Corridor Assessment TEN-T Rhine-Danube International Waterwaydocuments.rec.org/projects/Annex2_Rhine-Danube... · TEN -T RHINE -DANUBE INTERNATIONAL WATERWAY CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT 1

1 | P a g e

TEN-T RHINE-DANUBE INTERNATIONAL WATERWAY CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT

Corridor Assessment TEN-T Rhine-Danube International Waterway (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia)

Key findings

• This assessment is concerned with those segments of the TEN-T Rhine-Danube International

Waterway that pass through Serbia (as shown above), part of the main east-west link between

Western Europe and continental European countries to the Black Sea. It also incorporates the

Sisak - Slavonski Brod – Beograd corridor that runs between Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and

Croatia into Serbia.

• Three main ports are to be found along the BiH section of the Sava River at Brčko, Šamac and at

the dock of the Oil Refinery in Brod. Section 2 reveals, however, that the current state of the

Sava waterway is poor. Droughts over the last decade, coupled with low river maintenance, lack

of dredging and riverbed surveying have resulted in an increase of critical shallow waters,

impeding their safe navigability most of the year, which reduces cargo handling capacities and

decreases the overall annual volume of transportation. The most important ports in Serbia for

the transport of goods are in Belgrade, Pančevo, Smederevo and Prahovo. Good to relatively

good navigable conditions are to be found along the Danube.

2 | P a g e


• According to Section 3 i, the region will become more vulnerable to high temperature extremes

while reduced rainfall will mean many areas facing drought, especially in summer, lowering river

levels. River surface icing and thick fog compound this situation. There will also be an increase in

water temperature and flash floods from intense showers, interrupting transport services.

• According to the two sub-corridor surveys, reflected in Section 3.ii, the current most critical

threats (once ranked according to the degree of risk taking into account the consequences and

likelihood) are: i) fluvial flooding due to heavy showers; ii) reduced clearance under bridges due

to increase in average seasonal rainfall on account of less frequent but more intense and longer

periods of rain; and iii) damage to energy supply, transport communication networks, disruption

to operations due to extreme wind. The second item in the list is common to both sub-corridors

while the first and third is deemed most important in each. Curiously enough, extreme wind has

been included in the list of threats, although climate change predictions don’t flag this. It is also

interesting that Sedimentation in port/navigation channels only appears (in 3rd place) in Serbia,

while it is BiH/the Sava that appears to suffer more significantly from this problem.

• Under the foreseen (and more extreme) climate conditions, discussed in Section 3 iii1, the

threats with highest risk are identified to be mostly the same as the ones under current climate

conditions, but with a higher degree. Heavy showers are expected to cause more intense fluvial

flooding and bridge scour, increase in average seasonal rainfall is expected to lead to more

periods of reduced clearance under bridges, long periods of rain in the catchment area will lead

to a failure of flood defense systems of rivers, overland flow, and groundwater level increase,

while extreme wind and snowfall/blizzards will cause more damage to energy supply, traffic

communication networks, cranes, storage and loading terminals, disrupting operations. Above

all threats, however, Serbian experts flagged the risk of longer drought periods and their

consequences in the form of lower river flows which negatively impact navigability on some

waterway sections. This is perhaps the greatest threat arising from climate change, already

identified in the literature concerning the Sava Waterway in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

• Survey groups typically recommended early warning systems to better detect the risk of both

flood-triggered situations and investments in the maintenance of ports and navigation channels.

The importance of planning for more extreme climate conditions through the construction of

improved means for navigation and bridge infrastructure (e.g. increasing size) too was

mentioned; besides strengthening and/or construction of hydro-technical structures for water

protection. The construction and maintenance of water protection zones was also suggested.

Dredging to prevent the reduction in the width and depth of the navigable channel was

welcomed and a recommendation was also made for transition in fleet design and operation

that would enable ships to operate at lower water levels caused by droughts. Detailed

recommendations for each threat in particular are presented in section 4 of this report. Finally,

it was also suggested to update Strategic Environmental Assessment procedures by introducing

an assessment of foreseen climate change conditions and their impacts on waterways.

1 As per sub-corridor reports available in Appendix II to this report, 31 respondents filled in the online survey (18 in Serbia, 13 in Bosnia and Herzegovina). 31 participants attended the validation workshops (12 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 19 in Serbia). Stakeholders included infrastructure practitioners, transport management and Climate Change experts, local and national decision makers in the field of Transport, Environment, Water, and others, NGOs, Transport associations, PhD Students in the field

3 | P a g e


1. Introduction

Droughts over the last decade, coupled with low river maintenance, lack of dredging and riverbed

surveying, have resulted in an increase of critical shallow waters on certain sections of the Danube and

Sava Rivers, impeding their safe navigability. Harsh weather conditions due to river surface icing or thick

fog have also disrupted navigation. Targeted investments in innovative solutions that take into account

the climate conditions and collaboration between the neighboring countries can help overcome these

obstacles, successfully capitalize on opportunity to enhance port hinterland connectivity and enable

cost-efficient and environmentally friendly access of the industrial areas in the SEE region to European

markets. This in turn will support the implementation of the SEE 2020 Strategy2, and meet EU targets to

shift intercity passenger and freight from road to rail and waterborne transport.

REC led on the rapid assessment of climate impacts of the TEN-T Rhine-Danube International Waterway

where it traverses Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina between July and December 2016, according to a

methodology first developed under a predecessor project financed by the Netherlands Ministry of

Infrastructure and Environment as a contribution to the United Nations Economic Commission for

Europe and its Group of Experts on Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation for Transport Networks and

Nodes. That methodology is described in Appendix I, but briefly, is structured around three phases of

activities: surveying, a validation workshop, and corridor reporting inclusive of recommendations for

adaptation measures. The ClimaCor II project was implemented by the Regional Environmental Center

(REC) for Central and Eastern Europe, in partnership with the South East European Transport

Observatory and co-financed by the Regional Cooperation Council.

2. Current Conditions

The Rhine-Danube Corridor is the main east-west link between continental European countries

connecting Western Europe all along the Main and Danube rivers to the Black Sea. Besides the main

connections, the alignment of the corridor includes the Sisak - Slavonski Brod – Beograd segment of

Sector C (Fig.1), an inland waterway that passes through Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia3

2 http://www.rcc.int/pages/62/south-east-europe-2020-strategy 3 EC Rhine Danube Work Plan of the European Coordinator Karla Peijs:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/infrastructure/news/doc/2015-05-28-coordinator-work-plans/wp_rhine-d_final.pdf

Fig.1. Alignment of the

Rhine-Danube Corridor (all

modes) (Source: European

Commission)

4 | P a g e


The river Sava is centrally

located in the core

transportation network for

South East Europe (SEE). It

extends through four

countries, Serbia, BiH, Croatia

and Slovenia and enters the

Danube in Belgrade. The total

length of the river Sava

watercourse is 945 km.

The Sava River runs through a

stretch in Bosnia and

Herzegovina from river km

(rkm) 175 to rkm 507.4 and

makes for a 305 river km long

natural border between BiH

and Croatia, and a 33 rkm long

natural state border between

BiH and Serbia, while Serbia

has sole responsibility for 175

rkm. The stretch of the

Danube River through Serbia,

from Bezdan in the North to

Prahovo in the East, is 588 km

long, which presents 20.6% of

the total river length (Fig.2).

The Danube is navigable

throughout its course.

In terms of transport

infrastructure, the three main

ports are to be found along the BiH section of the Sava River at Brčko, Šamac and at the dock of the Oil

Refinery in Brod. The Port of Brčko has the status of an international port and is an essential transit point

for cargo traffic flows to and from the heavy industries in BiH. Several investments are planned in the

following years to improve accessibility and cargo handling capacities. The Port of Šamac has as its main

activity transhipment and transportation of goods. In the past years, reconstruction and modernization

was undertaken in order to improve transhipment operations and to improve the defence of the town

from flooding. The Oil Refinery Dock in Brod (oil terminal) sees raw materials imported and after

processing, exported as petroleum products to Ukraine, Romania, Serbia, etc.

The current state of the Sava waterway is poor. The navigation conditions are hampered by both natural

conditions and a lack of maintenance and investments. The main problems arise from: shallow depth of

the navigation channel which limits draft over long periods of time; sharp curves due to meanders

limiting the length and width of vessels and convoys; strong fluctuation discharge resulting in strong

variation in water levels and depths during the year; heavy sedimentation and a reduction in the width

Fig. 2. South East Europe core network nodes and waterways including the segment under

review of Sector C of the TEN-T Rhine-Danube International Waterway. (Source: SEETO)

5 | P a g e


and depth of the fairway in certain areas; plus limited clearance under bridges at high water. The

modernization and rehabilitation of the Sava River waterway corridor is planned with a view to

increasing navigability from Class to Class Va on the section from Belgrade to Brčko and to Class IV from

Brčko to Sisak.4

The most important ports in Serbia for the transport of goods are in Belgrade, Pančevo, Smederevo and

Prahovo. The total volume of goods transported on the Danube in Serbia only reaches 6 million tonnes.

The SEETO5 priority project for the Serbian segment of the Danube river is related to river drainage and

dredging works on critical sectors on the Serbia-Croatia joint stretch (129 km) and between Bačka

Palanka and Belgrade (92 km) with around Eur 220 million investment.6 The foreseen investments

include demining and project documentation of the section Belgrade – Brcko, implementation of River

Information Services on the whole waterway, and joint flood management actions in the Sava river

basin.

Regarding the current condition of the Danube, the stretch from Belgrade to the Iron gate II (where

Serbia’s border meets Romania and Bulgaria) is characterized by good navigation conditions during most

of the year, while the stretch from the Iron Gate II to the Timok river confluence has relatively good

navigable conditions. 24 critical sectors for navigation are located on the stretch from the Hungarian

border to Belgrade. Detailed information on critical points are further presented in Serbian sub-corridor

report available in Appendix II.

4 Detailed information on characteristics of ports in BiH are available in the BiH sub-corridor report in Appendix II 5 South-East Europe Transport Observatory 6 Detailed information on characteristics of waterways and ports in Serbia are available in the Serbian sub-corridor report in Appendix II

6 | P a g e


3. Future Concerns

i) Foreseen climate conditions in the western

Balkans

South eastern Europe will experience more extreme weather conditions over the next ten years as can be seen from this simple graphic right (Fig.3).7

According to a 2015 article by the European Environment Agency, called ‘Are we ready for climate change?’ higher temperatures and reduced rainfall will mean that many areas in southern Europe might face droughts, especially in summer.8 The largest temperature increases during the 21st century are projected over southern Europe in summer with extremes projected to become more frequent and last longer. Less rainfall will cause droughts that will impact (i.e. decrease) river flow and these are projected to further increase with prolonged and more extreme droughts in southern and south-eastern Europe.9

Figure 4 overleaf shows three distinct zones in south eastern Europe vis-à-vis climate change and its impacts: central and eastern Europe (green), mountain areas (pink) and the Mediterranean region (orange). Regarding those corridors under examination within ClimaCor II, we can see that all lie in the ‘green’ central and east European region. That foresees:

• Increase in warm temperature extremes

• Decrease in summer precipitation

• Increase in water temperature

• Increasing risk of forest fire

• Decrease in economic value of forests

In Fig. 4 we have enlarged the region and indicated key settlements where Blue = Sava/Danube rivers and Red = Corridor X (ten), including former Route 7 to be constructed between Nis (3) and Pristina (4).

7European Union’s science and knowledge service: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/more-intense-floods-and-droughts-europe. 8 Are we ready for climate change? Article | Signals — Living in a changing climate. European Environment Agency, 2015 9 Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2012. An indicator-based report. EEA Report No 12/2012. European Environment Agency, 2012. Pg. 56, 62, 112. Online here.

Fig. 3. Fig. Summary of the changes in extreme river

discharges over a 10 year period under a +2°C global

warming scenario. Red means that (i) flood magnitude

changes with more than 5 %, (ii) drought intensity changes

with more than 5 %; and (iii) drought duration changes with

more than 5%. (Source: EU Science Hub)

7 | P a g e


In its ‘Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains’ GRID-Arendal reveals the projected extreme heat waves between 2020 and 2052 within two scenarios, where: a) greenhouse gas emissions peak around 2040, then decline and b) emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century. It also warns of the risk of increases in the frequency and intensity of wildfires, a result of rising temperatures and diminished precipitation.10

10 Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, Pg. 37, Pg. 6

Fig. 4. Key

settlements

along the

corridor to be

affected by

foreseen

climate risks

Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of projected extreme heat waves in

Western Balkans. (Source: GRID-Arendal)

8 | P a g e


According to the South East Europe Transport Observatory, droughts in the last decade have severely affected the state of the region’s inland waterways. GRID-Arendal too observes that for the western Balkans, there will be “decreasing annual river discharge and low flow periods.”11 Moreover, harsh weather conditions during winter months have led to disruption of navigation due to river surface icing or thick fog.12 Snow cover (as opposed to snowfall) will also diminish,13 with a projected decline in days with snow cover for the 2050s.

Furthermore, the western Balkans will witness a significant decrease in overall annual precipitation (Fig.6). The annual number of rainy days could decrease by 10–20 days in a medium emission scenario by the end of the twenty-first century. Heavy precipitation will increase in the mountains and the region in general in winter and in summer. Flooding too is predicted to become more frequent due to more precipitation in winter

causing spring floods.14 Extreme precipitation events are already evident.

In recent years some Western Balkan states have been severely affected by floods. In 2014, (and to a lesser extent in 2015 and 2016), Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia experienced heavy floods and have thus put significant efforts and resources into the rehabilitation of destroyed road and rail infrastructure.15 Flood remains one of the highest risks for the transport infrastructure, causing drastic interruption of the transport services along the mentioned corridors.16

11 Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, Pg.6 12 SEETO Comprehensive Network Development Plan -Five Year Multiannual Plan (MAP) 2015, www.seetoint.org 13 Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, pg.18 14 Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, pg.17 15 SEETO Comprehensive Network Development Plan -Five Year Multiannual Plan (MAP) 2015, www.seetoint.org 16 Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, pg.38

Fig. 6. Projected precipitation

change in Western Balkans.

(Source: GRID-Arendal)

9 | P a g e


ii) Current threats, consequences, likelihood, risks.

This section details current climate change threats and their ranking according to survey respondents

within different country segments of the corridor. Note: A full explanation and illustration of the threat

coding (e.g. T1 or T12) is given in Appendix I, following the methodology.

Most

popular

threats17

Corridor section by country and percentage of respondents who chose the specific threat

Bosnia and Herzegovina Serbia

1 T1 - Bridge scour due to heavy showers – 77% T12 - Reduced clearance under bridges due to increase

in average seasonal rainfall – 89%

2 T7 - Bridge scour due to long periods of rain in catchment

area – 69% T1 - Bridge scour due to heavy showers – 83%

3 T12 - Reduced clearance under bridges due to increase in

average seasonal rainfall – 69% T36 - Sedimentation in port/navigation channels;

Inability to dock due to storm surges – 83%

4 T37 - Damage to energy supply, traffic communication

networks due to snowfall/blizzards – 62% T31 - Damage to cranes, storage and loading terminals

to extreme wind – 78%

5

T17 - Increased needs for cooling and, thus, fuel due to heat waves – 54%

T24 - Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks, disruption to operations due to extreme wind –

54%

T31 - Damage to cranes, storage and loading terminals to extreme wind – 54%

T36 - Sedimentation in port/navigation channels; Inability to dock due to storm surges – 54%

T7 - Bridge scour due to long periods of rain in catchment area – 67%

T24 - Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks, disruption to operations due to extreme wind

– 67%

T33 - Higher construction, maintenance, insurance costs due to storm surges – 67%

• The analysis shows that Bridge scour due to heavy showers (T1) and reduced clearance under bridges

due to increase in average seasonal rainfall (T12) are both in top 3 threats in terms of concern

regarding waterway transport for climate practitioners and decision makers who answered the

survey in BiH and Serbia alike.

• There are more than 5 threats in the top 5 in both country sections of the corridor. In BiH, there is an

equal number of respondents (54%) who are concerned about increased needs for cooling and, thus,

fuel due to heat waves (T17), damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks, disruption

to operations due to extreme wind (T24), damage to cranes, storage and loading terminals to

extreme wind (T31) and sedimentation in port/navigation channels; Inability to dock due to storm

surges (T36), while in Serbia, the equal concern (67%) is for bridge scour due to long periods of rain in

catchment area (T7), damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks, disruption to

operations due to extreme wind (T24) and higher construction, maintenance, insurance costs due to

storm surges (T33).

• Increased needs for cooling and, thus, fuel due to heat waves (T17) and damage to energy supply,

traffic communication networks due to snowfall/blizzards (T37) and are specific top concerns for the

Sava section in BiH, whereas higher construction, maintenance, insurance costs due to storm surges

(T33) is a threat specific for the corridor section in Serbia.

17 Most popular threats are the top 5 threats that were considered as most important by most of the participants in the survey conducted as part of the assessment. Full list of threats, their description and visual illustration is available in Appendix I.

10 | P a g e


Of the top 10 most “popular” threats in each country, those considered to have the most severe

Consequences in each country were examined. The table below illustrates the current situation. Values

next to the threats are explained in the attached Key for estimating consequences of threats (Fig. 7).

Ranking of

threats by

severity of

consequences

Corridor section by country

and the respective level of severity


1 T1 - Bridge scour due to heavy showers – 2.8 T24 - Damage to energy supply, traffic communication

networks, disruption to operations due to extreme wind – 2.8

2 T12 - Reduced clearance under bridges due to

increase in average seasonal rainfall – 2.7

T12 - Reduced clearance under bridges due to increase in average seasonal rainfall – 2.6

3 T37 - Damage to energy supply, traffic

communication networks due to snowfall/blizzards – 2.6

T31 - Damage to cranes, storage and loading terminals to extreme wind – 2.6

4 T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers – 2.5 T 8 - Failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes due to

long periods of rain in catchment area – 2.4

5 T31 - Damage to cranes, storage and loading

terminals to extreme wind – 2.5 T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers – 2.1

Fig. 7. Key for estimating consequences of threats on route availability and on human and route safety.

Level ROUTE AVAILABILITY/USABILITY HUMAN & ROUTE SAFETY HAZARD

1 Negligible impact (a few hours) Negligible impact (light material damage, light injuries)

2 Minimal negative impact (a day) Accidents causing temporary loss of health (material damage, slight injuries)

3 Serious impact (several days, up to a month) Accidents causing permanent loss of health (serious material damage, heavy injuries)

4 Catastrophic impact (> a month of) Catastrophic influence, deadly danger (serious material damage, heavy injuries, casualties)

• In both countries, fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (T5), reduced clearance under bridges due to

increase in average seasonal rainfall (T12) and damage to cranes, storage and loading terminals to

extreme wind (T31) are among the threats with highest perceived severity of consequences, and can

prevent the usability of the road for about a day, and can lead to accidents that cause causing

temporary loss of health, material damage, and slight injuries. Also, in both countries reduced

clearance under bridges due to increase in average seasonal rainfall (T12) is the second most severe

threat.

• Looking at individual participating economies, in BiH the threat with most severe consequences is

bridge scour due to heavy showers (T1), while in Serbia it is the damage to energy supply, traffic

communication networks, disruption to operations due to extreme wind (T24).

• Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks due to snowfall/blizzards (T37) is a threat

that is seen as having most severe consequences in BiH, but not a top in Serbia. In Serbia, on the

other hand, failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in

catchment area (T8) is seen as a top severe threat that is not of major concern in BiH.

• In both country sections of the corridor, threats that were not in the top 5 of popularity entered the

top 5 of severity of consequence, namely fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (T5) in both BiH and

Serbia, and failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in

catchment area (T8) in Serbia.

11 | P a g e


Separately, the Likelihood of each threat occurring was surveyed under current climate conditions. The

values below accompanying those threats are explained in the Key for estimating consequences of

threats (Fig. 8).

Ranking of

threats by

likelihood of

occurrence

Corridor section by country

and the respective level of likelihood




T36 - Sedimentation in port/navigation channels; Inability to dock due to storm surges – 3.1

2 T1 - Bridge scour due to heavy showers – 2.8

T24 - Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks, disruption to operations due to extreme wind –

2.8


communication networks due to snowfall/blizzards –

2.8

T37 - Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks due to snowfall/blizzards – 2.8

4 T36 - Sedimentation in port/navigation channels;

Inability to dock due to storm surges – 2.7

T17 - Increased needs for cooling and, thus, fuel due to heat waves – 2.6

5 T31- Damage to cranes, storage and loading

terminals to extreme wind – 2.6 T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers – 2.5

Fig. 8. Key for estimating likelihood of occurrence of threats

under current climate conditions.

• The top likelihood of threats differs for the two

countries, which might be due different terrain,

climate conditions and socio-economic capacity.

• The results reveal that the entire segment of the corridor is most frequently exposed to

sedimentation in port/navigation channels; inability to dock due to storm surges (T36) and damage

to energy supply, traffic communication networks due to snowfall/blizzards (T37) which happen

more than once every 3 years in some of the hot-spots18.

• While in BiH segment bridge scour due to heavy showers (T1), reduced clearance under bridges due

to increase in average seasonal rainfall (T12) and damage to cranes, storage and loading terminals to

extreme wind (T31) are most likely to happen more than once every 3 to 10 years, they are less likely

to happen on the Serbian segment.

• Unlike BiH, in Serbia, fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (T5), increased needs for cooling and,

thus, fuel due to heat waves (T17) and damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks,

disruption to operations due to extreme wind (T24) are most likely to occur about once every 3 to 10

years.

• Throughout the corridor, all top threats are likely to occur either seldom (once every 10 to 50 years)

or sometimes (once 3 to 10 years).

• Under current climate conditions, none of the top threats are expected to occur once every year or

more often.

18 for specific location of the hot-spots, see the sub-corridor assessments in Appendix II.

Level LIKELIHOOD

1 Very seldom (once every 50 years)

2 Seldom (once every 10 to 50 years)

3 Sometimes (once every 3 to 10 years)

4 Often (more than once every 3 years)

12 | P a g e


By weighting the severity of both the consequence and likelihood from an occurrence under current

climate conditions, the ‘Risk’ can be calculated. The maximum value of the risk, with the highest

likelihood and highest consequence would be 16. Thus, the current risks on the 2 sub-corridor segments

are presented below.

Ranking of threats according

to degree of risk under

current climate conditions

Corridor section by country and the respective level of risk


1 T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers – 8.1 T24 - Damage to energy supply, traffic

communication networks, disruption to operations due to extreme wind – 7.8


increase in average seasonal rainfall – 7.1 T12 - Reduced clearance under bridges due to


3 T1 - Bridge scour due to heavy showers – 6.1 T36 - Sedimentation in port/navigation

channels; Inability to dock due to storm surges – 6.0


communication networks due to snowfall/blizzards – 6.1

T37 - Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks due to

snowfall/blizzards – 5.4

5 T36 - Sedimentation in port/navigation channels;

Inability to dock due to storm surges – 5.6 T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers – 5.2

• There are presently no extreme threats, while all identified threats fall within the second risk tiers of

the completed consequence/likelihood scatter charts (where consequence = 3 from a max. of 4 and

likelihood is 4) – see the corresponding sub-corridor assessments within the Appendices.

• There is a clear consistency in the risks under current climate conditions between the two national

sectors of corridor. Four of the top 5 risks are shared between the two country segments, namely

Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (T5), reduced clearance under bridges due to increase in

average seasonal rainfall (T12), sedimentation in port/navigation channels; inability to dock due to

storm surges (T36) and damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks due to

snowfall/blizzards (T37).

• Reduced clearance under bridges due to increase in average seasonal rainfall (T12) on account of less

frequent but more intense and longer periods of rain is more common to both corridors than fluvial

flooding due to heavy showers (T5) or damage to energy supply, transport communication networks,

disruption to operations due to extreme wind (T37), which is deemed more important in each sub-

corridor. Curiously enough, extreme wind has been included in the list of threats, although climate

change predictions don’t flag this. On the other hand, Sedimentation in port/navigation channels

only appears (in 3rd place) in Serbia, while it is BiH/the Sava that appears to suffer more significantly

from this problem.

• Bridge scour due to heavy showers (T1) is a current specific risk flagged out for BiH sub-corridor

segment only.

• For the Serbian sub-corridor segment, damage to energy supply, transport communication networks,

disruption to operations due to extreme wind (T24) is both a specific and the most important current

risk.

13 | P a g e


• It is important to keep in mind that in

determining consequence, survey

respondents weighted route availability

and route safety. Both those in BiH and

Serbia ranked the importance of route

availability vs. route safety in a nearly

equal manner: 5.1 to 4.9 in BiH, and 5.3 to

4.7 in Serbia (see Fig. 9).

iii) Future risks.

So far we have considered current threats and their risk. However, we also asked survey respondents to

complete the same analysis above in light of the foreseen climate conditions described in Section 3 i.

The greatest risks foreseen for the surveyed threats are thus presented in the table below for each sub-

corridor segment under the columns: “Pre-Workshop”. Because those events were undertaken to

validate survey results, and often led to a re-ranking of the findings, workshop participants’ conclusions

appear under the columns “Post-Workshop”.

Ranking of threats by degree of risk under

foreseen climate conditions

(1 – highest)

Corridor section by country and the respective level of risk

BiH Serbia

Pre-Workshop Post- workshop Pre-Workshop Post-workshop

1 T5 – 8.1 T5, T11 T24 – 8.2

T*

2 T12 – 7.7 T12 T12 – 6.9

T24

3 T1 – 6.9 T1 T8 – 6.5 T12

4 T37 – 5.8 T36, T37 T36 – 6.0

T8

5 T24 – 5.7 T24 T31 – 5.7 T36, T31, T5

Threat # Threat Description

T1 Bridge scour due to heavy showers

T5 Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers

T8 Failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in catchment area

T11 Pluvial flooding due to long periods of rain in catchment (overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level increase)

T12 Reduced clearance under bridges due to increase in average seasonal rainfall

T24 Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks, disruption to operations due to extreme wind

T31 Damage to cranes, storage and loading terminals to extreme wind

T36 Sedimentation in port/navigation channels; Inability to dock due to storm surges

T37 Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks due to snowfall/blizzards

T* Lower river flows due to climate change conditions (higher temperatures, droughts, floods and changes in precipitation intensity and distribution)

b) Serbia a) Bosnia and Herzegovina

Fig. 9. Relative importance of route availability vs route safety in Bosnia

and Herzegovina (a), and Serbia (b).

14 | P a g e


• Following the workshops, the initial ranking of the threats has been slightly modified for both

countries. During the workshop in BiH, participants confirmed fluvial flooding due to heavy showers

(T5) to be a main threat, while adding pluvial flooding due to long periods of rain in catchment

(overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level increase) (T11) as an equally important threat.

However, during the workshop in Serbia, participants displaced the top ranked threat Damage to

energy supply, traffic communication networks, disruption to operations due to extreme wind

(T24) with a new risk T* - Lower river flows due to climate change conditions, not previously

included in the methodology. This is perhaps the greatest threat arising from climate change, that

has already been identified in the literature concerning the Sava Waterway in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

• In Bosnia-Herzegovina, sedimentation in port/navigation channels and inability to dock due to

storm surges (T36) was reintroduced as the fourth highest risk by workshop participants

• In Serbia, Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (T5) was also reintroduced as a top five risk

following expert discussions during the workshop

• From the online survey (pre-workshop), we can also see that each threat has a slightly higher degree

of risk in the future compared to current climate conditions with just a few exceptions.

The map in Fig.10 illustrates the location of key future risks on the two sub-corridor segments, where

they were perceived to be by workshop participants along each sub-corridor19.

19 The workshops only looked at future risks given that we are looking towards the future with respect to planning, rather than the present.

Fig. 10. Location of key future risks on the two sub-corridor segments as perceived by workshop participants.

Location of key future risks

along the corridor

- in Serbia

- in Bosnia and

Herzegovina

- country borders

- Sava/Duna rivers

W E

15 | P a g e


4. Recommendations

During the workshops participants were invited to recommend adaptation measures to reduce the

vulnerability of the given waterway to the highest ranked threats foreseen in the identified locations

(see Fig.10). Their suggestions were as follows:

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

• Orašje, Brčko, Bijeljina, Šamac, Gradiška, Sijekovac

Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (T5)

Pluvial flooding due to long periods of rain in catchment (overland flow after precipitation,

groundwater level increase) (T11)

Solution: Development of an improved flood forecasting system and early warning system to better

detect the risk of a flood-triggering situation. Better land use planning by promoting land use

practices that improve water retention and increase of water retention areas. Reconstruction and

construction of new drainage channels and pumping stations and reduction of the sections without

flood protection (inundation zones). Construction of multipurpose hydropower plants and dams

that can improve flood protection/management and inland navigation. Cutting the vegetation and

cleaning the sludge from channels with partial repair of river banks and embankments along the

periphery channel. Improvement of waste management practices and sewage treatment. Large

amounts of waste are disposed at illegal sites, which results in the blocking of drainage channels

and flood ways. It is also suggested to update Strategic Environmental Assessment procedures by

introducing an assessment of foreseen climate change conditions and their impacts on waterways..

• All existing bridges (in Bijeljina, Rača, Brčko, Orašje, Šamac, Gradiška, Svilaj, Novska) and Foreseen bridges (Gradiška and Svilaj)

Reduced clearance under bridges due to increase in average seasonal rainfall (T12) Bridge scour due to heavy showers (T1) Solution: While planning new bridges, design bridges catering for the needed width of the

waterway and vertical clearance . Develop an improved flood forecasting system and early warning

system to better detect the risk of a flood-triggering situation. Construct movable bridges that can

change to allow passage for vessels. Continue and improve bridge scour monitoring by introducing

new monitoring techniques and depth-measuring instrumentation.

• Port of Šamac, Port of Brčko

Sedimentation in port/navigation channels; inability to dock due to storm surges (T36) Solution: Continued maintenance and cleaning of the river bed to prevent the reduction in the width and depth of the navigable channel. This maintenance and cleaning is regularly performed by the ports. Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks due to snowfall/blizzards (T37) Solution: Reconstruction of electricity transmission and distribution networks and system in order to make it resistant to extreme weather due to foreseen climate change conditions.

16 | P a g e


• Orašje, Gradiška, Port of Šamac and Port of Brčko

Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks, disruption to operations due to

extreme wind (T24) Solution: Reconstruction of electricity transmission and distribution networks and system in order to make it resistant to extreme weather due to foreseen climate change conditions.

SERBIA

• Apatin (1401 km), Futog (1262-1268 km)

Lower river flows due to climate change conditions (T*)

Solution: One of the responses to low water levels is the transition in fleet design and operation. It

includes the useof light-weight structures, changes in designs and construction of ships or the

installation of propellers with smaller diameters. It should enable ships to operate at lower draughts.

• Đerdap (I - 943 km, II-863km), Golubac (1036 km), Ram (1075 km), Veliko Gradište (1060 km), Pančevo bridge (1167 km)

Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks, disruption to operations due to

extreme wind (T24)

Solution: 1) Improvement of storm warning and prediction systems: storm surge warnings include the prediction of maximum water levels and a general description of the expected wind and the moment of its expected maxima. The system can be improved in a way to forward forecasts in real time. 2) Consideration of climate change impact in the design of telecommunication systems: The risk from energy and telecommunication infrastructure failure have to be well managed because there is high interaction between these systems. The most vulnerable part of the system to the wind is the overhead cabling infrastructure. Therefore, the opportunities for using underground space should be maximized. To ensure the operability of communication systems in extreme weather conditions, the telecommunications infrastructure have to be enhanced to provide backup connections.

• All bridges

Reduced clearance under bridges due to increase in average seasonal rainfall (T12)

Solution: Increasing the size of existing bridges and the design of new bridges: the engineering

measures may include raising the height of the existing bridges and new sizing requirements for the

future bridge construction projects. These measures are related to the return period, increase of the

minimum freeboard, raise of span lengths. Other possible measures are relocation of bridge piers

and foundations outside of main channels. Regarding construction materials, concrete components

like piers could be reinforced with more steel to address the need for strength and rigidity.

• Staklar (1370 km) and Daljska (1359 km) in snow and ice conditions

Failure of flood defence systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain (T8)

Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (T5)

Solution: 1) Early warning system: based on integration of meteorological data into hydrological models, the automated data communication system for the entire river basin should be created. To be more timely responsive, the system should be decentralized and should include the instructions to the public. Where short time reaction is required (urban areas) reliable warning levels have to be

17 | P a g e


achieved based on real time measures of rain intensities. The under-or over prediction of the hazard caused by uncertainty of the parameter values in hydrological models, is the major risk in operating early warning systems. 2) Strengthening and/or construction of hydro-technical structures for water protection and reinforcement of coastal embankments: the measures may be referred to the improvement in the design of solid building structures like weirs, channels and dams to withstand mechanical or physical effects of flooding water; construction of longitudinal and transverse hydraulic structures which regulate the flow of water; placing rocks lope protection which consists of one or more layers of rock along the critical stretches of the river; addition of the crest wall to raise the height of the defence on flood bank; strengthening embankments with internal central core made from impermeable substance, etc. 3) Construction and maintenance of water protection zones: prevention from vegetation (forests and bushes) loss is important for the protection of drainage, and against shore cutting and sliding.

• Beočin (1267 km), Belgrade (1170 km), Pančevo (1253 km), Bačka Palanka (1296 km), Smederevo (1116 km), Prahovo (860 km)

Sedimentation in port channels; inability to dock due to storm surges (T36)

Solution: 1) Investment in maintenance of ports and navigation channels (deepening) to ensure access: the deposition of sediment as a natural product of erosion decrease the depths of navigation channels. Therefore, dredging activities to safeguard required depths are required. Due to high maintenance costs, the rates and timing for sediment removal should be based on regular monitor of water levels.20 2) Erosion remediation: afforestation of river banks is an effective method of erosion control. A root system of the restored vegetation can significantly strength the bank.

• All ports with cranes: Apatin (1401, 5 km), Bogojevo (1366.5 km), Beočin (1269 km) Bačka Palanka (1295,5 km), Novi Sad (1252,6 km), Beograd (1167, 3 km), Pančevo (1154 and 1152,8km), Smederevo (1111 and 1116 km), Prahovo (862km)

Damage to cranes, storage and loading terminals to extreme wind (T31)

Solution: 1) Consideration of extreme winds for operational assets location and port design: using simulation based models in searching for optimal locations and port configuration and operation processes. 2) Early warning system improvement and equipment adaptation to extreme winds: ensure that terminals are subscribed to a contract weather service that provides specialized weather forecast for the operating area of the port. The equipment should be designed to provide an initial alert-cranes equipped with anemometers to indicate wind speed at the highest stationary point of the crane. The shutdown and other secure procedures should be provided for each port facility.

20The removing is carried out in line with predefined recommendation (e.g if the filling of the bottom of water bodies is higher than 20cm)

18 | P a g e


Appendix I

The ClimaCor project, an initiative first funded by the Government of the Netherlands and now (second

half of 2016) supported by the Regional Cooperational Council, has developed a draft method to quickly

assess climate change threats to inland transport corridors. The method borrows from existing

approaches from Europe and the United States, with particular reference to methodologies developed

under the ROADAPT21 and RIMAROCC22 projects. The ClimaCor method differs from these in that it

focuses on an overall assessment of multimodal inland transport corridors, including motorways and

main roads, railways, and inland waterways and ports.

Due to the short duration of the ClimaCor project, the developed method had to be simple enough to

execute in a 2-3-month timeframe. This contrasts with previously developed methods, most of them

complex, iterative processes that can take years to complete. The ClimaCor assessment does not delve

into complex data collection and calculations; rather it relies on the subjective assessments of local

experts to identify and prioritize climate threats. It doesn’t size up threats in absolute terms but rather

on relative terms: of a given set of threats, which are the most urgent?

Written for a generalist in the environmental or transport fields, the guidelines outline a process that

can be implemented with the help of local experts in the fields of transport, climate change, economics

and communications. The process includes an initial phase of information gathering in the form of a

survey of threats, their consequences and likelihood, to determine risk, followed by a one-day

‘validation’ workshop where participating experts come to a consensus on the most likely of the

identified risks. The output of the process is a map of those risks along the corridor, and

recommendations on adaptive measures to address them.

Steps of the methodology

1. Survey phase

1. Desk Research. A first step is to undertake a short desk study

on the foreseen climate change conditions for the region and if

possible the corridor, based on published literature. At the

same time, to collect transport infrastructure data along the

corridor, e.g. topography, usability, i.e. (in)capacity to handle

demand, state i.e. poor/good quality, safety

concerns/vulnerabilities and to a lesser extent, any foreseen

investments. This will be subsequently shared with your

stakeholders.

2. Survey threats: Within roughly one week and via an online

survey (in our case, Google Forms) climate scientists,

environment and transport experts familiar with the transport

infrastructure in focus, are invited to indicate the top ten

21 ROADAPT (ROADs for Today, ADAPTed for Tomorrow), funded between 2012 and 2015 through the Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR) and it’s Transnational Road Research Programme implemented by Dutch consultancy DELTARES; 22 RIMAROCC (Risk Management for Roads in a Changing Climate) Handbook, funded by ERA-NET ROAD in connection with the EU’s 6th Framework Programme for Research and Development between 2008-2010 and implemented by Dutch consultants, DELTARES

19 | P a g e


climate threats under current climate conditions. This is done by giving the experts an illustrated list

of climate threats and sub-threats (follows) which are unique to both meteorological conditions and

transport infrastructure and do not overlap. Their individual scores are then averaged to generate a

value per threat.

3. Estimate the

consequences

of those ten

climate threats

and sub-

threats. For

each threat,

survey

respondents

then indicate

the severity of its consequences (on a scale of 1-4) to:

i) route availability/usability (Col.B below); and ii) human/route safety (Col.D), and also indicate their

view on the relative importance of availability (Col. C) vs weight (Col. E).

Data collected per threat and for weight are summed and averaged with the resulting consequence

being the factor of both, divided by ten (C+E) to give a score on a scale of 1-4 (Col. F).

4. Indicate the probability

or likelihood of those ten

threats. This step assesses

the likelihood (again on a

scale of 1-4) of each

threat actually occurring

and impacting use of the transport networks in the study area under: i) current

meteorological/oceanic conditions (Col. G); and ii) those foreseen (according to preliminarily

gathered information and shared as part of the survey – see ‘1’ above) due to climate change (Col.

H). Again, data collected per threat are summed and averaged to generate the likelihood under

both scenarios.

5. Evaluate and prioritise

risks. In this step, the previously concluded assessments of consequence and likelihood are combined in order to rate each threat’s risk. This can be achieved by multiplying the consequence (F) and likelihood (G) values of each threat to determine a score from a maximum possible of 16. The calculation can be performed twice, to appreciate risk under current conditions as well as climate change conditions. It can also be useful to plot the threats on a scatter chart with X and Y axes representing consequence and likelihood respectively.

20 | P a g e


6. Map the location of riskiest threats/sub-threats. Maps can be used to mark those locations where the top five or more threats/subthreats are likeliest to occur in the studied area. This may depend on geography (for instance, stretches of road in wooded areas will be more vulnerable to wildfire) as well as infrastructure-intrinsic factors (for example, “overloading of hydraulic systems crossing the roads or railways” can only occur where such infrastructure exists). This step can be done during the workshop after participants have agreed on the ranking of risk that can be seen in the scatter chart.

NB: We have found that the above methodology works best when undertaken by a local intermediary who can interact with stakeholders in the local language and ‘walk’ them through the pre-prepared online survey on the phone or via skype.

2. ‘Validation’ Workshop

1. In parallel to the survey, the local intermediary should

prepare for the ClimaCor workshop alongside the

project manager. This requires scheduling event(s),

inviting participants (survey respondents, ministry

representatives), identifying a facilitator, preparing the

necessary materials (powerpoints) and translators.

2. The main agenda points should be as follows:

• Welcoming remarks (host/donor/client)

• Introduction to project and methodology (project manager)

• Present state of the ‘in-focus’ transport infrastructure and foreseen climate change conditions

(transport/climate expert, if not project manager). These can be given via Powerpoint talks and

should include, for example:

- Overview of climate threats to be assessed during the workshop, ideally by a climate scientist

- Overview of geographic scope of assessment, including key transport lines, ideally by a

transport expert or experts.

• Present preliminary results (ppt slides) of experts’ survey of current and future threats,

consequences, and their likelihood to the given transport infrastructure incl. scatter chart

(local expert)

• In working groups, review future threats, agree or revise the ranking and map their locations,

before reporting back (host, 2-3 working groups)

- The threats list can be pared down to a subset of most critical. A judgement call will need to

be made concerning the threshold below which threats/sub-threats may be discarded.

• In working groups, prepare recommendations (adaptation measures) on how to tackle the posed climate threats/challenges through future investments (host, 2-3 working groups) This step consolidates the previous steps to identify a list of unacceptable risks, and then seeks to agree on a general set of recommendations to address each risk and threat in turn. In this step, the expected lifespan of affected pieces of infrastructure must be compared to the time horizon of expected climate change. For our purposes, we agree that infrastructure whose lifespan ends within 20 years will not be subject to climate change threats, and is thus out of the scope of this scan. For a scan, it is enough to agree on general strategic responses such as: - research and/or monitoring to reduce uncertainty about threat;

21 | P a g e


- do the minimum (traffic management, business as usual); - apply mitigating measures, such as

- Update operating procedures to take account of the impact of climate - Develop contingency plans for being better prepared to manage weather emergencies - Strengthening preventive maintenance. As a final step, the expert group should discuss and agree by consensus the relative urgency of each action identified in the previous step.

• AOB incl. feedback on method (host). The goal of this methodology is to agree on general

strategies for mitigation. Detailed plans are not the scope of this project, but hopefully the

ClimaCor Pre-Scan serves to highlight threats that should be further investigated. If participants

feel otherwise, this is the moment to make suggestions.

3. Corridor and Sub-Corridor Assessments

Assessments concerning the corridor will need to be assembled based on the results of the

survey and validation workshop series that will give an overview on corridor vulnerability. This

should not take longer than about two weeks to complete at best.

22 | P a g e


ILLUSTRATIONS OF THREATS LISTED IN THE CLIMACOR II SURVEY

23 This threat refers to bridge scour as a consequence of increased velocity of water caused by intense rainfalls.

Threat Graphic representation

1. Bridge scour due to heavy showers (roads, railways or waterways)23

2. Erosion and slide of embankments due to

heavy showers (roads or railways)

Color-coding:

Threats written in orange refer to Roads and/or Railways

Threats written in blue refer to Waterways and Ports (including inland and coast)

Threats written in green refer to Roads, railways and waterways

23 | P a g e


3. Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on transport infrastructure due to heavy showers (roads or railways)

4. Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks (roads or railways) due to heavy showers

5. Fluvial flooding due to

heavy showers (overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level increase) (roads)

24 | P a g e


24 In contrast to threat #1, this threat refers to bridge scour as a consequence of increased volume of water and sediment brought about by long periods of rain in the catchment area of the river (watershed).

6. Loss of driving ability due to reduced visibility and vehicle control due to heavy showers (roads)

7. Bridge scour due to long periods of rain in catchment area (roads, railways or waterways)24

8. Failure of flood defence systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in catchment area (roads and railways)

9. Erosion or slides of infrastructure and embankment due to long

periods of rain in

catchment (roads and railways)

25 | P a g e


10. Ground subsidence, slide, or collapse on the inland transport infrastructure due to long

periods of rain in

catchment (roads and railways)

11. Pluvial flooding due to

long periods of rain in

catchment (overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level increase) (roads)

12. Reduced clearance under bridges due to

increase in average

seasonal rainfall (waterways and ports, including inland and coast)

13. Erosion or slides of infrastructure and embankment due to increase in average seasonal rainfall (roads and railways)

14. Erosion of embankments and foundations due to increased variability in warm/cool days (roads and railways)

15. Shorter maintenance windows, decreased lifetime, increased maintenance costs due to increased variability in warm/cool days (roads and railways)

26 | P a g e


16. Track buckling due to increased variability in warm/cool day (railways)

17. Increased needs for cooling and, thus, fuel due to heatwaves (roads, railways and waterways)

18. Cracking, embrittlement due to thermal expansion; migration of liquid asphalt, asphalt rutting due to heatwaves (roads)

19. Track buckling, infrastructure and rolling stock overheating due to heatwaves (railways)

20. Shorter maintenance windows, decreased lifetime, increased maintenance costs due to heatwaves (roads and railways)

27 | P a g e


21. Thermal damage to bridges due to heatwaves (expansion in bridge joints and paved surfaces) (roads and railways)

22. Susceptibility to wildfires that threaten the transport infrastructure due to heatwaves (roads and railways)

23. Ground subsidence, slide, or collapse due to deforestation caused by wildfires due to heatwaves (roads and railways)

24. Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks, disruption to operations due to extreme wind (roads, railways and waterways)

25. Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to extreme wind (roads)

28 | P a g e


26. Damage to traffic signs and lights, fixtures, noise barriers, etc. due to extreme wind (roads)

27. Overvoltage due to extreme wind (railways)

28. Damages to installations and overhead lines to extreme wind (caternary) (railways)

29. Failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes to extreme wind (roads and railways)

30. Objects (trees, signs, etc.) falling on the road / rail to extreme wind (roads and railways)

29 | P a g e


31. Damage to cranes, storage and loading terminals to extreme wind (waterways and ports, including inland and coast)

32. Erosion of embankments and foundations due to storm surges (roads and railways)

33. Higher construction, maintenance, insurance costs due to storm surges (waterways and ports, including inland and coast)

34. Unusable roads during storm surges (roads)

35. Disruption of train operation due to storm surges (railways)

36. Sedimentation in port/navigation channels; inability to dock due to storm surges (waterways and ports, including inland and coast)

30 | P a g e


Appendix II

Sub-corridor

assessments

37. Damage to energy supply, traffic communication networks due to snowfall/blizzards (roads, railways and waterways)

38. Reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice removal) (roads and railways)

39. Reduced visibility due to snowfall/blizzards (roads)

40. Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards (roads)

41. Cracking, embrittlement due to frost heave and thermal expansion due to snowfall/blizzards (roads)

Documents

Corridor Assessment TEN-T Rhine-Danube International Waterwaydocuments.rec.org/projects/Annex2_Rhine-Danube... · TEN -T RHINE -DANUBE INTERNATIONAL WATERWAY CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT 1