.
Consulting Services for SUPPORT TO WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN THE DRINA RIVER BASIN PROJECT ID NO. 1099991
DRINA RIVER BASIN PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT
December 2017
Consulting Services for SUPPORT TO WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN THE DRINA RIVER BASIN PROJECT ID NO. 1099991
DRINA RIVER BASIN PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT FINAL
December 2017
PROJECT NO. A038803
DOCUMENT NO. 1
VERSION B
DATE OF ISSUE December 2017
PREPARED JV COWI-Stucky-JCI team as in Inception Report
CHECKED Nadja Zeleznik, REC
APPROVED Roar Selmer Solland, COWI Consulting Services for SUPPORT TO WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN THE DRINA RIVER BASIN PROJECT ID NO. 1099991
This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Western Balkans Joint Fund under the Western Balkans Investment Framework. The views expressed herein are those of authors and can therefore in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the Contributors to the European Western Balkans Joint Fund or the EBRD and the EIB, as co‐managers of the European Western Balkans Joint Fund.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin i
Table of Contents Page No Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... viii 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Consultation process ...... 2 1.3 Organisation ...... 3 1.4 Agenda ...... 3 2 The consultation results in three countries ...... 5 2.1 BiH, July 2017 ...... 5 2.2 Montenegro, July 2017 ...... 5 2.3 Serbia, July 2017 ...... 6 2.4 Belgrade, December 2017 ...... 7 3 Resolution of comments ...... 8 3.1 Resolutions from meetings in July 2017 ...... 8 3.2 Resolutions from meeting in Belgrade in December 2017 ...... 8 4 Conclusions ...... 95 5 List of References...... 96 6 Appendixes ...... 102 6.1 Invitation letters to Focal points ...... 102 6.2 Minutes of meetings ...... 105 6.2.1 Minutes of Meeting (MOM) BiH, July 2017 ...... 105 6.2.2 Minutes of Meeting (MOM) Montenegro, July 2017 ...... 112 6.2.3 Minutes of Meeting (MOM) Serbia, July 2017 ...... 116 6.2.4 Minutes of Final Meeting (MOM) Belgrade, December 2017 ...... 122
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin ii
List of Figures Page No Figure 1: Main Deliverables and Project Timeline ...... 1
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin iii
List of Tables Page No
Table 3-1: Resolution of received comments for reports in BiH consultation, July 2017 .…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………9 Table 3-2: Resolution of received comments for reports in Montenegro consultation, July 2017…………………50 Table 3-3: Resolution of received comments for reports in Serbia consultation, July 2017…………………………..58 Table 3-4: Resolution of received comments during meeting in Belgrade, December 2017………………………….72
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AASWA Agency of the Adriatic Sea Water Area ASRWA Agency of the Sava River Water Area, Sarajevo BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina oC Degrees Celsius DIV Diversion (Hydropower Type) DNA Designated National Authority DRB Drina River Basin EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EEA European Environmental Agency EEC European Economic Community EF Environmental Flow EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EP Elektroprivreda EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPCG Elektroprivreda Crna Gore (Montenegro) EPR Environmental Performance Review EPS Elektroprivreda Serbia ERS Elektroprivreda Republike Srpske EU European Union EUR Euro FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FASRB Framework Agreement on Sava River Basin FBiH Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina FCDA Federal Civil Defence Authority FGO Federal Geological Office FHMO Federal Hydro meteorological Office FHMS Federal Hydro meteorological Service FIA Federal Inspection Authority FMAWMF Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry FMEMI Federal Ministry of Energy Mining and Industry FMET Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism FMIA Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs FMTC Federal Ministry of Transport and Communications FOFDP Federal Operational Flood Defence Plan FRY Federal Republic of Yugoslavia FSO Federal Statistical Office GCOS Global Climate Observing System GDP Gross Domestic Product GEP Guaranteed Environmental Flow method GHG Green House Gas GIS Geographical Information System GW Groundwater GWB Groundwater Body GWh Gigawatt hours HDWG Hydrology Domain Working Group HEC-HMS Hydrologic Engineering Centre – Hydrologic Modelling System HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Centre – River Analysis System HIS Hydrological Information System
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS HME Hydro-mechanical Equipment HMSS Hydro-Meteorological Service of Serbia HMWB Heavily Modified Water Body HMZ Hydro Meteorological Institute HPP Hydropower Plant HS Hydrological Station IAWD International Association of Waterworks in the Danube Catchment Area IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICPDR International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River IMO International Meteorological Organization INC Initial National Communication INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution IPCC Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change IPF Investment Prioritisation Framework ISRBC International Sava River Basin Commission IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management JCI Jaroslav Černi Institute JV Joint Venture KM Convertible Marks km kilometres Km2 Square kilometres kV Kilovolt kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt hour l/c/d Litres per capita per day LEP Law on Environmental Protection LFFEP Law on Fund and the financing of environmental protection RS l/s Litres per second l/s/km2 Litres per second per square kilometre LW Law on Waters LWM Law on Waste Management LWP Law on Water Protection m Metres m³/s Cubic metres per second m³/year Cubic metres per year MAEP Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection - Serbia MAFWM Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management (RS BiH) MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development - Montenegro MAWRMF Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources Management and Forestry – RS BiH MCH Meteorological, Climatological and Hydrological database MCT Ministry of Communications and Transport MET Ministry of Environment and Tourism Mg/l Milligrams per litre MH Ministry of Health MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs MIEM Ministry of Industry Energy and Mining (RS) mm Millimetres Mm3 Millions of cubic metres
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Mm³/yr Million cubic metres per year mm/a Millimetres per year MME Ministry of Mining and Energy MNE Montenegro MOFTER Ministry of Free Trade and Economic Relations (BiH) MoU Memorandum of Understanding MQ Mean Monthly Flow MS Meteorological Station MSPCEEP Ministry of Spatial Planning, Civil Engineering and Environmental Protection (RS) mV Millivolts MVA Mega Volt Ampere (apparent power) MW Megawatt NAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions Nat. Natural NE Not Endangered NE North East NGO Non-Government Organisation NH3 Ammonia NO2 Nitrous Oxide NRW Non-Revenue Water O3 Ozone O&M Operation and Maintenance OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OEL Operation Elevation Level OG Official Gazette Pas Protected areas PE Public Enterprise pH a numeric scale used to specify the acidity or alkalinity of an aqueous solution PHI Public Health Institute PHO Public Health Office PSHPP Pumped Storage Hydropower Plant (reversible HPP) PM Particulate Matter (PM10 PM2.5) POP Persistent Organic Pollutants PRTR Pollutant Release and Transfer Register PUC Public Utility Company Q Discharge RBMP River Basin Management Plan RCM Regional Climate Model RCP Representative Concentration Pathways REC Regional Environmental Centre RES Renewable Energy Sources RGSO Republic Geologic Survey Office (RS) RHMO Republic Hydro Meteorological Office (RS) RHMS Hydro meteorological Service of Serbia (RS) RIA Republic Inspection Authority RNP Regional Nature Park RP Regional Park RS Republic Srpska
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin vii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS SAA Stabilisation and Association Agreement SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SEEBAP South East Europe Biodiversity Action Plan SEI Stockholm Environment Institute SEPA Serbian Environmental Protection Agency SFRY Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia SHPP Small (mini) Hydropower Plant SNC Second National Communication SNR Special Nature Reserve SO2 Sulphur Dioxide SOx Sulphur Oxides SRB Sava River Basin SRES Special Report Emissions Scenarios SRO Science Research Organisation TDA Drina Rapid Transboundary Diagnostic Scan and Analysis TNC Third National Communication TPP Thermal Power Plant TOR Terms of Reference UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Program UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNEP United Nations Environment Program UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation UNESCO-IHE UNESCO – Institute for Water Education UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change USA United States of America USD United States Dollar WAAC Water Area Advisory Council WAC Water Area Council WATCAP Water and Climate Adaptation Plan WB World Bank WBIF Western Balkans Investment Framework WD Water Directorate WEAP Water Evaluation and Planning System by SEI WFD Water Framework Directive WHO World Health Organisation WHYCOS World Hydrological Cycle Observing System WISKI Water Information Systems KISTERS WMO World Meteorological Organisation WMR Water Management Region WQI Water Quality Index WRMP Water Resources Master Plan WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plan % Percentage µg/l Milligrams per litre µS/cm Micro Siemens per centimetre µm Micro metres
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background The project for "Support to the Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin" extends within the three riparian states of BiH (FBiH and RS), Montenegro and Serbia. The World Bank awarded the project to the Joint Venture (JV) Consultant comprising COWI AS of Norway as lead together with JV partners Stucky Limited from Switzerland and Jaroslav Černi Institute (JCI) from Serbia. A World Bank contract (Contract No 8005176) to provide support to the Water Resources Management (WRM) of the Drina River Basin (DRB) was awarded in September 2014. The Lead Consultant is also supported by three Sub Consultants, the Consultant "Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe - REC" with headquarters based in Hungary, the Consultant "CEStra" based in Belgrade and the Faculty of Civil Engineering of the University of Belgrade (FCS-UBG).
The overarching objective of the project is to support more effective water resources management in DRB taking into consideration sustainable water use, flood mitigation and environmental management, while involving stakeholder consultations to ensure adequate public participation. This approach supports water management authorities in preparation of investment plans, strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and the river basin management plans.
The Project commenced in October 2014 with the Inception Phase (October – November 2014), however it was very evident at the beginning that the project would need more time in order to answer the TOR requirements and to reach all relevant stakeholders in three riparian countries. The Project was therefore extended a total of 2 times until December 2017.
The Inception Report was prepared and presented at an Inception Workshop on 1st December 2014 that was held in Zagreb. The final version of the Inception Report was submitted in English in February 2015. Following minor amendments, the World Bank and the Steering Committee subsequently approved the Inception Report in March 2015 and a local language version was prepared and distributed in May 2015. Based on the request of the BiH stakeholders the inception report was additionally modified with more accurate data for BiH in April 2017.
Figure 1: Main Deliverables and Project Timeline
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 2
Following inception, all subsequent reports for the project Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin as presented on the Figure 1 have been developed. The individual country report on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and on Investment Prioritisation Framework (IPF) have been prepared and presented to the stakeholders. One report integrated the findings for all three riparian countries has been published as Roof Report and is now in final version. It is a high-level document summarizing the main results of the project in a concise and synthetic view for the whole Drina River Basin and not from individual country optics. This Roof Report emphasis the main issues and baselines retained in the study, harmonised at the DRB level in order to help for a sustainable water resources management.
As one of the important outputs from the project is also development of the Public consultation report which is a document in hand and which the consultation process should be presented, with special attention to the last presentations of main deliverables in all three states and the results of the final public consultation meeting.
1.2 Consultation process According to the Inception report for the project and its communication plan several interactions with different actors have been established: • Stakeholder meetings (initial and follow up meetings) with representatives from ISRBC, State Authorities from the Riparian States, Local Authorities (Municipalities) and NGOs; • Public Meetings with broader public to be involved in the draft reports consultations and to be presented with final reports for clarifications and for knowledge sharing.
A number of interaction channels have been developed and implemented by JV Consultant throughout the project: • public presentations held within the Drina River Basin during different stages of project development for the review and analysis of deliverables like IWRM reports and IPF reports for the three riparian states, Roof Report and WEAP report, • project website available on http://www.wb-drinaproject.com for review and a feedback via the web site, • monthly reports to the Client and the Core stakeholders to provide the summarized information on the project development, • minutes of meetings from different events, presentations and meetings during the development of the project, • minutes/reports from performance of trainings for building of capacities within WEAP model, hydrological model and other models.
This final Public Consultation Report in English and local language provides a summary of the main feedback to the planned Water Resource Management of the Drina River Basin after the final public consultations. The public consultations, organised in all three countries in beginning of July 2017, were the opportunity to discuss the results and findings from already finalised report (like was the case for Montenegro and Serbia IWRM and IPF country reports and for BiH IWRM country report), and to obtain feedbacks and suggestions for the reports which still lack the inputs from stakeholders (like was the case for BiH IPF country report and draft Roof report). Based on the received comments and suggestions one additional Public Consultation was organized on 5th of December 2017 in Belgrade to present the final version of Roof Report and to obtain final reactons from stakeholders from all three countries. The finalPublic Consultation Report presents also the way how to transparently respond to all remarks, suggestions, comments or questions to address appropriately the concern from different stakeholders but
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 3
also to remain within limits of TOR, the Contract and the Inception report for Support to the Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin.
1.3 Organisation Based on the agreement with the Focal points for all three riparian countries the first information about the public consultations and their scope was sent already in first half of June 2017. In short letter, it was stated the date of the consultation meeting, the content of the presentations indicating which were already finalized or if they were considered as drafts, the intention of the meeting and request to invite all stakeholders in the project but also wider population and interested citizens to the consultations. It was also indicated that the invitations with detailed agenda and the corresponding reports will be available 10 days in front of the meetings. The invitation letters for all three countries are given in the appendix 7.1 Invitation letters to Focal points, indicating the dates of the meetings in Belgrade (Serbia) on 4th of July 2017, in Sarajevo (BiH) on 5th of July 2017 and in Podgorica (Montenegro) on 6th of July 2017.
In parallel, also all documents were developed by the team in different versions in two languages of the project – English and local. They were uploaded to the project webpage for stakeholders to get familiar and to prepare in advance for the public consultation meetings. There have been different versions of documents prepared for discussion: • Final IPF country report for Montenegro and Serbia (volume 1 and 2, English and local), send to stakeholders and Focal points for their remarks one month before the meeting and with all remarks addressed before publication on webpage;
• IPF country report for Bosnia and Hercegovina – final version for discussion (volume 1 and 2, English and local) - as some differences have been introduced in the document after the meeting in March 2017 based on additional requirements received from one stakeholders and the distributed versions were released just 1 week before the meeting;
• Draft version of Roof report, presented to all for the first time, after approved table of content from Focal points.
The details on the publication of different deliverables can be seen from the project webpage http://www.wb-drinaproject.com/index.php/en/documents. However, it has to be emphasized that some reports (Inception Report, BiH IWRM country report) were modified according to requirements from one BiH stakeholder and in agreement of Focal Point and representative of World Bank. These changes are not seen in the webpage, but can be traced in the minutes from meetings.
Based on the adopted resolutions of the comments, suggestions and proposals, novelation of documents have been developed and published on the project webpage. One additional final meeting was organized in Belgrade on 5th of December 2017 to present the final corrected version of Roof Report (developed as final version for discussion in English and in local language) and to additionaly receive the comments and to support the knowledge sharing for the project. The invitation for the meeting was sent to all stakeholders of the project.
1.4 Agenda For the public consultations in July 2017, similar agendas were agreed for all three meetings with of course presentation and discussion on the relevant national country report. They were coordinated by Focal Points and have the following structure: • Opening of the meeting
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 4
• Presentation of the Final IPF Report: • Introduction and presentation of scenarios • Performed analyses including HPPs • Environmental and social issues • Results and conclusions • Presentation of the Draft Roof Report: • Introduction and general approach • Water management and protection • Specific aspects and conclusions • Discussion • Closing of the meeting The agendas from the public consultation meetings for three countries are on the project webpage: http://www.wb-drinaproject.com/index.php/en/documents, under the name “Presentations of Final IPF and Draft Reports” with indication of names of the lecturers. The presentations from the meetings as they were presented are also available on the same webpage connection.
The agenda of the final public consultation in December 2017 which was organized for all stakeholders in Belgrade and focused on the Roof Report according to the structure: • Opening of the meeting • Presentation of final Roof Report: • Introduction and methodology • Scenario development and HPP optimization • Environmental optimization • Water Management Modelling • Conclusions • Discussion
Again, all material (agenda, presentations, minutes) are available on the project webpage, the minuets are also provided in appendix of this report.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 5
2 The consultation results in three countries
2.1 BiH, July 2017 For the public consultation in BiH the meeting was held in Sarajevo with the main objective to present the final IPF report for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Draft Roof Report. As said before the IPF country report was still open for comments and suggestions as the deliverable was published and distributed only one week before the meeting. The same was with draft Roof report which was first presented to the stakeholders. The agreed Minutes of Meeting (MOM) capturing the whole discussion are given on webpage (the same link as before) and are also available in appendix 7.2.1. The meeting was attended by key stakeholders of the project: Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina (MOFTER), Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water-Management and Forestry of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FMAWMF), Federal Ministry for the Environment and Tourism of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FMET), Agency for Water Area of Sava River Basin (AWASRB), Federal Hydrometeorological Institute of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FHMI), PC Elektroprivreda BiH, MH Elektroprivreda Republike Srpske (MH-ERS), together with project experts and team leader.
Invitation for the meeting for all project key stakeholders in Bosnia and Herzegovina was sent by e-mail and in writing by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina (MOFTER), and was published on the website of the MOFTER.
The discussion at the meeting was vivid and productive as can be seen from the MOM. The stakeholders asked many questions which were than answered by experts, they pointed out also their expectations, suggestions and recommendations, all recorded in MOM. Some of the raised questions required the resolution in the IPF country report BiH and in draft Roof Report. Based on the public consultation meeting also several written comments were received under the coordination of Focal Point and MOFTER by the end of July 2017. The following contributions were received in written or e-mail (where indicated):
• MOFTER, general and specific comments on draft Roof Report; • PC Elektroprivreda BiH, comments on IPF country report for BiH; • PC Elektroprivreda BiH, comments on draft Roof Report; • MH Elektroprivreda Republike Srpske, comments related to IPF country report for BiH and for draft Roof Report; • Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water-Management and Forestry of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FMAWMF), Sector for Water, comments related to IPF country report for BiH and for draft Roof Report (e-mail from July 21, 2017 10:20 AM). All received comments from public consultation meeting as recorded on the approved Minutes of Meeting and received after the meeting via Focal Point are presented in Table 3-1.
2.2 Montenegro, July 2017 For the public consultation in Montenegro the meeting was held in Podgorica with the main objective to present the final IPF Report for Montenegro and the draft Roof report. As said before the IPF country report was already available for one month for comments and suggestions therefore no major remarks were expected. The draft Roof report was first presented to the stakeholders. The agreed Minutes of Meeting (MOM) capturing the whole discussion are given on webpage (the same link as before) and are also available in appendix 7.2.2. The meeting was attended by the project stakeholders: Ministry of
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 6
Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), representatives of the Sport and fishing association from Municiaplity Plav - "Plavsko jezero" and consultants.
Invitation to the meeting was was published on the Ministry's (MARD) website and sent by e-mail of Focal Point to all stakeholders in the project in Montenegro.
The discussion at the meeting was productive as can be seen from the MOM although the number of stakeholders was not large. The stakeholders asked several questions which were than answered by experts, they pointed out also their expectations, suggestions and recommendations, all recorded in MOM. Some of the raised questions required the check and correction in the IPF country report for Montenegro, some were related to draft Roof Report. Based on the public consultation meeting also written comments were received under the coordination of Focal Point and MARD by the end of July 2017 from NGO Green Home (comments on reports: Montenegro: IPF, IWRM and plan). All received comments from public consultation meeting as recorded on the approved Minutes of Meeting and received after the meeting via Focal Point are presented in Table 3-2.
2.3 Serbia, July 2017 For the public consultation in Serbia the meeting was held in Belgrade with the main objective to present the final IPF report for Serbia and draft Roof Report. As said before the IPF country report was already available for one month for comments and suggestions therefore no major remarks were expected. The draft Roof report was first presented to the stakeholders. The agreed Minutes of Meeting (MOM) capturing the whole discussion are given on webpage (the same link as before) and are also available in appendix 7.2.3. The meeting was attended by the project stakeholders: Ministry of Environmental Protection, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management – Republic Directorate for Water, JVP “Srbijavode”, JVP “Srbijavode” VPC “Sava-Dunav”, JVP “Vode Vojvodine”, Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia – RHMZ, The Standing Conference of towns and municipalities – SKGO, Drinsko-Limske Hydropower Plants, WWF Serbia, Cekor, Faculty of natural sciences – Novi Sad, JV consultant experts and team leader.
Invitation to the meeting was sent by e-mail of Focal Point to all stakeholders in the project in the Republic of Serbia.
The discussion at the meeting was vivid and productive as can be seen from the MOM. The stakeholders asked many questions which were than answered by experts, they pointed out also their expectations, suggestions and recommendations, all recorded in MOM. Some of the raised questions required the check and correction in the IPF country report for Serbia, some comments were related to draft Roof Report. Based on the public consultation meeting also written comments were received under the coordination of Focal Point, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management – Republic Directorate for Water by the end of July 2017. The following contributions were received in written:
• Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia – RHMZ, additional information related to the measurement stations; • NGO WWF, comments written in IPF CR for Serbia. All received comments from public consultation meeting as recorded on the approved Minutes of Meeting and received after the meeting via Focal Point are presented in Table 3-3.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 7
2.4 Belgrade, December 2017 The final public consultation with all stakeholders from all three countries was held in Belgrade as gareed by all three Focal Points. The main objective of the meeting was presentation of Final Roof Report. The meeting was attended by stakeholders from all three countries, from Serbia: Ministry of Environmental Protection, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management – Republic Directorate for Water, Public Water Management Company “Vode Vojvodine”, Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia, United Fishermen of Serbia. Then from Bosnia and Herzegovina: Water Resources Agency of the Sava River, Hydroelectric plants on Drina – Višegrad, Public institution „Voda Srpske“, Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Republic of Srpska, JP Eletroprivreda BiH dd. Sarajevo, Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of Republika Srpska, MH Elektroprivreda Republic of Srpska. And from Montenegro: Elektroprivreda of Montenegro, Geological Survey of Montenegro, Institute of Hydrometeorology and Seismology of Montenegro. As well as representatives of the consultants were present: “Stucky”, “CESTRA”, Institute “Jaroslav Černi”, Faculty of Civil Engineering – Beograd and REC to present report and to provide futhre explanaion during discussion.
Based on the comments recorded as Minutes of Meeting (given in Appendix) and also later sent from participants to the consultants, the table 3-4 with resolution of comments was developed in order to provide additional information.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 8
3 Resolution of comments
3.1 Resolutions from meetings in July 2017 As was already presented in the previous chapters all comments and suggestions received during public consultation meetings in all three riparian countries or sent afterwards in written forms by using official channels of national Focal Points were recorded. The resolutions from the meetings in July 2017 are given in the table 3-1 to 3-3 bellow. Based on the status of developed deliverables (final versions for presentation, versions for discussion, draft for comments) the resolutions of the recorded comments are also given in same tables. The IPF country reports had been the subject of specific workshop with stakeholders of the three concerned countries during the period November 2016 – February 2017. Then, the final IPF report had been adapted based on the comments of the stakeholders and they were delivered to the Focal Points for their approval or further comments. Excepted for BiH, Serbia and Montenegro accepted the final version of the IPF reports without additional comments. During the consultation in BiH additional comments have been opened for several reports, namely for IWRM and for IPF BiH country report, by one stakeholder. Consequently, the deliverables were delayed in order to resolve the organizational and content points of the changes. Therefore, the final IPF country report for BiH was presented just before the public consultation meeting and was open also for the comments of stakeholders. The public consultation meetings performed during the 4 to 6 of July 2017 concerned mainly the draft Roof Report for Serbia, BiH and Montenegro as well as the final IPF report for BiH.
All received comments with resolutions are reported in the tables for each country: • Table 3-1: Resolution of received comments for reports in BiH consultation, July 2017 • Table 3-2: Resolution of received comments for reports in Montenegro consultation, July 2017 • Table 3-3: Resolution of received comments for reports in Serbia consultation, July 2017.
Response of the Consultant is addressed in these tables. However, majority of comments for Serbia and Montenegro IPF reports are explained and only for real mistakes or typos, the consultant corrected these already accepted reports. For IPF for BIH the resolutions of comments were in the final version as the BIH IPF country report was developed late (end of June). The final Roof report integrates the comments which are accepted by the Consultant and which correspond to the objective of the project contractual agreement and approved Inception report. The December 2017 meeting in Belgrade also additionally addresses the Roof Report and the collected remarks are given in next chapter.
3.2 Resolutions from meeting in Belgrade in December 2017
As indicated, additional meeting took place after development of new versions of all reports, and after novelation of Roof Report as final. The meeting was agreed and held in Belgrade on 5th of December. It was attended by different stakeholders from all three countries. The minutes were recorded and also opportunity for further comments was provided.
All received comments are given in Table 3-4 Resolution of received comments during meeting in Belgrade, December 2017. The consultant team provided the answers to the comments with the aim to fulfil the expectation of the stakeholders and to improve the reports. However, some comments which were not within the boundary conditions of the project and would be out of ToR, contract and Inception report or would change the previously agreed decisions (recorder in the minutes from meetings) were not taken into account. All responsed are given in Table 3-4.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 9
Table 3-1: Resolution of received comments for reports in BiH consultation, July 2017 Naziv institucije i Odgovor/Preduzeti koraci Odgovor/Preduzeti koraci osobe / Komentari na lokalnom jeziku / Komentari na engleskom jeziku / na lokalnom jeziku / na engleskom jeziku / Name of Institution Details of the Comments made in local Comments in English Response/ Action Taken In Response / Action Taken and Reviewer local in English Comments received Minutes of meeting during presentation IPF Asked for detailed information on which Traži detaljne informacije o tome koji komentari comments received from stakeholders in Resolution of comments to Boško Kenjić, Rešavanje komentara dodati zainteresovanih strana iz BiH su uzeti u obzir u Bosnia and Herzegovina were taken into be added in the Annex MOFTER Aneksu IPF za BiH finalnom IPF izveštaju, a koji ne account in the Final IPF Report and which report IPF BiH. weren’t. Očekivalo se još malo više s obzirom na osnovni cilj A little more was expected with the basic Svi scenariji su razmatrani All scenarios were boljeg iskorišćenja hidroenergetskog potencijala goal of better use of hydro-power tokom sastanka i dogovoreni discussed during meeting na našem području. Nedavno su sprovedene dve potential of our area. Two studies have od strane učesnika, kao stoji and agreed by participants studije u oblasti analizi hidroenergije: jedna za been carried out recently regarding the na zapisniku sastanka 20. as on the Minutes of zapadni Balkan, i ova za region, koji obuhvata tri hydropower analysis: one for the Western Aprla 2016. Izgradnja novih Meeting, 20th April 2016. zemlje. Ova studija treba da analizira sledeće Balkans and this one for the region hidroelektrana predvidjena Construction of new HPPs vodoprivredne probleme: zaštitu od voda, zaštitu encompasses three countries. This study je u okviru tri razvojna is foreseen within three voda i korišćenje voda. Ako analiziramo reku Drinu should analyse water management scenarija: Var 1 -redukovani development scenarios: Željko Ratković, i korišćenje rečnih resursa, možemo zaključiti da je problems: protection from water, water prema Sava RBMP u BiH (oko Var 1 – Reduced HPP as per MH-ERS iskorišćenje ovih potencijala skromno, a ako protection and water use. If we analyse 6 god), Var 2 – redukovani Sava RBMP in BiH (app. 6 analiziramo posledice i štetu koju izaziva reka the Drina River and utilization of river dugoročni i Maksimizacija HE years), Var 2 Drina, dobićemo ogromne iznose, pa je potrebno resources, we can conclude that these potencijala. Jedan od – Reduced scenario over posvetiti pažnju ovom pitanju (npr. samo u potentials are used at a modest level, and redukovanih razvojnih longer time frame and poslednjih 100 godina Bijeljina 10 puta pretrpela if analyse the consequences and damage scenarija multikriterijumskim Maximal poplave). Ova činjenica samo govori o tome koliko caused by the river Drina, they are really analizama je izabran kao – Full maximization of HPP je to pitanje zaista važno. S druge strane, imamo huge so attention should be paid to this optimalni i HE u okviru tog potential. štete izazvane sušama tokom leta, koje nisu manje issue (e.g. only in the last 100 years scenarija predlažu se za dalju One of the reduced od štete izazvane poplavama, pa prinos biva manji Bijeljina was flooded 10 times). This fact izgradnju. scenarios is chosen as the
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 10
od očekivanog (20 do 30 procenata od očekivanog alone tells a lot about how great of an Scenario zelenog rasta optimal one based on MCA prinosa), a ako bi reka Drina bila pravilno issue it really is. On the other hand, uključen je u analizu radi and HPPs within this korišćena, prinos bi mogao biti do 200 % veći od drought damage is present in the summer upotpunjavanja. To nije scenario are proposed for očekivanog. Ako posmatramo energetski sektor, as much as flood damage so the yield poželjan scenarioo i nije ni further development. region Bosne i Hercegovine ima skoro 15 puta turns out lower than expected (20 to 30 zadržan kao takav. The Green Growth scenario manje potencijala od Norveške, i ima problem percent of the expected yields), and if the was included in the nedostatka električne energije, te očekujemo da tu river Drina was used properly yield could analysis for the sake of energiju dobijemo iz hidroenergetskog potencijala. be up to 200% more than expected. If we completeness. It is not the Ako pogledamo predložene scenarije, scenario observe the energy sector, the Bosnia and favoured scenario and has "Zelenog razvoja " u jednom trenutku ukazuje na Herzegovina region has almost 15 times not been retained as such. to da ništa ne treba graditi, već se umesto toga less potential than Norway, Bosnia and predlaže povećanje korisnosti postojećih Herzegovina has a problem with the lack elektrana. Uzimajući u obzir klimatske promene i of electricity and we expect to get that predviđene nivoe padavina u narednih 100 godina, energy from the hydro power potential. If došli smo do zaključka da ćemo imati nestašicu we look at the proposed scenarios, the energije koja bi izazvala još veće probleme nego "Green Growth" scenario at one point što su ovi postojeći. Ako govorimo o uticajima na suggests that nothing should be built, but životnu sredinu i posmatramo donji tok reke Drine instead suggests increasing the level of gde imamo najveće akumulacije, izgradnja nasipa usefulness of the existing ones. Taking kojima bi se stvorili uslovi za zaštitu područja into account climate changes and Semberije i Mačve od poplava i time dobilo oko predicted precipitation levels over the 1600 GW električne energije, bila bi od značaja za next 100 years, we come to the point that sve. Ove činjenice nam govore da moramo imati we will have a lack of energy that would malo drugačiji pristup i stvoriti uslove za izgradnju cause even greater problems then already onih projekata koji imaju veći društveni uticaj. existing ones. If we talk about Smatramo da bi konsultant trebalo detaljnije da environmental impacts and observe the izanalizira hidrološke promene koje su se pre lower course of the Drina River where we dešavale, kako bi adekvatno predvideli šta će se have largest accumulations, construction dešavati u budućnosti. Takođe, seča šume of embankments to create conditions that uzrokuje probleme erozije, tako da konsultant will protect the area of Semberija and takođe treba da odgovori na ova pitanja. Mačva from floods and thus we get some
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 11
1600 GW of electric power is very important and good for everyone. These facts tell us that we must have a slightly different approach and create the conditions for building those projects that have a greater social impact. We think that the consultant should further analyse the hydrological changes that had occurred before in order to adequately predict what will happen in the future. Also, logging causes problems related to erosion, so the consultant should also give answers to these questions. Ponovo napominje da nije dovoljno pažnje Further noted that no attention was paid Željko Ratković, The report will be posvećeno pošumljavanju, budući da i ono to afforestation, as this would have Izveštaj će biti dopunjen. MH-ERS supplemented. doprinosi uticaju na vode. contributed to the impact of water. Uticaj poljoprivrednih The impact of agricultural aktivnosti i nedostatak and lack of sewage systems In her opinion, the “Base case scenario” is kanalizacionih sistema and WWTPs has been well Po njenom mišljenju, nedostaje „Bazni scenario“, missing here and that it is not the same as detaljno su opisani u described in the IWRM koji nije isti kao „Zeleno razvoj“ jer uključuje the "Green Growth" scenario because it izveštajima o integrisanom reports. određena pitanja zaštite životne sredine. Takođe je includes certain environmental issues. upravljanju rečnim slivom. All scenarios include the istakla da odeljak o „Pitanjima životne sredine i She also pointed out that in the section Svi scenariji uključuju strategy development of Alma Imamović, društva“ ne sadrži ništa o drugim vrstama on "Environmental and social issues" no stratešku izgradnju WWTPs in accordance with FMAWMF zagađenja, osim onih koji su posledica izgradnje other pollution was mentioned except postrojenja za tretman relevant strategic hidroakumulacija. (npr. zagađenje od those that are the result of building otpadnih voda u skladu sa documents (Spatial plans, poljoprivrednih aktivnosti, šta se dešava sa hydro-accumulations. (e.g. pollution from relevantnim strateškim Managements plans, etc.). postrojenjima za tretman kanalizacionih voda, itd.) agriculture, what happens to sewage dokumentima (prostornim Therefore, the assessed treatment plants, etc.). planovima, planovima impacts are relative from upravljanja, itd.) Stoga su the base scenario. Since procenjeni uticaji relativni u the same impact is
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 12
odnosu na bazni scenario. expected due to planned Kako se isti uticaj očekuje improvements for all usled planiranih poboljšanja scenarios, it is not za sve scenarije, on se nije evaluated separately. The posebno procenjivao. main impact difference Najveći uticaj upravo potiče arises due to the dam od izgradnje i eksploatacije construction and brane. exploitation. Pointed out that Europe's tendency is to use renewable energy sources but that Lejla Šuman emphasized Istakla da u Evropi postoji tendencija iskorišćenja Lejla Šumen je istakla da je we have a lot of problems with existing that the Government of obnovljivih izvora, ali da postoje mnogobrojni Vlada Republike Srpske thermal power projects. It is very Republika Srpska made a problemi sa postojećim termoenergetskim izradila nacrt Zakona o important to check the strategies for the draft Law on the projektima. Veoma je važno proveriti strategije za proglašenju Nacionalnog Suada Numić, FMET energy sector and whether they are taken proclamation of "NP energetski sektor i videti da li su one uzete u obzir. parka Drina“, ali da ovaj into consideration. In addition, she Drina", but that this Law Pored toga, istakla je da bi trebalo uzeti u obzir da zakon još nije donesen u pointed out that it should be taken into has not been adopted yet je Republika Srpska proglasila područje Drine Narodnoj skupštini Republike account that the Republic of Srpska by the National Assembly nacionalnim parkom. Srpske. declared the area of the Drina River a of Republika Srpska. National park. Draft Roof Report Asked whether this Roof Report will Preporuka razvojnog A recommendation of a Pita da li krovni izveštaj daje zajedničju strategiju provide a common Strategy for the entire scenarija za ceo sliv daće se development scenario for za celokupan sliv. Ističe da bi se krovni izveštajem basin. She pointed out that the Roof u finalnoj verziji Krovnog the entire basin will be trebalo definisati nacrt scenarija za upravljanje Report should define a draft scenario for izveštaja. given in the final version of celokupnim slivom Drine bez uzimanja u obzir managing the entire Drina River Basin the Roof report. Alma Imamović, granica jer bi to trebalo da bude polazna osnova za without considering borders as this FMAWMF dalje pregovore i za postizanje ciljeva održivog should be the starting point for further upravljanja u slivu. Izveštaj sadrži scenarije za negotiations and achieving the objectives svaku zemlju zasebno, i ne postoji zajednički of sustainable river basin management. predlog za celokupan sliv. The Reports contain scenarios for each country individually and there is no joint
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 13
proposal for the entire river basin. After reading the report, he noted that he wouldn’t know what to propose for Nakon što je pročitao izvještaj, primećuje da ne bi further activities between the countries in znao šta da predloži kao dalje aktivnosti u the near future. There is no such proposal zemaljama sliva u bliskoj budućnosti. U izvještaju in the report. Consultant tried to nema takvog predloga. Konsultant je pokušao da summarize the Roof Report, make it easy rezimira Krovni izveštaj, olakša čitanje i omogući to read and have on hand for quick use. brzu upotrebu. Međutim, završili smo s potpuno However, we ended up having completely pogrešnim porukama ovog Krovnog izveštaja, što wrong messages from this Roof report, su konsultanti ponovili i danas na ovom sastanku which were repeated by consultants even (da će Srbija izgraditi četiri HE u srednjem toku today on this meeting (that Serbia will Drine, Bosna i Hercegovina, kao i Crna Gora šta oni build four HPP in the middle course of the žele, dakle, svaka zemlja pojedinačno), što nas Drina, Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as dovodi do situacije da ne postoji zajednički sadržaj Montenegro what they want, therefore, Boško Kenjić, u Krovnom izveštaju, a to svakako nije svrha. each country individually), which leads to Videti gornji komentar. See comment above. MOFTER Krovni izveštaj po sadržaju ne može biti rezime the situation that there is no common onoga što je napisano za svaku zemlju content in the Roof Report, which is not pojedinačno.On jeste izrađen na osnovu analiza the purpose of the Roof Report. Roof izvršenih po zemljama, ali moramo da tražimo report by its content cannot be a zajednički sadržaj. U izveštaju se navodi da je summary of what is written for each Bosna i Hercegovina izjavila da joj je prioritet country individually. It is made on the gornji tok Drine i da nas ne zanima šta se dešava u basis of the performed analyses by srednjem toku Drine, što nije tačno. Postoji samo country, but we need to ask for a jedna rečenica u Krovnnom izveštaju koja se common content. The report says that odnosi na Srbiju i Bosnu i Hercegovinu, i koja kaže Bosnia and Herzegovina stated to have "to je na granici", tako da podrazumeva zajednički priorities in the upper Drina, and that we posao. Takav izvještaj zaista nema dodatnu are not interested in what is happening in vrijednost. the middle course of the Drina, which is not true. There is only one sentence in the Roof Report related to Serbia and
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 14
Bosnia and Herzegovina, which says "that's on the border" so it must be a joint work. Such Report does not really have any added value. Additionally, many formulations in the Pored toga, mnoge formulacije u nacrtu Krovnog draft Roof Report are unclear, and if izveštaja ostaju nejasne, i ako bi neko uzeo da čita someone were to read only the Roof Boško Kenjić, ovaj izveštaj bez čitanja prethodnih, došlo bi do Report, without reading the previous Videti gornji komentar. See comment above. MOFTER opšteh nerazumevanja o svemu što bi trebalo da Reports, a mess would be made and bude definisano u Krovnom izveštaju. complete misunderstanding of everything that should be defined in the Roof Report. The fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina has ratified Činjenica da je BiH the Protocol does not ratifikovala protokol ne utiče affect the statement in the Legal issues must be corrected further na navode iz izveštaja, jer Report since Bosnia and Pravna pitanja moraju se dalje ispravljati, jer because there are things that are stated BiH u trenutku pisanja Herzegovina is not a party postoje neke stvari koje su navedene u izveštaju, a in the Report that are quite simply not izveštaja nije bila strana u at the moment of writing koje jednostavno nisu tačne. Posle tri godine rada accurate. After three years of work on the protokolu. Naravno, Boško Kenjić, the report. Of course, the na projektu, ne sme se u izveptaju navesti da project, it must not be stated in the činjenica da je BiH MOFTER fact that Bosnia and zemlja nije odobrila neki protokol ili neki report that the country did not approve ratifikovala sporazum će biti Herzegovina ratified the sporazum, a u stvari jeste (protokol o strateškoj some Protocol or an Agreement, and that navedena u napomenama. U contract will be noted in proceni uticaja na životnu sredinu). in fact it did (Protocol on Strategic međuvremenu, BiH je the remarks. In the Environmental Assessment (SEA)). postala strana u Protokolu o meantime, BiH became a strateškoj proceni uticaja party to the SEA Protocol (20. jula 2017.) (20 July 2017).
Dalje komentariše da su u izvještaju date mnoge Further commented that a lot of general Svrha ove studije nije da The purpose of the study is Boško Kenjić, opšte preporuke i da su se bavili mnogim pitanjima recommendations were given in the analizira svaki detalj u vezi sa not to analyze every detail MOFTER (ekološki prihvatljiv protok, zaštićene zone, report and that they addressed many razvojem sliva Drine, već da related to the development potreba za poboljšanjem monitoringa, itd.). issues (environmentally acceptable flow, dâ doslednu i pouzdanu sliku in the Drina River Basin,
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 15
Međutim, naglašava da su sve ove preporuke protected zones, the need to improve sadašnje, ako je moguće i but to provide a consistent previše uopštene. Nije nam bio potreban ovaj monitoring, etc.). However, he stressed buduće (ili barem ciljane) and reliable picture of the projekat da bi došli do opštih zaključaka za koje that all these recommendations are too situacije. U tom smislu, present and possibly future smo manje ili više već znali. On takođe naglašava general. We didn’t need this project to Krovni izveštaj treba da (or targeted) situation. In da je predstavljanje nacrta Krovnog izveštaja po come up with general conclusions that we posluži kao robustna osnova this sense, the Roof Report zemljama dobro, ali da po njegovom mišljenju already knew more or less. He also za dalju diskusiju. should serve as a robust treba organizovati dalje diskusije o Krovnom emphasized that it is good to present the basis for further izveštaju za sve tri zemlje zajedno, a ne Draft Roof Report by country, but that in discussions. pojedinačno po zemljama. Zatim ćemo morati da his view further discussion on the Roof prođemo kroz listu preporuka i vidimo da li ćemo Report should be organized for all three zadržati svih 40 preporuka u izvještaju ili ćemo ga countries together, not individually dalje redefinisati, što bi olakšalo buduće aktivnosti country by country. And then we need to u vezi sa zaključivanjem bilateralnih sporazuma. go through the list of recommendations and see if we will keep all 40 recommendations in the Report, or we will redefine it further which would facilitate further activities for concluding bilateral agreements. Further commented that the multicriteria Dalje komentariše da je multikriterijumska analiza analysis showed that some other projects pokazala da su neki drugi projekti smatrani za were considered a priority/best valued for prioritet / najbolje vrednovane za Bosnu i Bosnia and Herzegovina and that was the Hercegovinu, i to je bila osnova za zaključak da basis for this conclusion that Bosnia and Bosna i Hercegovina nije zainteresovana za srednji Herzegovina is not interested in the Boško Kenjić, tok Drine, što naravno nije istina i takva primedba middle course of the Drina, which of Videti gornje komentare. See comments above. MOFTER ne može biti uključena u Izvještaj. Moramo pronaći course is not true and such remark cannot način da to pravilno definišemo u Izvještaju kako bi be included in the Report. We need to bio prihvatljiv, jer će ti izvještaji biti korišćeni kao find a way to properly define it in the polazna tačka za pregovore, projekte i povlačenje Report for it to be acceptable as these finansijskih sredstava u budućnosti. Reports will be used as the starting point for negotiations, projects and withdrawals
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 16
of financial resources in the future. Other comments Roof Report cannot be just a summary of Krovni izvještaj ne može biti samo Sažetak The Report will be modified results from previous analyses through rezultata prethodnih analiza kroz IWRM I IPF Izveštaj će biti modifikovan in order to comprehend Boško Kenjić, IWRM and IPF reports, but it should view izvještaje, već se kroz Krovni izvještaj mora u smislu sagledavanja sliva the entire basin. Within the MOFTER, general the river basin in whole. Otherwise, Roof sagledati sliv u cijelosti. U suprotnom Krovni kao celine. U finalnom Final Roof Report the comments, written Report does not have any value. izvještaj nema nikakvu vrijednost. Razvojni Krovnom izveštaju biće recommended in separate Development scenarios for countries scenariji po zemljama se moraju objediniti u prikazan preporučeni development scenario for document must be consolidated in the Roof Report, Krovnom izvještaju, zajednički problemi I prednosti razvojni scenario za ceo sliv. entire basin will be joint challenges and advantages must be se moraju analizirati. presented. analysed. Potrebno je unaprijediti prevod dokumenta i It is necessary to improve the translation Konsultant će raditi na The Consultant will work korigovati tehničke greške u tekstu na lokalnom of the document and correct technical unapređenju dokumenta u on improvement of the jeziku. errors in local languages. ovom smislu. document in this sense. The text of the report, each chapter, U tekstu Izvještaja u svakom od poglavlja je needs to have references (footnotes or potrebno navesti reference (footnote ili slično) na similar) to the IWRM and IPF reports, Konsultant će raditi na The Consultant will work IWRM ili IPF izvještaj gdje se može naći više where more information could be found unapređenju dokumenta u on improvement of the informacija o pojedinim pitanjima, jer će u about certain issues, since of all materials ovom smislu. document in this sense. korištenju mateijala nakon projekta vrlo često biti upon the project completion, Roof Report korišten samo Krovni izvještaj. will be most commonly used. The consultant did not have a unified While this might be true to Konsultant nije imao jedinstven pristup approach to formulating the Iako ovo u nekoj meri može a certain extent, the formulisanju preporuka po različitim pitanjima. U recommendations in all questions. In da bude tačno dokument document is still able to nekim pogavljima su preporuke jasno navedene i some chapters, recommendations are ipak pažljivom čitaocu pruža provide valuable boldirane, dok to nije slučaj sa drugim clearly stated and in bold, and this is not dragocene informacije. information to careful proglavljima. Na kraju izvještaja je potrebno imati the case with other chapters. At the end Konsultant će raditi na readers. The Consultant posebno poglavlje u kojem će biti sistematizovane of the report, it is necessary to put a unapređenju dokumenta u will work on improvement sve preporuke konsultanta. separate chapter with the consultant's ovom smislu. of the document in this recommendations systematised. sense. Krovni izvještaj se mora diskutovati sa svim Roof Report must be discussed in joint Ovo pitanje prevazilazi This issue exceeds
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 17
zemljama na zajedničkim sastancima i to ne samo meetings, not only at the focal point level. nadležnosti Konsultanta. Consultant's authority. na nivou Focal Point-a. Međutim, planiran je However, additional dodatni sastanak sa meeting is planned with namjenom da se razmatra the intension to discuss the Krovni izveštaj. Roof report. As all countries in the basin It is necessary to point out to the Budući da su sve države u are candidates for Potrebno je da se konsultant ukaže i na moguće consultant all possible sources of slivu kandidati za pristupanje accession to the EU, izvore finansiranja za provođenja preporuka. Ovo financing for implementation of EU, Konsultant preporučuje Consultant suggests
se ne odnosi na moguće izvore finasiranja za recommendations. This does not refer to korišćenje IPA fondova, kada application for IPA fund izgradnju novih hidroenergetskih objekata. possible sources of financing for the se god za to ukaže prilika. whenever possible. The construction of new hydropower facilities. Izvještaj će biti dopunjen. report will be supplemented.
U poglavlju koje se bavi pravnim pitanjima In the chapter addressing legal matters, it Konsultant će proširiti ovo The Consultant will expand potrebno je sagledati eventualne razlike u is necessary to view possible differences poglavlje nekim dodatnim this chapter with some zakonodavstvu kojim se regulišu prava korištenja in legislation pertaining to use of natural detaljima koji se odnose na additional details on prirodnih resursa (koncesije). resources (concessions) koncesije. concessions. Poglavlje 1.1.4. strana 3. Chapter 1.1.4, page 3. The Report was formulated Boško Kenjić, “Predstavljeni Krovni izvještaj ima za cilj da The presented Roof Report has the Izveštaj je formulisan na using the available data MOFTI, comments obezbijedi sveukupne nalaze istraživanja, objective to provide the overall findings of osnovu raspoloživih and stakeholder's per page, written in prikupljanja podataka i analiza za sve tri zemlje the investigations, data collections and podataka i pristupa approach. Sometimes the separate document koje se odnose na upravljanje vodnim resursima u analyses for all riparian countries related stakeholder-a. Ponekad stakeholders wwrw not slivu rijeke Drine. To je dokument visokog nivoa to the Water Resources Management in predstavnici stakeholder-a attending the meetings or koji sumira glavne rezultate projekta u konciznom i the Drina River Basin. It is a high-level nisu učestovali, kao i did chage the sintetičkom pogledu za čitav sliv rijeke Drine, a ne document summarising the main results promene tih predstavnika representatives which have za zemlje opciono. On se zasniva na prethodnim of the project in a concise and synthetic ograničili su mogućnost limited the possibilities of izvještajima kao što je pomenuto za sve tri zemlje view for the whole Drina River Basin and usaglašavanja. U finalnoj harmonization. The final (BiH, Crna Gora i Srbija) i sumira glavne rezultate. not from country options. It is based on verziji izveštaja sadržaj če biti version of report the Ovaj Krovni izvještaj naglašava glavna pitanja i the previous reports as mentioned above dopunjen. content will be modified. bazne vrijednosti koje su sadržane u Studiji i for all three countries (BiH, Montenegro
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 18
usaglašene na nivou sliva rijeke Drine, kako bi se and Serbia) and summaries the main pomoglo održivom upravljanju vodnim resursima.” outcomes. This Roof Report emphasis the main issues and baselines retained in the Komentar: Krovni izvještaj po svom sadržaju ne study, harmonised at the DRB level in odgovora citiranom opisu. Izvještaj niti je order to help for a sustainable water usaglašen niti posmatra sliv rijeke Drine u cjelosti. resources management.“ Iznešeni prioriteti po zemljama su u međusobnoj Comment: Roof Report in its contents koliziji i nisu predstavljeni na odgovrajući način i does not correspond to the quoted nisu dovedeni u međusobnu interakciju. description. The report is neither harmonised, nor does it refer to the basin as whole. The stated priorities per countries are in mutual collision and are not presented in adequate way, not brought into mutual interaction.
Text „From Bosnian side“ on page 5 Tekst “Sa bosanske strane na strani 5. korigovati u should be corrected into „From Bosnian- Biće ispravljeno. This will be corrected. “Sa bosanskohercegovačke strane…” Herzegovina side...“ Klima i hidrologija Climate and hydrology U tekst “Klima u slivu Drine…” dodati riječ “rijeke”, In the text „Climate in DRB...“, add word kao i u nastavku teksta Izvještaja. „river“ as well as in the rest of the report. The Consultant can not U poglavlju 2.1.5 Biodiverzitet i zaštićena područja, In chapter 2.1.5 Biodiversity and Konsultant ne razume na understand wich chapter is je navedeno “Upravljanje u slivu Drine u protected areas, it is stated that „The koje poglavlje se odnosi ovaj concerned by this budućnosti treba da obezbedi da mere ne budu future management of the DRB needs to komentar. Mapa zaštićenih comment. The map of the samo usredsređene na otklanjanje posledica ensure that the focus of measures is not područja nalazi se u IPF protected areas is already zagađenja koje utiče na reke, već moraju da se only on the restoration of pollution that izveštaju. integrated in the IPF primenjuju u cilju očuvanja nekoliko važnih affects rivers but also it must preserve the report. područja koja su i dalje ekološki netaknuta. Zaštita few important areas that are still prirode u slivu predstavlja izazov, budući da može ecologically intact. Nature protection in da se nađe u suprotnosti sa planiranim the basin is a challenging task as it is could
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 19
investicijama, a efikasnost mera umnogome zavisi oppose the planned investments and od prekograničnog dijaloga i regionalne saradnje.” efficiency of its measures depends Komentar: U tekst poglavlja je potrebno navesti strongly on cross-border dialogues and koja su to područja i dati grafički prikaz. regional cooperation.“ Comment: The text of this chapter should contain names of such areas and graphic layout.
2.2.1 Natural resources 2.2.1 Prirodni resursi „Agricultural land dominates in the Lower “Poljoprivredno zemljište dominira u donjem delu Drina Region (Republic of Srpska and It will be precised in the sliva (Republika Srpska i Srbija), dok su šume i U tekstu će se precizirati da Serbia), while the forestland and forests text that it concerns the šumoviti predeli češći u gornjem toku Drine. “ se odnosi na sliv rijeke Drine. can be found in the Upper Drina Region.“ DRB. Komentar: da li se govori o slivu ili o toku rijeke Comment: is this about the river basin or Drine? the Drina river course? Pages 11 and 12: „Natural resources are Strana 11. i 12 : “Prirodni resursi, međutim, ne insufficiently planned without a planiraju se dovoljno i nema održive eksploatacije: sustainable exploitation: insufficient mineralni resursi nisu dovoljno istraženi, postoji exploration of mineral resources, neadekvatna upotreba sa stanovišta dobrobiti inappropriate use from the standpoint of republika i jedinica lokalne samouprave (voda, the welfare of the Republics and the local minerali i šume), prisutna je neodrživost u government units (water, minerals and Tekst će biti modifikovan kao The text will be modified as
upotrebi poljoprivrednog zemljišta (smanjenje forests), unsustainability of the use of što je predloženo. proposed. površina i vrednosti) i šuma (više seče nego agricultural land (reducing the amount sadnje). and worthiness) and forests (more the Komentar: Tekst treba korigovati, tako da se cutting than increment).“ koriste izrazi „neadekvatno planiranje“, “dobrobit Comment: the text should be corrected, zemlja“,… so as to use expressions like „inadequately planned“, „welfare of
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 20
countries“,…
Page 12: „The importance and role of agriculture and forestry stem from natural Agriculture and forestry are Poljoprivreda i šumarstvo su conditions for its development the most important source Strana 12. “Značaj i uloga poljoprivrede i najvažniji izvor prihoda za (agricultural land, forests), but also from of income for local people. šumarstva posledica su prirodnih uslova za razvoj domaće stanovništvo. Pošto the tradition and the fact that the Since the area has the (poljoprivredno zemljište, šume), ali i iz tradicije i područje ima prirodne majority of the population of DRB is natural preconditions činjenice da većina stanovništva u slivu Drine preduslove (puno šuma, directly and indirectly economically relied (plenty of forests, neposredno ili posredno se oslanja na poljoprivredno zemljište on agriculture and forestry (to a lesser agricultural land of good poljoprivredu i šumarstvo (u manjem obimu).” dobre kvalitete), extent).“ quality) population were Komentar: Za šta je značajna uloga poljoprivrede i stanovništvo je tradicionalno traditionally oriented to šumarstva? Comment: the role of agriculture and orijentisano na razvoj tih develop those economic forestry is important for what? ekonomskih aktivnosti. activities.
Strana 12. “Značajni prirodni resursi su šljunak iz Page: „Important natural resource is the Konsultant se slaže sa The Consultant agrees with rečnog korita Drine, čija eksploatacija predstavlja gravel from the riverbed of the Drina komentarom i promeniće the comment and will važnu privrednu aktivnost i značajan izvor prihoda River which extraction is an important tekst na sledeći način: change the text as za manje privatne kompanije. Država treba da economic activity and significant source "Važan prirodni resurs je following: "Important uredi ovu aktivnost, ali podaci o količinama of income for small private companies. It šljunak od korita rijeke Drine, natural resource is the izvađenog šljunka nisu dostupni. Izražen je should be regulated by the state but the koji je izvlačenje važna gravel from the riverbed of nedostatak kooperativnog upravljanja ekstracijom data on the quantities of excavated privredna aktivnost, a the Drina River which šljunka u slivu Drine, koji bi integrisao komponente kamera je značajan izvor extraction is an important sediments are unavailable. There is a životne sredine i bezbednosti.” strong lack of a cooperative management prihoda za lokalnu economic activity and cam Komentar: Navod da je značajan izvor prihoda za of the gravel extraction in the DRB, ekonomiju i mali lokalni be a source of benefit for manje private komanije nije prihvatljiv. Ovo jeste integrating the environmental and kompanije. Za adekvatnu local economy. For the značajan prihod, države imaju određene koristi, ali security components.“ upotrebu takvog resursa, adequate use of such a je I činjenica da je pitanje I dalje neuređeno, ona bi trebala biti regulisana resource, it should be posebno na graničnom dijelu vodotoka. Potrebno Comment: the statement that this is od strane države, ali za sada regulated by the state but je korektnije napisati stav iz kojeg bi se mogao important source of income for smaller podaci o količinama for now the data on the izvući zaključak. Potrebno je da konsultant na private companies is simply not iskopanih sedimenata nisu quantities of excavated
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 21
određeni način kvantifikuje koristi ili u smislu acceptable. This is an important income, dostupni. Postoji jak sediments are unavailable. količina/novac. countries have certain benefit, but the nedostatak kooperativnog There is a strong lack of a fact remains that this issue is still not upravljanja ekstrakcijom cooperative management regulated, especially on the border part of šljunka u DRB-u, naročito na of the gravel extraction in the watercourse. The paragraph should graničnom dijelu rijeke the DRB, especially on the be more specifically written to enable Drine. Uredba i upravljanje border section of the Drina drawing of conclusions. The consultant trebaju integrirati elemente River. The regulation and should in certain way quantify benefits in zaštite životne sredine i the management should terms of quantity/money. sigurnosti.” integrate the environmental and security
components."“ Tekst na strani 12. “Drina, pored toga, je i veoma Text on page 12: „Furthermore, the Drina Krovni izveštaj daje samo The Roof Report gives only važan resurs u smislu razvoja turizma. U ovom River is very important resource for the kratak rezime karakterizacije a short summary of the trenutku, dva najvažnija turistička događaja na development of tourism. For now, there bazena koji je razvijen u characterization of the srednjem toku Drine su "Drinska regata" i "Drina- are two main touristic manifestations in izveštajima IWRM i IPF. basin that was developed Prača nove turističke staze". Drinska regata je Middle Drina: “Drina Regatta” and “Drina- Turizam se analizira u ovim in the IWRM and IFP najstariji događaj turističko-rekreativnog karaktera Prača New touristic paths”. The Drina prethodnim dokumentima. reports. The tourism is u regionu Drine, koji se organizuje u znak sećanja Regatta is the oldest event of tourist - Stoga je odlučeno pomenuti analysed in these previous na staru tradiciju splavarenja na Drini. Regata je recreational character in the Drina River samo ključne turističke documents. Therefore, it najposećeniji događaj u zapadnoj Srbiji i centralna region, which is organized in memory of aktivnosti u ovom sažetku: was decided to mention letnja atrakcija na vodi, koja svojim sadržajima the ancient tradition of the Drina rafters. rafting i regata kao only the key tourism
privlači desetine hiljada posetilaca iz Srbije i sveta. The regatta is the most visited event in najzanimljivija turistička activities in this summary: Splavarenja na Drini organizuje opština Ljubovija, a Western Serbia and central summer event aktivnost, i veliki potencijal rafting and regatta as the deonica za splavarenje dugačka je oko 40 km, od on water that attracts with a variety of za razvoj turizma u regionu. I most interesting touristic Ljubovije do Rogatice. U Bosni i Hercegovini, TO amenities tens of thousands of visitors Srbija i BiH istakli su da su activity even there are a lot bosansko-podrinjskog kantona Goražde i opština from Serbia and abroad. Rafting Drina is ova dva događaja veoma of potential for Foča-Ustikolina organizuju splavarenje na Drini, i organized by Municipality of Ljubovija in važna turistička aktivnost. development of tourism in to na potezu Ustikolina - Goražde.” the length of approximately 40 km from Ipak, u tekstu treba dodati the region. Both Serbia and Komentar: Tekst je napisan vrlo šturo, ograničeno i Ljubovija town to the village of Rogatica. dodatne rečenice: "Ruralna BiH highlighted that two bez ikavog smisla. Razvoj turizma u slivu rijeke In BiH the Tourist Board of the Bosnian- područja su veoma važna za events as very important Drine obuhvata malo više pitanja od Drinske Podrinje Canton Gorazde and the razvoj turizma, a fokus treba tourstical activity.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 22
regate. Nema ni riječi o drugim vidovima turizma municipality of Foca - Ustikolina organize da bude na izgradnji Though, additional kao što su: rafting u gornjem dijelu sliva rijeke Drina River rafting starting from smještajnih kapaciteta kao sentences should be added Drine, zdravstveni turizam (banje i liječilišta), eko- Ustikolina to Gorazde town.“ što su eko-kuće, in the text: “Rural areas are turizam i sl. poljoprivredne farme, etno very important for the Comment: the text is poorly written, sela, skijališta, kampiranje i development of tourism limited and without any sense. Tourism više. Odlikovanje and the focus should be on development in DRB includes somewhat tradicionalnih letnjih construction of more matters than the Drina Regatta. pašnjaka i njihovo accommodation facilities There is no word about other aspects of postavljanje u funkciju such as eco-lodge resort, tourism, such as: rafting in the upper turizma treba da podstakne agrotourism farms, ethno- course of the Drina River, health tourism razvoj sportskog, planinskog, villages, ski villages, (banyas and healing centres), eco- lovačkog i ribolovnog camping and more. tourism, etc.) turizma, kao i razvoj eko- Decorating the traditional turizma ". summer pastures and their placement in the function of tourism, should encourage the development of sport, mountain, hunting and fishing tourism, as well as the development of eco- tourism.” Čak i ako postoje značajni Even if there are mineralni resursi u slivu important mineral Comment: Chapter „Mineral resources“ rijeke Drina u sve tri zemlje, resources in the DRB in all Komentar: U poglavlju Prirodni resursi nema ni does not have any word on mineral neophodno je intenzivirati three countries, it is riječi o mineralnim sirovinama, geotermalnim resources, geothermal waters etc. and osnovna geološka necessary to intensify the vodama isl. i njihovoj eksploataciji. Potrebno je exploitation thereof. This should be istraživanja kako bi se pružile basic geological research to ovo doraditi. elaborated. detaljne informacije o provide detailed rezervnih mineralnih information regarding resursih. Za sada nedostaju conditions of the reserves
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 23
tačni podaci o tačnoj lokaciji, of mineral resources. For eksploataciji i rudarstvu. now, there are the lack of Pored toga, mineralna accurate data on the exact sirovina nije predmet ove location, exploitation and studije koja se bavi mining activities. In upravljanju vodama. Stoga addition, the mineral neće biti više detalja u ovom resources are not the izveštaju. subject of this study that is mainly the water management resources. Therefore, no more details will be given in this report. Komentar: Tekst na strani 13. “Na osnovu rezultata Comment: Text on page 13: „Based on državnih izveštaja…” treba da glasi “Na osnovu country reports results“ should be „Based Biće ispravljeno. Will be corrected. rezultata izvještaja po zemljama…” on results from reports from countries“ 2.3 Predloženi razvojni scenariji 2.3 Proposed development scenarios HE "Rogačica", HE "Tegare", HPP "Rogačica", HPP Komentari: U ovom poglavlju je potrebno malo Comments: In this chapter, scenarios HE "Dubravica" i HE "Tegare", HPP "Dubravica" jasnije opisati scenarije i navesti reference gdje se should be described more clearly, and "Kozluk" jesu navedene u and HPP "Kozluk" are cited može o istima naći više informacija u drugim references made to links where we can strateskim dokumetima in strategic documents of izvještajima napravljenim u okviru ovog projekta. find more information in other reports BiH(RS) i zato su analizirane BiH (RS) and because of Imajući u vidu malu razliku između razvojnih made within this project. u okviru IWRM CR (Poglavlje that fact they have been scenarija scenariju VS2A i VS2B za BiH (10,4%) Taking into account slight difference 8.7) i IPF CR ( "Full HPP analysed in the IWRM CR potrebno je dati osvrt i na rezultate VS2B between development scenarios VS2A Maximisation" Scenario). (Chapter 8) and in the IPF
scenarija, jer utom slučaju dolazimo do and VS2B for BaH (10.4%), it is necessary Na osnovu rezultata CR ("Full HPP preklapanja preporučenih scenarija između BiH i to cast a view to results of VS2B scenario, dobijenih Maximisation" Scenario). Srbije. Nadalje, u izvještaju je potrebno vrlo jasno since in that case, we come to višekeriterijumskom Based on results obtained naglasiti da je strateškim dokumentima u BiH (RS) overlapping of recommended scenarios analizom scenario u okviru by MCA analyses, scenario predviđena i planirana izgradnja between BaH and Serbia. Furthermore, it koga se nalaze ove HE nije with these HPPs was not HE "Rogačica", HE "Tegare", HE "Dubravica" 87 is necessary that the report should clearly izabran kao optimalni. chosen as optimal. MW, HE "Kozluk". state that strategic documents in BaH (RS) U svakom slučaju, pri However, in definition of Ključni nedostatak Krovnog izvještaja je stipulate construction of HPP Rogačica", formiranju preporučenog the recommended
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 24
nepostojanje razvojnog senarija za cijeli sliv rijeke HPP "Tegare", HPP "Dubravica" 87 MW, razvojnog scenarija za ceo development scenario for Drine. Potrebno je razmotriti na koji način se HPP "Kozluk". sliv, koji će obuhvatiti sve HE the entire basin, which will izabrani senariji za se tri zemlje mogu objediniti i Key lack of this Roof Report is absence of iz scenarija koji su izabrani cover all hydropower onda dati njegovu ocjenu. Ovo je potrebno a development scenario for the entire kao optimalni, ove plants of scenarios that razmotriti i na određeni način ugraditi i u IPF DRB. It is necessary to consider in what hidroelektrane će naći svoje were selected as optimal, izvještaje. way the selected scenarios for all three mesto. these HPPs will find their countries could be consolidated and then U okviru Krovnog izveštaja place. assessed. This needs to be taken into biće predložen razvojni The proposed development consideration and somehow incorporated scenario za ceo sliv. scenario for whole basin into IPF reports. will be presented in Roof Report. Rečenica je promenjena i The sentence is changed glasi: “Prema scenariju and reads: “For the Green Text on page 21: „The upper and middle „Green Growth“ (samo Growth scenario (no new DRB. No changes in flood risk are postojeće akumulacije), ne reservoirs in the basin), the Tekst na strani 21. “Gornji i srednji deo sliva Drine. expected for the “Green Growth” očekuje se da se rizik od flood risk is not expected Prema scenariju „Green Growth“ (samo postojeće scenario (no new reservoirs in the basin)“ poplava uveća pod uticajem to increase due to climate akumulacije), ne očekuje se da se rizik od poplava does not mean anything because it is klimatskih promena, ali se change, but the existing promeni.” ništa ne znači jer je nejasan. Šta znači da unclear. What does it mean no changes postojeći rizici mogu smanjiti risk can be reduced if nema promjene rizika (povećanje ili smanjnje)? Da in flood risks (increase or decrease)? Are uz koordinisane planove coordinated operational li eventualno postoje mjere koje su vezane za rad there possibly any measures related to upravljanja radom uzvodnih plans of the upstream postojećih HE objekata, a koje zemlje mogu operation of the existing HPPs, which akumulacija i planove reservoirs are made as well provesti kako bi se postojeći rizik umanjio? countries cannot apply so as to reduce obaveštavanja nizvodnih as the plans for informing the existing risk? korisnika o upravljačkim the downstream users on odlukama u periodima the operational decisions velikih voda.” during floods.” Tekst na str 22. “S obzirom da je propusna mož Text on page 22 „Since the evacuation Prvi komentar: First comment: The evakuacionih organa veća od ocene velike vode capacity of each dam exceeds estimated Rečenica je izmenjena i glasi: sentence is changed and verovanoće prevazilaženja 1% na datoj lokaciji, 1% flood at the representative site, the “Procenjene velike vode reads: “The estimated rizik od plavljenja treba ograničiti rekonstrukcijom flood risk should be controlled by verovatnoće prevazilaženja flood flows with 1% postojećih obaloutvrda i nasipa ili izgradnjom reconstructing existing revetments and 1% (tj. 100-godišnje velike probability of exceedance
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 25
novih.” embankments and/or construction of new vode) na ovoj lokaciji su (i.e. 100-year floods) at this Komenatar: Rečenica nije jasna! ones.“ manje od propusne moći location are smaller than Comment: the sentence is not clear! evakuacionih organa, pa the evacuation capacities Tekst na str.22. “Stepen rizika nizvodno od svake Text on page 22 „The risk level najnepovoljniju varijantu of dams, and therefore the brane u ovoj kaskadi biće veći ukoliko se ne downstream of each dam in the cascade predstavlja propuštanje tog least favourable option is primene principi integra lnog upravljanja vodama, would increase unless an integrated river poplavnog talasa kroz the conveyance of the a naročito ukoliko se ne postigne konsenzus basin management was applied, and evakuacione organe bez flood wave through the između sektora vodoprivrede i energetike.” particularly unless the consensus transformacije talasa u evacuation structures Komentar: ovo je vrlo važna poruka. Potrebno je between the water and hydropower akumulaciji. U tom slučaju, without the flood wave jasnije napisati (da li se odnosi scenarije u sve tri sectors was achieved.“ nizvodni rizik od plavljenja transformation in the zemlje) i boldirati. Comment: This is a very important treba ograničiti reservoir. In this case, the message. It should be written in more rekonstrukcijom postojećih downstream flood risk clearly manner (if it refers to scenarios in obaloutvrda i nasipa ili should be controlled by all three countries) and should be written izgradnjom novih.” reconstructing existing in bold. revetments and Drugi komentar: embankments and/or Rečenica se odnosi na srednji construction of new ones.” scenario “Reduced/Optimised HPP Second comment: The Maximisation”, što je sentence refers to the navedeno u istom pasusu, a middle scenario, which is potom je na kraju pasusa stated in the same rečeno da isti zaključak važi i paragraph. At the end of za scenario “Full HPP the same paragraph it is Maximisation”. Rečenica je stated that the same zato premeštena na kraj conclusion is valid for the pasusa i boldirana, a glasi: “U Full HPP scenario. The svim scenarijima u kojima su sentence is therefore prisutne kaskade objekata na moved to the end of the gornjem toku Drine, stepen paragraph and given in rizika nizvodno od svake bold, and it reads: “In all
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 26
brane u kaskadi biće veći scenarios for the upper ukoliko se ne primene Drina River with a cascade principi integralnog of reservoirs, the risk level upravljanja vodama i ne downstream of each dam sagledaju zajednički a ne in the cascade would pojedinični efekti ovih increase unless an objekata, a naročito ukoliko integrated river basin se ne postigne konsenzus management was applied, između sektora and particularly unless the vodoprivrede i energetike u consensus between the svim državama za water and hydropower upravljanje akumulacijama u sectors of all three periodima velikih voda.” countries is achieved about the reservoir management during floods. Text on page 31: „At the upstream part of the Drina River (up to Gorazde) the Tekst na strani 31. “U gornjem toku Drine (do ecological and chemical status is good, Goražda), ekološki i hemijski status je dobar, a while the downstream part has higher nizvodni deo ima veća opterećenja azotom, nitrogen, phosphorous and organic loads. fosforom i organskim materijama. Ekološki status The ecological status from Gorazde to od Goražda do Višegrada i od Zvornika do ušća Visegrad and from Zvornik to the mouth is Tekst će se ažururati shodno The text will be updated
klasifikovan je kao umeren. Međutim, hemijski classified as moderate. However, its komentaru. according to the comment. status od Goražda do Višegrada i od Zvornika do chemical status from Gorazde to Visegrad ušća klasifikovan je kao loš.” and from Zvornik to the mouth is Komentar: Potrebno je navesti šta su ključni razlozi classified as bad.“ za loš hemijski status. Comment: it is necessary to state key reasons for bad chemical status.
Tekst na st.31. “rudnikom boksita u Zvorniku” Text on page 31 „bauxite mining in Tekst će se menjati shodno The text will be changed
Komentar: treba korigovati u “rudnik boksita Zvornik“ komentaru. according to the comment.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 27
Milići” Comment: should be corrected into „bauxite mining in Milići“ Text on page 35: „ In order to prioritise the water quality targets and base on Tekst na strani 35. “Glavni kratkoročni predloženi previous discussions with stakeholders, it prioriteti: is proposed to consider in a short term U cilju prioritizacije ciljeva koji se odnose na the following targets: kvalitet voda, a na osnovu ranijih diskusija sa • Increase of population covered with zainteresovanim stranama, predlaže se the sewage system and construction of razmatranje sledećih kratkoročnih ciljeva: treatment facilities with prioritization -Povećanje broja stanovnika priključenih na from larger agglomerations towards kanalizaciju i izgradnja postrojenja za tretman, pri the smaller ones. čemu se prednost prvo daje većim, zatim manjim Comment: Bearing in mind that it was naseljima…” mentioned previously in the text that the
area of water services (water supply and Tekst će se ažururati shodno The text will be updated Komentar: Imajući u vidu da je u prethodnom sanitation) is a very requiring issue both komentaru. according to the comment. dijelu teksta navedeno da je oblast vodnih usluga in technical and financial sense, and (vodosnabdjevanje i sanitacija) vrlo zahtjevno taking into account that pitanje u tehničkom i finasijskom smislu, a imajući public/communal companies and local u vidu da javna/komunalna preduzeća i lokalne communities work in a difficult zajednice posluju u teškom okruženju mislim da bi environment, I think that it would be bilo logično navesti jednu preporuku koja će logical to state one recommendation to sugerisati da je potrebno provesti pravne, suggest that it is necessary to implement institucionalne i operativne mjere na povećanju legal, institutional and operational efikasnosti poslovanja javnih/komunalnih measures to increase efficiency of preduzeća i obezbijediti dugoročnu održivost public/utility companies business and sistema. ensure long-term sustainability of the system. Tekst na strani 43. “Razvojne strategije Srbije i Text on page 43: „The development HE "Rogačica", HE "Tegare", HPP "Rogačica", HPP Bosne i Hercegovine s druge strane iskazuju strategy of Serbia and Bosnia and HE "Dubravica" i HE "Tegare", HPP "Dubravica" značajnu neusklađenost duž srednjeg i donjeg dela Herzegovina presents on the other hand a "Kozluk" jesu navedene u and HPP "Kozluk" are cited
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 28
toka reke Drine. BiH ne planira da gradi nijednu strong discrepancy along the lower course strateskim dokumetima in strategic documents of novu hidroelektranu duž ovog poteza reke, dok se of the Drina River. BiH do not plan to BiH(RS) i zato su analizirane BiH (RS) and because of Srbija tu odlučila za izgradnju četiri HE (to su build any new hydropower plant on this u okviru IWRM CR (Poglavlje that fact they have been „Rogačica“, „Tegare“, „Dubravica“ i „Kozluk“). stretch of river, whereas Serbia opted for 8.7) i IPF CR ( "Full HPP analysed in the IWRM CR Očigledno je da razvojne namere ovde nisu the construction of four HPPs there Maximisation" Scenario). Na (Chapter 8) and in the IPF usklađene. U ovoj fazi to nije kritično, budući da (Rogačica, Tegare, Dubravica and Kozluk). osnovu rezultata dobijenih CR ("Full HPP cilj projekta nije da se postigne savršeno Obviously the development intentions are višekeriterijumskom Maximisation" Scenario). uravnoteženo stanje u celom slivu reke Drine. not coordinated. At this stage, it is not analizom scenario u okviru Based on results obtained Države su u svim fazama projekta posmatrane critical, as it was not the aim of the DRB koga se nalaze ove HE nije by MCA analyses, scenariox odvojeno i morale su da otkriju najbolji put razvoja project to come to a perfectly balanced izabran kao optimalni. with these HPPs was not za svoj hidroenergetski sektor.” image over the entire Drina River Basin. U svakom slučaju, pri chosen as optimal. Komentar: Na osnovu čega je izvučen zaključak da At all stages of the project, the countries formiranju preporučenog However, in definition of BiH ne planira gradnju navedena četiri HE objekta? were treated separately and had to find razvojnog scenarija za ceo the recommended U strateškim dokumentima, kao i u Razvojnim their best development way for the sliv, koji će obuhvatiti sve HE development scenario for scenarijima u okviru ovog projekta, se svi ovi hydroelectric sector.“ iz scenarija koji su izabrani the entire basin, which will objekti nalaze! Comment: What was the basis for the kao optimalni, ove cover all hydropower conclusion that BaH does not plan hidroelektrane će naći svoje plants included in scenarios construction of listed four HPP facilities= mesto. that were selected as In strategic documents, as well as in optimal, these HPPs will Development scenarios within this find their place. project, all these facilities can be found!
On page 44: „...but B&H is not a signatory Protokola …” je loš prevod. Protocol...“ is bad Tekst na strani 44. „…ali BiH nije potpisnik to the Protocol on Strategic Umesto reči „potpisnik“ translation. Instead of Protokola o strateškoj proceni uticaja na životnu Environmental Impact Assessment to the treba da stoji reč „strana“ word "signatory“ there sredinu uz Espoo konvenciju.” Espoo Convention.“ (misli se na stranu should be word "party“ (it Komentar: BiH je ratifikovala SEA protokol, Odluka Comment: BaH has ratified SEA Protocol, ugovornicu). is a party to the protocol) o ratifikaciji je objavljenja u Službenom glasniku Decision on ratification was published in According to data from the BiH, u maju 2017. godine. Protokol stupa na snagu the Official Gazette of BaH in May 2017. Prema podacima depozitara treaty depository – BaH has nakon isteka vremena nevedenog u tekstu The Protocol will enter into force upon ugovora - BiH je u in the meantime (after the Protokola. the expiry of period stated in the Protocol međuvremenu (dakle, nakon writing of this report)
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 29
text. pisanja ovog izveštaja) become a party to the SEA postala strana ugovornica Protocol, i.e. from 20 July SEA Protokola, tj. od 20 jula 2017. This will be included. 2017. godine. Zo če biti uključeno. Text on page 44: „The process of conclusion of an agreement between B&H Tekst na strani 44. “Proces sklapanja sporazuma and Republic of Serbia has been initiated“ između BiH i Republike Srbije je započet.” Comment: it is necessary to state that Može biti uključeno u It can be included in the Komentar: potrebno je navesti da su pokrenute initiatives have been launched for Izveštaj. report. inicijative za zaključivanje bilateralnih ugovora conclusion of bilateral agreements između BiH i Srbije i BiH i Crne Gore. between BaH and Serbia and BaH and Montenegro. Tekst na strani 46. “BiH treba da ratifikuje Protokol Text on page 46: „BaH should ratify the Saglasni. Agree. o strateškoj proceni uticaja na životnu sredinu uz SEA Protocol to the ESPOO Convention“ Biće konstatovano da je BiH It will be concluded that Espoo konvenciju” Comment: the text is redundant or should strana ugovornica SEA BaH is a party to the SEA Komentar: Tekst je višak ili ga treba prilagoditi be adjusted to the real situation. protokola od 20. Jula 2017. Protocol since 20 July 2017. stvarnom stanju. Comment given via e-mail, 21.07.2017 Kao što je naglašeno u As emphasized in the izveštaju, vodoprivredni report, the Drina basin Posebno je značajno što je izrađen model It is specifically important that water model Drine napravljen u water management model, upravljanja vodnim resursima koji se može i u resources management model, which can programu WEAP je developed in WEAP, is buduće koristiti i nadograđivati. Ovo se prije svega be used and upgraded in the future, has namenjen strateškom aimed at strategic planning Alma Imamović, odnosi na pitanja zaštite od voda koja su been developed. This primarily refers to planiranju, a ne operativnom and not for the operational FMAWMF nedovoljno obrađena kroz ove analize pa bi bilo water protection issues which have not upravljanju i kao takav radi management. It runs at neophodno model unaprijediti u tom smislu. been adequately addressed through these sa mesečnim vremenskim monthly time step and as analyses, so it would be necessary to korakom sa kojim se ne such it cannot be used to improve the model in this regard. može uključiti analiza assess the effects of the efekata akumulacija na reservoirs in flood
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 30
zaštitu od velikih voda. Ovi alleviation. These effects efekti su analizirani posebno are analysed separately in u izveštaju u odeljcima 3.11 i sections 3.11 and 5.4. 5.4. The remarks related to the IPF BiH report are in fact related to the lack of "BASE Primjedbe koje se odnose na IPF BiH izvještaj CASE" scenarios, i.e. scenarios that would zapravo su vezane za nedostatak „BASE CASE“ show current situation and what would We are aware thet it is scenarija, odnosno scenarija koji bi pokazao happen if there were no investments or possible to condiser many trenutnu situaciju i šta bi se dešavalo ako u ovom Svesni smo da je moguće any interventions in this basin (water different scenarios, such as slivu ne bi bilo investicija, niti bilo kakvih razmatrati različite scenarije, protection, agricultural development agriculture development, intervencija (zaštite voda, razvoja poljoprivrede i kao što su razvoj etc.). The report dominantly dealt with etc. As the base case we dr). Izvještaj je dominantno obrađivao potencijale poljoprivrede, itd. Kao development potentials through the have considered razvoja kroz iskorištenje vodnih snaga a ne kroz osnovni scenario mi smo exploitation of aquatic resources, not developments in druge privredne aktivnosti kao što su poljoprivrede razmatrali razvoj u skladu sa through other economic activities such as accordance with valid (osim procjene potrebnih količina vode) kao važećim strateškim agriculture (apart from estimating the strategic documents dominantnu aktivnosti stanovništva, zatim dokumentima o vodnim required quantities of water) as the related to water resources industriju, turizam i sl., zbog čega bi bilo potrebno resursima u svakoj zemlji. dominant activity of the population, in each country. These da se razmotre i ovakvi scenariji (npr. agriculture Ovi planirani razvoji smatraju industry, tourism, etc., which would also planned developments are development) koji ne bi u fokus stavili izgradnju se delom scenarija. Stoga su have to be considered scenarios (for consdered a part of all hidro-energetskih objekata. Temeljem takvih procenjeni uticaji izgradnje example, agriculture development) that scenarios. Therefore, procjena može se dati preporuka u kom pravcu bi HE u vezi sa ovim baznim would not focus on the construction of assessed impacts of HPP se sliv trebao razvijati sa aspekta raspoloživih scenariom hydro-energy facilities. Based on such developments are relative vodnih resursa. estimates, recommendations can be to this base scenario.
made in which way the basin should be
developed from the perspective of available water resources. U krovnom izvještaju svakako nedostaje da se In the Roof Report, what is clearly missing Preporuka razvojnog A recommendation for a umjesto pristupa „Usaglašenost razvojnih is that, instead of the approach scenarija za ceo sliv daće se development scenario for
scenarija“ za svaku zemlje izradi preporuka koji bi „Harmonisation of development u finalnoj verziji Krovnog the entire basin will be razvojni scenario bio najbolji za cijeli sliv (sve scenarios“, recommendation is made for izveštaja. given in the final version of
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 31
zemlje), čime bi se stekli uslovi za dalje pregovore each country so as to make a the Roof Report. oko zajedničkih projekata i modela najefikasnijeg development scenario the best for the korištenja voda među državama u slivu rijeke entire basin (all countries), thus creating Drine. the conditions for further negotiations on joint projects and models for the most efficient use of waters between countries in the DRB. Comment sent in IPF written Definisani cilj Projekta iz Projektnog zadatka glasi: The objective of the Project defined in „Stoga je ukupni cilj ovog projekta da se da the Terms of Reference is: "Therefore, the podrška efektivnijem upravljanju vodnim overall goal of this project is to give resursima u slivu rijeke Drine, sa posebnim support for more effective management akcentom na of water resources in the Drina River ublažavanje posledica poplava i suša, kao i Basin, with special emphasis on mitigating upravljanjem hidroenergetikom i životnom the consequences of floods and droughts, sredinom, as well as hydropower and environmental korištenjem “najbolje raspoložive tehnologije” i management, applying „best available JP Elektroprivreda “najboljih iskustava u upravljanju” unutar okvira technology“ and „best environmental BiH, integrisanog upravljanja vodnim resursima (tj. practice“ within the framework of Biće usklađeno. This will be harmonized. Irvina Numić, Anisa korišćenjem EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) Integrated Water Resources Management Avdaković, i (i.e. using the EU Water Framework drugih EU direktiva koje se odnose na vode)“. Directive (WFD) and other EU Directives S druge strane u tački Zaključci Izvještaja rečeno je relating to water)". „Ciljevi u ovom izvještaju predloženog razvojnog On the other hand, the Conclusions of the scenarija su zaštita, obnavljanje i poboljšanje Report referred to the "Objectives in this kvaliteta površinskih i podzemnih voda s ciljem report of the proposed development postizanja njihovog makar "dobrog" statusa i da scenarios are the protection, restoration se, podržavajući principe Okvirne direktive o and improvement of the quality of surface vodama, and groundwater with the goal to achieve obezbedi dovoljno vode za nesmetani i održivi at least "good" status thereof and,
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 32
razvoj društva u održivoj životnoj sredini.“ supporting the principles of the Water Ova dva cilja se ne podudaraju. Cilj iz Projektnog Framework Directive, to provide enough zadatka govori o efikasnom upravljanju vodama u water for smooth and sustainable svim segmentima voda, a u cilju iz Izvještaja govori development of the society in a se zaštiti, obnavljanju i poboljšanju kvaliteta sustainable environment." vode. Dva segmnenta vode zaštita od voda i These two objectives do not match. The korištenje voda nisu spomenuta. Međutim u objective referred to in Terms of Projektu je Reference is to discuss efficient water posebno obrađen segment korištenja voda. S tim u management in all water-related vezi potrebno je redefinisati cilj u Izvještaju i segments, and the objective of the Report prilagoditi ga onome što je rađeno kroz Projekat. is to protect, restore and improve water quality. Two segments, protection from waters and use of water are not mentioned. However, the Project specifically addresses the segment of water use. In this regard, it is necessary to redefine the objective in the Report and adapt it to what has been addressed through the Project. U tački 7.1. u rečenici: „U državnom izvještaju za In point 7.1, in the sentence: „The IWRM integrisano upravljanje vodama su iznijete country report presented figures that procijene koje jasno pokazuju da Srbija ne samo da clearly show that Serbia not only meets its zadovoljava svoje potrebe za električnom demand for electricity, but also generates energijom, već i proizvodi viškove.“ Riječ Srbija je surpluses“. Word Serbia should be potrebno zamjeniti sa Bosna i Hercegovina. replaced with words Bosnia and Biće ispravljeno. Will be corrected. Takođe u tekstu na nekoliko mjesta umjesto Herzegovina. Also, in several places in the „Bosna i Hercegovina“ greškom piše „Srbiji“. text, instead of „Bosnia and Herzegovina“, (Tačka it says „Serbia“ by mistake (point 1.5. Key 1.5. ključni faktori, tačka 2.3. dio koji se odnosi na factors, point 2.3, part which refers to proizvodnju električne energije). Pored ovoga u electricity generation). In addition, in tačkama 3.3.2. Obični bankarski krediti; 3.5.6. items 3.3.2. Ordinary bank loans; 3.5.6.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 33
Metodologija ekonomske analize; 3.13.3. Methodology for economic analysis, Relevantno 3.13.3. Relevant European legislation in evropsko zakonodavstvo u oblasti strateške the area of SEA; - Serbia is talked about, procijene uticaja; – Govori se o Srbiji a ne o BiH ) not BaH). It is necessary to correct all Se those mistakes. navedeno je potrebno korigovati In point 7.1. it is necessary to define the U tački 7.1. potrebno je definisati šte je izabrani development scenario. razvojni scenario. In point 7.5. Non-structural development options, reduction of water consumption U tački 7.5. nestrukturne razvojne opcije govori se within all sectors is mentioned, but samo o smanjenju potrošnje vode u okviru svih specifically in agriculture as most sektora, ali naročito poljoprivrede koja je requiring one, by applying improved najzahtjevnija, primjenom poboljšanih metoda methods of irrigation and technologies navodnjavanja i tehnologija štednje voda, ali ne i o which enable water savings, but increase povećanju poljoprivrednih površina koje će biti of areas under agricultural activities obuhvaćene navodnjavanjem savremenim which will be covered by modern tehnologijama, što je svakako potrebno korigovati. This will be formulated irrigation technologies is not addressed, Biće bolje formulisano. Takođe je pomenuto „Smanjenje potrošnje more conveniently. which surely must be corrected. It also energije radi smanjenja potreba za dodatnim reads „Reduction in energy consumption proizvodnim for reduction of needs for additional kapacitetima“. Ova konstatacija ne omogućava production capacities“. This statement razvoj. Svakako je potrebno preporučiti potrebu does not enable development. It is surely primjene energijske efikasnosti u potrošnji necessary to recommend the need for električne energije kod postojećih i novih application of energy efficiency in potrošača. consumption of electricity with the existing and new consumers. Dati zaključci (dio 8) u Izvještaju su uglavnom opšti Conclusions (Chapter 8) in the report are i se mogu odnositi za svaki sliv. U zaključcima je mainly general and can refer to any river This will be formulated Biće bolje formulisano. konkretno potrebno dati osnovne probleme basin. It is specifically necessary that more conveniently. upravljanja vodama rijeke Drine, koji su kroz conclusions contain main problems of the
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 34
projekat Drina River management, which were identificirani, ali i dati imena i položaj objekata identified through the project, but also to hidroenergetskih, deponija otpada, tretmana give the names and position of hydro otpadnih energy facilities, landfills, waste water voda koji se preporučuju za izgradnju u početnim treatment plants, recommended for fazama. Spominju se objekti iz usvojenog scenarija construction in the initial stages. The za Srbiju ali ne i za BiH ili za Crnu Goru. Nije facilities from the adopted scenario for spomenuta potreba kontinuiranog obavještavanja Serbia are mentioned, but not for BaH i and Montenegro. Need for continual razmjene planova rada i mogućeg usaglašavanja information provision and exchange of rada postojećih hidroenergetskih objekata na slivu. work plans is not mentioned, not is To possible adjustment of operation of the je od velike važnosti i u sadašnjosti, ali i u existing hydro energy facilities in the budućnosti. basin mentioned. This is of great importance in present, but also in the future. It is surely necessary to stress the need Svakako je potrebno naglasiti potrebu za for construction of reservoirs through izgradnjom akumulacija kroz prostorne planove. spatial plans. The need for construction Katastarskim planovima se potreba za izgradnjom cannot be planned through cadastre plans ne može planirati jer oni odražavaju prošlo i since they reflect past and present status Saglasni smo. We agree. sadašnje stanje na parcelama. Prethodna radnja za of the plots. Prior analysis for the zaštitu parcela je uređenje pravnog režima za protection of plots is to regulate legal parcele na kojima se planira graditi. regime for plots anticipated for construction. I date preporuke su, osim nekih izuzetaka, Given recommendations are also, apart uglavnom opšte. Neki od konkretnih prijedloga from some exceptions, mainly general. kako te Some of specific proposals on how to This will be formulated Biće bolje formulisano. preporuke sprovesti kroz koje institucije, kakve implement those recommendations more conveniently. projekte, kakve dogovore i drugo date su u okviru through institutions, which projects, teksta pa bi bilo korisno u zaključcima se povezati which agreements and other, are
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 35
na poglavlja gdje se pojedini problem analizira. provided in the text, so it would be useful to relate the conclusions with chapters where certain problem is analysed. Comments sent in Draft Roof Report written U tački 4. Posebne teme rečeno je „Razvojne In point 4. Specific issues, it is stated „The strategije Srbije i Bosne i Hercegovine s druge development strategy of Serbia and HPP "Rogačica", HPP strane Bosnia and Herzegovina presents on the HE "Rogačica", HE "Tegare", "Tegare", HPP "Dubravica" iskazuju značajnu neusklađenost duž srednjeg i other hand a strong discrepancy along the HE "Dubravica" i HE and HPP "Kozluk" are cited donjeg dela toka reke Drine. BiH ne planira da lower course of the Drina River. BiH do "Kozluk" jesu navedene u in strategic documents of gradi not plan to build any new hydropower strateskim dokumetima BiH (RS) and because of nijednu novu hidroelektranu duž ovog poteza reke, plant on this stretch of river, whereas BiH(RS) i zato su analizirane that fact they have been dok se Srbija tu odlučila za izgradnju četiri HE (to Serbia opted for the construction of four u okviru IWRM CR (Poglavlje analysed in the IWRM CR su „Rogačica“, „Tegare“, „Dubravica“ i „Kozluk“). HPPs there (Rogačica, Tegare, Dubravića 8.7) i IPF CR ( "Full HPP (Chapter 8) and in the IPF Očigledno je da razvojne namere ovde nisu and Kozluk). Obviously the development Maximisation" Scenario). Na CR ("Full HPP usklađene. U ovoj fazi to nije kritično, budući da intentions are not coordinated. At this osnovu rezultata dobijenih Maximisation" Scenario). JP Elektroprivreda cilj projekta nije da se postigne savršeno stage, it is not critical, as it was not the višekeriterijumskom Based on results obtained BiH, uravnoteženo stanje u celom slivu reke Drine. aim of the DRB project to come to a analizom, scenario u okviru by MCA analyses, Irvina Numić, Anisa Države su u svim fazama projekta posmatrane perfectly balanced image over the entire koga se nalaze ove HE nije scenarion with these HPPs Avdaković, odvojeno Drina River Basin. At all stages of the izabran kao optimalni. was not chosen as optimal. i morale su da otkriju najbolji put razvoja za svoj project, the countries were treated U svakom slučaju, pri However, in definition of hidroenergetski sektor. U sledećoj fazi na putu ka separately and had to find their best formiranju preporučenog the recommended konkretizaciji planova razvijenih u okviru ovog development way for the hydroelectric razvojnog scenarija za ceo development scenario for projekta biće potrebno inicirati diskusiju između sector. At the next station on the way to sliv, koji će obuhvatiti sve HE the entire basin, which will dve concretizing the plans developed in the iz scenarija koji su izabrani cover all hydropower države, kako bi se definisala primenljiva rešenja za present project, discussions will have to kao optimalni, ove plants of scenarios that usklađen regionalni razvoj. Sledeća dva odeljka be initiated between the two countries, in hidroelektrane će naći svoje were selected as optimal, opisuju pravne implikacije takve situacije i skiciraju order to find practicable solutions for a mesto. these HPPs will find their načine da se razreši – za sada samo privremena i harmonious regional development. The place. prividna – neusaglašenost“ next two sections present the legal implications of such a situation and
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 36
Navedeno je u potpunosti u suprotnosti sa sketches ways to resolve the – for now ciljevima projekta datim u Projektnom zadatku koji only temporary and apparent – glasi: inconsistency.“ „Stoga je ukupni cilj ovog projekta da se da The above stated is completely opposite podrška efektivnijem upravljanju vodnim to objectives from the Terms of Reference resursima u which read „: "Therefore, the overall goal slivu rijeke Drine, sa posebnim akcentom na of this project is to give support for more ublažavanje posljedica poplava i suša, kao i effective management of water resources upravljanjem hidroenergetikom i životnom in the Drina River Basin, with special sredinom, korištenjem “najbolje raspoložive emphasis on mitigating the consequences tehnologije” i “najboljih iskustava u upravljanju” of floods and droughts, as well as unutar okvira integrisanog upravljanja vodnim hydropower and environmental resursima (tj. korišćenjem EU Water Framework management, applying „best available Directive (WFD) i drugih EU direktiva koje se technology“ and „best environmental odnose na vode)“. Postavlja se pitanje šta je practice“ within the framework of slijedeća faza projekta, i na koji način odgovoriti na Integrated Water Resources Management zadatak na pitanja o efektivnijem (i.e. using the EU Water Framework upravljanju vodnim resursima u slivu rijeke Drine, Directive (WFD) and other EU Directives što evidentno nije urađeno. Svakako je potrebno relating to water)". The question is what konstatovati i anlizirati šta su planske strategije the next stage of the project is, and in pojedinih zemalja, ali je isto tako značajno znati šta what way to answer the matters of je effective water resource management in efikasno upravljanje vodnim resursima u sivu rijeke the DRB, which obviously has not been Drine kao cjelini. Efikasno upravljanje vodnim done. It is surely necessary to conclude resusrima u slivu rijeke Drine kao cjelini je polazna and analyse what planning strategies of tačka za pregovore oko usklađivanja planova certain countries are, but it is also equally priobalnih zemalja. important to know what efficient water resource management in the DRB as whole is. Efficient water resource management in the DRB as a whole is a starting point for negotiations related to
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 37
harmonisation of plans of riparian countries.
U tački 3.3.2. Ekološki prihvatljiv protok rečeno je In point 3.3.2. An Environmental flow has Metoda FBIH ne obezbeđuje The FBIH method does not da Konsultant preporučuje usvajanje metode FBiH been suggested that the Consultant najveću vrednost ekološki provide the highest value za izračunavanje minimalnog EPP u celom slivu recommends the adoption of the FBiH prihvatljivog protoka u of the EF compared to the Drine. U dionicama rijeke sa prirodnim method for calculating the minimum EF poređenju sa drugim other regulations. As mrjestilištima throughout the Drina River basin. In the propisima. Kao što je shown in the IWRM report, vrsta visoke vrijednosti (mladice ili potočne sections of the river with natural prikazano u izveštaju o it’s a good compromise in pastrmke), u zaštićenim područjima ili u osetljivim hatcheries integrisanom upravljanju between the other aluvijalnim ekosistemima, treba sprovesti posebnu a species of high value (gulls or trout vodnim resursima, on methodologies and it studiju procjene uticaja na životnu sredinu. trout), in protected areas or in sensitive predstavlja dobar integrates the seasonal Ovu metodu je potrebno doraditi i tek ona može alluvial ecosystems, a special kompromis između drugih component. It is proposed biti osnova za usvajanje na cijelom slivu Drine. Ovo environmental impact assessment study metodologija i integriše i by the Consultant to be the je metoda koja daje najveće vrijednosti ekološki should be carried out. komponentu godišnjih doba. base for the application of prihvatljivog protoka, a koja se u praksi pokazala This method needs to be improved and Konsultant predlaže da on the minimal EF for the new
dosta problematičnom. Zbog problema koji su se only it can be the basis for adoption on bude osnova za primenu HPPS in the DRB. Of course, javili kod primjene Pravilnika koji primjenjuje ovu the entire Drina River basin. This is the minimalnog ekološki then it needs to be metodu urađena je i dopuna i izmjene pravilnika method that gives the highest values of prihvatljivog protoka za nove adopted according to the koja se naročito odnosi na postojeće objekte. Da bi an environmentally acceptable flow, HE u slivu reke Drine. context: degree of bila primjenjiva, metodu je potrebno još jednom which has proved in practice Naravno, treba ga usvojiti protection and kritički analizirati, kako bi se kroz metodu quite problematic. Due to problems that prema kontekstu: stepen environmental values, razlikovali have arisen with the application of the zaštite i vrednosti životne characteristics of the postojeći (mogućnosti ispuštanja) od novih Rulebook applying this method has also sredine, karakteristike power plant (diversion or objekata; tipovi zahvata vode, odnosno tip been complemented and amended by the elektrane (protočna ili ne), not), if it is in the back elektrane, rules, which especially refers to existing da li se nalazi iza postojeće curve of the existing akumulaciona (veličina i mogućnosti akumulacije) facilities. In order to be applicable, the akumulacije, itd ... Sve ovo reservoir, etc. All this point ili protočna, derivaciona ili pribranska. Takođe je method needs to be critically analyzed se mora obraditi u studiji must be treated in the EIA potrebno analizirati položaj elektrane u odnosu na again, in order to differentiate existing procene uticaja. Konsultant study. It is waht the
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 38
druge elektrane (samostalna ili u nizu) i analizirati (discharge possibilities) of new facilities; je napisao preporuke, Consultant has written in potrebe na nizvodno potezu i druge analize na types of water treatment, or type of međutim, tekst krovnog the recommendations spefifičnom lokalitetu zahvata. Tek tada kroz power plant: with accumulation (size and izveštaja će se revidirati kako however, the text in the definisanje svih navedenih uslova bi se possibilities of accumulation) or bi bio jasniji u vezi sa ovom roof report will revise to be modifikovana metoda mogla adekvatno primjeniti. diversion/nondiversion. temom. Jasno je da se ovo clearer about this point. It’s Svakako je It is also necessary to analyze the position odnosni samo na nove HE. clear that it concerns only za posebne dionice rijeke u zaštićenim područjima of the power plant in relation to other new HPP. potrebno provesti pojedinačne Studije power plants (independent or in cascade) karakteristične za data područja. and analyse downstream needs and other analyzes at the specific site of the intervention. Only then through defining all of these conditions, the modified method could be applied appropriately. It certainly is for specific river sections in protected areas it is necessary to conduct individual studies characteristic for data areas. Comments sent in written Konsultant je definisao „Scenario zelenog The Consultant has defined „Green GENERALNI KOMENAR : GENERAL COMMENT: razvoja“ kod koga se ne planira izgradnja novih Growth“ scenario, which does not Analizirana četiri scenarija su Analysed four scenarios hidroelektrana. anticipate construction of new hydro diskutovana, definisana i have been discussed, Ako analiziramo sadašnje stanje na slivu rijeke power plants. usvojena na sastanku kojem defined and adopted Drine može se zaključiti: If we analyse the current status in the su prisustvovali predstavnici during the meeting held in Elektroprivreda RS, • sve tri zemlje R. Srbija, R.Crna Gora i DRB, the following can be concluded: Konsultanta, Focal Point i Sarajevo on 20th of April Petar Ivanković BiH/RS, sliva rijeke Drine, ne mogu bez uvoza • All three countries, Serbia, zainteresovanih strana a 2016, in which obezbijediti sigurno snabdijevanje domaćinstava i Montenegro and BaH/RS of the koji je održan u Sarajevu 20. representatives of industrije električnom energijom, DRB cannot ensure supply of Aprila 2016. Predstavnici Consultant, Focal Point and • zbog klimatskih projena, poplave na slivu electricity to households and zainteresovanih strana stakeholders have been rijeke Drine bit će sve češće, industry without importing the aktivno su učesvovali u present. Representatives of
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 39
• zbog klimatskih promjena, suša na slivu energy, formiranju scenarija i stakeholders actively rijeke Drine biti će sve prisutnija i uticat će na • Due to climate change, floods in usvojena varijanta za sva participated in the normalno vodosnabdijevanje stanovništva i the DRB will be ever more četiri scenarija navedena je u scenarios composition and industrije vodom, frequent, odgovarajućem zapisniku sa the adopted version for all • zbog klimatskih promjena, suše na slivu • Due to climate change, drought in sastanka. four scenarios was listed in rijeke Drine biti će sve češće i uticat će sve više na the DRB will be ever more present the corresponding minutes prinose u poljoprivredi, and will affect normal water of the meeting. • siromašna društva najviše zagađuju supply of households and životnu sredinu, jer nemaju sredstava za industry, Alaliza « zelenog » scenarija “Green growth” scenario izradnju prečistača otpadnih voda, izgradnju • Poor societies are those that je tražena prema projektnom analysis is required by ToR. otpadnih deponija i preradu otpadnih materijala, pollute the environment the zadatku. ... most, because they do not have Green growth scenario the funds for construction of Zeleni scenario ne predvidja doesn’t foresee Ako sve prethodne činjenice treba da se rješavaju waste water treatment plants, izgradnju novih construction of new putem izgradnje hidroenergetski objekata i da ta construction of landfills and hidroelektrana ali predvidja hydropower plants, but rješenja treba da daju konsultanti, koji su na processing of waste, revitalizaciju postojećih u envisages the rehabilitation osnovu svog iskustva dobili posao, onda se If all these facts should be solved by cilju povećanja njihove of the existing ones in postavlja pitanje da li ima smisla analizirati „zeleni constructing hydro energy facilities, and if efikasnosti. U okviru ostalih order to increase their scenarij“ (da ne treba graditi hidroenergetske consultants, who got the job based on scenarija predvijena je efficiency. The construction objekte na slivu rijeke Drine). their experience, should give such izgradnja novih postrojenja. of new power plants is solutions, then the question is if it make foreseen within other sense to analyse „green scenario“ (not to scenarios. construct hydro energy facilities in the DRB) Konsultanti iz kompanije COWI – Norveška i STUCI Consultants from COWI - Norway and Predmet ovog projekta je Subject of this Project is – Švajcarska dolaze iz zemalja, gdje je izgrađen STUCKY – Switzerland, come from «PODRŠKA UPRAVLJANJU “SUPPORT TO WATER najveći broj hidroenergetskih objekata u Evropi. U countries where most hydropower plants VODNIM RESURSIMA U RESOURCES Norveškoj je izgrađeno hidroenergetskih objekata in Europe are built. In Norway, SLIVU REKE DRINE». MANAGEMENT IN THE instalisane snage 31626 MW, od toga reverzibilnih hydropower facilities of installed power of Korišćenje vodnih DRINA RIVER BASIN” hidroelektrana instalisane snage 1392 MW, a u 31,626 MW were built, of which the potencijala za potrebe The use of water potential Švajcarskoj je izgrađeno hidroelektrana instalisane reversible hydro power plants have proizvodnje električne for the electricity
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 40
snage 16657 MW, od toga reverzibilnih installed capacity of 1392 MW, while in energije analiziran je kao generation was analyzed as hidroelektra instalisane snage 2817 MW. Od Switzerland, hydro power plants with jedan od aspekata one of the aspects of the konsultanata koji dolaze iz tih zemalja očekivali installed capacity of 16,657 MW were uptavljanja vodnim water resources smo da daju veći doprinos što se tiče izgradnje constructed, of which the reversible ones resursima. management. hidroelektrana na području Republike Srpske i na have installed capacity of 2817 MW. We Obzirom da se radi o Given that these are cijelom slivu rijeke Drine, međutim oni u „zelenom expected consultants coming from these obnovljivim izvorima renewable energy sources, scenariju“ su napisali da se snabdijevanje countries to make greater contributions energije, korišćenje the use of wind farms and električnom energijom rješava izgradnjom to the construction of hydro power plants vetroelektrana i solarnih solar power plants is vjetroelektrana i solarnih elektrana. Kako će te in the Republic of Srpska and the entire elektrana navedeno je samo mentioned only as an vjetroelektrane i solarne elektrane funkcionisati u Drina River basin, but in the "green kao opcija za « ostale izvore option for "other sources EES to nisu napisali, tako da je malo neozbiljno od scenario" they stated that electricity enrgije ». Nigde se ne navodi of energy". tako renomiranih projektantskih kompanija. Zbog supply is solved by the construction of da se predvidja snabdevanje Nowhere states that čega te izvore energije (vjetroelektrane i solarne wind farms and solar power plants. How električnom energijom provides for the supply of elektrane ) nisu povezali sa drugim vidovima these wind farms and solar power plants rešava isključivo izgradnjom electricity solved energije na slivu rijeke Drine, tj. sa RHE Buk Bijela i will function in the EES, they have not vetroelektrana i solarnih exclusively by building RHE Bistrica, sa ciljem da taj EES može da said, which is a bit unserious from such elektrana. wind farms and solar funkcioniše, to ne možemo ni da pretpostavimo. reputable design companies. Why these Razvoj celokupnog power plants. sources of energy (wind power plants and elektroenergetskog sistema Development of the entire solar power plants) were not related to kao i razvoj solarnih i electricity power system, other forms of energy in the Drina River vetroelektrana si izvan as well as the development basin, i.e. with RHPP Buk Bijela and RHPP obima i predmeta ovog of the solar and wind Bistrica, with the aim to make this EES projetka. power plants are beyond functional, we cannot even assume it. the scope and subject of this Project.
Što se tiče rješavanja vodoprivrednih problema sa When it comes to solving water „zelenim scenarijem“ koja su prisutna u management problems with „green
dosadašnjem periodu (poplave, vodosnabdijevanje scenario“, present in the past period Komentar revidenta. Reviewer's comment. i navodnjavanje) ovi problemi su zanemareni i data (floods, water supply, irrigation), these je formulacija koja je pomalo neozbiljna za ozbiljne problems are neglected and formulation
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 41
konsultantske kuće. given is a bit unserious for such reputable consultancy companies. U vezi scenarija „ograničene/optimizovane Regarding the scenario of „limited / Molimo referišite se na « Please refer to “GENERAL maksimizacije hidroenergetske proizvodnje“-2 optimized maximization of hydropower GENERALNI COMMENT” above. varijante, takođe imamo primjedbe, a primjedbe production“ -2 variants, we also have KOMENAR » iznad. We would like to note će biti vezane samo za područje Republike Srpske. objections, and they will only be related again that, besides the to the territory of the Republic of Srpska. Ponovo napominjeno da su u Consultant, the U prvoj varijanti drugog scenarija definisano je da In the first variant of the second scenario, formiranju scenarija osim stakeholders' su prioritetni objekti za izgradnju HE Buk Bijela- it was defined that the priority facilities konsultanta učestvovali i representatives niska, HE Foča- niska, HE Ustikolina i HE Mrsovo. for the construction are HPP Buk Bijeljina, predstavnici stakeholdera o participated in formation Ako se analizira energetika ova tri objekta, ukupna HPP Foča, HPP Ustikolina and HPP čemu postoji i zapisnik sa of scenarios as well, snaga 174,46 MW i proizvodnja 645,2 GWh/god., Mrsovo. sastanka. asdocumented by the što je malo ako se zna koliko energije je potrebno If we analyse the energy of these three minutes of the meeting. danas, a koliko energije će biti će biti potrebno i u facilities, the total power is 174.46 MW U periodu održavanja narednom periodu. Ovi objekti sa malim and production is 645.2 GWh / year, sastanka u Sarajevu, na At the time of the meeting akumulacijama ne mogu da obezbijede podršku which is little if we know how much kome su usvojeni scnariji za in Sarajevo, in which the izgradnji drugih obnovljivih izvora energije energy is needed today and how much dalju analizu (20. April 2016) scenarios for further (vjetroelektrane i solarne elektrane). energy will be needed in the future. These tehnička dokumentacija za analyses have been Potreba za električnom energijom u toku ljetnjeg facilities with small reservoirs cannot RHE Buk Bijelu nije bila adopted, technical perioda je sve veća, kada su dotoci na rijeci Drini provide support for the construction of uradjena. Iz tog razloga ova documentation for the mali, a akumulacije u predloženoj varijanti imaju other renewable energy sources (wind hidroelektrana nije ni bila PSHPP Buk Bijela has not malu zapreminu, tako da se može zaključiti da ovaj farms and solar power plants). sastavni deo usvojenih yet been finished. For this prijedlog nije dobar. The need for electricity during the scenarija. reason, this power plant is Ako se planira da ovi objekti utiču na umanjenje summer period is ever increasing, when not a part of adopted klimatskih promjena onda sa ukupnom inflows into the Drina river are low, and Na osnovu zaključaka sa scenarios. zapreminom akumulacija od 31,3 mil. m3 to nije the reservoirs in the proposed variant are sastanka održanog u moguće i ove planirane hidroelektrane ne mogu of small volume, so it can be concluded Sarajevu 17.01.2017 i po Based on conclusions from obezbijediti zaštitu od poplava, zaštitu od suša i that this proposal is not good. dobijanju podataka RHE Buk the meeting held in povećanje ekološki prihvatljivog protoka. If these facilities are planned to influence Bijela je uvršćena u finalnu Sarajevo on 17th of January Planirana HE Ustikolina, koja se nalazi na području the reduction of climate change, then this verziju IPF izveštaja. 2017 and after obtaining FBiH, sa ukupnom zapreminom od 8,55 mil. m3 is not possible with a total volume of data, PSHPP Buk Bijela has
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 42
vode i korisnom zapreminom od 2,7 miliona m3 ne reservoirs of 31.3 mil. m3 and these Na sastanku održanom u been included in the final doprinosi značajno oblasti vodoprivrede. planned hydro power plants cannot Sarajevu 23.03.2017 još version of the IPF report. provide protection from floods, drought jednom je U drugoj varijanti drugog scenarija definisano je da protection and increase of EF. potvrdjeno/dogovoreno da On the meeting held in su prioritetni objekti za izgradnju HE Buk Bijela- Planned HPP Ustikolina, located in the će RHE Buk Bijela biti Sarajevo on 23th of March niska, HE Foča- niska, HE Ustikolina, HE Goražde, territory of FBiH, with a total volume of uključena u konačni verziju 2017 it was HE Mrsovo i HE Dubravica. 8.55 mil. m3 of water and a useful volume IPF Izvještaja u skladu sa confirmed/agreed that the Planirane HE Ustikolina i HE Goražde koje se nalaze of 2.7 million m3 does not significantly primerom kako je to PSHPP Buk Bijela will be na području FBiH, sa malim zapreminama contribute to water management sector. urađeno za RHE Bistrica u included within Final IPF neznatno doprinose oblasti vodoprivrede. Srbiji. Report in accordance with In the second variant of the second the example of how it was Ako se analizira predložena druga varijanta drugog scenario, the defined priority facilities for Zaključci sa oba gore done for the PSHPP Bistrica scenarija ni ova varijanta ne omogućava rješavanje the construction are HPP Buk Bijela-low, navedena sastanka su in Serbia. problema vodoprivrede na rijeci Drini. Predložena HPP Foča, HPP Ustikolina, HPP Goražde, ispoštovani. HE Dubravica je najskuplja planirana HPP Mrsovo and HPP Dubravica. The conclusions from both hidroelektrana i ne može se očekivati da će se Planned HPP Ustikolina and HPP Goražde Optimalni scenario odredjen meetings cited above are izraditi narednih godina. Takvu konstataciju su dali located in the FBiH region with low je na osnovu respected. i potencijalni investitori iz Italije, koji su zaključili volumes insignificantly contribute to the multikriterijumske analize da je taj objekat neisplativ i sa cijenama električne water management sector. (MCA) čija je metodologija The optimal scenario is energije u Italiji. detaljno prikazana u IPF CR. determined based on If the proposed second variant of the U cilju dobijanja što multi-criteria analyses Druga varijanta drugog scenarija ne obezbjeđuje second scenario is analysed, this variant objektivnije ocene scenarija (MCA) whose methodology da se proizvede značajne količine električne also does not allow solving the problem of usvojeni su isti parametri, is in detail presented in IPF energije, ovi objekti sa malim zapreminama water management on the Drina River. kriterijumi i težinski CR. akumulacija ne mogu da obezbijede podršku The proposed HPP Dubravica is the most koeficijenti za sve tri zemlje In order to obtain as drugim obnovljivim izvorima energije (vjetar i expensive planned hydro power plant and koje pripadaju slivu. Na taj objective a scenario as sunce). construction thereof cannot be expected način obezbedjeno je i possible, the same in the coming years. Such a conclusion načelo ravnopravnosti. objectives, criteria and Planirane akumulacije su malih zapremina i ne was also given by potential investors from weight coefficients for all obezbjeđuju da se može zaštiti područje rijeke Italy, who concluded that this facility is Analize, koje su prikazane u three countries belonging Drine od poplava i suša, ne doprinose not cost-effective even with electricity okviru ovog komentara, nisu to the basin have been
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 43
vodosnabdijevanju stanovništva i industrije, ne prices in Italy. uporedive sa analizama koje adopted. obezbjeđuju navodnjavanje većih poljoprivrednih su uradjene u okviru IPF In this way, the principle of površina i ne mogu povećati protoke u The second variant of the second scenario Izveštaja pa se ne mogu equality is ensured. malovodnom periodu na rijeci Drini. does not provide for the production of komentarisati. significant amounts of electricity, these The analyses presented in U trećem scenariju definisano je da su prioritetni facilities with low volume reservoirs this comment are not objekti za izgradnju HE Buk Bijela-niska, HE Foča- cannot provide support to other comparable with the niska, HE Paunci, HE Ustikolina, HE Goražde, HE renewable energy sources (wind and sun). analyses performed within Mrsovo, HE Dubravica, HE Tegare, HE Rogačica, HE the IPF Report, so they Kozluk, HE Drina I, HE Drina II, HE Drina III, HE The planned reservoirs are small in size cannot be commented on. Sutjeska i HE Vikoč. and do not ensure that the area of the Drina river can be protected from floods Ovaj treći scenario obezbjeđuje da se rijeka Drina and droughts, do not contribute to the energetski iskoristi, da se zaštiti od poplava i da se water supply of the population and omogući vodosnabrijevanje i navodnjavanje. Treći industry, do not ensure irrigation of larger scenario obezbjeđuje smanjenje uticaja klimatskih agricultural areas and cannot increase the promjena koje su prisutne. Jedini nedostatak ovog flows during the low water period on the scenarija je kao realizovati izgradnju ovih objekata Drina River. u kraćem vremenskom periodu, tj. kako obezbijediti velika investiciona sredstva. In the third scenario, the priority projects for the construction are HPP Buk Bijela- Veliki nedostatak svih ovih scenarija što low, HPP Foča, HPP Paunci, HPP konsultanti nisu uvrstili RHE Buk Bijela, koja ima Ustikolina, HPP Goražde, HPP Mrsovo, instalisanu snagu od 600 MW i čija zapremina je HPP Dubravica, HPP Tegare, HPP 100 miliona m3 vode. Sa ovom planiranom Rogačica, HPP Kozluk, HPP Drina I, HPP hidroelektranom mogu se akumulirati prelivne Drina II, HPP Drina III, HPP Sutjeska and vode zapremine 100 mil. m3 vode, koje se u HPP Vikoč. malovodnom periodu mogu ispuštati rijekom Drinom. Da bi se malo pojasnilo u malovodnom This third scenario provides for the Drina periodu iz akumulacije RHE Buk Bijela mogu se River to be used in terms of energy oplemeniti male vode rijeke Drine sa npr. 60 m3/s potential, to be protected against floods
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 44
i da to oplemenjivanje traje oko 20 dana. and to provide water supply and Napominjemo da su u tom periodu male vode na irrigation. The third scenario provides gornjem toku rijeke Drine su 50 m3/s, s tim da bi resilience to climate change that is se dobila nova količina električne energije na rijeci present. The only drawback of this Drini u količini od oko 90 GWh godišnje, tj. kao što scenario is how to implement the je proizvodnja planirane HE Sutjeska, ali bez construction of these facilities in a shorter dodatnih investicionih ulaganja. period of time, i.e. how to provide large investment funds. Takođe ova reverzibilna hidroelektrana mogla bi da obezbijedi smanjenje velikih voda u količini od The great lack of all these scenarios was 80 m3/s, što može da smanji štete od poplava. that the consultants did not include RHPP Buk Bijela, which has installed capacity of Prijedlog za analizu dodatnog scenarija, izgradnja 600 MW and volume of which is 100 5 hidroelektrana koje rješavaju probleme million m3 of water. With this planned vodoprivrede i elektroenergetike hydro power plant, 100m m3 of flooding water can be accumulated and discharged Kao podloge za ovaj scenario analizirali smo štete from the River Drina during the low-water od poplava, štete od suša, potrebe za periods. For the sake of explanation, in vodosnabdijevanjem i navodnjavanjem, kao i the low water periods, the RHPP Buk sigurnim snabdijevanjem električnom energijom i Bijela reservoir can provide recharge of većim učešćem obnovljih izvora energije u small waters of the Drina river with, for Republici Srpskoj. Realizacijom ovog scenarija example, 60 m3/s, with recharging of značajno će se smanjenjiti negativni uticaji about 20 days. It should be noted that in klimatskih promjena na području slivа rijeke Drine such periods, low waters on the upper u Republici Srpskoj. Drina River amount to 50 m3/s, so as to Da bi konsultanti definisali scenario koji bi u obtain a new amount of electricity on the najvećoj mjeri ispunio očekivanja vodoprivrede Drina River of about 90 GWh per year, potrebno je analizirati poplave koje su se desile u such is generation of HPP Sutjeska, but proteklom periodu, kao i štete od poplava. without additional investment costs.
Na narednim slikama prikazana su područja koja su Also, this reversible hydro power plant
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 45
izložena poplavama, i može se zaključiti da je could provide a reduction of large područje donjeg toka rijeke Drine, najviše izloženo amounts of water of 80 m3/s, which could poplavama. Kroz istorijski period od 120 godina reduce flood damage. ovo područje je plavljeno 10 puta. Štete od poplava na ovom području u periodu 2010.-2014. Proposal for analysis of additional godina iznosile su oko 180 miliona EURA. scenarios, construction of 5 hydro power plants that would resolve problems of Ako se zna da na području grada Bijeljina živi 114 water management and electricity 663 stanovnika i na području grada Zvornika 63 686 stanovnika onda se mora tražiti rješenje kako As a basis for this scenario, we have to područje zaštiti od poplava. analysed damage from floods and droughts, water supply and irrigation Na ovom području su planirane HE Drina I i HE needs, as well as safe electricity supply Drina II, koje sa svojim tehničkim rješenjem, tj. čije and increased share of renewable energy akumulacije se nalaze između nasipa mogu da sources in the Republic of Srpska. The obezbijede zaštitu ovog područja od implementation of this scenario will hiljadugodišnjih velikih voda. significantly reduce negative effects of climate change in the Drina River Basin in the Republic of Srpska. In order to enable the consultants to define a scenario that would meet the greatest expectations of water management, it is necessary to analyse floods that have occurred in the past period, as well as damages they caused. The following illustrations show the areas exposed to floods, and it can be concluded that the area of the lower Drina river flow is mostly exposed to floods. Throughout the historical period of 120 years this area has been flooded 10
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 46
times. Damage from floods in this area in the period 2010-2014 amounted to about EUR 180 million.
If it is known that there are 114,663 inhabitants in the area of Bijeljina and 63,686 inhabitants in the area of Zvornik, then the solution must be sought on how to protect these areas against floods.
In this area, the HPP Drina I and HPP Drina II are planned, which, with their technical solutions, i.e. reservoirs of which are located between the embankments, can provide protection of this area from thousand-year large waters. Pored poplava potrebno bi bilo da konsultant In addition to damages caused by floods, analizira i štete od suša koje su se desile u the consultant should also analyse those proteklom periodu. caused by droughts which have occurred in the past period. U periodu od 1981. godine primijećena je In the period from 1981, increased povećana klimatska promjenjivost tokom svih climate variability has been observed in godišnjih doba i na cijeloj teritoriji BiH/RS. Na all seasons and throughout the territory The effects of the historical Efekti suša su sada opisani u primjer, uočen je trend brzih promjena iz of BiH / RS. For example, a trend of rapid droughts are now discussed in izveštaju. ekstremno vrelih ili hladnih perioda, koji obično changes from extremely hot or cold the report. traju od 5 do 20 dana, i periode intenzivnih kišnih periods, which usually last between 5 and padavina. Suše su također bile češće i intenzivnije 20 days, and periods of intense rainfall, tokom proteklih desetak godina: od 2000. godine has been observed. Drought has also je zabilježeno 5 sušnih godina (2000, 2003, 2007, been more frequent and more intense 2011. i 2012. godina). over the past ten years: since 2000, 5 drought years have been recorded (2000,
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 47
Usprkos izobilju vodnih resursa zemlje, 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2012). infrastruktura navodnjavanja je veoma ograničena. In spite of the abundance of water Na primjer, navodnjava se samo 0,65% obradivog resources in the country, irrigation zemljišta (i prije rata taj procenat je bio nizak, infrastructure is very limited. For samo 1,0% ali je izrazito smanjen zbog šteta example, only 0.65% of arable land is nastalih tokom rata, miniranog zemljišta i irrigated (before the war, this percentage nedovoljnog održavanja). was low, only 1.0%, but it was significantly reduced due to damages Godina 2012. je predstavljala četvrtu uzastopnu caused during the war, mine fields and godinu tokom koje je poljoprivreda trpjela insufficient maintenance). značajne gubitke zbog loših vremenskih uslova. The year of 2012 was the fourth Procijenjeno je da su suša i visoke temperature successive year in which agriculture tokom ljeta 2012. godine BiH/RS koštale približno suffered significant losses due to bad 1 milijardu američkih dolara u izgubljenoj weather conditions. It was estimated that poljoprivrednoj proizvodnji, kao i da su uništile drought and high temperatures during gotovo 70% povrća i kukuruza. the summer of 2012, cost BiH/RS about USD 1 billion in lost agricultural Ako se analiziraju štete od suša na području gdje production, and that they destroyed su planirane HE Drina I i HE Drina II, može se almost 70% of vegetables and maize. analizirati područje Zvornika koji ima 15 919 ha If the damage caused by droughts is oraničnih površina i Bijeljine koja ima 49 999 ha investigated in the area where the Drina I oraničnih površina. and HPP Drina II HPP are planned, the area of Zvornik with 15,919 ha of arable land and Bijeljina with 49 999 ha of arable land can also be analysed. Pored vodoprivrede konsultanti bi trebali da prate In addition to water management, the Predmet ovog projekta je Subject of this Project is principe elektroenergetike zapadnih zemalja, tj. da consultants should follow the principles of «PODRŠKA UPRAVLJANJU “SUPPORT TO WATER se grade reverzibilne hidroelektrane koje će energy sectors in western countries, VODNIM RESURSIMA U RESOURCES
omogućiti gradnju drugih obnovljivih izvora which include construction of reversible SLIVU REKE DRINE». MANAGEMENT IN THE energije (vjetroelektrane i solarne hidroelektrane). HPPs which will enable construction of Obzirom da ne pripadaju DRINA RIVER BASIN”. other RES facilities (wind farms and solar vodnim reusrimsa, analize Since they do not belong to
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 48
Ako se analizira potreba za električnom energijom HPPs). vetroelektrana i solarnih water resources u Republici Srpskoj, može se zaključiti da će If the need for electricity in the Republic elektrana su izvan obima i management, analyses of potreba za enegijom u narednom periodu biti sve of Srpska is analysed, it can be concluded predmeta ovog projekta. wind and solar power izraženija. Poslijednjih dvadeset pet godina sa that the need for energy in the coming plants are beyond the područja Republike Srpske se izvozi električna period will be even greater. Over the past Stanje proizvodnje i scope of this Project. enerija, a glavni uzrok je smanjenje potrošnje twenty-five years, electricity is exported potrošnje u elektro energije u industrijskim postrojenjima u odnosu na from the Republic of Srpska, and the main energetskom sektoru BiH The state of production period do 1992. godine. reason is reduction of energy (RS) prikazano je u okviru and consumption in consumption in industrial facilities IWRM CR (Poglavlje 8). electricity power sector of compared to the period before 1992. BiH (RS) has been presented in the IWRM CR (Chapter 8). Najbolje bi bilo kada bi se izgradile sve planirane The best solution would be to construct Optimalni scenario definisan The optimal scenario is hidroelektrane na slivu rijeke Drine, međutim to je all planned hydro power plants in the je na osnovu rezultata defined based on results teško očekivati, tako da predlažemo da konsultant DRB, but this is hard to expect, so we dobijenih obtained by multi-criteria analizira varijantu gdje bi se izradilo 5 propose that the consultant analyse the multrikriterijumskom analyses (MCA). hidroelektrana koje imaju veliku snagu, značajnu variant with construction of 5 hydro analizom (MCA). proizvodnju i velike zapremine akumulacija. power plants of greater power, significant The response to this generation and great reservoir volumes. Odgovor na ovaj komentar comment is contained To su HE Buk Bijela, RHE Buk Bijela, HE Foča, HE These are HPP Buk Bijela, RHPP Foča, HPP sadržan je u gornjim within the above answers. Drina I i Drina II. Sa ovim planiranim objektima Drina I and Drina II. With these planned odgovorima. obezbijedili bi se najbolji vodoprivredni efekti, a sa facilities, best water management effects The recommended najmanjom visinom investicija. Planirani objekti na would be ensured, with lowest development scenario for donjem toku rijeke Drine su objekti za koje bi investments. The facilities planned for the U okviru Krovnog izveštaja, the whole basin, which will trebalo da je zainteresovana i Republika Srbija, jer lower flow of the Drina are those which daće se predlog razvojnog include all HPPs from značajno umanjuje klimatske promjene i na tom should be interesting for the Republic of sceranija za ceo sliv koji će scenarios, defined as području R.Srbije. Serbia, since they significantly mitigate obuhvattiti hidroelektrane iz optimal in individual climate change in that area of the scenarija koji su se pokazai countries, will be Izgradnjom pet planiranih hidroelektrana Republic of Serbia. kao optimalni u zemljama presented within the Roof eliminisat će se poplave na području donje Drine, Construction of five planned HPPs will posebno. Report. gradovi u Republici Srpskoj, Bijeljina i Zvornik, gdje eliminate floods in the area of lower
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 49
živi oko 180 000 stanovnika, a koji su u Drina, cities in the Republic of Srpska, dosadašnjem periodu bili najugroženiji na slivu Bijeljina and Zvornik with around 180,000 rijeke Drine. Na području donjeg toka rijeke Drine inhabitants, which were most affected in izgradile bi se akumulacije zapremine 205 miliona the previous period in the DRB. In the m3 vode i iz tih akumulacija moći će da se lower course of the Drina River, reservoirs obezbijedi vodosnabdijevanje i navodnjavanje na of 205 million m3 water would be tom području. constructed, which could ensure water supply and irrigation in that area. Na području gornje Drine izgradile bi se tri In the upper Drina region, three HPPs of hidroelektrane sa velikom snagom, i to područje bi great power would be constructed, and bilo energetski značajno ne samo za Republiku that area would be important in terms of Srpsku već i za region. Sa zapreminama energy not only for the Republic of akumulacija od 123,4 miliona m3, ti objekti mogu Srpska, but for the region as well. With da utiču na smanjenje poplava i na reservoirs if 123.4 million m3, those oplemenjavanju malih voda duž cijelog toka rijeke facilities can affect reduction of floods Drine. and recharge of low waters along the entire flow of the Drina river.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 50
Table 3-2: Resolution of received comments for reports in Montenegro consultation, July 2017 Naziv institucije i Odgovor/Preduzeti koraci Odgovor/Preduzeti koraci osobe / Komentari na lokalnom jeziku / Komentari na engleskom jeziku / na lokalnom jeziku / na engleskom jeziku / Name of Details of the Comments made in local Comments in English Response/ Action Taken In Response / Action Taken Institution local in English and Reviewer Comments received Zapisnik sa sastanka Minutes of meeting during presentation Omar Basic from the Sport Objections regarding the data on fishing and fishing Species names will be Primedbe u vezi sa podacima o ribarenju i vrstama and species listed in the part of the Nazivi vrsta će se ažurirati association updated according to the sa liste iz dela dokumenta koji se odnosi na Crnu documented related to Montenegro, prema komentarima u from comment in the local Goru, naročito u vezi sa regionom Plava. especially from in relation to the Plav lokalnoj verziji izveštaja Municiaplity version of the report region. Plav - "Plavsko jezero The documents do not mention „aquatic U dokumentima se ne spominje “vodno soil/beach soil“, and it is necessary to This issue has a different Omar Basic zemljište/obalno zemljište”, i smatra da je process the information about the Ovo pitanje je na različite treatment in legal from the Sport potrebno obraditi informacije o njegovom existence of such soil and contribution to načine rešavano u regulation of the countries and fishing postojanju i doprinosu zaštiti. Da li je obrađeno the protection. Is the issue of aquatic soil zakonodavstvima zemalja u inthe basin; in practice its association pitanje vodnog zemljišta u Izvještaju? Takođe je addressed in the Report? It is also stated slivu, a u praksi se pokazalo treatment proved to be from naveo da po crnogorskom zakonodavstvu, vodno that according to Montenegrin legislation, kao izuzetno složeno. extremely complex. The Municiaplity zemljište se smtra ono do 8-15 m od najvećeg aquatic soil is deemed the one of up to 8- Konsultant nije imao uslove Consultant did not have Plav - "Plavsko vodostaja. U praksi se, navodi g-din Bašić, to 15m from the highest water level. In da se ovim pitanjem proper conditions to jezero zemljište kategoriše kao poljoprivredno, a practice, as Mr. Bašić said, such soil is detaljnije bavi. analyze this in more detail. poljoprivredno lako pređe u građevinsko. categorised as agricultural land, and agricultural land is easily converted into
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 51
construction land. Other comments Milija KOMENTARI NA IZVJEŠTAJE - MONTENEGRO – Čebarkapa, INVESTMENT PRIORITISATION FRAMEWORK i Comments to the report NGO Green MONTENEGRO – IWRM STUDY AND PLAN Home U tački 3.4.6. (IPF izvještaj) i 8.3 (IWRM izvještaj) Item 3.4.6. (IPF Report) and 8.3. (IWRM Izbor elektrana za dalje The HPP selection for je navedeno na teritoriji Crne Gore postoji samo Report) read that there are only several analize bile su uradjene na further analyses have been nekoliko mHE kao šti su “Glava Zete” i “Slap Zete” . SHPP, such as „Glava Zete“ and „Slap osnovu kriterijuma koji je performed based on Čitajući dio teksta u ovim tačkama može se Zete“. Reading the part of the text, it can usvojen tokom uvodne faze criteria adopted during the zaključiti da ne postoji nijedna mHE u slivu rijeke be concluded that there is no any SHPP in projekta i predstavljen u inception phase and Drine a koje se nalazi na teritoriji Crne Gore. Montenegrin part of the Drina River „Uvodnom izveštaju“- presented in the Inception Međutim osim pomenutih mHE u Crnoj Gori Basin. However, beside the mentioned podpoglavlje 5.3.1. (cita se Report – Subsection 5.3.1. postoje i sljedeće a čije prepoznavanje ovim SHPP in Montenegro, there are several sledeća paragraf).: (the following paragraph is izvještajima je od značaja: Podgor (0,4 MW), Rijeka more, recognition of which in these „Analiziraće se MHE koje su quoted): “Analyses will be Crnojevića (0,5 MW), Šavnik (0,2 MW), Rijeka reports is important: Podgor (0.4 MW), locirane na reci Drini i njenim performed for the SHPPs Mušovića (1,3 MW), Lijeva rijeka (0,05 MW), Rijeka Crnojevića (0.5 MW), Šavnik (0.2 glavnim pritokama kao što su located on the Drina River Jezerštica (0,84 MW), Bistrica (5.1 MW), Orah MW), Rijeka Mušovića (1.3 MW), Lijeva Piva, Tara, Lim; Ćehotina i and its main tributaries, 1. (1.17 MW), Rmuš (0,48 MW), Spaljevići 1 (0,61 Rijeka (0.05 MW), Jezerštica (0.84 MW), Sutjeska, Minimalna snaga za such as Piva River, Tara MW), Vrelo (0,5 MW), Rijeka Bradavec (0,95 MW) i Bistrica (5.1 MW), Orah (1.17 MW), Rmuš svaku MHE koja će se River, Lim River, Ćehotina Šekular (1,6 MW). Sve od navedenih mHE nalaze (0.48 MW), Spaljevići 1 (0.61 MW), Vrelo analizirati biće 2 MW i MHE River and Sutjeska River. A se u fazi eksploatacije osim male mHE Lijeva rijeka (0.5 MW), Rijeka Bradavec (0.95 MW) and ispod te granice neće se minimum power rating of 2 koja prema poslednjoj infromaciji nije u funkciji. Šekular (1.6 MW). All the afore listed analizirati.“ MW for each SHPP will be NVO Green Home od 2015. godine sporovodi SHPP are in exploitation, except for SHPP Osim što je naveden u considered, i.e. the powers kontinuirani monitoring planiranja, izgradnje i Lijeva Rijeka, which is not in function Uvodnom izveštaju, ovaj below this limit will not be eksploatacije mHE u Crnoj Gori. U prilogu according to latest information. NGO kriterijum je bio prezentovan reviewed.” dostvaljamo tabelarni prikaz ažuriranog statusa Green Home has been conducting na svimm sastancima Except as stated in the mHE po tenderskim procedurama i energetskim continual monitoring for planning, održanim povodom Drina Inception Report, these dozvolama iz kojeg se jasno može vidjeti koje mHE construction and exploitation of SHPP in rpojekta do danas, bez criteria have been pripadaju slivu Drine. Montenegro. Please find attached hereto ikakvih komentara od strane presented at all meeting
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 52
the table of updated status of SHPP zainteresovanih strana. held on the occasion of the according to tender procedures and Kriterijum je tako usvojen jer Drina Project so far, energy permits, which enable clear ne bi bilo izvodljivo na isti without comments from overview of SHPP belonging to the Drina način ravnopravno analizirati the stakeholders. River Basin. HE od 168 MW (HE The criterion was adopted Komarnica) i neku MHE because it would not be snage 0,05 MW. feasible to analyze the HPP Ukoliko pogladamo listu of 168 MW (Komarnica MHE navedenu u HPP) and some SHPP of komentarima lako se može 0.05 MW in the same way primetiti da ni jedna od tih and equally. MHE ne zadovoljava uslove If we take a look at the list definisane navedenom of SHPPs mentioned in the rečenicom. comments, it is easy to Isto važi i za MHE notice that none of these predsdtavljene u tabeli koja SHPPs fulfill the conditions prati komentare. defined by this sentence. Potrebno je napomenuti da The same holds true for the je glavni cij ovog projekta SHPPs presented in the strategija upravljanja table that accompanies the vodama u slivu reke Drine a comments. ne katastar MHE u okviru It should be noted that the sliva. main goal of this project strategy in water management within Drina River catchment area but not the cadastre of the SHPPs in the basin. U tački 8.13 (IWRM izvještaj) su prikazane mHE na In item 8.13 (IWRM report), SHPPs were Ukoliko se u okviru If within the tender 2. osnovu sprovedene samo dvije tenderske presented based on only two tenderskih procedura nalaze procedures there are procedure. Za neke od navedenih mHE Ugovori o implemented tender procedures. For MHE koje zadovoljavaju gore SHPPs that meet the above
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 53
koncesiji raskinuti kao npr. za mHE Grlja tako da some of the mentioned SHPPs, navedene kriterijume criteria, please send us prezentovani podaci nijesu više validini. Naime, u concession contracts have been molimo Vas da nam technical data on these Crnoj Gori od 2007. godine pa do danas terminated, for example, for SHPP Grlja, pošaljete tehničke podatake SHPPs (precise location, sprovedeno je VI tenderskih procedura. Na osnovu which means that provided data is no o tim MHE (precizno lokaciju, type of SHPP – dams or tenderskih procedura i procedure dodjele longer valid. In fact, 6 tender procedures tip MHE, - pribranka ili derivation, installed koncesije putem energetske dozvole odobreno je have been implemented in Montenegro derivaciona, instalisani discharge and power, total 59 projekata mHE ukupno instalisane snage 101 since 2007. Based on the tender proticaj i snagu, ukupan i and net head...). Also, it MW i planiranje proizvodnje 327 GWh. procedures and the procedure for neto pad....). Takodje bilo bi would be useful to us if you awarding the concession through energy korisno ako bi nam poslali i could send us the dates of permits, 59 SHPP projects of total datume objave navedenih 6 publication for all 6 installed power of 101 MW and tendera. tenders. production planning 327 GWh were approved. Izvještajima je neophodno detaljnije prezentovati The reports should present in more trenutnu problematiku koja postoji kod details the current bottlenecks related to sprovodjenja EIA i SEA odnosno primjene mjera za implementation of EIA and SEA, i.e. sprečavanje, ublažavanje i otklanjanje negativnih application of measures for prevention, uticaja (naročito kod EIA), a uzimajući u obzir mitigation and remediation of negative Basically, we have važnost ovih instrumenata za zaštitu životne effects (especially for SEA), while taking U osnovi smo razmatrali ova generally considered these sredine. Naime, na sprovođenje postupka procjene into account the importance of these pitanja. Glavna pitanja issues. uticaja negativno se reflektuju opšti problemi u environmental protection instruments. In integrisana su u IWRM i IPF The main issues have been radu javne uprave kao što su nedovoljna fact, implementation of environmental izveštaje. Oni se neće integrated in the IWRM 3. transparentnost u donošenju odluka, slaba impact assessment is negative reflected menjati u IFP izveštaju. Ova and IPF reports. They will međusektorska koordinacija i nedovoljna by general problems in work of public pitanja će biti istaknuta u not be modified in the IFP harmonizacija sektorskih politika. Nedovoljni administration, such as insufficient završnom (krovnom) report. The issues will be kapaciteti javne uprave i nedostatak političke transparency in decision-making izveštaju na nivou sliva. emphasis in the roof report podrške organima nadležnim za poslove životne processes, poor inter-sectoral at the basin scale. sredine (da u punom obimu sprovode svoj cooperation and insufficient mandat) je takođe jedna od slabosti koja je bitno harmonisation of sector policies. uticala na kvalitet rezultata u procjenama uticaja i Insufficient capacities in public slabljenje njihove uloge u očuvanju životne sredine administration and lack of political
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 54
i postizanju održivog razvoja. Kao posebna slabost support to authorities competent for može se izdvojiti i nezadovoljavajuća primjena environmental protection (to implement rezultata procjene uticaja – kako zbog nepotpunog their mandate to the full extent) is also tretmana u propisima i nedovoljne uvezanosti one of weaknesses which have (posebno kod strateške procjene) u sistem significantly affected quality of results in izdavanja dozvola i odborenja, tako i zbog environmental impact assessment and nedovoljnih kapaciteta inspekcije. Jedna od glavnih weakening of their role in conservation of slabosti procjena uticaja vezana je za slabe baze the environment and achievement of podataka ali i pojavu nedostavljanja svih sustainable development. As a specific raspoloživih podataka – zbog inercije, ili weakness, we can mention unsatisfactory motivisanu nastojanjem da se za organizaciju koja application of EIA results – both for the raspolaže podacima ili pojedince u njoj pribavi reason of insufficient addressing thereof dodatna korist kroz procese procjena uticaja. in regulations and insufficient linkages Nedostatak podataka posebno je izražen kod (especially in case of SEA) in permitting procjene uticaja na biodiverzitet, vode, pejzaž i za and approval systems, and for insufficient klimatske promjene. Kod EIA postoje primjeri da se inspection capacities. One of the main terenska istraživanja potrebna za valjanu procjenu weaknesses of EIA is related to poor uticaja odlažu za kasniju fazu (po izdavanju databases, but also to the phenomenon dozvole). of failing to submit all available data – due Obrazloženje je naknadno u komentaru. to inertia or because of motivation to tend to acquire additional benefits for the organisations or individuals possessing the data through EIA processes. Lack of data is specifically expressed in biodiversity impact assessment, as well as for waters, landscape and climate change. In EIA there are examples that tender researches necessary for proper impact assessment are postponed for later stage (upon the issuance of permit). Rationale provided later in the comment.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 55
In item 3.13.3 (IPF Report) differences between SEA and EIA are listed, but it was necessary to recognise the following U tački 3.13.3 (IPF Izvještaj) se navode razlike difference, in addition to the recognised između SEA i EIA, pored navedenih potrebno je ones: prepoznati i sljedeću razliku: • Solutions in the Law on Strategic • Rješenja u Zakonu o strateškoj procjenu Environmental Impact Assessment uticaja ne obavezuju na detaljan i do not oblige on detailed and konsultativan scoping tako da se obim i consultative scoping, so that size sadržaj izvještaja o strateškoj procjeni and scope of the report on SEA are često utvrđuju u skladu sa zakonskim often determined in accordance minimumom (nerijetko pukim with legal minimum (quite often by Tekst će se ažurirati shodno The text will be updated 4. prepisivanjem odredbi relevantnog člana mere rewriting of provisions komentaru. according to the comment. Zakona). Zakon nema odredbi koje referred to in relevant article of the eksplicitno zahtijevaju konsultacije u ovoj law). The Low does not have any fazi kao što je slučaj kod Direktive provisions requiring explicitly the 2001/42/EC (koja predviđa obavezu consultations at this stage, as is the konsultovanja zainteresovanih organa i case with Directive 2001/42/EC organizacija) dok kod procjene uticaja EIA (stipulating the obligation of je Zakonom definisana obaveza consulting with interested konsultovanja zainteresovanih organa i authorities and organisations), while organizacija u scooping fazi. in case of EIA, the Law defines the obligation of consulting with interested authorities and organisations in the scoping stage. U tački 3.13.8. (IPF Izvještaj) date su preporuke za In item 3.13.8. (IPF Report), Ovde date preporuke odnose The recommendations unapređenje procesa SEA, međutim preporuke je recommendations were made for the se na zakonodavstvo, i idu proposed here concerned potrebno proširiti i dodati sljedeće: improvement of SEA process. However, dalje od teme ovog legislation and they go 5. • Potrebno je poboljšanje (u smislu jasnoće i these recommendations should be poglavlja. One neće biti beyond the subject of this preciznosti) Zakona o strateškoj procjeni, extended to add the following: uključene u IFP izveštaj. U chapter. They will not be proširenje odredbi o konsultacijama i • Improvement is needed (in terms of finalnom izveštaju, integrated in the IFP
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 56
učešću javnost u scoping fazi, preciziranje clarity and accuracy) of the Law on specifične preporuke o report. In the roof report, funkcije koju konsultacije imaju u SEA, extension of provisions on jačanju propisa na nivou sliva specific recommendations donošenju odluke o nepreduzimanju SPU consultations and public participation će bit istaknute. on the strengthening of the kao i činjenice da one mogu/ treba da at scoping stage, specifying in details law at the basin scale will doprinesu izmjenama SPU i plana/ the functions these consultations be emphasised. programa, te propisivanje mogućnosti have when decision is made not to go ponovljenih konsultacija za planove/ into the SEA, as well as the fact that programe koji pretrpe značajne izmjene. they can/should contribute to • Potrebno je definisati obavezu (moguće modifications of SEA and of the podzakonskim aktom) pripreme plan/programme undergoing projektnog zadatka za SPU (ili je makar significant changes. promovisati kao primjer dobre prakse). • It is necessary to define the • Takođe je potrebno eksplicitno obavezati obligation (possibly through a bylaw) nadležni organ za pripremu plana ili of preparing the terms of reference programa da prije usvajanja uzme u obzir for SEA (or at least promote it as a SPU i rezultate konsultacija. Može se good example). razmotriti da se zakonom o strateškoj • It is also necessary to oblige explicitly procjeni i/ ili zakonom o uređenju prostora the authority competent for (ili pak relevantnim podzakonskim aktima) preparing the plan or programme to ustanovi obaveza integracije mjera iz take into account SEA and results of izvještaja o strateškoj procjeni pri consultations before adopting the izdavanju urbanističko-tehničkih uslova. plan or programme. It can be • Odredbe koje se odnose na dostupnost considered that law on SEA and/or podataka o SPU treba unaprijediti da se law on landscaping (or relevant olakša praćenje primjene SPU bylaws) should impose the obligation zainteresovanim stranama po okončanju to integrate measures from SEA samog procesa (moguće kroz report into the process of issuance of uspostavljanje obaveze da se vodi javna urban planning-technical conditions. evidencija slična onoj koja je na snazi kod • Provisions pertaining to availability of PU). data on SEA should be improved so • Oblasti primjene SPU treba proširiti na as to facilitate monitoring of SEA
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 57
koncesiona akta i planove. application for stakeholders upon the • Obaveza monitoringa kod SPU treba da completion of the process (it is bude jasnije definisana. Za bolju primjenu possible to do that by imposing an rezultata SPU potrebno je specificiranje obligation to maintain public records uloge inspekcijskog nadzora i mjera koje similar to the one maintained for inspekcija može izreću u slučaju EIA). nesprovođenja svih mjera utvrđenih • Areas for application of SEA should izvještajem o SPU na koji je data be extended to concession saglasnost. documents and plans. • Monitoring as an obligation in SEA should be more clearly defined. In order to apply better the results of SEA, it is necessary to specify the role of enforcement units and measures they can pronounce in case that relevant entity fails to apply all measures defined in the SEA Report which had been approved.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 58
Table 3-3: Resolution of received comments for reports in Serbia consultation, July 2017 Naziv institucije i Odgovor/Preduzeti koraci Odgovor/Preduzeti koraci osobe / Komentari na lokalnom jeziku / Komentari na engleskom jeziku / na lokalnom jeziku / na engleskom jeziku / Name of Details of the Comments made in local Comments in English Response/ Action Taken In Response / Action Taken Institution local in English and Reviewer Comments received Zapisnik sa sastanka Minutes of meeting during presentation Finalni izveštaj: Treba dodati upravljanje Roof report: Land management should be Ratko Bajčetić, zemljištem, na primer erozijom. Procesi erozije added, for example erosion. Erosion Ovo pitanje treba da bude This issue has to be representative narušavaju strukturu zemljišta. Primena samo processes impair the soil structure. Only razmotreno u nekom od considered in the projects from “Vode strukturih mera nije dovoljna za rešavanje ovog structural measures cannot solve the budućih projekata. following the present one. Vojvodine” problema, ali administrative zabrane bi mogle. problem but administrative bans could. The data that RHMS Material received by e-mail: Proposed Podaci koje je RHMZ submitted to the Slavimir Gradivo po e-mailu: Usvojen predlog broja, quantity, structure and sites for dostavio Konsultantu nakon Consultant following the Stevanović, sadržaja opreme i lokacija hidroloških i hydrological and meteorological stations javne prezentacije biće public presentation will be representative meteoroloških stanica na teritoriji Republike at the territory of the Republic of Serbia uključeni u IPF CR za Srbiju u included into the IPF CR for of RHMZ Srbije, HMZ RS. adopted. prilogu CR-u. Serbia in the Annex to the CR. Radisav Matić, Navedeni podatak se ne Cited data is not presented representative In the Roof Report page no. 38. and table Na strani 38, u tabeli 3.5 finalnog izveštaja, u delu nalazi u okviru Krovnog within the Roof Report. If of Drinsko- 3.5 where energy from the flow was koji se odnosni na proračun energije iz toka: ETA je Izveštaja. Ukoliko se nalazi u this data is presented Limske calculated: ETA is specified 100% but it iskazana kao 100%, a trebalo bi da bude 94%. okviru nekog drugog within some other Report, Hydropower should be 94%. izveštaja biće korigovan it will be corrected. Plants Radisav Matić, U WEAP modelu sliva Drine akumulacije „Piva“, The reservoirs with seasonal water Za potrebe modeliranja Modeling seasonal water representative „Uvac“ i „Kokin Brod“ treba tretirati kao redistribution like “Piva”, “Uvac” and akumulacija sa sezonskim redistribution in the of Drinsko- akumulacije sa sezonskim izravnavanjem, dok “Kokin Brod” should be treated izravnavanjem u programu reservoirs in WEAP can be
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 59
Limske „Potpeć“ može da se tretira kao protočna. Takođe, accordingly in the Drina water WEAP, neophodno je zadati achieved only if the energy Hydropower treba uključiti u model i RHE Bajina Bašta. management model in WEAP, while some potrebnu proizvodnju demand is specified for the Plants other dam-type HPPs like “ Potpeć” can energije. G. Matić je ove corresponding HPP. The be treated as run-off-river HPPs. The podatke dostavio posle energy demand data were pumped-storage HPP “ Bajina Bašta” javnih konsultacija i u made available by Mr. should also be included in the model. modelu su napravljene Matić and the model was odgovarajuće izmene. U amended accordingly. The model je takođe uključena i pumped-storage HPP RHE Bajina Bašta, koja se Bajina Bašta is also modelira na specifičan način included in the model in an jer WEAP nema mogućnost indirect way because PS da direktno modelira rad HPPs cannot be modelled neke RHE. U modelu se može in WEAP directly. The napraviti proračun bilansa water balance for two PS voda, ali ne i energije HPP reservoirs can be potrošene na pumpanje calculated, but the model tokom rada RHE u pumpnom cannot calculate the režimu. U model su takođe energy used for the unete i potrebe za energijom pumping regime of the PS za nekoliko HE u Republici HPP. The model was also Srpskoj kao i za RHE Buk extended to include energy Bijela na osnovu podataka demand for several dobijenih od Elektroprivrede reservoir-type HPPs in Republike Srpske. Republic of Srpska and the PS HPP Buk Bijela. This was done on the basis of data made available from the Elektroprivreda Republike Srpske. Dušan Skrećem pažnju da se ne favorizuje sektor Draw attention not to favour the energy I ako su nazivi scenarijia Even the scenarios names Dobričić, energetike. Svi scenariji su bitni, ali relevantnost sector. It is important in all scenarios, but formirani na bazi are defined on the basis of representative treba relativizovati. the relevance needs to be relativised. hidroenergetskih hydropower plants, energy
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 60
of Republic postrojenja, energetski sector is not favoured Directorate for sektor nije favorizovan u within the document. Water okviru dokumenta. Osim Besides energy, the energetike, u okviru svakog parameters cited in IPF CR scenarija analizirani su – Table 3-5 are analysed parametri koji su navedeni u within each scenario. okviru IPF CR – Tabela 3 – 5. The optimal scenario is Izbor optimalnog scnarija chosen based on uradjen je na osnovu multicriteria analyses of multikriterijumske analiize different parameters which različitih parametera, čija methodology is in detail metodologija je detaljno described within the IPF CR objašnjena u okviru IPF CR. – – Chapter 6. Poglavlje 6. Other comments WWF Adria, Comments written directly in IPF CR Komentari uneseni direktno u IPF CR Srbija Goran Sekulić Serbia 1. Konsultant se slaže. Riblji The Consultant agrees. Fish Izmeniti: ne postoje riblji ekositemi, već riblje Change: Fish ecosystems do not exist, ekosistemi se menjaju u ecosystem will be change zajednice ili populacije only fish communities or populations. riblje populacije u IPF in fish population in IPF izveštaju. report. 2. Konsultant se slaže da mora The Consultant agrees to Comment: Fish communities are surely biti prošireno. Tekst bi be more comprehensive. Komentar: riblje zajednice su svakako jedan od one of the most important aquatic trebalo promeniti u: „Kako je The text could be change najznačajnijih elemenata vodenih ekosistema, ali ecosystem elements, but other ones i dato u analizi u narednim in:” As it is analysed in the ne treba zanemaritid i druge: vodozemci, gmizavic, should not be neglected: amphibians, poglavljima, zaštita vodenih following chapters, the beskičmenjačka akvatična fauna, ali i ptice i sisari reptiles, invertebrate aquatic fauna, but ekosistema takođe uzima u aquatic ecosystem koju su načinom života vezani za akvatične also birds and mammals related to obzir rizike od gubitka protection also concerns ekosisteme.. aquatic ecosystems due to their way of vodenih staništa usled the risk of loss of aquatic living. ekoloških promena i habitats due to ecological narušavanja. To može da changes and disturbances.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 61
utiče ne samo na riblje It can impact not only the populacije, već i na vodenu fish populations but also vaskularnu floru, fito i zoo the , the aquatic vascular planktone, makro-vodene flora, phyto and zoo beskičmenjake, vodozemce i plankton, macro aquatic predstavnike koji su invertebrates, amphibians povezani sa vodenim and representatives staništima, kao što su ptice, connected to aquatic gmizavci i sisari.“ habitats from the groups such as birds, reptiles and mammals.” 3. Kako je objašnjeno u As explain in the IWM Izveštaju o integrisanom report and in the IPF Ovaj pregled je isključivo baziran na stanju ribljih This report is mainly based on the status upravljanju vodama, ekološki report, the ecological populacija i zanemaruje druge elemente faune i of fish populations, neglecting other status zasniva se na ribljim status is based on the fish flore pa u tom smislu ima ograničenu elements of flora and fauna, so in that zajednicama jer je to communities since it has primenljivost. sense, it is of limited applicability. utvrđeno kao pitanje od been determined as the ključnog značaja za Drinu i key issue of the Drina River pritoke. and tributaries. 4. Vidi komentar gore. See the above comment. Videti gornji odgovor. See the above response 5. The Consultant chooses to Konsultant bira da pomene only mention the key samo ključne tačke, znajući points knowing the za ograničenja limitation of institutional Monitoring should not be limited to fish institucionalnih i finansijskih and financial means. The Monitoring ne bi trebalo ograničiti samo na riblje species only. We propose to take into sredstava. Glavne preporuke main recommendations vrste. Predlažemo da se ovde uzmu u obzir uzmu account groups of organisms monitored moraju da budu realne u have to be realistic with grupe organizama koje se prate prema WFD pursuant to WFD. smislu prioriteta i the priority and the mogućnosti. Dodani possibility. Additional monitoring bi se mogao monitoring could be planirati na duže staze. planned in a more long- term scale.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 62
The minimal environmental Minimalni ekološki protok flow is not sufficient to nije dovoljan da garantuje guarantee the dynamic of dinamiku aluvijalnih alluvial ecosystems. For ekosistema. Za to treba that, artificial flood should 6. Dodati: i aluvijalnih ekosistema. Alluvial ecosystems, as well (to be added) implementirati veštačko be implemented. This plavljenje. Ovo bi trebalo da should be study in the bude deo procene uticaja na environmental assessment životnu sredinu, i da se study case by case. tretira od slučaja do slučaja.
7. The Consultant agrees. It Konsultant se slaže. Dodaje will be added in the text “... se tekst „...i staništa drugih Dodati: i staništa drugih akvatičnih i kopnenih vrsta Habitats of other aquatic and terrestrial and habitats of other vodenih i kopnenih vrsta (na (npr. ptice koje se gnezde na šljunčanim ostrvima i species (e.g. birds breeding on gravel aquatic and terrestrial primer: ptica koje se gnezde sprudovima). islands and beaches) (to be added) species (for example: birds na šljunčanim ostrvima i that breed on gravel sprudovima)“. islands and beaches)”. 8. We should foresee here the situations in Ovde treba predvideti i situacije u kojima dolazi do which there is abrupt increase in water Pitanja u vezi sa naglim The flushing issues do not naglog povećanja nivou vode na veštački način. levels provoked artificially. Such changes promenama vodostaja nisu concern this chapter. It will Takve promene mogu imati značajan negativan can have significant negative impact on predmet ovog poglavlja. not be modified. uticaj na kopnene vrste i staništa u aluvionu. terrestrial species and habitats in the Neće se menjati. alluvium. 9. Glavne značajne aluvijalne The main significant alluvial oblasti rijeke Drine odnosile areas of the Drina River Wet habitats in the alluvium should be su se na nizvodno dolinu. concerned the downstream Vlažna staništa u aluvionu treba posmatrati kao seen as natural catchment areas and One već doprinose slabom valley. They already prirodne retenzije i treba ih prepoznati i should be recognised and valued in the ublažavanju ozbiljnih contribute to weakly vrednovati u sistemu zaštite od poplava. flood protection system. događaja u poplavama. mitigate the severe flood Teško je procijeniti events. There volume of zapreminu rezervoara jer reservoir is difficult to
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 63
nisu dostupni popis, estimate since no census, mapiranje ili monitoring za mapping or monitoring are aluvijalna područja. Osim available for alluvial areas. toga, jedna je preporuka It is moreover one koju je Konsultant predložio recommendation that the u izveštajima IWRM. Consultant had proposed in the IWRM reports. 10. Konsultant može da doda The Consultant can add „Unapređenje šumarske “Improvement of forestry Improvement of forestry practice aimed Dodati: unapređenje šumarske prakse u cilju prakse u svrhu održivog practices for the purpose at sustainable use and protection of održivog korišćenja i zaštite šuma, širenje šumskih korišćenja i zaštite šuma i of sustainable use and forests, spreading of forest areas in površina u kritičnim/značajnim zonama. proširenja šumskih površina protection of forests and critical/significant zones (to be added) u kritičnim/značajnim expansion of forest areas in zonama“ critical / significant zones” 11. The Consultant agree and will add: “In the Drina River Konsultant se slaže i dodaje It is necessary to update information Basin in Serbia, there is one tekst: „U delu sliva Drine koji Potrebno je ažurirati podatke o zaštićenim about protected areas. In addition, it is area that is directly se nalazi u Srbiji, postoji područjima. Takođe, potrebno je uzeti u obzir necessary to take into account Serbian affected by the planned jedno područje koje je pod ekološku mrežu Srbije, koja je definisana Uredbom ecological network, defined by the projects, and it is an neposrednim uticajem o ekološkoj mreži (Sl. Glasnik RS, br. 102/2010). Regulation on ecological networks ecologically important area planiranih projekata, i to Ova obuhvata i područja od međunarodnog (Official Gazette of RS, no. 102/2010). It of "Donje Podrinje" (IBA). područje od ekološkog značaja (Important Bird Areas, Important Plant includes areas of international This area has not yet been značaja „Donje Podrinje“ Areas, Prime Butterfly Areas), koja predstavljaju importance (Important Bird Areas, placed under protection, (IBA). Ovo područje još nije potencijalna zaštićena područja u okviru buduće Important Plant Areas, Prime Butterfly but acceptability stavljeno pod zaštitu, ali se Natura 2000 ekološke mreže u Srbiji Areas), as potentially protected areas assessment for the za planiranje projekta u within future Natura 2000 ecological ecological network must be ovom području mora izvršiti network in Serbia. made for project planning procena prihvatljivosti.“ in this area.”
12. Područje ekološke mreže “Donje Podrinje” je pod Ecological network site „Donje Podrinje“ Pasus se menja i dodaje se The paragraph will be direktnim uticajem planiranih projekata. is under direct influence of planned ovaj podatak. change to add this
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 64
projects. information 13. The Consultant agrees and will modify the sentence Konsultant se slaže i accordingly, ”Investments izmeniće ovu rečenicu in the conservation of The sentence is not clear. Investments shodno komentaru, species and habitats Rečenica je nejasna. Ulaganja u zaštićena područja into protected areas are at least partially „Ulaganja u zaštitu vrsta i outside the protected su barem delom i ulaganja u biodiverzitet te se ne investments into biodiversity, so they staništa izvan zaštićenih areas in the part of the mogu potpuno odvojiti. Ovde se verovatno misli na cannot completely separated. The područja u delu sliva Drine Drina river basin that direktna ulaganja u zaštitu vrsta i staništa van reference here is probably made to direct koji pripada Srbiji veoma su belongs to Serbia are very zaštićenih područja. investments into the protection of species ograničena i gotovo limited and almost and habitats outside protected areas. zanemarljiva u poređenju sa negligible compared to ulaganjima u zaštićena investments in protected područja u slivu.“ areas within the basin. ”
14. Budget structures of NP Tara and SNR Struktura budžeta NP Tara i SRP Uvac se značajno Uvac differ significantly. NP Tara is razlikuje. NP Tara se sa preko 75% finansira iz financed from timber sale with more than The information will be Ovaj podatak će biti dodat. prodaje drveta, dok SRP Uvac nema šumskih 75%, while SNR Uvac does not have forest added resursa i izvori finansiranja su sasvim drugačiji. resources and financial sources are completely different. 15. It is not clear why example of Kostolac is Nije jasno zašto se ovde navodi primer Kostolca To nije predmet ovog This is not th esubject of mentioned here, since it is located koji je van sliva. projekta, koji se odnosi na the project that concerns outside the basin. Nije analizirana situacija u slivu vezano za podršku u upravljanju Support for water Wind and solar energy potentials have potencijal vetra i potencijal za solarnu energiju. vodama. management. not been analysed for the basin. 16. Improvement and revitalisation of natural This issue concerns only Dodati: unapređenje i revitalizacija prirodnih catchment areas (as measures for Ovo pitanje tiče se samo security and not retenzija (kao mera zaštite od poplava i mera protection against floods and measures bezbednosti, ne i životne environment. It will not be unapređenja životne sredine). for environmental improvement) (to be sredine. Neće se menjati. modified. added) 17. Dodati i eko i rualni turizam van zaštićenih Eco and rural tourism outside protected Konsultant će dodati razvoj The consultant will add
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 65
područja areas should be added. eko turizma. development of eco tourism. 18. One of the reasons for poor It is clear and it is the Jedan od razloga slabe realizacije je odustvo To je jasno, zato i postoji implementation is absence of integrated reason for actual project integralnog planiranja ovaj projekat. planning. existence. 19. Nista nije pomesano, Nothing is mixed; different Pregled dokumenata je nejasna pošto su Review of documents is not clear, since navedeni su razliciti documents are cited as an pomešane EU Direktive i preporuke. Takođe, EU directives and recommendations are dokumenti kao primer. example. Review of the nedostaju relevantni nacionalni dokumenti i mixed. In addition, relevant national Pregled relevantnih relevant national laws are zakoni. regulations and laws are also missing. nacionalnih zakona nalazi se presented in IWRM CR. u IWRM CR. 20. Termin "serijske MHE" ne The term "serial SHPP" Potrebno je naglasiti značaj analiziranja It is necessary to stress the importance of postoji u stručnoj does not exist in kumulativnog uticaja serijskih MHE. analysis of serial SHP cumulative impact. terminologiji. professional terminology 21. In these recommendations, the focus is It is clear what U ovim preporukama je focus na akumulacione HE Jasno je o cemu su on reservoir HP, so this should be recommendations are pa to treba i naglasiti. preporuke. emphasized. about. 22. U trenutnim uslovima Currently, only the valleys konsultant vidi jedinu of the Drina tributaries mogućnost za formiranje have some potential for prirodinh retenzija na creating natural retention pritokama reke Drine, s basins. The valley of the obzirom da je dolina glavnog main Drina course is The natural retentions (alluvial toka uska i mahom narrow and populated. The Potrebno je razmotriti značaj prirodnih retenizja ecosystems) should be considered for naseljena. Na najnizvodnijem most downstream part at (aluvijalnih ekosistema) u ublažavanju od poplava alleviating floods. delu u području Semberije i Semberija and Mačva is Mačve postoji linijska zaštita already protected with sa nasipima, gde je embankments, where predloženo kasetiranje zbog creating polders could efikasnije zaštite. U improve the protection branjenim područjima se against floods. The land uglavnom nalazi behind the embankments
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 66
poljoprivredno zemljište i is predominantly naselja, pa ne postoje agricultural, and therefore značajne mogućnosti za there is no significant formiranje prirodnih potential for creating retenzija. natural retentions. 23. Text will be adapted for Tekst će biti prilagođen za both positive and negative pozitivne i za negativne impacts. Added: “by Veštačko, naglo povećanje nivoa voda može imati Flushing can have negative effects (e.g. uticaje. Dodati: „kontrolom applying the appropriate negativan uticaj (npr. za kopnene vrste u for terrestrial species in reproductive naglih promena vodostaja“ i flushing control” and under reproduktivnom period). periods). pod „iznenadnim “sudden changes in water promenama nivoa vode“ level”
24. Konsultant se slaže da ovo The Consultant agrees that pitanje nije pod direktnim this issue is not directly due Nije jasno na koji način je ovo povezano sa It is not clear how this is related to uticajem izgradnje brana, već to the dam construction izgradnjom akumulacija construction of reservoirs. je bliže preporukama za but more related to the regulaciju zaštićenih recommendations for the područja. protected areas regulation. 25. There is no map of ecologically significant Nije predstavljena karta ekološki značajnih areas covered by the Regulation on područja u Srbiji koja su regulisana Uredbom o ecological network (Official Gazette of RS, Karta zaštićenih područja će The map of protected area ekološkoj mreži (Sl. Glasnik br. 102/2010). no. 102/2010). biti izmenjena. will be modified Ekološka mreža Srbije obuhvata i Emerald područja Ecological network of Serbia includes Emerald areas as well. 26. It is necessary to revise the map in Potrebno je revidirati mapu u skladu sa aktuelnoim accordance with current data (Institute Videti gore. See above podacima (Zavod za zaštitu prirode Srbije). for Nature Protection of Serbia) 27. Tekst će biti izmenjen u The text will be adapted Proveriti ove tvrdenj u odnosu na ekološku mrežu Check these statements with regard to skladu sa komentarom. IBA according to the comment. Srbije ecological network of Serbia. područja se mogu smatrati IBAs can be considered as planiranim zaštićenim the planned PAs
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 67
područjima. 28. Ova tabela daje opštu This table gives a global These impact assessments can Ove procene uticaja mogu značajno da variraju u procenu uticaja. Detalji o estimation of the impacts. considerably vary in terms of presence of odnosu na prisustvo specifičnih vrsta i staništa pa svakoj brani dati su u The details for each dam is specific species and habitats, so they ih treba uzeti sa rezervom aneksima. Tabela se neće given in the annex. The should be taken with reserve. menjati. table will not be changed. 29. As the large part of the Kako je veliki deo sliva već basin is already affected by pod uticajem naglih veštački flushing, further change izazvanih promena was not considered to be vodostaja, ne smatra se da influencing terrestrial dalje promene mogu uticati Nagle, veštačke promene nivoa voda mogu organisms on a large scale. Flushing can adversely affect populations u većoj meri na kopnene značajno negativno da utiču na populacije Of course, flushing effects of amphibians, reptiles and certain birds. organizme. Naravno, efekti vodozemaca, gmizavaca i određenih vrsta ptica have/will been/be judged naglih promena vodostaja more severely in the se/će se/su se više obrađivali impact assessment foran u procenama uticaja za individual dam scale. brane pojedinačno. Ova The table will not be tabela se neće menjati. changed. 30. Ecologically significant area Donje Ekološki značajno područje Donje Podrinje u Podrinje, pursuant to the Regulation on skladu sa Uredbom o ekološkoj mreži Srbije je u ecological network of Serbia is in the zone zoni direktnog uticaja. Isto kao i za 28. Same than 28. of direct impact. Ovo područje je i potencijalno Natura 2000 This area is also potential Natura 2000 područje. area. 31. Taking into account that lower Drina is a S obzirom da je donji tok Drine deo ekološke part of ecological network of Serbia, it is mreže Srbije potrebno je uraditi i ocenu Tekst se neće menjati jer je The Text will not be change necessary to develop an appropriate prihvatljivosti u skladu sa članom 10 Zakona o tačan. since it is correct. assessment pursuant to Article 10 of the zaštiti prirode Law on Nature Protection. 32. Neophodno je naglasisi da se sve ove mere moraju It is necessary to stress that these Tekst će se izmeniti: „Sve The text will be adapted as: raditi u skladu sa važećim propisima measures must be applied in compliance ove mere moraju se raditi u “All these measures must
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 68
with relevant regulations. skladu sa propisima“ be done in accordance with the regulations.” 33. The text will be adapted as: Tekst će se izmeniti: “Respecting the seasonal It is necessary to further harmonise the „Poštujući sezonsku Potrebno je dodati usklađivanje dinamike radova dynamics of strictly schedule of works with seasonal dynamics dinamiku strogo zaštićenih i sa sezonskom dinamikom vrsta (period protected and protected of species (reproduction periods, zaštićenih vrsta koje mogu reprodukcije, seobe is sl.) species that can be migrations, etc.) da budu pod uticajem affected by construction građevinskih radova“ work” 34. Tekst se će menjati: The text will be adapted as: Wočuvati postojeća i “Preserve the existing and revitalizovati oštećena i/ili revitalize damaged and/or degradirana aluvijalna degraded alluvial habitats staništa, kad god je to when possible” moguće“ Indeed, the environmental Dodati:očuvati i revitalizovati aluvijalna vlažna Add: Conserve and revitalise alluvial wet Procena uticaja na životnu impact study will evaluate (plavna) staništa (flooded) habitats. sredinu će zaista proceniti the balance between odnos između dostupne territorial space available, teritorije, ekoloških uslova i ecological conditions and troškova revitalizacije, i cost for this revitalization razmotriti moguće mere and see the possible kompenzacije. compensation measure. 35. Isto tako, tekst se menja: Same, the text will be Add: Revitalisation of autochthonic „...revitalizovati autohtona adapted as: “..Revitalize Dodati: revitalizacija autohtonih staništa habitats staništa kad god je to indigenous habitats when moguće“ possible” 36. Same, the text will be Isto, tekst se menja: adapted as: “.. revitalize „....revitalizovati oštećena Dodati: revitalizacija vlažnih staništa Add: Revitalisation of wet habitats damaged and / or depleted i/ili osiromašena aluvijalna alluvial habitats when staništa, kad je to moguće“ possible” 37. U većini slučajeva uključivanje javnosti i civilnog In majority of cases, inclusion of public Tekst se dopunjava i glasi: The text will be completed
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 69
sektora je pasivno, odnosno često podrazumeva and civil sector is passive, i.e. quite often „Stoga, pored informisanja as: „ Therefore, in addition samo obaveštavanje javnosti putem medija. Zbog it implies only provision of information javnosti kroz medije, a da bi to informing the public niskih kapaciteta civilnog sektora i relativno niske through media. Due to low capacities of se postigli predviđeni efekti through the media, in svesti o životnoj sredini, efektivne javne rasprave civil sector and relatively low javnih rasprava, savetuje se order to achieve the uglavnom izostaju, odnosno svode se na environmental awareness, effective izrađivačima studije da sami anticipated effects of a formalnost. Izrađivači studija bi morali da iniciraju public consultations are mainly missing, identifikuju zainteresovane public debate, it is komunikaciju sa zainteresovanim stranama, tj. da i.e. they are a mere formality. Study strane, pokrenu advisable that the identifikuju i motivišu glavne aktere u ovim developers should initiate communication komunikaciju sa njima, i executors of the study, procesima. with stakeholders, i.e. should identify and motivišu ih da doprinesu themselves, identify the motivate the main players in these kvalitetu studije kroz javnu main stakeholders, initiate processes. raspravu.“ communication with them and motivate them to contribute to the quality of the study through a public debate.” 38. The consultant will add an Konsultant će dodati additional Add: Improve quality of data used in the dodatnu preporuku: recommendation: Dodati: Unaprediti kvalitet podataka koji se koriste strategic environmental impact „Unaprediti kvalitet “Improve the quality of u procesu strateške procene uticaja. assessment. podataka u procesu data used in the strategic strateške procene uticaja“. impact assessment process.” 39. Tekst će biti promenjen The text will be changed Dodati: i ekosistema Add: and ecosystems prema komentaru. according to the comment. 40. Data and recommendations for U potpunosti nedostaju podaci i preporuke za biomonitoring is missing, and it could be Biodiversity monitoring is biomonitoring koji bi morao da bude saastavni deo Biomonitoring nije cilj ovog an integrated part of the monitoring not the aim of this chapter. Sistema monitoring za upravljanje vodama u slivu poglavlja. Neće se menjati. system for water management in the It will not be modified. Drine. Drina River Basin. 41. Kao referenti dokument treba uzeti Pravilnik o The Rulebook on proclamation and Biće dodata referenca na The reference of the proglašenju i zaštiti strogo zaštićenih i zaštićenih protection of strictly protected and ovaj doument. rulebook will be added. divljih vrsta biljaka, životinja i gljiva (Sl. Glasnik RS, protected species of wild plants, animals
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 70
br. 47/2011) and fungi (Official Gazette of RS, no. 47/2011) should be used as a reference document. 42. Text will be modified as: “Areas of conservation: Tekst će se menjati: Refers to the direct and „Područja za očuvanje: indirect impacts of odnosi se na direktne i These are ecologically significant areas in structural components on To su značajna ekološka područja u skladu sa indirektne uticaje strukturnih compliance with the Regulation on protected areas and Uredbom o ekološkoj mreži. komponenti na zaštićena i ecological network. ecologically significant ekološki značajna područja areas belonging to the koja pripadaju ekološkoj ecological network of mreži Srbije“ Serbia”
43. There are other relevant strategies not Psotoje i druge relevantne strategije koje ovde The consultant has mentioned here: National Strategy on Konsultant je pomenuo nisu pomenute: Nacionalna startegija održivog mentioned the main Sustainable Use of Natural Resources and glavne strategije. koriščenja prirodnih resursa i dobara, Strategija strategies. Goods, Strategy on Biodiversity, National Strategija o biodiverzitetu biološke raznovrsnosti, Nacionalna strategija The strategy of Biodiversity Environmental Approximation Strategy, može se dodati u tekst. aproksimacije i dr. can be added in the text. etc. 44. This process must imply active Ovaj proces mora da podrazumeva aktivno It will be added in the text involvement of civil sector, not only Dodaće se tekst: „aktivno uključivanje civilnog sektora, a ne samo pasivno “active public passive (publication of information about učešće javnosti“ (objavljivanje informacija o javnim raspravama). participation” public consultations) 45. Studies and assessments must be based Studije i procene se moraju bazirati na akutelnim i on current and quality data, so it is kvalitetnim podacima pa je neophodno dodati i necessary to add recommendations Videti donji odgovor. See response below preporuku koja se odnosi na unapređenje pertaining to the improvement of monitoringa (uključujući i biomonitoring). monitoring (including biomonitoring). 46. U analize i studije treba uvesti koncept Analyses and studies should include a Ove preporuke su veoma These recommendations ekosistemskih usluga. Procena vrednosti concept of ecosystem services. relevantne kada izvođač radi are very relevant when the ekosistemskih usluga i uticaj projekata na njih Assessment of value of ecosystem studiju procene uticaja na contractor will do the
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 71
treba da budu sastavni delovi analiza. services and impact of projects should be životnu sredinu. Međutim, environmental impact an integrated part of analyses. ovo poglavlje daje i glavne study. However, this preporuke za podršku u chapter gives the main upravljanju vodama, i ne ide recommendations for the toliko u detalje. Tekst se water management neće menjati. support and does not go in such details. The text will not be modified.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 72
Table 3-4: Resolution of received comments during meeting in Belgrade, December 2017 Naziv institucije Odgovor/Preduzeti koraci na Odgovor/Preduzeti koraci na i osobe / Komentari na lokalnom jeziku / Komentari na engleskom jeziku / lokalnom jeziku / engleskom jeziku / Name of Details of the Comments made Comments in English Response/ Action Taken In Response / Action Taken in Institution and in local local English Reviewer Vreme pripreme studije nije The time of development of Obzirom da je izrada Studije Considering that the preparation uticalo na dogovoreni sadržaj studies did not impact the trajala duži vremenski period u of the Study lasted for a longer isporučenih proizvoda. Svi agreed content of the kojem su analizirani razni period of time in which various detalji su usuglašeni i dati u deliverables. All detailed Numić aspekti definisani projektnim aspects of the project task were Početnom izvještaju agreements are given in the Irvina,dipl.ing zadatkom, a da je u tokom analyzed, and that during the dostavljenom u februaru 2015, Inception report, delivered in građ izrade dolazilo i do nekih development there were some koji je kasnije izmijenjen u aprilu February 2015 and later also JP promjena, predlažem da se u changes, I suggest that within the 2017. u nekim delovima na modified in April 2017 for Elektroprivreda okviru krovnog izvještaja priloži Roof report the project task for osnovu dodatnih komentara some facts based on BiH d.d. projektni zadatak za izradu the preparation of the Study dobijenih od jedne additional comments received Sarajevo Studije, ali i komentari should be attached, as well as the zainteresovane strane. Početni by one stakeholder. Inception Konsultanta vezani za izmjene comments of the Consultant izvještaj je dio rezultata i report is part of the istog. related to the changes. dostupan je na web stranici deliverables and is available projekta. on project website.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 73
Result of this extensive and Rezultat ovako opsežne i demanding Study for "Support to zahtjevne Studije „ Podrška the Water Resources upravljanju vodnim resursima u Management in the Drina River slivu reke Drine“ trebao biti Basin” should be the finding of an iznalaženje optimalnog optimal integral scenario for the integralnog scenaria za zaštitu i protection and use of resources korištenje resursa u slivu rijeke in the Drina River Basin from the Drine sa stanovišta svih struka i standpoint of all professions and sektora (okoliš, poljoprivreda, sectors (environment, energetika, socijalni aspekti i agriculture, energy, social td). Scenario sa tim pristupom aspects, etc.). Scenario based on može biti jedina argumentovana that approach can be the only Numić osnova za razgovore i argumentative basis for talks and Irvina,dipl.ing iznalaženje rješenje koje je finding a solution that is građ prihvatljivo za sve države. Na taj acceptable to all countries. The Komentar predstavnika Comment of stakeholder`s JP način bi se mogla i iznaći priority solution for separate zainteresovane strane. representative. Elektroprivreda prioritetna rješenja za pojedine countries can be found and BiH d.d. države i biti komplementarna sa complemented with the others. Sarajevo ostalim. Nadalje bi se kroz Furthermore, negotiation could pregovore moglo doći do provide an optimal scenario for optimalnog scenarija za cijeli the entire basin, which also sliv, a koji je u sebi sadržavati i includes the priorities of different prioritete različitih država. countries. Ovdje su prikazana prioritetna The priority solutions per rješenja po državama. I takav countries were presented here pristup je moguć, ali u slučaju and such approach is possible but da se dobijeni optimalni stručni in case the obtained optimal scenario uporedi sa expert`s scenario is compared prioritetima za pojedine države i with the priorities for individual isto stručno komentariše, što je countries and the same expert`s ovdje donekle i urađeno. comments, which has been somewhat done here.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 74
Numić U okviru uvoda za pojedine Irvina,dipl.ing The characteristics of existing scenarije po državama potrebno građ HPPs should be presented within je prikazati karakteristike JP introduction part per countries in Prihvaćeno i biće dodato. Accepted and will be added. postojećih elektrana na način Elektroprivreda a way as were presented kako su prikazane karakteristike BiH d.d. characteristics of planned HPPs. planiranih elektrana. Sarajevo U okviru tačke 2.3. Predloženi Under point 2.3: The proposed Numić razvojni scenariji potrebno je development scenarios need to Irvina,dipl.ing objasniti šta znače scenariji be explained: what are the Green građ „Green Growth“, Growth, Reduced / Optimized JP „Reduced/Optimised HPP Prihvaćeno i biće dodato. Accepted and will be added. HPP Maximization, and Full HPP Elektroprivreda Maximisation“ i „Full HPP Maximization scenarios which are BiH d.d. Maximisation“, koji se prvi put mentioned for the first time in Sarajevo spominju u tek tački 3.1.1 point 3.1.1 of flood protection. zaštita od poplava. Numić Irvina,dipl.ing Komentari vezani za korišćenje Comments regarding the Nije dovoljno komentarisano za It is not commented enough for građ akumulacija su prikazani u usage of reservoirs are koje svrhe se predviđene which purposes the proposed JP obimu koliko su to raspoloživi presented in volume as much akumulacije mogu ili ne mogu reservoirs can or cannot be used Elektroprivreda podaci i dobijeni rezultati as the available data and the koristiti osim za energetiku. except for energy. BiH d.d. omogućavali. obtained results allowed. Sarajevo Numić Irvina,dipl.ing U okviru tabela koje se daju za It is necessary to define which građ razvojne scenarije potrebno je height of dam is presented within Radi se o gradjevinskoj visini It is constructive height of JP definisati o kojoj se prikazanoj the tables for development brane. Biće dodato dam. Elektroprivreda visina brane radi, energetskoj ili scenarios, energetic or BiH d.d. građevinskoj. construction. Sarajevo Numić U tačka 2.3.2 Crna Gora u tabeli Within chapter 2.3.2 Montenegro Razmatrana je gravitaciona The gravity arch dam 176m Irvina,dipl.ing 4 –nisu dati podaci o tipu i visini in Table 4 – data related to type lučna brana 176m visoka i ovi height have been analysed
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 75
građ brane za HE Komarnica and dam height for HPP podaci biće dodati u okviru and these data will be JP Komarnica are not presented. odgovarajuće tabele. presented within the Elektroprivreda corresponding table. BiH d.d. Sarajevo Numić Migrating of the main Drina Pomeranje korita reke Drine ka Irvina,dipl.ing channel is present in the lower istoku je uočljivo na donjem građ Drina course downstream of toku Drine nizvodno od ušća JP the Jadar River mouth, what is reke Jadar, što je dopunjeno u Elektroprivreda added to the report. The izveštaju. Pojas meandriranja BiH d.d. meandering band can be seen se može jasno videti na Sarajevo Tačka 3.1.1. Zaštita od poplava Section 3.1.1. Protection from clearly in satellite imagery, satelitskim snimcima, gde se rečeno je da se meandriranje floods. It is stated that the main with the remains of old uočavaju ostaci starog korita na vode (korita) da se rijeka Drina channel is migrating toward channel on the current left sadašnjoj levoj obali nizvodno pomjera prema istoku. East. It is necessary to explain bank downstream of the od pregradnog mesta Drina II. Potrebno je objasniti da li to whether this is a trend along the planned Drina II dam profile. Ovi snimci nedvosmisleno trend u čitavoj dužini gdje je whole length where the migrating The images undoubtedly show pokazuju trend pomeranja izraženo meandriranje ili na is pronounced, or does it exist in the migrating trend toward korita ka istoku. On je jednom dijelu i kojem. just a part and in which part. East. The trend is the most najizraženiji na potezu od pronounced between Badovinaca do pregradnog Badovinci and the planned mesta Drina III, gde se korito Drina III profile, where the najviše pomerilo ka istoku (oko channel has moved the most 2,5 km, a na jednom delu čak (about 2.5 km, and even 3.3 3,3 km). km at one point).
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 76
Numić Irvina,dipl.ing Tačka 3.3.2. Ekološki prihvatljiv As we heard at the presentation, građ protok. the task of the Study was not to JP Kako smo čuli na prezentaciji define a method for Indeed the aim of the study is Elektroprivreda zadatak Studije nije bio determination of the not to develop a methodology BiH d.d. definisanje metode za environmental flow for the entire Kao što je već naglašeno, for the EF. However, among Sarajevo određivanje ekološki basin that will be accepted by all zadatak studije nije bilo the existing ones for prihvatljivog protoka za cijeli sliv countries. The study proposed, as definisanje nove metodologije estimation of the minimal EF koji će prihvatiti sve države. a basis, to use the method za EPP. Na osnovu razmatranja in Europe and in the 3 Studjijom je predloženo da se prescribed by the current zakonske regulative i prakse u countries of the basin, the kao osnova koristi način Rulebook in the Federation of sve tri države, ukazano je da formal method on FBiH is a propisan važećim Pravilnikom u Bosnia and Herzegovina. metodologija koja se koristi u good compromise and Federaciji Bosne i Hercegovine. However, it should be FbiH predstavlja dobru osnovu integrates the seasonal needs Međutim, potrebno bi bilo commented/emphasized that the za zajedničku metodologiju za of water for the aquatic komentarisati da predloženom proposed method does not take sve tri države, pre svega jer ecosystem. metodom nije u obzir uzeto da into consideration analysis of the predstavlja kompromis i As already mentioned in all se analiziraju karakteristike, characteristics, needs and odražava sezonske promene u reports and in all previous potrebe i mogućnosti pojedinih possibilities of certain types of smislu ekološki prihvatljivog meetings, this methodology is tipova objekata hidroelektrana hydropower plants (associated or protoka. Kao što je već based on hydrology and rise to (pribranska ili derivaciona i derivative, etc.), as well as the napomenuto u okviru IPF the minimal EF and should be protočna ili akumualciona, kao i existence of already constructed izveštaja, kao i u okviru Krovnog applied for new water intakes. postojanje već izgrađenih objects and their technical izveštaja, realizacija svih As also recommended in IPF objekata i njihovih tehničkih characteristics in terms of the razmatranih energetskih and the Roof report, for rješenja u smislu mogućnosti ability to respect the postrojenja, kao i svih objekata particular HPP characteristics poštovanja zahtjeva za ekološki requirements for environmental u okviru zaštićenih područja, and for particular prihvatljivim protokom. U praksi flow. In practice, the lack of such zahteva izradu namenskih environmental and protected se nepostojanje ovakve analize analysis has proven to be a major studija za utvrđivanje Ekološki area, a specific study must be pokazalo kao veliki nedostatak shortcoming of the Rulebook prihvatljivog protoka. conducted to justify if the Pravilnika u kojem je definisan defining the method for minimal EF should be način određivanja veličine i determining the value and timing increased or decreased. vremenskog rasporeda ekološki of the environmentally prihvatljivog protoka. acceptable flow.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 77
Numić Chapter 3.3.3 Water quality – Irvina,dipl.ing U tački 3.3.3 Kvalitet vode - Main goals of protection and građ Glavni ciljevi zaštite i izazovi – challanges – (page 41) JP (strana 41) There is a sentence " Elektroprivreda Navedena je rečenica Establishment of the fish-stocking BiH d.d. „Uspostavljanje programa programme: Reservoirs represent Sarajevo poribljavanja: akumulacije ecological and physical barriers to predstavljaju ekološke i fizičke the free movement of fish prepreke za slobodno kretanje species, especially important ribljih vrsta, koje je naročito during migration period, even This recommendation will be važno u sezoni migracija, čak i with a functioning fish ladder. Biće dodato. added in the legal view. kada postoji riblja staza.“ U Within the legal part of the entire okviru pravnog dijela cjelokupne documentation, it is necessary to dokumentacije potrebno je indicate the adjustments of the navesti prilagođavanje pravnog legal framework related to fish okvira vezanog za riblju stazu i ladder construction and fish- poribljavanje. U FBiH u zakonu o stocking. In FBiH, the Law on slatkovodnom ribarstvu Freshwater Fisheries prescribes propisana je ili izgradnja riblje either the construction of a fish staze ili poribljavanje. ladder or the fish-stocking.
Numić 3.3.4 Upravljanje florom i 3.3.4 Flora and fauna Irvina,dipl.ing faunom - Glavne preporuke za management - Main objectives of građ zaštitu biodiverziteta u protection and challenges Odnosi se na redovno That concerns the flushing JP budućem razvoju (strana 42) – (page 42) – It should be noted ispuštanje vode (proizvodnju during normal condition of Elektroprivreda Potrebno bi bilo napisati ko who implements the proposed energije), a ne na ispuštanje u operation. It does not concern BiH d.d. sprovodi predložene mjere measures (competent authorities, smislu zaštite objekata u the emergency flushing for the Sarajevo (nadležni organi vlasti, investors, the Agency ...) periodima velikih voda. Biće security of the dam. It will be investitori, Agencije...) On the page 43-the same title, It dodatno razjašnjeno i clarified in the text. Na strani strana 43 istog naslova says: " For the existing dams, fish dopunjeno u tekstu. rečeno je „Na postojećim ladder has to be used whenever branama treba, gde god je possible and flushing should be
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 78
moguće, koristiti riblje staze, a done in a low intensity increase ispuštanje vode treba da bude and decrease of discharge to slabog intenziteta, avoid erosion and fast changes in povećavanjem i smanjenjem turbidity, water level and protoka kako bi se izbjegla temperature". It's not clear what erozija i brze promene kind of flushing is meant, so it zamućenosti, vodostaja i should be more elaborated? temperature vode“.Nije jasno na koje se ispuštanje misli pa je to potrebno pojasniti? Numić Irvina,dipl.ing Neke primijećene štamparske Some observed typing mistakes građ greške ili greške u prevodu or mistakes in translations are JP direktno su dostavljene submitted directly to Consultant Biće ispravljeno. Will be corrected. Elektroprivreda Konusltantu da ne bi in order not to load this BiH d.d. opterećivali ovaj komentar. comment Sarajevo Numić Irvina,dipl.ing Kakarteristika „nije protočna“ za građ Characteristic “not run of river” It is mistake in translation into akumulacije koje su Greška u prevodu na lokalni JP for reservoirs which are negligible local language and will be zanemarljivog kapaciteta jezik i biće ispravljeno. Elektroprivreda capacity is not clear. corrected. akumulacije nije jasna. BiH d.d. Sarajevo Numić Tačka 2.4.3. Integralni razvojni Chapter 2.4.3 Integral Irvina,dipl.ing scenario development scenario To je greška u verziji izveštaja na građ It is mistake within the Report Kod nabrajanja uključenih Within listing the included lokalnom jeziku i biće JP – version in the local language projekata Pored HE Ustikolina projects the letter “P” is cited ispravljeno. Elektroprivreda and will be corrected. postoji slovo „P“ da li je greška i near the Ustikolina. Is it mistake BiH d.d. ako nije šta znači? and if it is not what it means? Sarajevo
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 79
акроними и скраћенице acronyms and abbreviations - потребно је навести тачан - it is necessary to indicate the мр Јелена назив ресорног министарства exact name of the relevant Вићановић, Републике Српске који гласи Ministry of the Republic of Biće ispravljeno. Will be corrected. дипл.инж.техн. „Министарство Srpska, which reads "Ministry of пољопривреде, шумарства и Agriculture, Forestry and Water водопривреде“ Management" мр Јелена акроними и скраћенице acronyms and abbreviations Вићановић, - за РС је наведено да је то - for RS it is stated that this is an дипл.инж.техн. скраћеница за „Република abbreviation for "Republika Српска“, али се у тесту Srpska", but in the test of the Извјештаја, као и у поглављу Report, as well as in the chapter Biće ispravljeno. Will be corrected. Референце, ова скраћеница Reference, this abbreviation is користи и за Републику Србију also used for the Republic of што доводи у заблуду читаоца Serbia, which misleads the reader (нпр. стр. 42, 59, 62 итд) (eg pages 42, 59, 62 etc. ) мр Јелена Тачка 3.3.3 Квалитат воде The Law on Water of Republic of Вићановић, - Закон о водама је Републике Srpska has been changed while дипл.инж.техн. Српске је претрпио низ the changes have not been измјена које нису наведене, а specified in the report. These are објабљене су у Сужбеном Biće ažurirano. Will be updated. published in the Official Gazette гласнику број 92/09, 121/12 и no. 92/09, 121/12 and 74/17 (it is 74/17 (наведен је само број specified only Службеног гласника РС 50/06, OG RS 50/06, page.42); стр.42); мр Јелена Тачка 3.3.3 Квалитат воде In the part referring to the Вићановић, - У дијелу који се односи на identification of significant The WWTP V. Obarska has not Samo postrojenje nije дипл.инж.техн. идентификацију значајних pressures, as well as in the Report been considered as water posmatrano kao pritisak na притисака, као и у Извјештају for BiH, it is stated that in quality point pressure for the kavalitet vode reke Drine. Biće за БиХ, наводи се да је у сливу the DRBthere is a functional one river Drina. It will be clarified dodatno razjašnjeno u tekstu. ријеке Дрине функционално Wastewater Treatment Plant in the text. једно Постројење за (WWTP), which is PPOV of the
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 80
пречишћавање комуналних City of Bijeljina. The untreated отпадних вода (ППОВ) и то је communal waste waters of a ППОВ Града Бијељина. certain number of settlements in Нетретиране комомуналне the Bijeljina area should be taken отпадне воде одређеног броја into account when calculating the насеља територије града pressure on the water quality in Бијељина трба узети у обзир the Drina River basin as a diffuse при прорачуну притисака на source of pollution, but the квалитет воде у сливу ријеке effluent of PPOV (40000 ES) Дрине као дифузни извор located in Velika Obarska is загађења, али сам испуст actually a point source pressure ефлуента ППОВ (40000 ЕС) for the direct Sava River Basin, које се налази у Великој not the Drina River. Reception of Обарској, као тачкасти извор, the effluent PPOV Bijeljina is the представља притисак за Majevic channel, which flows непосредни слив ријеке Саве, through the channel Drina- а не Дрине. Реципијент Dasnica into the Sava river. ефлуента ППОВ Бијељина је Мајевички канал, који се путем канала Дрина – Дашница улива у ријеку Саву. мр Јелена Претходно наведене опаске су The aforementioned remarks Вићановић, настале највјероватније као came about most probably as a дипл.инж.техн. посљедица кориштене result of the literature used in литературе наведене у Chapter 6. References. Namely, поглављу 6. Референце. the References do not list the The references will be Наиме у Референцама нису strategic documents of the Reference će biti ažurirane. updated. наведени стратешки Republic of Srpska from which документи Републике Српске the data were used and which are из којих су кориштени подаци listed in the text of the Report for и који су наведени у тексту BiH, such as the Integrated Water Извјештаја за БиХ, као што су Management Strategy of the
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 81
Стратегија интегралног Republic of Srpska (2015-2024), управљања водама Републике Amendments to the Spatial Plan Српске (2015-2024), Измјене и of the Republic of Srpska until допуне просторног плана 2025. Републике Српске до 2025. Akronimi 1. MSTEO Ministarstvo Acronyms 1. MSTEO Ministry of Foreign spoljne trgovine i Trade and Economic Relations of ekonomskih odnosa BiH BiH Bosko Kenjic, 2. RHMZ jedan viška ili se 2. RHMZ is a surplus or it is a Biće ispravljeno. Will be corrected. MSTEO radi o RHMZ U Republici RHMZ in the Republic of Serbia Srbiji i Republici Srpskoj and the Republic of Srpska 3. WAAC i WAC? 3. WAAC and WAC? 4. Background 4. Pozadina Bosko Kenjic, It was stated that the WB and the MSTEO Management Board accepted the The issue of adoption of the Navedeno je da je WB i Upravni Inception Report. Does this mean Pitanje usvajanja dokumenata / documents/deliverables was odbor prihvatio Početni that the Management Board isporuka je bilo mnogo puta open many times during the izvještaj. Da li to znaćii da da UO should also approve the reports diskutovano tokom project implementation, also treba i da odobri izvještaje i da and agree on the completion of implementacije projekta, sa with many different se saglasi sa završetkom the project? Who decided that brojnim različitim representatives. It was clear projekta? Ko je odlučio da je December 2017 is the end of the predstavnicima. Bilo je jasno da that the defined mechanism of decembar 2017. kraj projekta? project? The project team, WB nedostaje definisan mehanizam the approval was missing what Projketni tim, WB i Focal pouinti and Focal Points need to reach on odobrenja što je takođe jedna is also one of the o ovome moraju postići this an agreement. od preporuka instituciji koja recommendations to the dogovor. Nažalost tzv. završnom Unfortunately, at the so-called finansira projekat. Poslednji funding institution. The last sastanku, održanom u Beogradu final meeting, held in Belgrade on sastanak je dogovoren sa svim meeting date was agreed with 05.12.2017. godine nisu December 5, 2017., WB zainteresovanim stranama. all stakeholders. The prisustvovali predstavnici WB, representatives as well as the Učešće se promijenilo zbog participation changed due to kao ni tim lider projekta. team's project leader were not bolesti. the illness. present.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 82
Bosko Kenjic, Model je isporučen u The model was delivered in Strana 3. Datumi isporuka Page 3. Dates of the WEAP model MSTEO septembru 2017. i ova ispravka September 2017 and this has WEAP modela nisu konzistentni. delivery are not consistent. je uneta u izveštaj. been corrected in the report. Bosko Kenjic, Page 3, The second paragraph Strana 3, Drugi pasus vezano za MSTEO relating to the Public Izvještaje o javnim Consultation Reports is to be konsultacijama prebaciti u It will be added in the final transmitted at the appropriate Biće dodato. odgovrajuće vrijeme i navesti da version. time and indicated that it is an je on sastavni dio Roof Reporta integral part of the Roof Report dat kao annex. given as an annex. Bosko Kenjic, Strana 3. Tekst “Konačno, Page 3. Text "Finally, the annual MSTEO godišnji (privremeni) izvještaj je (interim) report was prepared in pripremljen na engleskom i na English and in local languages in lokalnim jezicima kako bi order to respond to the odgovorio na zahtjeve requirements of the World Bank It will be added in the final Projektnog zadatka Svjetske Biće dodato. ToR, which relates to operational version. banke, koji se odnose na and financial issues." It is not operativna i finansijska pitanja.” clear what it refers to and should Nije jasan na šta se odnosi i ne not be an integral part of the treba da bude sastavni dio Roof Report. Krovnog izvještaja. Bosko Kenjic, Topographic features. The values Topografske osobine MSTEO of the lowest elevation in the Potrebno uskladiti vrijednosti basin should be brought to It will be harmonized in the najniže nadmorske visine u Biće usklađeno. accordance with the text final version. slivu, sa tekstom koji prethodi I preceding and following this koji slijedi nakon ovog poglavlja. section. Bosko Kenjic, U poglavlje 2.1.3. je potrebno A figure with hydrography should It will be added in the final MSTEO ubaciti sliku sa odgovarajućom Biće dodato. be included in section 2.1.3. version. hidrografijom Bosko Kenjic, U poglavlju br.2 treba uvrstiti Section 2 should include a Na kraju poglavlja 2 dodato je A subsection on climate MSTEO jedno pdpoglavlje koje će subsection that will summarize potpoglavlje u kome su dati change is added at the end of
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 83
sumirati pitanje uticaja the effects of climate change. glavni rezultati analize uticaja section 2 and provides main klimatskih promjena. Ovo je This is very important because klimatskih promena u ovom results of the climate change jako važno jer se u nastavku the climate change impacts are projektu. impact assessment in this teksta kroz izvještaj pominje mentioned in the subsequent project. pitanje uticaja klimatskih text, and some recommendations promjena, a neke preporuke u arise from this issue. izvještaju proizilaze vezano za ovo pitanje Bosko Kenjic, U poglavlju Prirodni resursi bi Geothermal waters, especially in MSTEO trebalo navesti i geotermalne the middle and lower parts of the It will be added in the final Biće dodato u tekstu. vode posebno u srednjem I basin, should be listed in the version donjem dijelu sliva. Natural Resources section. Bosko Kenjic, U tabeli 1. Na stani 1 treba In Table 1. Page 1, it is necessary MSTEO provjeriti I navesti odgovrajući to check and remark the It will be added in the final status NP Drina. 2017 je corresponding status of NP Drina. Biće dodato u tekstu. version donešen zakom o proglašenju 2017. The new law is declared on NP Drina the proclamation of NP Drina. Bosko Kenjic, Tabelu 2. Treba urediti u Table 2. It should be regulated in Nismo razumeli primedbu. We could not understand the MSTEO tehničkom smislu sa tekstom technical terms with the text . comment nakon tabele after the table. Bosko Kenjic, Chapter 2.3 after Table 1 lists the U poglavlju 2.3 nakon tabele 1. MSTEO abbreviated names of the se navode skraćeni nazivi scenario. It is necessary to clarify scenarija. Potrebno je pojasniti the meaning of certain scenarios. značenje pojedinih scenarija. U Otherwise, it is not possible to Biće korigovano. Will be updated. suprotnom nije moguće čitati I read and use the Root Report koristiti Krovni izvještaj bez without simultaneously analyzing istovremenog analiziranja IPF the IPF report for all three izvještja za sve tri zemlje. countries. Bosko Kenjic, “Hidroenergetska šema” “”Hydro energetic scheme” Da li je termin “hidroenegetska Is term “hydropower scheme” MSTEO obuhvata sistem HE. U stručnoj include the system of HPPs. šema” odgovrajući? appropriate? literaturi i tehničkoj Within professional literature
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 84
dokumentaciji ovaj termin se and technical documentation navodi ravnopravno sa ostalim this term is citer equally with sličnog značenja. others with similar meaning. Bosko Kenjic, To je greška u prevodu izveštaja MSTEO Strana 25 nije jasan tekst u Page 25. Text “dam evacuation” na lokalni jezik. Engleski tekst It is a mistake in translation to parvom aparagrafu “odvođenje in the first paragraph is not clear. glasi “evacuation capacities of local language. The local brana”. Vjerovatno zbog Probably due to translation. dams” i ispravljen je na version of the report is prevoda “kapacitet evakuacionih corrected. organa”. Bosko Kenjic, Na pitanje nadležnosti u oblasti The question of competence MSTEO životne sredine je ukazano u in the environmental sector is poglavlju 12. i 13. IWRM raised in sections 12 and 13 of izveštaja. U delu koji se odnosi the IWRM Report. In the pat na koncesije to pitanje je (u related to concessions this slučaju BiH) regulisano question is (in case of BiH) posebnim zakonima (uključujući regulated by specific laws Page 50, paragraph regarding the Strana 50 pasus vezano za i entitetske zakone), što je (including the laws of entities), competence to award the nadležnost za dodjelu konceije navedeno u izveštaju. Izrada what is stated in the report. concession in BiH should be u BiH treba proširiti sa detaljnije analize propisa u More detailed study of extended with the competence of nadležnošću entiteta da bi se oblasti koncesija, u bilo kojem legislative related to the entities in order to have a imala korektna slika. segmentu, izlazi iz okvira concession, in any segment, correct picture. projektnog zadatka i dalja exceeds the scope of the ToR razrada bilo kojeg pitanja and further elaboration of any podrazumeva prethodni questions requires previous dogovor o obimu aktivnosti, arrangements on the scope of nivou detaljnosti, metodologiji, activities, level of detail, itd. kako bi se izbegle moguće methodology etc. in to avoid dileme. possible dilemma. Bosko Kenjic, U poglavlju Preporuke trebaju In the Recommendation chapter, MSTEO se sistematizovati i izdvojiti sve all recommendations on all Biće korigovano. Will be updated. preporuke po svim pitanima questions considered in the razmatranim kroz izvještaj. U report should be systematized
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 85
trenutnoj verziji u poglavlju and outlined. In the current Preporuka nisu ponovljene i version of the Recommendation izdvojene preporuke koje su section, the recommendations izvedene u tekstu samih that were made in the text of the poglavlja. Za dalje postupanje i chapters are not repeated. For aktivnosti institucija u slivu je further action and activities of važno da se sve preporuke the institutions in the basin, it is sistematizuju na odgovarajući important that all način. recommendations are systematized in an appropriate manner.
Bosko Kenjic, Tekst na strani 58 “Mnoge Text on page 58 "Many MSTEO preporuke su ponudjene u recommendations have been pogledu sliva rijeke Drine kroz made regarding the Drina River pripremu tri IWRM i IPF Basin through the preparation of izvještaja na nivou pojedinačnih three IWRM and IPF reports at zemalja. Postojeći krovni the level of individual countries. izvještaj je usmjeren na glavne The existing umbrella report preporuke koje se odnose na focuses on the main scenarije razvoja ovog sliva. recommendations related to the Iscrpan spisak svih prioritetnih development scenarios of this Biće korigovano. Will be updated. preporuka iz ovog projekta će basin. An exhaustive list of all the biti obezbijedjen u završnoj priority recommendations from verziji ovog izvještaja. Na this project will be provided in osnovu gore navedenih the final version of this report. zaključaka, preliminarne Based on the above conclusions, preporuke su sljedeće:” ne the preliminary može biti ovakav. recommendations are as follows: Stiče se utisak da konsultantski "It can not be like this. tim nije ni pročitao konačnu The impression is that the
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 86
verzuju Izvještaja. Potrebnje consulting team did not even uskladiti sa komentarom br 18. read the final version of the Report. The need to align with comment No. 18. Bosko Kenjic, Popraviti tehničke greške kroz Repair technical errors through Biće korigovano. Will be updated. MSTEO cijeli izvještaj. the entire report. Emir Isakovic The Consultant agrees that, in AVP Sava“ accordance with the proposal Sarajevo of AVP Sava Sarajevo, the Konsultant je saglasan da se, u Report includes among the skladu sa predlogom AVP Sava Considering that the adoption of main conclusions and Sarajevo, u Izveštaju među Obzirom da sklapanje bilateral agreements on water recommendations the glavne zaključke i preporuke bilateralnih sporazuma o management cooperation among following: navede sledeće: vodoprivrednoj saradnji među the countries in the basin is AVP Sava Sarajevo believes AVP Sava Sarajevo smatra da je državama u slivu smatramo considered one of the most that "the adoption of bilateral „sklapanje bilateralnih jednim od najvažnijih prioriteta important priorities in the future, agreements on water sporazuma o vodoprivrednoj u budućnosti, mislimo da bi we believe that the management cooperation saradnji među državama u slivu preporuku o inteziviranju recommendation on intensifying among the countries in the jedan od najvažnijih prioriteta u navedenih aktivnosti trebalo these activities should be basin is one of the most budućnosti.“ U skladu sa ovim istaknuti (po potrebi i boldirati) highlighted (if necessary bold) in important priorities in the preporučuje se intenziviranje u Izvještaju među glavne the Report among the main future." In accordance with aktivnosti radi zaključivanja zaključke i preporuke. conclusions and this, it is recommended to bilateralnih sporazuma o recommendations. intensify activities to conclude vodoprivrednoj saradnji među bilateral agreements on water državama u slivu. management cooperation between the countries in the basin. Emir Isakovic U Izvještaju je spomenuto da je The report mentions that the AVP Sava“ šljunak iz korita rijeke Drine gravel in the Drina riverbed is an Konsultant je saglasan sa The Consultant agrees with Sarajevo važan prirodni resurs, čije je important natural resource, the komentarom i prilagodiće tekst the comment and will amend važenje važna privredna extraction of which is an u izveštaju. the report accordingly. aktivnost i može biti od koristi important economic activity. We
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 87
lokalnoj ekonomiji. U globalu se agree in general, but it should be slažemo sa navedenim, ali pod emphasized that this activity uslovom da se navedena should be controlled in aktivnost vrši kontrolisano, coordination with water odnosno u koordinaciji sa management authorities. The vodoprivrednim preduzećima. original purpose of the controlled Prvobitna svrha kontrolisanog gravel extraction is to obtain an uklanjanja šljunka iz korita je appropriate capacity of the Drina postizanje odgovarajućeg cross sections, while uncontrolled proticajnog profila, dok extraction can affect the bed nekontrolisana eksploatacija morphology and lead to channel istog može narušiti morfologiju destabilization. korita i dovesti do destabilizacije toka. Emir Isakovic U ranijim fazama Projekta, In the earlier phases of the Konsultant bi prvo želeo da The Consultant would first like AVP Sava“ predstavnici „AVP Sava“ Project, representatives of AVP navede da je ispunio sve svoje to state that he has fulfilled all Sarajevo Sarajevo su slali opsežne Sava Sarajevo sent extensive obaveze definisane Projektnim his obligations defined by the komentare i primjedbe na sve comments and remarks to all zadatkom (Terms of Reference) Terms of Reference for the pripremljene Izvještaje, među prepared Reports, among which za tekući Projekat. Sasvim je current Project. It is quite kojima je bilo nekih na koje there were some who did not moguće da nisu ispunjena sva possible that not all of nismo dobili adekvatne receive adequate answers or očekivanja koja su stakeholder-i stakeholders’ expectations odgovore ili rezultate. U results. Below, I highlight a few imali od Projekta; međutim, from the Project are fulfilled; nastavku izdvajam nekoliko comments that we did not get an obaveze Konsultanta definisane however, Consultant’s komentara na koje nismo dobili adequate answer: su samo Ugovorom, čiji je obligations are defined only by adekvatan odgovor: • Since the hydrological model of Projektni zadatak sastavni deo. the Contract, of which the Terms of Reference are a • Obzirom da je hidrološki the Drina River Basin was Konsultant je obavešten da je constitutive part. model sliva rijeke Drine simulated in a separate priprema Projekta trajala više simuliran u odvojenom hydrological model (HIS Drina), od godinu dana. Međutim, The Consultant has been and not within the WEAP hidrološkom modelu očigledno je da nisu svi sadašnji informed that the preparation software, we requested the stakeholder-i podjednako of the Project took a more (HIS Drina), a ne u delivery of this model to users. učestvovali u pripremi than one year. However, it is sklopu WEAP softwera, The consultants have given the Projektnog zadatka i da on ne obvious that all not of present
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 88
tražili smo isporuku above model, but in the form in odražava podjednako potrebe stakeholders equally navedenog modela which it is delivered ("works by svih stakeholder-a. participated in the preparation the system of black box") it is the of the Terms of Reference and korisnicima. Konsultanti Takođe je jasno da ceo Projekat same inoperative and limited in that they do not equally su ustupili navedeni uključuje brojne kompromise i terms of later upgrading and use reflect the needs of all da su njegovi autori pokušali da model, ali u obliku u for possible other needs (for stakeholders. ga osmisle tako da se na osnovu kojem je isporučen example, for the development of njega mogu dobiti brojni It is also clear that the entire ("radi po sistemu crne a forecast model within the GEF- značajni rezultati u okviru Project includes numerous SCCF project ), which would be kutije") isti je ograničenog vremenskog trade-offs and that its authors very useful. neoperativan i perioda i veoma ograničenog tried to conceive it in such a ograničen u smislu budžeta. Ovo se takođe way that it should be able to kasnije nadogradnje i odražava na Projektni zadatak, produce many significant korištenja za koji nije napisan dosledno i čiji results within a limited period eventualno druge je sadržaj povremeno nejasan of time and a very limited čak i licima od kojih se očekivalo budget. This is also reflected potrebe (npr. za izradu da Projekat usmeravaju. in the Terms of Reference, prognoznog modela u Upečatljiv primer ovoga bila je which are not written sklopu GEF-SCCF diskusija između gospođe consequently and the projekta), što bi bilo Milovanović i gospodina contents of which were at veoma korisno. Alaerts-a tokom Inception times unclear even to the Workshop-a koji je održan 1. persons who were supposed decembra 2014. godine u to steer the Project. A striking Zagrebu, Hrvatska. example of this was the discussion between Mrs. Međutim, Projektni zadatak je Milovanovic and Mr. Alaerts zvanični dokument koji ne može during the Inception da se menja ili kreativno tumači, Workshop held on December budući da on definiše ugovorne 1st, 2014 in Zagreb, Croatia. obaveze Konsultanta. Stakeholder-i bi takođe trebalo However, the Terms of da pokušaju da razumeju Reference are a legal Projekat u celini, a ne da se document that cannot be samo rukovode svojim altered or interpreted
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 89
pojedinačnim interesima. creatively, as they define Consultant’s contractual Što se pitanja gospodina obligations. The stakeholders Isakovića tiče, Konsultant, ili should also try to understand preciznije Institut Jaroslav Černi, the Project in its entirety and je u više prilika dao svoje not just follow their singular objašnjenje. Da li su ova interests. objašnjenja za AVP “Sava” adekvatna ili ne je nešto o čemu Regarding Mr. Isakovic’s se teško može diskutovati, question, the Consultant, or budući da razumevanje našeg more specifically the Jaroslav odgovora zahteva značajno Cerni Institute, has provided poznavanje više tehničkih explanations on several disciplina. occasions. Whether these explanations are adequate for Međutim, u cilju napretka the AVP “Sava” or not is Projekta u celini ponovo ćemo something that cannot be izložiti detaljno objašnjenje. easily discussed, being that Pre svega se nigde u the understanding of our Projektnom zadatku ne navodi answer requires considerable da će Konsultant razviti bilo knowledge of several technical kakav model/software koji će disciplines. moći da se koristi za bilo koje However, for the sake of the namene izvan tekućeg Projekta progress of the entire Project ili za prognostičke namene. we will again provide a very Stoga ne postoji nikakva takva detailed explanation. obaveza Konsultanta. First of all, nowhere in the Drugo, Konsultant je razvio Terms of Reference is it stated model/software koji se koristi that the Consultant will zajedno sa WEAP modelom, koji produce any sort of zahteva detaljne hidrološke model/software that could be ulazne podatke, a što je used for any goals beyond the omogućeno postojećim
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 90
hidrološkim modelom. U present Project or for Projektnom zadatku se prognostic purposes. eksplicitno navodi da razvoj Therefore, there is no such novog složenog simulacionog Consultant’s obligation in modela neće biti finansijski power. podržan i stoga je odluka Secondly, the Consultant has Konsultanta bila da primeni produced the model/software hidrološki model koji je već to be used along with WEAP razvijen i koji je istovremeno model, which required a omogućio nivo detaljnosti detailed hydrologic input that potreban za rad WEAP modela. was made possible with the Subcomponent 1A GEF SCCF existing hydrologic model. The projekta, odnosno West Balkans ToR was explicit in stating that Drina River Basin Management the development of a new Plan (WBDRBMP) projekta, complex simulation model will obuhvata modul pod imenom not be funded, and therefore “Hydraulic and Hydrologic the Consultant’s decision was Model for the Drina River Basin to apply a hydrological model with Reservoir Operation that was already developed Optimization”. Iako je and at the same time provided objavljivanje Javnog poziva necessary level of detail for (RFP) odloženo bez ikakvog the WEAP model. obrazloženja, Konsultant se The Subcomponent 1A of the nada da će on biti objavljen u GEF SCCF project, i.e. the West skoroj budućnosti i da će Balkans Drina River Basin rezultat ovog projekta biti neki Management Plan model/software sličan onome (WBDRBMP) Project, includes koji gospodin Isaković opisuje. the module named “Hydraulic Konsultant, međutim, nije and Hydrologic Model for the svestan postojanja bilo kakve Drina River Basin with veze između tog i tekućeg Reservoir Operation projekta i ne veruje da Optimization”. Although the
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 91
model/software koji je on razvio publication of the Request for tokom tekućeg projekta treba Proposals has been delayed da se koristi za bilo koje without any explanation, the konkretne namene na drugim Consultant hopes that it will projektima. be published in near future and that the result of this Ono što gospodin Isaković project will be some pominje je da model/software model/software similar to the treba da bude upotrebljiv za one that Mr. Isakovic različite namene, što je cilj sa describes. The Consultant is, kojim on nije razvijan. however, not aware of any Konsultant bi želeo da naglasi link between that project and činjenicu da software-ske the present one and does not komponente upotrebljive za believe that the različite namene, za razliku od model/software that he “black-box” komponenata, developed within the current zahtevaju mnogo više radnih project should be used on sati od onih koji su stajali na another one for any practical raspolaganju sa tekućom, purposes. ograničenom finansijskom podrškom. Konsultant ne What Mr. Isakovic is referring očekuje da svi stakeholder-i to is that the model/software budu upućeni u finansijske should be reusable, which it is resurse koji mu stoje na not, by design. The Consultant raspolaganju, ali očekuje da oni would like to stress the fact u najmanju ruku budu svesni that reusable software reda veličine troškova i rada components, unlike “black- neophodnih za realizaciju box” components, require far pojedinih zadataka. more man-hours than available with present, limited U skladu sa tim Konsultant funding. The Consultant does takođe mora da izrazi svoju not expect all stakeholders to zabrinutost po pitanju be familiar with financial Subcomponent 1A WBDRBMP
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 92
projekta i nada se da će resursi resources available to him, but odvojeni za ovu aktivnost biti expects them to be at least usklađeni sa očekivanjima aware of the order of stakeholder-a kako bi se izbegle magnitude of the cost and dalje komplikacije. effort necessary for implementation of certain Konsultant bi takođe želeo da tasks. stakeholder-ima skrene pažnju na činjenicu da pisanje That said, the Consultant also Projektnih zadataka zahteva must express its concern posebne veštine. Ovo posebno regarding the Subcomponent važi za projekte razvoja 1A of the WBDRBMP project modela/software-a, kod kojih and hopes that the resources Projektni zadatak mora da bude allocated for this activity will veoma detaljan da bi se dobilo be matched with the nešto iole razumljivije od “black stakeholders’ expectations in box”-a. order to avoid further complications. U skladu sa ovim Konsultant se nada da će određene lekcije sa The Consultant would also like ovog Projekta biti naučene i da to draw stakeholders’ će to olakšati rad na budućim attention to the fact that projektima. writing of the Terms of Reference is an art in itself. This especially holds true for modelling/software projects, where Terms of Reference have to very detailed, if anything more understandable than a “black box” is to be produced. In accordance with this, the Consultant hopes that certain
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 93
lessons from this Project will be learned and that this will facilitate the work on the forthcoming projects. U ranijim fazama Projekta, In the earlier phases of the Ovde ćemo ponoviti odgovor Here, we repeat the answer predstavnici „AVP Sava“ Project, representatives of AVP koji smo svojevremeno dali na that we gave on the same Sarajevo su slali opsežne Sava Sarajevo sent extensive isto pitanje pisanim putem, ali i question in writing, but also at komentare i primjedbe na sve comments and remarks to all na samoj prezentaciji IPF the presentation of the IPF pripremljene Izvještaje, među prepared Reports, among which izveštaja u Sarajevu. report in Sarajevo. kojima je bilo nekih na koje there were some who did not Nismo sigurni zbog čega raniji We are not sure why the nismo dobili adekvatne receive adequate answers or odgovor nije stigao do AVP previous answer did not reach odgovore ili rezultate. U results. Below, I highlight a few “Sava”. AVP "Sava". nastavku izdvajam nekoliko comments that we did not get an Naime, “Green Growth” As the base case (the “Green komentara na koje nismo dobili adequate answer: scenario je u Studiji posmatran Growth” scenario) we have adekvatan odgovor: • After the submitted IPF Report kao “bazni”, a koji podrazemava considered developments in • Nakon dostavljenog IPF for BiH, one of the comments realizaciju svih važećih srateških accordance with valid Izvještaja za BiH, jedan "AVP Sava" was that for the dokumenata i planova vezanih, strategic documents related to od komentara „AVP "Green Growth" scenario, the pre svega, za ekološka i water resources in each Sava“ je bio da za multicriteria analysis carried out socijalna pitanja. Kao takav, country. These planned scenarij „Green for the remaining three criteria njegova realizacija je developments are considered Growth“ uopće nije was not performed at all, and podrazumevana i kod ostalih a part of all scenarios. provedena that the analysis of the Drina scenarija, pa se zbog toga Therefore, assessed impacts of multikriterijska analiza River Basin in the existing rezultati multikriterijumskih HPP developments are relative koja je provedena za condition (without the analiza za ostale scenarije može to this base scenario. preostala tri kriterija, te construction of new hydropower smatrati kao relativna ocena u For example, in evaluation of kako bi analiza sliva plants) was useful in order to odnosu na “Green Growth” the potential environmental Drine u postojećem better understand the decision scenario. and social impacts of the HPPs stanju (bez izgradnje makers and compare the Na primer, kod ocene realization negative impact novih hidroenergetskih advantages and disadvantages of potencijalnih ekoloških i scores have been obtained. postrojenja) bila all four scenarios, all for the socijalnih uticaja izgradnje These negative values can be korisna, kako bi purpose of better and more razmatranih HE, dobijene su understood as a measure of donosioci odluka mogli purposeful integral water negativne vrednosti uticaja. Te "worse" or "less better"
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 94
bolje sagledati i management, which takes into negativne vrednosti se mogu scenario (in terms of uporediti prednosti i account all water management shvatiti kao mera “lošijeg” ili environmental and social nedostatke sva četiri aspects. The above analysis has “manje dobrog” scenarija (u aspects) in relation to the scenarija, a sve u cilju never been processed and smislu ekoloških i socijalnih "Green Growth" scenario. boljeg i svrsishodnijeg delivered. aspekata) u odnosu na “Green integralnog upravljanja Growth” scenario. vodama koji uzima u obzir sve vodoprivredne aspekte. Navedena analiza nikada nije obrađena i isporučena.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 95
4 Conclusions The public consultations, organized in all three countries, were the opportunity to discuss the results and findings from the drafts and later also from final versions of documents. The meetings also provided possibilities for stakeholders to obtain additional explanations, broader view on the topic, comparisons with similar projects elsewhere and expert opinions on water resources management. In addition, they serve for consultants as a source of valuable information, open challenges and other related issues for which they could propose suitable solutions or recommendations.
The final report on the public consultation includes the summary of all public events intended for all different stakeholders identified in three riparian Drina river countries. It provides the general information on the events, sumirizes the discussions, provides the collected comments and gives the resolutions of the consultant team to the comments. As stated before, many comments were integrated in new version
The interactions with stakeholders and broader public with the number of comments received during the implementation of the project show several important points which are applicable to the project Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin. They can be summarized as:
• Due to a long period of implementation the key stakeholders, also the Focal Points, have been changed in the riparian countries. In addition, also the composition of Consultant team changed. All the changes influenced the project from the management point of view. Therefore, it is recommended that if possible the projects are limited in the extend to certain period.
• The decisions taken during the meetings were often asked to be changed, and different resolutions were taken afterwards with responsible stakeholders, which than prolonged the development of final deliverables. It is suggested that decision- making process should be more strict and defined to avoid time consumption.
• Some stakeholders decided to take part in the project only at later phases and they also open the number of questions which were assumed to be already resolved. Also, as they came late, they were not familiar with boundary conditions for the project. Therefore it is proposed to promote similar projects at the start more intensively to very broad public to avoid delays due to newcomers.
• The time available for reviewing of the reports by the stakeholders was often not taken into account and consequently the remarks and comments were not provided to the Consultant team on time.
It is recommended to take all these findings into account and to invent the countermeasures to mitigate the consequences in the future similar projects. It was also clear that to agree on compromise solutions is sometimes quite difficult in the region which is also burdened with so much historical heritage.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 96
5 List of References BiH: AR5, 2014. Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). International Panel of Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ Dankers, R., et al., 2013: First Look at Changes in Flood Hazard in the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project ensemble. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111(19): 3257–3261. COWI. 2012, Update of the Basis for the Water Resources Management of the Vrbas River Basin, World Bank – Module 1 – Hydrological and Water Resources Assessment. COWI. 2012, Update of the Basis for the Water Resources Management of the Vrbas River Basin, World Bank – Module 2 – Hydropower Development Study COWI. 2012, Update of the Basis for the Water Resources Management of the Vrbas River Basin, World Bank – Module 3 – Integrated Water Resources Management Assessment COWI 2016 - SERBIA – IWRM STUDY AND PLAN EU Delegation to BiH (2012): The European Union supports ecotourism development in the Sutjeska National Park. http://europa.ba/?p=19571 IPCC (2014) Flato, G., J. Marotzke, B. Abiodun, P. Braconnot, S.C. Chou, W. Collins, P. Cox, F. Driouech, S. Emori, V. Eyring, C. Forest, P. Gleckler, E. Guilyardi, C. Jakob, V. Kattsov, C. Reason and M. Rummukainen, 2013: Evaluation of Climate Models. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assess¬ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Implementation program of the Spatial Plan of RS 2010-2020, GRS, 2011. Liquid Art Productions (2014): The Story of a Danube Salmon. Nature documentary. http://liquid- art.net/#/category/the-story-of-a-danube-salmon Main service for the audit of public sector of the Republic of Srpska (2013): Report on the audit of financial reports of the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Civil Engineering and Ecology of the Republic of Srpska for the period 01.01-31.12.2012., Number: RV018-13. http://www.gsr- rs.org/static/uploads/report_attachments/imported/RI018-13_Lat.pdf Milly, P.C.D. and K.A. Dunne, 2011: On the Hydrologic Adjustment of Climate Model Projections: the Potential Pitfall of Potential Evapotranspiration. Earth Interactions, 15 (1): 1-14. Petronić, S., Kadić, J., Srndović, R. and Kovačević, D. (2009): Integrativna zaštita u Nacionalnom parku "Sutjeska". Zbornik Druge i Treće konferencije o integrativnoj zaštiti. Republički zavod za zaštitu kulturno- istorijskog i prirodnog nasljeđa Republike Srpske. Banjaluka Riahi et al., 2011. RCP 8.5—A scenario of Comparatively High Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Climatic Change.109:33–57. SEI (2015) WEAP – Water Planning and Evaluation System, User Guide, Stockholm Environment Institute. www.weap21.org Stojković M., Jaćimović N., 2016. A Simple Numerical Method for Snowmelt Simulation Based on the Equation of Heat Energy,Water Science & Technology 73(7):1550-1559. Tomson et al., 2011. RCP4.5: A Pathway for Stabilization of Radiative Forcing by 2100. Climatic Change (2011) 109:77–94. www.nezavisne.com (2011): U Drinu ubačeno 35.000 mlađi pastrmke. www.058.ba (2014): Poribljavanje u Foči. http://058.ba/2014/09/drina-poribljena-sa-oko-16-000-jedinki- mladi-pastrmke/ www.rtrs.info (2014): Poribljavanje Drine kod Višegrada. http://www.rtrs.info/vijesti/vijest/poribljavanje- drine-kod-visegrada-113704 www.zelenasrbija.rs (2012): Srbija i Republika Srpska zajedno poribljavaju Drinu. http://zelenasrbija.rs/fullregion/1561-srbija-i-republika-srpska-zajedno-poribljavaju-drinu
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 97
Water Management Strategy of the Danube River Basin, Draft version, IJC, 2014.
Montenegro: Analitika, Which parts of the territory will be included on the new Regional Park Komovi?, October 15 2014: http://portalanalitika.me/drustvo/vijesti/165771-koje-djelove-teritorije-obuhvata-novi-regionalni-park- komovi - On line information website Anon, (2003): Guidance on Monitoring for Water Framework Directive. CIS Work group 2.7. Biodiversity, Strategy and Action Plan, 2009 BirdLife International: http://www.birdlife.org/ see the map of the IBAs in BiH, Serbia and Montenegro Blečić V. (1958): Šumska vegetacija i vegetacija stena i točila reke Pive. Glasnik Prirodnjačkog muzeja u Beogradu B11, 5 -110. Bogdanović, S. & Dabić, Lj. 2005. Usklađivanje propisa Crne Gore o zaštiti životne sredine sa zahtjevima Evropske Unije [Harmonization of the Montenegrin Environmental Legislation with the Requirements of EU]. Espoo: Ramboll – Finnconsult; Stockholm: Ramboll – Natura; Beograd: REC; Podgorica: Ministarstvo zaštite životne sredine i uređenja prostora Republike Crne Gore. Brilly M., Šraj M, Vidmar A., Primožič M., Koprivšek M. and Kavčič K., 2013. Pilot project on climate change: Component A3: Compilation of various existing climate change scenarios for the region, their expected impacts on water cycle and more specifically on frequency and magnitude of extreme flood events, Part 2: Climate change impact on flood discharge of the Sava River, Hydrology report, International Sava River Basin Commission. CIS (2003a) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance document No. 2, Identification of Water bodies. European Communities, Luxembourg CIS (2003b) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance Document No. 9, Implementing the Geographical Information System Elements (GIS) of the Water Framework Directive. European Communities, Luxembourg CIS (2009a) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance Document No. 21, Guidance for reporting under the Water Framework Directive. Technical Report-2009- 029. European Communities, Luxembourg CIS (2009b) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance Document No. 22, Updated Guidance on Implementing the Geographical Information System (GIS) Elements of the EU Water policy. Technical Report-2009-028. European Communities, Luxembourg COWI. 2012, Update of the Basis for the Water Resources Management of the Vrbas River Basin, World Bank – Module 1 – Hydrological and Water Resources Assessment. COWI. 2012, Update of the Basis for the Water Resources Management of the Vrbas River Basin, World Bank – Module 2 – Hydropower Development Study COWI. 2012, Update of the Basis for the Water Resources Management of the Vrbas River Basin, World Bank – Module 3 – Integrated Water Resources Management Assessment COWI 2016 - MONTENEGRO – IWRM STUDY AND PLAN Cross Border Program Serbia and Montenegro. Oct 2014, Through Geographic Information System Towards Better Cross-Border Flood Risk Management in the Lim River Basin, Water Management Montenegro and JVP Srbijavode - European Union funding. Dan (2015): Ribolov uvrstiti u turističku ponudu. http://www.dan.co.me/?nivo=3&rubrika=Lov%20i%20ribolov&clanak=469738&najdatum=2015-01- 03&datum=2015-01-17&naslov=Ribolov%20uvrstiti%20uturisti%E8ku%20ponudu Draft Strategy for Water Management in Montenegro 2016 – 2035, 2016. EC 2014. Montenegro 2015 Progress Report, Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2014-2015, European Commission, Brussels, 8.10.2014, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2014/20141008-montenegro-progress- report_en.pdf EEA. 2010. Environmental trends and perspectives in the Western Balkans: future productions and
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 98
consumption patterns, EEA Report, No. 1/2010, European Environment Agency. Copenhagen. Energy Balances bulletins for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 (Republican Statistical Agency of Serbia); Environmental Performance Review (EPR)-Montenegro, 2015, Third Review, UNEC for Europe Elektroprivreda Crne Gore (2013): Poziv za javnu nabavku br.17/13. http://www.epcg.com/sites/epcg.com/files/17-13.pdf EPA, State of the Environmental Report of Montenegro 2013 and EPA website Godišnji izvještaj o stanju u oblasti vodosnabdjevanja, upravljanju otpadom i otpadnim vodama, realizaciji prioritetnih aktivnosti u komunalnoj djelatnosti sa predlogom prioritetnih projekata za izgradnju komunalne infrastructure i predlogom mjera, Ministartvo održivog razvoja i turizma, Podgorica, mart 2015 IPCC (2014) Flato, G., J. Marotzke, B. Abiodun, P. Braconnot, S.C. Chou, W. Collins, P. Cox, F. Driouech, S. Emori, V. Eyring, C. Forest, P. Gleckler, E. Guilyardi, C. Jakob, V. Kattsov, C. Reason and M. Rummukainen, 2013: Evaluation of Climate Models. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Local Solid Waste Management Plan 2010-2014 for Berane Municipality (OG 34/10). Local Solid Waste Management Plan 2016-2020 for Berane Municipality, Draft version, Berane, 2016. Ministry of Agriculture and rural development (2007): Poziv za javnu nabavku br.05/07. http://www.minpolj.gov.me/pretraga/64144/114845.html National Strategy of Sustainable Development of Montenegro, 2007 National Solid Waste Management Plan in Montenegro 2015-2020. Program pristupanja Crne Gore Evropskoj uniji 2015 – 2018, Februar 2015. http://www.gov.me/sjednice_vlade/98 Radio Televizija Crne Gore (2013): Poribljeno Pivsko jezero. http://www.rtcg.me/vijesti/drustvo/17206/poribljeno-pivsko-jezero.html Republic-level Solid Waste Strategic Master Plan, Gopa, 2005. Revision of the National Waste Management Strategy 2014-2020 and National Waste Management Plan 2014-2020, Dvoper d.o.o - UNDP, 2015. Screening report Montenegro Chapter 27 – Environment and climate change, 28 November 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/montenegro/screening_reports/screening_report_montenegro_ch2 7.pdf Studija o ocjeni potrebe revizije Strateškog Master plana za upravljanje otpadom u Crnoj Gori, Erico, 2011 Strategy Proposal for Solid Waste Management in Montenegro by 2030, MSDT, 2015 State Audit Institution (2015): A report on the audit of the Annual Financial Report of "Public Enterprise for National Parks of Montenegro", number 40115 – 052 – 531/34, October 2015, Podgorica. http://www.dri.co.me/1/doc/Izvje%C5%A1taj%20o%20reviziji%20Godi%C5%A1njeg%20finansijskog%20izvj e%C5%A1taja%20Javno%20preduze%C4%87e%20za%20nacionalne%20parkove%20Crne%20Gore%20- %20Podgorica%20za%202014.%20godinu.pdf, Spatial Plan of Montenegro until 2020, (OG 24/08). Strategic Master plan for waste water in the Central and North region – Montenegro, 2005. Water Resources Management Plan of Montenegro, PC Podgorica Waterworks and sewerage and Institute for the Development of Water Resources “Jaroslav Cerni”, Belgrade, 2001 UNDP (2016): Economy and environment in Montenegro. http://www.me.undp.org/content/montenegro/en/home/operations/projects/economyandenvironment.h tml Vijesti (2015a): Fabrika riblje mlađi u blizini Plužina propada. http://www.vijesti.me/vijesti/fabrika-riblje- mladi-u-blizini-pluzina-propada-815644 Vijesti (2015b): Država zaštitila Pivu: Park prirode na 32.840 hektara. http://www.vijesti.me/vijesti/drzava- zastitila-pivu-park-prirode-na-32840-hektara-830001
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 99
Serbia: Anon, (2003): Guidance on Monitoring for Water Framework Directive. CIS Work group 2.7. AR5, 2014. Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). International Panel of Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ Dankers, R., et al., 2013: First Look at Changes in Flood Hazard in the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project ensemble. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111(19): 3257–3261. Brilly M., Šraj M, Vidmar A., Primožič M., Koprivšek M. and Kavčič K., 2013. Pilot project on climate change: Component A3: Compilation of various existing climate change scenarios for the region, their expected impacts on water cycle and more specifically on frequency and magnitude of extreme flood events, Part 2: Climate change impact on flood discharge of the Sava River, Hydrology report, International Sava River Basin Commission. CIS (2003a) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Gudance document No. 2, Identification of Water bodies. European Communities, Luxembourg CIS (2003b) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance Document No. 9, Implementing the Geographical Information System Elements (GIS) of the Water Framework Directive. European Communities, Luxembourg CIS (2009a) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance Document No. 21, Guidance for reporting under the Water Framework Directive. Technical Report-2009- 029. European Communities, Luxembourg CIS (2009b) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance Document No. 22, Updated Guidance on Implementing the Geographical Information System (GIS) Elements of the EU Water policy. Technical Report-2009-028. European Communities, Luxembourg COWI. 2012, Update of the Basis for the Water Resources Management of the Vrbas River Basin, World Bank – Module 1 – Hydrological and Water Resources Assessment. COWI. 2012, Update of the Basis for the Water Resources Management of the Vrbas River Basin, World Bank – Module 2 – Hydropower Development Study COWI. 2012, Update of the Basis for the Water Resources Management of the Vrbas River Basin, World Bank – Module 3 – Integrated Water Resources Management Assessment COWI 2016 - SERBIA – IWRM STUDY AND PLAN Cross Border Program Serbia and Montenegro. Oct 2014, Through Geographic Information System Towards Better Cross-Border Flood Risk Management in the Lim River Basin, Water Management Montenegro and JVP Srbija Vode - European Union funding. EEA. 2010. Environmental trends and perspectives in the Western Balkans: future productions and consumption patterns, EEA Report, No. 1/2010, European Environment Agency. Copenhagen. eKapija Business portal (2016): Nacionalni park Sutjeska Tjentište - Foča. Delivered Services. http://www.ekapija.com/website/bih/company/relatedArticles.php?cmp=97343§ion=3&role=1 Eptisa (2015a) Plan upravljanja oblasnim riječnim slivom rijeke Save Republike Srpske, Prateći dokument br. 4: Podzemne vode. Implementation program of the Spatial Plan of RS 2010-2020, GRS, 2011. http://www.nezavisne.com/novosti/drustvo/U-Drinu-ubaceno-35000-mladji-pastrmke/111886 IPCC (2014) Flato, G., J. Marotzke, B. Abiodun, P. Braconnot, S.C. Chou, W. Collins, P. Cox, F. Driouech, S. Emori, V. Eyring, C. Forest, P. Gleckler, E. Guilyardi, C. Jakob, V. Kattsov, C. Reason and M. Rummukainen, 2013: Evaluation of Climate Models. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Liquid Art Productions (2014): The Story of a Danube Salmon. Nature documentary. http://liquid- art.net/#/category/the-story-of-a-danube-salmon Main service for the audit of public sector of the Republic of Srpska (2013): Report on the audit of financial
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 100
reports of the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Civil Engineering and Ecology of the Republic of Srpska for the period 01.01-31.12.2012., Number: RV018-13. http://www.gsr- rs.org/static/uploads/report_attachments/imported/RI018-13_Lat.pdf Milly, P.C.D. and K.A. Dunne, 2011: On the Hydrologic Adjustment of Climate Model Projections: the Potential Pitfall of Potential Evapotranspiration. Earth Interactions, 15 (1): 1-14. Ministry of Agriculture and Environmental Protection (2014): Poribljavanje reke Drine mladicom. http://www.eko.minpolj.gov.rs/poribljavanje-reke-drine-mladicom/?lang=lat National Environmental Strategy of Serbia, (OG 12/2010). Norvegian Embassy in Belgrade (2014): Battle for green Tara Mountain. http://www.norveska.org.rs/News_and_events/News-and-events1/Battle-for-green-Tara- Mountain/#.WBEO2XV97_g NP Tara (2010): The report on the realization of management program for 2010. http://www.nptara.rs/images/download/izvestaj_program_2010.pdf NP Tara (2011): The report on the realization of management program for 2011. http://www.nptara.rs/en/images/download/izvestaj_o_realizaciji_programa_upravljanja.pdf NP Tara (2012): The report on the realization of management program for 2012. http://www.nptara.rs/images/download/2016/IZVESTAJ%202012%20.pdf NP Tara (2013): The report on the realization of management program for 2013. http://www.nptara.rs/images/download/2016/IZVESTAJ%202013.pdf NP Tara (2014): The report on the realization of management program for 2014. http://www.nptara.rs/images/download/2016/IZVESTAJ%202014%20doc.pdf NP Tara (2015): The report on the realization of management program for 2015. http://www.nptara.rs/images/download/2016/izvestaj%202015.pdf Petronić, S., Kadić, J., Srndović, R. and Kovačević, D. (2009): Integrativna zaštita u Nacionalnom parku "Sutjeska". Zbornik Druge i Treće konferencije o integrativnoj zaštiti. Republički zavod za zaštitu kulturno- istorijskog i prirodnog nasljeđa Republike Srpske. Banjaluka Regional Spatial Plan of the Kolubarsko-Macvanski Region (OG 11/15). Regional Spatial Plan of the Zlatiborsko-Moravicki Region (OG 1/2013). Regional Waste Management Plan for the Zlatiborsko-Moravicki Region, 2011. Regional Waste Management Plan for Municipalities Prijepolje, Nova Varos, Priboj and Sjenica, 2011. Riahi et al., 2011. RCP 8.5—A scenario of Comparatively High Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Climatic Change.109:33–57. Stojković M., Jaćimović N., 2016. A Simple Numerical Method for Snowmelt Simulation Based on the Equation of Heat Energy, Water Science & Technology 73(7):1550-1559. SEA of the Water Management Strategy of the Danube River Basin, Draft version, IAUS, 2015. Spatial Plan of Republic of Serbia 2010-2020, (OG 88/2010). SEI (2015) WEAP – Water Planning and Evaluation System, User Guide, Stockholm Environment Institute, www.weap21.org Special Nature Reserve “Uvac” (2014): The report on the realization of management program for 2014:. http://www.uvac.org.rs/dokumenti/2.%20Izvestaj%20o%20radu%20za%202014..doc Special Nature Reserve “Uvac” (2015): The report on the realization of management program for 2015. http://www.uvac.org.rs/dokumenti/Izvestaj%20o%20radu%20za%202015!!!.doc State Audit Institution of Republic of Serbia (2012): The report on the financial statements and operating correctness of the Nature Park "Nature park Mokra gora doo" for 2011. file:///home/kostoberina/Desktop/4_ppmg2011.pdf Tomson et al., 2011. RCP4.5: A Pathway for Stabilization of Radiative Forcing by 2100. Climatic Change (2011) 109:77–94. UNDP (2016): UNDP in Serbia. http://www.rs.undp.org/content/serbia/en/home/operations/projects/overview.html Vlada Republike Srbije/Government of Republic of Serbia (2014) Strategija poljoprivrede i ruralnog razvoja
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 101
Republike Srbije za period 2014–2024 (Strategy of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Republic of Serbia for 2014–2024), Sl. glasnik RS/Official Gazette, 85/2014. Waste Management Strategy 2010-2019, (OG 29/10). Water Management Strategy of the Territory of the Republic of Serbia 2016-2034, 2016. Water Management Strategy of the Danube River Basin, Draft version, IJC, 2014. www.nezavisne.com (2011): U Drinu ubačeno 35.000 mlađi pastrmke. www.058.ba (2014): Poribljavanje u Foči. http://058.ba/2014/09/drina-poribljena-sa-oko-16-000-jedinki- mladi-pastrmke/ www.rtrs.info (2014): Poribljavanje Drine kod Višegrada. http://www.rtrs.info/vijesti/vijest/poribljavanje- drine-kod-visegrada-113704 www.zelenasrbija.rs (2012): Srbija i Republika Srpska zajedno poribljavaju Drinu. http://zelenasrbija.rs/fullregion/1561-srbija-i-republika-srpska-zajedno-poribljavaju-drinu
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 102
6 Appendixes
6.1 Invitation letters to Focal points
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 103
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 104
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 105
6.2 Minutes of meetings
6.2.1 Minutes of Meeting (MOM) BiH, July 2017
Title Presentation of the Final IPF (Investment Prioritisation Framework) Report and Project Roof Report Date July 5, 2017 Time 11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Place Sarajevo, conference room of Foreign Trade Chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Address: Branislava Đurđeva 10, fifth floor)
The main objective of this meeting was to present the final IPF report for Bosnia and Herzegovina and Draft Roof Report. The meeting was attended by key stakeholders of the project: Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina (MOFTER), Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water- Management and Forestry of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FMAWMF), Federal Ministry for the Environment and Tourism of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FMET), Agency for Water Area of Sava River Basin (AWASRB), Federal Hydrometeorological Institute of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FHMI), PC Elektroprivreda BiH, MH Elektroprivreda Republike Srpske (MH-ERS), together with project experts and team leader - Ms. Nadja Železnik. Invitation for the meeting for all project key stakeholders in Bosnia and Herzegovina was sent by e-mail and in writing by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina (MOFTER), and was published on their website. The Agenda of the meeting (Annex 1) is an integral part of this minutes, as well as List of participants (Annex 2).
Order of the report presentation was:
* Presentation of the Final IPF report for Bosnia and Herzegovina:
1. Introduction and presentation of scenarios 2. Analyses Performed including hydropower potential 3. Environmental and Social Issues 4. Results and Conclusions
* Presentation of Draft Roof Report:
1. Introduction and general approach 2. Water management and water protection 3. Specific Aspects and Conclusions
Presentation of the final IPF report for Bosnia and Herzegovina Mr. Boško Kenjić, representative of the institution that is the project Focal Point in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations of Bosnia and Herzegovina (MOFTER), opened the meeting, emphasizing that this meeting is very important and gave a brief overview of the current status of the project realization and the goal of this meeting. Mr. Kenjić pointed out that the Final IPF report was received and as such distributed to all relevant stakeholders in the country, but that there was a very short time-frame for the report to be thoroughly reviewed.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 106
After the introductory statement of Mr. Boško Kenjić, team leader Ms. Nadja Železnik started the presentation of the Final IPF Report for Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the introductory Ms. Železnik gave a brief overview of the organization, structure, methodology and goals of the project and presented the envisaged scenarios for Bosnia and Herzegovina. She also pointed out that main objective of the project was to improve the cooperation in all three countries in the Drina River Basin.
Due to the scope and complexity of the report, Mr. Boško Kenjić suggested that participants should be given a certain time limit for submitting comments to the final IPF report for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Ms. Nadja Železnik proposed July 20, 2017 as the deadline for submitting comments from all stakeholders.
Following the introductory section on the IPF report given by Ms. Nadja Železnik, performed analyses on hydropower potential was presented by Mr. Cane Čekerevac, who focused on the development scenarios, their various aspects and current drafts of the analysis results underlying that all comments received from stakeholders were taken into account. Several key notes by Mr. Čekerevec were: • 16 existing/potential HPPs on the Drina River in Bosnia and Herzegovina were analysed in the Report. • 3 possible scenarios: o "Green Growth" scenario (no new HPP plants) o "Reduced HPP Maximisation" scenario (planned reduction of HPP construction, two options were analysed) o "Hydropower Maximisation" scenario (includes the construction of 16 HPP on the Drina River) All parameters of the planned HPPs were reduced to the same level in order to be comparable. Based on the estimated input parameters and analyses performed, it was concluded that the most optimal scenario for Bosnia and Herzegovina is "Reduced HPP Maximisation" - Option 1.
Mr. Nenad Jaćimović was talking about the potential impacts of the proposed scenarios on the environmental and social Issues. He emphasized that in this part of the project a large number of experts participated from different fields relevant to environmental and social Issues and that they analysed the potential impacts of proposed scenarios on all aspects of the environment. Potential impacts were assessed according to a methodology that enabled the evaluation of proposed scenarios within the framework of multicriteria analysis. Considering only the environmental and social aspects of the scenario realization, it was concluded that the "Reduced HPP Maximisation" - Option 1, is more favourable option than the other considered scenarios. Discussion: • Mr. Boško Kenjić pointed out that upon conclusion of this meeting we cannot say that this version of the document is completely accepted since there is no appropriate response from key stakeholders at the meeting. Accordingly, we need to define how many more days we will need to go through this report once again, given that certain issues need to be addressed and examined further especially taking into account what is stated in Roof Report for all three countries. In addition to this, he kindly asked for detailed information on which comments received from stakeholders in Bosnia and Herzegovina were taken into account in the Final IPF Report and which weren’t. • Ms. Nadja Železnik pointed out that all comments received from stakeholders were taken into account in the Final IPF report, as well as that a correction of the Inception report and the IWRM report was made. • Mr. Boško Kenjić asked how the elaboration of the received comments was made, especially those related to the reversible HPP "Buk Bijela".
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 107
• Mr. Cane Čekerevac pointed out that the consortium accepted all comments, on the basis of the agreement from the meeting held at the beginning of the year. These changes relate to the Inception report as well as to the IWRM report in accordance with the comments received. When it comes to reversible HPP "Buk Bijela", it was treated in the same way as reversible HPP "Bistrica" in Serbia. • Ms. Nadja Železnik pointed out that the consent from all stakeholders in Bosnia and Herzegovina was obtained for the above (criteria for treatment of the reversible HPP "Buk Bijela"). • Mr. Cane Čekerevac pointed out that the consortium had many discussions related to treating the cost price of these projects individually. And then there was an explicit demand that some projects should take into account the cost price that came out of some recent studies. However, he pointed out that what was prioritized in the Draft IPF Report was that practically this priority was not changed. Sensitivity analysis of these final results shows that practically some minor cost price deviations from those accepted in the Draft report do not affect the final result. Regarding the reversible HPPs, they were treated in the same way and on the basis of the available data for both RHPP. • Mr. Boško Kenjić pointed out that he did not have time to take a detailed look of the IPF report for Serbia, and accordingly asked what multicriteria analysis for Serbia showed or which HPPs are the priority ones for Serbia. • Mr. Cane Čekerevac pointed out that this issue is very important and that it concerns Roof Report that needs to integrate everything, but Bosnia and Herzegovina as well. As far as the Republic of Serbia is concerned, some borderline objects are the priority HPPs for them. Therefore, cross- border cooperation and understanding is crucial. • Ms. Nadja Železnik presented projects that are the priority ones for Serbia. • Mr. Emir Isaković asked why a multicriteria analysis for the "Green Growth" scenario was not performed so that comparisons can be made, as this was discussed during the presentation of the Draft IPF Report. • Mr. Nenad Jaćimović answered that when all other scenarios were discussed it was understood that all criteria of the "Green growth" scenario are implemented, and accordingly results presented in all three scenarios include those from the "Green growth" scenario. • Mr. Željko Ratković stated that we have two very serious consulting companies in this project from Norway and Switzerland and that a little more was expected with the basic goal of better use of hydro-power potential of our area. Two studies have been carried out recently regarding the hydropower analysis: one for the Western Balkans and this one for the region encompasses three countries. This study should analyse water management problems: protection from water, water protection and water use. If we analyse the Drina River and utilization of river resources, we can conclude that these potentials are used at a modest level, and if analyse the consequences and damage caused by the river Drina, they are really huge, so attention should be paid to this issue (e.g. only in the last 100 years Bijeljina was flooded 10 times). This fact alone tells a lot about how great of an issue it really is. On the other hand, drought damage is present in the summer as much as flood damage, so the yield turns out lower than expected (20 to 30 percent of the expected yields), and if the river Drina was used properly yield could be up to 200% more than expected. If we observe the energy sector, the Bosnia and Herzegovina region has almost 15 times less potential than Norway, Bosnia and Herzegovina has a problem with the lack of electricity and we expect to get that energy from the hydro power potential. If we look at the proposed scenarios, the "Green Growth" scenario at one point suggests that nothing should be built, but instead suggests to increase the level of usefulness of the existing ones. Taking into account climate changes and predicted precipitation levels over the next 100 years, we come to the point that we will have a lack of energy that would cause even greater problems then already existing ones. If we talk about environmental impacts and observe the lower course of the Drina River where we have largest accumulations, construction of embankments to create conditions that will protect the area of
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 108
Semberija and Mačva from floods and thus we get some 1600 GW of electric power is very important and good for everyone. These facts tell us that we must have a slightly different approach and create the conditions for building those projects that have a greater social impact. We think that the consultant should further analyse the hydrological changes that had occurred before in order to adequately predict what will happen in the future. Also, logging causes problems related to erosion, so the consultant should also give answers to these questions. • Ms. Nadja Železnik pointed out that the envisaged scenarios were defined at the very beginning in cooperation with all stakeholders. • Mr. Cane Čekerevac pointed out that the project task defined the goals. Unfortunately, the project did not have the task to solve all the problems of the hydropower system of any of these countries, but the task of the project was to analyse and show which scenarios were possible, and to suggest an optimal scenario based on pre-defined criteria. It is up to the investor and the country to choose the project to realize, and that can even be the worst one according to our criteria. The one who invests money has an interest, and it is up to the country to make strategic decisions in which direction they want to further develop the hydro-power sector. • Mr. Željko Ratković further noted that no attention was paid to afforestation, as this would have contributed to the impact of water. • Ms. Irvina Numić said that at one point it was proposed to ensure the coordination of work of HPPs. Have you thought about how? • Ms. Nadja Železnik pointed out that one of the ways to do it is how it was done through the Sava Commission. • Ms. Alma Imamović pointed out that in her opinion, the “Base case scenario” is missing here and that it is not the same as the "Green Growth" scenario because it includes certain environmental issues. She also pointed out that in the section on "Environmental and social issues" no other pollution was mentioned except those that are the result of building hydro-accumulations. (e.g. pollution from agriculture, what happens to sewage treatment plants, etc.). • Mr. Nenad Jaćimović answered that when creating scenarios all strategic documents and plans adopted by each country related to environmental protection were taken into account, and that this was the starting point to all further considerations. • Ms. Suada Numić pointed out that Europe's tendency is to use renewable energy sources but that we have a lot of problems with existing thermal power projects. It is very important to check the strategies for the energy sector and whether they are taken into consideration. In addition, she pointed out that it should be taken into account that Republika Srpska declared the area of the Drina River a National park. • Ms. Lejla Šuman emphasized that the Government of Republika Srpska made a draft Law on the proclamation of "NP Drina", but that this Law has not been adopted yet by the National Assembly of Republika Srpska. • Ms. Alma Imamović pointed out that we will be faced with the problem of water supply in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Boško Kenjić thanked everyone for the fruitful discussion and noted that July 20th is the deadline for receiving comments on the IPF Report and asked the participants to send comments to his e-mail address or e-mail address of Ms. Gorana Bašević.
Presentation of Draft Roof Report:
Ms. Nadja Železnik presented the Draft Roof Report and presented recommendations for Bosnia and Herzegovina. She said that all documents can be found on the website. She suggested July 26, 2017 as the deadline for submitting comments from stakeholders to the Draft Roof Report.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 109
Ms. Jovanka Ignjatović was talking about water management and water protection in the Drina river basin. It is important to take into account environmentally acceptable flow, reducing flood risks, sediment management. Urban areas have problems with rain and wastewater due to the lack of system maintenance, as well as the lack of funds and the disregard of the river banks. Care should be taken of irrigation, tourism and protection of groundwater. The conclusion is that there is no cooperation in the basin and no emphasis is placed on sediment management. Countries should harmonize methods, protect biodiversity, protect water, provide water quality and monitoring.
At the end Mr. Dragoljub Todić was talking about specific cross-border aspects and conclusions. Mr. Todić stated, among other things, that all three countries are members of key international treaties, that there are significant similarities, that there are some differences in the status of the three countries in the relevant international treaties in the field of water resources management, environment and energy that would be good to remove; that there are no bilateral agreements between the three countries, although they are some initiatives in this direction; that all three countries are in the process of harmonisation their internal regulations with EU regulations, but that there are differences in the achieved level of compliance; that in order to improve the cooperation of the three countries, it is not enough only to harmonise internal regulations with EU regulations; that it would be good to initiate the procedure of mutual harmonisation of some internal regulations of the three countries; that in the international law there are rules and practices of contractual regulation of relations between countries regarding the management of common cross- border water resources and that these rules and regulations should be used, etc. The principle of fair and reasonable use and participation in the use of international water resources, as well as other relevant principles, is the basis for the regulation of these relations. It is proposed, among other, to initiate the procedure for contractual regulation of the relations between the countries in the Drina River basin, and especially between Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding the plans for the use of water resources of the middle and lower course of the Drina River. Discussion: • Ms. Alma Imamović asked whether this Roof Report will provide a common Strategy for the entire basin. She pointed out that the Roof Report should define a draft scenario for managing the entire Drina River Basin without considering borders as this should be the starting point for further negotiations and achieving the objectives of sustainable river basin management. The Reports contain scenarios for each country individually and there is no joint proposal for the entire river basin. • Mr. Boško Kenjić asked what is the added value of the Roof Report. After reading the report, he noted that he wouldn’t know what to propose for further activities between the countries in the near future. There is no such proposal in the report. Consultant tried to summarize the Roof Report, make it easy to read and have on hand for quick use. However, we ended up having completely wrong messages from this Roof report, which were repeated by consultants even today on this meeting (that Serbia will build four HPP in the middle course of the Drina, Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Montenegro what they want, therefore, each country individually), which leads to the situation that there is no common content in the Roof Report, which is not the purpose of the Roof Report. Roof report by its content cannot be a summary of what is written for each country individually. It is made on the basis of the performed analyses by country, but we need to ask for a common content. The report says that Bosnia and Herzegovina stated to have priorities in the upper Drina, and that we are not interested in what is happening in the middle course of the Drina, which is not true. There is only one sentence in the Roof Report related to Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, which says "that's on the border" so it must be a joint work. Such Report does not really have any added value. Additionally, many formulations in the draft Roof Report are unclear, and if someone were to read only the Roof Report, without reading the previous Reports, a mess would be made and complete misunderstanding of everything that should be defined in the Roof Report. Legal issues must be corrected further because there are things that are stated in the Report that are quite simply not accurate. After three years of work on
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 110
the project, it must not be stated in the report that the country did not approve some Protocol or an Agreement, and that in fact it did. The work cannot be done from some remote location and reports must not contain inaccurate information about something that is the essence of the story and cooperation between the three countries. • When asked by Mr. Dragoljub Todić which Protocol is in question, Mr. Boško Kenjić replied that it was the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), which was ratified by Bosnia and Herzegovina and that information was published in the Official Gazette. Mr. Dragoljub Todić explained that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not yet a member of this international agreement (not recorded by the depository, the period necessary for entry into force of the agreement has not yet expired after delivery of instruments of ratification). The fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina has ratified the Protocol does not affect the statement in the Report since Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a member at the moment of writing the report. Of course, the fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina ratified the contract will be noted in the remarks. In addition, he said that the consultant was faced with problems from the very beginning in relation to the dynamics of the regulation change in the region. All reports that were prepared within the project were completed by a certain date. He stressed that it is best that all comments should be submitted in writing. • Mr. Boško Kenjić further commented that a lot of general recommendations were given in the report and that they addressed many issues (environmentally acceptable flow, protected zones, the need to improve monitoring, etc.). However, he stressed that all these recommendations are too general. We didn’t need this project to come up with general conclusions that we already knew more or less. He also emphasized that it is good to present the Draft Roof Report by country, but that in his view further discussion on the Roof Report should be organized for all three countries together, not individually country by country. And then we need to go through the list of recommendations and see if we will keep all 40 recommendations in the Report, or we will redefine it further which would facilitate further activities for concluding bilateral agreements. We need to recognize somewhere in this Roof Report the interest to work together. For many years now, we are talking about the construction of HPPs, we had joint agreements and contracts, so we encountered some joint problems also. The report states the need for cooperation (and we know that), but there is no recommendation on how to improve this cooperation and what this cooperation implies. In the end, he noted that in the next three weeks Bosnia and Herzegovina will collect and summarize all the comments to the Draft Roof Report, but once again stressed that Roof Report written in this form has no added value in relation to what is already written in the IPF reports. • Ms. Branislava Milekić commented that she did not read the Report in detail, but she wanted to comment on the fact that in relation to the four projects that were mentioned and which Serbia is planning to build in the middle course of the Drina, Bosnia and Herzegovina has nothing to object since MH Elektroprivreda Republike Srpske (MH-ERS), together with Elektroprivreda Srbije (Electric Power Industry of Serbia - EPS), participated in the preparation of these projects and invested considerable funds and considers them promising. She commented that it is not clear if these projects are considered unacceptable by Bosnia and Herzegovina and that it is important to pay attention to these issues. • Mr. Boško Kenjić further commented that the multicriteria analysis showed that some other projects were considered a priority/best valued for Bosnia and Herzegovina and that was the basis for this conclusion that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not interested in the middle course of the Drina, which of course is not true and such remark cannot be included in the Report. We need to find a way to properly define it in the Report for it to be acceptable as these Reports will be used as the starting point for negotiations, projects and withdrawals of financial resources in the future.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 111
• Ms. Nadja Železnik commented that the consultant will collect and address all received comments and prepare and deliver a new Roof report by the end of August 2017. Thereafter, a joint meeting with Focal Points from all three countries should be organized. • Mr. Boško Kenjić commented that this should not be a meeting organised only for Focal Points but with other stakeholders as well. • Ms. Nadja Železnik commented that the meeting could be organised together with other institutions which should be agreed on in the coming period.
In the end, Mr. Boško Kenjić and Ms. Nadja Železnik invited all participants/institutions to review the reports in detail, provide comments and recommendations, and send them within the specified deadline.
Mr. Boško Kenjić noted that July 26th is the deadline for receiving comments on the Draft Roof Report and asked the participants to send comments to his e-mail address or e-mail address of Ms. Gorana Bašević.
Conclusions
Conclusions/ Follow-up activities Deadline Responsible findings 1 Comments on the Final IPF Report 20.07.2017 Users 2 Comments on the Draft Roof Report 26.07.2017 Users 3 Preparation of the Final Roof Report End of August Project team
Ms. Nadja Železnik thanked everyone on behalf of the consultants for participation in the meeting.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 112
6.2.2 Minutes of Meeting (MOM) Montenegro, July 2017
Title Presentation of final IPF Report and Roof Report Date 6th July 2017 Time 10:00 – 13:00h Venue Podgorica, Old Government building, Jovana Tomaševića 2, 81000 Podgorica
The main objective of the meeting was the presentation of the final IPF Report for Montenegro and the presentation of the draft Roof report for which comments and suggestions are expected. The meeting was attended by the project stakeholders: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), representatives of the Sport and fishing association from Municipality Plav - "Plavsko jezero" and consultants. Invitation to the meeting was was published on the Ministry's website and sent by e-mail of Focal Point Mr. Momcilo Blagojevic to all stakeholders in the project in Montenegro. The agenda (Annex 1) is a part of this minute and a list of participants (Annex 2).
The sequence of presentations of the studies was:
* Presentation of the Final IPF Report for Montenegro:
5. Introduction and presentation of scenarios 6. Performed analyses including HPPs 7. Environmental and social issues 8. Results and conclusions
* Presentation of the Draft Roof Report:
4. Introduction and general approach 5. Water management and protection 6. Specific aspects and conclusions
* Discussion and Closing of the meeting
Ten participants were present at the consultation meeting. After welcome speech of Mr. Momcilo Blagojevic from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Government of Montenegro, Ms. Nadja Zeleznik, Team leader started presentation of the Final IPF Report and the Draft Roof Report. She briefly summarized the project history as well as the purpose of the project, why it is organized and why it is being implemented. Ms. Železnik said that the project was organized to improve cooperation in all three countries of the Drina River Basin. Conclusion was that there is poor cooperation among municipalities, and also data collection, control and analysis need to be carried out.
Mr. Zdravko Stojanović from the Institute for water management “Jaroslav Černi” presented the IPF Report after introductory part. Mr. Stojanovic presented analysis of the existing state of hydroelectricity/HPPs in Drina River basin, with focus on Montenegro, as well as analysed development scenarios (Green - Green Growth/Reduced HPP Maximization – Optimal devlopment/Full Development - Full HPP Maximization), to which assessment criteria have been applied (multicriteria assessment: economic/social/environmental protection), which resulted in the selection of the Optimal Development Scenario as the most adequate for
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 113
the needs of Montenegro's development. Mr. Stojanovic also pointed that due to the recommendation of national stakeholders development activities related to Tara, translation of Tara into Moraca were not taken into consideration, and consequently, togather with multicriteria analysis, it resulted in choosing the scenario of Clean Strategy/Optimum Development + two new power plants: Lukin Vir and Andrijevica. In relation to monitoring and geographic significance, it was proposed to expand the number of stations across the entire Drina River Basin (19 stations in Montenegro).
Ms. Železnik then presented the Draft Roof Report and recommendations for Montenegro. She said that everything is on the website. It is needed to send comments by the end of Jyly 2017 (25.07.2017), and it is necessary to finish the report by the end of August 2017.
Ms. Jovanka Ignjatovic was talking about water management and protection of water at the level of the entire basin, taking into account three aspects: water protection (forest management, flood protection), water use (hydropower, irrigation, water supply, recreation, wells) and water protection (sediment management, environmentally acceptable flow, biodiversity and water quality). With all three aspects taken into account, it was stressed that more co-operation in the basin is necessary, following with monitoring in line with the Water Framework Directive (EU WFD) - increasing the number of stations on Drina and increasing the frequency of measurement, harmonizing the sampling and measuring method, and modernizing equipment. It is also important to consider environmentally acceptable flow (EPP), reducing flood risk, sediment management. Urban areas have problems with rain and wastewater due to failure to maintain the system, as well as the lack of funds, river banks not maintained properly. Attention should be given to irrigation, tourism and the protection of groundwater. The conclusion encompasses lack of cooperation in the basin and sediment management. Countries should harmonize methods, protect biodiversity, protect water, ensure water quality and monitoring and protection of wells.
Mr. Dragoljub Todic talked about specific cross-border aspects of water resources management and conclusions, at the end of presentation part of consultation meeting. Mr. Todic stated, among other things, that all three countries are members of key international treaties and significant similarities exists; some differences in the status of the three countries in the relevant international treaties in the field of water resources management, environment and energy also appears to exists that would be desirable to be resolved; no bilateral agreements between the three countries are in place, although activities in that respect have been initiated; all three countries are harmonizing their internal regulations with EU regulations, but there are differences in the achieved level of compliance; in order to improve the cooperation of the three countries, it is not enough only to harmonize internal regulations with EU regulations; it would be desirable to initiate the process of mutual harmonization of some internal regulations of three countries (e.g. ecologically acceptable flow, concessions, classification and categorization of waters, etc.); in international laws rules and principles of contractual regulation of relations between countries regarding the management of shared cross-border water resources exists and should be used, etc. The principle of fair and reasonable use and participation in the use of international water resources, as well as other relevant principles, are basis for the regulation of these relations. It is proposed, among other things, to initiate the procedure for contractual regulation of the relations between the countries in the Drina River basin, and especially between Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding the plans for the use of water resources of the middle and lower parts of the Drina.
Finally, Mr. Momcilo Blagojevic and Mrs. Nadja Zeleznik invited all participants to review reports, provide comments and send them within the deadline (until 25.07.2017). Constructive discussion followed:
* Discussion was opened by Mr. Omar Basic from the Sport and fishing association from Municipality Plav - "Plavsko jezero", who made the biggest objections regarding the data on fishing and species listed in the part of the documented related to Montenegro, especially from in relation to the Plav region. Mr. Bašić
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 114
pointed out that according to the presented data it could be concluded that Montenegro experts did not participated, nor was public consulted, as otherwise the given data would not contain such omissions. He pointed out at fish species: river charr, a cauldron, a salmon, stating that those are not the same species and that everyone in Montenegro knows this. He asked the question: the documents do not mention "river basin land", and considers it necessary to provide information about it and its contribution to protection. The question was: Was the river basin land issue discussed in the Report? He also stated that according to the Montenegrin legislation, river basin land is considered in the length of 8-15 m from the highest water level. In practice, according to Mr. Bašić, this land is categorized as agricultural, and it is easy to transform agricultural land into construction land.
* Mr. Momcilo Blagojevic from MARD informed participants of the fact that at the beginning of the implementation of the project, the team from representatives of relevant institutions at the national level was established, due to the operational and decision-making efficiency related to the implementation of the project. It also considers that anything that is considered unreasonable and adequately explained and confirmed in the Report should be amended or deleted. Mr. Blagojevic also informed all participants that the procedure for developing water information system in Montenegro is in progress. He stated that all interested parties in Montenegro will be informed and invited to participate in commenting once the first draft of the products is developed, in order to strengthen its quality. In addition, Mr. Blagojevic informed of the the project that is being implemented to strengthen the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). In the continuation of the discussion, Mr. Blagojević noted that Montenegro adopted in 2016 the Rulebook on minimum ecological flow.
* Mr. Stojanovic from the Institute for water management “Jaroslav Černi” commented to the initial comments of Mr. Basic from the Sport and fishing association from Municipality Plav - "Plavsko jezero", and he stated that he agreed with everything that Mr. Basic stated, noting that it is necessary to develop modifications of the System of incentives for the construction of HPP/SHPP, which is a system problem, since it may be better to have several hydroelectric power plant with powerhouse at the toe of the dam/dam toe powerhouse, not one SHPP. He added that due to incentive measures, the investor most often complains about the professional recommendations/opinion, as well as of the public, and about ecology, because such approach is cheaper, and the profit is higher, ie. investments are less. In addition, Mr. Stanojevic stated that the problem that Mr. Basic refers to is recognized and reflected into the Report. As for the existence of the HPPs, Mr. Stojanovic stated that today energy consumption is growing every day and the reduction of energy consumption from energy efficiency is not possible. All countries in the basin are limited by energy resources - no oil/gas, but they have water to be used. The Komarnica problem is recognized in the Development Strategy, therefore there is a higher and lower quota of the project flow. Mr. Stojanovic also pointed out that he and his colleagues from the Institute did everything in accordance with the principles of sustainable development, since the lack of development is not sustainable. Without development Montenegro relies heavily on electricity imports (35%) and the outflow of resources arising from the use of water resources.
* Mr. Blagojević from MARD add few additional info to Mr. Stojanović's discussion and expressed his opinion that it is necessary to use water potential, but with compromises and without environmental threats. It should be considered that HPPs lead to regulation of river beds, prevent floods, they can be subject to tourist valorization and serve to improve fish fund. He expressed the opinion that Montenegro has great water potential, but requires rational use and compromise between development and environmental protection.
* Mr. Nenad Jaćimovic, on behalf of Stucky Consortium, stated that all issues and inadequacies presented by Mr. Basic, concerning the part of nature protection, will be passed on to colleagues who worked on it in order to be resolved.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 115
* At the end of the discussion, Mr. Momcilo Blagojevic thanked to all participants and invited them to submit comments within the deadline - 25.07.2017. Comments should be sent in writting, in order for the project team to comply with them adequately.
* Ms. Nađa Železnik thanked to everyone for today’s participation on the behalf of the consultant.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 116
6.2.3 Minutes of Meeting (MOM) Serbia, July 2017
Title Presentation of final IPF Report and Roof Report Date 4th July 2017 Time 10:00 – 13:00h Venue Beograd, Srbijavode boat, Brodarska 3, 11070 Beograd – New Beograd
The main objective of the meeting was the presentation of the final IPF Report for Serbia and the presentation of the draft Roof report for which comments and suggestions are expected. The meeting was attended by the project stakeholders: Ministry of Environmental Protection, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management – Republic Directorate for Water, JVP “Srbijavode”, JVP “Srbijavode” VPC “Sava-Dunav”, JVP “Vode Vojvodine”, Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia – RHMZ, Institute “Jaroslav Černi”, The Standing Conference of towns and municipalities – SKGO, Drinsko-Limske Hydropower Plants, WWF Serbia, Cekor, Faculty of natural sciences – Novi Sad, Faculty of Civil Engineering – Beograd. Invitation to the meeting was sent by e-mail of Focal Point Ms. Marija Lazarević to all stakeholders in the project in the Republic of Serbia. The agenda (Annex 1) is a part of this minute, and list of participants (Annex 2).
The sequence of presentations of the studies was:
* Presentation of the Final IPF Report for Serbia:
9. Introduction and presentation of scenarios 10. Performed analyses including HPPs 11. Environmental and social issues 12. Results and conclusions
* Presentation of the Draft Roof Report:
7. Introduction and general approach 8. Water management and protection 9. Specific aspects and conclusions
* Discussion and Closing of the meeting
Around 30 participants attended the meeting. After welcome speech of Ms. Marija Lazarević, Ms. Nadja Železnik, Team leader started presentation of the Final IPF Report and the Draft Roof Report. She briefly summarized the project history as well as the purpose of the project, why it is organized and why it is being implemented. Ms. Železnik said that the project was organized to improve cooperation in all three countries of the Drina River Basin. Conclusion was that there is poor cooperation among municipalities, and also data collection, control and analysis need to be carried out.
Ms. Nataša Marinković was talking about the project and about performed analyses including HPPs. All hydropower plants were reduced to the same level to be comparable. Obtained inputs were estimated and an optimal scenario was based on the analyses. Mr. Nenad Jaćimović was talking about the environment
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 117
and social issues. A large number of experts participated from the mentioned fields. It has been determined that there is potential in all locations, but it depends on whether it will be used. When all is taking into concideration the reduced scenario is more favourable.
Mr. Zdravko Stojanović from the Institute for water management “Jaroslav Černi” said there was a report on the website. Monitoring is important because in this way the network is identifies, it provides an overview of the availability of data and the reliability of existing data, provides suggestions for improvement measures, receives information on what is available, what is the condition of the infrastructure, whether there are bottlenecks. Exchange of information is important in order to give a recommendation. Mr. Stojanović mentioned the Chapter 11. They sent questionnaires, processed data to get the condition of the network by country. There was a question of subjects outside the system who measures for their own needs: Should they be out of the system. Recommendation is to see who is measuring and register it. Also, it was indicated that it would be good to perform hourly measurements or 15-minute measurements because this would be of great importance to the Emergency services. It would be good for all the countries in the Drina River Basin to use the same measurement software. The goals are to cover the entire basin with adequate measurements. It needs to be established: 1) what is the existing equipment, 2) purchase of missing equipment, 3) install new stations (provide resources). Mr. Stojanović said that the list of stations was expanded due to the geographic importance of the stations.
Ms. Železnik then presented the Draft Roof Report and recommendations for Serbia. She said that everything is on the website. It is needed to send comments by the end of July 2017, and it is necessary to finish the report by the end of August 2017.
Ms. Jovanka Ignjatović was talking about water management and protection of water in the basin. It is important to take into account ecologically acceptable flow, reducing the risk of floods, managing sediments. Urban areas have problems with rainwater and wastewater because of failure to maintain the system, and because of the lack of funds and unsettled river banks. There should be taking care of irrigation, tourism and protection of groundwater. The conclusion is that there is no cooperation on the basin and sediment management is no emphasized. Countries should harmonize methods, protect biodiversity, protect water, provide water quality and monitoring.
At the end Mr. Dragoljub Todić was talking about specific aspects and conclusions. Mr. Todić specified that Drina is a school example of a conflict situation. The question is whether it is enough for three countries to become EU members in order to resolve such issues more easily and quickly. The answer is not enough, because we are witnesses that many conflicts often occur among the EU member states. The soulution is in fair principle and reasonable usage, and participation in the use of international water resources. It is necessary to bring it to the higher harmonized level, especially between Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
At the end Ms. Marija Lazarević i Ms. Nađa Železnik invited all participants to look at the reports, to give comments and send it in mentioned deadline. After that a constructive discussion was followed:
* Mr. Ratko Bajčetić, representative from “Vode Vojvodine” started a discussion mentioned the presentation of Ms. Jovanka Ignjatović about structural and non-structural measures. Land management should be added, for example erosion. Erosion processes impair the soil structure. Only structural measures cannot solve the problem but administrative bans could. Ms. Ignjatović said it was mentioned in the report, but she will check and add if it is necessary.
* Mr. Slavimir Stevanović, representative from Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia – RHMZ wanted to speak about the part that talked about RHMZ. He mentioned that he was involved in the project from the beginning until a year ago. He said that he was surprised to hear from colleague who said that the
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 118
seriouse project about the monitoring issue started (GEF). And since 2000. (17 years) they have been working with the same topic, but actually did not moved further from the essentially point – and it is a data. Finally, it was realized that if monitoring is not done and “update” methodology with worse and worse data, the project will be based on very bad information. The World Bank understood and financed the project Establishment of basic monitoring of hydrometeorological monitoring. About two years ago this project installed a network of hydrometeorological stations. If something is written in this report, that funds are necessary it will be weird because something like this already exists. Procurement approval of station equipment is currently ongoing and this will be done this year.
* Ms. Marija Lazarević said it would be best Mr. Zdravko Stojanović to answer on this. Mr. Stojanović said if this is done, people would not be invited to do it again or there was a possibility that it was done, but it is not approved yet. He added at the beginning there was a team of experts who started the work and then the team “disappeared”. He referred to Mr. Stevanović with a statement that data may be known to them because he does not know about it. According to the World Bank website, this is obviously not done. Mr. Stevanović added that this already exists, the network of stations, hydrological-hydraulic water, the purpose of each station is indicated. All hydrometeorological institutes have done this, and all this is known to the detail. Currently it is in approval process in Washington. Mr. Stojanovic said that as long as it was not approved for them, it was not over and that they had their own project in which they produced some results.
* Ms. Lazarević joined the discussion and added that it cannot be said that we are not interested in what the current project is based. Also, she added that RHMZ is competent national monitoring institution and their data should be used. Mr. Stojanović said that he did not dispose of these data, and Ms. Lazarević said that Mr. Stevanović could give these data. Mr. Stojanović added that call for project has a bad timing. Mr. Slavimir Stevanović said that project is terribly late and said to Mr. Stojanović there is no need to feel bad about it because there are two projects on Sava. First project (project based on management), to give inputs for second project should be finished first – this project is late one year. Now they have inversely situation that second project is finished earlier (prognostic model).
* Mr. Stojanović said that this project had the dynamics it had. When people who initially worked on the project left, they no longer had feedback, and they were interested. Ms. Lazarević addressed to Zdravko Stojanović with a question and why they did not ask RHMZ what is it about. Mr. Stojanović replied that they did not know who to ask. They asked Dragana Vasić and prof. Borislava Blagojević from Niš but they could not say anything to them. They wanted a tight relationship with the project. Mr. Stevanović said that the RHMZ should no longer be an alibi for such things and he invited to find solutions. It was said that an "update“ was made, but with what, with which data – asked Mr. Stevanović. And he added that this study is based on data from 60s from last century. Mr. Stojanović added that in the study it was not said that infrastructure is bad but it was said infrastructure improvement is needed. RHMZ was on purpose workshop, it delivered inputs. Data are not from 60s but received from relevant measuring entities in the basin. Mr. Stojanović invited Mr. Matić who was on the workshop to confirm that RHMZ delivered the inputs. He added that he had received information that certain tender information was confidential and they could not have access to it. There are some rules in using these data. He invited to share data with them if they could. Mr. Stevanović explained to all participants on the meeting that it is about monitoring on the entire basin and he is surprised that some data were not available, i.e. they are "secret“. He said that tomorrow in Sarajevo and in Podgorica they will hear the same story from the representatives from Hydrometeorological Institutes. The World Bank has defined locations but also gave money for the project. Mr. Stojanović added they communicated with representatives of the team who developed it and it was not accessable. Ms. Ignjatović suggested to Mr. Stevanović to send comment and deliver asked data. Ms. Lazarević said that they will send the official letter to RHMZ and ask for data.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 119
* Mr. Srđan Marjanović, representative from RHMZ said that he did not find version in Serbian language, and Ms. Železnik added there is a local version. Mr. Marjanović mentioned the GEF project on which they had worked recently which predict money for monitoring. Mr. Zdravko Stojanović said they received information when Dragana was working with a team on the project. After that they have not received data, but he saw that many was using their data and circle was not closed. Mr. Stevanović commented that their results were not visible. It is necessary all communication to goes over Ms. Dragana Milovanović or over person to whom her duty was transferred. At the end of this discussion all participants agreed the official request for delivery of data should be sent to RHMZ, and representatives from RHMZ added that all asked data will be delivered.
* The discussion is continued by asking technical question from Mr. Srđan Marjanović, representative from RHMZ who addressed to Nataša Marinković with a question about optimal and reduced development of Hydropower Plants and data about energy production. Ms. Marinković said that used data are from Institute “Jaroslav Černi”. The installation was adopted as a technical data and it was taken from the project documentation. Mr. Stojanović added they used literature from 1973. until 2014. It was not possible to compare prices and benefits in the range of 40 years, so everything is reduced to the same level. Expenses and production are based on the same methodologies. Ms. Marinković added that the unit prices were adopted so none power plant to be favoured. Hydropower Plants in recommended scenario for Serbia are not in recommended scenario for Bosnia and Herzegovina, because the “Buk/Bijela” and “Foča” withdrew this story. These scenarios did not prove to be optimal.
* Mr. Srđan Marjanović, representative from RHMZ thanked to Ms. Marinković on explanation and addressed to Mr. Zdravko Stojanović with a question about hourly deliver of data. It was connected to monitoring and equipment improvement. Mr. Stojanović said that this is a tend and this is a recommendation. Mr. Marjanović mentioned “Sava HIS” which is part of ratified story at the states level, will “Drina HIS” take over data, how it looks like, to not duplicate the job. Mr. Stojanović said that “Sava HIS” includes a wider territory and that some idea was to create a “buffer” i.e. if “Sava HIS” will lagging to provide data, the idea is to serve as some kind of service. This is a recommendation, but it is not obligatory. Mr. Slavimir Stevanović mentioned that Drina is part of the Sava River Basin, it is a part of system and it should not be subsystem unless if it is part of the EPS. All hydrometeorological institutes are functioning well and cooperate but it is not the case with EPS because there is a problem with Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. For instance, Montenegro is not part of Sava Commission but provide their data. This is functional and there is no need to develop subsystem in the system.
* Mr. Radisav Matić, representative of Drinsko-Limske Hydropower Plants, mentioned in the Roof Report page no. 38. and table 3.5 where energy from the flow was calculated: ETA is specified 100% but it should be 94%. Also, it depends which power plant is. Then, Mr. Matić said that hourly and 15-minutes reporting has been mentioned. For them even 6-hours reporting is satisfied, and 1-hour reporting too. Mr. Stojanović added that this was mentioned because of the emergency situations, such as floods, in these situations is needed 15-minute reporting to make decisions in an emergency situation. He mentioned that some from the RHMZ said that for them is suitable to put the Height station at 2000 m. Mr. Stojanović added there is no GPS system there, no signal, no road. From the RHMZ he received the answer they are not interested in “technical trivia” because for them this location is adequate for their measurements.
* Mr. Radisav Matić commented then 1-hour reporting is adequate for water management. He returned to the page no. 38 where was mentioned that production is secondary in water management. Mr. Matić said this is valuable only when is flood or drought. In all other situations it is priority and Mr. Matić is speaking based on his experience. He added that in the Report was mentioned that program WEAP does not recognise RHE. We have one RHE in the Basin to be considered. Then he mentioned that accumulations „Piva“, „Uvac“ and „Kokin Brod“ are seasonal accumulations and it is known exactly how they are empty, and „Potpeć“ can be treated as flowing. The goal is the accumulation to be full 100% on 1st October and in
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 120
the winter period to be spent by March next year („Piva“, „Uvac“, „Kokin Brod“). Data exist and they are known and they can deliver them by months and can provide seasonal scenarios. In the Report is mentioned all accumulations are treated as flowing except of „Piva“. Ms. Jasna Plavšić, representative from Faculty of Civil Engineering replied on Mr. Matić’s comment that software WEAP realy cannot model reversible HPPs, but indirectly it can model the redistribution of water from one to another accumulation, while the energy balance cannot be modeled. Regarding to the accumulation leveling, the water management made model of the Drina Basin treats only accumulation “Piva” as an accumulation with seasonal leveling. What distinguishes the model between the accumulation with the leveling and the flowing hydroelectric power plant is the requirement for energy production, on the basis of which the model calculates the flow through turbines and the balance of water in the accumulation. If there is no data on the required energy production, the accumulations are modeled as flow hydropower plants, i.e. only process the quantity of water that touches. If EPS deliver data about needed energy production by months, consultants will add it in the model. Ms. Plavšić also reminded that the water management model of the Drina River Basin was not made for real-time management, but for strategic planning, as well as the entire project was made. For real-time management, should be developed with different model with hourly time step. Developed water management is a rough model in terms of assumption which has filled because they serve for strategic and integral water management. It was taking in account water supply, irrigation, industry, how much groundwater reserves are empty… In this way, the balance of water is examined integrally, not just the balance in the accumulations. Ms. Plavšić asked Mr. Matić to provide EPS data to consultant about typical production, in gigawatt hours. Mr. Matić said he will give data in gigawatt hours. Also, he drew attention in Serbia there is no agreement between different institutions, and how will three countries agree between each other. He reminded all participant on the war in the 90s from last century. In Bosnia and Herzegovina exists three entities with problems in communication between each other. Mr. Matić specified an example until the outbreak of the conflict (1991-1992), municipalities of Bajina Bašta and Zvornik paid compensation for submerged land to the municipalities of Srebrenica, Rogatica, Bratunac... This obligation none pay today, this question is matter of argue between countries. There is no will in the countries to regulate this. Mr. Matić considers that we do not have legal basis and hope this project will give recommendations to the countries how to do it but there is need to hurry up. Because of the above mentioned the management of Drina River is difficult, while on the other hand the Sava river is not. He mentioned another example: when the water from the accumulation is released, other countries are not informed, as Drina does not flow through the three countries. Ms. Lazarević emphasized that agreements at the bilateral level are very important, but she also expressed concern that if we can not agree at the project level, then how we will agree at the state level.
* Mr. Goran Sekulić, representative of WWF mentioned biomonitoring. Mr. Aleksandar Bajić, representative of Faculty of natural sciences from Novi Sad pointed out they used literary data and he said that very little information was available. They gave similar recommendations and suggestions on biomonitoring. They will look at everything in detail and send a comment if everything get into the Report. Mr. Nenad Jaćimović mentioned that all HPPs received the conditions of nature protection and biomonitoring data should be extracted from there.
* Mr. Dušan Dobričić, representative of Republic Directorate for Water wanted to draw attention to not favour the energy sector. It is important in all scenarios, but the relevance needs to be relativized. There is no need to mention that energetics is the most important user, it should be indicated that it is a significant user in terms of water usage. It is necessary to purify the formulations in the Report. Mr. Zdravko Stojanović added that perhaps some unfortunate formulations were made about the importance of energetics. A significant part of the objects which are discussed here is for production of energy. “Buk/Bijela” is not for water supply. He added that the remark is fully accepted and will be defined.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 121
* Ms. Marija Lazarević thanked for the discussion and noted that the deadline for receiving comments is 31st July and she asked to send on her e-mail address: [email protected] She will try tomorrow to send official request to the RHMZ.
* Ms. Nađa Železnik thanked to everyone for today’s participation on the behalf of the consultant.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 122
6.2.4 Minutes of Final Meeting (MOM) Belgrade, December 2017
Meeting Minutes
Title Presentation of Final Roof Report • Date 5th December 2017 • Time 10:00 – 15:00h • Venue Beograd, Life Design Hotel, Balkanska 18, 11000 Beograd Prepared by REC Delivered by MPRR
The Main objective of the meeting was presentation of Final Roof Report. The meeting was attended by stakeholders from all three countries, from Serbia: Ministry of Environmental Protection, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management – Republic Directorate for Water, Public Water Management Company “Vode Vojvodine”, Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia, United Fishermen of Serbia. Then from Bosnia and Herzegovina: Water Resources Agency of the Sava River, Hydroelectric plants on Drina – Višegrad, Public institution „Voda Srpske“, Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Republic of Srpska, JP Eletroprivreda BiH dd. Sarajevo, Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of Republika Srpska, MH Elektroprivreda Republic of Srpska. And, from Montenegro: Elektroprivreda of Montenegro, Geological Survey of Montenegro, Institute of Hydrometeorology and Seismology of Montenegro. As well as representatives of the consultants: “Stucky”, “CESTRA”, Institute “Jaroslav Černi”, Faculty of Civil Engineering – Beograd and REC.
* Presentation of Final Roof Report:
10. Opening 11. Presentation of Final Roof Report a. Introduction and methodology b. Development scenarios and recommended HPP construction projects c. Environmental optimization d. Modeling water management e. Minutes 12. Discussion
The meeting was attended by thirty-five participants. Ms. Nadja Železnik, the team leader was not able to attend the meeting so Ms. Jovanka Ignjatović opened a meeting and welcomed all the participants on behalf of the project team. She said that today will be presented the Final Roof Report and before that she invited all participant to introduce themselves. Ms. Ignjatović started her presentation of the project saying the World Bank is a donor and the project is being implemented since 2014. “COWI” is a project leader, and the partners are the Institute Jaroslav Černi“ and “Stucky”. In the project were involved “CeS COWI”, Faculty of Civil Engineering – Beograd and REC. The project was unexpectedly extended because the former team leader left the project team. The aim of the project is to improve cooperation between countries, integrated water management, support to relevant institutions, public involvement, stakeholders… Ms. Ignjatović mentioned and explained the project tasks, the methodology (WEAP model), main challenges such as flood wave, national parks, opportunities for sport and recreation in the Drina River Basin.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 123
* Mr. Zdravko Stojanović, Institute “Jaroslav Černi”, at the beginning of his presentation mentioned that he regrets because Mr. Joos Bernard was not able to attend the meeting. He started his presentation of Final Roof Report “Development scenarios and recommended HPP projects”. Mr. Stojanović mentioned all the countries located in the Drina River Basin, pointing out that the Republic of Albania accounts for a very small part of the DRB 0.8%, ie, 158 km2, so this country is not part of this group of countries. Mr. Stojanović was talking about HPP mentioned in the list, he pointed out that they didn’t have datas for all HPP and he thanks to all who delivered datas. After that, he was talking about reversible HPP „Buk Bijela“ and „Bistrica“, he said they are not in the considerated scenarios, but they are in the appropriate IPF reports because it was a request from the stakeholders, their role is specific as well as the way of making profit and further technical documentation development is recommended and analyze within the appropriate future projects. Mr. Stojanovic then spoke about the analyzed scenarios, the reduced and the maximum scenario for the countries. He stressed the need for permanent communication, coordination and exchange of information between relevant institutions. Mr. Stojanovic talked about the selected scenario for the hydropower development of the Drina river basin. He also identified four HPPs involved in the selected integrated development scenario for the Drina River Basin (HPP "Dubravica", HPP "Tegare", HPP "Rogačica" and HPP "Kozluk") because they represent the hydroelectric potential that needs to be shared. The most suitable solution for the construction of these HPPs would be mutual cooperation, communication, coordination, exchange of information between relevant institutions / representatives of both countries and the goal of their realization (in practice, different solutions are known), especially because they are found in the relevant planning documents of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republic of Serbia. The conclusion is that there is a significant hydroelectric potential in the Drina River basin, but for this it is necessary to invest significant funds which are not small.
* At the end of his presentation Mr. Zdravko Stojanović invited all participants to ask questions. Mr. Dragan Radojević, Geological Survey of Montenegro, asked whether it is possible to analyze the issue of transfer Tara into Morača and this is right place to mention it. Mr. Stojanović agreed with Mr. Radojević but, as he mentioned before at the begining of his presentation, this approach is a result of limitations based on the conclusions from the meetings and communication with the stakeholders. This topic was very interesting and complex, because when it comes transfer of water between river basins, the question is how to regulate relations and compensate for downstream users and this topic is very serious. Mr. Stojanović agreed that for everyone will be interesting, but somehow it was decided to stay on that. So if they did it well, added Mr. Stojanović it is for good. This transfer of rivers was a real challenge, but at some point it turned out of matter.
* Ms. Ignjatović invited other participants to ask questions. Mr. Željko Ratković, Elektroprivreda Republic of Srpska, said that they know this project since a long time. He stressed that his opinion is that the consultants did not respect some stories regarding the construction and other things, so there are no suitable representatives of COWI, and he will ask questions to the assistants who was working something or to Mr. Kenjić, who is responsible of this project. General conclusion is that they gave appropriate remarks on 20th July 2017, and he would like to have these remarks scanned and include in the technical documentation, because with this approach which is defined here, he thinks that the consultant did not respond to any of the set goals related to the preparation of this technical documentation. Mr. Ratković repeated his observations and comments which have already been mentioned in the letter of Elektroprivreda RS from 20th July 2017. Simple, consultant did not respond to the task and suggestion for the World Bank is not to give such serious studies, based on the strategic development of some countries to the consultants, but to give to the Academy of Sciences, faculties, institutions which can answer these questions. It seems that consultants present their personal opinions that do not obligate anyone, they give priorities to the public and on that way they think they solved their job. Mr. Stojanović said if Mr. Ratković continues, he will not be able to answer, and Ms. Ignjatović added
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 124
it will not be answered and invites Mr. Ratković to continue. Mr. Ratković added their main job is to protect their institutions and communities, they came here with this purpose, and not to listen one side and multi- criteria analyzes which says what should be done and what should not. He added that as far as it is concerned, Mr. Kenjić’s remarks should be added in this study and it should not be just some information which will consultant take from this meeting, and put in the minutes what he wants. Their institutions paid their travel here, and reading of those documents, they should do better because they are responsible to them and they have to respond to their professional obligations. Ms. Ignjatović thanked Mr. Ratković and said the minutes will be made. She also added that further discussion will not be opened and she invites prof. Nenad Jaćimović to start a presentation.
* Ms. Stephanie Andre welcomed all the participants and thanked everyone for their participation. She invited prof. Nenad Jaćimović to present in the local language the Final Roof Report „Ecological and social issues“. Prof. Nenad Jaćimović mentioned the main approach and paid great attention to the social aspect. He then talked about biodiversity and said that, for example, the disappearance of one plant causes the disappearance of ten species that feed with that plant. He also mentioned that all protected areas, current and future, were recorded. He mentioned the main social characteristics in the Drina River Basin, the environmental impacts, the recommendations for water systems, and the quality of water (urban, communal and industrial water), the negligible part is purified. Prof. Jaćimović mentioned the selected scenarios, basic goals of environmental protection and water, as well as recommendations. Conclusion is the protection, renewal and improvement of surface and groundwater, it is necessary to construct a wastewater treatment plant and improve solid waste management in order to improve the quality of the waters of the Drina River.
* At the end of prof. Jaćimović presentation, Mr. Nenad Đukić, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of Republika Srpska noticed in the presentation HPP "Vikoč", HPP "Goražde", HPP "Drina 3" and HPP "Sutjeska" which was analyzed, and in the previous case it was not, and it is obviously great influence of this explanation given in this way, and in the analysis of scenarios and hydropower have not been processed and how come this disproportion in all this. Prof. Jaćimović said that HPP „Vikoč“ was taken in May-June for sure, and it was finished and analized. Others were processed but did not include into the selection for the final scenario. Then Ms. Nataša Marinković added an additional explanation that HPP „Vikoč“, "Drina 1, 2 and 3" were analyzed within the maximum scenario and ecologically they were processed and therefore prof. Jaćimović presented here but they are not included in the optional scenario for any country, and therefore did not include into the integral scenario. She also mentioned in the multicriterium ranking, other parameters that make up water management in the basin, such as water supply and industry, flood protection, drought, water supply for irrigation purposes, etc., were analyzed. as well as other ecological parameters. prof. Jaćimović talked about protected areas, the main characteristics of the area of the Drina River Basin (demographic, natural resources, protected cultural property and heritage). He mentioned the quality of water, the sources of pollution (urban, communal and industrial water) and the negligible part of the purification. He then spoke about the environmental impact assessment and the main goals of environmental protection. The main recommendations refer to measures for preserving the fish fund, it is necessary to complete the started facilities and use them, as well as to improve the quality of water. It is recommended that an institution, for example Public utility companies, should take care of these facilities, but this idea can not be implemented at the moment because reorganization of these companies is needed. The main goals of environmental protection are very important because everything starts and ends with the environment. The European Union's Environmental Impact Assessment Directive is largely included in the laws of these countries. The conclusions are that cross-border cooperation and active public participation is necessary, protection, renewal and improvement of surface and groundwater, then the construction of wastewater treatment plants and better management of solid waste...
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 125
* Then Mr. Marinko Vranić, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of Republika Srpska, said, based on last Ms. Marinković’s reply to the previous comment and from the point of view of the objectives defined in the water management related to integrated water resources management and multipurpose use of waters were expected to gain more in the optimal scenario in terms of time and space redistribution of water precisely to achieve the goals of the economy of what has been said. First of all, providing additional quantities of water for agriculture and all other users. Also, as the most significant problem defined by all beneficiaries of the project is the defense against floods and damage caused by floods in the past. In this optimal scenario, the conclusion was that the existing planned facilities in the optimal system can not provide a more significant role in the balancing, so it is not clear from the standpoint of water management and at the end of the energy sector, considering that in this most unfavorable scenario for the energy sector, two "Buk Bijela-visoka" and "Foča-visoka" facility. At these facilities we get redistribution of water and flood protection and compensation and significant increase in small water, nothing of this was not considered in these scenarios and there are similar remarks from colleagues from Elektroprivreda, so it seems all these goals were lost somewhere and none of them in the optimal solution was finally realized. Ms. Marinković said she fully agrees with her colleague Vranić regarding the importance of "Buk Bijela-visoka" and "Foča-visoka", but he believes that he missed in the presentation of Mr. Stojanović explanation of omission of these HPPs from further analysis, ie, what he said was that the consultants were practically tied hands for those two objects. The reason for this is the clearly stated attitude of the "stakeholders". At a meeting two years ago when these objects were discarded for further analysis.
* Prof. Jasna Plavšić, Faculty of Civil Engineering – University of Beograd, started her presentation of the "Water Management Model of the Drina River Basin in the WEAP Program". This tool for simulating the operation of the Drina Water Management System enables the consideration of the strategic planning variant on the Drina River Basin and was developed in the WEAP software. Prof. Plavšić then mentioned previous model-related activities, and then spoke about the WEAP software itself, why it was chosen (free for state, academic and non-profit institutions in developing countries). Prof. Plavšić explained how WEAP works and what are its options. Also, in the presentation she described the assumptions under which the water management model of the Drina was developed and the methodological framework for the application of the model. Then she spoke in detail about scenarios, simulations and results. The main conclusion is that the model is primarily support for strategic planning, not operational management. The model uses a monthly time step, and it has been developed with certain assumptions (simplifications related to groundwater sources, uncertainty of water supply, selected climatic and other scenarios ...). The limitations of this model are the redistribution of water only in one time cross-section based on the given priorities, so the model does not provide an optimized distribution of water to users, nor optimizes the work of accumulations. It is recommended that the model should be further maintained and developed to be usable and possible directions for further development were given. The model is available to everyone in the basin, the problem is parallel development in all countries. At the end of her presentation, prof. Plavšić thanked the participants for attention.
* After the break, Ms. Jovanka Ignjatović presented the conclusion, a summary review and spoke about the recommendations. Then she invited the participants to make their suggestions at the meeting or send them by e-mail.
DISCUSSION:
* Mr. Nenad Đukić said the most honestly, that there are three people on this project that he always saw when they met: Slavica Ašković, prof. Jasna Plavšić and Tijana Dašić, and all the others changed relatively. It is obvious that this is a very serious job and task, for example, the master plan which is now making for the countries of the Western Balkans goes to the ministerial level and will be discussed, and before there have
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 126
been similar meetings such as this, so he personally thinks that the project did not satisfy to what they expected. First, when looking at the spatial planning documents on several occasions and in their conclusion, they take "Buk Bijelo-niska" and in the spatial-planning documentation of the Republika Srpska and Bosnia and Herzegovina means a completely different concept. They have it, this is no justification and it is a big mistake. Next is the issue of hydrological data, without going into details because it is certain they are relative, they are not necessarily incorrectly entered, they are certainly good, but there is not much data in this draft. These consultant’s activities seems as a justification, even officious put some relatively ultimate scenarios to justify some of the activities that were done there and he says it is unacceptable. The only thing that is definitely fully completed is the WEAP model worked just along with the team from the Faculty of Civil Engineering, and they certainly got the most out further of this project and surely it will be the most useful in all of this. Mr. Đukić added that the team made a lot of recommendations, but his recommendation is that he will ask extension of this project from the World Bank and he thinks that the end has not come to an end. Ms. Ignjatović thanked Mr. Djukic with the words that all his remarks were recorded and they would be included in the report and invited Mr. Emir Isaković from Water Resources Agency of the Sava River to start. He thanked for quality presentations and invested efforts during the project. At the beginning, he wants to say and give few comments, and these are mutual comments of the Water Resources Agency of the Sava River and Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management. First, he said what Mr. Kenjić already mentioned at the beginning that it is important to intensify the activities for concluding bilateral agreements in water management cooperation, and that he did not see now that he was underlined or bolded. Perhaps this should be included among the main conclusions or recommendations in order to get started as soon as possible. Also, in a few places in the report, he saw that the border between the Republic of Serbia and the entity was mentioned. Naturally, when it comes to specific activities of entity competence, entities should be listed. However, when it comes to borders, it should always refer to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, at the beginning, comments were given for the IPF report, a Roof report about the lack of explanations for "green growth", a green scenario that would include what would happen if hydroelectric plants were not built. In order to use better water resources in terms of water management, industry, tourism ... to explain this in more detail. Mr. Isaković added that the mentioned exploitation of gravel in the Drina basin is an important economic activity and he agrees with that, but from a hydrological point of view it is important to note that it is important that everything goes in coordination with water management companies. Basically, the essence is to provide a flow profile, that is, the extraction of gravel leads to the provision of optimum flow profile and the exploitation of the gravel is controlled. Mr. Isakovic thanked at the end of his presentation.
Ms. Ignjatović thanked to Mr. Isaković and invited consultants to say any comment or remarks on these questions. Mr. Stojanović asked Mr. Đukić if he had a presentation or other relevant document to show what was written in the planning documents of Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding Buk Bijela. He admitted that he did not understand this part of the story and asked him not to send any further documentation or something like that, but to say at this meeting what exactly he meant and where it was specifically within the valid planning documents. Mr. Đukić replied with apology, but he did not come to this meeting to has the presentation, but only to gives a suggestion on the data, and the basic plan of Republika Srpska has included "Buk Bijela" as a reversible separate hydroelectric power plant and there is a report and documentation in the previous year. Mr. Stojanović asked if he is talking about reversible, because in the plan there is an irreversible and reversible hydroelectric power plant. Reversible uses as lower water irreversible, without irreversible, neither reversible nor irreversible exist. Mr. Đukić agreed with this statement, but mentioned that they did not put this option at any time, but it is as a "Buk Bijela niska". Mr. Stojanović said it was irreversible and for reversible was not include in the scenarios due to technical reasons, as mentioned in the report completely separate from "Buk Bijela niska“ as it is given and the recommendation is reversible HPP should be analyzed in next projects. Accordingly, both plants are in the project and each one is in the place that belongs within the project. Mr. Stojanović turned to Mr. Isaković's remark that consultants, if there are inaccurate mentioned around the borders, will be corrected. He noted that in his presentation was very carefully mentioned "the borders of the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia and
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 127
Herzegovina on the part of the territory that belongs to it", but it is primarily clear which countries are bordering and if there was some mistake they will correct that. Ms. Ignjatović invited for written comments in the coming period. And, she invited Focal points if they have some comments to say.
* Mr. Kenjić said he looked at the Roof report and it should be taken into consideration that this meeting was called in the announcement as a final meeting and he expected it should be some final version of this report, but in the report itself is was saying it will be modified. He recorded some remarks, some of them are technical and some are not. For instance, on page 3., some dates are given regarding of delivery of WEAP model and he thinks it is a technical mistake and it should be corrected. He added on page 3., the second paragraph of the report on public consultation is written in the future time - it should be updated in line with the reached level ie. status. On page 3., an annual report is mentioned again, but that is probably an internal report between them and the World Bank, and he thinks there is no place in that paragraph. Then, in the "topographic features” section are mixed some altitudes which should be updated. Mr. Kenjić means it would be logical the roof report has a chapter which does not have to be too extensive but something that would in some way speak about climate change or the potential impact of climate change. In further chapters, it has been repeated several times that the impact of climate change is taken into account, etc. but he thinks it would be good to have a shorter chapter based on current knowledge and projects that have done so far to describe a little about what it is, what climate change means and in what direction it should continue to be dealt with. Mr. Kenjić noted in a table review of the status of the National Park "Drina" and thinks that it was not written properly. Further, on page 25. there is probably a translation error, and the term "drain of the dam" is, he drew attention to seeing it and see if that's exactly the case. On page 50, in the paragraph on jurisdiction for awarding concessions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is necessary to make a little improvement in order to have a full picture, in order to fully know what is which role and how things work. On page 58. the report was mentioned that an exhaustively or detailed list, a recommendation, will be given in the final version of the roof report. Mr. Kenjić noted that he liked to have that list now in this report, because it is not clear how this work will continue to be conducted and further communication for this project. So these were some key comments and one that is not clear to him (and he would like to send it to a representative of the World Bank who is not here today) and that is how they will bring this project to completion and what is the ultimate authority that will respect everyone results and work on this project. And it will obviously have to agree in some future communication. And, what particular attention would be drawn to Mr. Kenjić's are comments from the representatives of Elektroprivreda and he is sorry that they did not stay here to talk a bit about this whole story yet, but added that the essence of this project was not to create a document that will be used for the adoption of final decision, what will be made of hydroelectric facilities in the future. It is simply not the goal of this project nor anyone expects these documents to have such importance. On the other hand, we have the situation that on December 12th the Regional Hydro Energy Development Strategies for the Western Balkans will be presented. And some of the participants were involved in all these activities and they saw how complicated it is, how difficult the story was when optimization and quantification of individual hydropower plants and future hydroelectric facilities became involved, and what could be said or told at official meetings only to defend someone's interests or position. So this project has got a little bit, when it began to quantify in some way and perform multi-criteria optimizations to get to a list of projects or priorities so that everything they thought or outlined here as the first short-term and medium-term priority they see how receive comments, although what has been stated here has not been dismissed as an option but simply given as an option, but for a slightly longer period of time because it has entered into one scenario. So he thinks that the consulting team with the representatives of various institutions should look at the results of this hydro-energy master plan and simply look at these final results and see if there is a significant difference and in line with the identification or potential difference between the results two projects will see what attitude will be taken and possibly if something needs to be further explained or pointed out, and possibly improved. But he thinks that it should not end in the situation that the results of a project are used to devaluate the results of another project and it is not anyone's interest. At the end of his presentation, Mr. Kenjić thanked.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 128
* Ms. Ignjatović thanked Mr. Kenjić for his presentation and mentioned remarks. Regarding to the World Bank, everything was being recorded, but she asked to send all the comments. And, regarding to this final report whether it will be in the final report, it’s a bad formulation and she said it will be fixed. Such a report is presented today. Regarding to the World Bank and continuation of the project, she presumes they will have meeting with them, what and how they are planning, and she will inform them about it. Especially this part of the story, or more precisely in the end, it is important not to remain undetected and it is important to plan and fill it. Mr. Kenjić addressed Jovanka saying that if she considers it to be a final report, then his further and very important comment is that all the recommendations made and currently are in the report do not reflect all those conclusions that should arise from IPF reports, state report, etc. He thinks that this roof report must systematise all the recommendations that have come through the whole process and project documentation. Now there are quite modest conclusions, for example, the conclusion about the floods, he thinks that there are only two conclusions, which are not exactly written in a way that they include all the others and they should not be so modest in formulating these conclusions. He thinks that this is very important because the results of this project will be further used to prepare a strategic action plan for the document in the next project that the states formally need to adopt. Mr. Kenjić added that it is very important that at least these recommendations are systematized and as detailed as possible. Ms. Ignjatović then invited Marija Lazarević to address. Ms. Lazarević said that in general, she would not agrees with colleague that this project should be extended because it has been prolonged long enough and obviously the capacity of this team is not in the same size that it can give some better recommendations, she thinks this is the maximum that is given that some point should be placed and they should move on with some other activities. In any case, as far as the Republic of Serbia is concerned, the WEAP model is the biggest benefit of this project, especially since these are currently in the phase of preparing the management plan and what they are doing, they are at the beginning. But they also have a design plan and this is definitely a model that can be used, as the professor said for strategic planning. It is now up to them to see how this will be implemented, definitely through Public Water Management Companies, but she thinks it's really useful and needs to be worked on. As far as the bilateral cooperation itself is concerned, no project is the one that can determine whether the states will cooperate and think that everyone stands behind the need to establish bilateral co-operation and that is what is lacking. But, should in the project will write whether it should work or not, will not change much. Ms. Lazarević added that there is no bilateral cooperation with the Republic of Srpska, but there is a signed Memorandum of Cooperation on the Drina River Basin, and these activities have been stopped, but this year they started again and thinks that there will be cooperation and they hope that the cooperation will be and with the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ms. Lazarević said that she thinks that everyone should use the WEAP model and that some cooperation should be done on that. Ms. Ignjatović concluded the meeting and in the end thanked everyone for spent time not only today but also during the project, on spent time on reading this document and because they came to the meetings. And without their work, this project could not be implemented. She invited participants to deliver their comments in next 10 days, the ones that are presented today, and also if they have something else. They will include them and talk to the team about how to do this final, and there will also be a conversation with the World Bank, when they have some information they will share them with everyone.
World Bank Drina River Basin Consultation Report Support to Water Resources Management in the Drina River Basin 129
Annex 1– List of participants
No. Name and Surname Institution E-mail 1 Nataša Marinković Stucky [email protected] 2 Nenad Jaćimović Stucky 3 Stephanie Andre Stucky [email protected] 4 Marija Lazarević Republic Directorate for Water [email protected] 5 Dragoljub Todić Institute “Jaroslav Černi” [email protected] 6 Zdravko Stojanović Institute “Jaroslav Černi” [email protected] 7 Jasna Plavšić Faculty of Civil Engineering - Beograd 8 Ratko Bajčetić Public Water Management Company “Vode Vojvodine” 9 Dušan Dobričić Republic Directorate for Water 10 Srđan Marjanović Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia - RHMZ 11 Merita Borota Republic Directorate for Water 12 Aleksandra Drobac Ministry of Environmental Protection 13 Emir Isaković Water Resources Agency of the Sava River- BiH 14 Vukota Jojić Hydroelectric plants on Drina – Višegrad - BiH 15 Jelena Vićanović Public institution „Voda Srpske“ - BiH [email protected] 16 Darko Borojević Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Republic of Srpska 17 Mladen Antonić Public institution „Voda Srpske“ - BiH [email protected] 18 Tamara Brajović EPA – Crna Gora 19 Irvina Numić JP Elektroprivreda BiH dd. Sarajevo - BiH 20 Anisa Avdaković JP Elektroprivreda BiH dd. Sarajevo - BiH 21 Nikola Vukotić Elektroprivreda of Montenegro 22 Dragan Radojević Geological Survey of Montenegro 23 Darko Novaković Institute of Hydrometeorology and Seismology of Montenegro 24 Boško Kenjić Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations - BiH 25 Goran Bašević Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations - BiH 26 Marinko Vranić Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of Republika Srpska 27 Nenad Đukić Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of Republika Srpska 28 Petar Ivanković MH Elektroprivrede Republike Srpske - BiH 29 Željko Ratković MH Elektroprivrede Republike Srpske - BiH 30 Zoran Simić Institute „Jaroslav Černi“ 31 Milan Stojković Institute „Jaroslav Černi“ 32 Gorana Bašević Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations - BiH 33 Tina Dašić Faculty of Civil Engineering - Beograd 34 Ljubomir Pejčić United Fishermen of Serbia 35 Jovanka Ignjatovic REC [email protected] 36 Slavica Ašković CESTRA [email protected] 37 Jasmina Marinković REC SRB [email protected]