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 )