Download - SUB-CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT - TEN-T RHINE-DANUBE …documents.rec.org/projects/Waterways_Appendix_b_Srb.pdf · corridor TEN-T Rhine-Danube International Waterway (sections of the Sava

SUB-CORRIDORASSESSMENT-TEN-TRHINE-DANUBEINTERNATIONALWATERWAY

1|P a g e

Sub-corridorassessment:TEN-TRhine-DanubeInternationalWaterway(Serbia)Keyfindings:• Basedontheopinionsof18expertsfromsixcategories1keyknownandperceivedclimatethreatsto

asectionoftheTEN-TRhine-DanubeCorridorinSerbiaaredetermined.

• UsingClimaCorIIpre-scanmethodologysixmostimportantthreatsintermsoffutureriskaredetermined.Theseare:

o T24Damagetoenergysupply,trafficcommunicationnetworks,disruptiontooperationsduetoextremewind;

o T12Reducedclearanceunderbridgesduetoincreaseinaverageseasonalrainfall;

o T8Failureofflooddefencesystemsofriversandlakesduetolongperiodsofrain;

o T36Sedimentationinportchannels;inabilitytodockduetostormsurges;

o T31Damagetocranes,storageandloadingterminalstoextremewind;

o T5Fluvialfloodingduetoheavyshowers.

• Duringtheworkshopresultswerevalidatedandonemorethreatwasadded(whichwasjudgedbyexpertsasthemostimportantbutwasnotcoveredbyClimaCorIIlist).Thisis:

o T*-Lowerriverflowsduetoclimatechangeconditions(highertemperatures,floodsandchangesinprecipitationintensityanddistribution).

• Allsevenabovementionedthreatsaremappedalongthesub-corridor.

• Foreachthreatexpertsproposedadaptationmeasures.1.TransportinfrastructureThissectionpresentskeycharacteristics,e.g.topography,usability,i.e.(in)capacitytohandledemand,statei.e.poor/goodquality,safetyconcerns/vulnerabilities,foreseeninvestmentsetc,fortheSub-corridorTEN-TRhine-DanubeInternationalWaterway(sectionsoftheSavaRiverandtheDanubeRiverinSerbia,Figure1).2

1insixcategories,transportinfrastructurepractitioners,transportdemandmanagementexperts,climatechangespecialists,seeAnnex1forfulllistofsurveyparticipant’s2Sources:NinaSiedl,JuhaSchweighofer(2014).GuidebookforEnhancingResilienceofEuropeanInlandWaterwayTransportinExtremeWeatherEvents.www.mowe-it.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Move_it_Guidebook_IWT.pdf(October2016)InternationalSavaRiverBasinCommission-ISRBCdocuments:SavaRiverBasinAnalysisSummary(2010);AnnualReportonWorkandActivities(2016);Water&ClimateAdaptationPlanfortheSavaRiverBasin(2015).www.savacommission.org(October2016)InternationalCommissionfortheProtectionoftheDanubeRiver–ICDPR,StrategyonAdaptationtoClimateChange(2013)http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/climate-change-adaptation(October2016)SEETO-Multi-AnnualDevelopmentPlan,Commonproblems–Sharedsolutions(2016).www.seetoint.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/01/SEETO_brosura_lowres.pdf(October2016)DanubeRiver,Navigationalchart(2016).Secondedition.DirectorateforInlandWaterways-Plovput.www.plovput.rs/file/plovidbene-karte/2016_03_RS_danube_paper_chart.zip(October2016)


2|P a g e

ThestretchoftheDanubeRiverthroughSerbia,fromBezdanintheNorthtoPrahovointheEast,is588kmlong,whichpresents20,6%ofthetotalriverlength.TheDanubeRiverisnavigablethroughoutitscourse.ThemostimportantportsinSerbiaforthetransportofgoodsareinBelgrade,NoviSad,Pančevo,SmederevoandPrahovo.ThetotalvolumeofgoodstransportedontheDanubeRiverinSerbiareaches6milliontonnes.Basedonnavigationconditions,threestretchescanbedistinguished-freeflowingstretchfromtheHungarianbordertoBelgrade,backwaterstretchfromBelgradetotheIrongateIIandfreeflowingstretchfromtheIrongateIItotheTimokriverconfluence.Intermsofthedepthandwidthofthefairway,thebackwaterstretchischaracterizedbygoodnavigationconditionsduringmostoftheyear,whilefreeflowingstretchfromtheIronGateIItotheTimokriverconfluencehasrelativelygoodnavigablecondition.ThecriticalisthefreeflowingstretchfromtheHungarianbordertoBelgrade,(263kmlong)whereall24criticalsectorsfornavigationarelocated.Sandyandmorphologicallydynamicriverbedleadtorealignmentsofthefairway.SectorFutogisthemostcriticalsectorfornavigationontheDanubeRiverinRepublicofSerbia.Characteristicsofthissectorarefrequentchangesinriverbedmorphologyandtheavailabledimensionsofthefairway(depthandwidth),causingfrequentadjustmentofpositionofthefairway.ThissectorisclassedasVIc,meaningthattheriverpermitsthetransitofsixpushedbargesupto9,600tons.Inpractice,duetowaterdepthrestrictionsintheupperandlowerreachesoftheDanubeRiver,bargesandvesselsdonotloadtotheirmaximumdraughtandnavigateatareduceddraught,usuallylessthanbetween2.0–2.2mtoallowasafetymargin.

FromBelgrade(km1170)downstreamtowardstheĐerdapIIdam(km863),theriverattainsthemaximumclassratingofClassVII,allowingthetransitofninepushedbargesupto14,500tonsdeadweight.FromĐerdapII(km863)totheBulgarianborder(km845,5),theriverisclassedasVIc.BargesandvesselstravellingtheSerbiansectionoftheDanubeRivermayhaveareduceddraughtwherelowwaterlevelsoccurdownstreamofĐerdapIIandinRomania.

TheSEETO3priorityprojectforSerbiansegmentoftheDanubeRiverisrelatedtorivertraininganddredgingworksoncriticalsectorsontheSerbia-Croatiajointstretch(129km)andbetweenBačkaPalankaandBelgrade(92km)witharound63millioneurosinvestment.

TheSavaRiveriscentrallylocatedinthecoretransportationnetworkforSouthEastEurope(SEE).Itextendsthroughfourcountries,Serbia,BiH,CroatiaandSloveniaandenterstheDanubeRiverinBelgrade.ThetotallengthoftheSavaRiverwatercourseis945rkm.Afterthebreak-upofformerYugoslavia,theSavaRiverhasbecomeaninternationalwaterway.TheSavaRiverformstheborderbetweenSerbiaandBiHforsome33rkmwhileSerbiahasasoleresponsibilityfor178rkm.

NavigationontheSavaRiverispossibleintheupstreamdirectionfromitsconfluencewiththeDanubeRiverinBelgradeuptothetownofSisak,ontotallengthof583km.ThelowerpartoftheSavaRiver

3South-EastEuropeTransportObservatory

Figure1:Mapofthecorridorunderstudy(SavaandDanubeinSerbia)


3|P a g e

watercoursewhichrunsthroughSerbiaischaracterizedbyflatplains,low-lyingagricultureregion.Thewarandthepoliticalcrisisinearly1990snegativelyaffectedthemaintenanceandinvestmentsintotheriverandtheportsinfrastructureandledtoahugedeclineofeconomicactivities.ThecargohandledintheSerbianportsontheSavaRiverinrecentyearswasdowntolessthan25thousandtons.Theannualtrafficvolumeshavedroppedfromover5milliontonspriortopoliticalchangestolessthan400.000tonsontheentirewaterway.

ThecurrentstateoftheSavawaterwayispoor.Thenavigationconditionsarehamperedbybothnaturalconditionsandlackofmaintenanceandinvestments.Themainproblemsarisefrom:shallowdepthofthenavigationchannelwhichlimitsdraftoverlongperiodoftime;sharpcurvesduetomeanderslimitingthelengthandwidthofvesselsandconvoys;strongfluctuationdischargeresultinginstrongvariationinwaterlevelsanddepthsduringtheyear;heavysedimentationandareductioninthewidthanddepthofthefairwayincertainareas;limitedheightunderbridgesathighwater.CriticalsectorsfornavigationontheSavaRiverintheRepublicofSerbiaareKamičak,Šabac,Klenak,SremskaMitrovicaandfirthoftheDrinaRiver.Intermsofavailabledepthandwidthoffairway,firthoftheDrinaRiveristhemostcriticalone.TheactualclassificationoftheSavaRiverfromBelgradetoSisakis50/50classIIIandclassIV.ThesituationinthefieldisfarfrommeetingtherequirementsforClassIVandVawaterwaysontheentirelengthofthefairway.

TheripariancountriesandISRBC4aimsatrehabilitationanddevelopmentofthewaterway,improvingtheSavaRiverbetweenBelgradeandSisaktominimumClassIVwaterwayandtoClassVaonsectorswhereitispossibleandfeasible.

TheSEETOpriorityprojectforSerbiansegmentoftheSavaRiverisrelatedtorivertraininganddredgingworksoncriticalsectors(9millionEurosestimatedcostsfor211kmlongstretch).RepublicofSerbiastartedwiththeactivitiestosecurefinancingforthedevelopmentoftheSavaRiverprojectontheSerbiansectorfromtheavailableIPAfunds.

2.ClimateConcernsi)Currentthreats,consequences,*likelihood,risks.Usingopinionsof18experts‘top10’corridorthreatsarerankedbasedonpopularity(surveygroupresponsesaverage).TheresultsareillustratedinFigure1.ThreatsT.5andT.8aresharing10thplacesincetheygainedthesamepercentageofrespondentswhoprioritizedthem(Figure2).

4InternationalSavaRiverBasinCommission


4|P a g e

Figure2:RankingofTopThreatsAccordingtoPopularity

Expectedseverityofeachthreaton:

1)routeavailability/usabilityand

2)human/routesafetyisestimatedbasedontheaveragescoresthatexpertsassociatedwitheachthreat(Figure3).

Thefollowingconclusionscanbederivedbasedontheobtainedresults:

• Noneofthethreatswasnearthelevel4(catastrophicimpact/influenceonavailabilityandsafety).Namely,all11threatswerejudgedtobewiththelevelofimpactseveritybelow3inaverage.

• ThreatsT12(Reducedclearanceunderbridgesduetoincreaseinaverageseasonalrainfall)andT8(Failureofflooddefencesystemsofriversandlakesduetolongperiodsofrainincatchmentarea)werejudgedbytheexpertsastheoneswiththemostsevereconsequencesonrouteavailability/usability.Theirlevelofimpactseverityisaround3indicatingseriousimpactontheavailabilitywithseveraldays(uptoamonth)ofunavailabletransport.

• ThreatsT24(Damagetoenergysupply,trafficcommunicationnetworks,disruptiontooperationsduetoextremewind)andT31(Damagetocranes,storageandloadingterminalsduetoextremewind)areseenasthemostseverwhenitcomestoroutesafety.Thelevelofimpactseveritywasaroundthreethuspinpointingtoaninfluencethatistosuchextentthatboundariesofusersafetyareexceeded,withconsequenceofseriousincreaseofthenumberofaccidentswithpermanentlossofhealth(seriousmaterialdamage,heavyinjuries).

89 83 83 7867 67 67

50 4433 33

0102030405060708090

100

T12 T1 T36 T31 T7 T24 T33 T17 T37 T5 T8

Percentageofrespo

ndentsw

ho

prioritize

dthethreat

ThreatKey (full name of the threat):

T12. Reduced clearance under bridges due to increase in average seasonal rainfallT1. Bridge scour due to heavy showersT36. Sedimentation in port/navigation channels; inability to dock due to storm surgesT31. Damage to cranes, storage and loading terminals to extreme windT7. Bridge scour due to long periods of rain in catchment areaT24. Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks, disruption to operations due to extreme windT33. Higher construction, maintenance, insurance costs due to storm surgesT17. Increased needs for cooling and, thus, fuel due to heat wavesT37. Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks due to snowfall/blizzardsT5. Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers


5|P a g e

Figure3:Levelofimpactseverityfor11“Top”threats

Regardingtheweightingfactorsthatexpertsassociatedtotheimportanceofrouteavailabilityvs.routesafety,theresultsimplythattheimportanceisnearlyequal(Figure4).Howeverthisconclusionshouldbetakenwithcautionhavinginmindthattheanswersoftheexpertswereverydiverseandthefinalresultismoreaconsequenceofaveragingandcompensatoryeffectthantheconsensusamongexperts.

Thelikelihoodofeachearmarkedthreatundertwoscenarios(currentandforeseenclimateconditions)isestimatedbasedonaveragedexperts'scoresandpresentedinFigure5.

Figure5:Levelofthreats'likelihoodundercurrentandforeseenclimateconditions

1,11

1,50

1,73

1,75

2,00

2,17

2,20

2,57

2,75

2,83

2,94

1,4

2,5

2,2

1,8

1,9

2,0

1,5

2,6

2,9

2,0

2,3

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

T17

T37

T36

T33

T7

T5

T1

T31

T24

T8

T12

ImpactonSafety ImpactonAvailability/UsabilityKey:ROUTEAVAILABILITY/USABILITY (redbars)1- Negligibleimpact(afewhours)2- Minimalnegativeimpact(aday)3- Seriousimpact(severaldays,uptoamonth)4- Catastrophicimpact(>amonthof)HUMAN&ROUTESAFETYHAZARD(greenbars)1- Negligibleimpact(lightmaterialdamage,lightinjuries)2- Accidentscausingtemporarylossofhealth(materialdamage,slightinjuries)3- Accidentscausingpermanentlossofhealth(seriousmaterialdamage,heavyinjuries)4- Catastrophicinfluence,deadlydanger(seriousmaterialdamage,heavyinjuries,casualties)

3,1 2,8 2,8 2,6 2,5 2,4 2,0 2,0 1,7 1,6 1,3

5

0

5

T36 T24 T37 T17 T5 T12 T8 T31 T33 T7 T1

LevelofLikelihoo

d

ThreatsKeyfortheleveloflikelehood:4- Often(morethanonceevery3years); 3- Sometimes(onceevery3to10years);2- Seldom(onceevery10to50years);1- Veryseldom(onceevery50years)

Undercurrentconditions UnderClimateChangeconditions

3.1 2.92.82.82.72.62.72.22.32.01.9

5,3

4,7Availability

Safety

Figure4:Weightedfactors-routeavailabilityvs.routesafety


6|P a g e

Thefollowingconclusionscanbederived:

• Regardinglikelihoodofthethreatsunderclimatechangeconditions:

• Noneofthethreatsisexpectedtoappearmorethanonceevery3years(leveloflikelihood-4).

• ThreatsT36(Sedimentationinport/navigationchannels;inabilitytodockduetostormsurges)andT24(Damagetoenergysupply,trafficcommunicationnetworks,disruptiontooperationsduetoextremewind)areexpectedtobemostfrequentwithlevelof3(implyingthatconsequenceswillappearevery3to10years).

• RegardingtheincreaseoftheleveloflikelihoodthreatsT7(Bridgescourduetolongperiodsofrainincatchmentarea)andT33(Higherconstruction,maintenance,insurancecostsduetostormsurges)areexpectedtoappearmoreoftenduetoclimatechangeconditions(fromveryseldomtoseldom)forexample.

Tohighlightthedegreeofrisk(afactorofconsequenceandlikelihood)posedbyeachthreatundereachscenario,all11‘top’threatsareplacedinthescatterplotwherex-axisrepresentstheseverityofconsequenceswhiley-axisrepresentstheleveloflikelihood(Figure6-leftgraphrepresentscurrentconditionsandrightisaboutclimatechangeconditions).

Theconclusionscomingfromthescatterplotdiagramsare:

• Noneofthe11threatsislocatedintheredpartofthegraph(Figure6)whichindicatesthehighestrisklevel;

• ThreatsT37(Damagetoenergysupply,trafficcommunicationnetworksduetosnowfall/blizzards)andT36(Sedimentationinport/navigationchannels;inabilitytodockduetostormsurges)havethesameriskunderbothscenarioswhileallotherthreatsshowincreasedlevelofriskunderclimatechangeconditionsinrelationtothecurrentconditions

• Therearetwothreatsintheorangepartofthegraphrelatedtocurrentconditions(leftgraphinFigure6).Theseare:

o T24.(Damagetoenergysupply,trafficcommunicationnetworks,disruptiontooperationsduetoextremewind)and

o T12.(Reducedclearanceunderbridgesduetoincreaseinaverageseasonalrainfall).

• Regardingforeseenclimatechangeconditions(rightgraphinFigure6),besidestwoabovementionedthreats(T24andT12)twomorethreatsarepositionedneartheorangezone:

o T8.Failureofflooddefencesystemsofriversandlakesduetolongperiodsofrainincatchmentareaand

o T31.Damagetocranes,storageandloadingterminalstoextremewind.

Figure6:Scatterplotsindicatingtherelationshipbetweenlikelihoodandseverityoftheconsequencesforbothscenarios


7|P a g e

Finalpartoftheresultsonexperts’opinionsurveyisabouttheriskfactorfor11most"popularthreats".ThisisillustratedinFigure7.

Figure7:Riskundercurrentconditionsandunderforeseenclimatechangeconditions

ThreatT24(Damagetoenergysupply,trafficcommunicationnetworks,disruptiontooperationsduetoextremewind)hasthehighestvalueoftheriskfactor,aroundeight(figure7).Howeverthisisalsorelativelylowvalueknowingthatthemaximumvalueoftheriskfactoris16.

ThreatT33(Higherconstruction,maintenance,insurancecostsduetostormsurges)althoughshowingrelativelylowriskfactorunderbothscenarios,hasthehighestincrementinriskfactor.Recallingthepreviousanalysisonthelikelihood,itcanbeconcludethatthisincrementistheconsequenceofthehigherlikelihood/probabilityofT33.

ii)Futurerisks.

Todeterminethreatswithhighestfuturerisk,resultsfromFigure6(scatterplots)andFigure7(riskfactor)arecombinedtopreventoverlookingthreatswithlowlikelihoodandhighconsequencesorviceversa.Thiscanoccuriftheanalysisisonlybasedontheriskfactor,whichistheresultonmultiplyinglikelihoodandconsequences.Resultsfrombothgraphswereconsideredundertheforeseenclimatechangeconditionsi.e.futurerisks.Theconclusionsare:

• Therearefourthreatswiththerelativelyhighriskfactor(Figure7),whichalsoappearedintheorangezoneinthelikelihood/consequencetwo-dimensionalplot(Figure6,rightgraph).Thesefourthreatspinpointtothemostimportantfuturerisks.Theyare:• T24Damagetoenergysupply,trafficcommunicationnetworks,disruptiontooperationsdue

toextremewind;• T12Reducedclearanceunderbridgesduetoincreaseinaverageseasonalrainfall;• T8Failureofflooddefencesystemsofriversandlakesduetolongperiodsofrainin

catchmentareaand• T31Damagetocranes,storageandloadingterminalsduetoextremewind.

• ThreatT36Sedimentationinport/navigationchannels;inabilitytodockduetostormsurges;isalsowithhighriskfactor(evenhigherthanT31).Althoughitispositionedintheyellowzone(figure5)itcanbealsoseenasimportantfuturerisksign.Ithasthehighestscoreonlikelihood(amongall11threats)anditwasprioritizedbyover80%ofrespondents(Figure2).

• ThreatT5(Fluvialfloodingduetoheavyshowers)wasalsoevaluatedintermsoffuturerisksduetorelativelyhighriskfactor(nearT36)andthesimilarformulationasforT8.

1

3

5

7

9

11

T24 T12 T8 T36 T31 T5 T37 T33 T7 T1 T17

RiskFa

ctor

Threat

undercurrentconditions underClimateChangeconditions


8|P a g e

Theabovementionedsixthreatswithhighestfuturerisksbasedinsurveyfindings(T24,T12,T8,T31,T36andT5)werevalidatedduringtheworkshop.Twoworkinggroups(diverse,oneexpertfromeachstakeholdergroup)discussedthefindings/resultspreviouslypresented,anddeterminedwhethertheyagreeornotandtowhatextenttheydisagreewiththeprioritiesidentified.

Bothworkinggroupsagreedtomoveforwardwithmappingsixabove-mentionedthreats(Figure8afortheSavaRiverandFigure8bfortheDanubeRiver,Table1)withanimportantnotethatthemostessentialthreattotheobservedwaterwayswasnotcoveredbyCLIMACORIIlist.ItcanbegenerallyformulatedasT*-Lowerriverflowsduetoclimatechangeconditions(highertemperatures,droughts,floodsandchangesinprecipitationintensityanddistribution)andcomesfromthefactthatforinlandnavigationontheSavaRiverandtheDanubeRiver,waterlevelitisthehydrologicvariablethatisofutmostinterest.5Allexpertsemphasizedthattheresultsofthesurveywillbetotallydifferentiftheabovementionedthreatwasincludedinthelistandconsequentiallythesurveyresultswouldbemoremeaningful.ThehotspotsforthisthreatarealsomappedinFigure8(aandb).ThreatsT5andT8havethesamelocations,whichconfirmstheirsimilarity.

Table1:Mostimportantfuturerisksmappedalongthecorridor

Threat Hotspot(rkm)

1. T24 TheDanubeRiver:Đerdap(I-943km,II-863km),Golubac(1036km),Ram(1075km),VelikoGradište(1060km),Pančevobridge(1167km)

2. T12 TheSavaRiver:OldRailBridge(srb.Stariželezničkimost,1.5km)

3. T8 TheSavaRiver:Šabac(101km),SremskaMitrovica(142km),SectorRačanski(176-200km)TheDanubeRiver:Staklar(1370km)andDaljska(1359km)insnowandiceconditions

4. T36 TheSavaRiver:SremskaMitrovica(142km),Čukarica(3km)TheDanubeRiver:Beočin(1267km),Belgrade(1170km),Pančevo(1253km),BačkaPalanka(1296km),Smederevo(1116km),Prahovo(860km)

5. T31 Allportswithcranes:TheSavaRiver:Šabac(101km),SremskaMitrovica(142km)TheDanubeRiverApatin(1401,5km),Bogojevo(1366.5km),Beočin(1269km)BačkaPalanka(1295,5km),NoviSad(1252,6km),Beograd(1167,3km),Pančevo(1154and1152,8km),Smederevo(1111and1116km),Prahovo(862km)

6. T5 SameasT5.

7. T* TheSavaRiver:FirthofDrina,SectorŠabački(82-104km),SectorRačanski(176-200);TheDanubeRiver:Apatin(1401km),Futog(1262-1268)

Someadditionalremarksarealsoofinterestwhenaddressingfuturerisks-regardingtheexpectationsofextremewindandsedimentation.Sourcesonforeseenclimatechangesconditionsdonotdirectlyforeseeperiodsofextremewind(mostlybecausethesesourcesrelyonaveragedseasonalvalues)andalsooftenhavelargeuncertainties,butindirectlyitcanbeexpectedforextremewindstoappear(asaconsequenceofpositivechangeinintensityandfrequencyofextremeweathereventsthataccompanystrongwindse.g.convectivestorms).Sedimentationcanbeanobstaclefornavigationbutitsrelationtothestormsurges(T36)andseasonalrainfall(T12)shouldbethoroughlydiscussed.Namelythisisnotadirectimpact,i.e.theerosioncanappearasaconsequenceofstormsurgesandseasonalrainfallandconsequentlyleadtosedimentation.

Also,theexpertssuggestedtoaddresssedimentationingeneralnotonlyintheportchannels.

5 inclimatechangeanalysis (referring to longperiodof time) it iscommonpractice toanalyze flowrates rather than thewater levels sinceshapeoftheriverbedchangesovertimeduetothesediment-relatedprocesses.Forfurtherreadingpleasereferto Pilotprojectonclimatechange:BuildingthelinkbetweenFloodRiskManagementplanningandclimatechangeassessmentintheSavaRiverBasin,-Annex4-SavaNavigationGuidanceNote


9|P a g e

Figure8a*:Hotspotsforfuturerisks-TheSavaRiver(spstandsforstartpointofrkmandepstandsforendpointofrkm,)*Note:theborderwithCroatiaonFigure8aispresentedbasedonGooglemapsanditmaydifferfromtheactualposition. Threat Hotspot(rkm)1. T24Damagetoenergysupply,trafficcommunicationnetworks,disruptiontooperationsduetoextremewind /2. T12.Reducedclearanceunderbridgesduetoincreaseinaverageseasonalrainfall OldRailBridge(srb.Stariželezničkimost,1.5km)3. T8.Failureofflooddefencesystemsofriversandlakesduetolongperiodsofrain TheSavaRiver:Šabac(101km),SremskaMitrovica(142km),SectorRačanski

(176-200km)4. T36.Sedimentationinportchannels;inabilitytodockduetostormsurges TheSavaRiver:SremskaMitrovica(142km),Čukarica(3km)5. T31.Damagetocranes,storageandloadingterminalstoextremewind Allportswithcranes:TheSavaRiver:Šabac(101km),SremskaMitrovica(142km)6. T5.Fluvialfloodingduetoheavyshowers SameasT5.7. T*Lowerriverflowsduetoclimatechangeconditions TheSavaRiver:FirthofDrina,SectorŠabački(82-104km),SectorRačanski(176-

200km)


10|P a g e

Figure8b:Hotspotsforfuturerisks-TheDanubeRiver Threat Hotspot(rkm)1. T24Damagetoenergysupply,trafficcommunication

networks,disruptiontooperationsduetoextremewindĐerdap(I-943km,II-863km),Golubac(1036km),Ram(1075km),VelikoGradište(1060km),Pančevobridge(1167km)

2. T12.Reducedclearanceunderbridgesduetoincreaseinaverageseasonalrainfall

/

3. T8.Failureofflooddefencesystemsofriversandlakesduetolongperiodsofrain

Staklar(1370km)andDaljska(1359km)insnowandiceconditions

4. T36.Sedimentationinportchannels;inabilitytodockduetostormsurges

Beočin(1267km),Belgrade(1170km),Pančevo(1253km),BačkaPalanka(1296km),Smederevo(1116km),Prahovo(860km)

5. T31.Damagetocranes,storageandloadingterminalstoextremewind

Allportswithcranes:Apatin(1401,5km),Bogojevo(1366.5km),Beočin(1269km)BačkaPalanka(1295,5km),NoviSad(1252,6km),Beograd(1167,3km),Pančevo(1154and1152,8km),Smederevo(1111and1116km),Prahovo(862km)

6. T5.Fluvialfloodingduetoheavyshowers SameasT8.7. T*Lowerriverflowsduetoclimatechangeconditions Apatin(1401km),Futog(1262-1268km)


11|P a g e

3.RecommendationsDuringtheworkshopforeachabovemappedthreattheexpertshaverecommendedseveraladaptationmeasuresforeachthreat(Table2).

Table2:Recommendedadaptationmeasures

Threat Adaptationmeasures

T24 Improvementofstormwarningandpredictionsystem.Stormsurgewarningsincludethepredictionofmaximumwaterlevelsandageneraldescriptionoftheexpectedwindandthemomentofitsexpectedmaxima.Thesystemcanbeimprovedinawaytoforwardforecastsinrealtime.

Considerationofclimatechangeimpactinthedesignoftelecommunicationsystems.Theriskfromenergyandtelecommunicationinfrastructurefailurehavetobewellmanagedbecausethereishighinteractionbetweenthesesystems.Themostvulnerablepartofthesystemtothewindistheoverheadcablinginfrastructure.Thereforetheopportunitiesforusingundergroundspaceshouldbemaximized.Toensuretheoperabilityofcommunicationsystemsinextremeweatherconditions,thetelecommunicationsinfrastructurehavetobeenhancedtoprovidebackupconnections.

T12 Increasingthesizeofexistingbridgesandthedesignofnewbridgesinaccordancewithprojectionsoffutureclimatechange.Theengineeringmeasuresmayincluderaisingtheheightoftheexistingbridgesandnewsizingrequirementsforthefuturebridgeconstructionprojects.Thesemeasuresarerelatedtothereturnperiod,increaseoftheminimumfreeboard,raiseofspanlengths.Otherpossiblemeasuresarerelocationofbridgepiersandfoundationsoutsideofmainchannels.Regardingconstructionmaterials,concretecomponentslikepierscouldbereinforcedwithmoresteeltoaddresstheneedforstrengthandrigidity.

T8andT5

Earlywarningsystem.Basedonintegrationofmeteorologicaldataintohydrologicalmodels,theautomateddatacommunicationsystemfortheentireriverbasinshouldbecreated.Tobemoretimelyresponsive,thesystemshouldbedecentralizedandshouldincludetheinstructionstothepublic.Whereshorttimereactionisrequired(urbanareas)reliablewarninglevelshavetobeachievedbasedonrealtimemeasuresofrainintensities.Theunder-oroverpredictionofthehazardcausedbyuncertaintyoftheparametervaluesinhydrologicalmodels,isthemajorriskinoperatingearlywarningsystems.

Strengtheningand/orconstructionofhydro-technicalstructuresforwaterprotectionandreinforcementofcoastalembankments.Themeasuresmaybereferredtotheimprovementinthedesignofsolidbuildingstructureslikeweirs,channelsanddamstowithstandmechanicalorphysicaleffectsoffloodingwater;constructionoflongitudinalandtransversehydraulicstructureswhichregulatetheflowofwater;placingrockslopeprotectionwhichconsistsofoneormorelayersofrockalongthecriticalstretchesoftheriver;additionofthecrestwalltoraisetheheightofthedefenceonfloodbank;strengtheningembankmentswithinternalcentralcoremadefromimpermeablesubstance,etc.

Constructionandmaintenanceofwaterprotectionzones.Preventionfromvegetation


12|P a g e

(forestsandbushes)lossisimportantfortheprotectionofdrainage,andagainstshorecuttingandsliding.

T36 Investmentinmaintenanceofportsandnavigationchannels(deepening)toensureaccess.Thedepositionofsedimentasanaturalproductoferosiondecreasethedepthsofnavigationchannels.Therefore,dredgingactivitiestosafeguardrequireddepthsarerequired.Duetohighmaintenancecosts,theratesandtimingforsedimentremovalshouldbebasedonregularmonitorofwaterlevels6.

Erosionremediation.Aforestationofriverbanksisaneffectivemethodoferosioncontrol.Arootsystemoftherestoredvegetationcansignificantlystrengththebank.

T31 Considerationofextremewindsforoperationalassetslocationandportdesign.Usingsimulationbasedmodelsinsearchingforoptimallocationsandportconfigurationandoperationprocesses.

Earlywarningsystemimprovementandequipmentadaptationtoextremewinds.Ensurethatterminalsaresubscribedtoacontractweatherservicethatprovidesspecializedweatherforecastfortheoperatingareaoftheport.Theequipmentshouldbedesignedtoprovideaninitialalert-cranesequippedwithanemometerstoindicatewindspeedatthehigheststationarypointofthecrane.Theshutdownandothersecureproceduresshouldbeprovidedforeachportfacility.

T* Oneoftheresponsestolowwaterlevelsisthetransitioninfleetdesignandoperation.Itincludessolutionsrelatedtoapplicationoflight-weightstructures,changesindesignsandconstructionsofshipsorinstallationofpropellerswithasmallerdiameters.Itwouldenableshipstooperateatlowerdraughts.

6Theremovingiscarriedoutinlinewithpredefinedrecommendation(e.gifthefillingofthebottomofwaterbodiesishigherthan20cm)


13|P a g e

Annex 1 SRB waterways Survey/Workshop participants

NO. NAMEANDSURNAME AFFILIATION

Participatedin:Survey(answeredthequestionnaire)

Workshop

1. IrenaKonjević MinistryofConstruction,TransportandInfrastructure(Departmentforwaterways) ü

2. JovicaGolubović YugoslavRiverShippingCo,Serbia ü ü

3. StankoKantar SecretariatforCityTraffic,DirectorateforPublicTransport:AssistanttoGeneralManagerforrailandinlandwaterwaypublictransport

ü

4. ZoranRadmilović InnovationcentreoftheFacultyofMechanicalEngineering,UniversityofBelgrade,fullprofessor

ü ü

5. VladislavMaraš FacultyofTransportandTrafficEngineering,UniversityofBelgrade,Serbia,AssistantProfessor

ü ü

6. AleksandarRadonjić FacultyofTransportandTrafficEngineering,UniversityofBelgrade,Serbia,AssistantProfessor

ü ü

7. VladimirĐurđević Instituteformeteorology,FacultyofPhysics,UniversityofBelgrade,Serbia ü ü

8. ŽeljkoMilković TheInternationalSavaRiverBasinCommission(SavaCommission),DeputySecretaryforNavigation

ü ü

9. GoranŠukalo TheInternationalSavaRiverBasinCommission(SavaCommission),AdvisorforNavigationSafety

ü

10. SrđaLješević PortGovernanceAgency,ManageroftheCentreforthedevelopmentofportactivities ü ü

11. MiroslavGrnčarski MinistryofConstruction,TransportandInfrastructure,DirectorateforInlandWaterways,

ü ü

12. MilicaRadić MinistryofConstruction,TransportandInfrastructure,DirectorateforInlandWaterways,

ü

13. DanijelaBožanić MinistryofAgricultureandEnvironmentalProtection,HeadofDepartmentforclimatethreats ü ü

14. AnaRepac MinistryofAgricultureandEnvironmentalProtection,Departmentforclimatethreats ü


14|P a g e

NO. NAMEANDSURNAME AFFILIATION

Participatedin:Survey(answeredthequestionnaire)

Workshop

15. MarijaIvković RepublicHydro-meteorologicalServiceforSerbia(RHMS),Climatechangecentre ü ü

16. JasnaPlavšić FacultyofCivilEngineering(FCE),UniversityofBelgrade,DepartmentofHydraulicandEnvironmentalEngineering,Associateprofessor ü

17. AleksandarMacura RESFoundation(CSO) ü ü

18. JasminkaYoung RESFoundation(CSO) ü

19. AnaMitić-Radulović CEUS-Centreforexperimentsinurbanstudies(CSO) ü ü

20. LjubinkaKaluđerović StandingConferenceofTownsAndMunicipalities(CSO),AdvisorforEnvironmentalProtection

ü

21. NatašaBojković FacultyofTransportandTrafficEngineering,UniversityofBelgrade,Serbia,AssociateProfessor

ü

22. NatasaTomić-Petrović FacultyofTransportandTrafficEngineering,UniversityofBelgrade,Serbia,AssociateProfessor

ü ü

23. TanjaParezanović FacultyofTransportandTrafficEngineering,UniversityofBelgrade,Serbia,PhDStudent

ü ü