Tag Archives: Danube River Basin Management Plan

Croatian plan to turn rivers into channels results in protests to EU

Posted on by
Reply

WWF

Zagreb, Croatia: Newly unveiled plans which would turn the Danube and Croatia’s other rivers into little more than regulated canals have been protested to the European Union by WWF, Croatian NGOs and EuroNatur.

The plans, released by the Croatian Water Management Authority run counter to European water and environmental regulations – and potentially throwing up obstacles to Croatia joining the EU.

The proposed river regulation projects along the Danube, Drava, Mura, Sava and Neretva Rivers would transform many natural meandering river stretches into a unified canal, fixed by stones, groins and embankments.

In defiance of the EU Water Framework Directive, the Danube Strategy and the Danube River Basin Management Plan, about 440 km of natural river stretches of the Danube and Sava rivers could be regulated and destroyed, damaging Europe’s largest floodplain forests and wetland areas. Also under threat would be endangered species such as the Little tern, White-Tailed eagle, Otter and Sturgeon.

“We are very much concerned that new planned river regulation projects along all major rivers in Croatia are threatening unique natural areas and counteracting efforts of the EU to bring water management in line with EU policy and law”, said Arno Mohl, Freshwater Expert at WWF Austria. “Specifically, we are concerned about the planned large-scale river regulation schemes, sediment extraction and irrigation projects along the Danube, Drava, Mura, Sava and Neretva Rivers”.

A delegation of Croatian NGOs , WWF and EuroNatur handed over a protest letter to Ambassador Paul Vandoren, Head of the EU Delegation in Zagreb, addressed to EU Environment Commissioner, Janez Potocnik and EU Enlargement Commissioner, Stefan Füle, expressing their deep concern about the new regulation projects planned by the Croatian Water Management Authority.

“These are river management plans of last century,” Arno Mohl said. “European river authorities are suggesting ecologically more acceptable methods of river management that leave more space for the rivers. They are doing this because we now realize that a naturally functioning river not only has more life than a canal, but it also provides natural mechanisms to better deal with droughts and floods.”

The regulation plans

“The regulation plans are the biggest attack on Croatian and European natural heritage since the country became independent. The ongoing resistance of the Croatian Water Management Authority to follow common European values and standards is unacceptable. We urge the EU Commission to help stop this old fashioned way of river management and urge the Croatian government to impose a moratorium on these plans”, say the NGOs.

Given the ongoing resistance of the water management sector of Croatia to find an appropriate strategy for the development of the rivers, the NGOs have asked the European Commission to immediately urge Croatia, respectively the Water Management Authority to:

Refrain from taking any further decisions or steps in the implementation of these projects and to impose a moratorium on these river regulation, sediment extraction and irrigation projects.

Initiate a round table between all relevant stakeholders to discuss and review current projects and practices and find sustainable alternatives in line with Croatian and EU law.

According to official information from the Croatian government and statements from different European officials, Croatia has reached the final stage of negotiations on accession to the European Union. As part of this process, Chapter 27 (Environment) has been provisionally closed during the last pre-accession conference in December 2010.

“We believe that fulfilling EU environmental obligations is a condition for Croatia’s further integration into the EU – and ultimately for EU accession”, Arno Mohl said.

More about current river management practice in Croatia

Dates back to the socialist times of former Yugoslavia and is in clear contradiction with the principles of sustainable development and environmental protection of the EU.

Contravenes EU environmental legislation (including the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats and Bird Directives) and Croatian environmental law (Nature Protection Act).

Threatens European endangered habitats and species within proposed Natura 2000 sites and leads to the deterioration of the “ecological status” of river ecosystems.

Endangers well preserved river ecosystems, wetland areas and alluvial forests, including protected areas and wetland areas of international importance (Ramsar sites) in Croatia.

Source

Visit WWF

EU Danube Strategy to promote basin-wide development

Posted on by
Reply

WWF

WWF welcomes the EU’s initiative to develop a Danube Strategy, which can help bring together and implement existing policies and legislation to achieve long-term sustainable development across the Danube basin.

Development of the Strategy comes at a time when the Danube region faces a series of unprecedented crises: financial, economic and — even more ominously — from climate change and loss of biodiversity and related ecosystem services.

“The EU Danube Strategy presents an opportunity for the countries of the Danube region to get ahead of the development curve — to pull themselves together and put themselves on a path toward a long-term and prosperous future, including a green, carbon-free and resource-efficient economy,” said Andreas Beckmann, director of the WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme.

Baltic inspiration

The initiative has been inspired by the Baltic Strategy, which was officially adopted last year and is now focusing efforts of Baltic countries from Sweden to Estonia to address issues including marine pollution and transportation.

A five-month public consultation process for the Danube Strategy got under way on February 2 with a kick-off conference that took place in Ulm in Germany. Follow-up events are planned to take place through June in Budapest, Vienna, Ruse (Bulgaria) and Constanta (Romania), providing input for a draft to be developed by the European Commission in the summer that is expected to be officially adopted under the Hungarian EU Presidency in spring 2011.

WWF has published a discussion paper related to the Danube Strategy; an official position will follow in early April.

European Commission officials have been clear that the Strategy will bring no new funding, no new legislation and no new institutions – i.e. it can thus only focus and coordinate efforts on issues of common interest to countries in the Danube basin. Nevertheless, the Strategy can influence the allocation of existing funds, and shape priorities for the EU’s next financial period, 2014-21.

Danube basin

The Danube is the most international river basin in the world, including all or parts of the territories of 19 countries and home to some 83 million people. The region includes some of the economically poorest and richest countries in Europe, as well as a major portion of the continent’s natural wealth.

The key challenge and opportunity for the future of the Danube basin is to find ways to enhance livelihoods while preserving and even enhancing the ecosystems that provide essential goods and services for people and nature – and addressing through this significant differences in socioeconomic development between countries such as Austria and Germany on the one hand, and Bulgaria and Romania on the other.

The EU and Danube countries already have most if not all of the tools they need to achieve this objective, from progressive legislation such as the EU Water Framework Directive to funding programmes that in theory can provide financing for investments in a green economy, including investments in e.g. wetland restoration or nature conservation.

The problem in most cases has been putting what is required or possible on paper into actual practice. The Danube Strategy may help in focusing and integrating efforts to implement relevant policies, both across sectors and national borders, and including with those Danube countries like Ukraine or Serbia that are not presently members of the Union. It can also help address specific environmental challenges, including nutrient pollution, e.g. from agriculture and household detergents; networking protected areas; or promoting energy efficiency.

In addition, the Strategy can also complement and build on existing initiatives and achievements, including the Carpathian Convention and the recently adopted Danube River Basin Management Plan – the first comprehensive, cross-sectoral plan for the region, which has been developed and adopted by all countries in the Danube river basin, including both EU and non-EU member states.

Déjà vu?

But the Danube Strategy may have gotten off on the wrong foot in terms of addressing the key challenge of integrating environment and development.

In its current form, the Strategy envisions three pillars, including environment, socio-economic development and connectivity, especially related to transport and energy. The approach risks repeating the present major challenge of treating the issues separately and in isolation — an approach that has many efforts working at cross-purposes, e.g. on the lower Danube, where current approaches to developing navigation risk unnecessarily cutting sturgeon migration routes, possibly pushing the ancient Danube species to extinction.

Interventions planned through the Danube Strategy must maintain and enhance the region’s natural and social capital as the foundations for long-term development in the region.

“The unprecedented crises that we are facing are ample proof that business as usual is simply not an option”, Beckmann said. “We need a paradigm shift, and with a bit of imagination and courage, the Danube Strategy can provide this by painting and helping to realise a bold and long-term vision for sustainable development in the region.”

Contact:
Irene Lucius, Senior Policy Coordinator, WWF-DCPO

Source

WWF.Panda

Power from the Danube – can it be sustainable?

Posted on by
Reply

Danube Watch

Danube leaders discuss the increased need for CO2-neutral energy, the construction of new hydropower plants, minimum ecological requirements and how all of this can be in line with the Danube River Basin Management PlanCredit: Verbund
When constructing new hydropower plants, energy companies spend a lot of money to ensure that fish can still overcome the obstacles.

Based on the possible effects of climate change and pressure stemming from the renewable energy sector, hydropower is a hot topic within the European Union as well as around the world. Voices for increased exploitation of hydropower along the rivers are getting louder.

The biannual meeting of the ICPDR Heads of Delegation in Brdo, Slovenia dedicated a special discussion to the current and future situation of hydropower in the Danube River Basin, initiated by the ICPDR Presidency 2010 and chaired by Roko Žarnic´, Minister for Environmental Protection and Spatial Planning of Slovenia.

Nearly all Danube countries depend on hydropower. The upper part of the Danube is ideal for building hydropower plants due to the river‘s natural gradient. A total of 59 dams have been built along the Danube’s first 1,000 kilometres – from the source down to Gabcikovo – many of them decades ago. This means that the Upper Danube is interrupted every 16 km on average.

Around 60% of the electricity generated in Austria yearly originates from hydropower – 20% produced along the Danube itself. In Slovakia, hydropower counts for about 16% of the energy mix; 11% derives from the hydropower plan Gabcikovo. The largest hydropower dam and reservoir system along the Danube is located at the 117-km-long Djerdap Gorge (Iron Gate Dam I and II). This peak operation system consists of two dams, operated jointly by Serbia and Romania, producing about 37 % of the total energy used in Serbia and 27 % in Romania.

Even more power from the water. Due to pressure from EU policies responding to the possible effects of climate change and the strong dependence on imported electricity, construction of new hydropower plants is currently under discussion or in planning phases on the Sava, Mura, Drava and the Tisza Rivers, as well as on the Danube itself between Romania and Bulgaria.

However, existing and planned constructions can cause hydromorphological alterations which have negative impacts. Such alterations can cause river and habitat interruptions, the disconnection of wetlands and floodplains and can even provoke changes in the natural structure of rivers, including the alteration of river depth and width, of flow regimes, the interruption of sediment transportation as well as the interruption of natural fish migration routes.

These effects work against the spirit of the EU Water Framework Directive and the goals set out in the Danube River Basin Management Plan, which was accepted by all Danube Countries in February this year. “We need to find a compromise between the goals set out by the EU Renewable Energy Directive and the EU water policy”, says Žarnic´. “Securing the sustainability of hydropower is one of the main challenges in the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive”.

Best planning, construction and operation – but not everywhere.Best practises for planning, construction and operation of plants can minimise their negative effects, as seen at the Freudenau Hydropower Plant, Austria. Especially on the Upper Danube, millions of Euros are being spent and will be spent in the coming years to re-fit old-fashioned plants for the future, as requested by the WFD. Unfortunately, however, these standards are not state of the art in plants throughout the basin. And even if all ecological standards are met by a plant, hydropower potential alone can not be seen as a green light for its exploitation.

“We need to look at each hydropower project individually as we have high-sensitive, sensitive and nonsensitive areas”, says Otto Pirker from VGB Power Tech. “Public interests need to be respected: energy production or environmental protection.”

Small plants – smaller footprints? Another key problem is the increased and subsidised construction of small hydropower plants. “There is a general conception that a small hydropower plant causes small impacts”, says Jian-hua Meng, hydropower expert from WWF International, “but this is not true. Moreover, there is a substantial cumulative impact.”

Facing the problems these smaller plants cause for river ecology requires new thinking.. “First of all we should focus on sites of catchment areas with high hydropower potential. Secondly we should use from these sites only those with low impacts on ecology. Maybe it is even better to upgrade existing hydropower plants instead of new buildings or to build one large plant instead of constructing hundreds of small ones along all rivers – we need to be realistic and creative with solutions”, says Fritz Holzwarth, Head of the German Delegation to the ICPDR.

Dialogue to reach solutions. Coming years will show if and how hydropower can be produced sustainably. The ICPDR is ready to open this chapter with stakeholders from the energy sector to discuss, explore and define solutions which respect both the increased demand of CO2-neutral energy and the protection of rivers and habitats. Clearly, duplication with other efforts at the national or on the EU-level should be avoided, and the ICPDR will take into account ongoing discussions and suggested solutions.

As a first step all relevant documents on hydropower will be assembled and an overview on the current situation of the hydropower use in the Danube River Basin will be prepared by autumn. “Working with the navigation sector to develop the ‘Joint Statement on Inland Navigation and Environmental Protection’ was a very good experience”, says Philip Weller, ICPDR Executive Secretary. “We are positive that the dialogue with the energy sector will also lead to a fruitful and moreover sustainable outcome.”

NON-DAM HYDROPOWER – THE SOLUTION FOR THE FUTURE?
One of the most exciting innovations in hydropower doesn’t use dams. Instead, ‘hydrokinetic’ turbines capture energy from the flow of water in rivers, estuaries and ocean currents. Hydrokinetic turbines look just like underwater wind turbines built on the riverbed or hanging upside down from barges anchored in the river. Nondam hydropower could have a lower impact than dam-based hydropower and other conventional generation technologies, with no significant engineering challenges to install or operate the turbines in rivers.

In January 2010, the Pike Energy consulting firm estimated that if the European Union and the United States continue to increase incentives for non-carbon energy, there could be about 3,000 megawatts of river flow turbines installed by 2025.

from internationalrivers.org

by Jasmine Bachmann, Executive Editor of Danube Watch.

Source

Visit Danube Watch