FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SAVA RIVER BASIN

STAKEHOLDER FORUM WORKSHOP

15 November 2018 CATALOGUE OF MEASURES CATALOGUE OF MEASURES SUMMARY OF MEASURES

FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SAVA RIVER BASIN (SAVA FRMP)

. 42 nonstructural measures divided into 11 groups of measures:  15 prevention measures: 3 M23 and 12 M24,  11 protective measures: 5 M31 and 6 M35,  16 preparedness measures: 9 M41, 3 M43, 3 M44 and 1 M53;

. 37 national structural measures in areas of mutual interest:  4 protective measures M32 (watercourse regulation),  33 measures M33 (channel, riverbank and flood area works). SUMMARY OF MEASURES

. Available technical and other information on projects;

. Impacts of areas (retentions) with natural and regulated retention of flood water;

. Crossborder impacts;

. Environmental objectives of the WFD and information from Sava RBMP;

. Potential environmental influences;

. Impact on climate change adaptation capacities. SUMMARY OF NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES SUMMARY OF NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES

NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES

Measures of high indicative priority include:

. Measures that are of mutual interest for the countries and the ISRBC, pertaining to the provision of data and components for the preparation of the next Flood Risk Management Plan in the Sava River Basin; . Measures that support improvements of the realtime data collection systems and provide basis hydrological forecasting. STRUCTURAL MEASURES IN AREAS OF MUTUAL INTEREST

The following documents were used for proposing structural measures:

. national flood risk management plans for Slovenia and Croatia;

. draft flood risk management plan for Serbia;

. water management strategies;

. projects from the ISRBC Metacatalogue;

. countries' proposals. STRUCTURAL MEASURES IN AREAS OF MUTUAL INTEREST STRUCTURAL MEASURES IN AREAS OF MUTUAL INTEREST STRUCTURAL MEASURES IN AREAS OF MUTUAL INTEREST STRUCTURAL MEASURES IN AREAS OF MUTUAL INTEREST STRUCTURAL MEASURES IN AREAS OF MUTUAL INTEREST SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MEASURES MEASURES RELATING TO WATER RETENTION CROSS-BORDER IMPACT OF MEASURES

. AMI areas were defined along the following crossborder watercourses: Sava, Sutla, Bregana, Kupa, Una, Drina, Tara, Ćehotina, Lim, and Bosut. If a measure belongs to an AMI that includes a crossborder watercourse, it is assumed that such measure has a crossborder impact;

. Structural measures in AMI areas on national watercourses (Sana, Vrbas, Ukrina, Bosna, Tinja, and Kolubara) don’t have a direct crossborder impact, but are considered to be of a significant importance for the Sava River basin;

. As a non-structural measure of type M34, an analysis is proposed to assess crossborder impacts of significant flood protection structures. An example would be the middle Posavlje system, which has not only a key importance for Sava River flood protection in Croatia, but also a positive effect on neighbouring countries of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. INTEGRATION OF FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT IN WATER PROTECTION ACTIVITIES AT THE SAVA RIVER BASIN LEVEL Overview of the water bodies’ status in AMI areas INTEGRATION OF FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT IN WATER PROTECTION ACTIVITIES AT THE SAVA RIVER BASIN LEVEL

Analysis was conducted to identify the aspects in which each individual structural measure contributes to the achievement of the WFD objectives , i.e. fulfilment of measures proposed in the RBMP: . prevention of organic pollution; . prevention of pollution with nutrients; . prevention of pollution with hazardous substances; . mitigation of hydro morphological modifications (interruption of continuity of rivers and habitats, hydrological modifications, morphological changes); . prevention of ground waters pollution; . maintenance or improvement of quantity (hydraulic regime) of ground waters; . preventing introduction or spreading of invasive species; . maintaining the balance, quantity or quality of sediment; . conservation of protected areas and ecosystem functioning. INTEGRATION OF FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT IN WATER PROTECTION ACTIVITIES AT THE SAVA RIVER BASIN LEVEL

. Based on a preliminary analysis of the planned structural measures, it was estimated that 4 measures support the achievement of environmental objectives set forth in the WFD; . 2 measures were evaluated as neutral (without impact); . Preliminary analysis of other identified measures has shown that they might potentially be contrary to the environmental objectives set forth in the WFD.

Array of measures presented in the Plan represents a wider approach to flood risk management, observing the water bodies and their ecosystems in a holistic way – as an integrated part of environment. With such wider approach, engineering flood protection measures can also generate numerous positive effects in achieving good ecological status of water bodies , which is the basic objective of the Water Framework Directive. CONCLUSIONS OF SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES

Planned nonstructural measures will have indirect positive environmental influence and positively affect social environment (public safety and health), also improving adaptation to climate change.

For each individual structural measure the following was considered:

. Intensity of the expected environmental influence; . Environmental sensitivity of the project implementation area; . Possibility of cross-border influence; . Proposal of basic measures to mitigate negative influences.

As a result of the conducted analysis, preliminary assessment and categorisation of planned measures’ influence was carried out (low / medium / high ). CONCLUSIONS OF SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES

. Within the Sava FRMP context, 3 measures were considered to have high potential environmental influence. These may require larger land plots, loss of fertile agricultural land, displacement of population, relocation of roads, or negative influences on protected habitats; . Environmental influence impact was rated as medium for 17 measures; . Influence of the remaining measures is low .

The national regulations of the countries require implementation of a detailed environmental impact assessment when planning and applying for permits for implementation of the planned measures. CLIMATE CHANGE AND PLANNING THE FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AT THE SAVA RIVER BASIN LEVEL Activities in researching the effects of climate in the Sava River Basin were implemented in the period 2010-2015: . Pilot projects on climate change “Building the link between Flood Risk Management planning and climate change assessment in the Sava River Basin” – UNECE project 2010- 2013); . “Water and Climate Adaptation Plan for the Sava River Basin” – WATCAP, 2015).

Basic conclusions common in all assessments are: . An increase in average summer temperatures in the Sava River basin is exceeding global trends, while increased winter precipitation and decrease thereof in summer will lead to more frequent spring floods and more frequent summer droughts; . The maximum flow rate in one-in-100 years return period will increase, especially in the

upper part of the river basin (Q 100 could rise up to 55% in Čatež, and up to 3% in Sremska Mitrovica); . These changes will be followed by intensified extremes. Rate of frequency increase of high waters of 100-years return period will be higher than the increase rate for the 20-year return period, indicating an overall increase in flood risk. CLIMATE CHANGE AND PLANNING THE FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AT THE SAVA RIVER BASIN LEVEL Comparative overview of the main guidelines from the WATCAP project and groups of measures envisaged in Sava FRMP CLIMATE CHANGE AND PLANNING THE FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT AT THE SAVA RIVER BASIN LEVEL

All structural measures have been classified into 3 categories – high/medium/low importance for climate change adaptation :

. High importance measures are those which include construction of new flood protection systems while applying „green infrastructure“ measures, as well as those significantly improving the protection of urban areas; . Medium importance measures are those aimed at improving existing infrastructure for flood protection and resilience to new conditions (upgrading embankments, riverbed regulation, and so on); . Low importance measures include regular maintenance or reconstruction of the existing protection structures. FINANCING THE MEASURES

The following indicative sources for financing the measures were identified:

. The European Union funds (instruments/funds for the EU member states, and instrument for pre-accession assistance - IPA for candidate countries and potential candidates, including mechanisms for financial support in emergencies and following serious natural disasters); . National public funds of the countries (state and local budgets, own revenues of institutions, including earmarked funds); . International financial inst itutions (The World Bank, EIB, EBRD…); . Bilateral donations and loans ; . Joint financial mechanisms and global funds (WBIF, UN, GCF...); . Loans from commercial banks ; . Public-private partnerships (PPP). FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SAVA RIVER BASIN

STAKEHOLDER FORUM WORKSHOP

PROPOSAL OF COORDINATION MECHANISMS PROPOSALS OF MODES OF COOPERATION

15 November 2018 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION • Article 11 of the Protocol defines that the Parties will take appropriate measures to establish and maintain readiness, as well as measures related to flood protection in emergency situations .

• The same Article also defines that in the event of flood control in emergency situations, the affected Party(s ) may seek assistance from other Parties , indicating the extent and form of the assistance required.

• For the purpose of providing effective assistance in the event of flood control in emergency situations, the Parties shall agree details of all necessary actions and activities in the Flood Risk Management Plan. PROPOSAL OF THE COORDINATION MECHANISMS

• FRM Web GIS Browser PROPOSAL OF THE COORDINATION MECHANISMS

• Sava HIS PROPOSAL OF THE COORDINATION MECHANISMS

• Sava FFS MUTUAL COOPERATION IN EMERGENCY FLOOD DEFENCE SITUATIONS • Flood risk reduction in emergency situation – Common objective of all countries – Level to which the developing countries can effectively implement their national policies and measures in the context of their circumstances and capacities – Can be additionally improved through sustainable international cooperation. INTERNATIONAL MULTILATERAL COORDINATION

Sava Commission . Joint body with the international legal capacity needed for implementing functions of coordinating the implementation of FASRB. . Central point in identification and implementation of regional projects important for realising FASRB . Mechanism for strengthening mutual cooperation of Sava River basin countries in water management.  PEG FP, expert groups participating in solving specific questions and tasks relevant for flood risk management are: . Permanent Expert Group for River Basin Management (PEG RBM), . Permanent Expert Group for GIS (PEG IS), and . Permanent Expert Group for Hydrological and Meteorological Issues (PEG HMI). Sava Commission coordinated activities related to flood risk management:  initiation of emergency actions and recovery at relevant international institutions during and immediately after flood events  preparation of reports on flood consequences with detailed information.  cooperation of the Sava Commission with the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, which includes joint consideration and activities in areas of water and flood risk management. INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR OPERATIONAL FLOOD DEFENCE 1/2

. Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (Ministarstvo za okolje in prostor). . Ministry of Defence (Ministarstvo za obrambo), Directorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Civil Protection and Protection against Disasters (Uprava Republike Slovenije za zaščito in reševanje – Slovenia Civilna žaščita) . Environment Agency of Slovenia – ARSO . Water Agency of Slovenia – DRSV . Ministry of Environment and Energy . Hrvatske vode (Waters of Croatia) Croatia . State Hydrometeorological Institute (DHMZ) . National Protection and Rescue Directorate (DUZS) . Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina . Ministry of Security, Operational-communication Centre . Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry . Sava River Basin Agency . Adriatic Sea Watershed Agency . Federal Directorate of Civil Protection . Federal Centre of Civil Protection Bosna and Herzegovina . Federal Hydrometeorological Institute . Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry . Public Institution "Vode Srpske" . Republic Hydrometeorological Institute, Banja Luka . Republic Institute for Civil Protection, Banja Luka . Department for Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of Brčko District BiH . Centre for Protection and Rescue of Brčko District BiH . Department for Public Safety of Brčko District BiH INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR OPERATIONAL FLOOD DEFENCE 2/2

. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of the Republic of Serbia – Republic Water Directorate . Ministry of Interior – Sector for Emergencies Serbia . Provincial Secretariat for Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry . Public water management company „Srbijavode“ . Public water management company „Vode Vojvodine“ . Republic Hydrometeorological Institute

. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development – Directorate for Water Management and The Water Administration Montenegro . Ministry of Internal Affairs – Directorate for Emergency Situations . Institute for Hydrometeorology and Seismology of Montenegro ANALYSE OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION/EXISTING BILATERAL AGREEMENTS • Bilateral cooperation agreements on protection against natural and civil disasters and analysis of standard operational procedures. • Two existing Standard Operational Procedures between the countries: – procedure of mutual informing on dangers – procedures of crossing the state border. PUBLIC AWARENESS RAISING AND EDUCATION OF POPULATION

• Awareness raising population in floodplains - crucial for reducing the risk of flooding • Indicative flood map - information on the website of the national flood protection institutions – Example of good practice in Slovenia where it is visible and in function, well- updated and understandable to the general public, flood prediction and warning is functioning and is continually improving • Participation of public in preparation of FRMP. • Continuous and timely education especially of part of the population exposed to dangers / direct risk. • Ensure development of solidarity feelings among citizens • Responsibility for common obligations in the protection and rescue of elemental and other disasters. RECOMMENDATIONS 1/3

• Procedures for import and export of protection and rescue equipment across state borders and delivery of humanitarian aid should be simplified, made easier and quicker . Defined by agreements, and confirmed by 2014 floods – Unified templates when crossing borders to speed up the protection and rescue processes. Unified templates for “Threat information”, “Request for provision of aid”, “Offer for aid” – Standard Operational Procedures and protocol for crossing border crossings prepared within the IPA Floods project. • Population awareness in flood areas is of high importance for reducing flood risks . – Providing risk information based on national maps of flood hazards and risks. – Regularly issue instructions for the public on how to act in emergency situations – Which prevention measures should be timely undertaken to avoid or reduce the consequences; RECOMMENDATIONS 2/3 • Work is needed on promotion and organisation of national, regional and international workshops, forums and round tables – Sava Commission - platform for mutual cooperation, assemble interested stakeholders in planning and implementation of emergency situation civil protection to clarify procedures, responsibilities and means available to all relevant bodies (public and private); • For timely reaction in emergency situations, information is needed in the shortest possible timeframe and their distribution in a safe and dependable way to emergency situation management centres – Standardise procedure for broadcasting/forwarding warnings through the Common Alerting Protocol – International alerts between Sava River basin countries • Development of emergency flood defence management plan at the basin level would facilitate a coordinated approach – Coding and structuring of all actions – Civil protection systems should adopt that to improve their reactions to emergency situations; RECOMMENDATIONS 3/3 • Share adjusted information from Sava FFWS, HIS and GIS systems, according to needs and competencies of institutions and users. – Support and work on improving the system for increasing the quality and quantity of available information. – Protocols for data exchange should ensure access and distribution of data and information for further review and modelling, to create a more effective platform for decision making and joint action. – Jointly plan and implement projects for improving the use of innovative technologies, i.e. upgrade Sava FFWS in area of early warning would include collection and integration of various information, as well as reporting about the flood event from the field.  strong support to decision makers, – Increase awareness and inform the public about the situation in all phases of the emergency event cycle, – Improve the flow and effectiveness of information beyond the borders and between organisations, with active involvement of the citizens; • Volunteers provide effective action in emergency flood defence situations in synergy with responsible authorities in the countries. – Initiate discussions on potential for actions and integration of volunteer organisations in existing emergency situation management systems on all levels (international, national and local). – Added value through capacities and needed manpower, as well as creation of a communication channel between and towards the citizens. PROPOSAL OF THE COORDINATION MECHANISMS AT THE BASIN LEVEL

• Sava GIS Geoportal – Additional content and functionalities • Sava GIS viewer - rasters (hazard and risk) • State of water structures and critical points • National PFRA and FRMP - monitoring of harmonization process and public debate • Integration of real-time Internet data (IoT) – social networks data related to flood events - comments, GeoTag images, videos, etc. PROPOSAL OF THE COORDINATION MECHANISMS AT THE BASIN LEVEL

Upgrade of Sava GIS Geoportal

Creation of new modules: • Module for spatial modeling and analysis; • Module for communication with responsible persons; • Flood Defense Organization Management Module; • Module for monitoring the implementation of measures. FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SAVA RIVER BASIN

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION