Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized Environmental and Social Management Plan for the Sub‐ Project Goražde (Federation of B&H)
Public Disclosure Authorized Irrigation Development Project in Bosnia and Herzegovina (IDP)
Public Disclosure Authorized
January, 2012
CONTROL SHEET
Client: Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry RS Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management Project: Irrigation Development Project, Bosnia and Herzegovina Environmental and Social Assessment Title: Environmental Management Plan and Social Impact Assessment for the Sub‐ project Goražde (Federation of BiH) Status: Draft Final Accounting D‐1091 Code: Registry No.: UP‐02‐996/11‐2
Other Registry No.: Title: Documents UP‐02‐996/11‐1 Environmental and Social Management Framework Related to the Contract: UP‐02‐996/11‐3 Environmental Management Plan and Social Impact Assessment for the Sub‐project Mostarsko Blato (Federation of BiH) UP‐02‐996/11‐4 Environmental Management Plan and Social Impact Assessment for the Sub‐project Gojkovo and Stakića polje ‐ Pelagićevo (Republika Srpska) UP‐02‐996/11‐5 Environmental Management Plan and Social Impact Assessment for the Sub‐project Novo Selo ‐ Bijeljina (Republika Srpska) UP‐02‐996/11‐6 Environmental Management Plan and Social Impact Assessment for the AL420 – Gradiška&Laktaši (Republika Srpska)
Project manager: Internal control: Director:
Name and M.Sc. Sanda Midžić M.Sc. Dragana Prof. dr. Tarik surname, title Kurtagić, B.Sc.C.E. Selmanagić, B.Sc.C.E. Kupusović, B.Sc.
DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE 10.1.2012
GENERAL DATA
Consultant: Hydro‐Engineering Institute Prism Research Stjepana Tomića 1 Maršala Tita 6t 71000 Sarajevo 71000 Sarajevo tel: + 387 33 212 466/7 tel: + 387 33 251 230 fax: + 387 33 207 949 fax: + 387 33 251 238 E‐mail: [email protected] E‐mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.heis.com.ba Web: http://www.prismresearch.ba Team of Dr Irem Silajdžić, B.Sc Envtl.Eng. Dino Djipa, MBA, B.Sc. in Psychology experts: M.Sc. Vukašin Balta, B.Sc Geology Elma Zahirovic, B.Sc.P.A. Admir Aladžuz, B.Sc Biology Aida Sabanovic, B.Sc in Psychology Željko Lozančić, B.Sc C.E. Nijaz Zerem, Hydrologist
ii CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1 1.2 THE AIM OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT 2
2 OVERVIEW OF THE NEED FOR PERMITS 3
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5
3.1 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION 5 3.2 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION BACKGROUND 7 3.3 DESCRIPTION OF PREVIOUSLY USED IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 8 3.4 WATER DEMANDS 8 3.5 DESCRIPTION OF NEW IRRIGATION SYSTEM PROPOSAL 9 3.6 SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 10
4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL SETTINGS 11
4.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 11 4.2 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 17 4.3 SOCIOCULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS 20
5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT 25
5.1 IMPACTS ON THE SUBRIVER CATCHMENT 25 5.2 OTHER IMPACTS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE 29 5.3 OTHER IMPACTS DURING THE OPERATION PHASE 31 5.4 POSITIVE IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENT 34
6 PUBLIC CONSULTATION 35
6.1 THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING 35
7 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 37
7.1 STAKEHOLDERS 37 7.2 THE PERMANENT/TEMPORARY RELOCATION AND EXPROPRIATION OF THE LAND 37 7.3 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLDS, COMMUNITY AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 37 7.4 THE FEARS AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE POPULATION 39 7.5 THE PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND THEIR SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT 40 7.6 THE MAIN SOCIAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE REFORMS SUPPORTED BY THE IDP 41 7.7 POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT OF IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT 41 7.8 THE ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY, FORMAL AND INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS 42
iii 8 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 45
8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS PREVENTION/MITIGATION PLAN 45 8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN 52
9 ANALYSIS OF THE NEED FOR CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING 59
9.1 EQUIPMENT PURCHASES 60
10 ANNEXES 61
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Instruments needed according to the procedures of WB and FBiH local laws ...... 4
Table 2. Sub‐Project Goražde ...... 5
Table 3. Sub‐Project Goražde Water Demands ...... 8
Table 4. Total Maximum Water Demands ...... 9
Table 5 Average Climate Data for Goražde ...... 11
Table 6. Specific Flow Rates on Drina River ...... 14
Table 7. Oxygen Regime (FBiH) ...... 15
Table 8. Oxygen Regime (TNMN) ...... 15
Table 9. Nutrients (FBiH) ...... 15
Table 10. Nutrients (TNMN) ...... 15
Table 11. Priority Substances (FBIH) ...... 15
Table 12. Priority Substances (TNMN) ...... 15
Table 13. Biological Quality Parameters ...... 16
Table 14 Goražde Sub‐Project Locations ...... 22
Table 15 Overview of Plots Potentially Subject to Expropriation ...... 23
Table 16 Mean Annual and Mean Monthly Flow Rates at GS Foča ...... 25
Table 17. Minimum Monthly Flow Rates on Drina River at GS Foča ...... 26
Table 18. Minimum Flow Rates at GS Foča for Different Return Period ...... 26
Table 19. Interannual Distribution of Flow Rates ...... 27
Table 20 Plan of Measures for Prevention/Mitigation of Environmental Impacts for the Sub‐ Project Cvilinsko polje – Goražde ...... 46
Table 21 Environmental Monitoring Plan ...... 52
Table 22. Necessary equipment ...... 60
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Goražde Sub‐Project Site ...... 5
Figure 2. Agricultural Production in Cvilinsko polje ...... 6
Figure 3. Agricultural Production in Settlements Kazagići and Hubjeri ...... 6
Figure 4. Agricultural Production in the Settlement Zupčići ...... 7
Figure 5. Average Annual Temperatures ...... 11
Figure 6. Average Annual Precipitation ...... 12
Figure 7. Geologic Map of the Concerned Area ...... 13
Figure 8. Types of Soil in Drina River Sub‐Basin ...... 13
Figure 9 Arable Land ...... 17
Figure 10 Production in Greenhouses ...... 17
Figure 11 Fruit Crops in the Field ...... 18
Figure 12 Larger Farms in Cvilinsko polje ...... 18
Figure 13. Histogram of Multi‐Annual Mean Monthly Flow Rates ...... 25
Figure 14. Frequency of Minimum Mean Flow Rate Instances per Months for the Period of 50 Years ...... 26
Figure 15. Flow Duration Curve for Drina River at GS Foča ...... 28
vii
viii 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background information In June 2008, the competent institutions of BiH formally requested the World Bank to consider the provision of financing for the Irrigation Development Project (IDP). The overall objective of the project is to increase the profitability and productivity of agriculture through improved water management and modernization of its irrigation systems. The project aim will be achieved through: (i) the investments in rehabilitation and modernization of irrigation and drainage infrastructure; (ii) strengthening of institutional capacity in the public sector and in the private sector through organization and training of water users and extension services; and (iii) feasibility studies and design preparation for a second batch of priority water management investments. The project covers both Entities (the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina ‐ FBiH and Republic Srpska – RS) and district Brčko.
The project has the following components: Component 1: Infrastructure Investment (8090% of project cost). This component would finance the implementation of irrigation and drainage infrastructure works in the form of a number of sub‐projects in municipalities and cantons. Component 2: Institutional Strengthening and Technical Assistance (1020% of project cost). This would cover institutional strengthening, notably establishing and supporting of Water Users associations; and strengthening of the Ministries and participating municipalities and cantons in implementing the new sector policies, and the appropriate water resources and irrigation management. Component 3: Project implementation support. This would cover costs of project management including maintenance and operation, audits, management information system (MIS), training, and office and mobile equipment.
The project will be implemented through several subprojects on the following locations:
FBiH: five locations in the Municipality of Široki Brijeg jointly considered as subproject Mostarsko Blato, one location in the Municipality of Foča‐Ustikolina and 5 locations in the Municipality of Goražde jointly considered as subproject Goražde, Višićka Kaseta in the Municipality of Čapljina, and Municipalities Odžak and Živinice. RS: Novo Selo in the Municipality of Bijeljina, Gojkovo and Stakića Polje in the Municipality of Pelagićevo, AL420 near Aleksandrovac which belongs to the territories of the Municipalities of Gradiška and Laktaši, Pustara in the Municipality of Modriča and Popovo polje in the Municipality of Trebinje.
The entire project of the Development of irrigation systems according to operational policy OP 4.01 World Bank concerning the assessment of environmental impacts is classified as a Category B project.
Sites that are particularly marked in the text above are considered priority locations for investment. They are subject to detailed environmental assessment and for them it is necessary to prepare an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), which contains an analysis of environmental and social impacts of the proposed irrigation scheme.
This Environmental Management Plan refers to the subprojects in Goražde FBiH.
1 1.2 The aim of the environmental and social assessment
The aim of the EMP is to:
analyze the current legal framework relevant to the projects of irrigation and drainage systems construction and rehabilitation, analyze the available data on the baseline state of physical and biological environment and social conditions that are present in the field, identify potential negative and positive environmental and social impacts of the project and proposed mitigation measures, and propose a program of environmental monitoring and social movements.
2 2 OVERVIEW OF THE NEED FOR PERMITS
After initial examination of the situation of irrigation development subprojects (screening) by the World Bank it was concluded that any significant adverse effects were not expected and they were classified as Category 'B' by the procedure of environmental review of OP 4.01. For this subproject is required to prepare an environmental assessment in the form of the EMP as well as the framework for integrated pest management, resettlement frame and frame social assessment relating to any sub‐projects within the Project of the development of irrigation systems, which are given in Environmental management framework document.
The following gives a brief overview of the requirements for permits for sub‐project Goražde. A detailed review of the legal framework of environmental impact assessments in Bosnia and Herzegovina is provided in the Framework document for the "Irrigation Development Project in Bosnia and Herzegovina (IDP)". Environmental Management Framework (EMF) is a document that gives a detailed analysis of compliance of the Project activities with the provisions of law regulating the protection of the environment in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as the requirements of World Bank operational policies on environmental assessment (OP 4.01). Environmental Management Framework document also contains:
the checklist, or the list for identification of the most significant environmental impacts that may be caused by the future Sub‐Projects within the scope of the Irrigation Development Project.; the methodology for social assessment that can be applied to future priority schemes within IDP project; and the Integrated Pest Management Plan, prepared pursuant to the requirements of the World Bank Operational Policies, OP 4.09 Pest Management and OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment.
In accordance with the requirements of the Rulebook on plants and facilities requiring environmental impact assessment and plants and facilities allowed to be constructed and commissioned only after the provision of the environmental permit (Official Gazette of FBiH 19/04) projects related to the construction/reconstruction of irrigation systems are not subject to environmental impact assessment, or subject to the procedure on environmental permit issuing.
According to the Law on Waters (Official Gazette of FBiH, No. 70/06) irrigation development projects are subject to the procedure of issuance of water acts to which in this case the responsible body is Sava River Basin Water Agency. The procedures for water acts, and their relationship with the environmental permit are described in detail in Environmental Management Framework document.
In accordance with federal and cantonal regulations on urban planning and construction, for the project of building a system of irrigation it is necessary to obtain the relevant construction and urban development approvals, building permit and the Use Permit. For projects of reconstruction of the irrigation systems there is need to obtain a building permit and Use Permit.
Also, this type of project is subject to the procedure for granting concessions for the extraction of water for irrigation, which is in Bosnia‐Podrinje Canton, regulated by the Law on Concessions ("Official Gazette of the BPK," no. 5 / 03).
3 The following table summarizes all the necessary instruments for the proposed subproject Goražde. It is important to emphasize that an applicant for water acts, a concession for water intake and a license in accordance with the regulations on construction are the future users of the system.
Table 1Instruments needed according to the procedures of WB and FBiH laws
Subproject Category Environmental Instruments according to Instruments according assessment the water laws according to the to the WB instrument laws on construction and urban development Goražde B EMP Water acts Urban development Concession on water permit intake Construction permit Use permit
4 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Site Description
Sub‐Project Goražde covers agricultural land located on the right Drina River bank between the Municipalities of Foča‐Ustikolina and Goražde (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Goražde SubProject Site
The Sub‐Project covers 6 locations within Bosnia‐Podrinje Canton as territories of the Municipalities of Foča Ustikolina and Goražde. The list of the locations, their administrative background and area of the fields provided for irrigation are presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2 SubProject Goražde
Covered Locations Gross Area Net Area (ha) (ha) Municipality of FočaUstikolina Cvilinsko Polje 180 88 Municipality of Goražde Gunjevići 5 3 Kolovarice 10 8 Hubjeri and Kazagići 26 20 Zupčići 75 11.6 Ahmovići and Kodžaga Polje 35 22.4 TOTAL AREA 331 153
The locality Cvilinsko polje is located on the right Drina River bank, approximately 10 km along the river course. It is, at the same time, the largest field to be irrigated within the referred Sub‐Project. Agricultural production is substantial on the territory of Cvilinsko polje. Crops are cultivated in open fields and greenhouses. There is organized fruit production and vineyards. All
5 plots are privately owned, except the locality named Rasadnik (approximately 15 ha) owned by the Municipality. The area of Rasadnik is planned to be passed on to the Penal and Correctional Facility Sarajevo (KPZ Sarajevo) for the employment of prisoners in sense of the occupational therapy for agricultural production to produce food for all Penal and Correctional Facilities on the territory of the Federation of BiH.
Figure 2 Agricultural Production in Cvilinsko polje
The locality Gunjevići is located in the strip along the right Drina River bank, beneath the mount Donja Zavodišta, or between the settlements Kučino and Kolovarice. The overall locality area is mildly sloped towards Drina River. All plots are privately owned.
The locality Kolovarice is located on the right Drina River bank, between the settlements Sadba and Gunjevići. Based on the site visit, there is no developed agricultural production on this locality. There are several crops cultivated on a part of the arable land. There are two terraces on this location, the upper and the lower terrace, requiring irrigation, preferably from the same water source. Denivelation of the two terraces is approximately 35 m. Based on the conversation with the local population, agricultural production on this location was very intensive in the pre‐war period. Resettlement of the local population led to a substantial decline in agricultural production. All plots are privately owned.
Figure 3 Agricultural Production in Settlements Kazagići and Hubjeri
The settlements Hubjeri and Kazagići are located between the settlement Pargani on the west and the mount Paljev on the east side of the concerned location. The locality is located on the right Drina River bank. The location, planned for irrigation within the project scope, has
6 rather developed greenhouse production, which dominates on this locality. In addition to the greenhouse production, there is also classical crop cultivation in open fields. The overall terrain is very mildly sloped towards Drina River. All plots are privately owned.
The locality Zupčići is located on the right Drina River bank, between the settlements Vitkovići and Krsnica. This location has averagely developed agricultural production, as noted during site visiting of this arable land. The terrain of the arable part of the land is mildly sloped towards Drina River. All plots are privately owned.
Figure 4 Agricultural Production in the Settlement Zupčići
The locality Ahmovići and Kodžaga Polje is located on the right Drina River bank, between the settlements Brišta and Biljin. This location has averagely developed agricultural production, as noted during site visiting of this arable land. The terrain of the arable part of the land is mildly sloped towards Drina River. All plots are privately owned.
3.2 Agricultural Production Background
In the past, agriculture was not the major part of the economy. Before 1992, various vegetable sorts were cultivated in the region and early crops gained certain market advantages. Farmers used to sell their products individually, with the main market located in Sarajevo and south to the Adriatic Coast.
After 1995, agricultural production revived. Cultivation is executed in greenhouses and in open fields. Frit is produced for local or regional market, and mostly placed on the market directly or via associations. Products are mostly directed to the markets of Goražde and Sarajevo.
Crop cultivation is feasible throughout the entire year with irrigation required during the summer months. The climate in this area enables early fruit, vegetables, grape and similar production, and the products can reach the market up to a month earlier than the products from other areas.
Nowadays, main cultivated crops include fruit and vegetables, forage crops and vines. More intensively cultivated vegetables include pepper, tomato, and potato. Major part of the fruit cultivation refers to berries (strawberries and raspberries), apples, walnuts, plums and pears. Fruit cultivation is relatively spread in the area, but also dispersed by small orchards.
7 Numerous farmers are involved in the greenhouse production, producing 3 crops a year. The use of greenhouses is rather spread, which is particularly certain on the locality of Foča‐ Ustikolina, where the cooperation with the UNDP BiH was accomplished and the UNDP intends to donate greenhouses to the farmers.
Based on the data presented in the Feasibility Study from 2009, main crop yield are rather low compared to the expected yield considering convenient climate conditions and the availability of water for irrigation purposes.
3.3 Description of Previously Used Irrigation Systems
Localities covered by the Sub‐Project Goražde have been using a certain type of an unorganized irrigation for a number of years. Approximately 20 ha of the land covered by the Sub‐Project Goražde is currently irrigated using the water from Drina River. Existing systems are developed on an individual basis, and rely on pumping water directly from Drina River, and delivering it to the highest level by means of a rubber hose and gravitationally discharging it into the previously prepared furrows. Besides the furrow irrigation system, a smaller number of farmers use drip irrigation systems and micro sprayers. A smaller number of farmers use filters or pressure valves, mostly due to the need of a daily mantling and dismantling of the system, as well as due to insufficient funds. Pursuant to the data collected during the interviews with the farmers, maintenance costs of the currently used irrigation systems vary from 130‐300 BAM a month, including the costs of petrol/diesel to operate the pumps. Due to negligence and sudden changes in the water level of Drina River, there have been cases of water carrying the pumps away and thus causing additional costs for the farmers.
3.4 Water Demands A list of crops planned to be cultivated on the Sub‐Project location with the calculation of water demands per crop is presented in the table below. Production is planned both in open fields and in glasshouses/greenhouses. The calculation is made for the needs of the preliminary and final irrigation system design. An adopted value for the design needs is 0.45 l/s per one hectare of irrigated land.
Table 3 SubProject Goražde Water Demands
Agricultural Max Water Applicable Sum of Mean Water Deficit / Actual Crop Demands Water Precipitation Surplus (mm) Needs (mm) Demands for for 6 Months (l/s.ha) 6 Months (mm) (mm) 1 maize 400 340 416 76 0.049 2 cabbage 500 425 416 ‐9 ‐0.006 3 tomato 600 510 416 ‐94 ‐0060 4 pepper 1250 1062.5 416 ‐646.5 ‐0.416 5 onion 800 680 416 ‐264 ‐0.170 6 wheat 600 510 416 ‐94 ‐0.060 7 barley 600 510 416 ‐94 ‐0.060 8 grasses, 700 595 416 ‐179 ‐0.115 forage 9 peas 600 510 416 ‐94 ‐0.060
8 Agricultural Max Water Applicable Sum of Mean Water Deficit / Actual Crop Demands Water Precipitation Surplus (mm) Needs (mm) Demands for for 6 Months (l/s.ha) 6 Months (mm) (mm) 10 beans 550 467.5 416 ‐51.5 ‐0.033 11 potato 500 425 416 ‐9 ‐0.006 12 pear 850 722.5 416 ‐306.5 ‐0.197 13 apple 800 680 416 ‐264 ‐0.170 14 cherry 800 680 416 ‐264 ‐0.170 15 raspberries 1100 935 416 ‐519 ‐0.334 16 blackberries 1100 935 416 ‐519 ‐0.334 17 plum 850 722.5 416 ‐306.5 ‐0.197 Mean: 0.149 Adopted taking into account the greenhouse production (l/s.ha) 0.45
Total maximum water demands representing the quantity required in case of the concurrent irrigation of all land within the overall Sub‐Project are calculated as approximately 70 l/s (Table 4). As the irrigation is planned to be carried out in intervals, far less water will be required for irrigation needs.
Table 4 Total Maximum Water Demands
SUBPROJECT LOCATIONS NET AREA WATER CONSUMPTION (ha) l/s
Municipality of FočaUstikolina Cvilinsko Polje 88 39.6 Municipality of Goražde Gunjevići 3 1.35 Kolovarice 8 3.6 Hubjeri and Kazagići 20 9 Zupčići 11.6 5.22 Ahmovići and Kodžaga 22.4 10.08 Polje TOTAL AREA 153 68.85
3.5 Description of New Irrigation System Proposal
Preliminary design suggests two options for the supply and distribution of water from Drina River to the farming plots within the selected locations. In principle, both options entail a positioning of the intake structure in Drina River with pump aggregates equipped with two pumps (working and stand‐by pump) to pump the water:
Option 1: directly into the distribution lines in the field up to the hydrant outlets as the point where customers are connected to the system. Technical design for this option predicts pumping water to the main feeder pipeline divided into two distribution lines, one directed west and one east, except in the settlement Zupčići where only one distribution line is planned.
9 Option 2: into the distribution reservoir to be filled during night time and emptied during day time, or according to the customer demands. Water from the distribution reservoir is discharged into the main distribution pipeline, from the reservoir to the junction where the system is divided into two branches, west and east branch. Hydrant outlets are planned on the branches to enable customer connections.
Technical design suggested by the option 1 is a more cost‐effective investment compared to the technical design suggested by the option 2, which includes construction of additional system components such as feeder and distribution lines up to the reservoir, as well as a reservoir as a reinforced‐concrete structure with all elements required for adequate system operation.
On the other hand, operational costs of the technical design suggested by the option 2 are higher, and require additional electricity to operate the pumps, depending on the customer needs, while the option 2 technical design offers cheaper electricity tariff as the pumping of water from Drina River is planned during night time when the electricity tariff is lower.
Technical details for pumping station, pipelines and possible reservoirs will be available upon completion of the preliminary project design.
Option design drawings are presented in the Annex 1.
3.6 System Operation and Maintenance
As planned in the Project, future water users, irrigation field owners, shall form the so‐called Water Users Association (WUA) responsible for the system operation and maintenance. The WUA shall be formed for each of the 6 locations planned to be covered by irrigation systems. It is expected that the WUA will have the ability to manage the systems. In the beginning, they will be in need of suitable assistance in the system management and maintenance, and it is expected that the local communal company is able to provide such assistance. The WUA members will cover all operation and maintenance costs. WUA capacity building is planned within the project component 2. In later project phases, it will be possible to form the Federal Water Users Association to coordinate the activities of individual WUA's.
10 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL SETTINGS
4.1 Physical Environment
Climate. Goražde is located between continental and Mediterranean climate zone creating moderate continental climate with warm summers and cold snowy winters. Mountain parts exceeding 700m above sea level have mountain climate with short cold summers and long harsh, snowy winters. Average temperature in Goražde varies from ‐1°C in January to 20°C in July. Observed at the basin level, mean annual air temperatures are far more equable than the mean temperatures per each month.
Table 5 Average Climate Data for Goražde
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Rainfall (mm) 55 52 51 67 68 80 63 69 68 68 86 71 798 Temperature (°C) ‐1.2 1.7 5.7 9.7 14.4 17.3 19 18.6 15.3 10.3 4.9 0.4
Figure 5 Average Annual Temperatures
Annual precipitation varies from 800 to 1500mm. Although rainfall is rather well distributed throughout the year, substantial precipitation is recorded mostly during May and June, and the lowest precipitation in the period from December to March (Table 5). From the aspect of Drina River basin, high mountain areas receive 2000‐3000 mm of atmospheric precipitation, medium mountains around 1500 mm, and low mountains from 800 to 1000 mm. Precipitation decreases down the River course, although not sequentially, as obstructed by the local conditions. Taken as a whole, Drina River basin receives in average 1.030 mm of precipitation a year and therefore belongs to rich river courses.
11
Figure 6 Average Annual Precipitation
Geology and Hydrogeology. In lithological sense, the surrounding Goražde region consists of Palaeozoic formations (mainly shales, sandstones, phylitic shales, quartz wires and lower Carboniferous lidites, as well as Permian‐Triassic conglomerates, sandstones, filitoids, quartz sandstones, with some limestone, gypsum and marbled limestones). In Ustikolina (at the mouth of Kolunska rijeka into Drina River), a larger upper Silurian dome, made of bank limestones, hornstones and shales is observed. The morphology is mainly constituted by the mountain relief, generally rounded with mild slopes. Central part of Drina River basin is formed by volcanic rocks, seprentinites and occasionally of sandstones and marl. Generally, based on their hydrogeological function, Palaeozoic formations are principally semipermious materials, or shelf hydrogeologic barriers, with Quaternary aquifers as overlaying rocks (Drina River aluvion, first and second river terrace).
Agricultural land consists mostly of alluvial debris in wide flat terraces, which evolved during the Quaternary from the material accumulated by the erosion of the River Drina. In hydrogeological sense, and as already emphasized, these sediments are permeable to water and have good accumulation ability, which makes them good quality aquifers, and largely enables functioning of the irrigation system.
Certain colluvial debris also exists as relicts, somewhat closer to the steep mountain slopes. Land is not classified into the classes I or II and is easy to cultivate with good natural drainage.
12
Figure 7 Geologic Map of the Concerned Area
Land. Pursuant to the FAO classification, the area covered by the Sub‐Project Goražde consists of undeveloped hydromorphic soils. The soils from this class belong to alluvial soils – fluvisols (Eutric Fluvisols). Fluvisols are formed by transfer of sediment from source basins to depositional sites on a river banks. They developed in narrower or wider belts around Drina river. They are shallow to deep soils whose profile structure varies and depends on dominant pedogenic factors, surface and ground waters, and anthropogenic activities. Generally speaking, fluvisols are the most quality agricultural soils.
Figure 8 Types of Soil in Drina River SubBasin
Forests. High mixed forests, significant for the protection of underground aquifers against incidental pollutions caused by deep erosions in Karstificated areas, are present in the mountain parts of the Drina River sub‐basin. Deciduous forests prevail in the mountain area and perform significant role in prevention of erosion and equalization of temperature fluctuations and water runoff dynamics.
13 A very uneven geomorphologic composition of the Federation of BiH is one of the reasons of potential and real land erodibility. Regardless of forest, agricultural or other areas, water erosion risks are high. Within Drina River sub‐basin, erosion risks will occur if already established stable relations between forest ecosystems are disrupted. The best protection measures include implementation of planned forest management activities.
Water. The fields covered by the Sub‐Project Goražde are irrigated directly from Drina River.
The overall Drina River sub‐basin covers the central part of the Dinarides, starting in Albania at a lesser extent and up to the Pannonian lowlands, or the Sava River confluence. The total surface are of the sub‐basin is 19,946 km2, with 7,026 km2 within BiH borders, 860 km2 within the Federation of BiH.
Drina River is formed by the confluence of Piva and Tara rivers, with right tributaries Ćehotina, Lim, Uvac, Rzav and Jadar, and left tributaries Sutjeska, Prača and Drinjača. The length of the River course within the Federation of BiH, including the city of Goražde, is around 25 km.
Drina is a very fast river with cold and greenish water, caused by the limestone which underlays the major part of the area. It is a meandering river with high meandering ratio (175:346). Its source is located at 432 m above sea level, and the confluence of Sava River at 75 m above sea level. Its average depth is 3 to 5 m, with the deepest being 12 m at Tijesno. In average, Drina river bed is 50‐60m wide, the widest being 200m at Ljubovija, and the narrowest 12 m at Bajina Bašta.
A slowdown is recorded just downstream Goražde, as the impact of the accumulation of HPP Višegrad. Normally, the flow of Drina River through the Federation of BiH is under a deterministic influence of the upstream HPP Mratinje, in the Republic of Montenegro. Major tributaries within the BiH Federation include Kolunska River, Osanica River, part of Prača River course and upper part of Drinjača River course.
A dominant role in the Drina River water regime belongs to high flow rates during summer period, as a consequence of snow melt and intensive precipitation. Low summer flow rates caused by low precipitation and higher evapotranspiration are particularly observed. Specific flow rates on Drina River are given in the table below.
Table 6 Specific Flow Rates on Drina River
Section Water Course Flow Rate (m3/s) 1 Qsr Q95 Q1/100 Foča‐most2 Drina 212 27.6 2323 Goražde Drina 221 45.0 4080
Water Quality
The data on the water quality of Drina River are taken from the Pressure and Impacts Assessment Study, Risk Assessment for Drina River Sub‐Basin, prepared by the Hydro‐ Engineering Institute of the Civil Engineering Faculty in Sarajevo in 2010. Water course class was determined based on the physical and chemical parameters and saprobic index obtained by
1 Minimum mean monthly flow rate with 95% probability (i.e. biological minimum) 2 Main hydrographic‐hydrologic characteristics of the Drina River basin and hydrometeorological data, Vodoprivreda, no. 36, 2004. Faculty of Mining and Geology, Water Management Institute „J.Černi“
14 measurements taken on the section downstream Goražde. Physical and chemical parameters, whose marginal values were calculated based on the TNMN3 and the Regulation on Dangerous and Hazardous Substances in Water (Official Gazette of FBiH 43/07), were taken as applicable for the chemical water quality assessment. Marginal values for macro invertebrates and phytobenthos are based on the LIEBMANN (1962). Ichthyofauna was not included in the study. The results were compared with the required quality (Regulation on Classification of Water Courses SRBiH, 42/67).
Table 7 Oxygen Regime (FBiH)
Profile Required Dissolved Parameter VT_ID pH BOD5 COD Mn Final ID Class Oxygen 21 Oxygen Regime (FBiH) 105024 2 1‐2 1 2 1 2 * stations on equivalent water body, but different classes required
Table 8 Oxygen Regime (TNMN)
Profile Location of Gauge Required Dissolved COD COD VT_ID pH BOD5 Final ID Station Class Oxygen Cr Mn 21 Oxygen Regime (TNMN) 105024 2 1‐2 1 1 2 1 2
Table 9. Nutrients (FBiH)
Profile Required Total Metering Location VT_ID NH4N NO2N NO3N Final ID Class P 21 Drina ‐ downstream Goražde 105024 2 1 1 1 1 1
Table 10. Nutrients (TNMN)
Profile Location of Gauge Required NH4 NO2 NO3 Total PO4 Total VT_ID Final ID Station Class N N N N P P Drina ‐ downstream 21 105024 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 Goražde
Table 11. Priority Substances (FBIH)
Profile Location of Gauge Required VT_ID Hg Pb Cd Zn Cr Cu Ni Final ID Station Class Drina ‐ downstream 21 105024 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 Goražde
Table 12. Priority Substances (TNMN)
Profile Location of Gauge Required VT_ID Hg Pb Cd Zn Cr Cu Ni Final ID Station Class Drina – downstream 21 105024 2 1‐2 4 3 1‐2 1‐2 1‐2 1‐2 4 Goražde
3 Transnational Monitoring Network of the Danube River Basin. In order to enable the analysis of the data from the TNMN stations, marginal values for the quality paramters were identified, exlcusively for needs of the situation assessment and the Danube River water quality trends assessment.
15 Table 13. Biological Quality Parameters
Required Required Class Macro Profile Class Phyto Location of Gauge Station VT_ID Macro Invertebrates ID Phyto Benthos*** invertebrates* * benthos** 10502 21 Drina ‐ downstream Goražde 2 2 1‐2 to 2 2 4 * TNMN ** BiH Regulation *** Liebmann 1962
Generally, Drina River satisfies the prescribed second class for the majority of parameters, while the parameters such as the organic pollution parameter and the nutrient parameter group it into the first class of the best quality water courses. The presence of heavy metals, especially Pb, Cd, Cu, recorded in substantial concentrations downstream Goražde is of concern. It can be assumed that the increased concentrations of heavy metals are the result of the discharge of waste water from the military industry facilities in Goražde (Unis Ginex, Pobjeda Rudet), irrelevant for the upstream irrigation system users.
Quality of water for irrigation
Physico‐chemical analyses of water from the Drina River, in the location upstream from Goražde, were conducted by the Agency for the Sava River Basin District in the period from 2005 to 2009. These analyses included the most important parameters comprising the quantity of suspended solids, electric conductivity and total volatile residue. These parameters are important for making of the assessment whether this water can be used for irrigation of agricultural land, in accordance with the Neigebauer's classification. When the other parameters are concerned, the concentrations of nutrients of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds as well as the presence of heavy metals were tested. More detailed assessments can be obtained by testing the concentration of ions with the largest and key impact on possible soil salinization, such as sodium, calcium, magnesium and potassium cations. When the anions are concerned, the most important ones are hydrogen carbonates, chlorides and sulphates. These analyses enable more precise assessment of whether water is suitable for agricultural land irrigation purposes. Among these, the widely known methods of classification are the irrigation coefficient according to Stabler, assessment made in accordance with US Salinity Laboratory, which determines the sodium absorption ratio (SAR) – and classification based on the salinization risk.
Based on the data for the above mentioned period, that was available for purpose of this analysis, it was possible to make the classification according to Naigebauer, which is based on the quantity of dry residue instead of electric conductivity (from <700 mg/l for class I to >3000 for class IV), and especially on the ratio between the concentrations of calcium and magnesium ions and the concentration of sodium (Ca+Mg/Na from 1‐3 for subclasses marked with a, b, c, d, e). The total volatile residue during the above mentioned period ranged from 199 to 292 mg/l, while on the basis of water hardness it may be concluded that looking at the water quality and class requirements for rivers in FB&H, the ratio of calcium and magnesium is much higher than the possible concentration of sodium. According to the above mentioned analyses and the data provided by the Agency for the Sava River Basin District, the water of the Drina River is classified as class Ia, which means that, according to the Naigebauers's classification, this is water of outstanding quality for irrigation. It should also be mentioned that the electric conductivity in the above mentioned period was rather low, and ranged from 203 to 304 µS/cm, which are common values for class I, according to the FAO method, meaning that the water from the Drina River is water of medium hardness. Hard water such as groundwater is not suitable for irrigation, as this water, on the territory of B&H, has rather high concentrations of calcium, magnesium and hydrogen carbonate. Water containing high sulphate concentrations is even more unfavorable for irrigation.
16 Temperature range in the concerned period did not indicate to a large dependence on air temperature. Water temperature ranged from 5.6°C in the winter period, to 10.6°C in the summer period. Only in the month of August 2006 and 2008, the temperatures reached 16.5°C and 19.6°C respectively, based on which it may be concluded that the most favorable temperature is still during the warmest summer months.
Regarding the quantity of suspended solids, all analyses resulted in very low values; however, there was a significant increase on 25 February 2006 and 26 October 2006, in the amount of 18.2 mg/l and 55.1 mg/l, when increased turbidity was also noticed as well as rather high lead concentrations. Such results did not occur during any of the later analyses that again showed low values for the total suspended solids.
It is important to pay attention to the possibility of such incidental situations, as suspended solids may cause blockage of pipes that supply water for irrigation, and may also have impact on soil quality. Concentrations of ammonia and nitrates are very low and belong to class I according to the FAO method. When the maintenance of the quality of soil for plant growing is concerned, it is important to continuously pay attention to the level of possible salinization, and more detailed analyses are necessary in order to make assessments of possible effects of some dissolved ions on the quality of irrigated land, which would enable more detailed classification of irrigation coefficient according to Stabler, or more detailed SAR analysis.
4.2 Biological Characteristics
The area of Cvilinsko polje belongs to the Eurosiberian – North American Region, Trans Illyrian – Mesian District. In the past, the overall are of Cvilinsko polje was covered in forest species Querco – Fagetea Br. – Bl. Et Vielg. 37, class Fagetalia Pawl. 28, clades Luzulo – Fagion Lohm. et Tx. 54. Nowadays, after intensive exploitation of forests and transformation of land into agricultural land, agricultural crops prevail on the territory of Cvilinsko polje (Figure 9). Species Chenopodietea Br. – Bl. 51, class Chenopodietalia Br. – Bl. 31 em is developed on smaller, noncultivated plots. Apart from this species, Artemisietea Lohm., Prsg. et Tx. 50, class Artemisietalia Lohm. Ap. Tx. 47 occurs on certain sites, mainly the surroundings of wild landfills present in the field. The species Plantaginetea maioris Tx. Et Prsg. 50, class Plantaginetalia maioris Tx. 50 prevails along roads. Certain diversity among planting crops prevails in the overall field, due to fragmented parcels Figure 10, Figure 12). Therefore, in addition to horticultural crops, it is possible to find certain fruit crops as well (Figure 11).
Figure 9 Arable Land Figure 10 Production in Greenhouses
17
Figure 11 Fruit Crops in the Field Figure 12 Larger Farms in Cvilinsko polje
Following plant species were recorded during site visiting of the locality at all afore mentioned species:
Trees up to 10 m in height: Species Common Name Populus nigra L Poplar Quercus petraea (matt.) Lieb. Sessile Oak Picea abies (L.) H.Karst. Spruce Acer pseudoplatanus L. Sycamore Maple Juglans regia L,. Walnut Tree Abies alba Mill Fir Betula pendula Roth Birch
Trees up to 5 m in height: Species Common Name Populus nigra L Poplar Picea abies (L.) H.Karst. Spruce Acer pseudoplatanus L. Sycamore Maple Abies alba Mill Fir Mallus sp. Apple Tree Pyrus sp. Pear Tree Prunus sp. Plum Tree
Bushes up to 2 m in height: Species Common Name Populus nigra L Poplar Picea abies (L.) H.Karst. Spruce Acer pseudoplatanus L. Sycamore Maple Abies alba Mill Fir Prunus sp. Cherry Vaccinium myrtillus L. Bilberry
18 Species Common Name Atropa belladonna L. Nightshade Clematis vitalba L Clematis Rubus idaeus L. Raspberry Sorbus aucuparia L. Mountain Ash
Herbaceous plants: Species Common Name Populus nigra L Poplar Picea abies (L.) H.Karst. Spruce Prunus sp. Plum tree Eryngium amethystinum Prickle Vicia cracca L. Vetches Vicia sepium L. Bush vetch Thymus serpyllum L. Thyme Matricaria recutita L. Cammomile Cichorium intybus L. Chicory Achillea millefolium L. Yarrow Trifolium pratense L. Red Clover Trifolium repens L. Clover Mentha piperita L. Spearmint Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. Spear Thistle Cirsium acaule Dwarf Thistle Eryngium campestre L. Field Eryngo Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg Dandelion Silene vulgaris (Moench) Garcke Bladder Campion Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. Common Ragweed Poa sp. Grass Artemisia absinthium L Absinthium Urtica dioica L. Nettle Verbascum thapsus L. Common Mullein Galium verum L. Yellow Bedstraw Lamiastrum galeobdolon (L.) Ehrend.& Polatschek Yellow Archangel Plantago media L Hoary Plantain Euphorbia cyparissias L. Cypress Spurge Stellaria holostea L. Addersmeat Fragaria vesca L. Strawberry Potentilla erecta Uspenski ex Ledeb. Common Tormentil Geum urbanum L. Colewort
The use of chemical products on the locality is not at high scale; therefore, the vegetation of weed species is extremely developed in some parts of the field. Vegetation of weed bushes (shrubs), gradually replaced by forests with the sea level increase, is particularly developed along east field borders.
19 The field is rich in diverse fauna. Dominant species include: Apodemus silvaticus (Linnaeus, 1758) – Wood Mouse, Glis glis (Linnaeus, 1766) – Dormouse, Sciurus vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758 – Common Squirrel, Rattus rattus (Linnaeus, 1758) – Black Rat, Lepus europaeus Pallas, 1778 – Hare, Talpa europaea Linnaeus, 1758 – Mole, Pica pica (Linnaeus, 1758) – Common Magpie, Columba livia Gmelin 1789 – rock pigeon, Streptopelia decaocto (Frivaldszky, 1838) – Collared Dove, Corvus cornix Linnaeus, 1758 – Crow, Corvus monedula (Linnaeus, 1758) – Jackdaw. The birds of prey species present in the field include: Accipiter gentilis (Linnaeus, 1758) – Hawk, Falco subbuteo Linnaeus, 1758 – Hobby, Asio otus (Linnaeus, 1758) – Long‐Eared Owl, Athene noctua (Scopoli, 1769) – Little Owl and other species. It is sometimes possible to find certain species of the wetland birds in Cvilinsko polje, due to the proximity of Drina River, with Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 1758 – Wild Duck as the most numerous species.
Around 50 beekeepers in the Municipality of Foča‐Ustikolina are engaged in apiculture and own approximately 1,000 of hives, while the number of beekeepers in the Municipality of Goražde is even higher.
There are no protected zones on Goražde Sub‐Project site. East border of the planned National Park „Bjelašnica‐Igman“ is located at the very top of the basins of Prača and Kolunska rijeka tributaries. Furthermore, in the sub‐project are not recorded rare species of plants and animals that could be impacted by the project.
4.3 Socio‐Cultural Characteristics
4.3.1.1 Main Characteristics of the Project Sub‐Site
Sub‐Project Goražde will be implemented on the territory of two municipalities, the Municipality of Goražde and the Municipality of Foča‐Ustikolina located in the Bosnia‐Podrinje Canton within the BiH Federation.
The Municipality of Goražde covers the area of 248.8 km2. Until 1992, the Municipality had the population of around 37,000 people. Current number of population is estimated to 31,544 people. Natural population growth is stagnant in the post‐war period.
Manufacturing industry is the core of the economy in the Municipality of Goražde, although the scale of the economic operations is almost halved compared to the pre‐war period. This branch employs substantially more workers than the FBiH average and has the potential for further growth. Private sector and small and medium enterprises development was not sufficient to compensate for the drastic reduction in the production of large enterprises, observed also in some of main macroeconomic indicators, such as gross domestic product (GDP) and employment. GDP per inhabitant was approximately 1,520 $US in 2004. In the same period, employment was reduced by over 50%, to around 4,013 employed people. Compared to other similar size municipalities, the Municipality of Goražde can be grouped into the category of medium‐developed municipalities.
Agriculture, hunting and forestry are undeveloped compared to the FBiH. Based on the small number of peopled employed in agriculture compared to the FBiH average, agriculture is probably a backup business and numerous individual agricultural producers are not registered as employed in this business branch. Only 10% of the total available land belongs to arable land and gardens. Major part of the arable land and pastures is privately owned. 1,637 (69%) out of 2,345 households in possession of land own plots below one hectare. Only 5% of agricultural households (107) owns plots over 5 hectares. Compared to other municipalities with similar number of population, the Municipality of Goražde possesses the least arable land per
20 inhabitant, but the percentage of the cultivated land in relation to the total available arable land is much higher than in other municipalities.
Constructions sector, retail and wholesale trade, catering (hotels and restaurants), transport, warehousing and communications, financial sector, as well as real estate and business services are among undeveloped business activities, and thus satisfy mostly the local market demands.
Goražde has rich cultural heritage, with numerous cultural events taking place herein, with special accent on the summer Friendship Festival.
Pursuant to the plans for future use of available capacities, four industrial zones have been envisaged in Goražde to attract investments and induce further and accelerated small and medium entrepreneurship development, and thus create new employment possibilities. Primary agricultural production potentials are also considered strength of the local economy. Agricultural development is feasible particularly in the field of fruit production, farming, greenhouse production and livestock farming.
The Municipality of Foča Ustikolina covers the area of 161.26 km2. Until 1992, the Municipality had the population of around 5500 people. Current number of population is estimated to 2800 people. Based on the unofficial data, the employment rate is 50%. Based on the development index, calculated to 16.4 for the Municipality of Foča – Ustikolina, it belongs to the group of extremely undeveloped municipalities in the FBiH. Average salary is 640.40 BAM4.
Considering the natural features of the Municipality of Foča‐Ustikolina (67% of the territory is covered with forests), it can be concluded that the highest development potential is in timber industry, exploitation of gypsum, limestone, travertine and mineral water. There is a non‐ perspective destroyed warehouse of the former Yugoslav National Army in Vrbnički potok, which is the ideal location for the establishment of future industrial zone.
Furthermore, there are development chances in agriculture and tourism. Out of the total municipal area, around 9% of the land is available for agricultural production (arable fields and orchards), and around 22% for livestock farming (meadows and pastures). Arable fields and orchards are mostly privately owned. The territory of the Municipality of Foča‐Ustikolina is specific by traditional production of homemade jam, marmalade as well as plum and pear brandy.
There is the possibility for the construction of campuses and sport field beside Drina and Kolina rivers («Ada», «Modran», «Kolina»), construction of campuses on Jahorina mountain slopes (locality Grebak) for mountains and mountaineering fans, as well as construction of raft docks on Drina River. Natural resources of this area enable activities in various tourism fields, including rafting on Drina River, fishing and hunting in the hunting grounds in Ustikolina, specific by different sorts of hunting game and hunting tradition. In addition, the municipal tourist offer includes also the religious tourism (Turhan Emin‐Bey mosque, as the oldest mosque in BiH, and the praying hall Dobre vode) as well as rich cultural‐historical heritage (large necropolis of stelae dating from the 13th and 14th century on the bend “Presjeka”, „Grčki most“ in the settlement Kožetin.
Among the municipal program development goals, primary position belongs to the development of agriculture through livestock farming, farming and greenhouse production, and fruit production support and development program.
4Federal Development Programming Institute
21 The most significant cultural event in the Municipality of Foča‐Ustikolina is the «Ustikolina Summer», held each year at the end of July. The event includes cultural, sport and tourism activities.
Concerning particularly vulnerable groups, households living below the poverty line and other social categories (the retired, disabled, people with special needs) can be indicated for both municipalities. This project will not affect vulnerable categories in any way.
4.3.1.2 Preliminary Ownership Structure Analysis
Based on the official data from the cadastral offices of Foča Ustikolina and Goražde, surface areas and the number of individual plots within Goražde/Ustikolina Sub‐Project location are presented in Table 14 below.
The presented data on surface areas and the number of plots have been provided by the above mentioned Municipalities in the second half of 2011. Providing the unavailability of data in electronic form, it was impossible to define the exact number of land owners as one plot may have several owners. The number of households5 per locations taken from the Goražde Sub‐ Project Pre‐Feasibility Study from September 2010 is also presented in the table below. Almost all plots are under private ownership of individual land owners.
Table 14 Goražde SubProject Locations
Location Number of Plots Surface Area Number of Households ha a m2 Cvilin 408 93 10 52 76 Zupčići and Gunjevići 294 32 77 85 100 +11 Kolovarice 380 38 47 55 23 Hubijeri and Kazagići 196 26 95 16 150 Ahmovići and Kodžaga Polje 302 41 60 25 25 Total 1580 232 91 33 385
4.3.1.3 Preliminary Analysis of the Plots Potentially Subject to Expropriation
Framework data on the number of plots subject to some type of expropriation were obtained by overlaying the proposed pipeline route with permanent irrigation structures onto the cartographic background showing cadastral lots of the land to be covered by irrigation systems. At the moment, it is not possible to specify the number of households/land owners.
The overview of the number of plots is given in Table 15 below.
5 The data on the number of households is taken from the Gorazde Sub‐Project Pre‐Feasibility Study from September 2010 (Gorazde SubProject Final PreFeasibility Study, Technical Assistance for the Preparation of the Irrigation Development Project in BiH (TAIDP))
22 Table 15 Overview of Plots Potentially Subject to Expropriation
Location Number of Plots
Cvilin 49 Zupčići 23 Gunjevići 23 Kolovarice 54 Hubijeri and Kazagići 60 Ahmovići and Kodžaga Polje 88 Total 297
23
5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Impacts on the Sub‐river Catchment
Several gauge stations were installed on Drina River to monitor water levels and flow rates for a number of years. Gauge Station Foča is located approximately 17 km upstream the Sub‐Project site. Available data recorded by this gauge station in the period from 1926 to 1975 were used for the calculation purpose. As the Sub‐Project area is located downstream the GS Foča, it can be concluded that Drina River flow rates at the Sub‐Project site are also higher due to additional basin area that was not taken into consideration, but belongs to Drina River on the section from the GS to the Sub‐Project site (in the length of approximately 23 km). The data for the GS Foča were taken from the Hydrological Study of Surface Waters – SR BiH Water Resources (Volume I ‐ Book 10 and Volume II ‐ Book 2) prepared by the Water Management Institute in Sarajevo in 1977/78. Hydrological measurement process at GS Foca was carried out based on the flow rate records from 1926 to 1975, considered as a sufficiently long observation period.
Data on mean monthly and mean annual flow rates on Drina River at GS Foča are presented in Table 16 below.
Table 16 Mean Annual and Mean Monthly Flow Rates at GS Foča
meanQmonth (m3/s) meanQyear GS Foča I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII (m3/s) Drina River 210 201 262 361 352 197 106 65,5 72,6 156 280 279 212,0
The histogram of mean monthly flow rates over a period of more years and minimum mean monthly flow rate of 95% probability is demonstrated in the figure below.
Histogram of MultiAnnual Mean Monthly Flow Rates Drina River ‐ GS Foča
400 361 352 350 280 279 300 262 250 210 201 197 200 156 Rate (m3/s)
Qsr 150 106 100 65.5 72.6 minQsr,95 Flow 50 27.6 0 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
Month
Figure 13. Histogram of MultiAnnual minimum mean monthly flow rates
It is noticeable that dry months during the year include July, August and September, and multi‐ annual minimum mean monthly flow rates for this period vary from 65,5 to 106 m3/s.
25 3 Minimum mean monthly flow rate of 95% probability is minQmean,95 = 27.6 m /s. Pursuant to valid legislation, this flow rate is considered environmentally acceptable and must be provided in the river basin.
Number of Minimum Mean Flow Rate (minQm)Instances per Months
26 24 22 20 18 (n)
16 14 12 10
Number 8 6 4 2 0 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
Month
Figure 14. Frequency of Minimum Mean Flow Rate Instances per Months for the Period of 50 Years
Based on the Figure 2, minimum flow rates occur most frequently in August, September and October. The highest irrigation water demands arise in July and August (August is marked in green in the Figure, while minimum mean flow rate was never recorded in July throughout the observed period).
The data on minimum monthly flow rates on Drina River at Goražde profile for the year specific by the driest vegetation period (1946) and the data on average minimum monthly flow rates are presented below.
Table 17. Minimum Monthly Flow Rates on Drina River at GS Foča GS Foča – Drina River Flow Rate/Month I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
mean minQm(m3/s) 113 103 129 222 247 128 71.2 52.4 46.4 66.8 118 113
minQm 1946(m3/s) 58.5 49.8 165 189 369 57 33.7 27.2 27.2 27.2 98 104
Minimum flow rates at GS Foča in July, August and September and for the overall vegetation period, for different return periods (once in two, five, ten and twenty years) are given in Table 18 below.
Table 18. Minimum Flow Rates at GS Foča for Different Return Period
Return Period T (year) 2 5 10 20 Minimum Monthly Flow Rates Q (m3/s) GS Foča July 68.4 53.6 47.2 42.4 Drina River August 51.1 40.4 35.5 31.8 September 43.9 33.8 29.6 26.5 Vegetation Period 43.0 33.6 29.5 26.5
26
The data on interannual distribution of flow rates, or flow values Q for a given duration percentage, representing average duration line, are given in the Table 19 below.
Table 19. Interannual Distribution of Flow Rates GS Foča Drina River Interannual Distribution of Flow Rates Duration Percentage p(%) 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 Flow Rate (m3/s) 283 263 241 227 216 206 198 188 178 166 161
Flow duration curve for Drina River at GS Foča was formed based on the data on flow rates for given duration percentages. In addition to the duration curve illustrated in Figure 15, the graph shows also average multiannual flow rates (Qav = 212 m3/s), and minimum mean monthly flow 3 rate of 95% probability (minQmean, 95 = 27.6 m /s).
Observing the duration curve, it is evident that multiannual average and higher flow rates last for approximately 43% of the time. The minimum average monthly flow rate with 95% confidence lasts for more than 99% of the time for an average year, meaning that flow rates below it in average occur in less than 3 days a year. If we consider the number of occurrences of minimum average monthly flow rates, it is to be assumed that they occur in August, September or October.
Water from Drina River is mainly used in electric power (hydroelectric power plant) and agricultural purposes. Hydroelectric power plants on Drina River are dam type, thus there is no spatial redistribution of water (as is the case with derivational plants). Before the construction of three hydro power plants, flat areas alongside Drina River were regularly flooded. Nowadays, hydro power plants distribute water in time, thus the floods are avoided, and naturally low flow rates in dry periods can be increased. Due to inadequately developed irrigation systems, even agriculture cannot be characterized as significant water consumer.
Observing the flow duration curves at GS Foča, it is evident that for an average year, the 3 provided flow is above the environmentally friendly Qavailable = 161 to 27.6 = 133.4 m /s in the duration of 95% of the time (approximately 347 days). Likewise, a histogram of multiannual average monthly flow rates shows that the flow rates in August and September are 65.5 m3/s and 72.6 m3/s, thus the available flow rate is in average 37.9 m3/s and 45 m3/s, which by far exceeds actual irrigation demands.
If we observe minimum monthly flow rates in August and September, we see that they are 52.4 m3/s and 46.4 m3/s (available 22.8 m3/s and 18.8 m3/s). Assumed maximum quantity to be supplied from Drina River for irrigation needs is 0.07 m3/s, which is 0.37% of the available Drina River flow rate in the month with the lowest average minimum monthly flow rate. Minimum flow rate in the vegetation period for the return period T = 10 years is 29.5 m3/s, thus 1.9 m3/s of water is available at the GS Foča profile, 3.7% of which should be provided for irrigation purposes.
As already mentioned, the basin area at irrigation catchment profiles is larger than the basin area that belongs to the GS Foča, thus the Drina River flow rates are higher on Project locations.
27 Flow Duration Curve Drina River ‐ VGS Foča
400
350
300
250 (m3/s)
200 Rate Q
Flow
150
100
50
0 0 102030405060708090100
Duration T (%)
Figure 15. Flow Duration Curve for Drina River at GS Foča
It can be concluded that the availability of water, in dry periods, as well as in all other hydrological situations, will not be a limiting factor, and that pumping 70 l/s from Drina River will not affect environmentally acceptable flow rate and other downstream water consumers in the basin, especially the population and businesses in the Municipality of Goražde, supplied with water from the Drina River catchment located in the settlement Vitkovići.
28 5.2 Other Impacts during the Construction Phase
Irrigation Sub‐Project Goražde refers to the construction of a new irrigation system at 6 project sites in the Municipalities of Foča‐Ustikolina and Goražde. The works include construction of 6 pumping stations on the Drina riverbank, construction of the network of underground pipelines, installation of hydrants, possible need for construction of access roads, and if the Option 2 from the Preliminary Design is selected, construction of 6 water reservoirs.
Therefore, for needs of the system construction, it is necessary to provide small scale construction machinery (excavators, bulldozers) and field workers, and to establish the construction zone. Main construction impacts will include spoils and construction waste management, as well as on‐site waste water, fuel and oil management, but can also include: (i) interruptions in agricultural activities arising out of access restrictions, soil compaction, and excavation of canals, (ii) waste , noise, mud and dust on site and on access roads, (iii) damage to trees or other vegetation on site, and (iv) disturbance of wildlife in and nearby the location, and (v) disruption of access and movement.
Land. Construction works, including removal of top soil (humus), excavation, and mere presence of the machinery and workers on site may have adverse impact on land quality. Thereby, the following impacts have been identified: Mechanical land impact during the excavation of canals; Stimulation of erosion by wind and water; Land pollution due to spillage or disposal of oil and oil products, motor oil and similar waste that comes from equipment and vehicles on the construction site; Land pollution due to the uncontrolled disposal of solid waste onto the land; Land pollution due to uncontrolled discharges from on‐site toilets; Land reinstatement delay.
Temporarily established network of construction roads will be removed and the land will be reinstated after the completion of construction works, except in situations where it is necessary to keep the roads for maintenance purposes.
In areas where it is necessary to cross over a steep slope (crossing over river terraces), construction works can cause soil erosion and sediment transportation. Implementation of the proposed measures to mitigate the impacts such as the use of temporary dikes, fences and trenches to reduce and restrict the degree of pollution, the concerned impacts will be minimized.
Reinstatement of the land is a standard procedure that is performed after welding and backfilling of pipes. Two goals are sought to be achieved by reinstatement, such as (i) short‐ term goal, which is landfilling, drainage and soil stabilization for permanent prevention of erosion and recultivation, or deposition of the preserved or a spare surface layer in order to facilitate the native vegetation growth and ( ii) long‐term goal, which is reflected in the establishment of appropriate vegetation cover, with the attempt to reinstate local flora and ecosystem. Postponement of the land reinstatement can cause deterioration of the preserved top soil, dissatisfied landowners, as well as the increase in the costs of a retrospective land reinstatement.
Afore mentioned effects are temporary effect and the reinstatement prior to the execution of works is feasible. The impact could be significant, unless measures from good construction
29 practices are applied pursuant to the Civil Construction Law, and as recommended by this Study, and unless land reinstatement is pursued.
Waters. Having in mind the fact that a pumping station will be constructed on Drina River banks, it is estimated that the construction works could adversely affect its quality, as follows: Increased sedimentation and erosion caused by excavation works, which will affect water quality and cause changes in the riverbank stability; Pollution of surface and groundwater through spillage or disposal of oil and oil products, motor oil and similar waste materials derived from the equipment and vehicles on the construction site; Changes in the quality of surface water due to uncontrolled disposal of excavation waste in the river/water course; Changes in the quality of surface water due to uncontrolled disposal of solid waste in the river/water course; Changes in the quality of surface and groundwater due to uncontrolled discharges from the on‐site toilets.
All afore mentioned impacts are temporary impacts and normal flow regimes, which support the aquatic ecosystem, will be established after completion of the construction works. This Study will propose mitigation measures to reduce adverse impacts during the construction phase and provide reinstatement.
Pollution of water courses which may also occur as a result of improper disposal of solid and liquid waste, as well as excavation waste, will be mitigated by appropriate waste handling measures, thus a significant impact on the environment is expected.
Air. Increased concentration of polluting substances, primarily dust and exhaust gases from motor vehicles are expected as a result of the construction works. Activities that will result in emission of polluting substances include: construction of temporary access roads, transportation, uncovered construction materials, machinery and vehicle movements on site, as well as the excavation of pipe trenches. The impact on air quality is expected in the area located a few hundred meters from the working zone. However, neither significant impact on local population, nor exceeding legally permissible concentrations of air emissions, is expected. Therefore, all impacts are closely related to the location of works, and are of temporary character with a reinstatement tendency upon completion of construction works.
Noise. Pipeline construction will gradually progress along the route, causing temporary noise. Construction process cannot be estimated at this stage, as it depends on a number of different factors such as the number of employees, type of machinery, soil type, presence of other factors (existing underground pipes), etc. Construction works will mainly be carried out during daytime working hours, but depending on the nature of work, there is a possibility that certain activities will be performed outside the specified time frame. Therefore, daytime working hours will be prescribed through mitigation measures for the most affected zones. This impact is assessed as a temporary and less important impact.
Flora and Fauna. Bearing in mind that the irrigation system runs through urban zones and populated areas along roads where the tertiary types of ecosystems dominate, it is unlikely that the significant negative impacts on flora and fauna can be expected. Temporary habitat loss along the working corridor could cause reduction in the density of the present fauna representatives until the vegetation covering is re‐established. However, most species are common and widespread and the loss of several individual species has a negligible impact on
30 the entire population both at local and regional level. Generally speaking, any impact caused by the construction works is temporary and the reinstatement is feasible prior to the execution of works. Impacts can be mitigated with appropriate good construction practices, prescribed in this Study.
Population Movements. Taking into account that the Project involves provision of construction roads, set‐up of a workers' camp, movement of machines along local roads, excavation of pipeline trenches, there is a possibility that all of these activities will interfere with usual population and motor vehicles movement routes. These impacts can be mitigated by means of good construction practice measures, including the disposition of machines and equipment during lean daytime traffic hours, and provision of a safe passageway through the site or and alternative route for pedestrians and vehicles in coordination with local authorities.
In addition, there is a potential health hazard related to the presence of open pits near residential areas, which can be mitigated by appropriate signalization and fencing.
5.3 Other Impacts during the Operation Phase
In addition to many significant benefits of irrigation in agricultural production, irrigation can have unintended consequences, especially if improperly used or applied in inappropriate circumstances. Potential negative impacts identified in the operation phase are related to: (i) the problems with waterlogging, salinization and soil erosion, (ii) deterioration of the quality of surface and groundwater due to agro‐chemical pollution, (iii) and disturbance of ecological balance in the area of irrigation in terms of certain pest and weed species.
Land. Waterlogging occurs when ground water level exceeds a critical level, which is unfavorable for the development of most agricultural crops. This is followed by complete saturation of soil by water. Waterlogged soil cannot be timely or at all prepared for planting, and does not allow sowing in due course. To solve waterlogging problems, drainage and use of other agromelioration measures are required.
Salinization of soil by irrigation may occur by raising the level of salinized groundwater and when water containing increased concentration of salt is used for irrigation purposes, especially in case of high irrigation rates. As the analysis of mineral contents was not carried out for Drina River, it is not possible to claim the area threatened at this moment. However, it is necessary to emphasize this possibility and recommend quality monitoring for the water used for irrigation purposes and salinity of the irrigated land. This is especially important for the area of Foča and Ustikolina, where there are several sites of geothermal water in the Local Community Jabuka.
Proper definition of irrigation standards, selection of appropriate irrigation methods and equipment and their adaptation to soil conditions, prevents or reduces deterioration of water‐ physical soil properties and the occurrence of irrigation erosion.
Key prevention measure is related to the ongoing education of farmers about the proper methods of irrigation and good agricultural practices, as well as to the monitoring of the quality of water used for irrigation purposes and the irrigated land.
Water. Chemical products in agriculture, including phyto‐pharmaceutical products, mineral and organic waste, may reach surface water through transportation filtering mechanisms and
31 surface runoff and thus affect its quality. As the implementation of the Sub‐Project Goražde threatens Drina River with high flow rates and significant number of point and diffuse pollutants upstream, it is estimated that it will be difficult to determine whether a possible deterioration in its quality (reducing the concentration of dissolved oxygen, increased concentrations of nutrients and pesticides ) is caused by the irrigation project or pathogens and other pollutants upstream. Notwithstanding possible difficulties in determining the cause, in terms of prevention of cumulative impacts, it is necessary to apply preventive measures, which relate primarily to the ongoing education of farmers about the proper methods of irrigation and good agricultural practices including integrated pest prevention measures, briefly summarized below and described in detail within the Environmental Management Framework prepared within this Project.
Taking into account that water from Drina River is also used for irrigation purposes, Monitoring Plan will provide regular analysis of the quality, not only to determine quality impacts of the project, but also to determine the quality of water that will be used for irrigation in order to avoid negative impacts on crops and the land.
Taking into account the results of the sub‐basin impact analysis presented in Section 5.1, negative impacts are not expected in terms of reducing the flow downstream the water catchment, or lowering groundwater tables in Drina River alluvium.
Impact on Fauna. Most of pest control products in agriculture are dangerous poisons for bees and other beneficial insects. In order to avoid bee rooting, it is necessary to apply appropriate measures to the concerned products related to the spraying time, weather conditions and selection of pesticides. It is also necessary to make contacts with beekeepers associations, and promptly inform them about the use of products to act in due course and keep their bees in hives.
Pest and Weed Management. The climate in Cvilinsko polje in summer is very hot and dry which is good for pests that prefer Mediterranean climate. Spring and fall are characterized by a typical continental climate with high rainfall which favors the development of pests that prefer continental climate. Somewhat milder winters in this region contribute to the successful survival of some hazardous species.
As the irrigation project is related to areas where agricultural production is already performed, meaning that expanding to larger areas with the intention of increasing production volume to the pre‐war level is not planned, a significant disruption in the ecological balance and increased invasion of pests is not expected.
Site research has shown that this area was not subject to serious pest invasion, but nevertheless, there are certain diseases present, such as: white rust, fusicladium, powdery mildew, hinge, aphides, and various kinds of wasps. Until today, control of diseases and pests was carried out by a variety of agro‐technical methods (plowing, burning diseased plants) and chemical methods (pesticides). Biological methods were not used.
Chemical products are not used on the locality in large scale, thus the vegetation of weed species in some parts of the fields is extremely developed. Vegetation of weed bushes (shrubs) is especially developed along the eastern edges of the fields, gradually transformed into the woods with the increasing altitude.
A predominance of some very dangerous weed species, such as Common Ragweed was observed. These species are difficult to eradicate and are a major problem for farmers. Other
32 weed species can be kept under control by applying proper agro‐technical measures, such as plowing at 80 cm depth. For Common Ragweed, the best solution is to apply deep plowing with the use of certain herbicides. Common Ragweed is, on the other hand, highly resistant species that is rapidly expanding and occupies habitats. It is a great fighter for the habitat and needs to be pulled out and burned before it starts its season of pollenization. If the pulling out is carried out during the season of pollenization, it only contributes to its spreading. Common Ragweed is dangerous for crops, as well as for domestic (indigenous) species of weed plants.
Although the presence of species Convolvulus arvensis L. – Field Bindweed was not observed on site, there is no doubt that this weed can be present in this area, as it is rampant throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Such vine weed species attack only the so‐called "high crops" such as maize and some legumes. Proper agro‐technical measures such as pulling, burning and deep plowing can prevent weed growth. As this species is quite stringy, it is not recommended to mow it with the use of machinery. Replacement of high with low crops has appeared to be a very good growth inhibitor for this weed species. For example, in kailyard, this weed is rarely to be found. However, if the infestation of weeds exceeds the allowed threshold and when the assessment shows that it could harm crops, some natural herbicides can be used to kill the weeds. These herbicides can be found in free sale, they operate quickly and efficiently, and, in addition, they are also biodegradable. If these types of herbicides are inaccessible to farmers, chemical substances allowed by the entity legislation can also be used.
Considering the above, the ongoing education of farmers on good agricultural practices is necessary, including integrated pest prevention measures as required by Plan of integrated pest management which forms an integral part of environmental management framework. Plan has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of operational policy OP 4.09 Pest Management and OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment. The main objective of the application of an integrated plan is to prevent and reduce pesticide use, while at the same time to maintain pest populations at acceptable levels.
Integrated pest management plan should serve the farmers to obtain the necessary information on good agricultural practices to reduce the burden of environmental pollution caused by excessive use of pesticides and reduce the risk to human health and animal by complete removal of the pesticides from use. Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, Project Implementation Unit (PIU) will monitor the implementation of the project and ensure that activities in the sub‐projects are carried out in accordance with the developed integrated plan for pest management.
Impact on Human Health. When preparing and applying phytopharmaceutical products, pesticide poisoning may occur in case of inadequate protection of users. Dissolved pesticides can pass through skin, respiratory tract (inhalation of pesticide vapors) or gastrointestinal tract (eating). Poisoning is not only of acute nature (one‐time large amounts of input, direct contact with the skin), but can also occur due to prolonged and repeated application of small quantities, which, in case of single input, does not show any consequences (chronic poisoning). Contact with the skin is the most common form of pesticide poisoning. Penetration of pesticides through the skin occurs much faster if arms, hands, feet and face are unprotected. High temperature and perspiration accelerate the penetration of pesticides through the skin.
Considering the above, when applying pesticides it is necessary to use protective equipment (rubber gloves, rubber boots, protective clothing, head cover, goggles, mask for nose and mouth).
Waste from the application of pesticides is considered hazardous waste, and as such should be temporarily stored and properly disposed in cooperation with the people authorized for hazardous waste management.
33 5.4 Positive impacts on environment
The construction of the irrigation system will ensure the economic, social and environmental benefits to the land users and local communities in this area. Experiences of similar projects show that the project will have many positive impacts on the environment through the promotion of good land use practices, methods of cultivation and pest management.
Sub‐project should help to strengthen local capacity in an environmentally sustainable approach to agriculture development.
Potential positive impacts on the environment through the implementation of this project include:
(i) better control over the use of water resources; (ii) a more rational use of water resources through improved operation and maintenance; (iii) reducing the risk of water pollution from chemicals by implementation of integrated pest management plan; (iv) reducing the risk of pollution of surface and groundwater by using a large number of private pumps and generators, which are currently being used without adequate control and to take measures to prevent impacts from spills of fuels and lubricants; (v) the association of water users allows them greater representation in the multi‐ sectoral agreements about the future of water use; (vi) effective waste management through greater community participation.
34 6 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Framework environmental policy and guidelines of the World Bank, the consultant has developed an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the purpose of promoting dialogue and discussion among all stakeholders, providing relevant material on the project that may affect the lives of the stakeholders, the environment and community well‐being with the aim of transparent cooperation with stakeholders and the public.
In this way, through published documents interested parties will be informed about the project and proposed environmental protection measures, monitoring and environmental monitoring program, as well as the responsibilities of all participants in the project.
6.1 The main conclusions and comments from the public hearing
The main conclusions and comments from the public hearing will be added after holding a public hearing and / or receiving written comments. Also, detailed comments and the minutes of the scheduled public hearings will support this document.
35
7 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The main findings of the Social assessment of the Project of irrigation development on the subproject location of Goražde/Ustikolina were presented below, while the detailed analysis is given in Appendix 2.
7.1 Stakeholders During the qualitative research, the relevant key participants for the IDP on the location of Goražde/Ustikolina were identified including institutions, organizations and interested groups. The analysis has shown that the most relevant stakeholder in the filed of agriculture and water management are cantonal and local authorities responsible for agriculture and water management, the associations/cooperatives and the agricultural producers: the Government of the Bosna‐Podrinje canton, the Cantonal Ministry of economy; Municipality Goražde; Agricultural cooperative Agropodrinje Goražde; Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina; UNDP; Association Emina, Ustikolina; Association Voćar, Ustikolina; the registered agriculture craftsmen in Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina; the registered agriculture craftsmen in agriculture in Municipality Goražde.
7.2 The permanent/temporary relocation and expropriation of the land On the basis of the data collected during the qualitative research, it can be concluded that the complete land expropriation issues are not expected. In addition, there will not be any need for the permanent or temporary relocation of the population. The conclusion is drawn based on the information given in the feasibility study for IDP and the general opinion of the representatives of the local authorities and the citizens on the aforementioned locations.
In the construction phase, major civil works will be carried out mainly on or nearby the privately owned plots. This will require most probably some cases of incomplete expropriation. Based on the expressed willingness for project by the direct users and the expectations of the representatives of the local authorities, these activities should not cause major legal property issues, only some isolated disputes. These disputes will be mediated by the competent municipality services.
7.3 The characteristics of the households, community and agricultural production The project location of Goražde/Ustikolina consists of a several fields that are geographically situated in the Municipalities Goražde and Foča‐Ustikolina and administratively belong to Bosna‐Podrinje Canton. The Cvilinsko polje, Gunjevići, Kolovarice, Hubjeri and Kazagići, Zupčići, Ahmovići and Kodžaga polje cover the area of approximately 150 ha with 1200 citizens in almost 400 households living there. In Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina, the Project covers one local community while in Municipality Goražde the irrigation scheme covers four local communities. These are rural communities where majority of population are agricultural workers.
During the field visit it was determined that some of the agricultural workers already have individual irrigation systems, e.g. in Hubjeri and Kazagići, while in other field no irrigation system is present, e.g. in Cvilin and Zupčići.
37 In 93% of the cases the land is owned by the agricultural workers, the ownership is usually based on inheritance. Out of 186 landowners, 11,8%, bought the land. 87,1% of the surveyees inherited the land. Only 2,5% of the surveyees stated that that they were land owners on this location. 4,5% of the surveyees are lessees. The surveyees who use the land as lessees, use it 1 year in average, and pay 270 KM per year.
The average size of the land in the hands of the owners or proprietors – surveyees amounts to 9937 m2. The average size of the land used for the agricultural production is 5812 m2. When these two values are compared, it can be concluded that more than a half of the land in private ownership is used for agricultural production, which is a good use of the agricultural land.
Most agricultural workers works on several separate plots. The average number of the is 6. This complicates agricultural production due to the loss of time and the strength of the workers resulting form movement from one piece of the land to the other.
The value of the land is estimated by the most of the surveyees (53% of them) as 11‐20 KM/m2. 4,5% of the surveyees think that the value of the land that they own is more than 20 KM/m2.
On the basis of the data collected using the quantitative research, it can be concluded that 63% of the owners of the agricultural land and agricultural producers on the location of Goražde/Ustikolina are males. In 37% of the households the head is a female. The average age of the agricultural producers is 54. The average number of the persons in the households is three. As for education, most of the surveyees finished high school.
The average salary per year of the surveyees from the agricultural production is 2780 KM. Therefore, the following data regarding the income structure are not surprising:
Agriculture is the main activity in a small number of households. 78% of the households consider the agricultural production as a secondary activity. This information, to a significant extent, corresponds to the information that 76% of the households consider the agricultural production not to be the main source of income. In 41,5% of the households one or more members are employed somewhere else, not in the agricultural activities. The average number of the members who are employed somewhere else is one member for each surveyed household. Almost 90% of the surveyed households have other income beside the agricultural production. In most cases it is a monthly retirement cheque. The average monthly income of the households for 32,5% of the surveyees is between 301 and 500 KM, for 17,5% of the surveyees between 501 and 700 KM, which is below the monthly income in FBiH (average monthly net salary in FBiH in 2010 was 804 KM6).
The cultures grown on these locations are mostly farm cultures and grains. However, the participants in the research also grow fruit and, to a lesser extent, breed cattle. The large majority of the surveyees mention these cultures: potato, garlic/onion, paprika, carrot, tomato, lettuce, fruit, and corn. The data shows that the agricultural producers on the location of Goražde/Ustikolina grow many cultures. The analysis of the data obtained with the questions about the average yearly crop yields per culture and about the average amounts of the products sold yearly leads to the conclusion which cultures will give more crop yields and which of them are grown for sale, for example wheat, buckwheat, berries and cabbage. The crop yields are satisfactory but they would be better if the problem of the placement of the products is solved.
6 Offical web page of the Federal Institute for Statistics, http://www.fzs.ba/
38 The sectors of agriculture that have the most potential for the development on the local level are: greenhouse production, vegetable growing, fruit growing and cattle breeding. As the main potential of the agricultural production on the local level was stated the quality land on which are grown many agricultural cultures.
In the agricultural production, on the land, on average there are always two persons working, mostly the members of the household. Besides, on average, the surveyees hire one seasonal worker. It can be concluded that the agricultural production in Goražde/Ustikolina is a family activity and, to a small extent, the families hire seasonal workers or the workers who are not members of the household.
The answers to the questions about the agricultural equipment and mechanization gave us the data that a significant percentage of the surveyees own greenhouses (47%). Accordingly, we conclude that almost half of the agricultural producers on this location invest and are seriously occupied with the agricultural production. They own, to a smaller extent, agricultural machines: motocultivator 38%, milling machine 29,5% of the surveyees etc.
36,5% of the surveyees stated that they currently used some irrigation system. They mostly state that it is a drip system, then electric/diesel pumps, petrol pumps etc. This information confirms the previous conclusion regarding the significant amount of investing in the greenhouse production, where drip system is usually used.
Currently used irrigation system improves the crop yields, on average, by 83%. The monthly costs of the use of the irrigation system, during the most intense watering season, amount to approximately 51 KM.
The most expensive item in the agricultural production is the seed purchase and renting of mechanization. This confirms the finding that very few producers own agricultural machines. The irrigation costs, in the total expenses of the agricultural production, amount to (5%), right after the costs for buying the compost and cost of additional work force. Most of the surveyees produce for personal use and almost half of them sell their products on the local market. A small number of surveyees, 13,5% of the them, sell their products on the BIH market. Only six surveyees (3%) sell their products abroad.
7.4 The fears and expectations of the population
According to the data collected, the problems that negatively influence the extent of the agricultural production are, almost in the same proportion of answers, the lack of the market, drought, shortage of work force, disloyal competition, low purchase price etc.
Most surveyees expect that in the forthcoming period, e.g. 5 years, the extent of agricultural production will be the same. Partial improvements in the agricultural production are expected by a small number of the surveyees. 29% of the surveyees expect partial worsening and 5,5% of the surveyees expect that the production will significantly worsen. 65% of the surveyees think that the agricultural production is mostly influenced by the shortage of water. 41% of the surveyees state the economic situation as a reason for decrease in production.
The surveyees who responded that the improved irrigation would impact their agricultural production to a large extent (40% of them) or to some extent (24% of them), responded to the detailed questions regarding this impact. Such irrigation system will, on average, increase the crop yields by 49% and increase the yearly sale by 32%.
39 The large majority of the surveyees who think that the improved irrigation will influence their agricultural production to a large or some extent also think that, in this way, their crop yields will increase (97,8% of them)., that they will be able to grow some more profitable cultures (96,3%), and that they will be able to use more agricultural land (96,3%).
It is easy to notice the difference in the volume of the agricultural activities: the agricultural workers who use some irrigation system hire additional workers during the season and use to a larger extent the greenhouses and other agricultural mechanization. In addition, they sell their products to a larger extent on the market. The agricultural workers who to not use the irrigation system use their products mostly for personal use. The biggest problem of the agricultural production for the agricultural workers who to not use the irrigation system is the shortage of water, namely lack of irrigation. For the agricultural workers who use some irrigation system, the main problems are disloyal competition and the shortage of work force.
7.5 The proposed Project activities and their social and political context The proposed activities of the Project regarding the construction of the irrigation system on the locations of Goražde/Ustikolina will undoubtedly lead to the obvious improvement in the sector of the agricultural production. However, these activities cannot significantly influence the broader social and political framework. The existence of a good and sustainable irrigation system is a precondition and security for the rural development of the project locations. It will contribute to the fact that the population will stay on the subproject locations and it will increase the number of the agricultural producers.
In order to have significant effects on the economic‐social situation and employment in agriculture, it is necessary to ensure other elements as well: the market for agricultural products, easier access to the incentives and other kinds of help.
On the basis of the analysis of all the participants in the research on the subproject location of Goražde/Ustikolina, it can be concluded that almost all of them agree with the fact that the situation in the agricultural sector in BiH is very poor. They state the following problems: lack of the market for product placement, insufficient incentives, the purchase price for the agricultural products, the lack of working capital, inconsistent legal regulations in the field of agriculture in various regions of BIH.
As for the local level, the difference of opinions is evident between the representatives of the local authorities and the agricultural producers. The representatives of the local authorities underline the positive steps in agriculture on the local level, such as the increased amounts of money that the municipality allocates for the incentives and a larger number of projects. On the other hand, the agricultural producers firmly state that the situation on the local level is more difficult than on the state level. As additional limitations they see the destroyed infrastructure and facilities due to the war activities, the production limited by the configuration of the terrain. As a specific problem they state the distance of Bosna‐Podrinje Canton from the market of the larger cities and towns in FBiH. This, to a large extent, makes the market placement of the agricultural products difficult.
The proposed components of the Project, the component of the Investment in the modernization of the irrigation system and the component of the Improvement of the institutional capacity in the public and private sector will create the preconditions for more intense agricultural production. In addition, by increasing the capacity of the public and private sector, the direct users will be enabled to have influence on the conditions under which they work in agricultural production.
40 Most of the participants in the research are partially informed about the planned carrying of the IDP. 40% think that the improved irrigation will have a lot of influence, 24% think that it will affect their agricultural production to some extent. In their opinion, such irrigation system will on average increase crop yields by 49% and increase the yearly sale by 32%.
The large majority of the surveyees who think that the improved irrigation will have some or significant influence on their agricultural production also think that this way their crop yields will increase by (97,8%), that they will be able to grow some more profitable cultures (96,3%) and that they will be able to use more agricultural land (96,3%).
In addition, most of them would invest in the new irrigation system. A significant percentage of the surveyees said that they would not (33%) and probably would not (16,5%) personally share the expenses of maintaining and using the new irrigation system. In order to overcome the negative attitude of the agricultural workers regarding this issue, it is necessary to intensify the information dissemination activities and insist on the advantages of the Project while communicating with the direct users.
89% of the surveyees are ready to provide a part of their land for the needs of the Project (for the installation of the pipes, the canals, the pumps etc.). The condition of most of them is that the civil works should not influence negatively their agricultural production. 23,6% would provide access to the land unconditionally. Most of the agricultural workers are not ready to accept complete expropriation of a part of their land. They also do no accept to relocate temporarily or permanently if it is necessary for the construction of the irrigation system.
7.6 The main social questions regarding the reforms supported by the IDP The most important social questions regarding the reforms and changes that the accomplishment of the IDP could bring refer to employment, income increase, but also the positive changes and the improvement of the agriculture production. Furthermore, the accomplishment of the Project will strengthen the local communities with the improvement of the institutional capacity in the public and private sector. The finding of this research show the following: if there is a wish to accomplish positive influence on the aforementioned social questions on the location of Goražde/Ustikolina, it is necessary, as soon as possible, to carry out all the components of the Project and work hard on the strengthening of the institutional capacity in the public and private sector. The agricultural production on this location has significant potential for development and the producers and the representatives of the local authorities are interested to invest in its improvement.
The successful accomplishment of the first two components of the Project of irrigation development „The investment in the rehabilitation and modernization of the system for irrigation and drainage“ and „The improvement of the institutional capacity in the public and private sector by means of organizing and training for water users“, will enable a simpler and faster accomplishment of the third component: „The preparation of the Feasibility studies and the preparation of the projects for the second round of the priority investments regarding water management“.
7.7 Positive and negative impacts of the Project of irrigation development The positive social impact and importance of the Project of irrigation development firstly reflects in the fact that the improved irrigation is the precondition for agricultural production and its development and that it will have positive effects on self‐employment. The examples of the positive impacts and the advantages that the Project will bring are the change of the cultures that the agricultural workers grow, less work force efforts, increased crop yields.
41 The Project will not have any negative impact if the agricultural producers are taken care of and not burdened with additional expenses for the use and maintenance of the irrigation system. In addition, it has been noticed a certain amount of distrust and skepticism regarding the accomplishment of the Project among the direct users of the irrigation system. A good way to overcome this potential problem is to build trust with the direct users of the irrigation system regarding the project, informing them in detail and having frequent contacts.
The representatives of the local authorities agree that the impacts of the Project will be significant since it is a precondition for agricultural production and its development and that it will have positive effects on self‐employment. The agricultural producers showed certain distrust in the accomplishment but expressed their opinion that, without exception, they were interested in the Project. Expressed distrust can be explained taking into account all the negative experiences with the failed projects in the past.
All agricultural producers who participated in the research said that the most important issue was investment and the costs of maintaining the irrigation system. Even though they agree that the idea regarding the irrigation development is good and that it will help their agricultural production, they are willing to participate only if the investment is minimal, on the level of the current costs. The change of the cultures that they grow, less work force efforts, increased crop yields are the examples they named in relation to the positive impact and advantages that the Project will bring.
The interviewed representatives from Municipality Goražde and Cooperation expressed their concern that the distrust and skepticism of the people, as well as giving up on the Project, could be problems that might influence the accomplishment of the Project. Surveyees from Goražde gave similar answers. Therefore, one should consider to carry out the activities aimed at building trust in the Project on this location. The representatives from the local authorities expressed similar opinions that there was a need for the experts of different profiles who would advise the users of the Project. The participants from local community Cvilin also think that they will need a specific trainings provided by experts.
As the main shortcomings and problems in the accomplishment of the Project, the agricultural producers stated the financial factor. They expressed concern how much it would cost to install and maintain the system. The shortcoming of the Project could also be from technical side related to amount of water available for all users.
The majority of surveyed participants is not willing to relocate voluntarily nor in favor of flooding the land. They fortified their opinions with the fact that they were already forcefully relocated during the war and that the Project should not necessarily require population movement. It is interesting that the relocation would be acceptable mostly to the females, middle aged, with adequate compensation. When it comes to the alternate use of water for irrigation, all participants said that it was unacceptable, that they could not agree regarding the water distribution. The representatives of the local authorities said they do not expect legal property issues during the Project construction phase, only some minor disputes related to trespass. 7.8 The assessment of the key, formal and informal institutions During the research the data was collected about the role, capacities and needs for training for all identified key participants.
The agricultural producers as the direct users of the Project are very much interested in the Project. Most of them are willing to invest in the new irrigation system and provide access to a part of their land for the needs of the Project. The condition is that their production must not be
42 jeopardized. However, they are not ready to participate in the expenses of maintaining the new irrigation system. They usually cooperate with other agricultural workers and the cooperation is satisfactory. They are not satisfied or to not cooperate much with the representatives of the local authorities and associations/cooperative. They state their lack of professionalism or disinterest. There is little or no cooperation with the companies that process agricultural products.
They expressed the need to be trained regarding the planned irrigation system, from the following field: Optimal irrigation planning, Optimal use of water for irrigation, the latest equipment and technology for irrigation
The capacities of the local authorities responsible for agriculture and water management for the accomplishment of the Project are enviable. It can be concluded that the will, in close cooperation with the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry and with the Cantonal Ministry responsible for agriculture and water management, successfully participate in carrying out the Project. The municipality representatives expect establishment of the Water Users Association (WUA). The WUA would take over the management of the irrigation system. They rate positively the attitude of the local authorities towards the agricultural workers. However, they express that it is not enough.
It is easy to notice the difference regarding the satisfaction in the cooperation with the local authorities of the agricultural workers in Municipality Goražde and Municipality Foča‐ Ustikolina. The former express a lot of dissatisfaction as for the help, selection for incentives and late notices. In addition, most of them are not members of any associations of agricultural workers. These results lead to the conclusion that the attitude towards the agricultural workers is generally better in Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina than in Municipality Goražde.
The agricultural workers think that the local authorities to not accept many of their requests regarding their production. In addition, almost all of them state that they cannot influence the decisions made on the local and higher levels of power regarding agriculture. Most of them think that the employees in the services of the local authorities for agriculture and water management need training for the optimal use of water. These are the areas in which the capacities of the local authorities should be improved.
Organizing of the agricultural producers on the location of Goražde/Ustikolina is rather insignificant, especially their capacities to represent common interests and negotiations with the authorities. Therefore, during the improvement of the institutional capacity, both in the public and private sector, special attention should be dedicated to the formation and training of the associations of the users of water. Besides the training for water distribution, the use and maintenance of the irrigation system, these associations should be trained regarding the project cycle, lobbying and demanding the common interests. Both in Goražde and in Foča‐Ustikolina significant efforts will have to be made to establish this association in order to take over its role in the process.
Most of the agricultural workers are not the members of the associations/cooperatives of the agricultural workers and not to cooperate with these participants. However, most associations/cooperative firstly expect the representation of the common interests.
More than half of participants think that the Association of the users of water could take care of the water distribution and the maintenance of the irrigation system. More than 90% think that this Association should be in charge of determining the price of water use and the maintenance of the irrigation system.
43 The data about the bad cooperation of the agricultural workers with different participants on the local level shows the expressed need to strengthen the capacity of the associations of the agricultural workers that will enable the development of this cooperation. It is particularly necessary to inform the agricultural workers about the companies that process agricultural products and about the establishment of the cooperation with them.
The local authorities and the associations of the agricultural workers should be engaged in the campaigns to create the interest of the companies that process agricultural products, to buy the products of the agricultural workers.
44 8 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
8.1 Environmental Impacts Prevention/Mitigation Plan
Environmental Management Plan is prepared based on the results of the environmental impacts assessment study and includes measures for reduction of possible adverse impacts to be applied during the project implementation, including the estimation of costs and the responsibility for their implementation.
Mitigation measures are classified as: Mitigation measures during the planning phase prior to construction, Mitigation measures during the construction phase, Mitigation measures during the operation phase, Mitigation measures during the project removal phase.
Mitigation measures prior to the construction works include provision of other relevant permits and planning related to the selection of water supply sources and the implementation method.
Mitigation measures during the construction phase mostly refer to the implementation of good construction practices to avoid adverse impacts on the soil stability, water and land quality, and the level of noise. Their implementation is under the responsibility of the Contractor for execution of works and shall be included in the works contract together with the Environmental Monitoring Plan. The costs of these measures shall be included in the construction costs, although they mostly include good management measures and usually require no substantial funds. The Client and the appointed Site Supervisor will supervise the implementation of mitigation measures and the Monitoring Plan. The list of good construction practices and the Waste Management Plan to be included in the works contract are given in Annex 2 and 3.
Mitigation measures during the operation phase refer to the mitigation of adverse impacts as a consequence of inadequate system operation and maintenance, and use of phytopharamceutical products.
45 Table 20 Plan of Measures for Prevention/Mitigation of Environmental Impacts for the SubProject Cvilinsko polje – Goražde
Costs Institutional Responsibilities Comments Phases Problem Mitigation Measure Planning Implementation Planning Implementation Planning / Ensure harmonization of Provide Location Permit, Preliminary 6.000 BAM 1.000 BAM Project Project Designing designs with relevant Water Approval and Water Concession proponent proponent construction, water, environment and concessions legislation Planning / Gradual accumulation of Carry out water sampling and analysis 2.000 BAM per Project Authorized Pay special Designing hazardous substances in soil to define its quantity and suitability for sampling proponent Laboratory attention to the and in plants, due to irrigation purposes. Identify the location mineral unobserved polluters in the required level of the quality of water composition of water used for irrigation used for irrigation to provide easy water. purposes, which may result in identification of each possible future low yield and become a possible threat to the health of humans and threat to the consumers’ health. plants. Select another water source in case natural pollution of the original water source is confirmed. Planning / Negative public reactions due to Carry out public discussions with the ‐ ‐ Project Project Obligatorily Designing the lack of information and future irrigation system users and proponent proponent in involve owners of activity coordination persons affected by the project on cooperation with the land to be project segments and adverse impacts the consultant irrigated and mitigation plan. subject to expropriation Planning / Potential impairment of the Precisely locate infrastructural ‐‐ DesignerProject ‐ Designing existing infrastructure and facilities and underground installations proponent in structures, especially in cooperation with competent cooperation with underground installations institutions on all government levels. the designers (water and sewage pipelines, Change the irrigation system route or and competent etc.), causing disruptions in the project design to reduce or avoid local authority provision of services to the possible impairments. representatives consumers Arrange cooperation with communal and other service providers to undertake required joint steps in prevention of service supply interruption or provide prompt information to the public on temporary service interruption.
46 Costs Institutional Responsibilities Comments Phases Problem Mitigation Measure Planning Implementation Planning Implementation Planning / Unauthorized acquisition of raw Supply construction material from legal ‐ ‐ Project Contractor Regulate problems Designing materials and building entities registered for the referred Proponent through bidding materials is pressure on natural business and with valid required documentation. resources permits (environment permit, water permit, etc.) Planning / Higher employment Qualified local population shall be ‐ ‐ Project Contractor Regulate problems Designing possibilities and generation of given preference upon employment. Proponent through bidding revenues for the local documentation. community Construction Soil erosion and land sliding as Provide slope protection (through bank ‐ ‐ Designer Contractor Regulate problems a consequence of exploitation, compaction, rip‐rapping, vegetative through the clearing and excavation stabilisation). Contract on activities Designate a spoils storage area, with Execution of topsoil set aside for re‐use. Construction Carry out replacement planting or Works. transplanting vegetation. Implement Waste Management Plan presented in Annex 4. Construction Disruption of the vegetation Carry out replacement planting or ‐ ‐ Designer Contractor Regulate problems cover transplanting vegetation. through the Apply good construction practices from Contract on Annex 3. Execution of Construction Works. Construction Dust emission from spoils Compact the disposed spoils. ‐ ‐ Contractor Contractor Regulate problems stockpiles, vehicle movement in Spray the dust sources with water to through the unpaved roads and reduce dust impacts to the surrounding Contract on construction works population. Execution of Control the driving speed of vehicles to Construction reduce dust rising. Works. Prepare and implement Construction Site Organization Plan including good construction practices from Annex 3. Construction Gas and particulate emissions Regular equipment maintenance. ‐ ‐ Contractor Contractor Regulate problems from vehicles, equipment and Contractor is obliged to present proof through the generators of compliance with emission standards Contract on as part of the annual vehicle Execution of registration process. Construction Prepare and implement Construction Works.
47 Costs Institutional Responsibilities Comments Phases Problem Mitigation Measure Planning Implementation Planning Implementation Site Organization Plan including good construction practices from Annex 3. Construction Noise generation from heavy Comply with legally specified working ‐ ‐ Contractor Contractor Regulate problems equipment and generator hours on the site. through the operations Provide housing for gensets, if near Contract on residences. Execution of Provide silencers/mufflers for heavy Construction equipment. Works. Prepare and implement Construction Site Organization Plan including good construction practices from Annex 3. Construction Increased surface and ground Same measures as for the control of ‐ ‐ Contractor Contractor Regulate problems water turbidity as a erosion and stabilisation of slopes. through the consequence of construction Execute works during dry weather. Contract on works Prepare and implement Construction Execution of Site Organization Plan. Construction Implement Waste Management Plan Works. given in Annex 4. Construction Oil and grease contamination of Avoid servicing and refueling on the ‐ ‐ Contractor Contractor Regulate problems surface and ground waters due site. through the to poor equipment maintenance In case of on‐site refueling and vehicle Contract on and repair, and refueling on the maintenance, use safety foils. Execution of construction site Provide absorbent material in case of Construction fuel spillage. Works. Handle used oiled materials pursuant to the Waste Management Plan. Prepare and implement Construction Site Organization Plan including good construction practices from Annex 3, measures from Preliminary Water Approval and measures from the Waste Management Plan provided in Annex 4. Construction Decreased public access Schedule equipment movement during ‐ ‐ Contractor Contractor Regulate problems through the construction area lean daytime traffic hours. through the Provide an alternate route for Contract on pedestrian and vehicles in coordination Execution of with the local authorities or provide Construction safe passageway through the Works. construction site. Prepare and implement Construction
48 Costs Institutional Responsibilities Comments Phases Problem Mitigation Measure Planning Implementation Planning Implementation Site Organization Plan including good construction practices from Annex 3. Construction Increased population risks from Provide appropriate warning signs, ‐ ‐ Contractor Contractor Regulate problems traffic accidents and lights, safety fences, etc. through the construction works Abide by traffic rules. Contract on Clean the construction waste on the Execution of site during the construction phase, as Construction well as after the completion of works Works. and upon site closing. Provide on‐site medical services and supplies for any emergency, through institutional and administrative arrangements with the local health unit. Prepare and implement Construction Site Organization Plan. Construction Risk of injuries at work Require from all workers to abide by ‐ ‐ Contractor Contractor the Work Safety Plan. Provide warning signs along the irrigation system construction route. Provide sanitary and hygiene facilities for the workers. Prepare and implement Construction Site Organization Plan and Work Safety Plan.
Construction Impact on business activities Develop adequate resettlement 10,000 BAM Cost estimate Project Project ‐ and the right to use the land instruments pursuant to the will become Proponent Proponent Operational Policy 4.12 Involuntary available Resettlement and FBiH Expropriation through the Law. Expropriation Timely consultations and cooperation Study. with vulnerable categories to reduce disturbances in everyday activities.
Construction Water and land pollution due to Short term storage in some locations. Contractor Contractor Regulate problems poor waste disposal Disposal of waste by the authorized through the institutions. Contract on Earth and the other inert material Execution of should be used for "landscaping". Construction
49 Costs Institutional Responsibilities Comments Phases Problem Mitigation Measure Planning Implementation Planning Implementation Reusing and recycling waste wherever Works. possible. It is forbidden to incinerate waste in the open and on‐site. Acting in accordance with a plan for waste management given in Annex 4 Operation Soil salinization, rise of water Precisely define crop water Integrated 5,000 BAM a Designer Designer and The designer will table, water‐logging (erosion) requirements. into the year for System Users prepare the and reductions in crop Develop Irrigation System Management system calibration and Irrigation System productivity due to over‐use of Plan that will provide system users designing system Management Plan irrigation water with viable irrigation schedule and costs. maintenance pursuant to the train water users how to use it. The Terms of Plan shall provide regular calibration Reference for and maintenance of water management irrigation system devices. designing and Designate and appoint person(s) or conduct the user land owner(s) for regular monitoring training. of soil quality and irrigation system assessment.
Operation Deteriorated water quality due Develop Irrigation System Management Integrated 500 BAM a year Designer Designer and The designer will to the accumulation of waste in Plan and train water users to operate it. into the System Users prepare the the canals for drainage The Plan shall provide regular removal system Irrigation System of waste from the irrigation canals and designing Management Plan adequate disposal in agreement with costs. pursuant to the the local communal company. Terms of Raising awareness of local population Reference for about the need of proper waste irrigation system treatment. designing and conduct the training. Operation Environmental and human Controlled application of agro‐ Integrated ‐ Project Designer and The designer will health impacts due to chemicals based on the Integrated Pest into the Proponent System Users prepare the inappropriate use of Management Plan as an integral part of system Irrigation System phytopharmaceutical products the Environmental Management designing Management Plan (pesticides) and natural and Framework. costs. pursuant to the mineral fertilizers Training of the farmers on the good Terms of agricultural practices including proper Reference for selection, dosage and timing of agro‐ irrigation system chemical applications to ensure designing and
50 Costs Institutional Responsibilities Comments Phases Problem Mitigation Measure Planning Implementation Planning Implementation maximum plants and soil absorption. conduct the Use only the agro‐chem allowed/ training. cleared by the National Institute for Plant Protection. Use safety equipment during the use of phytopharmaceutical products. Accomplish cooperation with associations of beekeepers to prevent the increased mortality of bees. Removal Adverse environmental impacts Adequately dispose the waste pursuant ‐50 BAM/tonof System Contractor ‐ due to inadequate disposal of to the Waste Management Plan (Annex waste User waste resulting from the 3) to authorized disposal sites. removal of parts of the Recycle the waste susceptible to irrigation system and/or during recycling. routine maintenance..
51 8.2 Environmental Monitoring Plan Table 21 Environmental Monitoring Plan
Phase Which Parameter to Where to How to When to Why is Monitoring Costs Responsibility Monitor? Monitor? Monitor Monitor Required? Plannin Implem. Planning Implem. / Type of – Monitoring g Monitoring Frequency or Equipment? Continuous Monitoring? Planning/ content of cations: At planned Standard Once during the To define the adequacy ‐ 2,000 BAM Project Authorized Designing K, Ca, Mg, Na water intake laboratory development of of water for irrigation per sample Proponent Laboratory since full content of anions: equipment the irrigation needs information CO3, HCO3, Cl, SO4 and water design about the pH quality quality of conductivity monitoring water N, P methods intended to heavy metals be used for irrigation is not available
Planning/ Physical and chemical One profile at Standard Once during the To define the adequacy ‐ 1.000 Bam Project Authorized Designing soil quality each field in laboratory development of of soil for irrigation per sample Proponent Laboratory since full paramteres: municipalities equipment the irrigation needs information porosity Goražde and at and methods design about the water and air least 3 for soil quality of capacity of soil samples on quality water volume density random testing intended to mechanical locations of be used for composition and Cbilinsko polje irrigation is stability of micro‐ in Foča not available structural soli Ustikolina agregates soil reaction (pH value) humus content NPK content heavy metals sulphates, chlorides
52 Phase Which Parameter to Where to How to When to Why is Monitoring Costs Responsibility Monitor? Monitor? Monitor Monitor Required? Plannin Implem. Planning Implem. / Type of – Monitoring g Monitoring Frequency or Equipment? Continuous Monitoring? Construction Occurrence of eroded In close Visual Daily To affirm soil erosion ‐ Integrated Contractor Contractor surfaces and landslides proximity of supervision and landslides caused into the for Execution for Execution nearby the the by construction works supervision of of construction site construction costs Supervision Supervision site Works Works Construction Plantings number and On Visual After the For the purpose of land ‐ Integrated Contractor Contractor species construction supervision Rehabilitation reinstatement into the for Execution for Execution Rehabilitated surface works site of Degraded supervision of of Areas costs Supervision Supervision Works Works Construction The appearance of On Standard Upon receipt of In order to determine ‐ ‐ Contractor Contractor noise and air pollution construction equipment complaints the level of air pollution for Execution for Execution works site for measuring from citizens and noise and of of air quality comparison with Supervision Supervision and noise regulatory limit values. Works Works levels In case of discrepancies implement additional mitigation measures. Construction 1. Analysis of surface 1. On Drina Standard 1. In case of To define impacts of ‐ 1,000 BAM Contractor Authorized water quality River laboratory complaints construction works to per sample for Execution Laboratory parameters: downstream equipment the quality of surface of pH the water and water and ground waters used Supervision turbidity intake quality for water supply Works conductivity monitoring purposes suspended methods particles
2. Upon commencement of the 2. 20% higher construction works on 2. On outlets frequency the intake structure in in the compared to Civilinsko polje, Municipality the prescribed conduct frequent of Foča‐ frequency or drinking water Ustikolina. upon analyses at the outlets complaints pursuant to the
53 Phase Which Parameter to Where to How to When to Why is Monitoring Costs Responsibility Monitor? Monitor? Monitor Monitor Required? Plannin Implem. Planning Implem. / Type of – Monitoring g Monitoring Frequency or Equipment? Continuous Monitoring? Regulations of the Drinking Water Safety (Official Gazette of BiH 40/10, 43/10) during the implementation of works. Construction 1. Presence of oil layer 1, 2. On Drina 1. Visually 1,2. Per the To define impacts of ‐ 1,000 BAM Contractor Authorized on surface water River request of the construction works to per sample for Execution Laboratory courses downstream contractor for the quality of surface of the water execution of and ground waters used Supervision 2. Analysis of surface intake 2,3. Standard supervision for water supply Works water quality laboratory works and in purposes parameters: equipment case of COD, and water complaints Total mineral oils. quality monitoring 3. Upon 3. On outlets methods 3. 20% higher commencement of the in the frequency construction works on Municipality compared to the intake structure in of Foča‐ the prescribed Civilinsko polje, Ustikolina. frequency or conduct frequent upon drinking water complaints analyses at the outlets pursuant to the Regulations of the Drinking Water Safety (Official Gazette of BiH 40/10, 43/10) during the implementation of works. Construction 1. Implementation of On‐site Visually and Continuously To determine ‐ Integrated Contractor Contractor the Construction compared to during the harmonization with the into the for Execution for Execution Site Organization the execution of Construction Site supervision of of Plan Construction works and site Organization Plan and costs Construction Supervision 2. Complaints Site removal avoid adverse Works Works
54 Phase Which Parameter to Where to How to When to Why is Monitoring Costs Responsibility Monitor? Monitor? Monitor Monitor Required? Plannin Implem. Planning Implem. / Type of – Monitoring g Monitoring Frequency or Equipment? Continuous Monitoring? received due to Organization population impacts decreased public Plan access, increased traffic and site disarrangement Construction Existence of hygienic On‐site Visually and Continuously To determine ‐ Integrated Contractor Contractor conditions for workers examining during the implementation of work into the for Execution for Execution Use of safety the records execution of safety measures supervision of of equipment works and site costs Construction Supervision Number of recorded removal Works Works accidents Construction Impact on the In local Examining Upon receipt of To prevent impacts on ‐ Integrated Project Project population because of community the records complaints of business activity and into the Proponent Proponent restrictions in citizens right to land use supervision commercial activities costs and land use rights
Construction Occurrence of standing On irrigation Visually After heavy To timely prevent rise ‐ Integrated Contractor Contractor waters in irrigation canal rainfall of water tables on into the for Execution for Execution canals after heavy construction irrigated territories and construction of of rainfall location drain surplus water off works costs Construction Construction the construction site Works Works Construction Quality of completed On‐site Visually and Continuously Poor supervision and ‐ Integrated Contractor Contractor works through during the construction works into the for Execution for Execution Quality of the installed records execution of quality assessment may supervision of of material works and site cause damages to the costs Construction Supervision removal environment, poor Works Works structures and use of low quality materials, which may lead to structure damages and expose irrigation system users to risks and possible accidents
55 Phase Which Parameter to Where to How to When to Why is Monitoring Costs Responsibility Monitor? Monitor? Monitor Monitor Required? Plannin Implem. Planning Implem. / Type of – Monitoring g Monitoring Frequency or Equipment? Continuous Monitoring? Operation Quantity of water On water Water meter Daily To provide adequate Integrat Gross salary System Users System Users intake (l/s) intakes reading and system water ed into for the recording management and the person in compensate deficits constru charge of the ction system costs maintenance Operation Precipitation On project Pluviometer As required To define the quantity 50 BAM Included in System Users System Users (mm/day) location reading and of precipitation and per the salary of recording adjust the quantity of pluviom the person in water in the irrigation eter charge of the system system maintenance Operation Wind velocity and On project Anemometer Daily To determine 150 Included in System Users System Users direction location reading and parameters relevant to BAM the salary of recording agriculture per the person in anemo charge of the meter system maintenance Operation Air temperature On project Thermometer Daily To determine 10 BAM Included in System Users System Users location reading and parameters relevant to per the salary of recording agriculture thermo the person in meter charge of the system maintenance Operation Quantity of water used On user water Water meter Daily To define the quantity Integrat ‐ System Users Individual for irrigation meters reading and of delivered water ed into Users (mm/day) recording the constru ction costs Operation Soil temperature On project Thermometer Daily To determine 100 Included in System Users System Users location reading and parameters relevant to BAM the salary of recording agriculture per the person in thermo charge of the meter system maintenance.
56 Phase Which Parameter to Where to How to When to Why is Monitoring Costs Responsibility Monitor? Monitor? Monitor Monitor Required? Plannin Implem. Planning Implem. / Type of – Monitoring g Monitoring Frequency or Equipment? Continuous Monitoring? Operation Soil quality including On Taking soil Once a year To define impacts of ‐ 1000 BAM System Users Authorized pH, heavy metals, representative samples agricultural activities to per sample Laboratory phosphorus, nitrogen, plots on soil quality Na, Ca, salts and project pesticides location Operation Surface water quality Downstream Taking Twice a year in To define impacts of ‐ 1000 System Users Authorized including the irrigation surface water specific agricultural activities to BAM/sample Laboratory concentration of location samples hydrological surface waters chlorides, phosphorus, situations nitrogen and coliform bacteria Operation Occurrence of weed On project Visual Daily To determine the needs ‐ ‐ System Users System Users plants and pests locations identification for use of and counting phytopharmaceutical units products Operation Bee mortality At beekeepers Unit counting As required To determine the needs ‐ ‐ System Users System Users in the region for use of phytopharmaceutical products Operation Occurrence of diseases On project Examining Annually To define the impact of ‐ ‐ System Users System Users related to irregular location the records of irregular use of handling of Health phytopharamceutical phytopharmaceutical Institutions products on human products health
57
9 ANALYSIS OF THE NEED FOR CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING
Implementation of Environmental and Social Management Framework and Environmental Management Plan is responsibility of: In the planning and preparation phase: borrower and project designer, In the construction phase: the contractor and contractor for execution of supervision works, In the operation phase: irrigation system users, owners of individual parcels that will likely be associated in the Water Users Association.
It is presumed that the appropriate level of knowledge and skills necessary to prepare project documents, to carry out construction works and construction supervision is present within the local stakeholders and in this sense is not necessary to implement specific measures to educate personnel for the implementation of the EMP in the planning and construction phase.
On the other hand, the existing owners of the land, the future users of the irrigation systems, have a basic knowledge of growing certain crops, use traditional agricultural methods and just few of them had previously used irrigation systems, and implemented measures of integrated pest management. Although it is assumed that in the transition period, customers of the irrigation systems would have the technical support of the municipality over communal utilities in the management and maintenance of the main system to hydrants, and the technical assistance of experts from agriculture to use irrigation systems to achieve maximum yield, it is expected that in due time complete control switch in the hands of the Association of Water Users. It is assumed that the future Water Users Associations will have a responsible person or more for operation and maintenance of the main system to hydrants, and that all users will be responsible for part of a system from the hydrant to their own land.
Therefore, the focus of the training program should focus on the future managers and users of irrigation systems.
When it comes to future managers, they need to be trained for the sustainable management of the irrigation system. The core of knowledge on sustainable management of irrigation systems is among the experts in the field of hydraulic and / or mechanical engineer who specialized in the maintenance of pumping and piping systems employed in higher education institutions or equivalent institutions and consulting companies.
When it comes to future users of irrigation systems, they need to be trained for:
selection of equipment for irrigation, elements of the dosage of water, sustainable use of irrigation systems to achieve maximum effect, the use of good agricultural practice, among others those relating to the use of methods of integrated pest management and applications of organic or mineral fertilizers.
With respect to the first three points, within the Project will be prepared Manual / Guidelines for the operation and maintenance of the system that will help clients, customers and the municipal department in their future work on system management and maintenance.
It is recommended to maintain a seminar on the location of sub‐project for agricultural enterprises, municipal/cantonal authorities, representatives of the Water Users Association,
59 and other interested local residents where Manual / Guidelines for the operation and maintenance should be presented.
Regarding the remaining point 4. Using good agricultural practice, the core of knowledge about land management and use of phyto‐pharmaceuticals are located in agricultural universities and their institutes. Based on the laws relevant to agriculture and the application of phyto‐ pharmaceuticals farmers must undergo appropriate training programs, which should be ensured by the faculties and their institutes. Training program is necessary to include all members of the Water Users Association, and other interested people. Training program should cover issues such as: the most significant problems that farmers face in the field; ways to overcome the problems; the benefits and impacts associated with the use of fertilizers and pesticides, use of good agricultural practice, among others those relating to the use of methods of integrated pest management and applications of organic or mineral fertilizers.
9.1 Equipment purchases Bearing in mind the proposed monitoring of environmental impacts it is necessary that future system users purchase the appropriate equipment for assessing irrigation needs and monitoring the impact. The users should be trained in equipment usage. The list of the equipment is given in following table.
Table 22. Necessary equipment
Type Number of units Unit cost Water meters 1 per individual user 200 KM
Anemometer 2 150 KM
Thermometers for measuring air 210 KM temperature Pluviometer 2 50 KM
Thermometer to measure the 2100 temperature of land
60 10 ANNEXES
61
62 ANNEX 1. IRRIGATION SYSTEM LAYOUTS
10‐1
ANNEX 2. DETAILED SOCIAL ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY
The Assessment of the social frame, in accordance with the goal of this research project, was carried out by means of reviewing the existing data and the qualitative and quantitative research. The main findings obtained by the analysis of the data collected by the aforementioned research methods are given in Chapter 7.
The review of the existing data was used by a researcher from Prism Research as the basis to prepare the instruments for the quantitative and qualitative research, namely the guide for the focus groups, the guide for the interviews with the main participants from the Municipality, the guide for the interviews with the companies, owners and proprietors of the land as well as the Questionnaire for the household interviews. All the guides are in the appendix of the document Methodology of the social assessment. The review was created on the basis of the analysis of the existing Pre‐Feasibility Study for the location Goražde/Ustikolina, and the information obtained by talking to the members of the team from the Hydro‐Engineering Institute of the Civil Engineering Faculty of University of Sarajevo. The team is in charge of some locations. In addition, the location was visited and the researcher had contacts and conversations with the potential direct users of the Project. The results of this part of the research are given as the introduction information in the beginning of Chapter 3. the Results of the qualitative research.
The qualitative research was carried out by means of the various research methods of collecting data: the focus groups and the detailed interviews. For the location of Goražde/Ustikolina, two focus groups and three detailed interviews were created. Prism research developed special instruments for this research: the Guide for the discussion in the focus groups, the Guide for the interviews with the key participants from the local authorities and the Guide for the interviews with the companies, owners and proprietors of the land, on the basis of the instructions given by the Client in the Job description (the Guides are given as the appendices to the document Methodology of the social assessment).
The Guide for the discussion in the focus groups has 32 questions divided into the following sections: 1. General opinion about the agricultural sector and the participants; 2. Data on the agricultural activities; 3. Influence of the Project of irrigation development; 4. Cooperation. The Guide for the interviews with the key participants from the local authorities has 17, and the Guide for the interviews with the companies, owners and proprietors of the land 27 questions. The form and structure of these questions are similar to the questions for the focus groups but adjusted to the responsibilities and activities of the participants in the interviewing process.
The focus groups took place on the subproject location Goražde/Ustikolina taking into account that the land on these locations was mostly private property and used by individual agricultural workers. The basic criteria for the selection of the participants in the focus groups were: ‐ profession – agricultural workers whose main activity is agriculture and who are the heads of the household; ‐ sex – at least one third of the participants in the focus groups are female. The other two thirds are males; ‐ age – half of the participants are up to 45 years of age. The other half is between 45 and 60.
10‐3
During the research, two focus groups took place. One with the agricultural workers that use the existing irrigation system in local community Hubjeri, Goražde and the other with the agricultural workers who do not use the irrigation system in local community Cvilin, Foča‐ Ustikolina. The number of the participants in the focus groups was: 8 participants in the focus groups in local community Cvilin‐Ustikolina and 9 participants in the focus groups in local community Hubjeri‐Goražde. The focus groups took place on 17. and 18.10.2011.
The moderator from Prism Research conducted the focus groups and the interviews. The groups were organized in the places accessible to the target groups. The participation in the focus groups was voluntary but the participants were given money and gifts for their efforts.
All discussions and interviews were recorded in audio format. Transcriptions were made based on the audio material. These transcriptions, with the observations and impressions of the moderator, were the material based on which the analysis was made and the qualitative report was written.
The results of the qualitative research are presented in Chapter 3. the Results of the qualitative research of this Assessment.
The quantitative research was carried out by means of the direct surveys (interviews face‐to‐ face) of the households on the location of Goražde/Ustikolina. The surveys were carried out by means of a specifically developed instrument: the Questionnaire for the surveys of the households that are potential direct users of the IDP (given in the appendix of Methodology of the social assessment). The Questionnaire consist of 60, predominantly closed, questions and 11 standard demographic questions. The surveys were carried out on the sample of 200 households, in accordance with the Instruction on surveys which is the integral part of the Survey. The surveyees are the households that are the owners, proprietors or users of the pieces of the land that are on the subject locations and the households in which it is possible to survey the head of the household, namely the person who knows best the data regarding the agricultural production, finances etc.
The selection of the locations in order to carry out the surveys was made based on the Review of the existing data. The basis to carry out the surveys was the data from the land offices in Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina and Municipality Goražde, namely the lists of the certain pieces of the land. Quality control was carried out every day checking the filled out questionnaires by the coordinator and with the return phone calls to approximately 10% of the surveyees using the method of the random sample.
For each item of the sample, the surveyors keep separate Contact lists where they enter the data regarding the surveying process. The surveyors should write down each contact made in the field, finished or interrupted surveying, and each attempt of surveying, regardless of the outcome. The level of the answers to the survey is the percentage of the surveyees who were surveyed successfully compared to the total number of the contacted potential surveyees. The higher the level of the answers, the better the representation of the sample.
Data processing was carried out using the software package Survey System 10.0 software. After data entry in Survey System, data was imported into the program SPSS 18.0 (Software Program for Social Sciences) – a professional software package. SPSS was used for data cleaning, logic control and the preparation of the tables with the results of the research. The analysis of the collected data was carried out in this program as well.
After the processing and analysis of the collected data, the results were presented in Chapter 4. the Results of the quantitative research of this Assessment.
10‐4
THE RESULTS OF THE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
In the rest of the text we present the main results of the qualitative research. First, there are the relevant results of the Review of the existing information, then the findings and results of the qualitative research by means of the focus groups and interviews, in the form of the generalizations and conclusions according to the questions and sections. Then there are the quotes that illustrate the aforementioned results and conclusions, namely the opinions and attitudes of the citizens.
A. REVIEW OF THE EXISTING INFORMATION
During the process of collecting information it was determined that the project location of Goražde/Ustikolina consisted of a few fields that were geographically situated in Municipalities Goražde and Foča‐Ustikolina. They administratively belong to Bosna‐Podrinje Canton: Cvilinsko polje, Gunjevići, Kolovarice, Hubjeri and Kazagići, Zupčići, Ahmovići and Kodžaga polje. The size of these locations is 150 ha. There are 1200 local citizens in almost 400 households. The land is mostly private property. It was determined on the basis of the field visit to the location that on some of the aforementioned fields most agricultural workers already had individual irrigation systems, for example Hubjeri and Kazagići. On some other fields the crops were irrigated without an irrigation system, for example Cvilin and Zupčići.
The qualitative research of the social frame of the Project of irrigation development on the subproject location Goražde/Ustikolina was carried out by means of the discussions in the focus groups with the agricultural producers and detailed interviews with the representatives of the Municipalities Foča‐Ustikolina and Goražde, as well as with the representative from the Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde.
A. THE FOCUS GROUPS
The focus groups on the project location of Goražde/Ustikolina were carried out with the local population, the agricultural producers in two municipalities: Foča‐Ustikolina in MS Cvilin and Goražde in MS Hubjeri. The focus group in MS Hubjeri was carried out with the users of the irrigation system and the focus group in MS Cvilin with the agricultural workers who do not use an irrigation system. The selection of the locations where to carry out the focus groups was made on the basis of the field visit to Goražde.
General opinion about the agricultural sector and the key participants We started the discussion with the questions: What do you think about the situation in the agricultural sector in BiH, in your entity, region, canton, and municipality? What are the main problems?
The participants in both focus groups agree as to this question that the situation in the agricultural sector in BiH is very bad. They said that the real problems were the lack of the market for product placement and the incentives for the production, a relatively low price for the agricultural products, nonconforming legal regulations in agriculture in different regions of BiH and the geographical distance of Bosna‐Podrinje Canton from the markets of the major cities/towns in FBiH. Only one of the participants, responding to this question, stated the positive developments in agriculture on the local level.
„Bad in the State, worse in the Municipality.“ (Male, 41 , MZ Hubjeri) „As for the State, the situation is bad, especially in agriculture. As for us, our Canton and here in Goražde, it is even worse. The incentives have damaged us in the last three years. They want us to be registered. “ (Female, 40 , MZ Hubjeri)
10‐5
„The problem is that we are very far, we in Goražde, that is the problem. As soon as you are in Sarajevo, sale is guaranteed.“ (Male, 45 , MZ Hubjeri)
„I see on TV that it is a problem in the whole country. They import more than export. Our food goes to waste ... there is less production because there is no place to place the products ... As for our Canton, it is really hard.“ (Male, 56 , MZ Cvilin)
„As for the agricultural production in our Municipality and in our MZ Cvilin, I think that we have enough agricultural land, mostly usable. With some investments everything can be used. Approximately a year ago a purchase point was established in the Municipality Foča Ustikolina. Herbs and fruits sell much better.“ (Male, 37 , MZ Cvilin)
„I think that the Association of those who grow raspberries should be established and there should be negotiations about the price. UNDP ask their certified production and payment as they determined.“ (Male, 46 , MZ Cvilin)
To the question about the potentials and limitations of the agricultural activities and how they assess the relations municipalities/local authorities towards the agricultural workers, the participants responded that there were limitations in the local community: impossibility to place products, non‐existence of the warehouses for the products, non‐existence of a purchase point. As the potential of the agricultural activities the participants from both focus groups stated the quality of the land with many cultures. There is a difference in the answers of the participants in MZ Cvilin and MZ Hubjeri regarding the assessment of the attitude of the municipalities towards the agricultural workers. Two participants in the discussion in MZ Cvilin positively rated the attitude of the municipalities towards the agricultural workers in their Municipality. Not even one of the participants in the focus groups in MZ Hubjeri positively rated the attitude of the Municipality towards the agricultural workers.
„We can grow everything here, mostly greenhouse production. We produce everything in them.“ (Male, 41 , MZ Hubjeri)
„The limiting factor is the warehouses for the product. There is no chamber...The cold storage facility has been out of order for years.... Our Municipality does not have even one chamber where we could keep our products.“ (Male, 49 , MZ Hubjeri) „... we throw in the river Drina what is left, let it flow. There is no organized purchase.“ (Female, 53 , MZ Hubjeri)
„Farming, greenhouse production, paprika ... It is difficult to place the products.“ (Male, 40 , MZ Cvilin)
„As for the Municipality, they help as much as they can, ... but they are helpless too. Sometimes there are seeds...then they bring some donors, organizations, that is good... our Municipality. The Municipality lives on state grants, it is very difficult.“ (Male, 56 , MZ Cvilin)
„They gave greenhouses last year, but we never saw them. Then they gave seed potatoes after we already started growing potatoes..“ (Female, 49 , MZ Cvilin)
We continued the discussion with the question about the key participants in agriculture on the local level. The participants in the focus groups in MZ Hubjeri mentioned the Cantonal authorities and the associations in which they were not included. The participants in the focus groups in MZ Cvilin mentioned the associations of the agricultural workers as the key participants who could influence product placement.
10‐6
„... (The key influence on agriculture on the local level belongs to the Canton... „ (Male, 41 and female, 34 ; MZ Hubjeri)
„... There are many associations here. I think it is all too separated. There is the Association of the BosnaPodrinje Canton, the Association of the agricultural workers of the Municipality, they all have some associations ... Maybe they could influence the product placement.“ (Male, 56 , MZ Cvilin)
There is a slight tendency among the female participants of the focus groups in MZ Cvilin almost not to answer to this set of questions.
Data on agricultural activities After the general questions about the situation in the agricultural sector, we continued the discussion with the questions about the agricultural activities of the participants. To the questions about the size of the land that they owned or used, the number of the pieces of the land and the size of the land used for the for agricultural production, the participants mostly gave the answers regarding the sizes in use for the agricultural production, from 1 to 20 dunum (local word for 1000 square meters).
„We have some greenhouses and 56 dunum, fruit, two cows, bees, I do everything. I have 1200 – 1300 m2 of greenhouses, I expanded it a little.“ (Male, 45 , MZ Hubjeri) „I do not have a greenhouse but two gardens, mother and I sow...my husband helps. We have almost one dunum. We grow fruits others and we have wheat.“ (Female, 31 , MZ Cvilin)
In both focus groups for the cultures grown by the participants they mentioned farming cultures and grains: onion/garlic, paprika, tomato, carrot, potato, cucumber, cabbage, wheat, corn, buckwheat. The participants in MZ Hubjeri mentioned more cattle breeding (two participants compared to one participant in MZ Cvilin). Two participants from both focus groups grow fruit.
„... what is in the greenhouses is always in use. And we use approximately 2 dunum. We have in our greenhouses garlic/onion, paprika, carrot, early potato, cucumber, potato, everything“ (Female, 53 , MZ Hubjeri)
„I grow many grains, wheat and buckwheat, on approximately 1 ha ... I have young plum trees, 400 and some, apples 120, pears 300, approximately 1 ha, Air have a greenhouse, cattle ...“ (Male, 37 , MZ Cvilin)
Most of the participants in the focus groups in MZ Hubjeri are satisfied with the crop yields but they did not give the answers regarding the average yearly crop yields. Only one participant said that his crop yields were bad. Suring the discussion about this question the participants expressed that the product placement influenced their production and crop yields. The participants think that the crop yields would be better if the problem of the product placement could be solved. The participants in the focus groups in MZ Cvilin did not have a discussion regarding this question.
„Crop yields are good, but one cannot sell it.“ (Female, 40 , MZ Hubjeri)
„Nobody cares...It is unbelievable how much grows, the more you work, the more it grows. Why don't they establish a purchase point, bring some other processing and production. It all comes down to the placement. Everybody would work ... I would work on five dunum, it is professional work“ (Male, 45 , MZ Hubjeri)
10‐7
„My crop yields are bad.“ (Male, 49 , MZ Hubjeri)
To the question about the number of the workers on the land, almost all participants in the focus groups in MZ Hubijer responded that, beside the members of the household, they paid additional workers when needed. The situation is quite different among the participants of the focus groups in MZ Cvilin. Almost all of them say that the majority of the workers on the land are the members of the households. The number of workers is between 1 and 5.
„... father, mother, wife and I work the land. When there is a seasonal need, we pay someone to help us.“ (Male, 42 , MZ Hubjer)
„Small children help me but I do most of the work.“ (Female, 54 , MZ Cvilin)
As for the question about agricultural equipment and mechanization in use, all participants in the focus groups in MZ Hubjeri said they had the greenhouse production, that the size of the land was from 200 to 3000 m2 and that they had motocultivators. They rent other mechanization for the larger pieces of the land. There is a significant difference in comparison with the answers of the participants in the focus groups in MZ Cvilin. Only one half, four persons, one woman, said they had the greenhouse production. Three participants of these focus groups have a motocultivator and only of them other mechanization. The former rent mechanization.
„We mostly have the motocultivators here. We pay for the larger pieces of the land. A man comes to harvest, we pay his work and the use of the combine.“ (Male, 41 , MZ Hubjeri) „We have two greenhouses, ...“ (Female, 34 , MZ Hubjeri)
„We do not have mechanization, we do not use it.“ (Female, 49 , MZ Cvilin)
„I use mechanization, Nedžad has a motocultivator, others pay the services.“ (Male, 37 , MZ Cvilin)
We continued the discussion with the questions about the irrigation system used by the participants and its costs. The answers were expected because the criterion for the selection of the location and the participants in the focus groups was whether they were the users of some irrigation system or not. The participants in the focus groups in MZ Hubjeri are the users of the individual irrigation systems: they use piped in the ground, at a certain depth, and then they collect the water later distributed with the hoses in the ground. Two participants of these focus groups use the system „drop by drop“. Not one of the participants in the focus groups in MZ Cvilin uses some irrigation system. They irrigate manually, they bring water from the river Drina or from the local spring. Alternatively, they use the water from the city waterworks. The participants in both focus groups that the water bills are very high. In MZ Cvilin they range from 35 – 67 KM. One of the participants in the focus groups in MZ Hubjeri uses the system „drop by drop“ and during the season he pays approximately 100 KM per week for the fuel necessary for the system.
„Almost all of us use these petrol pumps. We take water from the river Drina. We paid ourselves for those pumps, we have the pipes and hoses in the ground and we attach the pump on them. As for the petrol consumption, you water as much as you have. For cabbage, 4000 pieces, in order to rejuvenate it, I carried the pump 18 times to the river Drina. Two hours, that is 5 liters, a lot of petrol. There was no rain at all. “ (Male, 41 , MZ Hubjeri)
„Per week, we pay 1000 km for the fuel. We also collect water but then we put the water in the tanks and use „drop by drop.“ (Male, 42 , MZ Hubjeri)
10‐8
„Also, we turn the pump on, I pull the hoses, change them and water.“ (Female, 53 , MZ Hubjeri) „I have the „rose“, a canister for watering. We bring two barrels of water and water where needed. “ (Male, 40 , MZ Cvilin)
„I do not have a system, I use the meter. The problem with the meters is that it is difficult to pay the bill. I use the water from the city for the garden, the house, everything. “ (Female, 54 , MZ Cvilin) A few of us have a motor for irrigation and we use Drina. I do not have it but my two cousins do. However, even that is a problem when there is drought.“ (Male, 56 , MZ Cvilin)
As for the question about the yearly income or savings, the participants of both focus groups gave vague answers. They said that the problem was high costs and non‐existence of the systemic solution in agriculture. Females, participants in both focus groups, did not respond to this question.
„We can, when we do not go on vacation it is our savings.“ (Male, 39 , MZ Hubjeri)
„... if the conditions were good the agricultural workers would not go on strike, we watch that on TV all the time. The state only promises and then nothing... There is no system here, one does not know who does what.“ (Male, 49 , MZ Hubjeri)
„We consider it savings if it can last until the spring, the next season. However, the expenses are enormous, not much remains. “(Male, 56, MZ Cvilin)
„People do not calculate. The amounts are enormous. I had to hire a tractor, then I watered red beet. If I had not done it during the drought period, I would have nothing.“ (Male, 46 , MZ Cvilin)
The participants in the focus groups in MZ Cvilin were asked if they used their products only for personal needs or sell. Most of them said they used their products for personal needs and exchanged the surplus with the members of the family. The participants in the focus groups in MZ Hubjeri sell their products on the local market.
„The local market in Goražde.“ (Male, 39 , MZ Hubjeri)
„At fairs, locally.“ (Female, 40 , MZ Hubjeri)
„You do something for your cousins, sister, brotherinlaw… It is compensation. I give him my products, he gives me macaroni. Nothing goes to waste.“ (Male, 40 , MZ Cvilin)
„If we could sell our products we could produce more. The gardens here are of good quality. But you cannot sell.“ (Female, 54 , MZ Cvilin)
Asked about their biggest problems, most of the participants in the focus groups in MZ Cvilin stated that it was the shortage of water. The participants in the focus groups in MZ Hubjeri said that it was the shortage of work force and disloyal competition. One can conclude that the different opinions of the participants in these two focus groups regarding this opinion derive from the fact that the participants in MZ Hubjeri have better irrigation. Females, participants in the focus groups in MZ Cvilin did not respond to this question.
„... if the people left the companies, maybe came back to agriculture, but in this manner…nothing.“ (Female, 34 , MZ Hubjeri)
10‐9
„You know what? The worst are the retired people. It hurts me, I have to say. This is my neighborhood and nobody will be angry. They retire, receive 4000 KM per month, get a greenhouse, go to the market and reduce our prices.“ (Male, 45 , MZ Hubjeri)
„Water is the biggest problem. When there is no water, you have nothing. You have to use the canisters. “(Male, 56, MZ Cvilin)
„Water. During the crisis, half of July and all August are critical for the agricultural production here.“ (Male, 37 , MZ Cvilin)
As for the future of the agricultural production, namely the limitations and potentials expected in the forthcoming period, the participants in MZ Hubjeri responded during the discussion about the biggest problem on that location. They mentioned the limitations regarding the shortage of work force, disloyal competition, and weak purchasing power. The participants in MZ Cvilin hope that the situation will be good if they manage to sell their products.
„Purchasing power is weak, competition is not such a big problem, but people buy little.“ (Male, 49 , MZ Hubjeri)
„I think it will be good, if there is good health and if we can sell somewhere.“ (Female, 49 , MZ Cvilin)
The influence of the Project of irrigation development We started the section of the questions about the influence of the Project of irrigation development with the question if the participants had heard about the Project. If so, had they found out about it from someone? The participants in the focus groups in MZ Hubjeri know a little bit more about the Project. They heard about it at the meeting in the Local community, from the representative of the Project team in Goražde and the Institute for hydrotechnics. They expressed their interest in the Project depending on the needed investment. They expressed certain skepticism and distrust towards the Project. The participants in the focus groups in MZ Cvilin said that they had heard about the Project, but they were interested in the details regarding the technical performance of the Project. The President of the Local Community’s Council informed them about the Project. Different responses of the participants from these two focus groups can be explained by the experience in using some irrigation system by the participants in MZ Hubjeri, in comparison with the participants from MZ Cvilin who have no such experience.
„Last time you said a few words .... Most of us are in favor of the program but everything depends on what will happen.“ (Male, 45 , MZ Hubjeri)
„Do not take this little that we have.“ (Male, 49 , MZ Hubjeri)
„Well, we heard from... (The President of the MZ’s Council), he said that would take place.“ (Female, 45, MZ Cvilin) „It would be good, we really need it, the land is very good it is a pity not to use it better.“ (Male, 40 , MZ Cvilin)
Then the participants were informed about the basic idea of the Project, increased profitability and productivity by means of the improved water management and modernization of the irrigation system. Their opinion about this idea was required. The participants in both focus groups agree that the idea is good and that it will improve their agricultural production. The participants of the focus groups in MZ Cvilin expressed certain concern regarding the maintenance costs of the new system.
10‐10
„It would be good, irrigation is needed the most. Irrigation is one of the basic factors.“ (Female, 34 , MZ Hubjeri)
„With irrigation we would solve one problem. The problem of the product placement would remain. It would be good to make some simpler irrigation system, not to carry the pumps all the time.“ (Male, 41 , MZ Hubjeri)
„Yes, it will definitely improve the production, but how much will it cost?“ (Female, 45 , MZ Cvilin)
„More crop yields, of course. If you sow and there is no water, it is useless.“ (Male, 46 , MZ Cvilin)
As for the questions about the influence of the Project on the agricultural production, most participants in both focus groups agree that the Project will have positive influence on the agricultural production. The change of the cultures that they grow, less work force efforts, increased crop yields are mentioned by the participants as the examples of the positive influence and advantages of the Project.
„The very fact that even a watermelon grows very well here….Why wouldn’t we have the whole field of watermelons instead of corn? Anything can grow in these fields…if only we had water… The quality of the land is excellent“(Male, 45, MZ Hubjeri)
„I think that the crop yields would improve, we would earn more, precious time would be reduced, no need to walk around with hoses.“ (Male, 39 , MZ Hubjeri)
„It definitively will (influence in a positive manner) and we are all looking forward to it.“ (Female, 45 , MZ Cvilin)
„Definitely yes. If you had clover, now you will sow something else. With a little water, you will have a grain in that field. We expect significantly higher yields..“ (Male, 37 , MZ Cvilin)
As for the main shortcomings of the Project, the participants in both focus groups mentioned the financial factor. They expressed concern regarding the costs of the installation and maintenance of the system. Only one participant from the focus groups in MZ Hubjeri said that the shortcoming could be technical without the right amount of water for everyone. „Financial. It depends what they will ask in return.“ (Male, 41 , MZ Hubjeri)
„What kind of a pipe, what diameter of the pipe is needed to water all these fields. Last time the engineer said, diameter 50. I have such a pipe and it takes me all day just to water the greenhouses. Then what about the others? (Male, 42, MZ Hubjeri)
„Only the price, the question is how much it will cost.“ (Female, 45 and female 31, MZ Cvilin) „... The bills are expensive for all of us…Irrigation would be a good thing. But how it will work out, I do not know.“ (Male, 46, MZ Cvilin)
As for the questions about the willingness to participate in the investment by additionally building the irrigation system, covering the work expenses and system maintenance, ceding a piece of the land to build canals or install pipes, almost all the participants in both focus groups answered positively. But they said that such would be minimal investments, on the level of the current costs. Both groups also think the same regarding the alternate use of water. All participants think it is unacceptable, they could not agree on the water distribution.
10‐11
„Of course we would, we have done it so far, we all have pipes in the ground. It does not cost much if you want to connect from above. To have that, so that you can open and close, not to carry the pumps. The maintenance costs we already pay. If we will continue, if it is not more expensive than now.“ (Male, 49 , MZ Hubjeri)
„It depends on the incoming water in our fields. If I have to fix the pump again, then it is useless.“ (Male, 41, MZ Hubjeri)
„Every person for himself/herself. I cannot wait for him to water, it is useless.“ (Female, 34 , MZ Hubjeri)
„... I could take it down, some 100 m, I could do that, not more than that. As for the maintenance costs, you pay what you use. “(Female, 54, MZ Cvilin)
„Minimal investments are ok.“ (Male, 56 , MZ Cvilin)
„It is better or everyone to have his/her own meter. Then they can turn it on when they want. “ (all participants, MZ Cvilin)
The discussion continued and the participants were asked about a possible temporary or permanent relocation of the citizens due to the implementation of the Project. In addition, the discussion was about a possible flooding of a part of the land to create water accumulation. The participants expressed different opinions. Most of them are not willing to voluntarily relocate or in favor of flooding the land. They explained that they had already had to relocate by force during the war and that such measures would not be needed during the implementation of the Project. It is interesting that the relocation is exclusively acceptable to the females: three participants, one from MZ Hubjeri and two from MZ Cvilin, all middle‐aged 49 – 54, with an adequate replacement.
„OK. A house in Sarajevo no problem“(Female, 53, MZ Hubjeri)
„I hope you will not make such a project. I think there is no need to do that here.“ (Male, 49 , MZ Hubjeri)
„We would not accept that.“ (Female, 34 , MZ Hubjeri)
„We are originally from here, we were already refugees. If it were up to us, we would never accept. If it is the system, then you have to.“ (Male, 40 , MZ Cvilin)
„Only if I had to, but ownership 1/1. Dear God, it is not so bad. People live everywhere. “(Female, 54, MZ Cvilin)
„We would not agree. The question is whether it would be voluntary or by force, the regime. Those are two different things.“ (Male, 56, MZ Cvilin)
When we asked the participants to give their suggestions how to solve in the best manner the irrigation problem on their locations, the participants from MZ Hubjeri had more suggestions in accordance with more experience that they have in using the irrigation system, compared to the participants in MZ Cvilin. No female from the age group to 45 years, from both groups, responded to this question. The females participated less regarding the questions about the technical solutions for the irrigation.
10‐12
„I do not know why they keep talking about the pump, they consume electricity or fuel. Is it not better to lay down a pipe? Here at the bridge and then free fall, the water comes here“(Male, 41, MZ Hubjeri)
„One pump from Drina is not enough for us.“ (Male, 45 , MZ Hubjeri)
„Those from the Ministry have good ideas, let’s see how they will do it.“ (Male, 56 , MZ Cvilin)
„Everyone should have his/her own meter. Then they can irrigate according to the money they have.“ (Female, 54 and male, 40, MZ Cvilin)
Cooperation During the discussion, the participants assessed the cooperation with other local agricultural workers, authorities and associations. The cooperation with other local agricultural workers is mainly assessed as good. The cooperation with the authorities was assessed as bad. As for the associations, the participants in MZ Hubjeri assess this cooperation as bad while the participants from MZ Cvilin did not assess. „Cooperation among us is great... There is some competition, someone becomes jealous, but we help each other. As for the authorities and us, the cooperation is terrible... They only think of us during the elections. When a delegation is about to come, they take photographs.“ (Male, 45 , MZ Hubjeri)
„I was once invited, some cooperative was about to be established...On paper, they do everything. However, they do nothing, they just buy membership.“ (Male, 49, MZ Hubjeri)
„We help each other as much as we can.“ (Male, 40 , MZ Cvilin)
„The cooperation with the Municipality is mostly negative.“ (Female, 31, MZ Cvilin)
As for the questions about the use of the incentives for agricultural production or some other kind of help from the state structures, the opinions vary. Most of the participants in MZ Hubjeri expressed their dissatisfaction how the incentives and other kinds of help are allocated and with the lave notices. On the other hand, the participants in MZ Cvilin said that they had used the incentives of the Municipality. As well as with the assessment of the attitude of the municipality authorities towards the agricultural workers, much more positive mood is evident towards the municipality authorities in MZ Cvilin than in MZ Hubjeri. This leads to the conclusion that Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina has a better attitude towards the agricultural workers than Municipality Goražde.
„I have not used the incentives“ (Male 41 and female 34, MZ Hubjeri)
„They distribute motocultivators, always to the same people. We know nothing about the distribution and we cannot apply. They distribute everything, pregnant heifers for the agricultural workers,“ (Male, 45 , MZ Hubjeri)
„I am in favor of greenhouses. For the registered agricultural workers the incentive is 3 KM per m2, minimum 200 m2, and for those not registered 1 KM per m2, minimum 200 m2.“ (Male, 39 , MZ Hubjeri)
„I have the greenhouse production on 200 m2 and receive approximately 60 KM.“ (Male, 46 , MZ Cvilin)
„There were some incentives“ (All participants, MZ Cvilin)
10‐13
„There were fruit seeds.“ (Male, 37 , MZ Cvilin)
During the discussion about the questions regarding the membership in the associations or cooperatives, the results differ in the focus groups. Most of the participants in MZ Hubjeri are not members of any associations or cooperatives. Most of the participants in MZ Cvilin are members of the Association of the agricultural producers Municipality Ustikolina. Even these results lead to the conclusion that the attitude towards the agricultural workers is better in Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina than in Municipality Goražde.
„If there is a new irrigation system, we will have to have some organization. Most of us are not members anywhere.“ (Male, 45 , MZ Hubjeri)
„We are all members of the Association of the agricultural producers Municipality Ustikolina, namely most of us. Some are members of the Association of the fruit growers, the Association of milk producers Farmer, there are many associations.“ (Male, 37 , MZ Cvilin)
As for the question if they needed some kind of training regarding the use of the modernized irrigation system, most of the participants in the focus groups in MZ Hubjeri said “no”. The reason for this, according to them, is their experience so far using the. The participants in the focus groups in MZ Cvilin think that they need training with experts.
„We can do it with our eyes closed. The others agree.“ (Male, 49 , MZ Hubjeri) „Yes, of course.“ (All participants, MZ Cvilin)
As for the question to describe the cooperation with the municipality authorities regarding the support for the agricultural production on the locations, the participants responded during the discussion about the cooperation with other local agricultural workers, authorities and associations.
B. INTERVIEWS
During the research of the social frame of the Project of irrigation development for the subproject location Goražde/Ustikolina, three detailed interviews were carried out: the interviews with the municipal employees responsible for the Project of irrigation development in Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina and in Municipality Goražde, the interview with the head of the Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“, Goražde. The interviews with the municipal employees were carried out based on the Guide for the interviews with the key participants from the local authorities that contain 17 questions. The interview with the head of the Cooperative was carried out based on the Guide for the interviews with the companies, owners and users of the land, which contains 27 questions. Later, the results of these interviews were presented. First was given the comparison data for the questions that are the same for both target groups, then the results obtained on the basis of the responses to the specific questions for the participants from the local authorities and, in the end, the results obtained on the basis of the responses to the specific questions for the companies, owners and users of the land.
Common questions We started the interviews with the questions: How do you assess the situation in agriculture in BiH, in your entity, municipality? What are the main problems? The difference in the opinions of the representatives of the local authorities and the land users, namely the representative of the Agricultural cooperative, regarding these questions, is evident. The representatives of the local authorities expressed the positive steps in the agriculture on the local level. The representative
10‐14
of the Cooperative expressed dissatisfaction with the situation in the agriculture on all levels of power.
„It is not satisfactory on the state level because the incentives in agriculture are weak and there is not enough working capital, The agricultural workers are poor, they cannot start their own production. There is more progress on the municipal level. There have been more projects in the last 56 years (UNDP, various humanitarian organizations, CRS and, lately, the Municipality has given quite a few incentives Municipality,“ (Municipality Foča‐ Ustikolina)
„Agriculture in the Federation and I believe in RS as well and in Municipality Goražde is improving, more and more citizens become agricultural workers because there is no industry or it functions with reduced capacity. The citizens find income in agriculture and food for their needs: for the market and their needs” (Municipality Goražde)
„The world crisis affected first the agriculture then others. We are not satisfied at all. People in the field are very dissatisfied…nobody protects domestic production…the money from the budget goes somewhere else, trust me, you can feel it in the field.“ (Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde)
As for the question about the agricultural sectors with the most potential for development in BiH, in FBiH and on the local level, the participants in the interviews answered almost the same for the potentials of the local community: greenhouse production, gardening, fruit growing, cattle breeding. For the area of BiH, the only answer was from the representative of Municipality Goražde. He claims that the biggest potential has the farming‐gardening sector.
„We are focusing on the development of the greenhouse production and, lately, on the processing of fruit, vegetables, canning and pasteurization of vegetables. (Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina)
„We have very good conditions for the greenhouse production, especially along Drina, there are big fields, the greenhouse production has the potential...We have hills and mountains where we can develop cattle breeding... Goražde is known as the fruit area and the development of fruit growing has its potential.“ (Municipality Goražde)
„... I want to see fruit growing develop more even though, taking into account the location, we do not just grow fruit. We have plain and mountain areas and we can breed cattle, grow fruit and do gardening equally.“ (Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde)
The interviews were continued with the question about the potentials and limitations of the agricultural activities on the local level and the assessment of the attitude of the municipalities/local authorities towards the agricultural workers. Only the representative of Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina spoke about the potential and said that the arable land was good for the greenhouse production. Also, he was the only one to name bad irrigation as the limitation factor. Other mentioned limitation factors are non‐existence of the organized purchase, destroyed infrastructure, objects and cattle due to the war operations, insufficient incentives, and the production is limited by the terrain configuration. The attitude of the Municipality towards the agricultural workers, according to the representatives from the Cooperative unsatisfactory. The attitude of the Cantonal authorities was assessed as positive, in accordance with the financial capacities of the Canton. The representatives of the municipalities assess the attitude of the local authorities towards the agricultural workers positively, adding that it is not enough.
10‐15
„We have a lot of potential, Cvilinsko polje, about 170 ha of the arable land. It is mostly the greenhouse production and fruit and vegetable growing in the open... The limitation factors are that the Cilinsko polje is not irrigated very well, the composition of the land is such that rainfall goes very fast through the land and there is not enough humidity when the vegetation is most needed to the products. There is no organized purchasing ...“ (Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina)
„There was a lot of damage during the war, the infrastructure, the objects, the cattle, everything was destroyed, it took a lot of time to rebuild. But we still have not reached even 75% of the prewar production. The Municipality, in accordance with its capacity in the budget, plans to give some money for the incentives to help the agricultural workers. The Canton also has its item: the incentive to the agricultural production, but all that is not enough.“ (Municipality Goražde)
„The very exposition of the terrain limits us. We cannot produce a lot. Agriculture should require a little larger quantities, to cover the market. The Municipality registers the agricultural producers and it seems that is the end of their role. I do not know how much they can do, but, as far as I know, they do not help the agricultural producers at all, the Canton does something, what they can, everybody knows that we are one of the poorest cantons. (Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde)
The representatives of this Municipality named UNDP, the Association Emina, the Association Voćar and the registered craftsmen in the agriculture as the key participants in agriculture in the Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina. The representatives from the Municipality Goražde as the key participants in agriculture named the Cantonal Ministry of economy, the agricultural cooperative Agropodrinje and 89 registered craftsmen in agriculture. The Head of the Cooperative thinks the same. She names the cooperative Agropodrinje and the agricultural producers.
„... UNDP ... Association Emina, agricultural association Voćar and the association of the agricultural workers, ... already has 50ish registered craftsmen.” (Municipality Foča‐ Ustikolina)
„In the Canton it is the Ministry of economy, then we have the agricultural cooperative Agropodrinje, some 89 registered craftsmen in agriculture“ (Municipality Goražde)
„It is mainly our cooperative, we do the agricultural production ... We are the “carriers” and the individual agricultural producers.“ (Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde)
The representatives of the local authorities, as members of the local cantonal team for the Project of irrigation development know much about the Project. On the other hand. The representative from the Cooperative knows some thing about the Project thanks to the coordinator of the Project for Goražde/Ustikolina.
„...I am one of the municipal mayors suggested to be a member of one cantonal commission for local help to the experts from the World Bank. I know a lot about the project, we have had a few discussions about it, visited the locations, and expressed our ideas about the irrigation system.“ (Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina)
„We have heard a lot, mainly from the coordinator.... There was a meeting and the mayor was present. Also the representatives from the local communities encompassed by the plan. I think we have a lot of information regarding the project.“ (Municipality Goražde)
10‐16
„Yes, partially, mainly thanks to the exdirector of the Cooperative (now the coordinator).“ (Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde)
The questions were asked how realistic was the basic idea of the Project, increased profitability and productivity of the agriculture by means of the improved water management and modernization of the irrigation system and if and how it will affect the agricultural production and its development. The representatives of the local authorities agree that the influence of the Project will be significant and positive because it is a precondition for the agricultural production and its development. The representative of the Cooperative was somewhat hesitant assessing the Project. She expressed concern regarding the costs of water use. However, that the Project will bring positive results.
„In my opinion, almost every household will have its own small factory, small production and conditions for selfemployment. Cvilinsko polje can be harvested twice. The composition of the land is such that the Institute for agropedology thinks it is the best land composition for gardening in the Federation.“ (Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina)
„Positive in any case. Many due to the water connection. They pay a lot for the city water and the price of the water from Drina will be significantly lower, they will be able to produce more. The very use of the water increases the yields. The water should be properly applied and there should be enough of it. Then the yields will increase. Some cultures request a lot of water and now it will be possible to grow them.“ (Municipality Goražde)
„... agricultural producers will have to pay for the used water. I am somewhat afraid that…I do not know. When the agricultural worker makes his own calculation, it will be possible if he will be able to handle it. The Project can start so that the effects can be seen but there should be some steps forward in the beginning.“ (Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde)
The interviews were continued with the question about the main shortcomings of the Project and problems that could arise during the implementation of the Project. The representative from Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina expressed his opinion that he could not talk about the shortcomings without insight in the feasibility project. The interviewed representatives from Municipality Goražde and the Cooperative expressed concern that distrust and skepticism of the people, as well as giving up on the Project, could be the problems to influence the implementation of the Project. Since both interviewed persons from Goražde gave similar answers, one should consider the activities to build trust in the users of the Project on this location.
„...I have not seen the project and cannot talk about shortcoming. I need to see what is planned.“ (Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina)
„I just think that there are some agricultural workers who are skeptical of? The Project until it is implemented.“ (Municipality Goražde)
„I am afraid that some people might give up. How shall we solve that problem? Will it be some sort of obstacle? So far things started well and then everything goes wrong. That is what I am afraid of.“ (Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde)
The following questions were if they were expecting that the implementation of the Project would lead to the legal property issues and if there was a need for possible expropriation or temporary/permanent relocation of the population due to the implementation of the Project. The representatives of the local authorities and the representative of the Cooperative agree that there should not be such problems, maybe some minor disputes.
10‐17
„... There will be disputes, some minor ones that Municipality will be in charge of. There will not be any major disputes. Expropriation cannot take place because the system will be deep in the land. There might be some disputes that the Municipality will take care of with its competent services. The relocation is out of the question.“ (Municipality Foča‐ Ustikolina)
„... Not many. People do not know how it will look like. It will not interrupt the works on the land. I doubt there will be any need to relocate.“ (Municipality Goražde)
„I think there should not be major problems, I think it can be solved.“ (Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde)
The proposal how to solve the irrigation problem on this location in the best manner was given by the representative of Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina. The representative of Municipality Goražde and the representative of the Cooperative think alike that that solution is envisaged by the Project of irrigation development.
„When it is brought to the piece of the land of the owner, then the owners would find the best solutions to irrigate their pieces of the land and the primary canal would be bereft of these pieces of the land.“ (Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina) „Exactly by means of this program, pumping water out of the Drina and the distribution through the pump stations“ (Municipality Goražde)
„... I think it is one of the better projects in this area.“ (Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde)
As to the question what kind of a role should the associations/cooperative have in the Project of irrigation development, the municipal representatives were very specific and said that they expected the establishment of the associations of the users of water. They would take over the irrigation management. The representative of the Cooperative offered advisory help by the Cooperative during the implementation of the Project.
It is a good idea to establish an association of the users of water because they could have influence even with advice and later manage the system. It is possible to do it together with the municipal infrastructure company ...“ (Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina)
„The association of the users of water must be established because they have to manage the system in order to schedule duties, costs.“ (Municipality Goražde)
„... associations, cooperatives can help people at meetings…but they know the most on the location, what water means to them. He does not have to be an agronomist. If he is an agricultural worker, he knows very well when and how much water is needed. As for he the cooperative, if we were in a better situation I would financially help such a project. It is important for the whole area.“ (Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde)
As for the expectations, the participants in the interviews, regarding the effects of the Project on employment, gave different opinions, the representative of the local government and the representative of the Cooperative. The representative of the local government was convinced that the Project would have positive effects on self‐employment. The representative of the Cooperative thinks that the effects on employment in agriculture can only be achieved with the changes on the highest level. The representatives of the local government expressed similar opinions that there was a need for experts of different profiles who would act as advisors to the users of the Project.
10‐18
„There will definitely be selfemployment, there will be less pressure on the employment offices...with irrigation one can earn in his/her own household. Obviously, there will be need for help from the experts: from agriculture technologists to the experts of the hydromelioration systems“(Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina)
„There is never enough knowledge, training is needed. Too much irrigation is bad. The users of the program must be trained.“ (Municipality Goražde)
„As for employment in agriculture ...,if there are no major changes on the highest level... I do not know, I cannot tell you if there will be many more jobs.“ (Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde)
As for the question about the cooperation between the municipalities and the companies that use the land, the representative of the local authorities and the representative of the Cooperative have different opinions. The representative of Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina thinks that Municipality had good cooperation with the Cooperative had leased the municipal land. The representative of the Cooperative thinks that the cooperative from Cvilin had some problems with Municipality. Cooperative Agropodrinje also uses leased municipal land. They are not satisfied with the attitude of Municipality Goražde because they pay twice what the individual agricultural workers pay. The representative of Municipality Goražde did not respond to this question because all the pieces of the land on the project locations in Municipality Goražde are private property.
„We gave it without any our interests. Our interest is employment in the cooperative. A new owner will come for the system already built. It only needs to be additionally built. They have their premises. Now our interest is to find a larger company a serious company that will have more benefit from that project.“ (Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina)
„There was one cooperative in Cvilin that took from the municipalities a large portion of the land. They produced the hotbed material. Even though in BIH we have 34 hotbeds, not more, they went to waste. There were some problems with the municipality. We also currently have a problem with the municipality. We pay twice what the individual producers pay ...their excuse is that the land was prepared for construction , therefore such a price.“ (Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde)
The representative of the Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina and the representative of the Cooperative assessed as good the cooperation between the companies that use the land and the population in the vicinity. They did not express different opinions regarding this question. The representative of Municipality Goražde did not respond to this question either because there were no companies using the land envisaged for irrigation in Municipality Goražde.
„There were no problems. They (the Cooperative) even had a service for the local population; they had good mechanization for ploughing, milling, sowing. There were even seminars on agriculture in their premises.“ (Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina)
„As for the cooperation with the population in the vicinity, we are tireless. As long as I can remember, we have an advisory service. Our cantons and municipalities never get to establish it and we work for free almost 20’ years.“ (Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ Goražde)
As we already announced, to some questions responded only the representatives of the local government. To some other questions responded only the representatives of the companies,
10‐19
owners and land users. In the following text there is the analysis of these answers accompanied by the quotations, in two subchapters.
The specific questions for the participant from the local authorities Regarding the questions about the number of the settlements and population on the project location, we got the following information: in Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina THE Project encompasses the irrigation of five settlements in one Local Community with 250 – 300 households. They are mostly agricultural workers. In Municipality Goražde the project encompasses the irrigation of four Local Communities.
„Now the envisaged project area has five settlements and approximately 250300 households, mostly agricultural workers“ (Municipality Foča‐Ustikolina)
„Municipality Goražde has 20 local communities, 4 in the city and the others outside. These other communities are mostly agricultural local communities... Local communities Hubijeri, Viktovići, Sadba and Osanica..“ (Municipality Goražde)
As for the set of the related questions regarding the concession and use of the land, we got different opinions from the representative of the local authorities. The representative from Municipality Goražde did not answer to the questions regarding the concession and companies that use the land given as a concession because all pieces of the land on the project locations in Municipality Goražde are private property. The representative from Municipality Foča‐ Ustikolina mentioned that 30 ha of the land in Cvilinsko polje belong to the Municipality, that is it leased to the Cooperation for the production of the seedlings for fruit and forest plants and that they are about to terminate the contract because this cooperative does not make profit. The use of the land was not given by concession but by the lease contract. He mentioned that there were no problems in the relations neither between the Municipality and this cooperative nor between this cooperative and the population in the vicinity.
„Those are mostly individual pieces of the land along the Drina. 30 ha belong to the Municipality, it was leased to one cooperative ...now they are about to terminate the contract ... It seems that they did not manage to get prepared for that kind of production, 23 years they have been discussing to terminate the contract ... (the land) was given without a concession ...“ (Municipality FočaUstikolina)
„All pieces of the land are private property.“ (Municipality Goražde)
The specific questions for the companies, owners and land users First of all, we were interested in the general data about the Agricultural cooperative „Agropodrinje“ such as the number of the employees, the size of the land that the company uses, the grown cultures and the placement of the products on the market:
We have 3,5 ha from the Municipality and 1 ha from the private persons. We pay the lease to all of them. We have 4 users that we pay. The lease contract with the Municipality is not a concession and is renewed every 5 years. 5 people work on 3,5 ha. We produce apples..“
„Then we sell, at least on the local market.“
„The location of the orchard of the Cooperative is not included in the Project of irrigation development.“
To the questions about the irrigation system that they currently use and how much it costs to use and maintain it, they responded:
10‐20
„We use the system “drop by drop”. The water flows in naturally. If we used the city water, it would not pay off. We are lucky that the orchard is on a slope and everything comes naturally. Therefore, we do not pay much for water and electricity. “
As for the savings or earnings from the agricultural products, the representative of the Cooperative did not respond directly. She says that they make profit and have no debt.
„The Cooperative was established in the 90s. We have never had any debt..“
She claims that the biggest problem on the location is the fact that it is very difficult to be paid for the products.
„We are a part of a trained team. Many things have happened. The worst is when you make efforts, money, time and then…sometimes it takes 67 months before we get paid for the apples, 34 means has become a normal period.“
The legal property situation regarding the land that the Cooperative uses is regulated with the lease contracts. „We do not have our own land. We have leased it from the municipality and built an orchard. We pay the lease on time, double what the individual producers pay. The contract with the Municipality is not a concession and is renewed every 5 years.
THE RESULTS OF THE QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
The participants in the survey on the subproject location Goražde/Ustikolina answered to a few questions regarding the characteristics of ownership and leas of the land. Manners of acquiring ownership and the value of the land.
93% of the surveyees on the location of Goražde/Ustikolina say that they own the land. Only 2,5% of the surveyees say that they use the land on this location. 4,5% of the surveyees are lessees. (Table 1.) Out of 186 land owners, 11,8%, bought the land. 87,1% of the surveyees inherited the land. (Table 2.) The surveyees who use the land as lessees use the land on average per 1 year, they pay 270 KM per year.
Table 1: Are you the owner, proprietor or lessees on the location of Goražde/Ustikolina? Table 2: Did you inherit or buy the land?* P1. Are you the owner, proprietor or lessees on the P2. Did you inherit or buy the land? location of Goražde/Ustikolina? N %
N % Inherit 162 87,1 Owner 186 93,0 Buy 22 11,8 Proprietor 5 2,5 No answer/Refusal 2 1,1 Lessee 9 4,5 Total 186 100,0 Total 200 100,0 *Only the surveyees who own the pieces of the land
The average size of the land owned or leased is 9937 m2. The average size of the land in use for the cultural production is 12 m2. When these two values are compared, more than half of the land in private property is used for the agricultural production. (Table 3.)
10‐21
Table 3: Name the size of the land owned/leased/in the possession of the proprietor and in use for the agricultural production? P4. Name the size of the land owned/leased/in the possession of the proprietor and in use for the agricultural production? N M Name the size of the land owned/leased/in the possession of 200 9937 the proprietor and in use for the agricultural production? The size of the land for the cultural 200 5812 production The majority of the surveyees, 66%, use separate pieces of the land for the agricultural production. (Table 5.) The average number of the pieces of the land is 6. This characteristic makes the agricultural production difficult due to the loss of time, the efforts of the agricultural workers when moving from one piece of the land to the other.
The majority of the surveyees, 53%, estimate the value of the land in the hands of the owners/proprietors to be 11‐20 KM/m2. 4,5% of the surveyees think that the land that they are the owners/proprietors of is more than 20 KM/m2. (Table 6.)
Table 5: How many separate pieces of the land do Table 6: Can you estimate the current real market you use for the agricultural production? value of the land in KM per m2 that you are the owner/proprietor of?
P5. How many separate pieces of the P7. Can you estimate the current land do you use for the agricultural real market value of the land in KM production? per m2 that you are the N % owner/proprietor of?
One piece 68 34,0 N % More pieces 132 66,0 0‐10 KM 85 42,5 11‐20 KM 106 53,0 Total 200 100,0 More than 20 9 4,5 KM Total 200 100,0
The survey in the field helped us obtain the data about different kinds of the agricultural production. The large majority of the surveyees say that they grow potato (98,5 %), onion/garlic (98%), paprika (97%), carrot (96%), tomato (94%). The other significant cultures are: lettuce (82,5%), fruit (81%), corn (66%) (Table 7.) The data shows a big number of the cultures grown by the agricultural producers on the location of Goražde/Ustikolina.
Table7: What aforementioned cultures do you grow?
P8. What aforementioned cultures do you grow? If you grow some other cultures, Please state which ones! N % Corn 132 66,0 Wheat 66 33,0 Buckwheat 13 6,5
36
P8. What aforementioned cultures do you grow? If you grow some other cultures, Please state which ones! N % Carrot 192 96,0 Paprika 194 97,0 Vine 12 6,0 Potato 197 98,5 Onion/Garlic 196 98,0 Lettuce 165 82,5 Tomato 188 94,0 Cabbage 116 58,0 Tobacco 5 2,5 Berries 63 31,5 Fruit 162 81,0 Flowers 3 1,5 Something else 1 10 5,0 Something else 2 2 1,0 Total 200 100,0
By means of the analysis of the data obtained as to the questions about the average yearly crop yields per culture and the average amounts of the sold per year, we can come to the conclusion which cultures have more crop yields and which of them are grown for sale. The average yearly crop yields per culture is: 2533 kg for fruit, 1485 kg for wheat, 1327 kg for buckwheat, 1000 kg for flowers etc. (Table 8.) According to the answers of the surveyees, they sell on average per year: 2172 kg of wheat, 1954 kg of buckwheat, 1203 kg of fruit, 650 kg of flowers etc. (Table 9.) By comparing the data from Table 8 and Table 9, we realize that some cultures on average are sold more per year than its average yearly crop yields are. This data shows that some cultures are mainly grown for sale: wheat, buckwheat, berries and cabbage.
Table 8: What are the average crop yields of your production per year, per culture, in kg? P9. What are the average crop yields of your production per year, per culture, in kg? (the acreage in the last three years) N M Corn 200 300 Wheat 200 1485 Buckwheat 200 1327 Vine 200 191 Potato 200 790 Onion/Garlic 200 141 Lettuce 200 63 Carrot 200 34
31
P9. What are the average crop yields of your production per year, per culture, in kg? (the acreage in the last three years) N M Paprika 200 316 Tomato 200 284 Cabbage 200 589 Tobacco 200 18 Berries 200 466 Fruit 200 2533 Flowers 200 1000
Table 9: How much of your production do you sell per year, per culture, in kg?
P10. How much of your production do you sell per year, per culture, in kg? (the average in the last three years!
N M Corn 200 462 Wheat 200 2172 Buckwheat 200 1954 Vine 200 99 Potato 200 1207 Onion/Garlic 200 280 Lettuce 200 253 Carrot 200 126 Paprika 200 552 Tomato 200 522 Cabbage 200 1553 Tobacco 200 300 Berries 200 1250 Fruit 200 1203 Flowers 200 650
In the agricultural production, on the land, on average there are two permanent workers. Besides, the surveyees hire average one seasonal worker. 86% of the surveyees that all the workers of the land are grown‐ups, members of the household. (Table 10.) This data leads us to the conclusion that the agricultural production in Goražde/Ustikolina is a family activity. Seasonal workers and the workers who are not the members of the household are rarely hired.
The answers of the surveyees to the questions about the agricultural equipment and mechanization gave us the data that a significant percentage of the surveyees have greenhouses (47%). Accordingly, we conclude that almost half of the agricultural producers on this location invest and are serious about the agricultural production. The do not have a large number of mechanization: motocultivator 38%, milling machine 29,5% of the surveyees etc. (Table 11.)
32
Table 10:Out of all the workers on the land, are they all adult members of your household? P12. Out of all the workers on the land, are they all adult members of your household? N %
Yes 172 86,0
Ne 6 3,0
No answer/ 22 11,0 Refusal
Total 200 100,0
Table 11: What mechanization and agricultural equipment do you have?
P13. What mechanization and agricultural equipment do you have?
N %
Greenhouse 94 47,0
Motocultivator 76 38,0
Combine 0 ,0
Tractor 22 11,0
Milling machine 59 29,5
No answer/ Does not 64 32,0 want to answer
Total 200 100,0
During the survey the surveyees responded to a few more questions regarding the agricultural production and the irrigation system that they currently use. 36,5% of the surveyees said that they currently used some irrigation system. 43,8% of the surveyees that use some irrigation system say that it is “drop by drop” system. 34,2% of the surveyees use electric/diesel pumps, 19,2% petrol pumps etc. (Table 12.) This data confirms the previous conclusion regarding the significant amount if investments in the greenhouse, where the system “drop by drop” is frequently used.
On average, the irrigation system currently used by the surveyees improves the crop yields by 83%. The monthly expenses of the use of the irrigation system, during the season when the watering is the most intense, amount to, on average, 51 KM.
10‐33
Table 12: What irrigation system do you use?
P15. What irrigation system do you use?
N % Electric pumps/ diesel 25 34,2
Drop by drop 32 43,8
Petrol pumps 14 19,2
Irrigation canal 9 12,3
Something else 3 4,1
No answer/ Does not 1 1,4 want to answer
Total 73 100,0 *Only the surveyees who use some irrigation system The average yearly earnings of the surveyees from the agricultural production are 2780 KM, which is far below the average salary in FBiH (the average net salary in FBiH in 2010. was 804 KM7, namely 9468 KM per year).
According to the middle value of the surveyees’ responses, the most expensive item in the agricultural production is the seed purchase. This item, in the total expenses of the agricultural production amounts to 45%. 25% is spent on renting the mechanization. This proves that the finding that the number of the owned agricultural machines is relatively low. Compost amounts to 17%, additional work force 6%,irrigation 5% and protection items 2% in the total expenses. (Table 13.) The highest percentage, 54% of the surveyees use the products for personal use. 49% of the surveyees sell their products on the local market. 13,5% of the surveyees sell their products on the larger market in BiH. Only six of the surveyees (3%) sell their products abroad. (Table 14)
Table 13: The participation of the expenses in the total expenses of the agricultural production in percentages.
P18. Please tell us how much the following or some other items percentually participate in the total expenses? N M
Seed purchase 200 45
Protection 200 2 items Mechanization 200 25 rent
Irrigation 200 5
Additional 200 6 work force
Compost 200 17
Something 200 0 else
7 Official web page of the Federal Office of statistics http://www.fzs.ba/
10‐34
Table 14: Where do you place/sell your products? P20. Where do you place/sell your products? N % Personal use 108 54,0 Local market 98 49,0 BIH 27 13,5 Abroad 6 3,0 No answer/ Refusal 1 ,5
Total 200 100,0
To the question about the problems that influence the reduction of agricultural production the most, almost the same number of the surveyees mentioned the lack of the market (48,5% surveyees) and drought (48% surveyees), then the shortage of work force (28% surveyees). 19,5% of the surveyees mentioned disloyal competition and 12,5% of the surveyees the low buying price. 12,5% of the surveyees says it is something else. Besides these answers, the problems are something else, besides the offered answers, mostly the lack of the land and mechanization. (Table 15.)
Table 15: Which of the following problems or some other problems have most influence on the reduction of the crop yields in your agricultural production?
P21. Which of the following problems or some other problems have most influence on the reduction of the crop yields in your agricultural production?
N %
Drought 96 48,0
Floods 7 3,5
Shortage of work force 56 28,0
Expensive compost 2 1,0
Lack of the market 97 48,5
Low buying price 25 12,5
Disloyal competition 39 19,5
Shortage of good seeds 2 1,0
Something else 25 12,5
Total 200 100,0
10‐35
32,5% of the surveyees expects that the agricultural production will remain the same in the forthcoming period, for example 5 years. Partial improvements in the agricultural production are expected by 26% of the surveyees and 11,5% of the surveyees expect that the production will improve a lot. 23,5% of the surveyees expects partial deterioration and only one surveyee expects that the production will deteriorate a lot. (Table 16.) Table 17. shows the reasons that the surveyees used to explain their expectations from the agricultural production. The data refers only to the surveyees who have some expectations from the agricultural production in the forthcoming period and were able to give more reasons. 35,5% of the surveyees thinks that the economic situation has the biggest influence on the agricultural production. 30,5% of the surveyees thinks it is the needs of the household. (Table 17.)
Table 16: What are your expectations from the agricultural production in the forthcoming period, for example, 5 years? P22. What are your expectations from the agricultural production in the forthcoming period, for example, 5 years? N %
It will improve a lot 23 11,5
It will improve to 52 26,0 some extent It will stay more or 65 32,5 less the same It will be worse to 47 23,5 some extent It will be much 10 5,0 worse Does not know/Not 1 ,5 Sure
No answer/Refusal 2 1,0
Total 200 100,0
Table 17: Why do you think so?
P23. Why do you think so?*
N % No changes, in general 13 6,6
Economic situation 70 35,5
Shortage of water 11 5,6 Attitude of the official 12 6,1 institutions Household needs 60 30,5 Does not know/Not Sure 5 2,5
No answer/Refusal 41 20,8 Total 197 100,0 *Only the surveyees who have some expectations from the agricultural production in the forthcoming period
10‐36
The surveyees responded to the question regarding the Project of irrigation development. The large majority, 80% have heard about the Project. Only 18,5% of the surveyees has not. After this question the surveyors presented to the surveyees the basic information about the Project. On the location of Goražde/Ustikolina the Project envisages the construction of the irrigation system; in order to enable the influence of the users on the price and the way the water is used. The establishment of the Association of the water users is planned for this location. The Project aims to increase the profitability and productivity of the agriculture with the improvement of the reliability and sustainability of the irrigation system. 40% of the surveyees then said that the improved irrigation would influence their agricultural production to a great extent. 24% of the surveyees think it will affect the production to some extent. 32% of the surveyees think that the improved irrigation will influence their agricultural production to a small extent (4,5%) or not at all. (Table 18.) The state the reasons that they have their own water or think that their land will not be encompassed by the Project.
Table 18: How much will the improved irrigation influence your agricultural production?
P25. How much will the improved irrigation influence your agricultural production?
N % To a large extent 80 40,0
To some extent 48 24,0
To a small extent 9 4,5
Not at all 55 27,5 Does not know/Not 8 4,0 Sure Total 200 100,0
The surveyees who responded that the improved irrigation will influence to a large extent (40%) or to some extent (24%) on their agricultural production, responded to the more detailed questions about this influence. Such irrigation system will increase, on average, the crop yields by 49% and increase the sale of the products by 32% per year.
The large majority of the surveyees who think that the improved irrigation will influence their agricultural production to a large or some extent think that in this manner their crop yields will increase by (97,8%), that they will be able to grow more profitable cultures (96,3%) and use more of the agricultural land(96,3%). They did not mention other ways that the improved irrigation would improve their production. (Table 19.)
Table 19: In your opinion, in what manner will the planned irrigation system increase the crop yields, increase earnings? P29. In your opinion, in what manner will the planned irrigation system increase the crop yields, increase earnings? Yes No No answer
N % N % N % More water, more crop yields 133 97,8 0 ,0 3 2,2 New conditions for more 131 96,3 3 2,2 2 1,5 profitable cultures New conditions to use more land 131 96,3 3 2,2 2 1,5
Something else 0 ,0 28 20,6 108 79,4
10‐37
*Only the surveyees who think that the improved irrigation will influence to a large or some extent their agricultural production 38,5% of the surveyees would definitely participate, 27,5% would probably participate in the investment in the new irrigation system. (Table 20.) 12,5% of the surveyees would definitely participate and 33% would probably participate in the costs of maintaining and using the new irrigation system. A significant percentage of the surveyees said they definitely would not (33%) and probably would not j(16,5%) participate in the costs of maintaining and using the new irrigation system. (Table 21.)ž
Table 20: How likely is it that you would personally participate in the investment in the new irrigation system?
P30. How likely is it that you would personally participate in the investment in the new irrigation system, purchase, installation of pipes, sprinklers etc.?
N % Definitely yes 77 38,5
Probably yes 55 27,5
Probably not 26 13,0
Definitely not 39 19,5 Does not know/ Not 3 1,5 Sure Total 200 100,0
Table 21: How likely is it that you would personally participate in covering the costs of maintaining and using the new irrigation system?
P31. If you are required to participate in covering the costs of maintaining and using this new irrigation system, how likely is it that you would participate in such costs?
N % Definitely yes 25 12,5
Probably yes 66 33,0
Probably not 33 16,5
Definitely not 66 33,0 Does not know/ Not 10 5,0 Sure Total 200 100,0
89% of the surveyees are willing to cede a part of their land for the implementation of the Project: for the installation of the pipes, canals, pumps etc. Out of these surveyees, 44,9% would cede the land if their agricultural production were not jeopardized and 29,2% of the surveyees say that the land should be brought to its previous state. (Table 22.) 10,5% of the surveyees of the total sample, those who said that they would not cede the land for the Project, responded to the question „Under what conditions would you agree to cede a piece of your land for the needs of the Project of irrigation development?“. 52,4% of these surveyees said they would not accept under any conditions.
10‐38
Table 22: Under what conditions would you accept to cede a piece of your land for these needs?
P33. Under what conditions would you accept to cede a piece of your land for these needs? What would you ask in return?
N % No condition, I do not want anything in 42 23,6 return
Yes, if we get the water later 5 2,8
Yes, if the others agree 2 1,1
Yes, if it does not jeopardies the 80 44,9 agricultural production
Subsidies for the use of the water 3 1,7
Yes, if the land is brought to its previous 52 29,2 state
Money compensation 2 1,1
Does not know/Not Sure 6 3,4
No answer/Refusal 2 1,1
Total 178 100,0
*Only the surveyees who say that they would cede a piece of their land
92,5% of the surveyees would not accept the expropriation of their land(with compensation) if it were necessary for the construction of the irrigation system. 7,5% would accept. The latter, 86,7% of them would ask realistic/adequate compensation. The surveyees who said that they would not accept the expropriation of their land, responded to the question „Under what conditions would you really accept the expropriation of your land?“ Almost all of them (90,8%) said they would not accept under any conditions. (Table 23.)
Table 23: Under what conditions would you really accept the expropriation of your land?
P37. Under what conditions would you really accept the expropriation of your land?
N %
None 168 90,8
Adequate money compensation 7 3,8
Depends on what piece of the 2 1,1 land
Adequate replacement 1 ,5
I do not own the land 2 1,1
10‐39
P37. Under what conditions would you really accept the expropriation of your land?
N %
Does not know/Not Sure 4 2,2
No answer/Refusal 1 ,5
Total 185 100,0 *Only the surveyees who would not accept the expropriation of their land.
94% of the surveyees would not accept temporary relocation if it were necessary to build the irrigation system. (Table 24.) These surveyees responded to the question “Under what conditions would you really accept temporary relocation?“. 89,9% said they would not accept under any conditions. 1,1% would accept if the land were brought to its previous state. The same percentage of the surveyees would accept adequate change or compensation and 1,1% if everybody left. 3,7% of these surveyees did not know or was not sure how to respond to this question. 2,1% refused to answer. (Table 25.)
6% of the surveyees, 12 of them from the total sample, who would accept temporary relocation, would do so with the adequate change (50% or 6 surveyees), realistic compensation (33,3% or 4 surveyees) etc.
Table 24: Would you accept temporary relocation if it were necessary for the construction of the irrigation system?
P38. Would you accept temporary relocation if it were necessary for the construction of the irrigation system? N % Yes 12 6,0 No 188 94,0 Total 200 100,0
Table 25: Under what conditions would you really accept temporary relocation?
P40. Under what conditions would you really accept temporary relocation?*
N % None 169 89,9 If everything returns to its previous 2 1,1 sate If my life is in danger 3 1,6
If everybody (the settlement) left 2 1,1
Adequate replacement/money 2 1,1
Does not know/Not Sure 7 3,7
10‐40
P40. Under what conditions would you really accept temporary relocation?*
N % No answer/Refusal 4 2,1
Total 188 100,0 *Only the surveyees who would not accept the relocation
92% of the surveyees would not accept permanent relocation if it were necessary for the construction of the irrigation system. (Table 26.) These surveyees responded to the question „Under what conditions would you accept permanent relocation?“ 92,9% said they would not accept under any conditions. (Table 27.)
The surveyees (7,5% from the total sample or 15 surveyees) who said that they would accept permanent relocation would mostly do so if given realistic/adequate compensation (80% of the surveyees who would accept permanent relocation). Table 26: Would you accept permanent relocation if it were necessary for the construction of the irrigation system?
P41. Would you accept permanent relocation if it were necessary for the construction of the irrigation system?
N % Yes 15 7,5 No 184 92,0 No answer/ Refusal 1 ,5 Total 200 100,0
Table 27: Under what conditions would you really accept permanent relocation?
P43. Under what conditions would you really accept permanent relocation?* N % None 171 92,9
A lot of money 3 1,6 If everybody (the settlement) 2 1,1 left Does not know/Not Sure 6 3,3
No answer/ Refusal 2 1,1
Total 184 100,0 *Only the surveyees who would not accept the permanent relocation During the survey, the surveyees responded to the question about the cooperation with the various participants in agriculture. 62% of the surveyees cooperate with other local agricultural workers; 28% cooperate with the representatives of the local authorities for agriculture; 15,5% with the representatives of the local authorities responsible for water management. 24% of the surveyees cooperate with the associations/cooperatives of the agricultural workers and 1,5%
10‐41
or three surveyees cooperate with some company that processes the agricultural products. (Table 28.)
Table 28: Do you cooperate with all the following participants or not?
P44. Do you cooperate with all the following participants or not?
Yes No Does not know No answer
N % N % N % N %
Other local agricultural workers 124 62,0 75 37,5 1 ,5 0 ,0
Representatives of the local authorities responsible for 56 28,0 142 71,0 1 ,5 1 ,5 agriculture Representatives of the local authorities responsible for 31 15,5 167 83,5 1 ,5 1 ,5 water management Associations of the agricultural 48 24,0 149 74,5 1 ,5 2 1,0 workers / cooperative Companies for processing the 3 1,5 194 97,0 1 ,5 2 1,0 agricultural products
The surveyees who responded that they cooperated with the various participants in agriculture gave the answers to the question how satisfied they are with that cooperation. Out of 124 surveyees who cooperate with other local agricultural workers 58,1% are very satisfied and 38,7% rather satisfied with that cooperation. Only 0,8% of the surveyees are not satisfied with that cooperation. Out of 56 surveyees who cooperate with the representatives of the local authorities responsible for agriculture 30,4% are very satisfied and 50% rather satisfied. 10,7% of the surveyees are not really satisfied and 5,4% are not satisfied at all. Out of 31 surveyees who cooperate with the representatives of the local authorities responsible for water management 22,6% are very satisfied and 48,4% rather satisfied. 19,4% of the surveyees are not really satisfied and 3,2% are not satisfied at all with that cooperation. The surveyees who cooperate with the associations of the agricultural workers/cooperatives, 48 of them, assessed this cooperation as follows: 27,1% are very satisfied, 50% rather satisfied, 12,5 not really satisfied and 4,2% are not satisfied at all with this cooperation. Out of the three surveyees who cooperate with the companies that process the agricultural products, only one is satisfied. The other two surveyees did not respond to this question. (Table 29.)
Table 29: For each of the participants, express how you much you are satisfied with the cooperation
P45. For each of the participants, express how you much you are satisfied with the cooperation (very, quite, not quite, not at all satisfied)?* Quite Not quite Not satisfied Very satisfied satisfied satisfied at all No answer N % N % N % N % N %
Other local agricultural workers 72 58,1 48 38,7 1 ,8 0 ,0 3 2,4
Representatives of the local authorities responsible for 17 30,4 28 50,0 6 10,7 3 5,4 2 3,6 agriculture Representatives of the local authorities responsible for oblast 7 22,6 15 48,4 6 19,4 1 3,2 2 6,5 water management
10‐42
P45. For each of the participants, express how you much you are satisfied with the cooperation (very, quite, not quite, not at all satisfied)?* Quite Not quite Not satisfied Very satisfied satisfied satisfied at all No answer N % N % N % N % N % Associations of the agricultural 13 27,1 24 50,0 6 12,5 2 4,2 3 6,3 workers / cooperative
Companies that process 1 33,3 0 ,0 0 ,0 0 ,0 2 66,7 agricultural products *Only the surveyees who cooperate with the named participants
The surveyees who said that they were not quite satisfied or not satisfied at all with the named participants gave the explanations. Mostly, their reason is unprofessionalism, that the cooperation is useless. Some of the surveyees did not answer.
The surveyees who said they did not cooperate with the aforementioned participants gave the answers to the question why they did not cooperate. The surveyees do not cooperate with other local agricultural workers because there is no need (64,5%). 33,3% of the surveyees do no cooperate with the representatives of the local authorities responsible for agriculture because there is no need; 25% because they are not professional; 13,9% because the representatives of the local authorities are not interested; 13,9% because the surveyees have nothing to offer etc. As for the cooperation with the representatives of the local authorities responsible for water management, the data is as follows: 36,1% of the surveyees do not need such cooperation; 18,3% of the surveyees do not have enough information about these participants; 10,1% think that the representatives of the local authorities are not professional and 7,1% that they are not interested. With the associations/cooperatives of the agricultural workers the surveyees do not cooperate because there is no need (36,2%), because they are not professional (22,4%), because they have nothing to offer (18,4%) and because of the lack of information about them (7,4%). With the companies for processing the agricultural products do not cooperate because of the lack of the information (52,8%), because they are not interested (15,7%) etc. (Table 30.)
Table 30: Why don't you cooperate? Can you state the reason!
P47. Why don’t you cooperate?*
Associations of Representatives Representatives Companies Other local the of the local of the local that process agricultural agricultural authorities for authorities for agricultural workers workers / agriculture water products cooperative management N % N % N % N % N %
Not interested 3 3,9 20 13,9 12 7,1 5 3,3 31 15,7
No use 0 ,0 8 5,6 1 ,6 6 3,9 0 ,0
Unprofessional 4 5,3 36 25,0 17 10,1 34 22,4 3 1,5
Lack of information 0 ,0 3 2,1 31 18,3 11 7,2 104 52,8
They cannot help 0 ,0 0 ,0 0 ,0 0 ,0 0 ,0
10‐43
P47. Why don’t you cooperate?*
Associations of Representatives Representatives Companies Other local the of the local of the local that process agricultural agricultural authorities for authorities for agricultural workers workers / agriculture water products cooperative management N % N % N % N % N % I have nothing to offer 15 19,7 20 13,9 10 5,9 28 18,4 23 11,7 them
I have no need/Other 49 64,5 48 33,3 61 36,1 55 36,2 23 11,7
Does not know/Not 1 1,3 4 2,8 27 16,0 5 3,3 3 1,5 Sure
No answer/Refusal 4 5,3 5 3,5 10 5,9 8 5,3 10 5,1
Total 76 100,0 144 100,0 169 100,0 152 100,0 197 100,0 *Only the surveyees who do not cooperate with the named participants
The data in the Tables 28, 29 and 30 shows the expressed need to strengthen the capacities of the associations of the agricultural workers. This need will enable the development of the cooperation between the agricultural producers and the aforementioned participants on the local level. It is especially necessary to inform the agricultural workers about the companies that process the agricultural products and establish the cooperation.
This conclusion confirms the following data.
The local authorities accept the requests of the agricultural workers regarding their production to a small extent (66% of the surveyees) and to a very small extent (18% off the surveyees) m. (Table 31.) 98% of the surveyees say that they cannot influence the decisions made on the local and higher level of power regarding agriculture. (Table 32.) 2% of the surveyees who can influence the decisions regarding the agriculture do that at local community meetings, , agricultural workers ,etc.
87,5% of the surveyees think that the employees in the services of the local authorities for agriculture and water management need training in management, how to optimally use the water. 33,5% of the surveyees has used the incentives or some kind of help for the agricultural production. This help they received from the following levels of power: 83,6% from the Canton, 26,9% from the Municipality, 14,9% from the Entity. Only two surveyee received help from the agricultural cooperative and the associations of agricultural workers respectively.
10‐44
Table 31: How much do the local authorities consider your requests regarding the agricultural production?
P48. How much do the local authorities consider your requests regarding the agricultural production? N % To a large extent 0 0
To a significant extent 12 6,0
To some extent 36 18,0
To a small extent 132 66,0
Does not know/Not Sure 19 9,5
No answer/Refusal 1 ,5
Total 200 100,0
Table 32: Can you influence the decisions made on the local and higher level of power regarding agriculture?
P49. Can you influence the decisions made on the local and higher level of power regarding agriculture?
N %
Yes 3 1,5
No 196 98,0
No answer/Refusal 1 ,5
Total 200 100,0
80% of the surveyees are not the members of the associations/cooperatives of the agricultural workers. Only 20% (40 out of 200 surveyees) are the members of some association/cooperative of the agricultural workers. This data partially corresponds to the data from Table 28. In this table 48 surveyees said that they cooperated with the associations/cooperatives of the agricultural workers. They mainly cooperate with the members of the associations/cooperatives and much less with the other agricultural workers.
66,5% of the surveyees expect from the associations/cooperatives of the agricultural workers to represent the common interests. 18% of the surveyees expect the solution regarding the purchase of the products, 13,5% of the surveyees expect help in seed material or money etc. (Table 32.)
10‐45
Table 32: What do you aspect from the associations of the agricultural workers or cooperatives?
P55. What do you expect from the associations of the agricultural workers or cooperatives?
N % Help in seed material or 27 13,5 money Donation in mechanization 14 7,0 or cattle fund Solution to the purchase of 36 18,0 the products
Building warehouses 2 1,0
Information 2 1,0
Representation of the 133 66,5 common interests Something else 2 1,0
Does not know/Not Sure 4 2,0
No answer/Refusal 11 5,5
Total 200 100,0
52% of the surveyees think that the Association of the users of the water could take care of the use of the water, its distribution and maintaining the irrigation system. The surveyees who think that the Association of the users of the water could not take care of the aforementioned activities or do not know or do not want to answer, 96 of them, said who should be in charge of these activities in the first place. They are the Cantonal Ministry for agriculture, 39,6%, the Municipal service for agriculture, 24% and Municipal communal service, 13,5% of these surveyees. As for the decisions regarding the price of water and maintaining the irrigation system, 90,5% of the surveyees think that it should be the Association of the users of the water. 5,5% of the surveyees think it should be the Municipal service for agriculture. (Table 33.)
Table 33: Who should, in your opinion, be responsible for the prices of the use of the water and the maintenance of the irrigation system
P58. Who should, in your opinion, be responsible for the prices of the use of the water and the maintenance of the irrigation system N %
Municipal service for agriculture 11 5,5
Municipal communal service 2 1,0
Cantonal Ministry for agriculture 2 1,0
10‐46
P58. Who should, in your opinion, be responsible for the prices of the use of the water and the maintenance of the irrigation system N % Federal Ministry of agriculture, 0 ,0 water management and forestry Association of the agricultural 4 2,0 workers
Association of the water users 181 90,5
Total 200 100,0
37,5% of the surveyees said they were in need of training regarding the planned irrigation system, in the areas from Table 34:
Table 34: Who should, in your opinion, be responsible for the prices of the water and the maintenance of the irrigation system?
P60.What kind of training would you like? What areas? N % Optimal planning of the irrigation of 22 29,3 your pieces of the land
Optimal use of irrigation water 15 20,0
The latest equipment and technology 38 50,7 for irrigation
No answer/Refusal 2 2,7
Representation of the common 4 5,3 interests regarding the irrigation
Total 75 100,0
*Only the surveyees who need training regarding the with the planned irrigation
THE SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE SURVEYEES
63% of the surveyees in this research are males and 37% females. The average age of the surveyees 54. The surveyed households have 3 members on average.
As for the education profile, the highest percentage, 64% of the surveyees finished high school. 6% of the surveyees did not finish the elementary school. 21,5% of the surveyees finished elementary school and 8,5% higher or university education.
In 21% of the surveyed households agriculture is the main activity; in 78% it is secondary.
In 41,5% of the households some member of the household is employed somewhere else and does not participate in the agricultural activity. The average number of the members of the household who work somewhere else is one member per surveyed household.
A large number of the surveyees, 89,5%, say that the household has other income beside the agricultural production. The surveyees who said that their household had other sources of income stated the structure of the income: 41,9% of the households has some member who is employed. Based on toga their income is salary based. In 61,5% of the households some
10‐47
member is retired. 5,6% of the households receive welfare and 4,5% of the households have additional income in the basis of temporary and seasonal jobs.
76% of the surveyees state that agriculture is not the main source of income in their household.
The average monthly income of the households for 32,5% of the surveyees is from 301 to 500 KM. For 17,5% of the surveyees it is from 501 to 700 KM, etc. The other data regarding the monthly income is in Table 35.
Table 35: What is the average monthly income of your household from all sources, when you calculate all salaries and other earnings of all the members of the household?
D11. What is the average monthly income of your household from all sources, when you calculate all salaries and other earnings of all the members of the household? N % Up to 100 KM 2 1,0 From 101 to 300 KM 20 10,0 From 301 to 500 KM 65 32,5 From 501 to 700 KM 35 17,5 From 701 to 900 KM 26 13,0 From 901 to 1100 KM 14 7,0 From 1101 to 1500 KM 21 10,5 From 1501 to 2000 KM 15 7,5 From 2001 to 3000 KM 1 ,5 Does not know/Not Sure 1 ,5 Total 200 100,0
10‐48
ANNEX 3. GOOD CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
Good construction practices requirements to be included in the Construction Works Contract are as follows:
General Requirements: • Contractors are obliged to apply good environmental construction practice during all construction activities, and to reduce the damage caused to vegetation, soil, groundwater, surface water, landscape, as well as disturbance of settlements and local communications to the lowest possible extent. • Application of environmental protection and mitigation measures, as well as monitoring, will be implemented in parallel with the construction activities. They start at the time when workers, equipment and/or material are mobilized to the construction site, and end with the completion of construction works when all workers, equipment and/or material leave the construction site and upon completion of the environmental reinstatement activities. • The contractor is obliged to appoint a Health, Safety and Environment Coordinator, responsible for the compliance with the laws and objectives of the environmental protection, occupational safety and fire protection. • The Contractor needs to ensure order, discipline and professional responsibility of all employees on the construction sites. Work and residence must be restricted exclusively to the construction works zone and damage to private property, land and crops must be avoided. The Contractor shall provide regular contact with the local population representatives (local community council) to enable information exchange or find solutions to possible disputes (originating from violation of ownership rights, damage caused during construction works, etc.).
Supply and Transport of Materials • When purchasing materials for the construction of irrigation systems and reservoir rehabilitation, the Contractor shall select the manufacturer/supplier who performs in compliance with the valid environmental permits, if required pursuant to the Law on Environmental Protection of the Federation of B&H, or other environmental standards recognized in Bosnia and Herzegovina/or EU. • Aiming at prevention of dust emissions, the Contractor shall transport asphalt, gravel, stone, earth and other material in trucks provided with tarpaulin covers. Transport of stone and gravel shall be carried out in moist condition. Driving speed shall not exceed 30 km/h. The Contractor shall avoid unnecessary driving of vehicles.
Construction Site Organization • Construction should start (if possible) at the time of the year when dry soil advantages can be utilized, i.e. when compacting and degradation throughout the works are minimum. • Adequate machines and/or protection plates shall be used to prevent compaction during soil removal, for example with rails or low pressure pneumatics on locations implying compaction possibility. Adequate procedures for separate removal, handling, storage and replacement of humus and subsoil shall be applied. • The contractor shall establish temporary disposal sites for construction materials, provide space for rinsing of concrete pumps and mixers, as well as space for washing of vehicle tires with adequate cleaning agent. Temporary disposal sites for excavation material (topsoil) shall be reduced to maximum 2 m of height, in order to prevent compaction caused by the soil weight, and the storage time is to be reduced to minimum.
10‐49
• The Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment has been licensed and approved in accordance with local regulations, and if possible, certified in compliance with the EU standards. • The Contractor shall use modern machines and vehicles that meet environmental standards in terms of emission of harmful gases (complete combustion). The Contractor shall also use filters for reduction of emissions of soot particles, and fuel with favorable chemical structure (low sulphur content) and efficient/safe decantation. • The Contractor shall use modern machines and vehicles producing noise (engines, exhaust system). This mainly entails the supply of new machines or measures for installation of additional sound insulation, as well as constant maintenance. In addition, it is recommended that the machines operate only in the period from 7 a.m. – 5 p.m. in all sections of the route distanced less than 60 m from the nearest residential facility). • The Contractor shall use biodegradable lubricants and gear oils. Maintenance, filling and cleaning of machines must be carried out off the site and outside the area applying surface water. • The Contractor shall specify and follow control measures for the dust generated throughout equipment handling and/or rehabilitation works. The Contractor must submit the plan proposing material transport roads, and shall also provide statements on the proposed dust control method in places where transport through the settlements is unavoidable. • Develop construction site organization design with appropriate solutions for drainage and treatment of sanitary wastewater, as well as storm water, from the construction site zone. Use appropriate sewage systems to discharge wastewater from the site, and if necessary, collect it in waterproof tanks and treat it pursuant to the prescribed method (whether on‐site, or at a remote location) prior to the discharge into the recipient or the urban sewage system. • The Contractor shall ensure that machines and vehicles parking lots as well as labor accommodation containers are not located inside the forest areas, and do not impact watercourses or affect endangered flora and fauna. • The Contractor shall ensure protection of areas sensitive to erosion by means of stabilization agents (temporary banks, fences, ditches) and replanting upon the completion of construction works.
Execution of Construction Works • In order not to endanger the land stability, in unstable or conditionally stable terrains, construction works shall be carried out in shorter intervals. • During earthworks, humus layer shall be deposited in piles not exceeding 2 m in height and protected from pollution to maintain its fertility. • In order to reduce adverse impacts on the river and river banks to the minimum, construction activities located in or near surface water bodies, shall be carried out during low water season, or most often in the period from July to September. It is recommended to take this into account during the preparation of the activity timetable. • All manipulations with oil and its derivatives in the process of construction and supply of machinery shall be performed with maximum protection measures to avoid spillages. All packaging for oil and other oil derivatives must be collected and transported to the controlled Contractor’s landfill, and further disposed by the competent municipal enterprise. In case of accidents, fuel or lubricant spillages in the environment, urgent interventions pursuant to the procedures for the discharge of fuel and lubricants are required. • Washing of machines and vehicles shall not be carried out within the construction works zone. • Wastewater from the on‐site toilets shall not be discharged into the ground or water streams.
10‐50
• Waste management shall comply with the Waste Management Plan (details given below). • Deposition of excavated material and any other solid waste in water bodies shall be forbidden. • Driving machines inside rivers, streams, or onto their banks should not be allowed except in situations when it cannot be avoided due to construction of a special structure. • River bed bottoms shall be protected and not completely blocked during trenching in order to protect existing water‐corridors for uninterrupted communication between the species living at the bottom and the species freely swimming in the water. Further natural restoration of existing banks is to be ensured through covering damaged areas with suitable vegetation. • The Contractor shall implement adequate traffic control measures, in accordance with the law, during the Contract duration, and the measures must first be approved by the Supervision Engineer. Traffic safety management measures shall include temporary illumination and adequate signalization during trenching and rehabilitation works. • The Contractor needs to appoint permanent staff to be engaged on traffic safety issues, and be responsible for the implementation of traffic safety measures and traffic measures prescribed by the national laws, including: (I) inspection of the condition and position of the equipment for traffic control in use; (II) design review – part related to traffic control equipment necessary to provide safe and efficient traffic flow; (III) correction of all traffic deficiencies where applicable; (IV) inspection of work sites, equipment handling and storage, material handling and storage related to traffic safety. • The Contractor shall not leave trenches unattended and shall fence and signalize all open trenches to prevent accidents.
Organization of Construction Site after Completion of Works • The Contractor must also remove all special structures and sites used to support construction works including temporary buildings and their foundations, temporary installations (electric power, water, sewage) and equipment (sedimentation tank), temporary roads reinstatement (especially in the forest area and on private properties) and working plateaus reinstatement, removal of fences, signs and notices. • The Contractor shall remove all construction waste. • All construction sites and other influential areas affected by construction activities shall be reinstated depending on the future land use. • Reinstatement activities shall start immediately after pipe burying. • Construction area shall be seeded with species preserved in topsoil and supplemented by adequate material if needed. • Agricultural areas shall be returned to a state suitable for landowners to re‐plant their own seed crops
10‐51
ANNEX 4. WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. INTRODUCTION
Waste management refers to the implementation of the prescribed waste handling measures including collection, transportation, storage, re‐use and disposal of wastes, as well as the control over these activities. Pursuant to the provisions of the Law on Waste Management (“Official Gazette of FB&H”, no. 33/03, Article 3 and 19), the operator of the installations requiring environmental permits produces the Waste Management Plan.
Pursuant to the new Law on Amendments to the Law on Waste Management8 (Article 19), Waste Management Plan must be updated every five years or after a change in operation. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 20, system operator, as a waste producer, must appoint a person responsible for waste management activities. The Plan development shall take into account provisions of the Regulations of Waste Categories with Lists (“Official Gazette of FB&H”, no. 9/05) and the provisions of the Article 2 of the Regulations of the Requirements for the Transfer of Waste Management Liabilities from Producers and Vendors to the Waste Collection System Provider (“Official Gazette of FB&H”, no. 9/05).
For the purpose of complete understanding of the concerned Plan, explanations of basic terms used, and compliant with the Law on Waste Management (“Official Gazette of FB&H”, no. 33/03), are given below: "waste" means any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard; according to one of the categories included on the waste list constituted in the Regulations on Waste Categories with Lists (“Official Gazette of FB&H”, no. 09/05), "municipal waste" – is the waste from households and other waste, which by its nature or composition is similar to waste from households, “hazardous waste" – is any waste that is determined by a special regulation and has one or more features causing danger to human health and the environment by its origin, composition or concentration, as well as the waste include on the list as hazardous waste and regulated by an implementing regulation, "non‐hazardous waste” – is the waste not defined as "hazardous waste", “inert waste” – is the waste that does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations. It does not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or chemically react, biodegrade or adversely affect other matter it comes into contact with in a way likely to give rise to environmental pollution or harm to human health. Its total solubility, pollutant content and ecotoxicity of its leachate are insignificant and, in particular, do not endanger the quality of any surface water or groundwater, "holder" means waste producer, or the person in possession of it, "producer" means anyone whose activities produce waste ("original producer") and/or anyone who carries out preliminary processing, mixing or other operations resulting in a change in the nature or in the concerned waste composition, "disposer’’ – is any person who delivers or disposes waste, "operator" means physical or legal entities empowered to carry out waste management, "waste management" ‐ means a system of activities and actions related to waste, including prevention of waste generation, reduction of waste quantity and its hazardous characteristics, waste treatment, planning and control activities and waste management processes, waste transport, establishment, operation, closure and maintenance of waste
8 Law on Amendments to the Law on Waste Management (“Official Gazette of FB&H” no. 72/09)
10‐53
treatment devices after closure, monitoring, consulting and training related to business practices and waste management activities.
2. WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE
2.1 Classification of Waste Occurred in the Construction Phase and Structure Removal
Classification list of all waste types that may arise during the preparation, planning and site closure in the construction phase and in the structure closing phase is given in Table 1 below.
Guidelines for waste treatment, or collection, transportation, processing and removal methods, are given for each category below.
Table 1. Classification of Waste Occurred during Construction
No. Group Waste Code NONHAZARDOUS WASTE 1 MIXED MUNICIPAL WASTE 1.1 Mixed municipal waste 20 03 01 1.2 Paper and cardboard 20 01 01 1.3 Plastic 20 01 39 1.4 Wood waste 20 01 38 2. TIRES 2.1. Warn tires 16 01 03 3. IRON 3.1. Scrapings and chippings containing iron 12 01 01 3.2. Scrapings and chippings of ferrous metal 12 01 03 3.3. Iron and steel 17 04 05 4. MIXED CONSTRUCTION WASTE (RUINS) 4.1. Concrete 17 01 01 4.2. Bricks 17 02 02 4.3. Tiles, Tiling/ceramics 17 01 03 Mixtures of concrete, bricks and ceramic tiles that do 17 01 07 not contain hazardous materials 4.4. Wood, glass and plastic 17 02 01, 02 and 03 Earth and stones, and earth excavated by means of an 17 05 04 and 06 excavator 4.5. Insulating materials (Styrofoam) 17 06 04 Mixed construction waste and demolition waste not 4.6. 17 09 04 included in 17 09 01 17 09 02 and 17 09 03 HAZARDOUS WASTE* 1.0 WASTE OILS, BITUMINOUS, SUBSTANCES CONTAINING OILS 1.1 Bituminous mixtures containing tar 17 03 01* 1.2 Biodegradable hydraulic oil 13 01 12* 1.3 Machine oils 13 02 06* and 07* Packaging containing residues of hazardous 1.4 substances or being contaminated with hazardous 15 01 10* substances 1.5 Lead batteries 16 06 01*
10‐54
No. Group Waste Code Exploited absorbents (absorbent materials in case of 1.6 15 02 02* oil and grease spillages, rags, protective clothing) 1.7 Inorganic media for the protection of wood 03 02 04* Waste from the application and removal of paints and 08 01 11*, 13*, 15*, 17*, 19* 1.8 varnishes and 21* 1.9 Mixture of oil and grease from oil / water separators 19 08 10* 1.10 Synthetic oil for heat transfer 13 03 09*
2.2. Waste Management Plan for Construction Phase and Structure Removal Phase
Methods of Collection, Storage and Waste Handling
The goal of selective waste collection, storage and handling is to prevent the threat to human health and the environment, especially the discharge of harmful substances into the water and soil. Collection and storage of waste will be organized within the construction site, and is based on general waste management principles: Separate collection Prevention Recycling
Waste generated on construction site and in areas where administration is situated, will be collected selectively, or in separate containers in accordance with the waste. Waste incineration on site or in the open is prohibited.
Basic principle to be followed is the separation of hazardous from non‐hazardous waste, then the separation of construction waste from other waste categories, and particularly separation of recyclable waste.
Hazardous waste and its packaging shall be marked pursuant to the regulations defining labeling of dangerous goods. Hazardous waste should be collected and sorted by categories as defined in the table above.
Waste oil shall be collected and stored separately. It is forbidden to discharge waste oil in surface and underground rivers, drains or soil, which also applies for substances containing mineral or synthetic oil.
Separately collected waste shall be stored on specially designated locations in adequate waster bins as follows: 1. Container for hazardous waste – mixed hazardous waste (15 01 10*, 16 06 01*, 15 02 02*, 08 01 11*, 13*, 15*, 17*, 19* and 21*, 03 02 04*), 2. Container for non‐hazardous waste – mixed municipal waste (20 03 01), 3. Container for non‐hazardous waste – mixed packaging waste which can be recycled (20 01 01 , 38 and 39), 4. Container for non‐hazardous waste – mixed metal waste which can be recycled (12 01 and 03 and 17 04 05).
Containers shall be manufactured for the purposes above, thus shall not allow leakages. Each container must be appropriately marked.
10‐55
Collected waste oils (13 02 06* and 07*) shall be stored in barrels or other suitable containers to prevent leakages. Servicing of vehicles shall take place exclusively in the service plateau away from watercourses and sensitive areas, where waste oil barrels are positioned.
For disposal of construction waste, the Contractor shall provide temporary and permanent depositing locations along the route, within the construction zone and at a special location.
Temporary landfill sites are required for deposition of humus, excavated materials, as well as for smaller amounts of buffer material and stone fractions. The Contractor shall identify permanent and temporary disposal locations, and obtain all required permits.
Waste Disposal
The producer shall deliver all selectively collected waste to the operator i.e. to companies authorized for waste collection, transport and treatment pursuant to the Law on Waste (“Official Gazette of FB&H”, no. 33/03).
In the procedure for the selection of the best offer for waste (hazardous) disposal, the producer will require a proof from the bidder of being registered for execution of waste management activities in accordance with applicable regulations.
The Contractor signs a Contract with the selected company.
Record Keeping
Waste producer maintains records of the type and the quantities of the waste produced. The record includes the following information: data on produced waste and causes of its occurrence, waste storage, waste removal.
The producer s the record sheet for each waste shipment, in two copies, one copy for the operator and one for his own records.
Delivered waste record sheets of delivered waste are to be kept in the Contractor’s permanent office, and copies on temporary sites for inspection purposes.
Responsibility
The Contractor shall appoint a Supervising Engineer to be responsible for supervision of waste management operations at the construction site.
3. WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE OPERATION PHASE
3.1 Classification of Waste Occurred in the Operation Phase
Waste in the operation phase occurs during maintenance of pumping stations and possibly reservoirs, and in case of the need for replacement tubes due to malfunction, cracking, or the like. Furthermore, waste in the operation phase occurs also during agricultural activities.
10‐56
Pumping stations are designed to be automatic, without crew, thus the only waste that may occur is the waste generated from maintenance of power equipment and water pumps.
All the types of waste generated at specific locations in the course of operating the planned irrigation systems are presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Classification of Waste Occurred during Operation of Irrigation Systems
No. Group Waste Code NONHAZARDOUS WASTE 1 MIXED MUNICIPAL WASTE 1.1 Mixed municipal waste 20 03 01 2 WASTE FROM CONSTRUCTION SITES AND STRUCTURE DEMOLITION 2.1 Plastic 17 02 03 2.2 Soil and stones, and excavator dredging operations 17 05 04 and 06 WASTE FROM AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, AQUACULTURE, FORESTRY, HUNTING 3 AND FISHING, FOOD PREPARATION AND PROCESSING 3.1. Sludge from washing and cleaning 02 01 01 3.2. Vegetable tissues waste 02 01 03 3.3. Hazardous plastic (including packaging) 02 01 04 Waste from chemicals used in agriculture and waste 3.4. 02 01 09 included in 02 01 08 3.5. Hazardous metal 02 01 10 3.6. Wastes not specified in any other way 02 01 99 HAZARDOUS WASTE * 1 WASTE OILS, BITUMINOUS, SUBSTANCES CONTAINING OILS 1.1 Machine oils 13 02 06* and 07* Packaging containing residues of hazardous 1.2 substances or being contaminated with harmful 15 01 10* substances Exploited absorbents (absorbent materials in case of 1.3 15 02 02* oil and grease spillages, rags, protective clothing) WASTE FROM AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, AQUACULTURE, FORESTRY, HUNTING 2. AND FISHING, FOOD PREPARATION AND PROCESSING Waste from chemicals used in agriculture and 2.1. 02 01 08* containing hazardous materials
3.2 Waste Management in the Operation Phase
Collection and storage of waste in this case as well will be based on the principles of prevention and separate collection. Waste incineration on site or in the open is prohibited.
Waste management is presented as follows:
Waste Collection, Storing and Handling Methods
Waste producer, or individual users associated into the Water Users Association, are responsible to secure that waste management is compliant to the principle of good working practices pursuant to legal regulations. A restriction can impose a temporary waste
10‐57
management method in the respective municipality that does not favor separate waste collection.
At system operation and maintenance stage, sediment in irrigation and drainage canals may occur (sludge from washing and cleaning 02 01 01) and shall be regularly cleaned and disposed of in an appropriate manner. This waste is mainly composed of earth and plant tissue waste and must be treated together with wastewater plant tissues.
During regular maintenance of power equipment and water pumps in pumping stations, there is waste in form of greased and oiled cloth, hazardous waste oils, etc., labeled as 15 02 02* in Table 2.This waste should be collected, selected and temporarily deposited to the planned facility sites for the maintenance duration. Barrels or other suitable containers, properly labeled to avoid environmental pollution will be procured for the storing of collected waste oils (13 02 06* and 07*), classified as hazardous waste. Waste collected by these means is to be placed at companies dealing with the concerned waste disposal. Water User Association is responsible to sign a contract with the referred companies. In case of and occasional appearance of a leak of oil and fats, remove them with a cloth, and temporarily store oily rags in metal barrels. Fat occasionally removed off the equipment, due to the appearance of mechanical particles or due to replacement needs, is to be removed applying the same method.
In the process of agricultural production, organic waste occurs mainly from waste plant tissues (02 01 03) and shall be collected separately and subjected to the process of composting. Composting should be implemented jointly as organized by the Water Users Association. It is necessary to find a suitable waste composting location in coordination with the municipality.
Containers of the chemicals used for plant protection are classified as hazardous waste (02 01 08*). Such containers should be selected and collected separately in specially marked bags as organized by the Water Users Association. The collected waste must be handed over to the company dealing with hazardous waste and the Water Users Association is responsible to sign a contract with the referred company prior to the system commencement.
Municipal waste marked as 20 03 01, 17 02 03, 02 01 04, 02 01 10, 02 01 99 in Table 2 may occur on the irrigated location, as generated by individual producers especially during planting and harvesting operations. In case the municipality has not established a separate waste collection system, such waste must be collected and temporarily stored in plastic buckets or containers installed by the municipal utility in the region. This category includes non‐hazardous waste from chemicals used in agriculture (02 01 09). If there is no waste collection service, each manufacturer must arrange collection and transport to the nearest buckets/containers for waste disposal installed by the municipal utility. Upon establishment of organized separate waste collection systems by municipal structures, recyclable waste (plastics, paper, glass and iron) will be separated and disposed of in special containers intended for the concerned purpose.
During construction works involving pipe replacements and in case of failures, pipe bursts or similar, clay layer (17 05 4:06) must be deposited separately and reinstated after pipe lying. Possible surplus material must be deposited at predetermined locations, until transported to the landfill.
Waste Disposal
It is necessary to enter into contracts for removal and disposal of all generated waste with companies that have obtained all required waste management permits.
10‐58
Waste producer will hand over all (selectively) collected waste to the operator or authorized waste collection, transport and treatment enterprises, pursuant to the Regulation on Selective Waste Collection, Packaging And Labeling (“Official Gazette of FB&H” no. 38/06). The operator undertakes the obligation to transport waste to the final waste treatment process or final disposal.
Final disposal of municipal waste will be carried out regularly to the municipal/regional landfill by means of the municipal public utility trucks and pursuant to the concluded contract.
Hazardous waste will be handed over to the operators authorized to deal with hazardous waste. In the course of transportation, it must be labeled and packaged in accordance with the regulations. Transportation of hazardous waste must comply with general requirements for the carriage of dangerous goods. Transport of hazardous waste shall be accompanied by appropriate documentation as set out in accordance with the Regulation on Selective Waste Collection, Packaging and Labeling (“Official Gazette of FB&H” no. 38/06).
The producer or waste holder of who transports hazardous waste to the operator within the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall ensure that the wastes are accompanied by completed forms (hereinafter referred to as transport documents), available at the Cantonal Ministry of Environment. A sample of transport documents is provided in Appendix 1 of this Plan.
The waste carrier and recipient shall sign transport documents. In the event that the same carrier repeatedly carries similar types of waste, it is possible to provide one transport documents valid for certain period of time but not longer than 12 months. A copy of transport documents is kept in archives of the carrier and the recipient for the period of two years from the waste transport date.
During the period above, the carrier is obliged to provide transport documents within seven days from receipt of the written request of the Cantonal Minister for environment.
Record Keeping
Responsible person from the Water Users Association keeps the record of the occurrence of all waste types on the site. It is necessary to keep records on waste types and quantities.
Producer shall, for each waste shipment, prepare a record list in two copies, one for the operator and one for own records.
Based on the stored documents, it is easy to determine the exact amount of delivered non‐ hazardous and hazardous waste.
Responsibility
Water Users Association will appoint a person who, inter alia, will be responsible to organize collection and temporary storage of hazardous waste and waste subject to composting.
10‐59