Arilje – Požega, Lučani, Čačak, Gornji Milovac (FB10)

Q1. Country name:

Serbia

Q2. Partner name:

Jaroslav Černi Institute

Q3. Partner – Final Beneficiary No.:

FB 10

Q4. Between country – water coming from (origin country (1)) and

Serbia

Q5. Country (2) – water supplied to (delivered):

Serbia

Q6. Water supply system name (English):

Regional Water supply system Rzav (RWS Rzav)

Q7. Water supply system name (Country 1):

Регионални водоводни систем Рзав (РВС Рзав)

Q8. Water supply system name (Country 2):

Regionalni vodovodni sistem Rzav (RVS Rzav)

Q9. Date/year established cross-border water supply:

1993

Q10. Management of origin side of the WSS:

Regional Water supply system Rzav (RWSS Rzav)

Q11. Management of delivery side of the WSS:

WSS in each of the 5 Municipalities – Arilje, Požega, Lučani, Čačak and G.Milanovac

Q12. Amount of water supplied (as per contract/agreement):

Average = 550 l/s, app. 18.000.000 m3/year, maximum about 700 l/s

Q13. General nature of the CBWS – emergency water supply, peak water supply, permanent water supply:

Permanent water supply.

Q14. Existing legal framework for the CBWS:

Yes, there is, we will describe later, when we get more details.

Q15. Top level CBWS management body (if mutually defined):

The independent company is established for regional WSS management according to National legal framework and policies

Q16. Origin country reference body for the management body:

Serbia.

Q17. Delivery country reference body for the CBWS management body.

The independent company is established for regional WSS management according to National legal framework and policies

Q18. Legal framework management – Contract party meetings (annual, even more frequent):

Yes, the independent company WSS Rzav have periodical meetings with representatives of Municipal water supply companies.

Q19. Issues addressed on the local level:

Yes, the questions of minimum river discharge for downstream consumers.

Q20. Issues addressed on the regional level:

Water allocation among the Municipalities.

Q21. Issues addressed on the state level:

Financial issues, ownership issues and legal/policy framework

Q22. Legal option to increase maximum annual entitlement?

Yes, the 5 consumers (Municipalities) can increase the water demand if there is enough water. In the periods (quite rare) when the water deficit exist, the agreement exist related to the amount of water to be delivered to Municipalities.

Q23. Minimum amount of water delivery defined?

Generally Yes, but in a few cases there were problems because some WSS Municipalities preferred to take water on local level (cheaper)

Q24. Which is the body assigned by the contract for the resolution of disputes?

Depends of the problem type

Q25. Ownership of the cross-border infrastructure:

The majority is owned by state, but also 5 Municipalities have participated in the ownership

Q26. Are the water rights on the water resource assigned to the cross-border partner? In which way?

Yes, we will describe later, when we will know more details about the document

Q27. Termination of the water delivery of contract

Likely Yes, we will describe later, when we receive confirmation

Q28 Minimal water consumption legally defined?

Yes

Q29. Is the legal heritage of the systems resolved

Yes

Q30. Is the water price(charge) composed by different components?

No, it is fixed and agreed

Q31. How is the pricing mechanism defined (water charges):

Estimated and agreed

Q32. Are the minimal charges foreseen? – Fixed charges, full for empty:

No

Q33. Is the non-payment procedure regulated by the contract?

We guess yes, we will describe later, when we receive more details

Q34. Is there a special tariff (surcharge) for the excessive water supply?

No

Q35. Insurance cost covered – insurance cost tariff, insurance model foreseen by the contract:

Not sure, we will confirm later, when we get more information

Q36. Depreciaton of the infrastructure, investment/maintenance plans agreed ? (amortizacija, ammortamento):

No, and its not cover with the water price

Q37. Penalties for unfulfilment of contractual obligations?

We guess no, we will confirm later, when we get more details

Q38. Is the mutual inspection of records/book-keeping established? (due dilligence approach):

Jurisdiction of the RWSS Rzav, but confirmation by each Municipality is required

Q39. General assessment of the CBWS economics :

Generally yes, the water price covers only part of the expenses (salaries, overheads, chemicals, etc), but do not cover maintenance and investment.

Q40. Payment statistics for the last 5 years:

/

Q41. Other:

/

Q42. Measurement of water delivered:

Yes, before the delivery to each Municipality WSS.

Q43. Is continuity of water supply – intermittent water supply an issue?

WSS works continually – that’s not an issue.

Q44. Agreed water quality issues:

Yes, without serious water quality problem until now.

Q45. Water quality monitoring jointly controlled/verified:

Yes, the quality of water in all of the 5 Municipalities WSS is verified.

Q46. Temperature regulated by the contract?

No.

Q47. Pressure regulated by the contract?

No.

Q48. Cross – border profile management:

No, RWSS Rzav manage all relevant issues.

Q49. Construction of project facilities:

Construction for the first (existing) stage is finalized. For the next stage (extension of the RWSS Rzav – as a planned dam), the state is in charge for the investment and construction.

Q50. Is the daily dynamics of water demand/supply an issue ?

No, because the pump stations and other capacities of RWSS are still higher than peak water demand.

Q51. Is the seasonal dynamics of water demand/supply an issue ?

Yes, during hydrological dry years, in critical period (august – October) there is not enough water in river for consumers.

Q52. Management of water losses – are water losses in the supply, uptake side an issue?

Generally yes, but still not important, about 4%.

Q53. Is the water availability/demand an issue on supply country or demand country side?

Yes, in critical period of hydrological dry years. In addition, low demand is an issue as result of the sufficient amount of water in local springs.

Q54. Transitional phenomena an issue?

Yes, the lack of funds for investments is present

Q55. Other technical issues?

No, or not important

Q56. Long term planning mechanisms established?

Not strictly, but the construction of the dam on the Rzav river should, probably, start soon.

Q57. LIASON OFFICERS DETERMINED? Communication process determined and functioning?

All relevant issues are solved by RWSS Rzav and local Municipalities.

Q58. Joint supervision of the Water Supply System?

The independent company is established for regional WSS management (accompanied with the members of 5 WSS Municipalities)

Q59. Joint management of the water resource?

The independent company is established for regional WSS management (accompanied with the members of 5 WSS Municipalities)

Q60. Contingency plans existing?

No.

Q61. Main problems identified:

Yes: 1. Not enough water in critical period of the hydrological dry year; 2. Sometimes low demand as result of the sufficient amount of water in local springs ; 3. Finding funds for Dam investment ; 4. Finding way to include new consumers

Q62. Other comments:

No.

Q63. Vision:

1. To continue with good collaboration between RWSS Rzav and present 5 WSS Mun.;2. To ensure funds for dam construction are available; 3. To find administrative-financial solution to include new consumers (4 WSS Municipalities)

Q64. Do you consider that the legal framework for the CB WSS is adequate, or under-defined:

No.

Q65. Do you consider that the economic framework for the CB WS is adequate, or under-defined:

The price for delivered water does not cover maintenance and investment.

Q66. Do you consider that the technical framework for the CB WS is adequate, or under-defined:

No.

Q67. How would you assess general perception of the cross border water supply in public?

Quite positive.

Q68. Provide in the attachment shp file of the existing water supply network:

Has been provided.

Q69. Provide documents on general state-level framework for the cross-border water supply:

0

Q70. Specific delivery contract:

Exists.

Q71. Regulations, technical documentation:

Exists.

Q72. Statistics on the water supplied and payments provided for the last five years:

Exists.