Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

Table 11.8. Estimation of the necessity of irrigation by region
Belgrade Vojvodina West Serbia Sumadija East Serbia SE Serbia
Not necessary 42.8 41.5 51.1 37.7 52.8 24.1
Necessary for part of arable land 14.7 21.0 24.7 23.1 17.8 42.5
Necessary for all arable land 42.5 37.5 24.2 39.2 29.4 33.4
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
N=1303
11.16. Conclusions
1. In Serbia, water supply and sanitation services
reveal important differences by settlement type
and region. There is wide discrepancy in access
to piped (centralized) services between Belgrade
and rural areas, while secondary towns are in
between depending on the region they are
located in. The quality and availability of service
in Belgrade is mostly satisfying.
2. The priority of the people is not having a 24 hour
service but a regular, safe and reliable service.
The services in rural areas require improvement
and centralized water supply and sanitation
services could be extended to those rural areas
where services are not available. Currently, only
the rural areas closer to urban settlements
especially close to Belgrade benefit from
extension of services.
3. WSS investments appear to be more needed in
some regions than in others. For example, the
conditions are generally satisfactory in the
Belgrade region; but the survey illustrated that
East Serbia is lagging behind in connections and
overall water availability, thus investments to
this region to enhance the standards would be
important.
4. Rural households are the most disadvantaged.
Rural households not only lack centralized water
but also sewerage. Connection to central piped
sewerage system among rural households is low.
5. Outside urban areas, solid waste management
services are not available.
6. Irrigation and drainage system is in an
emergency state in Vojvodina, and Sumadija.
Endnotes, Part 11
1 All serial numbers ending with an even number
2 Bartol Letica, a WB qualitative interviewer, visited Belgrade,
Kraljevo, Krusevac and Zrenjanin and a number of villages in
Nis, Kraljevo, Zrenjanin counties and Podavalje region.
Discussants and counterparts in these locations included local
authorities, water management companies, small businesses,
hospital and school directors, salespeople working in shops
selling WSS equipment and parts, and individual households.
Most of the interviews were one-on-one while some gradually
developed into focus groups format as more interested
residents/interlocutors joined the conversation by offering
their opinions and views. Some of his results are presented
here.
3 “Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Water Supply, Wastewater
and Solid Waste Management,” p. 2.
4 Improved sources of water include public and rural water
supply, public tap/standpipe, dug well, protected dug well or
standpipe, bottled water. Unimproved sources include
unprotected well or standpipe, tanker truck or
lake/river/stream.
5 The sources of water used for purposes other than drinking
(cooking and bathing) were similar to those indicated for
drinking
6 The most telling instance of this came out during a qualitative
interview in one of the villages in Podavalje where two
neighbors had a very serious argument and stopped talking:
regardless, one sent a message to the other through another
neighbor that all that did not mean that he could not still get
the water from the well.
7 Calculation based on 1978 households who gave a non-zero
amount
8 SE Serbia has no responses to this question as they all
respondents in this ED stated that the drainage system was not
at all developed
In terms of the necessity for irrigation this was rated highest in
Belgrade and the lowest in West Serbia.
Water and Sanitation Services
161