planned and performed, technology changes, reconstructions, up-grading of capacities, shutting down of operation or projects which may have a significant impact on the environment. Projects currently in operation but without a license for operation from the MSEP, also need to processed an EIA.
Article 4 of the Law on Environmental Impact Assessments regulates the list of projects requiring an EIA. The list of projects for which an EIA is required, has not been finalized yet. It is expected that the new list will be approved by June 2005, and will be relevant for components under this project.
The second law focuses on the environmental impacts of sector plans and programmes. The third law regulates the procedures of environmental impact assessments of projects or activities requiring licensing from two or more authorities to warrant the best practices environmental protection application.
Other legislations relevant to the environmental sector include: • Law on the Grounds for Environmental Protection (“Official Gazette FRY” No. 24/98, 24/99 and 44/99, which is a federal level framework law); • Regulation on environmental impact assessment for objects or works (“Official Gazette of RoS” No 61/92); • Law on roads (“Official Gazette of RoS” No. 46/91,52/91,53/93,67/93,48/94 and 42/98); • Law on planning and construction (“Official Gazette of RoS” No. 47/2003); • Law on national parks (“Official Gazette of RoS “ No. 39/93 and 48/94); • Law on mining (“Official Gazette of RoS” No. 44/95); • Law on protection of cultural heritage (“Official Gazette of RoS” No. 71/94); • Law on geological research (“Official Gazette of RoS” No. 44/95); • Law on waters (“Official Gazette of RoS” No. 48/91); • Law on waste materials handling (“Official Gazette of RoS “ No. 25/96 and 26/96); • Regulation on allowed level of noise in environment (“Official Gazette of RoS” No. 54/92); • Regulation on allowed concentrations of harmful and dangerous substances in soil (“Official Gazette of RoS” No. 23/94); • Regulation on imission limit values, methods of imission measurement, criteria for choosing of measurement locations and data acquisition (“Official Gazette of RoS” No.54/92); • Regulation on dangerous substances in water (“Official Gazette of RoS” No.31/92);
34 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
• Regulations on handling waste products of hazardous nature (“Official Gazette of RoS” No.12/95); • Regulation on technical normative for protection of objects from atmospheric discharge (“Official Gazette of RoS” No. 11/96); • Regulation on conditions and criteria for environmental impact assessment for facilities and works (“Official Gazette of RoS” No.49/2001); • Regulation on methodology for chemical accident risk and environmental pollution assessment preparatory measures and measures for remediation consequences (“Official Gazette of RoS” No.60/94); • Regulation on methods and minimal number of testing of waste water quality (“Official Gazette Socialist RoS” No.13/84); • Regulation on construction of plant for flammable liquids and on storage and on pouring flammable liquids (“Official Gazette of Socialist SFRY” No.22/71 and 23/71); • Regulation on emission limit values, methods of emission measurement, methods and time limits for measurement and data acquisition (“Official Gazette of RoS” No.90/97); • Regulation on criteria for determination of location for location and removal of landfills (“Official Gazette of RoS” No.54/92).
PROCEDURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED UNDER SERBIAN LEGISLATION
According to the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment, a project cannot be initiated without approval of an EIA given by the mandated administrative body being any one of the following: • The ministry in charge of environmental protection (currently the MSEP); • The administrative body of an autonomous region in charge of environmental protection; • The administrative body of the municipalities in charge of environmental protection.
The Procedure for EIA consists of following steps: 1. Decision-making if it is necessary to perform an EIA regarding the list, given by the government, prescribing projects for which EIA is compulsory and projects for which EIA can be required; 2. Decision-making about the scope and content of EIA study; 3. Decision-making about giving approval for EIA. The procedure begins after the receipt of a request from a project implementing organisation. The Law has also prescribed documentation necessary to submit a request.
An EIA study must contain: 1. Data about the implementing organisation; 2. Description of the project locations;
35 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
3. Description of the project; 4. Summary of main alternatives, which have been considered; 5. Overview of environment condition at the locations and in the neighbouring areas (micro and macro locations); 6. Description of possible significant impact of the project to environment; 7. Estimation of environmental impact in case of accident; 8. Description of measures predicted to prevent or decrease, or where possible remove any significant harmful influence to environment; 9. Program for monitoring of environmental impact; 10. Non-technical summary of information given in previous 8 steps; 11. Data about technical shortages or non-existence of suitable expert’s knowledge or impossibilities to collect all necessary data.
The study should also list the persons who participated in the preparation, the person in charge, the date of preparation, signature of the person in charge and the stamp of the organisation, which prepared the study.
The administrative body in charge is obliged to organize public consultation, presentation and discussion about the EIA and to inform all interested parties about the place and time of public insight and discussion. The study shall be reviewed by a technical commission with representation of the viewpoints of all stakeholders and the public in general, which may require changes being made to the document.
The mandated administrative body approves the EIA study, considering the conducted procedure and the opinion of technical commission. The body is obliged to inform the public about the decision through at least one local journal in every of official languages in the project area. It must also inform all stakeholders, administrative bodies and organisations in writing form on: • The content of decision; • The main reasons on which the decision was based; • The most important measures, which the implementing organisation must conduct in order to prevent, reduce or compensate harmful impacts on the environment.
The Law on EIA specifies a number of punitive actions in case of non-compliance with the law: The present fines range from 5,000 to 3,000,000SD, while in some cases, the implementing organisation and/or a responsible person may be forbidden to perform any activity in the field it/he/she operated without a legal permission for a period of up to 5 years.
The Law on Strategic EIA, describes, evaluates and assesses potential significant impacts, which may be caused by the implementation of the plan or programme and it deals with mitigation measures.
According to this law the body mandated to prepare the plan or programme should decide whether or not it must prepare a Strategic EIA, having previously obtained the opinion of the mandated body for environmental protection and other interested parties.
36 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
The Law stipulates that the public must be included in the decision making process. Annex I of the Law prescribes criteria for determining potential significant impact to environment.
The report on a Strategic EIA must contain: • Baseline studies of the strategic assessment; • General and special objectives and the selection of indicators; • Possible environmental impacts with mitigation measures and analysis of alternatives; • Instructions for strategic and/or regular EIA to be undertaken under the mandate of lower levels of government; • A monitoring programme; • An overview of the methodology used and difficulties encountered during preparation of the study; • An overview of the decision-making process, description of the most important reasons for the selection of the plan or programme from the alternatives considered and an overview of the methods for inclusion of environmental protection issues into the plan or programme; • Conclusions
If a project, plan or programme may have a significant transboundary impact, the mandated ministry must inform the potentially impacted country for both regular and strategic EIAs on the following issues: • The project, plan or programme together with all gathered data; • The nature of the decision which it is expected to make; • The deadline for the country concerned to announce its intention to participate in the procedure of the EIA; and request official opinion.
PROCEDURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED UNDER WORLD BANK REGULATIONS
General
The World Bank requires an environmental assessment (EA) of projects proposed for Bank financing warrant their sustainability and environmental solidity, and thus safeguard a democratic decision-making process. Under the Bank’s regulations the borrower is responsible for carrying out the EA in compliance with both the country’s legislation and the Bank’s regulations.
An EA is a process whose breadth, depth, and type of analysis depend on the nature, scale, and potential environmental impact of the proposed project. An EA evaluates a project’s potential environmental risks and impacts in its area of influence; it examines project alternatives; identifies ways of improving project selection, siting, planning, design, and implementation by preventing, minimizing, mitigating, or compensating for
37 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
adverse environmental impacts and enhancing positive impacts; and includes the process of mitigating and managing adverse environmental impacts throughout project implementation. The World Bank favours preventive measures over mitigation or compensatory measures, whenever feasible.
EA take into account the natural environment (air, water, and land); human health and safety; social aspects (involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, and cultural property); and transboundary and global environmental aspects. EA consider natural and social aspects in an integrated way. They also take into account the variations in project and country conditions; the findings of country environmental studies; national environmental action plans; the country’s overall policy framework, national legislation, and institutional capabilities related to the environment and social aspects; and obligations of the country, pertaining to project activities, under relevant international environmental treaties and agreements. The World Bank does not finance project activities that would contravene such country obligations, as identified during the EA. EA is initiated as early as possible in project processing and is integrated closely with the economic, financial, institutional, social, and technical analyses of a proposed project.
EA Instruments
Depending on the project, a range of instruments can be used to satisfy the World Bank’s EA requirement: environmental impact assessment (EIA), regional or sectoral EA, environmental audit, hazard or risk assessment, and environmental management plan (EMP). EA applies one or more of these instruments, or elements of them, as appropriate. When the project is likely to have sectoral or regional impacts, sectoral or regional EA is required.
Environmental Screening
The World Bank undertakes environmental screening of each proposed project to determine the appropriate extent and type of EA. The World Bank classifies the proposed project into one of four categories, depending on the type, location, sensitivity, and scale of the project and the nature and magnitude of its potential environmental impacts. The current project has been classified by the World Bank a Category B project. Category B: A proposed project is classified as Category B if its potential adverse environmental impacts on human populations or environmentally important areas— including wetlands, forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats—are less adverse than those of Category A projects. These impacts are site-specific; few if any of them are irreversible; and in most cases mitigatory measures can be designed more readily than for Category A projects. The scope of an EA for a Category B project may vary from project to project. The EA examines the project's potential negative and positive environmental impacts and recommends any measures needed to prevent, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for adverse impacts and improve environmental performance. The findings and results of Category B EA are described in the project documentation (Project Appraisal Document and Project Information Document).
38 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Public Consultation
For Category B projects proposed for IBRD3 or IDA financing, during the EA process, the borrower consults project-affected groups and local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) about the project’s environmental aspects and takes their views into account. The borrower initiates such consultations as early as possible.
Disclosure
For meaningful consultations between the borrower and project-affected groups and local NGOs on all Category B projects proposed for IBRD or IDA financing, the borrower provides relevant material in a timely manner prior to consultation and in a form and language that are understandable and accessible to the groups being consulted.
Any separate Category B report for a project proposed for IDA financing is made available to project-affected groups and local NGOs. Public availability in the borrowing country and official receipt by the World Bank of Category B EA report for projects proposed for IDA funding, are prerequisites to World Bank appraisal of these projects.
Once the borrower officially transmits any separate Category B EA report to the World Bank, the World Bank makes it available through its InfoShop. If the borrower objects to the World Bank’s releasing an EA report through the World Bank InfoShop, World Bank staff (a) do not continue processing an IDA project, or (b) for an IBRD project, submit the issue of further processing to its executive directors (EDs).
Implementation
During project implementation, the borrower reports on (a) compliance with measures agreed with the World Bank on the basis of the findings and results of the EA, including implementation of any Environmental Management Plan (EMP), as set out in the project documents; (b) the status of mitigatory measures; and (c) the findings of monitoring programs. The World Bank bases supervision of the project’s environmental aspects on the findings and recommendations of the EA, including measures set out in the legal agreements, any EMP, and other project documents.
PROJECTS ON INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS
Applicability of Policy
This policy applies to the following types of international waterways:
3 The World Bank consists of various institutions. One of these is called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, (IBRD). IDA financing is low cost loan of the World Bank.
39 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
• Any river, canal, lake, or similar body of water that forms a boundary between, or any river or body of surface water that flows through, two or more states, whether Bank1 members or not;
• Any tributary or other body of surface water that is a component of any waterway described in (a) above; and
• Any bay, gulf, strait, or channel bounded by two or more states or, if within one state, recognized as a necessary channel of communication between the open sea and other states—and any river flowing into such waters.
40 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
This policy applies to the following types of projects: • Hydroelectric, irrigation, flood control, navigation, drainage, water and sewerage, industrial, and similar projects that involve the use or potential pollution of international waterways; and • Detailed design and engineering studies of projects above, including those to be carried out by the Bank as executing agency or in any other capacity.
The Bank ensures that the international aspects of a project on an international waterway are dealt with at the earliest possible opportunity. If such a project is proposed, the Bank requires the beneficiary state, if it has not already done so, formally to notify the other riparians of the pro-posed project and its Project Details.
Exceptions to Notification Requirement
The following exceptions are allowed to the Bank’s requirement that the other riparian states be notified of the proposed project for any ongoing schemes, projects involving additions or alterations that require rehabilitation, construction, or other changes that in the judgment of the Bank: • Will not adversely change the quality or quantity of water flows to the other riparians; and • Will not be adversely affected by the other riparians’ possible water use.
The current project, being primarily a rehabilitation project that restores drainage to its design levels, will not adversely affect the hydrology of the Danube water system. The irrigation component involves such minimal amounts of water, that the consumption increase would not be noticeable on the level of the Danube water system. In fact, the increased volume of drainage water would even outweigh the slight decrease generated by the irrigation scheme.
41 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
PART II: BASELINE STUDIES
Baseline studies DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The project area
The RoS is situated between latitude 42deg 15min N and 46deg 25min N, and longitude 18deg 50min E and 23deg 0min E. It has a landmass covering 77 474 sq km and is bounded by Albania and Macedonia in the south, Bosnia/Herzegovina and Croatia in the west, Hungary and Romania in the north, and Bulgaria in the east. The Republic is shown in Figure 1. It is federated with Montenegro in the south covering 13 812 sq km, which gives access to the Mediterranean Sea. The RoS has the semi-autonomous region of Vojvodina in the north covering some 21 506 sq km. This is divided into the Banat region roughly to the east of the Tisa, the Backa region to the west of the Tisza, and the Srem region to the south of the Danube. The topography of Serbia is considered in three zones:
• The northern plains Here the landform comprises the extensive regular plain lands of Vojvodina, Macva, and Negotin formed by the major rivers Danube, Tisza, Sava and Drina, at elevations of between about 85m and 110m amsl.
• The Morava Valley The main river of Central Serbia is the Morava River, which meets the Danube east of Belgrade. The main stream arises in the far southeast on the Bulgarian border, and is joined from the west by the Zapadna Morava, approximately halfway up this main course. This river forms a valley surrounded on both sides by hills.
• Hill and mountain region Much of the rest of the country is hilly and mountainous with a maximum elevation of 2656m amsl at Mount Prokletije.
Project description
The proposed project will be essentially a water resources infrastructure rehabilitation project, with parallel institutional activities to enhance and strengthen the sector. Although the development of agriculture will be the main economic thrust of the
42 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
project, in reality it serves society as a whole, as the flood protection component of the project will increase safety from flooding for all habitants and production sectors of the northern lowlands from flooding and the safety enhancement of the project must be considered the greatest social and economical benefit of the project, although difficult to quantify.
The major components are proposed to be the rehabilitation of existing drainage systems, and the repair, strengthening and the enhancing of the flood control infrastructure in certain vulnerable spots. These works will be concentrated in the northern plain areas, which are most at risk from impeded drainage and flooding from the major rivers. Irrigation rehabilitation on a major scale will not be undertaken by the project in the northern lowlands. Pilot initiatives and sample demonstrations areas in irrigation based on community participation would be introduced in the deprived hilly areas.
Technical assistance will be provided to assist the GoS to revise and assist its institutions pertaining to the water and agricultural sectors. In particular, assistance will be given to the Hydro-meteorological Service to strengthen its flood forecasting capabilities, to Vode Vojvodine to develop a computerised operating model for the DTD system, to the agrometeorological section of the Hydrometeorological Service to enhance its agricultural climatic support facilities, and to the Vegetable Crops Research Centre to enhance its irrigation facilities.
Due to many institutional and physical constraints, it is not considered appropriate to launch a major irrigation rehabilitation initiative at present. Rather, a full and detailed feasibility study will be undertaken under the project to find ways to circumvent the constraints, and to plan a full-scale rehabilitation in the future. This could form the basis for a future investment project.
The development of a Minor Water Management initiative would be included under the project on a pilot basis to develop modalities for the introduction of small-scale irrigation, drainage and flood protection in the deprived hilly areas of Central Serbia. This would be aimed at poverty alleviation, the slowing of ex-migration to the towns, and to develop hitherto unused land and water resources for regional and national economic benefits. Other TA sub-components include: • Minor Irrigation and Drainage Management Unit Support; • Feasibility study for irrigation development; • Institutional support and capacity building; • Hydro-system operating model development.
The project is anticipated to extend over five years. No detailed execution schedule has yet been derived for the TA elements, but the construction works for drainage and flood control would follow the classical S curve programme.
43 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Works
The execution of the engineering elements of the project is proposed below. At present there is a major reorganisation of the Public Water Authorities (PWA) and their subordinate district level Water Services, and it is not possible to prescribe in detail how the project works might be administered. In addition, the draft Water Law and the draft Water Financing Law are under scrutiny and discussion by the various interested parties, and this also will have a bearing on the water management sector.
Drainage and flood control construction Under the present conditions, the Public Water Authorities Vode Vojvodine and Srbijavode would be responsible for planning and programming the construction of schemes in their respective territories. They would carry out surveys and designs, possibly with the assistance of consultants hired under the project. They would prepare technical specifications, special conditions of contract, and bills of quantities for each contract, together with the engineer’s check costs of technical supervision and monitoring. These would be submitted to the Procurement Section of the PIU for incorporation into tender documents.
The tenders would be advertised by the PIU according to Bank and GoS procurement conditions as agreed by the two parties. Following tender receipt, evaluation would be carried out by the PIU assisted by the PWAs, which would be the responsible execution agencies.
Techniques for the rehabilitation works is based on customary routine maintenance works, periodical maintenance works and restoration of water management infrastructure. Basically, works are done mechanically with minimum of manual work. Works to be done on selected drainage systems would entail: • Manual bush cleaning; • Cutting down of trees and taking out of tree stumps; • Manual cleaning of sediment traps in drainage canals; • Mechanical sludge removal to design profile from primary and secondary drainage canals; • Spreading of sludge over the canal banks or depressions in the agricultural fields; • Or where necessary, transporting the material to a landfill up to 5 km away; • Quarrying or dredging of clay and sand for dykes and their transportation, primarily from the river or river banks; • Raising, widening and strengthening of the embankment, and/or lengthening of the seepage paths; • Consolidation of protective grass layer; • Removal of demolished materials of rehabilitated works, surplus and expired materials and worn construction equipment to landfill or recycling facilities; • Construction and removal or landscaping of construction sites; • Construction of concrete protection works and drainage outlet gates; • Replacement of outlet gates and • Overhaul of pumping equipment and pump house rehabilitation.
44 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Minor irrigation component The component is envisaged to follow a programme approach, whereby the schemes for the first year’s construction would be prepared at semi-detailed feasibility level for expansion to up to 30 locations over the 5 years period. The programme would be controlled by a Minor Irrigation Unit (MIU) located in DfW.
Works to be done on selected locations would entail: • Geodetic measurements; • Manual bush cleaning; • Cutting down of trees and taking out of tree stumps; • Mechanical and manual earth works; • Spreading of excessive earth on fields; • Deposit of rocky and excessive materials in landfills; • Construction of small scale concrete works, such as small dams, gates, reservoirs, ground water development and minor transportation canals; • Minor dykes; • Reconstruction of existing dykes; • Laying PVC and/or PE pipelines and fittings with dimensions varying from 5 – 25 cm in diameter. Most PVC and/or PE pipelines and fittings will be rather small in diameter, so that their placement in the ground will have a rather small impact; • Installation of ground water pumps.
Construction materials, quarries and clean-up of working sites
Materials The main construction material envisaged in the project consist of: • clay, gravel and sand for works on the dykes and site construction; • cement, steel and wood for the construction of reinforced concrete and the building of templates for pouring concrete; • steel for gates; • greases, fuel and oil for machinery; • PVC and/or PE pipelines and fittings.
In principle, sand will be dredges from the river, stone for erosion protection will be brought by barge or truck from the nearest stone quarry and clay will come from the nearest feasible location. Occasionally, where opportune, it may be won in such a way that new artificial swamps be created along the river, if this is found desirable by conservation management organisations. These techniques are currently commonplace along the Rhine River to improve the riverine ecosystem.
Construction sites and eventual project specific quarry sites will be cleaned after termination of the works and restored to the pre-construction condition or properly prepared for future use to the benefit of the local residents or nature. This will be specified in the project design.
45 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Disposal of replaced materials and equipment
Particularly the rehabilitation of pumping stations and gates will produce remnant equipment and stony and wooden demolition materials. Deserted, broken down earth moving and transportation equipment, empty containers of fuel and construction chemicals, packaging materials, etc., used oil and other expired chemicals will be disposed off according to domestic standards (Regulations on handling waste products of hazardous nature, “Official Gazette of RoS” No.12/95) and metal parts to secondary raw material's market. Basically all waste material (except sludge) is planned to be put on municipal landfills. It is worth recognizing that the waste management sector is weak, and that the project will comply with existing best practices in Serbia.
Local impact of working crews
Medium to long-term construction programs of this nature can place undue stress on the local environment by the workforce, by littering and in absence of environmental services, such as water supply and sanitation facilities. This is particularly the case where the existing service capacity is minimal. Crews will be facilitated with adequate drinking water and sanitary facilities; making use of a practical solution for each location. The work force on the project will be small, and mainly from the local population; there are many towns and villages which provide accommodation and the work force social will is not expected to cause any problems in this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
Climate
The Northern part of Serbia is mainly plains, consisting of Vojvodina with a continental climate (cold winters and hot, humid summers and, with well distributed rainfall); the central region with continental and Mediterranean climate, and to the south, Mediterranean climate along the coast with hot, dry summers and autumns, and relatively cold winters with heavy snowfall inland.
The climate of Serbia is of Mediterranean – mountain type in the south adjacent to Montenegro, moving to a moderate continental type in the north, with variations in Central Serbia reflecting altitude. The country is well served with first order climate stations.
The salient climate parameters for representative lowland regions are given below. Table 2: Climate Parameters (FAO, 2004a) Temperature Rel. Humidity Wind Speed Sunshine Hours Region (deg C) (%) (km/day) (hrs/day)
max 27 78 156 11 Southern Serbia min 6 47 86 3
46 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
max 22 92 138 9 Central Serbia min 0 72 52 2 max 22 98 207 9 Northern Serbia min -1 73 112 2
The mean annual rainfall over the country is about 750mm. Rainfall varies across the country, where mean annual rainfall is greatest in the central west areas at over 850mm per year. The minimum annual average rainfall on the other hand is in the extreme north and southeast at below 550 mm per year. A general impression is that the monthly average rainfall increases from January to May or June, then declines to December. The trend is thus suitable for spring and summer crop production. However, the evapotranspiration also follows an increasing trend from January to July, followed by a fall to December. At every station analysed, evapotranspiration starts to exceed rainfall in March or April, and to reach a peak in July. Thereafter it falls again, to be less than rainfall in October. This regime is very favourable for agriculture. However the monthly and seasonal actual rainfalls are highly variable, and severe droughts and floods occur.
Water
The major sources of water are the large rivers Danube, Sava, Drina and Tisza arising outside Serbia, and the Morava River, whose catchments primarily lies within the country. The Danube has a catchment area upstream of Bezdan, where it enters Serbia of some 210 250 sq km. To this is added the major tributaries Sava (88 000 sq km), Drina (18 000 sq km), Tisza (145 500 sq km), Morava (37 400 sq km) and numerous smaller tributaries arising in Serbia, such that at exit from the country, the overall Danube catchment area is in excess of 580 000 sq km. The Danube basin in the country is estimated to cover about 87% of the land area. These rivers are shown in Figure 1. It is estimated that the average annual precipitation over the Danube basin in the country amounts to some 74 000 MCM. After evapotranspiration, some 23 500 MCM enters the rivers. To this is added the average annual amount of 154 500 MCM entering the country from trans-boundary rivers. It is thus noted that Serbia is not prolific in internally generated water supply, and about 85% of available water originates upstream of its borders. Due to seasonal variations in river yield, some 60 medium and large reservoirs and 100 small reservoirs have been constructed in the Danube Basin in Serbia and Montenegro, giving a total storage of about 6 500 MCM. The largest dams on the entire Danube are the Iron Gate 1 and 2 dams on the border with Romania with storages of 2 550 MCM and 870 MCM respectively. These together with other dams in Serbia provide about 37% of the installed electrical power in the country.
All the rivers flowing in or through Serbia are subject to floods, which would cause seasonal damage to rural and urban infrastructure and domestic, agricultural and industrial possessions and production processes. Due to these flood hazards, in the course of several centuries, a comprehensive network of flood dykes and regulatory works has been built.
47 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
The quality of surface water entering Serbia is Class 3, which require treatment for chemicals before drinking. Within the country they are further contaminated by municipal and industrial effluent, and by fertilizers and pesticides.
Groundwater is abundant in Vojvodina, in the enclave formed by the Drina and Sava rivers and the mountains to the south, and in certain other locations such as the Morava valley. The annual groundwater abstraction in Vojvodina is estimated at 208 MCM per year. Some 70% of the drinking water and much of the industrial supply are from groundwater. In the valleys of the hill and mountain areas, small local aquifers exist which are largely untapped. At present very little groundwater is used for irrigation.
A complex system of large canals, intakes, regulators, navigation locks etc., known as the DTD Hydro-system, has been developed in Vojvodina to permit navigation and the distribution of surface waters to agriculture, industry and municipalities. The system takes in water from the Danube and the Tisza at several points in the west, and releases it back into the Danube near the Romanian border. It comprises some 600 km of main canals, which link to the navigation routes on the Danube, Tisza and Sava rivers. The system is one of the main sources of irrigation supply in inland Vojvodina. There are some 40 ports and transfer points on the DTD system. The system can accommodate boats and barges up to 1000 ton capacity, and has the potential to transport about 7.0 million tons of cargo per year. This is mainly sand and gravel, but coal and agricultural products also account for a minor but important amount. In addition to aforementioned main uses, the Danube system is also used for commercial fishing.
Soils
The soils of Serbia largely reflect the influences of the river systems. In the northern plain areas of Backa, Banat and Srem large tracts of deep medium loam chernozem soils occur, representing the major productive area of the country. Adjacent to the major rivers are tracts of marshy soils. In the Srem region lie areas of lighter combisol loams. Down the eastern side of the plain in Banat, close to the Romanian border, lie areas of waterlogged marshy soils.
In the Macva region between the Drina, Sava and he hills to the south, there is a mix of chernozems, combisols and meadow soils. The Morava Valley is mainly alluvium. The hilly areas have a wide range of soil types ranging from light alluvium to heavy clay vertisols, depending on their positions. A table of the different soil occurring in the region is presented in Annex IV.
Biotic environment
Significant eco-regions and conservation After adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992 and the adoption of the Federal Government Resolution on the Biodiversity Conservation in Yugoslavia in 1993, there was a noticeable strengthening of environmental protection. Due to habitation, urbanisation and economic development major transformations have taken place of the native habitats, particularly to the northern plains and in the valleys in the mountainous regions. Still, Serbia conserved lots of nature with a great variety in flora
48 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
and fauna, complex ecosystems and rich landscapes, particularly, in the hilly and mountainous regions.
Situated in the central part of the Balkan Peninsula, which is the most complex and the most varied part of Europe, Serbia has some of the greatest biodiversity of Europe. The country can be coarsely divided into the river plains of the Danube system and the Balkan hills and mountains. Particularly the hilly and mountainous regions are characterized by complex and differentiated ecosystems, with great hydrological, morphological and geological variation. For nature conservation and ecological significance, the mountain regions Stara Mountain, Kopaonik and Besna Kobila especially figure. Within the hilly and mountainous regions, particularly the river valleys, canyons and gorges should be pointed out, as there, the features of the hill sites meet with micro-scale wetland conditions and major solar exposure variation, giving rise to great local biodiversity, ecological gradients and remarkable morphological and hydrological phenomena, which is relevant within the context of the proposed project.
The greatest landscape transformations took place in the lowlands of the big rivers, in particularly Vojvodina, to prevent flooding and the conversion of native grasslands on riverine sediments into agricultural fields. And yet, a variety of landscapes and wetlands with complex ecosystems and bio-geographic features has been preserved, particularly in the lowlands along the rivers outside of dyke protection. Some important wetland conditions have been preserved along the river, but within the enclosed lands behind the dykes, where old river courses and/or lakes with associated marshy and swampy ecosystems have been preserved as nature reserves.
Among great landscapes in Vojvodina’s plain are: • Fruska Gora, • Vrsacke Mountain, • Deliblatska Sands, • Danube alluvium zones – Gornje Podunavlje (Upper Danube river banks, from Batina to Erdut) and • Donje Podunavlje (Lower Danube river banks, starting from Smederevo to Golubac). Among smaller landscapes are the Palic-Ludos Lakes, swamps such as Obedska and Carska, and areas along the Sava and Velika Morava Rivers. Major natural and biodiversity features and protected areas are shown in Figure 13.
Flora The flora of Serbia and Montenegro consists of 4,282 species and subspecies of which 346 are Balkan or local endemics, meaning that they only occur in the Balkan or in Serbia and Montenegro. Most of endemics are also relics, meaning that they have remained after the glacial regression. According to floristic and vegetation research there are several ecologically and bio-geographically important complexes, which could be marked as real and potential centres of floristic diversity of Serbia: • High mountain regions; • Canyons and gorges; • Prairies and sandy terrains in Vojvodina;
49 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
• Riverine, marshy and swampy areas in Vojvodina; • Mountain peats; • Ancient forest stands.
In grasslands and sandy terrains of Vojvodina, there are remnants of the originally widespread xeroterm flora, originating from the Russian prairies with species such as: Adonis vernalis, Paeonia tenuifolia, Astragalus adsyantus, Iris pumila, Prunus fruticosa, Asparagus teniufolius etc.
In the larger canyons and gorges, a great number of endemic and relict species of forest forbs has been conserved, the richest being the Djerdap Gorge. Important forest relict and endemic species include: Juglans regia, Corylis colurna, Syringa vulgaris, Acer monspesulanum, Quercus virgiliana, Ramonda serbica, Acer obtusatum, Ostrya carpinifolia, Colinus cogrygria, Carpinus orientalis, Taxus baccata, Prunus laurocerasus, Ilex aquifolium, etc.
50 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Figure 13. Major Natural and Biodiversity Features and Protected Areas in Serbia
51 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
In high mountain areas, along the tree lime, conifer forests consist of rare relics and endemics, such as: Pinus heldreichii, Pinus peuce, Picea omorika, Pinus mugo, Rhododendronferugineum, Leontopodium alpinium, Driyas octopetalia and other shrubs, while associated with a wealth of rare herbaceous species in the ground cover. In humid and peaty habitats in the highlands, boreal flora relicts of the glacial era can be found, such as the extremely rare Drosera rotundifolia, Betula pubescens, Menyanthes trifoliata, and Listera cordata.
The total area of Serbia under forests cover is 26.7%. The smallest percentage is in Vojvodina plain – 6.6%, while in central Serbia it is 31.8%. Forests are represented mainly in the Fruska Gora and Vrsac mountains, while small complexes of marshy and forest vegetation can be found in swamps and along the major rivers.
In the northern part of Serbia and Montenegro is the Panonian plane with its natural vegetation mainly being grasslands, which over the centuries has been converted to agriculture.
As the floodplains of the major rivers became more and more protected by dikes, the inundated lands became restricted to relatively narrow strips of land along the rivers, where sedimentation accelerated. As a result, most of the swampy conditions that belong to the riverine ecosystems have disappeared, and the ones that remain have become isolated from the rivers by the dykes. This phenomenon has taken place among many of the rivers in western Europe, and currently, there is an effort to restore swampy conditions on the floodplains by creating depressions and shallow river channels, whenever clay is needed for dyke restoration and amelioration purposes. Such ecological restoration quarrying of clay would require some detailed design, but it could create encouraging new opportunities for riverine ecosystem recovery.
Fauna It is important to note here that only vertebrates, as being the most important group from human perspective, are considered for purpose of the EIA. Of the 1.150 vertebrate species registered in Europe, 576 or 50% occur in Serbia, of which 458 species have been ranked as internationally important and are on the preliminary Red list of vertebrates in Serbia and 487 species of vertebrates are protected by regulation on environmental protection, hunting and fishing regulations.
Birds Birds are considered a vulnerable taxon, whose diversity has significantly decreased. Causes are numerous and mostly related to the transformation and degradation of habitat, ecological isolation, disturbance, usage of agro-chemicals, etc. 343 species have the status of international importance, while 353 bird species are on the preliminary Red list of vertebrates of Serbia. The richest habitats in Serbia are the Obedska Swamp with about 200 species, Vlasina Lake with 125 species and Tara with 121. For all of them, the most characteristic habitats are marshy soils, canyons and high mountains as local centres of biodiversity.
Amphibians and reptiles
52 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
The Balkan Peninsula is the main centre of biodiversity for amphibians and reptiles in Europe, with 46 species in Serbia and 70 in Serbia and Montenegro out of a total of 277 in Europe. All these species are very sensitive to human activity and agricultural practices. Out of 46 registered species in Serbia, 34 are of of international significance and 42 are on the preliminary list of vertebrates in Serbia and 39 out of 46 species fall under the regulations for nature protection.
Mammals Out of 142 species in Europe, 94 species have been registered in Serbia, of which 25% is endangered. That is the reason why 18 out of 58 on the European red list come from Serbia, while of the 94 registered species in Serbia, 70 species are on the Serbian preliminary red list. Regulations on hunting and nature protection put 77 species under protection. For their survival, many species exclusively depend on protected areas and local centres for the conservation of genetic and biological diversity. Like the other vertebrate species, mammals are endangered by the transformation and disturbance of habitat, hunting and pollution.
Fishes Out of 215 species of fresh water fishes and cyclostomata in Europe, 86 species have been registered for Serbia. The Danube river system has 79 registered species and is the primary centre of ichtic biodiversity in Serbia. The Danube river system used to be the connection route for migratory fish from Black Sea, but it was cut off when the hydro- power plant was built. It is very difficult to conserve native biological fish fauna due to pollution, overfishing, and the introduction of exotic and altered species into the water system. In general, the river ecosystems are considered the most endangered ones in the country.
STAKE HOLDERS
Water services
The water services described in subchapter 1.4.1.4. as traditional managers of the flood control and drainage infrastructure are stakeholders in the context of this project.
Water users
According to the Framework for Serbian Agriculture (2003), which referred to water management in the context of drainage and irrigation and proposed to establish WUAs to become responsible for drainage and irrigation within a hydro-unit (canal), while the Water Management Authorities would be responsible for the larger hydrographic units. The Authorities and WUAs would operate on the same principle, dykeing charges for providing services.
The RoS territory is divided into 10 regions, each having their own needs and problems. The agriculture in the north regions (Vojvodina) rely very much on drainage and flood control. Irrigation is more desirable in the central and southwest regions of Serbia. In the case of small private farmers, the irrigation development started only
53 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
about 10 years ago and is viewed as supplementary for obtaining higher yields. Some farmers use the open drainage ditches for irrigation (dual purpose for drainage and irrigation), but drip and other low volume/low pressure sprinkle systems may be more favoured, as in some cases they can also apply fertilizer and achieve excellent yields (e.g., water melons – 90 –110 t/ha).
Upon consultation during the second preparation mission4, support for the proposed project among beneficiaries regarding the proposed physical improvements was high. In the hilly area, where the small scheme irrigation is proposed by the project and farmers have a contract farming arrangement with a well functioning cooperative, they expressed willingness to “do what it takes” to ensure success of the project. However, in the plains, where drainage is the main proposed activity of the project, while farmers said improved drainage was vital, they reported that low levels of trust and weak organisational capacity work against cooperation. The economic impact is expected to be positive and significant. In areas benefiting from irrigation improvements, several changes are anticipated: higher quality fruit production, higher yields during drought years, and labour saved from the switch to mechanized irrigation. In the plains, based on their pre-break-up experience on crop-yields, farmers expect better drainage would raise productivity by more than one third.
No negative impacts are expected from implementation. No involuntary displacement, loss of income source, or significant land expropriation is anticipated. In the hilly areas, irrigation is by far the most important concern. According to the consulted farmers, the returns to mechanized irrigation far outweigh the benefits of better roads, another constraint mentioned as important. Drainage ranks very high among priorities in plains areas. However, farmers also suffer from the monopoly power of buyers, poor access to credit, and weak risk management mechanisms. These problems will persist even with improved drainage.
Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia
Management institutions of nature reserves are important stakeholders in water management issues, as the water management regime requirements of nature reserves are often different from those of productive land. Other disagreeing interest may be the need of quarrying of sand and clay and intensification of agricultural inputs. Wherever the project intervenes, the responsible nature management institutions of the neighbouring nature reserves will be explicitly consulted in the designs, and where possible opportunities will be used to improve on, or create wetland conditions. This may particularly be the case where clay and sand must be quarried. Under such circumstances new marshy conditions may be created, as is often practice nowadays along the Rhine.
Society of Ecologists of Serbia
The society is self-governed scientific-expert organisation, gathering people of science and practice as well as students dealing with ecological research, education or
4 This was a joint World Bank – FAO mission held in November 2004 (FAO 2004b)
54 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
implementation of ecological results in environmental protection, restoration and development.
EKO Studio-Society for the Promotion and Conservation of Wildlife and Environment
The basic goal of the society is to persist and contribute the promotion and conservation of wildlife and to improve public conscious about the importance of heritage in wild animal’s life, endemic flora and natural habitats and in general environment.
Eko Forum-Forum for Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection
It was founded as non-political, non-governmental and no profitable organisation of citizens, aiming to perform research, promotion and develop public conscious about importance of sustainable development and environmental protection.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT
General
The Republic of Serbia is located in the southeastern part of Europe and controls one of the major land routes from Western Europe to Turkey and the Near East. Serbia and Montenegro borders the Adriatic Sea, between Albania and Bosnia Herzegovina. Vojvodina, the wealthiest region of Serbia comprises 28% of the total land area and 26% of the total population of the country. Agriculture is the major component of its economy. Fertile soils, good growing conditions and a high percentage of arable land have enabled Vojvodina to produce more than half of Serbian wheat, maize, and sugar beet and sunflower (both above 90% of country’s production) crops. Producers are more market oriented than in other regions of the country. This can be attributed to the large numbers of more efficient agrokombinats (36% of the area), a core of large private farms (50-500 hectare farms, largest reported private farm was about 1000 hectares), and socially-owned agro-processors.
Central Serbia accounts for 29% of the total area and 44% of the population. This is the most diverse and most densely populated, partially because of the location of Belgrade in this region. The region is characterized by hilly topography, studded with small farms with diverse production systems. Farms are usually small, with most of the agricultural land in private ownership (about 95%). Fertile soils and favourable climatic conditions have resulted in fairly intensive cropping of high-value fruit and vegetable crops. There is a significant potential of adopting high value crops for upscale markets, especially organic production of fruits and vegetables, and for developing an efficient food processing industry in this region.
Southern Serbia, with 44% of Serbia’s land area, is also the least developed and poorest region of the country. It is mountainous, much under forest, and with a low percentage of arable land; the project shall not work in this region.
55 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Historically, agriculture has played a very significant role in the economy of Serbia, and at present, there are considerable opportunities for transforming this sector into a powerful engine of future economic growth. Events of recent past have made the strength of agriculture sector quite evident, when in spite of disruption in the supplies of farm inputs and markets, agriculture production and processing managed to become the largest sector of economy after the collapse of the manufacturing sector. Presently, primary production from agriculture accounts for 21% of GDP (25% with the inclusion of agro-processing), and agricultural products constitute more than 26% of the total exports.
Serbia is blessed by nature with fertile land, abundant water resources and a climate that is favourable for many types of production systems. Serbia is extremely varied in nature and is characterized by rich fertile plains in the north; limestone ranges and basins to the east; ancient mountains and hills to the southeast; and extremely high shoreline with no islands offs the coast to the southwest. The potential for agricultural growth has not been fully realized. This potential can be judged comparing the present yields and potential yields of major crops as shown in Table 3. Table 3: Average Yields of Major Crops in Serbia and Western Europe (FAO 2004a Serbia Western Europe Crops (Yield in tons/ha) (Yield in tons/ha) Cereals: Wheat 3.3 7.5 Corn 3.9 8.4 Barley 2.4 5.8 Oats 1.7 5.0 Industrial Crops: Sugar beet 30.9 54.9 Sunflower 1.8 2.2 Soyabean 1.9 2.7 Potatoes 7.7 36.8 Tomatoes 8.2 32.1
Agriculture, under the Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project will benefit directly from the flood protection measures and improved drainage and indirectly through the proactive role of the government in addressing policy and institutional imperatives. The IDRP would not only improve the maintenance of the present system of flood protection and drainage, it would also experiment with new small-holder irrigation systems enabling small holders to improve productivity and benefit from
56 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
efficient management and use of water resources. Institutionalisation of small irrigation in the hill areas would protect agricultural land from further erosion, furthering conservation of water, soil and soil fertility. The institutional arrangements – participation of water users in system design to the responsibility of operation and maintenance would sensitize the agriculture sector to the economics of water use. Small farms offer the greatest opportunity for crop diversification and increase in production. This however, would be possible only with extensive sensitisation to improved production methods by the extension service – currently under-performing, and probably non-performing altogether on account of the extension philosophy.
Agriculture in the State of Serbia
Agricultural Policy: Since there is no formal policy objective set down in agricultural law either for short- or for the medium- term, in order to improve the efficiency of the farming sector, GoS should develop a comprehensive policy addressing the objectives for the sector with clearly defined priorities, and the need to protect the environment – especially, with reference to pollutants in water and soils to prevent the proliferation of non-point sources of pollution.
Serbian agriculture receives substantial budgetary support – subsidies accounted for almost 60 % of the Serbian Agricultural Budget in 2002. These were reduced in the 2004 budget. Subsidies were mainly targeted to milk, sugar beet and tobacco. The Directorate of Commodity Reserves also supports agriculture directly. Budgetary allocations to public research and extension institutions were significantly increased in 2004. Rural poverty is less pervasive than urban poverty, but it is higher in Southern Serbia compared with national averages. It is highest where the farmers are older and living in remote areas where they have small farms and/or low land fertility and among minority groups. Employment creation, improved access to social services and targeted social assistance would be necessary to address rural poverty in such areas.
Access to rural credit and clearly defined ownership/land use rights to institutionalize land markets would lead to enhanced efficiency – higher yields coupled with cost effective input use. Emphasis is on developing appropriate incentive structures: strengthening marketing infrastructure, capital (investment and operating) to producers and processors to increase productivity and output, and enhance public research and extension institutions for developing efficient crop production technologies and development of marketing infrastructure. Considerable effort and resources are required to move in this direction. Reorientation of farm production towards marketing opportunities, which do exist and are quite varied and diversified and could be targeted by a revitalized extension.
Under the rapidly changing environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (MAFWM) would have to play a leading role in policy formulation, regulation of numerous initiatives and provide leadership in diversifying farming, farming systems and agricultural sector on the whole.
57 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Farming systems: There are about 700,000 farms in Serbia, and while the average farm is 3 ha, the size vary widely – from more than 10,000 ha to less than half a hectare. The Serbian agricultural landscape can broadly be divided into three major zones: • The Flat Plains of Vojvodina, mostly large farms, specializing in the production of grain and industrial crops; • The Sava-Drina Plain and the mountains west of Belgrade where mostly small- holder farmers grow soft fruits, orchards, vines, vegetables, fodder and to a lesser degree, grains and • The Valley of Morava River.
Farms in Serbia can be divided into three broad categories: • Agrokombinats – average holding of about 1600 ha; • Cooperative (Social ownership) – average holding of about 460 ha and • Private farms (subsistence and commercial) –varying from very small (vast majority below 1 ha, average about 3 ha) to over 1000 ha in a very few cases.
Private farms are usually small, but there is a trend of farm consolidation through purchase or lease of land. The cropping pattern ranges from monoculture or a few major crops/production systems on large farms to smallholder plots, producing vegetables and crops for subsistence farming. While larger farm production and yields are comparable to those in West European countries, private farmers lag far behind in their production and per unit area yields. This is mainly due to the low level of farmer education in production and marketing, which compels small farmers to practice extensive cultivation of low value field crops and the lack of necessary skills and lack of extension advise on production and marketing. Farmers face higher prices for inputs and lower prices for outputs, because of the lack of competition in markets, lack of credit and difficult operating conditions.
Agrokombinats and corporate farms are important processors of many commodities, producers of most field crops, dominant suppliers of pig meat and poultry, while they share the market with private producers in beef and sheep meat and grapes for wine. Private farms dominate the supply of fruits and vegetables as well as most of the marketed milk. Private farmers have not been able to access credit or markets and have to rely on the monopolistic services provided by larger cooperatives and kombinats. Small farmers are forced to access inputs through them and as a consequence have to barter their produce for these inputs, at a relatively high interest rate. Kombinats also benefit from the direct and indirect budgetary support of the government and the Directorate for Commodity Reserves (DCR).
Institutions
Agriculture Extension: Extension5 by definition is the transmission of knowledge to farmers and facilitation in solving any production related problems farmers might face
5 While in the past, Agricultural Extension was equated with the transfer of agricultural production technology in pre-determined “packages” (e.g. the two-week training and visit cycle under T & V System), it is now understood to be much broader and more diverse. Agricultural extension provides rural people with the means to better manage their agricultural systems and livelihood through
58 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
in a given environment. This knowledge may originate from a research institution addressing some of the problems faced by the farmers, it could be an introduction of new technology, or it may be a new or adapted crop management practice. In Serbia, in addition to traditional technical support, extension should also assist the farming community with marketing related issues.
It should be emphasized that any reorganisation/restructuring of the extension service would be a lengthy process since organisation and training of extension service takes much time. Extension agents would need time to build trust among the farmers who had never interacted with extension services. Farmers had to be sensitized to the role of extension. Gender analysis may be necessary while designing any extension initiatives. While gender participation may not be an issue in Serbia, it may be worthwhile to assess the contribution women and men make in agriculture/rural sector, and develop extension program accordingly. This is important since, while women play a significant role in most farming system, for the most part, extension services are usually designed to reach men only.
There are about 34 extension centres located throughout Serbia. Each centre is equipped with laboratories for testing soil, chemicals, residue analysis, and field area for demonstration and adaptive research.
There are some private sector extension agents. Extension agents from the private sector can submit funding proposals to the Ministry. However, these agents have other interests and activities, some of which may bias their approach to extension and community service. For example a pesticide seller may not advise his clients to practice integrated pest management while there is a temptation (or possibility) of selling a pesticide.
Agricultural Research There are various Agricultural Research Institutes under the Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection6. These institutes have well-developed research programs, but they are driven more by the dictates of their financial sustainability. Hence, most effort is directed to commercial production of crops, seeds and other services (soil, water,
provision of a broad range of services – advisory, technology-transfer, training, promotional and information, etc., on a variety of subjects – agriculture, marketing, social organisation, health and education, etc. through cooperation of public and private sector and civil society institutions. Extension services make considerable contributions to environmental protection and sustainable management of natural resources as well by promoting conservation of land, water and forests; conservation of biodiversity; pesticide safety and residual minimisation; livestock waste management; and water quality preservation and watershed protection. (World Bank. 2004. “Agriculture Investment Sourcebook) 6 Institutes visited were Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops at Novi Sad and Center for Vegetable Crops, Smederevska Plana. In addition to research, both institutes were producing seed and crops to supplement budgets. This may compromise their basic research agenda. The Institute of Field and Vegetable and Field Crops Novi Sad is the largest research institute in the country with a professional staff of 80 researchers (a total of 422 permanent employees), and research co-operation with the 56 members of Faculty of Agriculture, Novi Sad. The Institute owns 750 hectares of arable land, seed processing plant, climate-controlled storehouses, indoor facilities and labs equipped with modern equipment. The Institute can meet up to 98% of its expenses out of the royalties and income from commercial activity.
59 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
chemical residues testing etc.) to meet budgetary shortfalls (about 80% of their incomes).
Without publicly funded agricultural research responsive to the needs of the producers and processors and publicly funded extension for knowledge dissemination, the agriculture sector will fail to deliver the potential social and economic benefits. Extension, research and educational institutions must have well-defined links with each other as well as with public knowledge dissemination services. To ensure better access to high-scale markets in Europe, GoS must additionally support public institutions responsible for phytosanitary systems, border control and food safety.
Seed Industry There are several public sector institutions with a mandate to develop and produce seed for field crops, vegetables and seedlings for fruits. These institutions are producing seed on commercial basis to supplement their operational budget. It seems the same institutions are also responsible for regulation and certification. There is a need to make an assessment of this important sector.
Regional Agricultural Stations under the Ministry of Agriculture
Besides the university faculties of agriculture (Belgrade, Novi Sad and Cacak) which train professional cadres for the agriculture sector, numerous agriculture schools train agricultural workers to provide the technical workforce for the more than 30 agricultural extension centres and the research institutes. University faculties and research institutes are administratively under the Ministry of Science, while agricultural schools are under the Ministry of Education.
Anticipated changes in production patterns
Vojvodina: Cereals (maize and wheat), oilseeds (soy beans) and sugar beets would continue to be the mainstay of agriculture in this region. Improvements in drainage would lead to some increase in production (already high in Serbia), there is significant scope for increase in processing both for the domestic and regional markets. This also is the region where there will be some decrease in the area under cereals crops – without significant reduction in production (due to yield enhancements with efficient use of resources and better management), with industrial crops as likely beneficiaries.
Central Serbia: This is the region where major impact of agricultural production would be expected. The present trend indicates the production, productivity and trade in soft fruits, vegetable and other fruits, and livestock products will increase, both quantitatively and qualitatively in the medium to long term. With the increase in production, there will be an increase in the scope for development of processing industry.
60 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Table 4: Crop and Land Use Distribution Vojvodina Central Serbia Total Serbia Crop Area % Ag.land Area % Ag.land Area % Ag land (ha ’000) (%) (ha ’000) (%) (ha ’000) (%) Orchards 17 1.0 228 6.8 245 4.8 Vineyards 12 0.7 63 1.9 75 1.5 Meadows 151 8.4 1254 37.4 1405 27.3 and pastures Field crops and 1578 88.3 1802 53.7 3380 65.8 vegetables Sub-total 1758 98.3 3347 99.8 5105 99.3 productive land Ponds, marshes 30 1.7 6 0.2 36 0.7 Total Agricultural 1788 3353 5141 Land Source: Statistical Service of Serbia
61 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Table 5: Crop Distribution Vojvodina Central Serbia Total Serbia Crop Area % Arable Area % Arable Area % Arable land land land (ha ’000) (%) (ha ’000) (%) (ha ’000) (%) 1. Field Crops sugar beet 98.3 6 neg neg 98.3 2.3 winter wheat 377.0 23 766.2 29 1143.2 26.7 sunflower 114.7 7 52.8 2 167.5 3.9 maize 770.3 47 1109.6 42 1879.9 43.9 soya 65.6 4 neg neg 65.6 1.5 2. Grasslands Irrigated 65.6 4 211.4 8 277 6.5 alfalfa 3. Vegetables 82.0 5 211.4 8 293.4 6.9 peas beans tomatoes brassicas paprika onion potatoes 4. Plantations orchards 16.4 1 184.9 7 171.3 4.0 vineyards 16.4 1 79.3 3 95.7 2.2 soft fruit neg neg 18.5 0.7 26.4 0.6 fruit tree neg neg 2.6 0.1 2.6 0.1 nurseries 5. Others 2 0.2 2.2 Total Arable 1639 2642 4281 Land Source: FAO Mission Estimates with University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture
62 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
HISTORICAL AND/OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONUMENTS
The Law on Cultural Estates (Official Gazette of RoS, No.71/94) protects sites of cultural importance and regulates their use. Furthermore the following international agreements have been signed: • The Convention for the Protection of Architectural Heritage of Europe (1985); • The European Convention on the Protection of Archaeological Heritage (1969).
No removal or demolishment of any buildings or archaeological sites, are currently foreseen in the project, except a few minor rural convenience structures. If, in the unlikely event, that future designs would still find need for the removal of any building or archaeological site, then this will be carried out in full compliance with the law and the conventions.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Flood Control
An alternative to having flood control works and properly maintaining them, would involve the withdrawal of human settlement and land use from most of Vojvodina, which is not an alternative meriting any consideration. The no-project alternative would be unacceptable.
Alternative construction methods primarily to the ones proposed by the project, using clay and sand, would be a broad application of hard construction materials such as concrete and stone re-enforcements. Such methods are extremely costly, have far greater environmental and scenery impacts, and should only be used on locations with excessive erosive impact from the river. As a large-scale approach, this is not an alternative for restoration and maintenance of entire dykes.
Drainage
Vojvodina is the grain basket of Serbia. The agricultural exploitation of the rich, heavy soils of the Danube, Tisza and Sava lowlands entirely depend on well-designed and properly maintained drainage systems. Without them the food production of Serbia would come to a halt as the no-project alternative would result in decreasing drainage flows, higher groundwater levels in the fields, longer duration of rainfall-induced flooding, and further decreases in cropping capability of the land.
The drainage of these lowlands could no doubt be improved and modernized, possibly using other techniques. But any other or upgraded solution would still need drainage canals and it would be more costly, something Serbia can ill afford at this stage of its economic transition.
63 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Irrigation
Large scale irrigation Although the Bank was initially requested by Government of Serbia (GOS) to consider including under the project the immediate start to a rehabilitation and a new construction programme, there are strong reasons why this would be premature at this time, the principal of which are:
Water Availability The DTD Hydro-system from which much of the irrigation supplies in Vojvodine derive is in poor condition, requiring dredging and cleaning, and attention to the control works. Until this is done, the supplies for increased irrigation demand would not be assured.
International Waters Agreements The lack of formal complete agreement regarding international rivers pending the revision and ratification of the appropriate agreements indicates that irrigation abstractions beyond those previously made under full demand conditions could not be assured. Indeed, the future agreements could even reduce Serbia’s share of the rivers.
Water Requirements Detailed calculations of water demands for the proposed rehabilitated and new schemes would be required based on a cropping pattern, which is not yet firm, and considering the evolving market situation. A detailed water balance would be required for each scheme proposed, considering the present and predicted demands of the other users on the river and canal systems. This would take some time to accomplish.
Water Quality The condition of both surface and ground waters, especially in Vojvodina, is poor and deteriorating due to pollution emanating from outside and within the country. A careful analysis of all water intended for irrigation use is required to ascertain its quality vis-à- vis plant tolerances and possible human affects before any programme could be safely initiated.
Social Factors The situation in Vojvodina is transitional, in that certain previous Kombinats and other large estates are being disaggregated into small farmer holdings. This will require considerable time to accomplish due to the need to resolve claims from previous owners, the issue of title deeds etc. Until this is done it would not be possible to design tertiary systems on such irrigation schemes. In addition, the newly privatised schemes would require Water User Associations (WUAs) to operate the tertiary units in order to ensure correct water management, collection of charges etc. Little progress is being made in their formation, and the legal framework on which this would be based is at present under revision, although the present Water Law does have relevant clauses covering this aspect.
64 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Markets At present irrigation would not be practised to its full extent in Vojvodina, even if physical facilities were available, due to the lack of attractive markets, making investment in irrigation equipment and the payment of water charges financially uncertain. Until a clear indication of market recovery is evident, it is unlikely that the newly privatised farmers in Vojvodina would take the risk to invest in irrigation facilities.
Rural Credit There is no low interest rural credit system at present operating in Serbia. For the purchase of sprinkler and drip irrigation equipment this would be essential, as the cheaper surface irrigation methods would be impractical over much of the Vojvodina plain lands and in the steep hill areas. Short-term production credit would also be required universally to procure inputs to the level required to produce the increased yields required under irrigation to pay for realistic and viable water charges and equipment outlays.
Extension Service The newly privatised small farmers would not generally be familiar with water management and farm management practices required for the more intimate WUA type tertiary unit irrigation operations, and to achieve satisfactory crop yields and quality. The present extension service establishment is not comprehensive, and does not have water management experience. The development of such a service is considered an essential prerequisite to the large scale development of irrigation under small farm conditions.
Water Charges The rate charged to farmers at present does not cover the full cost of supply by the Public Water Authorities, and these require revision to realistic levels. This will be addressed by the Water Law and Water Finance Law now under review and preparation respectively. The introduction of such revised charges is essential for a sustainable irrigation sector.
Considering these restraints, for rehabilitation/development of a modern irrigation scheme, it was decided to opt for the no-project alternative, which is to say, no irrigation scheme will be undertaken for the low-land plains.
Small scale irrigation The Minor Irrigation component has enlarged from a very small investigative component of about a million dollars into a component of US$ 6.0 million. Under previous considerations, the identification of suitable schemes and the modalities of their development would have been left until the project execution. The current approach is still experimental in nature, but it carries the experience further, thereby at the same time winning time in an apparent need as expressed by the potential beneficiaries and making a contribution to poverty alleviation and the slowing down of the process of migration of the rural population to the cities. Although the scale is still
65 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
quite small, the experience thus gained can be very beneficial for future investments that would up-scale the effort.
Given the many uncertainties and the lack of experience in the country, it would be unwise to engage in a still larger investment in small-scale irrigation. The no-project alternative would result in no change, i.e. continued depression in the hills, continued out-migration to the cities, etc.
66 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
PART III: IMPACTS, MITIGATION & MONITORING impacts, mitigation & monitoring
EXPECTED IMPACTS
Whilst the following sections focus primarily on the potentially negative environmental impacts of the schemes, it is worth highlighting some of the beneficial impacts, which are as follows: • an improvement of farm incomes and living standards of families wholly or partially dependant on agriculture; • an improvements in the efficiency of water distribution, contributing to the more efficient usage of the country’s water resources; • Increased safety of lives and goods in large parts of Vojvodina. All of the above are in addition to the national and regional economic benefits of the schemes, and the associated secondary benefits which may occur as a result of improved levels of environmental awareness following local WUA training and capacity building introduced as part of the scheme.
As it was mentioned in chapter 1.2. Objectives of the Framework Environmental Assessment, this assessment is a framework environmental assessment, which implies that, while not all project sites and designs have been made yet, it is not possible to process a detailed EIA for all elements of the project at this stage. In a later stage a detailed Environmental Management Plan (EMP) shall be prepared, while the precise EIA procedure is currently subject to discussions between the DfW and the MSEP.
For contracting, project execution, monitoring, supervision, etc., the project will have a Project Implementation Unit (PIU). This operational unit will be equipped to carry out many monitoring tasks, which will be mentioned – where appropriate – for each potential impact. In addition of course, monitoring compliance with construction permit conditions is the responsibility of the mandated authorities, e.g. local municipality, ministry of science and environmental protection, etc. and they can perform monitoring in addition to the PIU in agreement with their respective monitoring and supervision policies. This applies for all monitoring and supervision issues in the project.
67 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Construction phase
The following section contains an analysis of the significance of the various potential environmental impacts associated with the scheme that may occur during the construction or rehabilitation works. Mitigation measures are suggested, as well as monitoring needs, where appropriate.
Relocation of population and/or property associated with land acquisition for scheme The government owns most existing structures, such as canals, dikes and access roads and the nature of the works is such as it is not expected to require new land. The indications are such that for new irrigation works the farmers are fully willing to allow pipelines and minor canals to cross their land. For the latter, there will be some acquisition of land and/or rights of way of no more than a few hectares per sub project and/or relocation of facilities, where individuals have constructed minor structures like cattle sheds or outhouses within the maintenance passage ways for the canals and for the laying of pipelines and irrigation transportation canals. No relocation of any persons or households is foreseen in the project.
Mitigation All acquisition of land and/or rights of way and/or removal of minor structures shall be voluntary and shall be dealt with prior to construction by the beneficiary communities themselves under coordination of the municipalities in which the project activities take place. Close attention will be paid to this issue by the PIU, so that project management can be alerted to land acquisition issues in the unlikely event that they arise.
Monitoring Does not apply.
68 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Disturbance of local residents Rehabilitation/construction activities may cause inconvenience to local residents, through increased noise and dust emissions, and decreased access. Whilst the proposed rehabilitation activities will take place away from towns or villages, there is always a risk that they will provide a source of disturbance to local residents. As an example, may serve the specific case of rehabilitation of the pumping station and gate at Bosut, which is crossed by an important road. It will be necessary to have strict controls on the contractor so that he ensures continued safe passage of vehicles during the rehabilitation work.
Mitigation Where necessary, the construction phase should begin with improving access roads, which should be repeated if necessary during construction to facilitate continued access to the local population; working hours in settlements should be limited to between 8am and 7pm. Dirt spilt on the roads to and from the works (from tires or fallen from vehicles) must be cleaned daily near settlements and weekly elsewhere. Prior to the works, the telephone number of the PIU should be posted in the local communities for facilitating the filing complaints.
Monitoring The PIU should have unscheduled site inspections of compliance with these regulations and consult with local authorities whether undue disturbance takes place.
Water and soil pollution by construction activities Unless mitigated, construction activities may give rise to some localized pollution of local watercourses and/or soil. Although there are no environmentally hazardous chemicals being used for the works themselves, water and/or soil contamination may still arise as a result of (inadequate control of cement dust and fresh concrete, polluted or sediment laden runoff from vehicle washing areas, workshops etc,) bad management of fuel transfer and use, inadequate storage of steel reinforcing bars and cement, and inadequate sanitation facilities for the workforce.
Mitigation In addition to general good housekeeping measures, the EMP should include: appropriate site selection of construction yard(s) to minimise risk of watercourse contamination; adequate site drainage facilities, with silt traps and oil interceptors to prevent sediment-laden or polluted runoff from entering watercourses, eg from vehicle washing areas, workshops etc. and adequate sanitary facilities (eg. chemical toilets) for the workforce. In addition, an appropriate fuel and chemical handling protocol to prevent and limit impact from spills should be in place. The EMP will propose standard clauses for inclusion in ICB and LCB contracts to cover site environmental management.
Monitoring The PIU should carry out unscheduled site inspections and the inspectors should take samples of the drainage of the construction sites and inspect for illegally dumped oil, etc.
69 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Social conflict between construction staff and local population Even though the project is highly supported by the local population, a medium to long- term construction programme of this nature may occasionally cause some tensions between any non-local workforce and local communities, particularly where local unemployment is high.
Mitigation Contractors shall be contractually obliged to take all necessary measures to prevent inconveniences to the local population and shall be encouraged to maximise the use of local labour. Prior to the works, the telephone number of the PIU should be posted in the local communities for filing complaints.
Monitoring Does not apply.
Stress on local environmental services Medium to long-term construction programs of this nature can place undue stress on the local environment by the workforce. Mitigation As part of the EMP, the contractor should be required to make an initial assessment of need and local capacity, and where necessary make separate provision for adequate drinking water and hygienic services, either under contract or through on-sight provision.
Monitoring Unscheduled inspections of the PIU should include water and sanitary conditions.
Construction activities disturbing ongoing agricultural activities During certain stages of the project, access to agricultural land will inevitably be interrupted or locally crops may be unintentionally damaged.
Mitigation To reduce risk of agricultural production losses to the minimum, the contractors would send out a scout to determine the local access situation and discuss the proposed operations with the landowners (farmers). Works would be scheduled to minimise disruption to farming activities. Any unavoidable damage would be compensated by the contractor. Because of this negotiation and compensation procedure, only very few cases of complaints are expected, for which a complaints procedure would be available to farmers, which would be administered by the PIU.
Monitoring Does not apply.
70 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Permanent alteration of land Given that some of the construction is of a heavy-engineering nature, it is possible that the land utilised for construction yards/establishment areas cannot be returned to beneficial use unless the site is properly reinstated and all scrap materials and equipment is cleared off site at the end of construction.
Mitigation If desired by local stakeholders, construction sites may be converted into alternative use objectives such as a parking lot. Project specific quarry sites must be re-landscaped or converted into new ecological functionality.
Monitoring Before approval and final payment of the contractor, not only the works, but also the conditions of the construction sites and quarries should be inspected by the PIU and be found in satisfactory condition.
Disposal of contaminated sludge from canals During the design of the project there was particular concern about the quality of the sludge to be dredge from the canals. Therefore, the project has selected locations without any industrial direct pollution risk, with the exception of one location, the Nadela canal. There, samples have been taken and compared against the standards set both by Serbian legislation and by Dutch legislation, one of the most stringent legislations in Europe. Samples were taken in 2004, inter alia near the city of Pan evo, in the drainage Nadela canal at locations km 8, km 25.666 and km 60. The samples and their respective values are shown in Tables 6 and 7.
71 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Figure 14. Sampling along the Nadela Canal
72 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Table 6: Content of heavy metals and micro elements in sludge samples, taken near Pan evo in the Nadela canal in November 2004 (mg/kg of dry matter) MAC Class I Parameter km 8+000 km 25+660 km 60+000 MAC Serbia Soils Netherlands Pb 12.9 29.4 15.6 100 530 Cd 0.1 0.3 0.4 3 2 Co 5.5 10.2 10.0 50 ND Ni 23.3 36.8 31.5 50 35 Cr 29.9 39.0 40.8 100 380 Cu 5.0 34.3 19.6 100 35 Zn 22.4 118.4 62.7 300 480 As 3.4 8.5 5.8 25 55 Mn 238.2 432.9 607.1 - ND MAC is the Maximum Allowable Concentration
10000 Nadela; 8+000 Content Nadela; 25+660 (mg/kg) Nadela; 60+000 MAC 100
1 Pb Cd Co Ni Cr Cu Zn As Heavy metals and Micro elements
Figure 15. Content of heavy metals and micro elements in sludge samples, taken near Pan evo in the Nadela canal in november 2004 (mg/kg of dry matter) in graphic presentation
73 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Table 7: Content of PAHs7 in sludge samples, taken near Pan evo in the Nadela canal in november 2004 (mg/kg of dry matter) Nadela, 8+000 Nadela, 25+660 Nadela, 60+000 PAH Carcinogen. * (mg/kg) (%) (mg/kg) (%) (mg/kg) (%) Naphthalene NC 0.005 4.0 0.013 6.8 0.006 13.0 Acenaphthen NC 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 Acenaphthylen NC 0.012 9.6 0.062 32.5 0.009 19.6 Fluoren NC 0.026 20.8 0.005 2.6 0.006 13.0 Phenanthren NC 0.008 6.4 0.031 16.2 0.009 19.6 Antracen NC 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.0 Fluoranthen NC 0.003 2.4 0.018 9.4 0.000 0.0 Pyren NC 0.015 12.0 0.000 0.0 0.013 28.3 Benzo(a)antracen C 0.007 5.6 0.009 4.7 0.002 4.3 Chrysen SC 0.005 4.0 0.012 6.3 0.001 2.2 Benzo(b)fluoranten C 0.005 4.0 0.002 1.0 0.000 0.0 Benzo(k)fluoranten C 0.005 4.0 0.005 2.6 0.000 0.0 Benzo(a)pyren HC 0.014 11.2 0.017 8.9 0.000 0.0 Dibenzo(a,h)antracen C 0.000 0.0 0.004 2.1 0.000 0.0 Benzo(g,h,i)perilen NC 0.008 6.4 0.007 3.7 0.000 0.0 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyren C 0.012 9.6 0.006 3.1 0.000 0.0 Total PAH ( PAH) 0.125 100.0 0.191 100.0 0.046 100.0 Dutch MAC for Class 1 soils ( PAH) 1 -- 1 -- 1 -- C= carcinogenic NC = non- carcinogenic, SC = slightly carcinogenic, HC = highly carcinogenic
The Nadela Canal was chosen, because it has considerable industrial wastewater discharge, particularly from a sugar industry. No project site is near any location with industrial pollution other than aforementioned Nadela Canal. As can be seen from the Tables 6 and 7, the concentrations of all measured pollutants are considerably under or at worst, at the MAC under Serbian legislation and Class I MAC under Dutch legislation. Given these data there is no need for concern for the sludge quality in any of the project locations.
Mitigation Given the sludge quality found in the Nadela Canal no mitigation measures are required at any of the locations. As is customarily done, the sludge will be deposited on the embankments of the canals to compensate for their gradual embankment erosion into the canals, unless a higher benefit may be obtained to fill depressions in agricultural fields, if so requested by the farmers.
Monitoring No monitoring is required.
7 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
74 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Disruption to wildlife or sensitive ecological habitats It is important to note that no natural habitat will be converted by the project, as all schemes involve ameliorations for existing agricultural fields, even though the schemes in some cases may take place near areas with significant biological diversity. Activities may give rise to temporary local disturbance or damage to sensitive nearby wildlife habitats or colonies (such as birds or wild animals living in the marshy soil near to the primary canal). In the design, sites with natural conditions and colonies will be explicitly considered and destruction shall be avoided. Quarrying of clay and sand will lead to disruption of the lands and may cause ecological and/or landscape damage.
Mitigation The EMP must pay particular attention to patches of natural habitat, bird colonies, etc. and prescribe reasonable measures to prevent undue damages to flora and fauna in an agricultural setting. Wherever the project intervenes, the responsible nature management institutions of the neighbouring nature reserves will be explicitly consulted in the designs to prevent damage to the reserve in question, and where possible opportunities will be used to improve on, or create wetland conditions. This may particularly be the case where clay and sand must be quarried. Under such circumstances new swampy conditions may be created, as is often practice nowadays along the Rhine.
Monitoring A rapid inventory of the presence of small-scale natural values in an agricultural setting would be made prior to the works to be compared to the post works situation by a qualified biologist, who should evaluate the acceptability of the new situation and evaluate if reasonable compensatory measures are required. For enforcement reasons, this evaluation should take place prior to the last payment.
Operations phase
The following section contains an analysis of the significance of the various potential environmental impacts associated with the scheme that may occur when the rehabilitated or new infrastructure becomes operational. Mitigation measures are suggested, as well as monitoring needs, where appropriate.
Soil and canal erosion and general condition of the system Irrigation water can cause significant erosion of the topsoil if proper methods are not used, however, the methods applied within the project are unlikely to cause any erosion. The farmers would primarily apply small-scale sprinkler irrigation that does not pose risk significant risk of soil erosion, while canal erosion is not expected, as most of the water will be transported through pipes. Other conditions influencing the effectiveness of the water distribution system may occur however, such as breaks and illegal connection.
Mitigation
75 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Probably does not apply
Monitoring Only required if the risk arises from a project that would carry such risks. Seasonal inspections should be carried out by the appropriate WUA and the local water service to ensure the integrity of linings, and that • scouring and erosion is not developing in unlined drainage canals, • pipes are not congested and • no illegal connections are made.
Water logging and salinisation of soils Over-watering and poor sub-surface drainage can lead to waterlogging and subsequent salinisation of soils. There is no evidence of secondary salinisation due to the existing high groundwater in the project areas. In the hills, neither waterlogging nor salinisation will occur on sloping ground. However, wherever irrigation would take place in level areas, drainage would receive due design attention.
Mitigation In newly-irrigated level areas, such as in narrow floodplains along creeks in hilly areas, would receive due design attention.
Monitoring In floodplains along creeks in the hills, monitoring would be carried out by the WUAs.
Leaching of nutrients from soil In case of irrigation return flows, nutrients may be leached and soil fertility reduced. Since the applied methods primarily involve sprinkler irrigation, this is not considered a risk in the new irrigation works.
Mitigation Does not apply.
Monitoring Does not apply.
Deterioration of downstream water and/or groundwater quality Pollution of downstream water resources (surface or groundwater) might appear through mis-management of agrochemicals (fertilizers and/or pesticides). The increased agricultural production that the scheme will bring may lead to the use of more chemicals in the future. Since there is little recent history of expertise with their application, this could lead to over-application and subsequent pollution of receiving surface waters (possibly leading to eutrophication problems downstream) with consequences for the downstream aquatic ecosystems and wildlife and/or groundwater bodies (for example, nitrate pollution of groundwater supplies is a common problem in agricultural areas in Western Europe). Moreover, the water table is fairly close to the
76 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
surface over much of the area, and it is known that some villagers use local wells for their supply.
Mitigation The most effective means of mitigating against the mis-use of agrochemicals is to carefully manage their application. This means that training will need to be provided by the PIU (eg through the Extension Services) in types of chemical to use, and when and how to apply them etc. The situation will vary considerably per location and needs to be specified in detail in the EIA of each site of intervention of the project.
Monitoring It is hoped that the project eventually will contribute to agricultural practices in Serbia that would be at par with the conditions in the EU. In that context, the RoS will have to implement a general water quality monitoring network carried out by the HSS. Given the wide spread of the projects elements it is not possible to set up a project specific monitoring network, particularly not in the Vojvodina lowlands, where the project merely restores an existing situation. It would be wise however that for the newly established irrigation works to have a temporary water quality monitoring programme upstream and downstream from the irrigation scheme to be carried out by the HSS, which could be carried out monthly during the growing season. Parameters to be monitored would be those inputs used by the farmers. Details will be provided in the EMP.
Reduction of downstream flows and ecological connectivity Increased abstraction rates introduced by irrigation will reduce downstream flows for other users and ecological purposes. Also, the construction of micro-dams may disrupt ecological connectivity in streams and cut off fish from spawning beds.
Mitigation Many hill streams are seasonal, with very low or no flows in normal summers. Fish populations vary, and include introduced species. Some of the streams to be utilised have minimal fish populations due to steep channels and rock barriers. The impacts of water diversion and storage will vary at each site. Mitigation will require site-specific investigation during project screening and design, using local residents as key informants, together with staff from the authorities concerned. Standard mitigation techniques include determination and release of environmental flows (minimum flow requirements) and, depending on species and stream, the installation of fish passes (‘fish ladders”).
Monitoring All schemes will have flow gauging systems and depending on each site, ecological monitoring may be required. Monthly, WUAs shall send the recordings to the PIU.
Deterioration in irrigation water quality Most sites will take water from streams where upstream land use is not an issue for water quality and so far, irrigation water quality is adequate at all sites identified.
77 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
However, the situation is a dynamic one, and pollution can occur at any time, for instance due to changes in upstream land use.
Mitigation This will require analysis in each design as well as permanent vigilance during the entire operational phase of the irrigation and sources will be selected that are not susceptible to pollution.
Monitoring This is the same monitoring recommended previously.
Conflict over irrigation water management practices Conflicts may arise between WUAs, or between WUA members, should there be any actual (or perceived) inequalities in water distribution throughout the service area.
Mitigation Water is to be distributed by the local water service as an allowance to each WUA per day. Each WUA will then be responsible for the division of water between its members on an equitable basis.
Monitoring The WUA shall monitor the fair distribution of the water during scarcity. Vegetation growth and sedimentation in canals Poorly maintained canals are blocked by vegetation growth and sedimentation. This is an issue in the lowland drainage canals.
Mitigation This is the situation that the project is to cure, and it is anticipated that after the project, the WUA will continue to arrange for maintenance of levels 3 and 4 drainage canals, while the public water authorities will keep up the maintenance of level 1 and 2 drainage canals.
Monitoring The WUA should organize an annual inspection of the condition of the canals in autumn.
Disturbance or threat to important ecological habitats, including riverside ecosystems Once installed it is not expected that the application of the works will have other effects on ecological habitats and riverside ecosystems than the ones already mentioned previously.
Mitigation In principle, does not apply
Monitoring
78 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
The Institute for Nature Conservation of Serbia is responsible for monitoring conditions in nearby reserves for any conflict with project related activities or land use. Details have to be determined in the EMP.
Disruption of fisheries The project’s flood protection works will not affect fisheries along the Danube River and the drainage works may improve water quality in drainage canals, and therefore they may improve conditions for fish. The irrigation schemes are small and will be designed so as not to cause significant harm to any important fish populations downstream.
Mitigation Does not apply.
Monitoring Does not apply.
Increased incidence of waterborne or water-related disease The project is in a temperate zone where tropical parasites, weeds and diseases are not present. However, there is a history of water-borne or water-related disease in the Macva region. During and after rainy 1937 in the Macva region malaria was widespread. About 50% of inhabitants suffered from this disease, but malaria no longer is a health hazard in Serbia. In any event, it is unlikely that the situation will be worsened by the rehabilitation of the drainage system. On the contrary, the improvements will lead to fewer pools of stagnant water, and fewer opportunities for water-related disease to spread.
Mitigation Does not apply.
Monitoring Does not apply.
Loss of archaeology/cultural heritage No removal or demolishment of any buildings or archaeological sites, are currently foreseen in the project. If, in the unlikely event, that any archaeological site would be found on locations of project intervention, then this would receive all due attention by the project and measures would be taken in full compliance with the law and the conventions signed by Serbia and Montenegro.
79 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
OUTLINE MITIGATION AND MONITORING SCHEDULE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE ISSUE MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Relocation of population Preparation by beneficiaries Does not apply Coordination by municipalities and/or property associated with land acquisition for scheme Disturbance of local residents Improving access roads with Contractor for the works maintenance during entire construction period Working hours in settlements between 8am and 7pm Post telephone No. of PIU PIU available for complaints Unscheduled inspections PIU Water and soil pollution by Appropriate site selection and Contractor for the works construction activities design of the construction site Supervision of site selection and PIU contract supervision of the design by PIU Site inspection and approval PIU inspector prior to works and unscheduled inspections during construction Samples of run-off Social conflict between Hire local work force Does not apply Contractor construction staff and local Hire local water services population Post telephone No. of PIU PIU available for complaints
80 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
CONSTRUCTION PHASE ISSUE MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Stress on local environmental Adequate provisions for drinking Contractor for the works services water and sanitary facilities for the work force Unscheduled inspections PIU inspector Construction activities Professional and preventive Does not apply Contractor for the works disturbing ongoing working methods by agricultural activities construction crew Damage compensation procedure Post telephone No. of PIU PIU available for complaints Permanent alteration of land Clean up of site before last Contractor for the works payment Alternative use preparation and or appropriate landscaping after consultation local inhabitants Inspection prior to last payment PIU Disposal of contaminated The sludge is not contaminated Does not apply Does not apply sludge from canals
81 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
CONSTRUCTION PHASE ISSUE MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Disruption to wildlife or Prepare baseline of wildlife and PIU sensitive ecological habitats ecological conditions prior to detailed designs Incorporate wildlife and Contractor for the designs ecological conditions into detailed design
Avoid destruction of wildlife Contractor for the works and ecological conditions to the maximum
Restore – where necessary – ecological conditions and landscape to pre-works conditions Compare after-works condition PIU Improve ecological conditions of wildlife and nature prior to with works where opportunities last payment exits (quarrying) No loss of archaeology/cultural Does not apply PIU heritage is expected, but if any site found during project execution, measures will be taken in compliance with legislation and international treaties.
82 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
OPERATION PHASE ISSUE MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Soil and canal erosion and Appropriate design general condition of the system Inspections for scouring and WUA erosion; congestion of pipes and illegal connections
Water logging and salinisation Does not apply Does not apply Does not apply of soils
Leaching of nutrients from soil Does not apply Does not apply Does not apply
Deterioration of downstream Careful management of Farmers water and/or groundwater agricultural inputs quality Extension Services Agricultural Extension centres PIU Reduction of downstream Design of fish ladders if Design contractor flows and ecological appropriate Water Authority connectivity Environmental flow agreement with WUA Water flow and quality HSS monitoring
Deterioration in irrigation Quality monitoring in HSS water quality combination with previous
83 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
OPERATION PHASE ISSUE MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY Conflict over irrigation water Clear contracts between the WUA management practices WUA and the farmers Some kind of water use registration or physical quantitative distribution mechanism Vegetation growth and Proper maintenance Farmers: levels 3 & 4 canals sedimentation in canals Water Authorities: level 1 & w canals Inspection in autumn Water Authorities: level 1 & w canals Disturbance or threat to In principle, does not apply Monitor the conditions of the Institute for Conservation of important ecological habitats, nearby reserves on eventual Nature including riverside ecosystems conflict Disruption of fisheries Does not apply Does not apply Does not apply Increased incidence of Does not apply Does not apply Does not apply waterborne or water-related disease
84 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
PART IV: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND CONSULTATION PROCES summary of the public disclosure and consultation process The Directorate for Water organized hearings on the Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project in Belgrade and in Novi Sad, respectively on February 21 and 22, 2005 at 12.00 hrs. Mr. Dmitar Zakula, dipl. eng., the chief adviser of the DFW, gave an introduction on the project, its history, project objectives, the components and the role of the World Bank.
After that, the facilitator, Mr. Dejan Dasic, dipl. eng., gave a power point presentation on the Framework Environmental Study, in which, among other things, he explained the meaning of a framework study and its implications for the environmental impact procedures. In this he explained that individual project components after the design phase will undergo further environmental impact procedures. He gave an overview of potential impacts and suggested mitigation measures and monitoring programme for both the construction and the operation phases.
Magistar Kerkez, dipl. eng. informed the public about the new environmental legislation and its procedural consequences and the implications and procedures required for projects financed by the WB.
After these introductions, the public was given the opportunity to make observations and ask questions. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Zakula kindly invited the participants to send all their observations, questions and concerns in writing to the DfW at the latest March 2, 2005, which is the procedural deadline for turning in written comments on the project.
THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND CONSULTATION MEETING IN BELGRADE
Questions on general project information Mrs. Lazarevic of the Pregled newspaper asked further questions on project details such as costs and timing, etc, which were provided by Mr. Zakula.
85 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Site selection criteria Mr. Vajda, dipl. eng. asked for further details on the implementing agency also opiniated on the criteria of site selection and his consent with the chosen locations.
Prof. Dr. Petkovic, ex Minister Assistant of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, raised questions on selection criteria and he particularly wondered why works were chosen on Serbia’s main rivers instead of smaller rivers with more volatile flooding regimes that are far more difficult to predict, have shorter warning times and are often more difficult to defend against. Mr. Zakula, clarified that there was a link between a flood control and drainage schemes selection because it would not be recommendable to risk an investment in rehabilitation of a drainage system with out defending it from potential flooding. Mrs. Aleksic, dipl. eng., chief of the Department for Flood Control of the DfW, explained that another criterion has been an effort to make flooding risks more consistent along the Danube River and its main tributaries.
Early warning system Mrs. Aleksic asked if an early warning system was considered as a part of the project, to which Mr. Zakula answered that the component makes an integral part of the project and that the details were discussed with the Republic Hydro-Meteorological Service.
Selection of irrigation sites Mrs. Borota, dipl.eng. inquired whether all irrigation schemes have already been identified and if all owners are known. Mr. Zakula informed her that currently three locations have been selected and that the first negotiations with farmers were conducted, but that a final selection of locations has not been done yet. In addition, Mr. Petkovic asked if the selected irrigation schemes are new or existing ones and in case of new ones, why already existing ones were not chosen to be rehabilitated. The answer given by Mr. Zakula was that all existing are very old so that they should be totally displaced and that economic price of water showed that for the present, it is justifiable to irrigate only highly profitable cultures and that one of the aims of the project was to reduce poverty and migration out of hilly areas.
Climate change Mr. Vajda asked if an analysis of precipitation has been done and how this relate to expected climate change to which was answered that indeed precipitation data of the last 20 years were taken into consideration. It was interesting to see that precipitation in fact had a minor diminishing trend, and that from a flood protection point of view the risks had somewhat decreased. Magistar Ille, dipl. eng. informed the public that a regional project among ex Yugoslavia countries, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and
86 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Albania is in preparation and incorporates, inter alia, an early warning system and climate monitoring programme.
Integrated model Mr. Radovanovic asked if it was foreseen to build an integrated model on the outcome of the project and to which Mr. Zakula answered that economic analyses have been carried out and that the project deals with rehabilitation of the systems to its design level, for which models have been provided at the time of the construction.
Stakeholders Mrs. Grujic, dipl. eng., inquired after the concept of stakeholders to which Magistar Kerkez, dipl. eng. explained that stakeholders are all natural persons who can either represent a private or governmental organization or their personal interest.
THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND CONSULTATION MEETING IN NOVI SAD
Sludge samples Mrs. Lazic, dipl. eng., deputy Provintial Secretary for Environmental Protection inquired if sludge analyses had been performed as she was concerned about sludge samples that taken by her administration from the Veliki Backi Canal. Mrs. Kerkez explained that that canal is not included in the project and than referred to chapter 3.1 in the report containing sludge analyses for the Nadela Canal, which was chosen for sampling as it is the location with the most industrial waste water discharge within the project. As can be seen from Tables 6 and 7, the concentrations of heavy metals and PAH are considerably under or at worst, at the MAC under Serbian legislation and Class I MAC under Dutch legislation. Given these data there is no need for concern for the sludge quality in any of the project locations.
Waste disposal Mrs. Lazic raised issue of used oils generated in the project and their disposal. Mrs. Kerkez answered that the only waste oil produced by the project will be the oil from trucks, construction machinery and some pumps to be renovated. The project will see to it that the contractors will disposed off all used oil according to domestic standards (Regulations on handling waste products of hazardous nature, “Official Gazette of RoS” No.12/95).
Resettlement Mr. Panic, dipl. eng., director of the water service Galovica, inquired after resettlement under the project. Mr. Zakula answered that there will be no resettlements under this project. Mrs. Kerkez added that it was only mentioned in the Framework Environmental study as a required analysis issue under WB procedures, even though it will not take place under the project.
87 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Timeframe for the detailed environmental impact assessments Magistar Pantelic-Miralem was interested in time frame for the environmental impact assessment and Mrs. Kerkez answered that there is an expectation that the detailed environmental impact assessments may start as early as the end of March.
Financing and execution of works Mr. Radojcic, dipl. eng., director of water service Podunavlje was interested in the financial management of the project. Mr. Zakula explained that probably (pending negotiations) 20% of the project finances would be supplied by the government and remainder by the WB loan. The WB financing component will be managed by the PIU. He further added that the WB will not allow the non-privatized water services to participate as contractors for work.
Cadastre of polluters Mrs. Lazic inquired if the project has consulted the cadastre of polluters, and Mrs. Kerkez that in this stage it was not required but that the cadastre will be consulted for the detailed environmental impact assessments.
Migration Mr. Ciric, dipl. eng. raised the issue of migration and wondered if the project had taken the vast problem of rural migrations into consideration. Mr. Zakula elaborated that this issue indeed was at a heart of the concerns of this project. Originally the project only foresaw a pilot study of irrigation, but given the extend of the problem, it was decided to finance several specific pilot irrigation schemes, so that not only experience was gained from the project, but that a number of farmer communities would directly benefit from the project intervention.
Domestic procedures Mr. Veljkovic, dipl. eng., asked which institution is mandated to approve environmental impact assessments under Serbian law. Mrs. Kerkez answered that in general the mandated ministry would be the Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection, but that not all procedure requirements under the new legislation are clear and that a dialog between the DfW and the ministry is ongoing.
88 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Figure 16: Announcement of the public disclosure and consultation meetings.
89 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Literature Srdjevic, B., Petkovic, S., Existing Water Resources Policies, Workshop on Water Sector Institutional Aspects, December 2004, Belgrade . Stricevic, R., Bozic, M., Institutional Setup for Water Resources Sector, Workshop on Water Sector Institutional Aspects, December 2004, Belgrade. Milovanovic, M., Stanic, M., Financial Aspects of Operation and Maintenance of Water Resources, Workshop on Water Sector Institutional Aspects, December 2004, Belgrade. Milovanovic, D., Transboundary cooperation-Serbia&Montenegro and neighboring countries, Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management Republic Directorate for Water, May 2004, Belgrade. Nikolic, S., Nature and Tourism in Serbia, Eko Centar i Zavod za zastitu prirode Srbije, 1998, Beograd, in Serbian. FAO/WB, First Preparation Mission - Water resources Management Project, September 2004a. FAO/WB, Second Preparation Mission – Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project, December 2004b. Matvejev, S., Simonov, N., Conservation of High Mountain Landscapes of Serbia, especially their Flora and Fauna, The Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, Monographs, The Section for Chemical and Biological Sciences, Book No.1, in Serbian, 1999, Belgrade. Blazencic, J., Cvijan, M. and others, Biodiversity of Yugoslavia, Ecolibri and Biological Faculty, Editor(a): Stevanovic, V., Vasic, V., in Serbian, 1995, Belgrade. Institute for Conservation of Nature of Serbia, 2004, http://www.natureprotection.org.yu Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments of Serbia, 2004, http://www.yuheritage.com Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection, Directorate for the Environmental Protection, 2004, http://www.ekoserb.sr.gov.yu/ Law on Environmental Protection, “Official Gazette of RoS”, No. 135/2004 Law on Environmental Impact Assessment, “Official Gazette of RoS”, No. 135/2004 Law on Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment, “Official Gazette of RoS”, No. 135/2004 Law on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, “Official Gazette of RoS”, No. 135/2004 Regulation on Hazardous Waste Management, “Official Gazette of RoS”, No.12/95 Law on Water, “Official Gazette of RoS”, No.46/91, 53/93 and 48/94 Decree on classification of waters, inter-republics waterflows, inter-statal waters and Yugoslavia’s coastal sea, “Official Gazette of SFRY”, No.5/68. Decree on water flows categorisation, “Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Serbia” No. 5/68 Regulation on dangerous substances in waters, “Official Gazette SRS” No. 31/82. Regulation on allowed concentrations of hazardous and harmful substances in soil and water for irrigation and on methods for their determination, “Official Gazette of RoS” 23/94 Kelderman, P., Pollution sources and abatement measures for dredged sediments in the city of Delft (The Netherlands), Official Publication of the European Water Association (EWA), 2002
90 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
M.Marjanov, Z. Vladisavljevic, Man and Environment in SR Serbia, pg 88. , Materials for scientific Meeting in Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, Belgrade, 1973.
91 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
PART V: ANNEXES
92 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
ANNEX I: SERBIAN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Regarding the Decree on classification of waters, inter-republics waterflows, inter-statal waters and Yugoslavia’s coastal sea (Official Gazette of SFRY, No.5/68) waters are divided according their designation and the level of purity into: • I class-waters which can be, in natural state or eventually disinfected, used for drinking or in food industry, and surface waters for breeding fish. • II class-waters which can in natural state be used for bathing or recreation of citizens, water sports, for breeding of common kind if fishes, or which, after usual treatment (coagulation, filtration and disinfection) can be used for drinking or in food industry. • III class-waters, which can be used for irrigation and after usual treatment (coagulation, filtration and disinfection) in industry, except food industry. • IV class- waters which can be used for other purposes only after suitable treatment.
All those classes must by theirs physical, chemical, biological and radioactive characteristics, suit the conditions given by the same Regulation.
The Decree on water flows categorisation (“Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Serbia” No. 5/68), regarding previous water classification, shows the lists of water flow categories classified by catchments. Purification processes of wastewaters as well as regimes of discharge must secure maintenance of the water flow category.
The Regulation on dangerous substances in waters (“Official Gazette SRS” No. 31/82) defines dangerous substances which, by their content, amounts, the level of radioactivity or other properties can endanger life or health of humans, fishes or animals. Maximal concentrations are given in mg/litre.
The Regulation on allowed concentrations of hazardous and harmful substances in soil and water for irrigation and on methods for their determination (Official Gazette of RS 23/94) defines as hazardous substances cadmium, lead, mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel, fluor and as harmful copper, zinc and boron.
The maximum concentrations are given mg/kg of soil or mg/ litre of water shown in Table 8. Table 8: Maximum allowable concentration of hazardous and harmful substances in soil and water for irrigation Max. Allowable Max. Allowable No. Substance Concentration in soil Concentration in water mg/kg of soil mg/litre of water 1. Cadmium 3 0.01 2. Lead 100 0.1 3. Mercury 2 0.001 4. Arsenic 25 0.05
93 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
5. Chromium 100 0.5 6. Nickel 50 0.1 7. Fluor 300 1.5 8. Copper 100 0.1 9. Zinc 300 1.0 10. Boron 50 1.0
The regulation also determines sampling procedures, methods of analysis and limit values for smiazin and atrazin in medium heavy soil regarding different agricultural types.
94 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
ANNEX II: DANUBE STATES TRANS-BOUNDARY WATER AGREEMENTS
General overview After the break up in 1992 of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), several sovereign internationally-recognized states came into existence, including the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY).
On 4 February 2003 Serbia and Montenegro was created on the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
In addition to Serbia and Montenegro, the new states include Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Macedonia. Having in mind the previous immediate neighbours, i.e. Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania, the location of Serbia and Montenegro is very important in the domain of sustainable management of international water resources at bilateral and multilateral levels. A regulated international legal regime in the water sector is extremely important for all neighbouring countries, the Danube river basin countries, and consequently for the cooperation within and the positive outcome of ICPDR activities. Since an area of 88,919 km2 of Serbia and Montenegro belongs to the Danube river basin, the establishment of effective international cooperation in the domain of transboundary water resources is a priority for Serbia and Montenegro. Much less territory, mostly in Montenegro but also at Kosovo and Metohija, part of territory of Serbia, that is under international protectorate, belongs to Adriatic river basin, and for that part of Serbia and Montenegro, it is important to establish good bilateral agreements, particularly with Albania.
Bilateral cooperation The former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia entered into several bilateral and multilateral agreements and conventions governing the use of international watercourse that form or cross national borders. Some of these are still in force. As a result of geopolitical changes, the actual situation in which Serbia and Montenegro finds itself at present is summarized below. Hungary An agreement between the governments of the FPR of Yugoslavia and the PR of Hungary regarding water management issues was entered into on 8 August 1955.
The agreement is being implemented through the activities of Commission and support groups of the Commission, i.e. sub-commission for water protection, water management, and protection of water quality. Up to now, the accomplished results have been substantial. However, in the course of implementation, the greatest practical problems resulted from differences in interpretation, specifically where Hungary understood the agreement to cover only a relatively small sector of joint interests. From 1996 the two parties agreed to incorporate into their activities the principles of the Danube River Protection Convention (Sofia, 1994) and the Convention on the
95 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki, 1992), until a new agreement is in place. This has yielded very good results.
An agreement between the governments of the FPR of Yugoslavia and the PR of Hungary regarding navigation on the Tisza was entered into on 9 March 1959.
The agreement is formally in force, but its implementation in practice is partial. A new agreement is forthcoming.
An agreement between the governments of the FPR of Yugoslavia and the PR of Hungary regarding border fishing was entered into on 25 May 1957.
The agreement is formally in force, but it is not being implemented in practice.
96 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Romania An agreement between the governments of FPR of Yugoslavia and the PR of Romania concerning water engineering issues related to boundary and transboundary systems and watercourse was entered into on 7 April 1955.
The agreement is being implemented through the activities of Commission and support groups of the Commission, i.e. sub-commission for water protection, water management, and protection of water quality. The agreement is being implemented by sub-committees for water control, water management, and water preservation. Accomplishments have only been partial, and there is the need to generate a new agreement. Romania has submitted its proposal, and CS’s proposal is in the final stages of completion.
In order to overcome coordination issues, the parties agreed in 1998 to incorporate into their activities the principles of the Danube River Protection Convention (Sofia, 1994) and the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki, 1992) until a new agreement is entered into. However, there have been no significant advances in cooperation.
Several agreements and conventions governing the construction and operation of the Iron Gate Hydro Power and Navigation System erdap (Iron Gate) were entered into by Yugoslavia and Romania in 1963, 1964, 1967, 1976, 1977, 1987, and 1998.
The outcome of bilateral cooperation under these agreements and conventions has been satisfactory. However, it should be pointed out that any ongoing activities of the Joint Commission need to address much more the environmental impacts of the two dams on the backwater zone and the sustainable management of water resources, in order to mitigate negative impacts.
An agreement between the governments of the FPR of Yugoslavia and the PR of Romania concerning border fishing was entered into 30 January 1961.
The agreement is formally in force, but it is not being implemented in practice.
97 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Bulgaria An agreement between the governments of the FPR of Yugoslavia and the PR of Bulgaria concerning water management issues was entered into on 4 April 1958.
The agreement is formally in force, but cooperation was discontinued in 1982. A new agreement is required and, when entered into, bilateral cooperation should proceed on an urgent basis.
An agreement between the governments of the FPR of Yugoslavia and the PR of Bulgaria concerning border fishing was entered into on 22 January 1962.
The agreement is formally in force, but it is not being implemented in practice.
98 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Albania An agreement between the governments of the FPR of Yugoslavia and the PR of Albania concerning water management issues was entered into on 5 December 1956.
The implementation of the agreement has been partly successful, particularly in managing water resources that form or cross the border. Cooperation was discontinued in 1986. The present situation is untenable, both from legal and engineering standpoints, and the agreement (which none of the parties has terminated) is unenforceable as a result of the new geopolitical environment resulting from the break-up of the former SFRY. The preparation of a new agreement is forthcoming.
Former FRY Republics No bilateral agreements governing sustainable management of transboundary water resources have been entered into with Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Macedonia.
The responsible Ministry of Agriculture and Water Management/Directorate for Water of Serbia has initiated extensive preparations for the formulation of agreements and the commencement of a negotiation process with neighbouring countries, incorporating contemporary solutions and the best of international practices.
Such agreements are not only a precondition for bilateral, but also for multilateral cooperation.
Conclusions about bilateral cooperation
In conclusion, a general re-assessment of all bilateral agreements is required, particularly those addressing water management issues. Although entered into around the middle of the last century, these agreements cover practically all of the aspects of sustainable management of transboundary water resources and environmental issues.
The outcome of the implementation of these agreements varied from country to country, and was for the most part influenced by the political environment in which specific problems were addressed. The agreements should be reviewed in light of the conditions under which they had to be implemented, rather than their content. It is of the utmost importance to implement solutions set out in conventions approved in the last decade of the previous century and their ongoing elaborations, particularly the Danube River Protection Convention, as well as to implement the WFD and its elaborations in the long-term.
99 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Multilateral cooperation For Serbia and Montenegro it is of the highest importance the establishment of a new framework for multilateral cooperation, which would be closely linked to and synchronized with bilateral cooperation along the lines of the major international conventions approved during the 1990’s, at the time when this country was isolated. This particularly relates to the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD).
The Danube River Protection Convention (Sofia, 1994) The goal of this important Convention, ratified by FRY/Serbia and Montenegro on 30 January 2003, is to achieve sustainable and equitable water management. In view of the geographic location of Serbia and Montenegro, and the importance of international rivers: the Danube, the Tisza, the Sava, and the Drina (the largest tributary to the Sava), the establishment of cooperation based on this Convention is of vital importance to the overall development and bilateral cooperation.
In view of the fact that Serbia and Montenegro became a full member of the ICPDR in August of 2003, the Republic of Serbia feels the activities of official representatives must be at the highest level, which is in the interests of all member states of the Convention.
Not only was a declaration of intent made, but also specific activities were initiated with the attendance of the CS delegation at the sixth ordinary meeting of the ICPDR at the beginning of December 2003 in Vienna and through working sessions of CS experts with those of the ICPDR Secretariat in the latter half of December 2003. The exchange of information, agreed timeframe for CS activities to catch up with those of other member states, and the progress of activities in the country are guarantees of the changed position of CS and the professional approach of its institutions and experts to the ensuing activities.
The Budapest Declaration/Tisza Water Forum Following disastrous floods in the upper part basin of the Tisza between 1989 and 2001, the ministries responsible for flood control approved the Budapest Declaration on 25 May 2001. According to this document, the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) committed itself to establishing international cooperation with regard to flood control in the Tisza river basin. The document also addresses certain environmental issues.
During initial negotiations, CS insisted on the generation of a document that would address all relevant aspects of integrated and sustainable management of transboundary waterways in the Tisza river basin, but this was not supported by the other countries. In view of the poor status of the Tisza basin ecosystems, many issues with regard to environmental protection and water quality preservation remain open. For this reason an initiative of the European Council to implement a Tisza river basin agreement and ICPDR support would be welcomed by CS.
The accomplishments to date are encouraging, even though only a single aspect of sustainable water management is being addressed, i.e. that of flood control.
100 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
The activities of the Forum are based on sub-coordination from the level of responsible ministries, through national coordinators, to expert groups and specialized institutions that carry out coordinated activities and implement decisions taken by competent representatives at the meetings of Tisza river basin countries.
The Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin FRY/Serbia and Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Slovenia approved on 3 December 2002 in Kranjska Gora the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin, including its annexes and a Protocol on the navigation regime. The Framework Agreement provides the potential for resolving issues related to sustainable water management in the Sava river basin and sets out the principles of multilateral cooperation in one of the largest sub-basins of the Danube.
In this regard it is very important to establish close ties between ICPDR and the future International Commission for the Sava river basin, as well as to implement the WFD.
101 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
The Convention Regarding the Regime of Navigation on the Danube According to the Convention Regarding the Regime of Navigation on the Danube approved on 18 August 1948 in Belgrade, navigation on the Danube is free and open to all nationals, as well as to merchant ships and goods of any country.
The Convention set up the Danube Commission responsible for the implementation of the Convention. In its implementation, the Convention showed that no aspect, including navigation, may be detached from the principle of integrated water management. Every measure and activity on the Danube, which was a function of navigation, opened and required the resolution of a number of issues, ranging from the environment to water management.
It is necessary to establish better coordination between ICPDR and the Danube Commission, as a necessary step towards sustainable development of the Danube river basin. Future international cooperation has to produce concrete results in our as well as in the other countries in the region. For achieving this goal, it is necessary to establish strong links and good neighbourliness with these countries and to ratify international conventions aimed at achieving sustainable water management.
102 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
ANNEX III: INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS CONCERNING PROTECTION OF BIODIVERSITY AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS RATIFIED BY SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
• International Convention for the Protection of Birds (1950), • Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Water Flow Habitat (Ramsar, 1971) • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES Washington,1973) • Convention on the Protection of Archaeological Heritage of Europe (1985) • Convention on Biodiversity ( Rio de Janeiro, 1992) • Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage (Paris, 1972) • International Convention for the Protection of Danube River Basin, Sofia, 1994.
Folowing are conventions, which are not yet ratified by Serbia and Montenegro but draft laws for ratifications have already been prepared and procedures for adoption are current: • Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention, 1979) • Convention on the conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention, 1979)
103 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
ANNEX IV: SOIL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE KNOWN PROJECT LOCALITIES
Table 9: Soil characteristics of the known project localities No. Type of soil PWA “Dunav “Backa Palanka, catchment “Plavna” Chernozem, from loess terrace, with initial marks of clay appearing, of a middle 1. depth 2. Fluvisol, clayey, water logged 3. Fluvisol, clayey, on Humoglay-Fluviglay, carbonated 4. Humofluvisol, carbonated 5. Humoglay-Fluviglay, carbonated, typical clay-loamy 6. Humoglay-Fluviglay, decarbonated, typical clay-loamy 7. Euglay, hipoglay, mineral, carbonated 8. Solonjec 9. Solonjec and Solonchak 10. Solonchak PWA “Tamis-Dunav” Pancevo, catchment “Nadela” 1. Chernozem, on a loess deposit, carbonated, of a middle depth Chernozem, on a loess deposit, carbonated with initial marks of clay appearing in 2. it, of a middle depth 3. Chernozem, on a loess deposit, decarbonated, of a middle depth 4. Chernozem on a coffin-alluvium material, carbonated, shallow Humofluvisol, carbonated, deep and middle deep initial marks of clay appearing, 5. loamy Humofluvisol, carbonated, with deep and middle deep initial marks of clay 6. appearing, clayey-loamy Humofluvisol, carbonated, with initialized salinisation, with shallow initial marks 7. of clay appearing in it, clayey-loamy 8. Humoglay-fluviglay, carbonated, tipical clayey-loamy 9. Humoglay-fluviglay, carbonated, scaterred salinized, clayey 10. Eugley, hipoglay, mineralized, carbonated 11. Euglay, hipoglay, mineralized, salinized PWA “Galovica” Zemun, catchment “Tovarnicki sliv” 1. Eutrical cambisol, on alluvium deposits, tipical, clayey and clay-loamy 2. Eutrical cambisol, on alluvium deposits, sologenated, clayey-loamy 3. Humoglay-Fluviglay, decarbonized, tipical, clayey Humoglay-Fluviglay, decarbonized, with spots of Solonchak (solodja orig.), 4. clayey 5. Eugley, hipoglay, mineral, carbonated 6. Solonchak 7. Solonjec PWA “Zapadna Backa” Sombor, catchment ”Severna Mostonga”
104 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
No. Type of soil 1. Chernozem, on a loess deposit, carbonated, deep and of a middle depth Chernozem, on a loess deposit, carbonated with initial marks of clay appearing in 2. it, of a middle depth 3. Chernozem, on a loess deposit, solonchackally, of a middle depth 4. Humofluvisol, carbonated, with deep initial marks of clay appearing in it, loamy Humofluvisol, solonchacally, with shallow initial marks of clay appearing in it, 5. clayey-loamy 6. Solonchak PWA “Podunavlje” Kovin, catchment “Bavanistanski kanal” 1. Chernozem, on a loess deposit, carbonated, of a middle depth Chernozem, on a loess deposit, carbonated with initial marks of clay appearing in 2. a foundation, of a middle depth Humofluvisol, carbonated, with deep and middle deep initial marks of clay 3. appearing in it, loamy Humofluvisol, carbonated, with initialized salinisation, with shallow initial marks 4. of clay appearing in it, clayey-loamy 5. Eugley, hipoglay, mineral, carbonated 6. Euglay, hipoglay, mineralized, salinized 7. Solonchak PWA “Gornji Banat” Kikinda, catchment “ Novoknezevacki kanal” 1. Initial landmass, on coffin 2. Chernozem, on a loess deposit, carbonated, of a middle depth Chernozem, on a loess deposit, carbonated with initial marks of clay appearing in 3. a foundation, of a middle depth 4. Chernozem, on coffin-alluvium materal, similar to Solonjec, shallow 5. Fluvisol, clayey, water logged 6. Fluvisol, clayey, alkalized 7. Humoglay-Fluviglay, carbonized, salinized, clayey 8. Humoglay-Fluviglay, decarbonized, tipical, clayey 9. Marshy smonica 10. Marshy smonica, salinized, alcalized 11. Solonchak 12. Solonjec and solonjec with Solonchac characteristics PWA “Sava” Sabac, catchment “COK-a” 1. Eutrical Combisol, on lake sediments, clay-loamy and loamy 2. Luvisol, on limestone sediments, typical, loamy 3. Semiglay, brown, decarbonized, typical, loamy and clayey 4. Pseudoglay, slopy, shallow 5. Eugley, hipoglay, mineral, carbonized 6. Pseudoglay, slopy, shalow, skeleton 7. Fluvisol, loamy, carbonized PWA “Sava” Sabac, catchment “Srednjemacvanski” 1. Chernozem, on a loess deposit, carbonated, of a middle depth
105 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
No. Type of soil Chernozem, on a loess deposit, carbonated with initial marks of clay appearing in 2. a foundation, of a middle depth 3. Fluvisol, loamy, carbonized 4. Eutrical Combisol, on lake sediments, clay-loamy and loamy 5. Luvisol, on limestone sediments, typical, loamy 6. Semiglay, brown, decarbonized, typical, loamy and clayey 7. Pseudoglay, slopy, shallow 8. Eugley, hipoglay, mineral, carbonized 9. Vertisol, on decarbonized loamy lake sediments, of a middle depth PWA “Sava” Sabac, catchment “Stojsica Bogaz” 1. Chernozem, on a loess deposit, carbonated, of a middle depth Chernozem, on a loess deposit, carbonated with initial marks of clay appearing in 2. a foundation, of a middle depth 3. Fluvisol, loamy, carbonized 4. Eugley, hipoglay, mineral, carbonized PWA “Erozija” Valjevo, catchment “Banjani” 1. Eutrical Combisol, on lake sediments, clay-loamy and loamy 2. Humoglay-Fluviglay, carbonized, tipical, clayey 3. Pseudoglay, slopy, shallow 4. Fluvisol, loamy, carbonized PWA “Vodoprivreda” Smederevska Palanka, catchment “Velikoplanjanske nizije” Vertisol, with initial marks of clay appearing in a foundation, on decarbonized 1. loamy lake sediments, of a middle depth 2. Semiglay,alluvium, carbonized, clayey 3. Eutrical combisol, on coffin sediments, loamy 4. Fluvisol, clayey-loamy, with initial marks of clay appearing in a foundation PWA “Negotin” Negotin, catchment “Negotinske Nizije ” Vertisol, decarbonized, with decarbonized clayey lake sediments, of a middle 1. depth 2. Vertisol, decarbonized, with carbonized clayey lake sediments, of a middle depth Vertisol, , with initial marks of clay appearing in a foundation and with 3. decarbonized clayey lake sediments, of a middle depth 4. Eutrical combisol, on coffin sediments, typical, loamy 5. Fluvisol, clayey-loamy, brown 6. Semiglay, aluvial, carbonized 7. Humoglay-Fluviglay, carbonized, tipical, clayey 8. Eugley, hipoglay, mineral, carbonized 9. Fluvisol, clayey-loamy, carbonized 10. Fluvisol, sandy-loamy, carbonized
106 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
ANNEX V: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS TO THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE MEETINGS
Table 10: List of participants in the public hearing in Belgrade No. Participants Organization 1. D.Misailovic Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management 2. Lj. Sundac Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management 3. M. Kostic Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management 4. Lj. Kostic Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management 5. K. Lazarevic “ PREGLED” newspaper 6. R. Teofilovic Privately 7. G. Kitanovic “TANJUG” 8. N. Klarisik Republic Geodetic Institute 9. O. Jankovic Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management 10. B. Speski Water Service “Sava-Dunav” 11. D. Kujundzic Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management 12. S. Simic Water Sector Inspection 13. T. Gavrilovic Water Sector Inspection 14. Merita Borota Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management 15. M. Davidovic Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management 16. A. Aleksic Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management 17. S. Petkovic Belgrade University, Faculty for Forestry 18. D. Tomasevic “Kosovoprojekt-Geoinzenjering” 19. S. Kracunov “Jaroslav Cerni” 20. M. Monjatijevic NGO “Ecologica” 21. D. Avakumovic Belgrade University, Faculty for Civil engineering 22. M. Radovanovic KMG-Trudbenik 23. J. Ramsay IRIS Environmental Systems Inc., Canada 24. S. Davidson Blackstone, Canada Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection, 25. G. Grujic Directorate for Environmental Protection The hearing on Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project was held in the Directorate for Water in Belgrade, on February 21 2005, at 12.00 hrs. The hearing was organized by DfW and it was facilitated by Mr. Dejan Dasic.
107 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
Table 11: List of participants in the public hearing in Novi Sad No. Participants Organization Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection, 1. M. Dedic Directorate for Environmental Protection Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection, 2. N. Stefanovic Directorate for Environmental Protection 3. Z. Bosnjak “Hidroinvest DTD” Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection, 4. Z. Matin Directorate for Environmental Protection Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection, 5. S. Pantelic Directorate for Environmental Protection Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection, 6. D. Mitrovic Directorate for Environmental Protection 7. Z. Veljkovic Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection 8. R. Milosev Water Service “Zapadna Backa” 9. V. Andjelic Water Service “Tamis-Dunav” 10. D. Feldab Water Service “Gornji Banat” 11. B. Radijcic Water Service “Podunavlje” Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection, 12. V. Ciric Directorate for Environmental Protection 13. Lj. Andjelic Water Sevice “Galovica” 14. Z. Bukvic Water Sevice “Galovica” 15. M. Jovanovic Water Sevice “Tamis-Dunav” 16. I. Despotivic Water Sevice “Tamis-Dunav” 17. M. Lazic Belgrade University, Mining-Geology Faculty 18. M. Keco “Poljoprivreda”magazine Provincial Secretariate for Agriculture, Forestry and 19. R. Andric Water Management Provincial Secretariate for Agriculture, Forestry and 20. A. Matic Water Management Provincial Secretariate for Environmental Protection and 21. N. Lazic Sustainable Development 22. M. Jatic Water Service “Dunav” 23. M. Stanic Water Service “Dunav” 24. M. Panic Water Service “Dunav”
The hearing on Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project was held in the PWA “Vode Vojvodine” in Novi Sad, on February 22 2005, at 12.00 hrs. The hearing was organized by DfW and it was facilitated by Mr. Dejan Dasic. wb12009
108 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
C:\Documents and Settings\WB12009\My Documents\E1123.doc 04/04/2005 16:15:00
109 Framework Environmental Impact Study Serbia Irrigation and Drainage Rehabilitation Project
110