View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Corridor Assessment Orient/East-Med Corridor
(Serbia/ Kosovo*/The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
Key findings
• The TEN-T Orient-East Med Corridor incorporates Serbia and The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, while the Nis-Merdare-Pristina section links Kosovo* to the corridor in Serbia (as
shown above).
• Expert contributions within Section 2 reveal the usability of the motorway stretches along the
corridor to be satisfactory. Cracking and embrittlement remain the main problem along the
corridor while there are also instances of deep ground subsidence that have considerable
impact on human and road safety. On-going construction along sections of the corridor seek to
upgrade parts of it to full motorway status, or rehabilitate others with new asphalt.
* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of
Independence.
2 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
• The region is particularly vulnerable to warm temperature extremes, drought (decrease in
summer precipitation) and flash floods (from intense heavy showers, according to Section 3 i†
which will impact on the quality of the corridor’s roads.
• According to our three sub-corridor surveys, reflected in Section 3.ii, there are presently no
extreme threats while all those identified fall within a second tier of risk within the completed
consequence/likelihood scatter charts (where consequence = 3 from a max. of 4 and likelihood
is 4)‡. However, fluvial flooding due to heavy showers is a threat perceived throughout the
entire corridor.
• Under the foreseen (and more extreme) climate conditions, discussed in Section 3 iii, heavy
showers are expected to cause greater erosion and slide of embankments throughout the entire
corridor, as well as increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on transport
infrastructure on parts of it§. Snowfall and blizzards are expected to take a higher toll on the loss
of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control, while more frequent prolonged periods of rain
will lead to failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes, embankment and infrastructure
collapse, mudslides, ground subsidence, and slide or collapse on the inland transport
infrastructure. Curiously, despite warm temperature extremes being perhaps the major future
climate problem, it and its effects were not universally perceived as a key (top five) threat,
despite the current challenges of cracking and embrittlement (the conclusion being that short-
term repairs should be undertaken with long term solutions). Nevertheless, in Kosovo*, it was
explicitly flagged. Increased fog also emerged as an issue in Kosovo* and in The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia.
• Survey groups typically recommended geotechnical, biotechnical and hydro-technical measures
to adapt local surrounding objects and terrain (e.g. stabilize embankments), besides redesign
and road ground works (even implementation of, for instance, in Kosovo*) in order to ensure
faster drainage of surface water, stabilization of ground and embankments. Enforcing standards
too was mentioned, so as to ensure there is no violation during the construction phase!; better
and effective maintenance of water flows and flood control systems (cleaning of canals,
removing obstacles and construction of additional flood barriers) was suggested, besides raising
awareness of the dangers of inappropriate measures or maintenance; use of snow barriers, an
automatic road surface salting system besides an early warning Intelligent Transport System,
including Euro-standard Variable Message Signs (VMS), for both users and authorities was
mentioned. Furthermore, besides the use of new and improved materials and state of the art
technology and standards in road construction, in Kosovo* the introduction of heavy load truck
axes weight measurement was proposed. Furthermore, the transfer of knowledge and
experience from countries in warmer climate zones was welcomed. Finally, in Kosovo* a
recommendation was also made for a guidebook on innovative technological solutions. Detailed
recommendations for each threat in particular are presented in section 4 of this report.
† 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. ‡ Scatter charts for each territorial segment of the corridor are available in the sub-corridor reports in Appendix II. § As per sub-corridor reports available in Annex II to this report. 33 respondents filled in the online survey (15 in Serbia, 12 in Macedonia, 6 in Kosovo*).
52 participants attended the validation and recommendation workshops (24 in Serbia, 9 in Macedonia, 19 in Kosovo*). All project participants were
stakeholders in project implementation, i.e. infrastructure practitioners, transport demand management experts, Climate Change Experts, Local and
national/territorial decision makers in the field of Transport, Environment, Water, and others, NGOs, Transport associations, PhD Students in the field.
3 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
1. Introduction
The TEN-T Orient-East Med Corridor connects Central Europe with the Aegean Ports and Middle East,
inter-connecting Serbia and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, while the Nis-Merdare-Pristina
section links Kosovo* to the corridor in Serbia. In terms of traffic, it is one of the region’s most important
road and rail axes. It is a legally and practically integrated part of the EU Transport network too, which
supposes the same level of responsibility towards achieving the EU’s transport policy objectives,
including increased climate sensibility. In the past years, however, 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 thus have put significant efforts and resources
(including some of their national IPA allocations) into the rehabilitation of the destroyed road and rail
infrastructure. Flood remains one of the highest risks for the transport infrastructure, causing drastic
interruption of the transport services along the mentioned corridors. For this reason, a solid plan on
future maintenance and rehabilitation must be put in place, taking into account technology, materials
and measures that will assure road resilience to the projected climate changes, but also that the current
vulnerable sections which are in medium and poor condition are properly addressed.
REC led on the rapid assessment of climate impacts of the TEN-T Orient-East Med Corridor 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 performed within each participating economy: 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.
4 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
2. Current Conditions
The road infrastructure under this study’s review is that part of TEN-T Orient/East-Med Corridor in South
East Europe that begins in Belgrade and crosses Serbia and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(Macedonia) to the Greek border. The stretch from Pristina links Kosovo* to the corridor (Fig.1).
In Serbia, the route examined stretches from Belgrade to the border of The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia (total length about 370 km) as well as that from the city of Niš to Merdare, the
administrative boundary with Kosovo* (total length about 77 km) and on to Pristina. From Belgrade to
Bogoroditsa there is typically a full highway profile which is physically divided for each of the directions
and has three lanes each, except that part which runs through the gorge of Grdelica close to the
Macedonian border which is under construction and upgrading. The route which runs from Niš-Merdare
(Route 7) is a single lane road in either direction which is in poor condition. This part of network is
planned for future investment and upgrading to highway level.
In The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the corridor segment runs from Tabanovce bordering
Serbia in the north to Bogoroditsa bordering Greece, totalling 174 km. The remaining ~30 km section of
the Macedonian corridor (Demir Kapija – Smokvica) is being upgraded to full motorway profile.
Within Kosovo*, Route 7 is important at regional level**. The segment from Pristina to the boundary at
Merdare which connects Vermica (Врбница), Prizren (Призрен), Prishtina (Приштина), and Podujevë
(Подујево) is 26.5 km which is also single lane road in either direction and in poor condition.
** http://www.seetoint.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/01/Kosovo_Multimodal-Transport-Strategy-2012-2021.pdf
Fig. 1. South East Europe core road links, encircling the segment under review stretching from Belgrade (Serbia) to the Bogoroditsa border
crossing within The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as well as Route 7 Niš (Serbia) – Pristina (Kosovo*). (Source: SEETO)
Segment
under review
5 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
The terrain where the corridor and the
connected Route 7 passes is diverse
(Fig.2). It includes flatlands in valleys
of rivers (Danube, Great Morava,
Southern Morava, Llap), hilly areas
(around Belgrade (Serbia), in close
proximity to Deligrad (Serbia), to the
south of Niš (Serbia), and around
Pristina (Kosovo*), as well as heavy
terrain (south of Leskovac, Serbia) to
the Macedonian border, including
most of the segment within The
former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, as well as the segment
along route 7 from Kuršumlija (Serbia)
to the boundary with Kosovo*.
Detailed topography (including maps)
is presented within the sub-corridor reports in Appendix II.
The overall quality assessment of the state of usability of the motorway segments in Kosovo*, The
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia is satisfactory. There is a relatively small number of
hot-spots of ground subsidence with greater depth that are having considerable impact on the human
and road safety. However, cracking and embrittlement remain the main problem of the motorway
segment under review.
As far as Route 7 is concerned, the Serbian
segment is in poor condition with significant
infrastructure constraints and heavy terrain,
while traffic flow between Prokuplje (33 km
southwest of Niš) and Merdare (common
crossing point between Kosovo* and Serbia) is
relatively low. For the Merdare – Pristina
segment, the quality of the existing road is
average, but traffic congestion is a major
concern.
In addition to Average Annual Daily Traffic
(AADT) visible as high particularly on Serbian
segment of the motorway, this road also has
commercial importance for transiting Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV).
According to SEETO (Fig.3), average annual density of traffic (AADT) is highest along the corridor X
between Belgrade and Niš, somehow lower between Niš and Skopje, further decreasing After Skopje,
and reaching minimum before the border with Greece, as well as between Niš and Mardare. This part of
network is planned for future investment and upgrading to highway level.
Fig. 2. Topography of the area where corridor X
and connected Route 7 are located.
Fig. 3. Traffic density along the SEE Core Road Network,
including Corridor X. (Source: SEETO)
Corridor X
6 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
The South-East Europe Transport Observatory’s
Comprehensive network and Core network
mapping indicates completed roads and planned
future investments in Fig. 4. Detailed information
on future investments for the territorial segments
of the corridors are available in Appendix II.
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.5).††
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.‡‡ 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.§§
Figure 6 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:
†† European Union’s science and knowledge service: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/more-intense-floods-and-droughts-europe. ‡‡ Are we ready for climate change? Article | Signals — Living in a changing climate. European Environment Agency, 2015 §§ 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. 4. Completed roads and planned future investments
concerning SEETO Comprehensive network and Core
network. (Source: SEETO)
Fig. 5. 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
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
• 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. 6 we have enlarged the region and indicated key settlements where Blue = Sava/Danube rivers
and Red = Corridor X (ten), including Route 7 to be constructed between Nis (3) and Pristina (4).
Fig. 6. Key
settlements
along the
corridor to be
affected by
foreseen
climate risks
Fig. 7. Spatial distribution of projected extreme heat waves in Western
Balkans. (Source: GRID-Arendal)
8 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
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.***
According to the South-East Europe
Transport Observatory, droughts in the
last decade have severely affected the
state of the region’s inland waterways.
Coupled with low river maintenance by
national funds and lack of dredging and
riverbed surveying, it has resulted in an
increase of critical shallow waters on
certain sections of the Danube and Sava
Rivers (key international waterborne
arteries), impeding safe navigability along
the rivers.††† GRID-Arendal too observes
that for the western Balkans, there will
be “decreasing annual river discharge and low flow periods”.‡‡‡ Harsh weather conditions during winter
months have also led to disruption of navigation due to river surface icing or thick fog.§§§ Not
surprisingly, snow cover (as opposed to snowfall) will also diminish,**** 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.8). 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.††††
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 infrastructure.‡‡‡‡ Flood remains one of the highest risks for the
transport infrastructure, causing drastic interruption of the transport services along the mentioned
corridors.§§§§
*** Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, Pg. 37, Pg. 6 ††† SEETO Comprehensive Network Development Plan -Five Year Multiannual Plan (MAP) 2015, www.seetoint.org ‡‡‡ Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, Pg.6 §§§ SEETO Comprehensive Network Development Plan -Five Year Multiannual Plan (MAP) 2015, www.seetoint.org **** Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, pg.18 †††† Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, pg.17 ‡‡‡‡ SEETO Comprehensive Network Development Plan -Five Year Multiannual Plan (MAP) 2015, www.seetoint.org §§§§ Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, pg.38
Fig. 8. Projected precipitation
change in Western Balkans
(Source: GRID-Arendal)
9 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
ii) Current threats, consequences, likelihood, risks.
This section details current climate change threats and their ranking according to survey respondents
within different territorial segments of the corridor. Note: A full explanation and illustration of the
threat coding (e.g. T3 or T5) is given in Appendix I, following the methodology.
Most
popular
threats*****
Corridor section by participating economies
and percentage of respondents who chose that specific threat
Serbia The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia Kosovo*
1
T3 - Increased ground subsidence,
rock fall, landslide, or collapse on
transport infrastructure due to heavy
showers – 93%
T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy
showers (overland flow after
precipitation, groundwater level
increase) – 58%
T2 - Erosion and slide of
embankments due to heavy showers
– 83%
2
T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy
showers (overland flow after
precipitation, groundwater level
increase) – 73%
T3 - Increased ground subsidence, rock
fall, landslide, or collapse on transport
infrastructure due to heavy showers –
50%
T1 - Bridge scour due to heavy
showers – 67%
3
T38 - Reduced ability to perform
general maintenance due to
snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice
removal) – 73%
T18 - Cracking, embrittlement due to
thermal expansion; Migration of liquid
asphalt, asphalt rutting due to heat
waves – 50%
T8 - Failure of flood defence systems
of rivers and lakes due to long
periods of rain in catchment area–
67%
4
T2 - Erosion and slide of
embankments due to heavy showers
– 67%
T2 - Erosion and slide of embankments
due to heavy showers – 42%
T10 - Ground subsidence, slide, or
collapse on the inland transport
infrastructure due to long periods of
rain in catchment – 67%
5
T18 - Cracking, embrittlement due to
thermal expansion; Migration of
liquid asphalt, asphalt rutting due to
heat waves – 60%
T9 - Erosion or slides of infrastructure
and embankment due to long periods
of rain in the catchment area – 42%
T5, T6, T9, T11, T14, T18, T38†††††
share the same level of popularity,
i.e. they were each chosen as
important by 50% of respondents
• The analysis shows that threat T3 - Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on
transport infrastructure due to heavy showers is of concern for most of those who filled in the
survey in Serbia (93%), while most respondents from Kosovo* (82%) considered T2 - Erosion and
slide of embankments due to heavy showers as being the nr.1 concern. In The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, the most popular threat (58%) is T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers
(overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level increase)
• T2, T5 and T18 - Cracking, embrittlement due to thermal expansion; migration of liquid asphalt,
asphalt rutting due to heat waves are currently of concern throughout all the territorial segments
of the motorway.
• While for the Serbian and Kosovo* segment of the corridor, threat T38 - Reduced ability to perform
general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice removal) made the top five priority
list, it is not the same for The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. But T3 - Increased ground
subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on transport infrastructure due to heavy showers is of
concern to both the Serbian and Macedonian sectors of the motorway only, while T9 - Erosion or
slides of infrastructure and embankment due to long periods of rain in the catchment area is of
concern to Macedonian and Kosovo* sectors only.
***** 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 Annex 1. ††††† Full description and illustration of threats is available in Annex 1
10 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Of the 10 most “popular” threats in each participating economy, those considered to have the most
severe Consequences were examined. The table below illustrates the current situation. The values next
to the threats are explained in the attached Key for estimating consequences of threats (Fig.9).
Fig. 9. 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)
• Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (T5) is relatively popular in all three participating
economies and can prevent the usability of the road for between several days and a month that
can lead to accidents that cause permanent loss of health, serious material damage and heavy
injuries.
• Other threats that are perceived as having the most severe consequences and are shared between at
least two countries are T40 - Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to
snowfall/blizzards, T38 - Reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards
(snow and ice removal), T18 - Cracking, embrittlement due to thermal expansion; migration of liquid
asphalt, asphalt rutting due to heat waves, and T2 - Erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy
showers.
Ranking of
threats by
severity of
consequence
Corridor section by participating economies
and the respective level of severity
Serbia The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia Kosovo*
1
T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy
showers (overland flow after
precipitation, groundwater level
increase) – 3
T2 - Erosion and slide of
embankments due to heavy showers
– 3.1
T1 - Bridge scour due to heavy
showers – 3.2
2
T40 - Loss of driving ability due to
reduced vehicle control due to
snowfall/blizzards – 2.8
T9 - Erosion or slides of infrastructure
and embankment due to long periods
of rain in the catchment area – 3.0
T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy
showers (overland flow after
precipitation, groundwater level
increase) – 3.1
3
T38 - Reduced ability to perform
general maintenance due to
snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice
removal) – 2.7
T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy
showers (overland flow after
precipitation, groundwater level
increase) – 2.9
T38 - Reduced ability to perform
general maintenance due to
snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice
removal) – 3.0
4
T3 - Increased ground subsidence,
rock fall, landslide, or collapse on
transport infrastructure due to heavy
showers – 2.7
T23 - Ground subsidence, slide, or
collapse due to deforestation caused
by wildfires due to heat waves – 2.8
T2 - Erosion and slide of
embankments due to heavy showers
– 3.0
5
T18 - Cracking, embrittlement due to
thermal expansion; migration of
liquid asphalt, asphalt rutting due to
heat waves – 2.6
T40 - Loss of driving ability due to
reduced vehicle control due to
snowfall/blizzards – 2.8
T18 - Cracking, embrittlement due to
thermal expansion; migration of
liquid asphalt, asphalt rutting due to
heat waves – 2.9
11 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
• Looking at individual economies, within Serbia, a specific threat with the one of the greatest
consequences is T3 - Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on transport
infrastructure due to heavy showers. Within Kosovo*, it is T1 - Bridge scour due to heavy showers,
while within The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia there are two specific threats with greatest
consequences: T9 - Erosion or slides of infrastructure and embankment due to long periods of rain in
the catchment area, and T23 - Ground subsidence, slide, or collapse due to deforestation caused by
wildfires due to heat waves.
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. 10).
Fig. 10. Key for estimating likelihood of occurrence of threats under current climate conditions.
• The top likelihood of threats differs for the 3 countries, which might be due different terrain, climate
conditions and socio-economic capacity.
Ranking of
threats by
likelihood of
occurrence
Corridor section by participating economies
and the respective level of likelihood
Serbia The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia Kosovo*
1 T2 - Erosion and slide of embankments
due to heavy showers – 3.9
T40 - Loss of driving ability due to
reduced vehicle control due to
snowfall/blizzards – 3.2
T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy
showers, and T10 - Ground
subsidence, slide, or collapse on
the inland transport infrastructure
due to long periods of rain in
catchment: same level of
likelihood of occurrence – 3.3
2
T40 - Loss of driving ability due to
reduced vehicle control due to
snowfall/blizzards – 3.3
T3 - Increased ground subsidence,
rock fall, landslide, or collapse on
transport infrastructure due to
heavy showers – 3.0
T1, T2, T6, T9, T11, T14, T18 and
T38 share the same level of
likelihood of occurrence under
current climate conditions – 3.0
3 T37 - Damage to energy supply, traffic
communication networks due to
snowfall/blizzards – 3.3
T41 - Cracking, embrittlement due
to frost heave and thermal
expansion due to snowfall/blizzards
– 3.0
4 T8 - Failure of flood defence systems
of rivers and lakes due to long periods
of rain in catchment area – 3.2
T2, T18, T22 and T23 share the
same level of likelihood of
occurrence under current climate
conditions – 2.8
5 T6 - Loss of driving ability due to
reduced visibility and vehicle control
due to heavy showers – 3.2
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
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
• The results reveal that the Serbian segment of the corridor is most frequently exposed to erosion and
slide of embankments due to heavy showers (T2), which happens more than once every 3 years in
some of the hot-spots‡‡‡‡‡, while Macedonian sector to the loss of driving ability due to reduced
vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards (T40) (once in every 3 to 10 years). The same threat is
shared by the Serbian sector of the corridor with equal level of likelihood. For Kosovo*, fluvial
flooding due to heavy showers (T5) and ground subsidence, slide, or collapse on the inland transport
infrastructure due to long periods of rain in catchment (T10) are equally likely to happen most often
(once in every 3 to 10 years, as well).
• While erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy showers (T2) is most likely to happen once in
3 years, the other top threats are likely to happen once in every 3 to 10 years.
• For Kosovo* and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, a bigger number of threats are equally
likely to happen once in every 3 to 10 years.
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 3 sub-corridor segments
are presented below.
Ranking of
threats
according by
degree of risk
under current
climate
conditions
Corridor section by participating economies
and the respective level of risk
Serbia The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia Kosovo*
1 T2 - Erosion and slide of
embankments due to heavy showers
– 9.5
T40 - Loss of driving ability due to
reduced vehicle control due to
snowfall/blizzards – 8.9
T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy
showers (overland flow after
precipitation, groundwater level
increase) – 10.7
2 T40 - Loss of driving ability due to
reduced vehicle control due to
snowfall/blizzards – 9.3
T2 - Erosion and slide of
embankments due to heavy showers
– 8.8
T10 - Loss of driving ability due to
reduced vehicle control due to
snowfall/blizzards – 10
3
T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy
showers (overland flow after
precipitation, groundwater level
increase) – 8.5
T9 - Erosion or slides of
infrastructure and embankment due
to long periods of rain in the
catchment area – 7.9
T38 - Reduced ability to perform
general maintenance due to
snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice
removal) – 9
4 T37 - Damage to energy supply,
traffic communication networks due
to snowfall/blizzards – 8.3
T23 - Ground subsidence, slide, or
collapse due to deforestation caused
by wildfires due to heat waves – 7.8
T11 - Pluvial flooding due to long
periods of rain in catchment
(overland flow after precipitation,
groundwater level increase) – 8.7
5 T6 - Loss of driving ability due to
reduced visibility and vehicle control
due to heavy showers – 7.7
T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy
showers (overland flow after
precipitation, groundwater level
increase) – 7.2
T2 - Erosion and slide of
embankments due to heavy
showers – 8.2
• 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). However, fluvial flooding due to heavy showers is a threat perceived throughout the
entire corridor.
‡‡‡‡‡ for specific location of the hot-spots, see the Serbian sub-corridor assessment in Appendix II.
13 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
• The highest two risks: Erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy showers (T2) and Loss of
driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards (T40) – are the same for
Serbian and Macedonian sectors of the corridor.
• Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level increase)
(T5) is again a threat that poses a high risk throughout the entire corridor, albeit with slightly
different values.
• It is important to keep in mind that the value of risk is calculated based on the severity of impact
(likelihood and consequence), which additionally considers a weighting assigned during the detailed
analysis that respondents from each participating economy attach to route availability vs route
safety. Thus, we see that Serbia ranks safety as of greater importance than availability (5.3 vs 4.7),
whereas in The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, it is much more important than availability
(6.5 vs 3.5). In Kosovo*, on the other hand, route availability is more important than route safety (6.7
vs 3.3) (Fig.12).
iii) Future threats.
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”.
c) Kosovo* a) Serbia b) former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Fig. 12. Relative importance of route availability vs route safety in Serbia (a), The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(b) and Kosovo* (c).
14 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Ranking of threats by degree of risk
under foreseen climate conditions
(1 – highest)
Corridor section by participating economies and the respective level of risk
Serbia The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia Kosovo1
Pre-
workshop
Post-
workshop
Pre-
Workshop
Post -
workshop
Pre-
Workshop
Post-
workshop
1 T40 – (10.2)
T3 T40 – (10)
Tx T5 – (10.7) Ty
2 T5 – (10) T40 T2 – (9.8) T40 T38 – (10) Tz
3 T2 – (9.9) T2 T5 – (9.3) T2
T10 – (9.2) T5
4 T8 – (9.4) T8 T9 – (8.4) T5
T9 – (8.9) T38
5 T38 – (9.2) T38 T15 – (8.1) T9 and
T15
T2 and T1 –
(8.2)
T10, T9, T2,
T1
• During each workshop, participants in Serbia and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
displaced the top ranked threat, loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to
snowfall/blizzards (T40) with a new threat that in one case was on the list and in two
participating economies was not (in Kosovo*it was Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (T5)).
• Thus, while for Serbia an existing threat, increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or
collapse on transport infrastructure due to heavy showers (T3) was introduced as the foremost risk
under future climate conditions, in The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Kosovo* new
risks have been identified and introduced in the top of the ranking.
Threat
Number Threat Description
T1 Bridge scour due to heavy showers
T2 Erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy showers
T3 Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on transport infrastructure due to heavy showers
T5 Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level increase)
T8 Failure of flood defence systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in catchment area
T9 Erosion or slides of infrastructure and embankment due to long periods of rain in the catchment area
T10 Ground subsidence, slide, or collapse on the inland transport infrastructure due to long periods of rain in catchment
T15 Shorter maintenance windows, decreased lifetime, increased maintenance costs due to increased variability in warm/cool
days
T38 Reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice removal)
T40 Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards
Tx Loss of driving ability due to reduced visibility due to fog
Ty Embankment and infrastructure collapse and mudslides caused by flash flooding
Tz Embankment and infrastructure collapse and mudslides from prolonged periods of heavy rain
15 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
• For the Macedonian segment of the corridor, a new risk Tx - Loss of driving ability due to reduced
visibility due to fog – has been identified and ranked by participants in the validation workshop as
the foremost risk under foreseen climate conditions, despite not being previously included in the
methodology. Indeed, Tx was also flagged in Kosovo* in autumn and winter also.
• For the Kosovo* segment of the corridor, two new threats were identified and ranked by participants
in the validation workshop as the top foreseen risks. These are Ty - Embankment and infrastructure
collapse and mudslides caused by flash flooding, and Tz - Embankment and infrastructure collapse
and mudslides from prolonged periods of heavy rain.
• Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level
increase) (T5) and erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy showers (T2) are those threats
that are expected to become more common across all the segments of the corridor but to varying
degrees within. These drop to third or fourth rank as a result of the workshop results.
• Failure of flood defence systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in catchment area
(T8) remains a foreseen threat along the Serbian section of the corridor.
• Shorter maintenance windows, decreased lifetime, increased maintenance costs due to increased
variability in warm/cool days (T15) is a future risk specific for Macedonian section of the corridor.
• Ground subsidence, slide, or collapse on the inland transport infrastructure due to long periods of
rain in catchment (T10) is a future risk specific for Route 7 on the segment passing through Kosovo*.
• Curiously, despite warm temperature extremes being perhaps the major future climate problem, it
and its effects were not perceived by the group as a key (top five) threat throughout the survey,
despite the current challenge posed by cracking and embrittlement§§§§§ (the conclusion being that
short-term repairs should be undertaken with long term solutions). Nevertheless, in Kosovo*, it was
listed as an additional threat and a corresponding remedy flagged.
§§§§§ T18 - Cracking, embrittlement due to thermal expansion; migration of liquid asphalt, asphalt rutting due to heatwaves (roads)
16 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
During the workshops, we invited participants to ‘map’ the foreseen threats’ specific locations****** and
these are illustrated in Fig.13 (note the map has been rotated 90 degrees anti-clockwise, therefore the
north-south orientation is from left to right).
****** The workshops only looked at future threats given that we are looking towards the future with respect to planning, rather than the
present.
Location of key future risks:
- in Serbia
- in Kosovo*
- in The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia
- territorial borders
- administrative line
- Orient/East-Med Corridor
Kosovo*
N
S
Map Key
Доње Љупче Доње Љупче
17 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
4. Recommendations
During the workshops participants were invited to recommend adaptation measures to reduce the
vulnerability of the given road infrastructure to the highest ranked threats foreseen in the identified
locations (see Fig.13). Their suggestions were as follows:
SERBIA
• Aleksinac, Begaljičko brdo, Grdelica
Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on transport infrastructure due to
heavy showers (T3)
- Solution: Geotechnical and hydro-technical measures for adaptation of local surrounding objects
and terrain besides redesign and road ground works in order to ensure faster drainage of surface
water, stabilization of ground and embankments.
• Medveđa, Ražanj
Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards (T40)
Solution: Constructing snow barriers, installing early warning system, which would inform both
road users and road authority ensuring fast and reliable meteorological information and
predictions, traffic information, two-way information transfer, multi-channel information
distribution (radio, internet, dedicated information signs, special communication lines, public media
etc.). The use of new and improved materials for salting (built-in systems for road salting, new
materials for faster defrosting of the roads) in winter conditions.
• Begaljičko brdo, Kolari, Grdelica, Kuršumlija, Srpska kuća
Erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy showers (T2)
Solution: Use of different geotechnical, biotechnical and hydro-technical measures and works
aiming to stabilize the embankments, and their sliding and erosion. These solutions include terrain
redesign and ground works in order to ensure faster drainage of surface water, stabilization of
ground and embankments
• Mijatovac, Kuršumlija
Failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in catchment area
(T8)
Solution: Better and effective maintenance of water flows and flood control systems (cleaning of
canals, removing obstacles and construction of additional flood barriers) pooled from the
experience of the past few years where one of the main causes of flooding was insufficient capacity
of water flows due to poor maintenance. Looking into alternative routes is also seen as a solution
by bypassing of vulnerable points.
• Bubanj potok, Ražanj
Reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice
removal) (T38)
18 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Solution: Automatic road surface salting system when snow and ice occur, implementing early
warning system (as described for threat T40 above) and constructing snow barriers (dedicated
barriers for preventing of snow-drifting).
THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
• Section Petrovec – Veles, Section Negotino – Gevgelija, All River Bridges
Loss of driving ability due to reduced visibility due to fog (Tx)
- Solution: Better signalization – not required only to cope with the fog threat. Apart from the
standard road signalization, it is proposed to use Variable Message Signs (VMS) and dynamic
signalizations, particularly upfront the critical sections of the Macedonian segment to inform road
users of any irregularity or interested situations on the motorway. Special attention when utilizing
VMS needs to be paid to their harmonization at regional or European level, as they need to be
understood by all motorway users of different nationalities/ethnicities.
• Katlanovo hill (section Veles – Skopje)
Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards (T40)
Solution: Improvement of the maintenance in general, and of emergency preparedness of the
relevant public service units in particular, accompanied by the provision of appropriate equipment,
ex. winter service vehicles, snow plough devices, etc.
• Section Demir Kapija – Smokvica, Section Petrovec – Veles
Erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy showers (T2)
Solution: Improvement of project design and implementation by designers and engineers with the
use of state of the art technology and standards. Ensuring there is no violation of these during the
construction phase. Introduction of various technical measures, including setting up of geo- and
bio-stabilizations on the side slopes and embankments.
• Section Skopje – Petrovec, Section Negotino - Gevgelija
Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level
increase) (T5)
Solution: Introduction of the state-of-the-art technical and engineering standards for project
design that would replace the existing. In many cases obsolete ones. In addition, more focus needs
to be put on the improvement of the torrential/river management, primarily by increasing
awareness and understanding of the differences between torrent and river, which often appear to
be the main reason for inappropriate measures or maintenance.
• Section Petrovec – Veles, Section Negotino - Gevgelija
Erosion or slides of infrastructure and embankment due to long periods of rain in catchment (T9)
Solution: Installation of various protective walls as per specific needs on sections of the route.
• All sections
Shorter maintenance windows, decreased lifetime, increased maintenance costs due to increased
variability in warm/cool days (T15)
19 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
Solution: Adaptation of the working hours to best fit with the natural condition, as well as the
transfer of knowledge and experience from countries that are in the warmer climate zones to learn
how to deal with the consequences of high temperatures and heat waves. Subsequently, from
colder climate zones to learn how to deal with the consequences of frost heave, snowfall/blizzards,
etc.
KOSOVO*
• Lupç i Poshtëm
Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level
increase) (T5)
Solution: Protection of river banks, better road drainage systems, increasing the height of the road
bed. Protection from erosion of bridge struts that are submerged in water and which ought to be
reinforced with gabions of 0.5 to 1 m in the river bed 20 m before the pole and 20 m after in the
direction of river flow.
• Segment from Vranidoll to Lupç i Poshtëm
Erosion or slides of infrastructure and embankment due to long periods of rain in catchment (T9)
Solution: Strengthening sloped embankments (constructing protective structures made of
reinforced concrete, protective concrete walls, gabions, pilot foundations), afforestation, geo-
synthetic embankments.
• Segment from Vranidoll to Lupç i Poshtëm
Ground subsidence, slide, or collapse on the inland transport infrastructure due to long periods of
rain in catchment (T10)
Solution: a) reinforcing the road bed with thick layers of gravel and sand; b) putting a reinforced
layer on the deformed road with geo-synthetic materials; and c) raising the road level in order to
improve drainage of run-off.
• Entire route
Cracking, embrittlement due to thermal expansion; migration of liquid asphalt, asphalt rutting
due to heatwaves (roads) (T18)
Solution: Introduction of heavy load truck axes weight measurement, better road bed construction,
adding a lasting layer of high temperature resistant asphalt.
• The whole segment
Reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice
removal) (T38)
Solution: Automatic road surface salting system when snow and ice occur, implementing early
warning system and constructing snow barriers (dedicated barriers for preventing of snow-drifting).
Loss of driving ability due to reduced visibility due to fog during the late autumn and winter
seasons (Tx)
Solution: Better signalization – not required only to cope with the fog threat. Apart from the
standard road signalization, it is proposed to use Variable Message Signs (VMS) and dynamic
signalizations, particularly upfront the critical sections of the Macedonian segment to inform road
20 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
users of any irregularity or interested situations on the motorway. Special attention when utilizing
VMS needs to be paid to their harmonization at regional or European level, as they need to be
understood by all motorway users of different nationalities/ethnicities.
A recommendation was also made for a guidebook on innovative technological solutions.
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 ROADAPT†††††† and RIMAROCC‡‡‡‡‡‡ 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
†††††† 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; ‡‡‡‡‡‡ 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
21 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
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
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.
22 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
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.
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.
23 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
• 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;
- 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.
24 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
ILLUSTRATIONS OF THREATS LISTED IN THE CLIMACOR II SURVEY
Threat Graphic representation
1. Bridge scour due to
heavy showers (roads,
railways or
waterways)§§§§§§
2. Erosion and slide of
embankments due to
heavy showers (roads or
railways)
3. Increased ground
subsidence, rock fall,
landslide, or collapse on
transport infrastructure
due to heavy showers
(roads or railways)
§§§§§§ This threat refers to bridge scour as a consequence of increased velocity of water caused by intense rainfalls.
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
25 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
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)
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)*******
******* 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).
26 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
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)
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)
27 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
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)
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)
28 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
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)
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)
29 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
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)
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)
30 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
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)
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)
31 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
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)
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)
32 | P a g e
ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT
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)
Appendix II
Sub-corridor assessments
• Serbian Segment
• Macedonian Segment
• Kosovo* Segment
Recommended