Sava River Sub-basin

1.	GENERAL INFORMATION	SAVA River Sub-basin (sub-basin shared by Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Serbia & Montenegro)
The Sava river has a total length of 861 km and the sub-river basin a total catchment of 95,719 km² (11% in SI, 26.3% in HR, 39.8% in BiH and 22.8% in SCG) and includes the Kolpa/Kupa, Una and Drina sub-basins (all having transboundary sub-catchments: see information below in chapters 3.2., 3.3. and 3.4.) as well as the Bosna and Velika Morava sub-basins. The Sava is the largest tributary of the Danube: The average flow is 1,513 m³/sec at the confluence, the hydro-regime shows spring and autumn maxima. The climate in the sub-basin varies from alpine, pannonic to continental; the orography from high alpine karst valleys to forested hills and fertile alluvium with extended meadows and large wetlands which also serve flood retention. While the river is largely still intact (e.g. large protected wetlands; a series of river meanders between Zagreb and the Serbian border), it is at the same time navigable over 583 km from its mouth into the Danube (Belgrade) up to the city of Sisak (60 km downstream of Zagreb at the mouth of Kupa river). 543 km of river banks in Croatia are fixed. The main cities along the river are Ljubljana (300,000 inhabitants), Celje (50,000 inhabitants), Zagreb (700,000 inhabitants), Slavonski Brod (59,000), Sisak (37,000), Bjelovar (28,000) and Belgrade (1.1 million). The main economic activities are metal, chemical and food industry in cities as well as small family estates with extensive agriculture (abstraction of minor water quantities). While most people are connected to public water supply (e.g. 84% in SI in 1991), only a small part (e.g. 16% in SI in 1991) is connected to wastewater collection and treatment systems. Together with industrial pollution (leather, paper, oil and food industries with inadequate treatment), this is causing various transboundary pollution problems (e.g. water supply of Zagreb and Belgrade) of both the Sava region and the Danube. There is a chain of hydro-power reservoirs in the middle section of the river upstream of Zagreb: In Slovenia 3 dams are on the upper stretch, 3 are planned near Ljubljana and 6 are planned downstream (1 completed, 1 under construction); in Croatia other multipurpose reservoirs are also planned. In addition comes the nuclear power plant Krsko at the Slovene-Croatian border. New engineering plans foresee the canalization of the yet still meandering middle Sava section which has international importance for its extended and protected floodplains and for its flood retention function.

1.1. Geographical Properties

Longitude/latitude at downstream river outlet

Slovenia

Croatia

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Serbia & Montenegro

45.52 N 15.41 E

44.84N 19.03E

X = 6606981.7, Y =4972750.063

44o°50'N 20°27'E

Size of basin in km² - Length and width in km

10,868 km²
?

25,374 km²
380 / 150 km

5,506 km² (direct catchment)
22,349 km² with Bosna + Vrbas
355 / 59 km

31,046 km²
206 / ? km

Topography, including altitude range in m

136 m to 2,864 m

Pannonian, flat terrain
At SI border 130 m a.s.l.
At Zagreb 130 m a.s.l
At Slavonski Brod 82 m asl
At S&M border 79 m a.s.l

Elevation: 473 m
Altitude at HR border: 86.8 m asl
Alt. at border with S&M: 83 m a.s.l.

Pannonian, flat terrain
At border with Bosnia: 83 m asl
At the mouth: 74.4 m asl

Geology

Cretaceous Limestone on the headwater part of the basin and Eocene flysch on lower, north-western part of the basin.

Alluvial terrain, fertile cover

Sandy-gravel deposits

Sands and silty clays, sandy gravels & some igneous rocks on the head water part of the basin and marls & shale from Neogene and some limestone in the lower part of the basin

Rainfall, average annual and seasonal distribution, etc.

Average precipitation is 1,593 mm per year (range 1,046 – 3,077 mm)

1,000 mm/y west
600 mm/y east

993 mm/y (Derventa)
1067 mm/y (Orasje)

Mean annual precipitation:
from border to the city of Šabac: 700-800 mm
from Šabac to the river mouth: 600-700 mm

River(s), with lengths and average annual flows and seasonal distribution – flood and drought incidence and impact

Length: 230 km
Average yearly low water discharge: 84 m³/s
Annual mean flow: 289 m³/s.
High water peak (hundred years return period): 3,650 m³/s

Length: 510 km
Qmin = 226 m³/s
Qavg = 1,200 m³/s at Danube confluence
Qmax = 4130 m³/s
Spring & autumn maxima.
Frequent floods in unpro-tected areas (spring and autumn). Summer droughts occur-ring each third year and increasing from east to west.


Name	Catchment area	Average flow

Una	9,130 km²	240 m³/s
Vrbas	6,386 km²	132 m³/s
Bosna	10,457 km²	163 m³/s
Drina	7,240 km²	124 m³/s

Length in SCG: 206 km
Qmin 95% =287 m³/s
Qave = 1,570 m³/s

1.2. Demographic Properties
General location of the basin
Slovenia	Croatia	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Serbia & Montenegro
The catchment is situated in the central part of SI. It flows from East to West to the Danube River. The catchment consists of mountainous regions in the headwater part, hilly karst formations in the south, hilly areas in the central part and lowlands near the border with HR.	From the upper eastern to the most western state border	The Sava River flows along the northern border of Bosnia and Herzegovina	From the border with HR and BiH, through the alluvial plains of Mačva and Srem, to the Danube at Belgrade.
Total population in basin
?	2,211,900 inh. (with tributaries) 1,317,000 inh. (directly in the watershed)	Direct catchment: 635,353 inh. (census 1991) Total with Bosna and Vrbas is 2,969,471	1.354.592 (census 1991.) incl. tributaries
Population of principal cities or towns
Ljubljana: 267,000 inh Celje: 40,710 inh. Novo Mesto: 14,600 inh. Kranj: 36,000 inh.	Zagreb: 790,000 inh. Slavonski Brod: 59,000 inh. Sisak: 37,000 inh. Bjelovar: 28,000 inh.	In direct watershed (w/o Sara-jevo, Banja Luka, Zenica, etc.: Bosanski Brod: 10,300 (estimat.) Brčko: 38,000 (est.) Bosanska Gradiška:14,500(est.)	Beograd (capital): 1,119,642 (2002) Obrenovac (incl. in Belgrade) Šabac: 123,780 Sremska Mitrovica: 85,902 (2002)
Average per capita income
15,000 €/year	NA	USD 1,900 (est. 2002)	It is estimated (1997) that the GNP in the catchment area of the Sava, which includes a part of Vojvodina and of Montenegro and the western part of central Serbia, amounts to US$ 1,760.
Industrial and agricultural GDP (Gross Domestic Product)
GDP(2002):11.004 US$	Krapinsko –zagorska county: 2,724 $ Zagrebacka county: 3,326$ Sisacko-moslavacka: 1,045 $ Brodsko-posavska: 1,650 $ Pozesko-slavonska:2,429$ Vukovarsko-srijemska county: 1,496 $ Zagreb: 19,125 $	Gross Domestic Product for 2001. (estimation): 1,263 USD	GDP per capita: $ 2,200 (2002 est.) GDP composition by sector (2001. est.) Agriculture: 26% Industry: 36% Services: 38%
Population living below the poverty line
?	5-15%	Over 20%
Other relevant characteristics
?	Asymmetrical development Substantial economic emigration	N/A
1.3 Land Uses
The area is highly populated and mainly covered by forests.	Mountains: 5 % Forests: 25 % Wetlands: about 60,000 ha Pastures: 25 % Agriculture: 40 % Irrigated lands: few	Valleys and hills with about 30% agriculture, 20% forests and pastures	In the watershed: Agriculture 100%

2. WATER RESOURCES / USES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SITUATION
2.1 Total available surface and groundwater resources
Slovenia	Croatia	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Serbia & Montenegro
?	Available surface water resources are not officially estimated. Renewable sources of underground water = 550,5 M m³/y	Vrbas river watershed: 20 selected groundwater sources, total minQd (l/s) = 3,968 Bosna river watershed: 30 selected groundwater sources; total minQd (l/s) = 5,835	Available surface and ground-water resources are not officially estimated for the Sava river basin. Available information exists for the Danube river basin in SCG
Net usable capacity of surface reservoirs
?	Reservoirs only on Kupa tributary 34,75 M m³	Vrbas watershed: Vrbas: 42.9 + 1.3 hm³ Pliva: 4.2 hm³ Bosna river watershed Zeljeznica: 0.05 hm³	Without Drina watershed: On Jablanica: 52 mil. m³
Total surface water abstractions (estimated where nt measured)
?	70 l/s (2 active intakes)	Vrbas in FBIH: No active intakes Bosna river watershed, FBIH: 23,309,266 m³/y (9 active intakes)	1997 est.: Total: 252.7 mil. m³/y: domestic water supply: 33.5 industrial water supply: 181.2 irrigation: 38
Total groundwater abstractions (estimated where not measured)
?	13,817 l/s (74 active intakes)		1997 est.: Total: 242.3 mil. m³/y: domestic water supply: 118.5 industrial water supply: 123.8
Surface and groundwater quality (in general categories only)
?	The surface water quality ranges from good to moderate. Better quality exists on the southern tributaries. Underground water is partly polluted in the Zagreb area, it is very good in the southern part of basin, and naturally polluted with iron, man-ganese and arsenic in the eastern part of basin.	Surface water quality varies from good in upper streams to moderate downstream Generally, groundwater monitoring is very poor. Only groundwater for public water)	Monitoring station Jamena at the border with Croatia: (2002. annual report): According to the overall water quality, the Sava at Jamena station is classified as a 3rd class watercourse, which makes it usable for irrigation and industrial water supply only.
Water uses (total, by sector, principal uses, current (estimated) and future (projected), include in-stream uses (fisheries, etc.) where appropriate)
• Water supply from the aquifer recharged by the river • Hydropower stations • Boating and fish angling activity	• Irrigation: little • Fish farms >5ha : 6 (total: 3,047 ha) • Navigable waterways: 376 • Recreational sports: 29 • Mills & saw mills: 2 • Mineral & thermal water abstractions: 20	2000 data, including Una and Drina watershed: Total abstraction by source: FBIH fresh surface water 32.6 mil.m³ FBIH groundwater: 178.7 mil.m³ RS (for water supply): 87.17 mil. m³	Current: Water supply: 30%, Industry: 62%, Irrigation: 8%. Future (2010): Water supply 209 mil. m³ (12,2% of total for SCG), industrial water supply 530 mil. m³ (75% of total) Note: The figures above refer to the Sava river basin including Drina river basin. More precise data are currently not available.
Deficits and other resource concerns (e.g. quality, extremes, environmental degradation)
Thermal pollution from thermal power plants and a nuclear power plant.	• Lowering of the river bed, water levels and underground water levels in the Sava River and its direct watershed. • Problems with providing new potable water resources for Zagreb. • Pollution from the biggest towns. • Problems with solid waste disposal.	Pollution, flooding due to upstream river canalisation.	• Drainage waters from trash dumps and landfills (municipal and not rarely industrial) situated on river banks, with poor and insufficient sanitary protection measures • Drainage from agricultural land polluted by agrochemi-cals • Accidental pollution of the Sava by atrazine was noticed at the border with HR (monitor-ring station Jamena) at the end of the 2002. • It should be pointed out that the nuclear plant Krsko in SIis situated near the Sava river

2.2 Environmental Properties
Sensitive ecosystems, biodiversity and environmental impacts in the basin
Slovenia	Croatia	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Serbia & Montenegro
• Deterioration of the surface water quality due to pollution from villages with no sewerage systems and treatment facilities. • Due to increasing trends in plantation food production, disperse pollution is endangering water even more. • The sewage treatment plants in Ljubljana and Celje are under constructions.	The valuable natural oak forests in the Spacva - Slavonia region strongly depend on underground water table variations. The planned Sava – Danube navigation canal is a potential threat to this water level regime. Lonjsko polje floodplain with natural marshes and wetlands is a protected Ramsar site.	• About 80% of the people in B-H live in urban settlements; only about 50% are connected to public water supply and 35% to sewerage systems. 90% of urban sewage is directly discharged into the water courses. • Main pollution problem is sewage and untreated wastewater from the municipalities and industries. However, since the end of war only few factories (mostly without treatment plants) produce again. • Intensive agriculture (pestici-des, pig and poultry farms).	?

3. BASELINE INFORMATION AVAILABILITY
Observation networks
Slovenia	Croatia	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Serbia & Montenegro
?	• National monitoring net-work for surface water quality • Transboundary monito-ring network for surface waters • National hydrological network	The Federal Meteor. Institute implements monitoring on the territory of the Federation, while the Hydro-meteorol. Institute does it in the Rep. Srpska entity. Public companies for Watershed Areas, Public Electrical Companies and some other institutions organize the monitoring of water courses	In accordance with legal powers and responsibilities, quality control of surface waters of inter-state and inter-republican watercourses, as well as watercourses intersected by the state border, and the control of other watercourses is performed by the Republic of Serbia and of Montenegro
Maps, with available scales, GIS and remote sensing imagery
Geographical data from the national cartogram-phic data base (1:2,880, 5,000, 17,800, 25,000, 50,000)	?	GIS-based information system for the water sector (management) is missing.	Maps of the surface and ground-water monitoring network with other details are available at http://www.hidmet.sr.gov.yu/ (official url address of the Serbian Water Bureau) and http://www.meteo.cg.yu/ (Water Bureau of the Rep. of Montene-gro). Also attached within the previous inventory.
Data archives and their adequacy
• Water uses, climate, hydrology and water quality data from the ‘Republic of Slovenia Agency for Environ-ment’ • land use data from the national cadastral system (for parcels) or from aerophoto interpretation	Data archives at: Croatian Waters, State meteorological and hydrological service are not publicly accessible. Quality of data is not verified but of limited use. Poor public data archives on hydrology, hydraulic, population, economy, planning. Data are spread in various publications and records.	• Hystorical meteorological and hydrological data till 1990 are at Federal Meteorol. Institute in Sarajevo. After 1992, data for RS are at Hydrometeorol. Institute in Banja Luka and at Directorate for Water Bijeljina, while for FBIH at Federal Meteorological Institute. • BiH sent data on river water quality in the year 2000 to EUROWATERNET (ETC/W) for the first time at the end of 2001 (36 monitoring stations) • Information on Physical Characteristics and on State Quality of Water of Sava River (stations: Gradiška and Rača)	Serbia: All registered data are collected in the Bureau's regional centers in: Nis, Kraljevo, Valjevo, Novi Sad (central), Pozarevac, Beograd (central), and Pristina. After processing, they are stored in the Hydrologic Information System Database. The Serbian Water Bureau is the only official institution authorised to collect and process hydrological data. Montenegro: ?
Research centers
	Croatian Waters' research laboratory. Other contracted scientific institutions in Croatia	• Federal Meteorological Institute • Hydro-meteorological Institute of the Republic of Srpska • Public companies for Water-shed Areas • Directorate for water Bijeljina	Water and Weather Bureau of the Republic of Serbia: Local center: Valjevo, central office: Belgrade
NAME AND CONTACT DETAILS OF PERSON(S) COMPLETING THIS FORM
Dr. Mitja Brilly, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Chair of Hydraulics Engineering, Hajdrihova 28, Ljubljana, tel. +386 1 425 33 24, e-mail: mbrilly@fgg.uni-lj.si	Prof.dr.sc. Davor Malus 10000 Zagreb Croatia mail:malus@grad.hr	Prof. Tarik Kupusovic Hydro-engineering Institute Sarajevo Stjepana Tomica 1 71 000 Sarajevo Bosnia and Herzegovina Tel/fax:+ 387 33 207 949 tarik.kupusovic@heis.com.ba; heis@heis.com.ba URL: www.heis.com.ba	Prof. dr Dejan Ljubisavljeviz Branislava Jovanoviz;, MSc CE Fac. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Belgrade, Dep. of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73 11000 Beograd Serbia nad Montenegro e-mail: ljubisav@grf.bg.ac.yu tel: (+381) 11 3218 557 Fax: (+381) 11 3370 223

4.2. Institutions / distribution of responsibilities
According to the bilateral agreement, governmental commissions are established on both sides. Expert Sub-commissions study different problems, prepare technical solutions and submit them to the Commission for approval. State governments then endorse the final proposals, and start realisation of the project. Final decision and all final executive documents are governmental. According to the agreement all actions in the area of 10 km from each national border that can have adverse impact on watershed must be notified and approved from both sides. (10 km is no fixed distance). Principal focus themes are: d) Navigation e) Water supply (transboundary communal water supply systems), f) Construction, and reconstruction of roads, g) Flood control, h) Pollution.		In both Federation of BiH and RS the agency with primary responsibility for the water sector is within their respective Ministry of Agriculture, Water management and Forestry (MoAWF). Within MoAWF, each entity has a Department of Water Management (in RS it is the Directorate for Water) respo-sible for the water strategy and policy, the issuing of agree-ments and permits, setting of standards and regulations; ensuring compliance with laws and regulations through licensing and inspections; and for the overall control of Public Companies for Watershed Areas.	In S&M responsibility for water resources management is mainly with the Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management – Directorate for Water. In Montenegro, respon-sebility is with the Ministry of Agriculture, sector for water management. Various sections of the minis-tries are responsible for imple-menting the Sava Framework Agreement. At this stage of the project, before the agreement gets “legal status” on national level it is important to provide direct involvement of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, Ministry of Capital Investments, and the Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection.
The Commission furthers the good practice of the former commission for common water manage-ment (HR and SI) of the Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The new SI water law (2002) is in force but new institutions for developing RBM are yet not establi-shed. Emission control of waters is subject of the environ-mental protection law (1996 and 2004). There is no regional poli-tical structure established yet in Slovenia but there are informal contacts between local communi-ties and the local fish angling societies.	Mentioned agreements are enforced with good success with the Slovenian side, poor results are with B&H side, and no results with S&CG. The biggest part of Sava RB in B&H is on the territory of Republic of Srpska that did not sign the agreement. For the time being a master plan does not exist, but actions under the UNDP/GEF Danube Regi-onal Project Component 1.1-9 Development of the Pilot River Basin Manage-ment Plan for the Sava (2003-2007) are in progress. Other actions are based on the most urgent problems that origin from daily life.

Slovenia	Croatia	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Serbia & Montenegro
4.3. Planning / Decision-making processes
Decisions are shared between the Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Energy, and local communities. At the moment there is no common decision-making or planning process for water management deve-lopment on transboun-dary rivers. There is only maintenance activity on border rivers. Major activities in SI are preparations for implementing the WFD and hydropower development on the lower Sava river in Slovenia.	Realization of existing and past arrangements was efficient with Slovenian side and partly with B&H side. Poor activities with B&H side are caused by bad economic circumstances, and weak political and professional capacities.	Under the law on Water (1998), in the Feder.BiH the MoAWF delegates the main responsibility of preparation of strategic decisions and planning to two Public Companies of Watershed Areas, one for the River Sava and the other for the Adriatic Sea. The Republic of Srpska has only single authority in charge for both main river basin districts. The new Law on Water Protection, based on the EU WFD, calls for a river basin approach in water administration and establishes new bodies responsible for water protection based on river basins.	A Master Plan for the Sava river basin existed at times of the FPR of Yugoslavia (1975), but is now outdated. Today, a master plan for the whole basin does not exist. There are officially adopted general water master plans for Serbia (2002) and Montenegro (2001), that also cover this basin, but they do not go into details. Institutional arrangements do not exist, and all decision-making processes are separated to each country. Joint planning and decision-making in the basin is poor, although considerable efforts on problem definition are undertaken.
4.4. Finances
Co-operation with Croatia is based on funds from the state budget. There are no long-term investment policies, nor management plans that policies would follow. EU funds are used at the moment only for increasing the water quality in Slovenia; they can not be used for the Croatian part of the watershed.	Cooperation with Slovenia is based mostly on states' budgets funds, while with B&H project are always internationally financed. Any long-term investment policies don't exist nor the management plans that policies would follow.	According to Water Law (1998), Article 168, financing of water management is based on the following principles: • Resources for financing water management are provided from general water fees, special water management fees, fees from concessions and funds provided by special law, as well as from other resources defined by this law; • General water fees; special water management fees and fees from concessions are to be used for all beneficiaries on the territory of the Federa-tion and/or main watershed areas, except if it is otherwise defined.	Financing of activities is based on funds from the state budget, according to yearly plans of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management. There are no long-term invest-ment policies or plans.

Slovenia	Croatia	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Serbia & Montenegro
4. MANAGEMENT SETTING
4.1. International agreements / conventions and national legislation
Danube River Protection Convention (1994) "Framework Agreement on the Sava River basin" signed by B&H, RH, RS, FRYU (2002), in force since June 2004. T The Agreement aims at cooperation on the following issues: a) Establishment of an international regime of safe navigation on the Sava River and its navigable tributaries; b) Establishment of sustainable water management; and c) Undertaking of measures to prevent or limit hazards, and reduce and eliminate adverse consequences, including those from floods, ice hazards, droughts and incidents involving substances hazardous to water. For decision-making and implementation, the four countries established the International Sava River Basin Commission, consisting of representatives from each country. It co-operates with ICPDR, Danube Commission, UN/ECE and institutions of the EC. Thanks to the international involvement (Stability Pact launched the Sava Initiative to provide a Forum to the four Sava Countries), this agreement shows positive results.
"Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the Government of the Republic of Slovenia on Water Management Issues" (1997).		Since 1996 BiH is actively involved in the work of expert teams of the Danube River Protection Convention (representatives in the ICPDR and the expert groups AEW, MLIM, EMIS, ECO etc.). At the moment procedure for adopting BiH, as regular member is in process (the Ministry for Urbanism, Civil Engineering and Ecology of Republic of Srpska is the national focal point and reference center for coordination and implementation ).	At this moment there is no bilateral agreement between Serbia & Montenegro and Bosnia & Herzegovina and between Serbia & Montenegro and Croatia. The responsible Ministry of Agri-culture, Forestry and Water Management/Directorate for Water of Serbia has initiated extensive preparations for the formulation of agreements of all aspects of water resources management and the commen-cement of a negotiation process with Croatia, incorporating contemporary solutions and the best of international practices.
	The "Agreement between Governments of Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina on Water Management Issues" was signed by the Federation administration; the Republic of Srpska did not ratify the agreement so it is not fully in power.
Slovenia	Croatia	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Serbia & Montenegro
4.5. Past and present major projects (including listing of donor interests)
An ISPA assistance “Pilot Project for an RBM Plan (and documentation of Wastewater Infra-structure) in the Krka sub-basin“ aims i.a. at testing the implementtation of the WFD, to reinforce governmental and local capacities.	Under the EU-CARDS program a Pilot River Basin Plan for the Sava River Basin is expected to start in November 2004. This aims at testing the implementation of the WFD in the 3 Sava countries and to reinforce governmental and local capacities in transboundary water management.
A hydrology study and water quality study of the entire Sava River basin was elaborated just be-fore the SFRJ collapse as a fundamental research for water management planning. A reservoir for water supply and a joint sewage treatment plant was constructed on Sotla River, a tributary of the Sava at the border bet-ween SI and HR (provi-ding construction works). The water management plan for SI was develop-ped in 1977 and is not up-to-date anymore. There are now studies in progress under the 6th EU Framework Programme on water quality and information system, and on water management. SI unilaterally proclaim-med by law (1999) nature areas in the Sava River Basin at the border with HR. There is now also hydro-power development along the Slovene Sava.	With the Slovenian side, some projects of water supply and wastewater treatment were realized in the Sutla tributary watershed. A navigation project (waterway reconstruction and marking) was realized with the B&H side. Bridges over the Sava that were demolished during the war are reconstructed with the help of intl. donors. Details of project records are not available. Many projects financed from various international funds are in progress (UN/GEF, CARDS, LIFE) or under preparation. Some of them are overlapping, and some of them will not have the expected or wanted results.	EC (CARDS 2002) Development of a national environmental monitoring system (started in Sept. 2003) Stability Pact for South-East Europe: International Sava Basin Initiative (institutional support).	For the donor coordination meeting on Management of Water Resources, its protection and prevention, the following project were selected: • Wastewater Treatment Plant of Belgrade • Wastewater Treatment Plant of Šabac JICA prepared a Water Quality Analysis – Report of Technical Cooperation Project for Water Quality Management in the Sava River Basin of Serbia and Montenegro, and is preparing now an Action Plan for Develop-ment of the Sava Basin Management Plan. The District of Brčko (OHR) financed bathimetric survey of the S&M section of Sava River.
4.6. Stakeholder Participation
Main stakeholders in SI are the electricity producers who operate the hydropower stations, and the communities along Sotla River.	Generally speaking stakeholder participation, policy on their participation, or any plans for future participation do not exist. The entire decision-making process is within governmental institutions. In some projects local experts and representatives are called to join a commission work, but they are not in charge for decision-making. In some problems that have strong political background, the "voice of people" is listened through public media. Kind of "pressure" from abroad is felt in the political and civil society, but positive reactions are still poor. Main stakeholders in HR are Croatian Waters responsible for the water regime and the Municipality of Zagreb, being concerned about flood protection.	Stakeholder participation in the Sava river basin is rather poor. The civil sector is still developing in BiH, but the NGO sector is a very active player in the environmental sector.	Two municipalities and the city of Belgrade are sited along the 209 km Sava river in Serbia and Montenegro. The Municipalities of Sremska Mitrovica and Sabac are extremely concerned about the future of the agreement and its consequences since the regulatory acts for the river have direct economic end environ-mental impact. The City of Belgrade is involved in the process via its city council and with its four municipalities spreading along the river. The city has exceptional legislative authority. Common opinion of all partici-pants of the project activities is that the Sava process disserves support and involvement of all stakeholders in order to receive necessary input for high quality realization of Framework Agreement. There is a need to further work on democratization of the process, as the only way for successful cooperation in the Region. Stakeholders have shown readiness to overtake their part of responsibilities to allow realize-tion of the Sava Process. Newly launched projects should take in account the outcomes of the US-EPA project, as an initiating step towards stake-holder involvement.

Slovenia	Croatia	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Serbia & Montenegro
4.7. Awareness / Communication
Generally speaking, the level of public awareness in the entire country is average. Local people oppose large projects, especially in their neighbourhood. There are many local ini-tiatives developed mainly by the communities and stakeholders on Slovenian side.	Generally speaking, the level of public awareness in HR is low, and not articulated. Perhaps Istrian county and Medjimurska county (Drava RB) show higher activity and organi-zation. Local communities in these counties want to partici-pate, and get more power in the process of manage-ment and decision making. They think that close neighbors can solve pro-blems in the best manner and efficiently. NGO's in that area are also most active. At this moment the most positive role in awareness – raising and education has national TV with different contributions of journalists specialized on environmental problems and also documentary (scientific) program (domestic and foreign). Very often the Sava river is not in the focus of public interest, but its tributaries being ecologically unique and of high value.	Bosnia and Herzegovina has not signed the Aarhus Convention, but the Entities have laws on access-to-information, as one way for its implementation. At this moment the most positive role in awareness – raising and education is with different local and mass media.	The most crucial actions in the watershed were undertaken in former Yugoslavia in the absence of public opinion. At this moment the most positive role in awareness – raising and education has the national TV with different contributions of journalists specialized on environmental problems and also documentary (scientific) programs (domestic and foreign).

Slovenia	Croatia	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Serbia & Montenegro
5. CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Identification of critical problems (transboundary situation) - problems related to the resource - problems associated to uses, needs and demands - problems affecting ecosystems
Main problem is the different economic and political situation of the countries that share the sub-basin. Former water management on the common river was well developed and mainly financed from Slovenian side, due the interests of Slovenian stakeholders. The trans-border watersheds are partly protected with different levels of protection on SI side. There are also different priorities in water management development on both sides. The water management plan for Slovenia, developed more than 25 years ago, is not up-to-date. The new Slovenian water law is in power but new institutions are not established yet.	Main problem is in the different economic positions of the countries that share the sub-basin, and the poor capacities. All settlements in the Sava alluvium use underground water for water supply. Quality of those resources is endangered by sewage and solid waste from big towns, farms, agriculture and transportation. The potential of the Sava river in navigation, irrigation, sport and recreation is not exploited enough. Large areas of arable land with small settlements are not safe from floods. The risk from accidental spills and illegal dumping is big (specially from B&H side).	The most critical problems are: • Wastewater generated by 90% of the population is discharged directly without any treatment into the closest water body; • The water supply systems cannot meet the needs of the consumers during the dry season due to poor management and a combination of inadequate availability of water resources and inadequate capacity of the infrastructure; • Dumping sites where the waste is disposed are mostly placed nearby the river, and in most cases are used without any protective measures;	The most critical problems are: • Preserving the water quality – two municipalities and the city of Belgrade, sited along Sava river, use it for water supply. Belgrade uses Ada Ciganlija for tourism and recreation. • Flood mitigation on the Sava depends on improved coordi-nation between BiH, HR and S&M. Coordination with SI concerning pollution of the Sava is also a concern • Safe navigation.
5.2. Main achievements
The Slovenian side unilaterally developed protected areas, and new sewage systems are now under development in the watershed. Industrial pollution decreased tremendously ten years ago, when industrial polluters stopped their production for economic reason.	With the Slovenian side: Main achievement is the establishment of an open cooperation at expert level (enough for a start). Both sides react positively and serious on each problem that emerges in the basin. Although Slovenia did not build WWTP's in the largest towns in Sava RB, quality of the incoming water on the state border with HRis rater good (thanks to closing of big polluters). Communication between Croatia and B&H has im-proved due to the recon-struction of railway and road bridges over the Sava. Big Sava tributaries from Bosnia (Una, Bosna, Vrbas) have a substantial impact on Sava water quality. Thanks to destroy-ed industry pollution from these rivers it is much smaller then 15 years ago. The town of Zagreb is constructing a WWTP that will contribute to the Sava water quality. All counties in the river basin are pre-paring watercourse protection plans. The national master plan is in final state of preparation.	Establishment of the Internatio-nal Sava River Basin Commis-sion. Development of a joint and integrated plan on the manage-ment of the water resources of the Sava Basin. The current reforms of the Water Sector in B&H. The project entitled "River Basin Management Program", laun-ched in November 2003, and to be finished in 2005.	The International Sava River Basin Commission is one of the first organizations that will be established on transboundary river catchments.

Slovenia	Croatia	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Serbia & Montenegro
5.3. Key challenges
Realisation of RBM Plan with yet non-appropriate political and economical frame.	• Realization of RBMP • Capacity building • Involvement of local community • Mobilization of all kinds of capital for suitable economic projects. • Building strategy for stakeholder participation.	• Establishment of a River Basin management approach • Drafting secondary legislation • Training of Staff of River Authorities • Drafting an appropriate finan-cing model • Public participation strategy of River Authorities for policy formulation, approval of policy documents and plans, imple-mentation and monitoring • Introduction of GIS • Mapping of water bodies • Developing internet page for each river basin	• Realization of RBMP • Water Quality improvement of Sava river • Public and stakeholder participation in RBMP • Improvement of financing
5.4. Donor interests
There is no recognised special donor interest.	Active and potential donors are gathered around the biggest projects in the Sava RB. Their interest is not articulated in the best (most useful) manner. Beside financial help in the realization of priority actions, the most important issue is capacity building (enabling local forces to take over rights and responsibilities).	Donor interests will largely depend on concrete results obtained through water sector reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina	Donor interest is mainly targeted on WWTPs (DABLAS) and capacity building EAR (EBRD)

Slovenia	Croatia	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Serbia & Montenegro
5.5. Recommended priority actions
Develop documentation and collect data for the RBM Plan with transparent interests from both sides.	Harmonizing investiga-tions, legislation, management strategy, and financial resources.	• Preparation of primary and secondary water-sector legislation • Establishment of a new organizational set-up of the water sector for the main managerial levels (State, Entity and River Basin) • Preparation of public partici-pation programs; • Human capacity building • Preserve protected areas • Investigations in the basin (hydrogeology, hydrology, biology)	Establish Sava Comission Preserve water quality Preserve protected areas Flood protection
6. MAIN REFERENCES, BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Data from the Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and its Energy and Environmental Agency of Slovenia; Internet, private sources.	Data from the State Water Directorate, Croatian waters, Internet, private sources.	Data from HEIS documentation, Internet, private sources	Data from Serbian and Montenegrin Water Master Plans. Stakeholder analysis and proposals for the involvement of key stakeholders in the process of implementation in S&M, REC; Sava River Basin – Support to Public Participation, Technical Report to US EPA; Internet, private sources.