- General(active tab)
- Site information
- Performance
- Design & implementations
- Lessons, risks, implications...
- Policy, general governance and design targets
- Socio-economic
- Biophysical impacts
General
National Id
Croatia_01
Site name
Lonjsko Polje Nature Park
Summary
The Central Sava Basin (CSB), located in Croatia, is an area that combines natural values with the function of storage of floodwaters of the Sava River. One of the most important areas is the Lonjsko Polje area. About 23 706 ha of this Nature Park is used as the largest detention area in the Central Sava Basin. The purpose of the Life project "Central Posavina – Wading toward Integrated Basin Management" (2006 -2008) was to develop and improve an integrated river basin management approach in the Lonjsko Polje Nature Park and at a Central Posavina scale. This has been done by in particular developing consultative processes and appropriate structures which involve the various stakeholders for the conservation, utilisation and management of the water resources by ensuring non-structural flood control methods which take advantage of the natural functions of wetlands to supplement or replace existing flood control infrastructure.
Light or indepth?
In-depth
The in-depth description of the case study
NUTS Code
Kontinentalna Hrvatska
Transboundary
0
Data provider
Adriana Raveau, ACTeon
NWRM(s) implemented in the case study
Longitude
16.8333
Latitude
45.3616
Site information
Climate zone
cool temperate moist
Mean rainfall
872
Mean rainfall unit
mm/year
Average temperature
9,5
Mean runoff
680
Mean runoff unit
600 - 750 mm
Type
Case Study Info
Vegetation class
Natural landscape elements and European riverine lowlands (reed, poplar, willow, ash, willow reed, alder, beech, oak hornbeam...).
Performance
Performance impact estimation method
Laboratory
Design & implementations
Application scale
River Basin
Installation date
2006
Area (ha)
23706
Area subject to Land use change or Management/Practice change (ha)
17100
Design capacity description
The storage capacity would be increased from 634 billion cubic meters (BCM) to 733 BCM.
Design contractual arrangement
| Arrangement type | Responsibility | Role | Comments | Name |
|---|
Design consultation activity
| Activity stage | Key issues | Name | Comments |
|---|
Design land use change
| Land use change type |
|---|
Design authority
| Authority type | Role | Responsibility | Name | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Other
|
Implementation
|
Lonjsko Polje Nature Park
|
Nature Park
|
|
|
Regional / sub-national water authority
|
Financing
|
Croatian Water Agency
|
Lessons, risks, implications...
Key lessons
The purpose of the Life project "Central Posavina - Wading towards Integrated Basin Management" (2006 -2008) was to develop and improve an integrated river basin management approach in Lonjsko Polje Nature Park and at least on a Central Posavina scale. This has been done by in particular developing consultative processes and appropriate structures which involve the various stakeholders for the conservation, utilisation and management of the water resources by ensuring non-structural flood control methods which take advantage of the natural functions of wetlands to supplement or replace existing flood control infrastructure.
Success factor(s)
| Success factor type | Success factor role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
|
Successful coordination between authorities
|
main factor
|
Financing
| Financing type | Comments |
|---|---|
|
EU-funds: LIFE+
|
Barrier
| Barrier type | Barrier role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
|
Information not found
|
Driver
| Driver type | Driver role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
|
Balancing different objectives
|
main driver
|
In the year 2000, the World Bank recommended to adjust the 1972 plan to a flood protection scheme that takes into consideration the ecological and landscape diversity values of the floodplains. This 'World Bankplan' would propose measures to mitigate the detrimental impacts on the biodiversity caused by the implementation of the first phase of the 1972 plan. Additional objectives of this new approach are to stimulate the preservation and development of the natural and cultural heritage of the Sava area
|
Financing share
| Financing share type | Share | Comments |
|---|
Policy, general governance and design targets
Policy description
After severe flooding of the river Sava (Zagreb 1964, Sisak and Karlovac 1965 and 1966) a flood prevention scheme, "Sava 2000" was set up and approved in 1972, with the aim not only to prevent flooding, but also to develop the agriculture. The project was a combination of the construction of large storage areas to retain excess flood water which the Sava cannot discharge, and conventional works (construction of dikes and regulation of the river canal). About 40% of the plan was completed when the region was plunged into conflict in 1990 and Yugoslavia fell apart, leaving large alluvial wetlands unregulated. In the meantime, the vision on ecological values changed. In the year 2000, the World Bank recommended to adjust the 1972 plan to a flood protection scheme that takes into consideration the ecological and landscape diversity values of the floodplains. This 'World Bankplan' proposed measures to mitigate the detrimental impacts on the biodiversity caused by the implementation of the first phase of the 1972 plan. Additional objectives of this new approach were to stimulate the preservation and development of the natural and cultural heritage of the Sava area. The Life project "Central Posavina - Wading toward Integrated Basin Management"; fits in this context in particular by promoting an Integrated Sava Basin Management Plan that meets the requirements of the Water Framework Directive.
Part of wider plan
1
Policy target
| Target purpose |
|---|
|
Improved Biodiversity
|
|
Peak-flow reduction
|
Policy pressure
| Pressure directive | Relevant pressure |
|---|
Policy area
| Policy area type | Policy area focus | Name | Comments |
|---|
Policy impact
| Impact directive | Relevant impact |
|---|
Policy wider plan
| Wider plan type | Wider plan focus | Name | Comments |
|---|
Policy requirement directive
| Requirement directive | Specification |
|---|
Socio-economic
Ancillary benefits information
Value added by the preservation and restoration plan results in particular from the protection of the valuable cultural and natural heritage.
Costs investment information
Information not found
Costs operation maintenance
Information not found
Costs total information
The project saves considerable costs, by reducing the amount of water engineering construction: both the length of dikes and the number of distribution facilities are lessened. Accordingly, maintenance costs are also reduced. Additional costs are incurred for designing the new facilities, for modelling the flood waves and for carrying out the risk assessment on the new system.
Incremental costs are needed for important improvements to the system, which will secure the longterm sustainable use of the floodplains. Restoration and rehabilitation projects are needed to achieve an integrated water management.
Incremental costs are needed for important improvements to the system, which will secure the longterm sustainable use of the floodplains. Restoration and rehabilitation projects are needed to achieve an integrated water management.
Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity
Value added by the preservation and restoration plan results from the improvement of the nutrient sink capacity, protection of the valuable cultural and natural heritage, and the long-term conservation of large inundation areas for transboundary flood protection. The impact on the alluvial forest cannot been foreseen.
Information on Ecosystem provisioning services
- Water provision to deliver water services to the economy both for drinking and non-drinking purposes.
- Flood security and protection.
- Amenities (associated to habitat protection): fish and plants, tourism, recreation, and others.
- Flood security and protection.
- Amenities (associated to habitat protection): fish and plants, tourism, recreation, and others.
Ecosystem impact climate regulation
No specific impact
Biophysical impacts
Information on retained water
Information not found
Increased water storage
16
Increased water storage unit
% Percent
Information on increased water storage
The storage capacity would be increased from 634 billion cubic meters (BCM) to 733 BCM.
Information on runoff reduction
Information not found
Water quality overall improvements
Neutral impact-no change in WQ status
Soil quality overall soil improvements
Positive impact-SQ improvement
Information on Soil quality overall soil improvements
Improvement of the nutrient sink capacity.