Building a Sustainable Water Management System in the Republic of

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 8, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 3, 2015 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2015-1206.ch013

Chapter 13

Building a Sustainable Water Management System in the Republic of Serbia: Challenges and Issues Jasmina S. Markovski,*,1 Kiril D. Hristovski,2 Vladana N. Rajaković-Ognjanović,3 and Aleksandar D. Marinković4 1Vinča

Institute of Nuclear Sciences, University of Belgrade, P.O. Box 522, 11 000 Belgrade, Serbia 2The Polytechnic School, Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, Arizona State University, 7171 E. Sonoran Arroyo Mall, Mesa, Arizona 85212, United States 3Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade, Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73, 11 000 Belgrade, Serbia 4Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade, Karnegijeva 4, 11 000 Belgrade, Serbia *E-mail: [email protected]. Tel.: + 381 11 3303 750.

The Republic of Serbia is a good example of a developing country with a water management system that has not been adequately transitioned to address the need of the new socio-economic paradigm. Consequently, more than 30% of generated potable water is lost in transportation, sewage collection and treatment significantly lag behind water supply and only 10% of the collected sewage receiving adequate treatment witch further burdens the already unsatisfying quality of water resources. In order to mitigate the upcoming effects of climate change and successfully manage the water resources for the next generations, the goal of this study is to identify and evaluate the existing barriers that hinder the development and implementation of an integrated national water resources management system. To achieve this goal, water resources management system in Serbia is examined through the prism of regulations, management, engineering, and education, which represent principal pillars of every national socio-economic

© 2015 American Chemical Society In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.

system. The key findings and the outcomes of this study reveals that an in-depth analysis of existing situation and identification of barriers represent important initial steps in process of developing and implementing an integrated national water management system.


Introduction At times when rapid growth of population and economic development lead to even higher water demands, and changes in climate induce significant fluctuations in rainfall intensity and frequency, water scarcity becomes a major concern for many countries across the world (1, 2). Considering that safe and clean water is a prerequisite for successful socio-economic growth, sustainable management of this resource is frequently identified as a priority of national interest, especially in countries that are vulnerable as a result of uneven spatial and temporal distribution of water resources (3–6). The latest reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change suggest that water resources in the Mediterranean countries and neighboring regions are particularly vulnerable to changes in global climate (7, 8). According to these grim scenarios, the negative trend of increasing number of droughts and floods is expected in many countries of southern Europe (9, 10). Consequently, these trends necessitate development and implementation of integrated national water management systems in these countries to (1) mitigate the upcoming effects of climate change; and (2) successfully manage the water resources for the next generations. For many countries of southeastern Europe, development and implementation of such water management systems could prove to be particularly challenging because many of the management platforms and practices are still deeply rooted in the former socialist management, where the importance of a system perspective approach was neglected. Furthermore, the social transitions in these countries from socialist-based economy to free market platforms is often intentionally hindered by implementation of associated policies that are closely dependent on the prevailing socio-economic and political situations (11). Republic of Serbia, located in southeastern Europe, is a prime example of a country with a water management system that has not adequately transitioned to address the need of the new socio-economic paradigm. For decades, concerns about the environment and water resources were disdained in lieu of the promises for better tomorrow under the communist banner (12). With fall of communism, the influx of new ideas and perspectives explicated the shortcomings of the former socialist-based water management approaches and elucidated the need to address these challenges in a sustainable manner, capable of mitigating the grim climate change predictions. Unfortunately, over the last two decades, very little progress has been made to develop an integrated national water management system and address the water management challenges in Serbia (13, 14). Although portion of the blame for the existing paradigm could be directed to the lingering socialist heritage, it is the absence of a clear vision and necessary knowledge about a 258 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


development of system-oriented solutions and management practices that hinders the prospects of a sustainable water management in Serbia. Analysis of the existing situation and identification of barriers often represent the initial steps in overcoming challenges that hinder development of a sustainable water management system. Analysis conducted through the prism of regulations, management, engineering and education, which represents principal pillars of every national socio-economic system, could lead towards a development and implementation of an effective integrated water management system because the principal concepts and prudent practices stemming from these pillars represent an effective apparatus for determining the sustainability and efficiency of such system. However, in absence of funding and political will, comprehensive analysis is frequently prohibited in countries like Serbia, and examination of existing data related to water management may be the only viable path to catalyze the process of developing and implementing an integrated national water management system. In this context, the presented analysis examines the existing water management system in Serbia. The goal of this study is to explicate the existing barriers that hinder the development and implementation of an integrated national water resources management system of Serbia. To achieve this goal: (1) each element of the existing water resources management system in Serbia is examined through the prism of the four principal pillars; (2) the barriers, challenges and issues are identified; (3) directions for their successful overcoming are provided. The key findings and the outcomes of this study can be extrapolated to many small developing countries with fragile socio-economic and ecological systems.

Republic of Serbia: Country Overview and Water Resources Country Overview Overview of the Serbian Natural System and Geographic Characteristics Situated in southeastern Europe, the Republic of Serbia covers 88.361 km2 of the central part of the Balkan Peninsula and the Pannonian Plain (15). Serbia is landlocked and bordered by Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Albania as illustrated in Figure 1. Geographically, Serbia could be divided into two distinct topographical regions. The northern region of Serbia is flat and predominantly comprised of the Pannonian Plains, which are intersected by the rivers Danube, Sava, Tisa, Tamis, Begej and their channels. The central and southern region of Serbia is mountainous and comprised of the Rhodope Mountains (northern, central and southern Serbia); the Carpathians (in the north-east); the Balkans (extending across east and south); the Dinarics (in Metohija); and the Skadro-Pind mountains (Kosovo and Metohija). The southern region connects to the southern Balkans via Morava and Vardar Basins. Approximately 29% of Serbian territory is covered by forests, which is lower than the European average of 35% (17). 259 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


Figure 1. Geographical map of the Republic of Serbia. (Adapted from (16). Wikimedia (2006))

Serbian climate is characterized as temperate continental with an average annual temperatures varying between 11-12 °C, and climatic variations are result of differences in elevation, proximity to the Adriatic Sea and large river basins, exposure to the winds, influences of Mediterranean, Dinaric Alps and other mountain ranges (18). In northern Serbia climate is more continental, with cold winters, hot, humid summers, and along evenly distributed rainfall. In southern Serbia summers and autumns are dry, winters are relatively cold, with heavy inland snowfall in the mountains. Regional climatic variations condition the precipitation differences; the annual rainfall is lowest in the north (2.500 mm) region of Serbia. During the growing season, rainfall in some regions is only 28% of the average annual precipitation and development of agriculture in Serbia is highly limited by distribution of average annual precipitation, i.e. maximum needs for intensive agriculture production in north coincide with a minimal amount of available water. 260 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


Overview of Serbian Socio-Economic System According to the 2011 census, Serbia (without the province of Kosovo) has a total population of around 7.2 million, with an average population density of 92.8 inhabitants/km2 (19). Since the beginning of the 1990s, Serbia is in a demographic decline with an average population decrease of 0.45%/yr (20). More than half of the population (59.7%) lives in urban areas (21). Approximately 23% of the inhabitants reside in the capital of Serbia, Belgrade, the major economic hub of the country and only city in Serbia with population exceeding 1 million residents. Like all other transition countries, Serbia experienced a dramatic decline in the standard of living, which is reflected through decrease of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the early nineties (22). Serbia is still restructuring its socio-economic system, and negative effect of this delayed restructuring reform is causing high unemployment, which ranges between 20.4 and 25% and is among the highest in Europe. The Serbian GDP for 2015 is projected to decline by 1%. This GDP decrease is paralleled by the downward investment trends, creating budget deficits between 6 and 13% and illustrating the inability of the Serbian government to efficiently develop and manage complex socio-economic and natural systems (22). Overview of Serbian Water Resources Serbian Water Balance Figure 2 summarizes the national water balance of the Republic of Serbia (13). With an available water supply of 178.5 x 109 m3/yr Serbia is a country rich in water resources. Estimated 162.5 x 109 m3/yr or ~ 91% enters Serbia from rivers that originate outside of Serbia. Approximately 65 x 109 m3/yr are added as precipitation to the Serbian hydrological system, of which estimated 49 x 109 m3/yr evaporate back into the atmosphere, leaving about 16 x 109 m3/yr (~ 25% of the total precipitation) to contribute to the overall national hydrology. From the estimated 178.5 x 109 m3/yr leaving Serbia, about 176 x 109 m3/yr (~ 98.6%) enters the Black Sea via the Danube watershed, while 2 x 109 m3/yr are discharged into the Adriatic Sea, and only 0.5 x 109 m3/yr to the Aegean Sea via the Vardar watershed (23). Estimated 4.15 x 109 m3/yr of water are typically withdrawn from both groundwater and surface water sources to support industry activities and potable water demands (24). This is less than 3% of the available water supply, i.e. over 97% of the estimated water quantities are hypothetically available for utilization (see Figure 2). The majority of surface water is stored in 160 reservoirs with estimated capacity of 6.2 x 109 m3, with 42% of the capacity attributed to Djerdap I reservoir, which is situated in eastern Serbia on the Danube river (23). The surface water resources in Serbia have the capacity to provide 854 m3/yr to each Serbian resident. In contrast, the groundwater resources have the capacity to provide estimated 473 m3/capita/yr if artificial aquifer recharge is employed, which equates to estimated 3.4 x 109 m3/yr (23). Without employing artificial 261 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


aquifer recharge, the total capacity of groundwater resources is estimated to 2.1 x 109 m3/yr. Approximately 67% of the groundwater is stored in alluvial aquifers that are located under the mountainous region of central Serbia and the northern plains (23).

Figure 2. The water balance for the territory of the Republic of Serbia.

From the 4.15 x 109 m3/yr of water withdrawals estimated 79.6% or about 3.3 x m3/yr of the water is used for power generation; however, only about 0.5% (13.75 x 109 m3/yr) is actually consumed in the processes or lost to evaporation (24, 25). In contrast, only a small fraction of about 1.7% (~70 x 106 m3/yr) is used in support of manufacturing and mining operations as summarized in Figure 3. Similarly, about 2.9% or estimated 120 x 106 m3/yr is utilized to support agriculture and gardening needs; primarily because of the climate that provides balanced and evenly distributed influx of water by precipitation. About 15.8% or estimated 655.7 x 106 m3/yr of the total water withdrawals in Serbia are used to support the potable water needs of the Serbian population (24). Estimated 70% of total withdrawals for public consumption is obtained from groundwater, while the rest of the water comes from surface water sources (24, 26). The average public water consumption in Serbia is estimated to 95 109

262 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


m3/capita/yr (27). However, this value differs significantly depending on location and population density. Different sources often provide contrasting data, but it could be generalized that the public water consumption ranges between 150-200 m3/capita/yr and 30-90 m3/capita/yr for urban and rural areas, respectively (26, 28). When compared to other countries in the region and Europe, Serbia could be considered a country characterized by medium consumption, similar to the water consumption exhibited by Slovenia, Turkey and Luxemburg as illustrated in Figure 4 (27).

Figure 3. Water withdrawal in 2013 a) distribution by water-use categories b) sources of water-use categories. 263 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


Figure 4. Water withdrawal for public consumption in 2011.

Based on the reported surface and groundwater water reservoir values, the Water Exploitation Index (WEI) could be conservatively estimated at between 42% and 49% considering the surface water and groundwater accumulations. Interestingly, however, the Serbian Ministry of Environment estimates that the Serbian WEI is about 80% (13). This value appears unrealistically high, especially when compared to the WEI of about 64% for Cyprus, which is considered extremely stressed water region (29). The European Environment Agency estimates that the WEI for Serbia is below 20%, which appears realistic, but no data or detailed methodology are provided to independently confirm this value (30). Such a high discrepancy between the Serbian Ministry of Environment report and other estimated values could not be simply attributed to spatial variability although WEI exceeds 70% in some areas that have low levels of available freshwater (e.g. regions of Kolubara, Toplica, Jablanica) (13). This discrepancy points to a much greater issue, one that is directly associated with absence of a water resource data collection and management platform, which is an essential integral component of an integrated water management system. Any national strategy for development of an integrated water management must incorporate the development of a platform for continuous collection, tracking, and analysis of existing data that will reflect and describe the actual conditions of the Serbian hydrological system and its spatial and temporal characteristics. If such a system exist in the Republic of Serbia, the evidence suggest that it is not functional and in need of optimization and reform. 264 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


Quality of Serbian Waters Serbian Water Quality Index (SWQI) is the indicator used in characterizing the quality of waters in the Republic of Serbia. It is based on ten standard physico-chemical and microbiological quality parameters (e.g. DO, BOD5, ammonia, coliform bacteria, etc.), which provide a composite index with values from 0 to 100 as illustrated in Table 1 (31). Each value is associated with five descriptive SWQIs, ranging from very poor to excellent. Additionally, the SWQI designation system is also associated with old the water quality classification system, which is promulgated in 1978 in the former socialist Yugoslav federation and segregates the waters into four water quality classes (Table 1) (32). Although obsolete, because it has not been updated to address the new environmental research and developments in water quality analysis, it is still in alternative use in Serbia because of its simplicity.

Table 1. Classification of Surface Waters Based on SWQI SWQI

Points

Description

Class

I

Quality of water satisfy criteria to be used in natural state and after filtration and disinfection, for feeding of water supply system for settlements, the food industry, and surface water for noble fish (Salmonidae) rearing as well.

II

Quality of water satisfy criteria to be used in natural state, for bathing and recreation, water sports, for the cultivation of other species of fish (Cyprinidae), or after subjecting to modern methods of treatment can be used to supply the settlements with drinking water and in food industry.

71-39

III

Quality of water satisfies criteria to be used for irrigation or, after modern methods of treatment, in most sectors of industry, except food industry.

38-0

IV

Water quality adversely affects the environment, and can only be used after the application of specific methods of treatment.

Excellent

100-90

Very good

89-84

Good

83-72

Poor

Very poor

According to the Ministry of Environment, estimated 92% of waters in Serbia exhibit good, very good, or excellent quality, and could be used for recreation or as potable water sources, respective of their classification as Classes I or II (Figure 5) (33). 265 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


Figure 5. Distribution of water resources based on the mean SWQI classification during 2004-2013.

Interestingly, however, if the minimum physico-chemical parameter values are used to estimate the SWQIs, then it could be advocated that about 76% of the waters in Serbia could be classified as poor or very poor water quality, frequently exceeding the class IV designated pollutant concentrations (33). The absence of clear methodology for water quality determination is further exacerbated by the absence of standardized sampling and monitoring platform, which is necessary for validation of the collected data. To complicate things further, the majority of available data pertains to quality of surface waters. Groundwater pollution and monitoring is frequently overlooked probably because of lack of regulatory, financial, and technical resources. Groundwater contamination is typically reported when contaminants reach the water treatment and distribution systems. By then, however, it is too late to implement any preventive and mitigative activities. The absence of reliable data, a standardized sampling and monitoring platform, knowledge and experience, and financial resources makes it very difficult to project any future trends and develop/implement water quality protection strategies. Although present, values reported by the Serbian Ministry of Environment about the exiting water quality parameter and trends are questionable, vague, and inappropriate for developing such protection strategies. At this time, it is evident that waters in the northern plain region, such as the main waterways the Danube-Tisa-Danube (DTD) canal, Begej and Zlatica river, are characterized with very poor quality (see Figure 6) (33). In contrast, only isolated upstream segments of some mountainous rivers in western and southeastern Serbia exhibit excellent water quality. However, these water resources are in danger of becoming contaminated by climate change and anthropogenic activities. 266 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


Figure 6. Watersheds in Serbia with excellent and poor water quality based on SWQI for the period 2004–2013. (Adapted from (34). SEPA (2013))

An integrated water management system, which includes a strong water quality protection component, needs to be developed and implemented on a national level to prevent any further water quality deterioration in the Republic of Serbia. This component must embody the multiple barrier concept as a cornerstone around which comprehensive regulatory framework is built in concert with adequate management practices, monitoring and data analysis platform, 267 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.

technical know-how, and financial resources. Failure to incorporate any of these elements threatens the future water resources in the Republic of Serbia, and has the potential to incomparably increase the cost of supplying good quality water for potable, agricultural, and industrial uses.

Overview of the Existing Water Management System in the Republic of Serbia Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 8, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): December 3, 2015 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2015-1206.ch013

Overview of Engineered Water and Sanitation Infrastructure Potable Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution System Potable water supply in the Republic of Serbia is divided in three types of systems: (1) public water supply systems, which service larger communities such as cities and towns; (2) public village systems; and (3) privately owned systems. With estimated 82% of the population serviced by public water supply systems, Serbia is considered a country with relatively well developed water distribution system (35). However, the access to public water supply systems is unevenly distributed throughout the country as illustrated in Figure 7 (34, 35). It is estimated that almost half of the Serbian population gets its water from the three largest water supply systems (Belgrade, Novi Sad and Nis), which service more than 2 x 106 of residents. Groundwater serves as the primary source of potable water with estimated 67% of the total contribution (36, 37). Estimated 24% of the potable water is acquired from rivers, while surface water reservoirs provide for about 9% of the potable water. The capital of Belgrade is supplied by 70% groundwater and 30% surface water (37). Although some reports suggest that the northern part of Serbia completely relies on groundwater as a source for the public and private potable water systems, limited information exist to describe the engineered potable water supply and treatment systems in Serbia (37, 38). This creates a problem when (1) estimating water treatment and distribution costs; (2) monitoring and minimizing potable water loss in transport; and (3) developing a strategy for an integrated national water management system. From the estimated 658 x 106 m3/yr water withdrawal for potable uses (91 m3/capita/yr), approximately 452 x 106 m3/yr (63 m3/capita/yr) or 68.7% actually reaches the consumers (35). About 31.3% of the generated potable water is lost in transport. In the northern parts of Serbia, these losses are lower with an estimated average of about 22%. However, in many municipalities across southern and eastern Serbia, these percentages often exceed 40%. These percentages are very high, especially when compared to some of the EU countries, such as Germany with 3%, Denmark 10%, and Sweden 17% of potable water loss to transport (39). The general population uses the majority of the potable water that reaches the consumers (about 72%), while only 15% of this water is used for industrial purposes (36). Interestingly, 13% of the distributed water is attributed to other uses without clearly defending what “other uses” entail. If this fraction is attributed to unaccounted water losses, the estimated water loss from withdrawal to consumers could be considered about 40%. Assuming a realistic water price of $0.3/m3, this 31.3% potable water loss 268 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


translates into actual financial loss of about $62 million/yr, which represents a significant sum of money that could be allocated to improve the existing potable water treatment and supply infrastructure (40).

Figure 7. Regional comparison of population connected to public water supply systems. (Adapted from (34). SEPA (2013)) Significant investments are needed to improve the potable water quality in many Serbian public water supply systems. During the first half of 2013, the Public Health Institute of Serbia reported that only 59% of the analyzed potable water samples complied with the potable water quality regulations (41). The situation in northern Serbia was particularly grim, where only 17% of 41 the 269 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


monitored public water supply systems complied with regulations. Such a high level of water quality violations could be largely attributed to the limited or inadequate source water treatment before distribution. It could only be postulated that the number of out-of-compliance potable water supply systems in Serbia is significantly higher because serious gaps exist in the current water-quality monitoring platform. According to the existing regulations (42), the Public Health Institute of Serbia is authorized government institution responsible for monitoring and enforcing the existing water quality regulations. However, because they are antiquated, these regulations do not provide clear protocols related to sampling frequency, transport, and analysis of potable water samples. Consequently, the treatment and water quality monitoring practices could be considered questionable and unreliable for the purposes of developing an integrated water-quality management platform and an overall integrated water management system on national level. The absence of adequate water quality monitoring platform further translates into lack of clear information about the existing water treatment technologies employed by the public water supply systems in Serbia. Larger cities, like the capital of Belgrade, may employ complex water treatment trains comprised of screening, ozonation, coagulation/flocculation, clarification, sand filtration followed by granular activated carbon, and chlorination. However, smaller public water supply systems lack adequate water treatment, which is particularly evident in northern Serbia, where contaminants such as arsenic and ammonia in the groundwater are prevalent (38, 41). In many smaller public water supply systems, chlorination represents the only course of water treatment, which could lead to generation of carcinogens in absence of proper monitoring and treatment. Similar practices are also employed in many village or privately-owned water supply systems, which are inadequately constructed or protected. Absence of clear ownership and responsibilities further complicates operation, management, and monitoring of these systems (43). In such environment, it often becomes impossible to enforce any water quality regulations, which, although not completely effective or clear, exist to provide some level of public health protection.

Wastewater Collection, Treatment Plants, and Pressure on the Recipient Serbia exhibits a significant divergence between the public water supply and sewage collection and treatment. In contrast to the 82% of the Serbian residents serviced by a public water supply system, only about 57.8% of them have access to a sewage collection system (35). The collection of sewage is not much different in the capital of Serbia, Belgrade, where about 62% of population had access to sewage as illustrated in Figure 8. These values are significantly different than many European cities, where about 95% of the population has access to sewage collection. The situation with sewage collection is even worse across Serbia as illustrated in Figure 9. Less than 45% of the population in northern Serbia has access to sewage collection, while 270 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


this number drops to about 31-36% in the other Serbian regions (34). In these regions, the majority of sewage is collected in septic tanks (34, 44). The practice of septic tanks use is quite high in some communities, especially in northern Serbia where this percentage reaches 40%. This generates a problem with groundwater contamination, which is especially threatening for public health in Serbia in lieu of proper national groundwater quality monitoring platform.

Figure 8. Regional comparison of population connected to sewage system. (Adapted from (34). SEPA (2013)) 271 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


Figure 9. Generated and collected wastewater in 2013 for the Belgrade (BR), north (NR), central and western (CWR), southern and eastern (SER) region of Serbia.

Figure 10. Treatment of collected sewage in Serbian municipal wastewater collection systems. Joint sewage/storm-water collection systems create a barrier in adequately solving the problem with treatment of municipal wastewaters. Increases in storm-water fluxes disturb the steady state sewage composition and create hydraulic pulses those existing sewage collection systems and conventional wastewater treatment plants are not designed to handle. Consequently, about 88% (~ 52 m3/capita/yr) of the sewage is directly discharged into the rivers without any 272 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


treatment (Figure 10) (35). Only about 12% (~ 7 m3/capita/yr) of the collected sewage is treated. Estimated 10% of the collected sewage (~ 6 m3/capita/yr) is biologically treated via secondary and tertiary treatment as illustrated in Figure 10. A small fraction, about 2% (~ 1.2 m3/capita/yr), of the total collected sewage is subjected to only primary treatment. Figure 11 summarizes the types of wastewater treatment and quantity of treated municipal wastewater in context of regional distribution. The majority of wastewater treatment plants are located in central and western Serbia, specifically in the river Morava watershed, where estimated 30% of the collected municipal wastewaters receive some level of treatment before discharging. Only about 15% of the collected wastewater is treated in communities of northern Serbia, while this percentage drops to about 7% in regions of south and east Serbia (35). Although the three largest cities in Serbia, Belgrade (central Serbia), Novi Sad (northern Serbia) and Nis (southern Serbia) have a well-developed water supply and sewage collection system, they directly discharge their untreated municipal wastewaters into the rivers of Serbia (44). Interestingly, Belgrade is one of few capital cities in Europe that do not have municipal wastewater treatment of collected sewage. Compared to other European countries, Serbia is at the bottom with only 10% of the collected sewage receiving adequate treatment before discharge (Figure 12) (24, 26, 27). Interestingly, however, the state water and health report published by the Serbian government suggests that this percentage is even lower. According to this report, only about 5% of the Serbian population is receiving the appropriate treatment of their sewage (43).

Figure 11. Treated wastewater in 2013 for the north (NR), central and western (CWR), southern and eastern (SER) region of Serbia. 273 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


Figure 12. Percent of population connected to at least secondary wastewater treatment for the period 2000–2011.

The only fully functional wastewater treatment plant in Serbia, which meets EU promulgated emission standards, is the 150 000 e.u. wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) Palic Lake in the city of Subotica (45, 46). Many of the existing WWTPs are out of service or do not function with design parameters because of inadequate operation, maintenance, and lack of financial resources (44). It is frequently difficult to explicate the low level of performance and compliance of these treatment systems because of absence of (1) proper wastewater emission standards; (2) adequate wastewater discharge monitoring and compliance platforms; and (3) trained personnel with expertise in wastewater treatment and monitoring. In absence of these elements, the municipal government and national government agencies resort to using unverified estimates in their environmental analyses and strategy development. However, even these estimates provide grim description of the existing level of river pollution from discharge of untreated municipal wastewaters. As illustrated with the example of the DTD canal in Figure 13, current estimated discharges from the majority of 23 communities discharging in the waterway exceed the maximum allowed daily BOD loads (estimated as BOD5) (47). This already grim scenario is projected to significantly worsen in the near future for complete wastewater discharges into the sewer system. However, the solution of constructing new wastewater treatment plants, which is typically proposed by the local politicians and environmental professionals, would be completely counterproductive in absence of proper infrastructural platform that incorporates adoption of proper emission standards, creation of mechanisms for enforcements, and development of trained professionals. 274 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


Figure 13. The current and predicted exceeding the maximum allowable discharge BOD5 load in the case of DTD canal (n=23). The error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. The majority of wastewater-sector investment projections, which are estimated to €4 billion on a national level, do not consider the long-term financial burden associated with these and other indirect costs (14). These expenditures, however, frequently outweigh the direct costs of construction over the life of the engineered infrastructural solution, and as such they impact the development of a comprehensive water management system in Serbia. Overview of the Regulatory Framework Needs for Water Management in Serbia A properly developed regulatory framework represents a cornerstone in successful development and implementation of any socio-economic or engineered system in a country. Being an integral component of the Serbian socio-economic fabric, the national integrated water management system of Serbia would have to be framed around strong and unambiguous set of laws and regulations that complement each other and provide clear institutional structure and direction for implementable water management practices. These regulations have to identify the roles and responsibilities of all parties engaged in sustainable management of the national system. Unfortunately, the existing regulatory framework inhibits 275 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


the creation of a sustainable integrated water management system in Serbia because of lack of implementable laws and regulation that create (1) jurisdictional ambiguity; and (2) ineffective management protocols and practices both on national and municipal levels. Considering that one of the strategic goals of Serbia is EU membership, it is prerequisite for Serbia to harmonize the national regulatory framework with the one of the European Union. It is estimated that $10.6 billion will be needed to complete this regulatory harmonization (26). This, however, does not include the necessary institutional reform that needs to be conducted in order to develop and sustainably implement an integrated water management system with all of its intricacies, which typically appear during its active day-to-day management. At this stage, this regulatory harmonization is confined to incorporating EU directives into the national regulatory system without any significant attempts to understand or examine their feasibility or appropriateness for Serbian society. This frequently generates regulatory loopholes, confusion, and jurisdictional overlaps. Consequently, these create operational challenges that hinder the effective command and control function of the agencies that are responsible for different segments of the integrated water management system. As part of the communist legacy, the existing laws and regulations that have not been “harmonized” with the EU regulatory body are cumbersome, vague, and practically ineffective because they have been framed to serve the needs of a different system, now obsolete. For example, the key water governing act in Serbia, 2010 Law on Water (48), was represents an updated version of the old socialist law promulgated during time of the Yugoslav socialist federation. With promulgation of this law, the Serbian government attempted to create a comprehensive regulatory framework, but instead created a cumbersome law that aims to provide regulatory details to every aspect of water and water management in Serbia. This approach creates an inflexible regulatory platform inflexible with diminished evolutionary capacity. It becomes very difficult to graft such an immalleable body of legislature into the existing socio-economic and engineered infrastructure of a society without engagement of parliament. This is counterproductive from an actual water operations and management perspective because the regulatory framework should provide for bandwidth and flexibility to address rapidly evolving conditions and situation within an integrated water management system. This could be easily achieved by creating explicit and governable laws that provide a solid regulatory and institutional structure, permit development of detailed regulations by the executive branch of government (e.g. Serbian Agency or Ministry of Environment), and allow for transfer of clear jurisdictional responsibility to municipal or regional levels. However, before such a law is promulgated, a clear analysis of the structure, role, responsibility, interand intra-operability of the existing institutions has to be conducted to identify the existing resources that could be utilized in developing the new integrated water management system. This analysis represents the first step in creating a national vision and strategy for a water management system that will serve the interests of Serbia. Each component of the new system with its clearly defined function and jurisdiction has to stem from this national strategy. Currently, the Republic of Serbia has not conducted an in depth analysis or developed a 276 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


national water management strategy. This condition prohibits creation of an effective concept upon which to build the new integrated water management system with all the necessary components. Yet, deadlines for development of fully operational, engineered solutions, such as wastewater treatment plants, are being created, and expenditures are being projected (49). The development of each component should not be prohibited until these steps are completed, but rather encouraged because an efficient water management system could only be created by simultaneously developing both the system concept and the detailed intricacies of each component. Auspiciously, some system components, such as the environmental data management platform, that could be incorporated into a national water management system are already well conceptualized as illustrated in Figure 14. However, other efforts yet need to be launched to create an integrated water management system on a national level.

Figure 14. Concept for environmental data management in the Republic of Serbia. (Adapted from (13). SEPA (2007))

The Role of the Serbian Education System Lack of well-trained environmental professionals represents one of the main barriers that hinders the development and implementation of an integrated water management system. The education in the old communist system was framed around memorization and regurgitation of facts. Efforts to develop critical thinking, independent learning, and problem solving skills were generally minimized although science and math were prevalent component in many elementary and high school curricula (50). Over the years, this trend consequently led to development of professionals who do not have the necessary skillset to 277 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


address the evolving water management or other environmental challenges in Serbia. The existing status of the Serbian education system offers nothing more than grim projections for the future generations of environmental professionals because of (1) lack of vision and strategies for the future; (2) limited funding and investment; (3) lack of qualified teachers; (4) absence of expertise and adequate curricula; and (5) conventionalism driven by inertia and resistance to change. Although the initial pool for developing the next generations of environmental professionals is quite large, the actual number of adequately educated people who could become actual professionals is very small. From about 95% of the Serbian children who are enrolled in elementary education, only about 80% enrolls in high school, and even smaller fraction of about 7% obtains a college degree (51). During the last 8-year period, only about 20% of the college graduates selected a science or engineering field of study, which represents the prerequisite to develop auspicious environmental professionals (52). To make things worse by decreasing the pool of eligible candidates, Serbia is faced the so-called “brain drain” phenomenon, a trend of losing a great number of already technically educated professionals who leave the country in search for better life. In absence of adequately trained environmental professionals and suitable university curricula for creating them, it becomes imperative to create a platform for developing the necessary workforce though specialized post-university training that focuses developing the needed water management personnel. This platform should to be structured around set of practical initial certification courses that encompass technical know-how, prudent management practices, and knowledge about the regulatory framework. Because of the evolving nature of the regulatory framework, management practices, and technology, the initial training courses should be reinforced on an annual or multi-annual basis by providing refresher training and recertification options. Development of this platform represents a major effort that would necessitate initiation and overseeing by the Ministry of Education and Science in coordination with other responsible parties such as other national and local government agencies, enterprises, and institutions of higher learning. The training curricula needs to be created by team of professionals who have the technical know-how and experience in developing and managing integrated water management systems. Considering there are a negligible number of environmental professionals with actual expertise in integrated water system management, the Serbian government would have to rely on experts of Serbian origin or heritage who work as professionals in the developed countries. Import of any foreign experts could prove counterproductive because it is highly probable that these experts may not have (1) knowledge of Serbia’s socio-cultural specifics or (2) vested interests in Serbia’s progress. To attract such profile of experts, the Serbian government would have to provide significant financial or other incentives, and eliminate any bureaucratic obstacles that stem from the socio-cultural matrix. These experts would have to be engaged for a long period of time until the newly created system starts generating trainers and experts that could take over the task and independently manage this educational component of the integrated water management system. 278 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


Conclusions The case study of the Republic of Serbia indicates that because of low adaptive capacity, developing countries are especially vulnerable to the climate changes and increasing depletion of water resources. The extreme floods that took place in May of 2014 illustrate critical situation and call for immediate action toward building of sustainable water management system in Serbia. Stemming from the presented overviews, Serbia faces a number of challenges that could be summarized in four main categories: (1) engineered infrastructure deficiencies; (2) regulatory and institutional paucity; (3) management inadequacies; and (4) scarcity of homegrown well-trained environmental professionals. To address these challenges and sustainably catalyze socio-economic progress of Serbia, the Serbian government will have to (1) conduct an in-depth analysis to elucidate the existing water management system-specifics and future needs; (2) develop clear vision and strategy for a new and sustainable water management system; (3) reform of the regulatory and institutional systems to serve the national interests; (4) initiate an educational platform for creating well-trained environmental professionals; and (5) conceptualize, structure, and implement a new integrated water management system that will synchronizing the effects stemming from the four principal pillars of every national socio-economic system: regulations, management, engineering, and education.

Acknowledgments The study was supported in part with funds from Ministry of Education, Science and Technological developments of the Republic of Serbia, (Project No. III43009). Sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Ljubinka Rajaković for constructive criticism.

References 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Bagatin, R.; Jaromír Klemeš, J.; Pietro Reverberi, A.; Huisingh, D. Conservation and improvements in water resource management: a global challenge. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 77, 1–9. Deng, Y.; Cardin, M.-A.; Babovic, V.; Santhanakrishnan, D.; Schmitter, P.; Meshgi, A. Valuing flexibilities in the design of urban water management systems. Water Res. 2013, 47, 7162–7174. Martins, G.; Brito, A. G.; Nogueira, R.; Ureña, M.; Fernández, D.; Luque, F. J.; Alcácer, C. Water resources management in southern Europe: Clues for a research and innovation based regional hypercluster. J. Environ. Manage. 2013, 119, 76–84. Bogardi, J. J.; Dudgeon, D.; Lawford, R.; Flinkerbusch, E.; Meyn, A.; PahlWost, C.; Vielhauer, K.; Vörösmarty, C. Water security for a planet under pressure: interconnected challenges of a changing world call for sustainable solutions. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sust. 2012, 4, 35–43. Rossi, G. Achieving ethical responsibilities in water management: A challenge. Agric. Water Manage. 2015, 147, 96–102. 279 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.

6.

7.


8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Dstrok;ukić, P. Sustainable development, utopia or a chance for Serbia; Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy: Belgrade, Serbia, 2011; ISBN 978-86-7401-273-4. Ludwig, R.; Roson, R.; Zografos, C.; Kallis, G. Towards an inter-disciplinary research agenda on climate change, water and security in Southern Europe and neighboring countries. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 794–803. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2014. European Environment Agency. Impacts of Europe’s changing climate-An indicator based assessment. TR No. 2/2004, Climate change and river flooding in Europe; EEA Briefing 01/2005. Ferrer, J.; Pérez-Martín, M. A.; Jiménez, S.; Estrela, T.; Andreu, J. GISbased models for water quantity and quality assessment in the Júcar River Basin, Spain, including climate change effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 440, 42–59. Blackman, A.; Harrington, W. The use of economic incentives in developing countries: lessons from international experience with industrial air pollution. J. Environ. Dev. 2000, 9, 5–44. Hristovski, K. D.; Hild, N. R.; Young-Hristovski, J. E. The environmental management system in the Republic of Macedonia-problems, issues and challenges. Communist Post-Communist Stud. 2010, 43, 115–124. Serbian Environmental Protection Agency. Environment in Serbia: an indicator - based review; Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection, 2007; [cited 2015 January 8], available from http://www.sepa.gov.rs/ download/Environment_in_Serbia_Full.pdf. Central European Development Forum. Cedef guide: Recommendations for the management of municipal and industrial waste in Belgrade and the Republic of Serbia; 2014; [cited 2015 January 10], available from https:// drive.google.com/file/d/0B5nJoQ-it7xBOHF3UVFreXl3bEU/view?pli=1. Serbian Cultural Forum. Demographics of Serbia; [cited 2015 January 5], available from http://www.skforum.at/ index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D118 %26Itemid%3D116%26lang%3Dsr. Wikimedia Commons. Blank map of Serbia; [cited 2015 May 10], available from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Blank_map_of_Serbia_(in_English).PNG. Srbijasume. Forest fond of the Republic of Serbia and public company “Srbijašume”; [cited 2015 March 13], available from: http://www.srbijasume.rs/sumskifond1.html. Encyclopedia Britanica; Serbia, 2014 June; [cited 2015 February 11], available from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/654691/ Serbia#toc92892. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Population 2011; [cited 2015 February 15], available from http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/Public/ PageView.aspx?pKey=162. 280 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


20. Electronic newspaper. The number of Serbian population is rapidly decreasing; 2012 June; [cited 2015 February 15], available from http://www.e-novine.com/drustvo/67240-Broj-stanovnika-Srbije-ubrzanoopada.html. 21. Belgrade. Population; [cited 2015 February 15], available from http://www.beograd.rs/cms/view.php?id=1201. 22. Balkan Magazine. When Serbia will overcome the economic crisis; 2014 October; [cited 2015 February 17], available from: http:// www.balkanmagazin.net/nauka/cid144-101734/kada-ce-srbija-izaci-izekonomske-krize. 23. Jaroslav Cerni Institute for the Development of Water Resources. Water resource base of the Republic of Serbia; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of the Republic of Serbia, 2001. 24. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Serbia 2014. Environment; [cited 2015 February 19], available from http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/repository/documents/00/01/54/10/ 11-Zivotna_sredina.pdf. 25. Electrical Power Utility of Serbia. Green book of Electrical Power Utility of Serbia; 2009 Jun; [cited 2015 March 13], available from http://www.eps.rs/ SiteCollectionDocuments/%D0%97%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0% BD%D0%B0%20%D0%BA%D1%9A%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0.pdf. 26. Directorate for Environmental Protection Ministry for Science and Environment. National Environmental Strategy of the Republic of Serbia; The Government of the Republic of Serbia, 2008; [cited 2015 February 22], available from http://indicator.sepa.gov.rs/slike/pdf/o-indikatorima/ nacionalna-strategija-odrzivog-razvoja-srbije. 27. Eurostat Statistics Explained. Water statistics. 2014 March and July [cited 2015 March 10]; available from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Water_statistics. 28. Dalmacija, B. In Control of water quality within the quality management; Dalmacija, B., Ed.; Faculty of Science, Institute of Chemistry: Novi Sad, Serbia, 2000; ISBN 86-7031-016-3. 29. European Environment Agency. Use of freshwater resources (CSI 018/WAT 001); 2010 December; [cited 2015 March 10], available from http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/use-of-freshwaterresources/use-of-freshwater-resources-assessment-2. 30. European Environment Agency. Towards efficient use of water resources in Europe; Report No 1/2012; [cited 2015 March 10], available from http:// www.eea.europa.eu/publications/towards-efficient-use-of-water. 31. Agency for Environmental Protection of the Republic of Serbia. Serbian Water Quality Index; [cited 2015 March 15], available from http://www.sepa.gov.rs/ index.php?menu=6&id=8007&akcija=showXlinked&#tabela2. 32. Republic of Serbia, Regulation on Classification of Water from Inter-republic Watercourses, Interstate Waters and Yugoslav Coastal Waters, Official Gazette SFRJ #6/78. [cited 2015 March 15]. 281 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.


33. Agency for Environmental Protection of the Republic of Serbia. Serbian Water Quality Index; [cited 2015 March 15], available from http:// www.sepa.gov.rs/index.php?menu=6&id=8010&akcija=showXlinked. 34. Agency for Environmental Protection. The quality and quantity of water resources in Serbia - current situation in the sector of water supply and sewerage system, Water supply and wastewater treatment in Serbia. 2013. Ministry of Energy, Development and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Serbia; [cited 2015 March 18], available from http://www.sepa.gov.rs/download/prezentacije/2013/ Serbian_Water_Quality&Quantity_Veljkovic.pdf. 35. Statistical office of the Republic of Serbia. Eco-bulletin 2013; [cited 2015 March 17], available from http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/repository/ documents/00/01/61/00/SB-585-EKO-2013.pdf. 36. Statistical office of the Republic of Serbia. Potable water supply in the Republic of Serbia 2013; [cited 2015 March 16], available from http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/repository/documents/00/01/40/78/ Saopstenje_ZS30_105_2014_srb+cir.pdf. 37. Statistical office of the Republic of Serbia. Potable water supply in the Republic of Serbia 2010; [cited 2015 March 16], available from http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/repository/documents/00/00/34/23/ ZS30062010srb.pdf. 38. University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Science. Strategy for water supply and water protection in AP Vojvodina; 2009; [cited 2015 March 19], available from http://www.eko.vojvodina.gov.rs/files/file/dokumenti/ sajt%20strategija%20vodosnabdevanja%20i%20zastite%20voda%20apv.pdf. 39. European Environment Agency. Water use efficiency (in cities): leakage; [cited 2015 March 16], available from http://www.eea.europa.eu/dataand-maps/indicators/water-use-efficiency-in-cities-leakage/water-useefficiency-in-cities-leakage. 40. PUC Water Supply “Sremska Mitrovica”. Price of services PUC “Water Supply”; [cited 2015 March 17], available from http://vodovodsm.rs/ korisnici/cene-usluga. 41. Institute of Public Health of Serbia “Dr Milan Jovanovic Batut”. Health safety of drinking water from central water supply system in the Republic of Serbia in 2013; [cited 2015 March 19], available from http://www.batut.org.rs/download/izvestaji/higijena/ Sestomesecni%20izvestaj%20vode%20za%20pice%202013.pdf. 42. Republic of Serbia. Law on Health Care. Official Gazette RS #107/2005 and 72/2009; [cited 2015 March 19]. 43. Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture and Environment. Implementation of the Protocol on Water and Health in the Republic of Serbia, situation analysis; 2014 November; [cited 2015 March 19], available from http://www.sepa.gov.rs/download/ Protokol_o_vodi_i_zdravlju_Analiza_stanja.pdf. 44. European Agency for Reconstruction in Belgrade. Sector Review Paper on the Water Supply and Wastewater Sector; 2006; [cited 2015 March 282 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.

45.


46.

47.

48. 49.

50.

51.

52.

20], available from http://www.misp-serbia.rs/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/ Sector-Review-Paper-on-the-Water-Supply-and-Waste-Water-Sector2.pdf. Rohmann, M. The new sewage plat Subotica and the water quality of lake Palic. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wastewaters, Municipal Solid Wastes and Hazardous Wastes; Subotica, Serbia, 10-12th April, 2013; Tamaš, Z., Ed.; Association for Water Technology and Sanitary Engineering: 2013; pp 60-65. Lompar, O.; Gavrilović, G.; Vasiljev, D. The reconstructed wastewater treatment plant and the water quality of the first sector of Palic lake. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wastewaters, Municipal Solid Wastes and Hazardous Wastes, Niška banja, Serbia, 05th-08st April, 2011; Tamaš, Z., Ed.; Association for Water Technology and Sanitary Engineering: 2011; pp 167-170. Pešić, V.; Dalmacija, B.; Bečelić, M.; Tamaš, Z. Characterization municipal wastewater in AP Vojvodina and their impact on recipient. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wastewaters, Municipal Solid Wastes and Hazardous Wastes, Subotica, Serbia, March 29− April 0l,2010; Tamaš, Z., Ed.; Association for Water Technology and Sanitary Engineering, 2010; pp 21−27. Republic of Serbia. Law on Water; Official Gazette RS #30/2010; [cited 2015 March 21]. Republic of Serbia. Regulation amending the Regulation on emission limits values of pollutants in water and deadlines for achieving them; Official Gazette RS #48/12; [cited 2015 April 23]. Institute for the Improvement of Education. Curricula; [cited 2015 April 25], available from http://www.zuov.gov.rs/poslovi/nastavni-planovi/nastavniplanovi-os-i-ss/?lng=lat. B92.net. Do we have the education and development of modern society; 2012 August; [cited 2015 April 5], available from http://www.b92.net/info/ dokumenti/index.php?nav_id=631430. The number of students; [cited 2015 April 6], available from https:/ /www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1VCdLGn7uhhVn ZDRM7Csl13lSLo8dEJkBBO48okg.

283 In Water Challenges and Solutions on a Global Scale; Loganathan, et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2015.

Building a Sustainable Water Management System in the Republic of

Recommend Documents