|
On June 20, 1995 the Court accepted the first "amicus curiae" (friends of the court) filing on behalf of nine international environmental and human rights NGOs, which are demanding the restoration of the Danube ecosystem. This acceptance of the "NGO Memorial" was a precedent setting first step towards the eventual development of a body of international law, which will, - on behalf of mankind, - protect the natural environment against the irresponsible acts of national governments. On the 25th of September, 1997 the International Court of Justice ruled that implementing the diversion of the Danube was illegal and that the 1977 original treaty is still in effect.
The ICJ ruling in effect said that "the operation of the components shown in Arabic numbers" is illegal, (and therefore should be discontinued) and that the 1977 treaty is still in effect. Therefore the components shown in Roman numbers are legal (and therefore should be operated). Please find attached below the explanations of both sets of numbers and please note that the Compromise Plan prepared by the environmentalists is fully consistent with the ICJ ruling, so please support it.
PARTS OF THE 1977 TREATY:
I: Dunakiliti dam
(built, but not in use)
II: Planned and than suspended Dunakiliti closure at
Dunakiliti
III: The 21 kilometer headwater channel and navigation route
leading from Dunakiliti to Gabcikovo, (built and operating)
IV: The Gabcikovo
barrage (built and operating)
V: The 9 kilometer outlet channel below
Gabcikovo (built and operating)
"VARIANT "C" COMPONENTS, WHICH THE COURT FOUND ILLEGAL
1: The 10
kilometer headwater channel from the Cunovo barrage
2: The sluice across the
Mosoni Danube
3: The Cunovo barrage
4: The Cunovo riverbed closure
5:
The (now useless) original navigation route in the natural riverbed, which now
also contains a partial closure, installed before the visit of the judges.
Between now and March 25, 1998, the two parties will probably seek the
participation of the European Union in the coming negotiations. If an agreement
is not reached by than, the Court will impose its own will by June 25, 1998. If
the will of the court is not accepted by the parties, the matter goes before the
Security Council of the UN. It is hoped that the final resolution will come
close to some variation of the Compromise Plan.
The Danube river brings the water down from the Alps and enters the Carpathian Basin, below the city of Bratislava. Here, the river splits into three: The Minor Danube is in the north in Slovakia, the Danube river itself in the middle forms the border between Slovakia and Hungary and the Mosoni Danube flows to the south in Hungary.
After the last Ice Age, this region used to be the delta of the ancient Pannon Sea which filled the whole Carpathian Basin. While, during the last 10,000 years, the Pannon Sea dried up, some 400 species, which evolved in this unique inland sea delta, did survive. The region between the Danube and the Mosoni Danube is called (in Hungarian) the Szigetkoz, which means: "region of a thousand islands".
The model shows the original riverbed, which has been blocked by Slovakia at the village of Cunovo (red colored dot on the model). As a result, and in order to prevent the riverbed from going completely dry, Hungary also blocked the main riverbed at the 1840th river kilometer near Dunakiliti (also noted by a red dot on the model), by a bottom weir. Due to this dual blocking of the riverbed, the polluted, virus and bacteria infested water been trapped. One should note, that underground (below the Szigetkoz) is one of Europe's largest freshwater reservoirs.
As a result of the blocking at Cunovo, the dammed up water formed an artificial stagnant reservoir below Bratislava. Because this major city does not treat its wastewater, this artificial lake is polluted and also contains toxic chemicals. Because of the health hazard associated with this stagnant reservoir, the model shows this water in yellow color. This dammed up water overflows into an artificial and sealed bypass canal, which delivers the flow to the Gabcikovo power plant. (The electricity produced and the shipping fees collected at Gabcikovo amounted to about $1 billion since October 23, 1992, when the diversion of the river into Slovakia occurred. While the Danube is the joint property of both nations, this sum was kept by Slovakia.) Downstream of Gabcikovo, the water is returned into the natural bed of the border river at Szap.
On the 25th of September 1997, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the operation of the "C-Variant" (the blocking and rerouting of the Danube at Cunovo) was illegal. This is indicated by the red color of the Cunovo weir in the photo of the model. While the ICJ did not specifically address the issue, this ruling also implies, that the "bottom weir" installed by Hungary below Dunakiliti at river kilometer #1840, is also illegal, as it was necessitated by the blocking of the river at Cunovo, which was found to be illegal.
The ICJ also ruled that the 1977 treaty is still in effect and therefore its components, namely Dunakiliti (built by Hungary), Gabcikovo (built by Slovakia) and the associated artificial canals, are all legal. This is why the model shows them in green color.
Therefore, the color code is:
GREEN: Found to be legal by the court. RED:
Found to be illegal by the court. NATURAL COLOR: Unaffected by the ruling.
One of the most promising solutions to the conflict was submitted by the NGOs. This compromise plan would return the Danube to its natural riverbed, redesign the Gabcikovo dam to withstand earthquakes and allow shipping during drifting ice conditions. Hungary would regain its border river, and both the Szigetkoz and the region's water supplies would be protected.
Slovakia would retain its harbor at Bratislava and, at times of high water, would receive all the electricity generated at Gabcikovo. At times of low water, the Gabcikovo bypass would operate only as a shipping canal.
Thousands of jobs would be created if the region from Hainburg to Gonyu were restored as Europe's prime nature preservation park - a region where Austrians, Hungarians and Slovaks could work and travel freely, providing an example for Central Europe's wider reconciliation.
The details of the Compromise Plan have been submitted to the International Court of Justice by the Foundation to Protect the Hungarian Environment.
The most important features of the Compromise Plan are that it is in full compliance with the World Court's ruling, and that it returns 100% of the water into the natural (unblocked) riverbed.
The illegal blocking of the Danube at Cunovo and its consequence, the bottom weir near Dunakiliti (shown in red in the model) will both be removed and the Danube will be returned into its natural riverbed. Because it will no longer be a stagnant body of water, but a flowing river, its quality will be improved. This fact is noted by its blue color. (Thereby, the Compromise Plan will improve the quality of the drinking water of 3 million people, will eliminate the health hazards associated with swimming in the river and also will protect the underground fresh waters reserves from pollution.)
It is necessary to increase the water level in the natural bed of the Danube for two reasons: First, because the ICJ ruling requires that Gabcikovo must be operational (and that can only be achieved if the water level at Dunakiliti is high enough, so that the water will overflow into the bypass canal) and secondly, because the natural environment of the Szigetkoz requires the raising of the groundwater levels in the whole region.
The unique feature of the Compromise Plan is that it achieves the raising of the water level, NOT by damming, but by elevating and narrowing of the riverbed. The advantages of this approach are multiple:
a) It is a permanent solution, while damming is only a temporary one, because it causes downstream riverbed erosion, which later necessitates the building of additional dams.
b) By elevating the water level only within the riverbed, no reservoir is created. This not only eliminates the pollution caused by the settling of pollutants and of toxic sludge, but also increases safety, because the inundation basins are kept empty and therefore are available to store excess water during floods.
c) While large quantities of stone, gravel and sand are needed to elevate the riverbed and the river banks, these materials are available, as the present reservoir is on top of a 6 meters deep layer of gravel.
d) The locations of the venturi-type restrictions, called "Parshall Flumes", are illustrated by white semi-circles in the model. One such restriction is shown separately in the sketch at the lower left of the photograph of the model, where the opening is given as 80 meters, although it can be less.) The advantages of this method of elevating the water level within the riverbed are multiple:
1) While bottom weirs and Parshall restrictions both raise the water level, the bottom weirs block its flow, while the Parshall restrictions do not, and they increase its flowing velocity. This provides two desirable side effects: firstly the high velocity minimizes the settling of solid materials and the increased turbulence increases the oxygen uptake of the river, which in turn prevents eutrophication and sedimentation, thereby protecting ground and drinking water supplies.
2) The bypass lock around the Parshall Flume provides for good shipping in the natural riverbed, in addition to the shipping route provided in the Gabcikovo canal.
3) The white waters of the Parshall Flume represent a unique tourist attraction.
4) The system allows the already built structures of Dunakiliti to control the total flow into the natural riverbed. This can be useful both as a means of flood protection and as a means of providing the required water dynamics in the Szigetkoz wetlands, including periodic flooding, which is needed by the flora and fauna of the ecosystem.
5) Lastly, but not least importantly, this approach would make this restoration project a "natural candidate" for financial support by the World Bank (WB). This is so, not only because the WB is already financing the restoration of the Danube Delta on the Black Sea, but also because (according to the Rio Treaty) the 400 endangered and unique species of the Szigetkoz belong to all mankind.
On the 25th of September, 1997 the first international environmental lawsuit was concluded in The Hague. It left the final resolution of the conflict between "treaty law" and "environmental law" unresolved. It agreed with Hungary, that blocking and diverting the Danube (by Slovakia) was illegal and it agreed with Slovakia, that Hungary can not just cancel the Soviet imposed contract, because that would be a precedent for treaty cancellation every time the political system changes in a country. (A strange position, as that is exactly what happened with the Warsaw Pact treaty.)
The judgement is in agreement with the MEMORIAL prepared by an international coalition of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) including Greenpeace, IRN, Natural Heritage Institute, Sierra Club and World Wildlife Fund and the ruling can be implemented by the Compromise Plan prepared by the environmentalists. This plan would return the Danube into its natural riverbed, redesign the Gabcikovo dam to withstand earthquakes and allow shipping during drifting ice conditions. Hungary would regain her border river, and both the Szigetkoz and the region's water supplies would be protected.
Slovakia would retain its harbor at Bratislava and, at times of high water, would receive all the electricity generated at Gabcikovo. At times of low water, the Gabcikovo bypass would operate only as a shipping canal. Thousands of jobs would be created if the region from Hainburg to Gonyu were restored as Europe's prime nature preservation park - a region where Austrians, Hungarians and Slovaks could work and travel freely, providing an example for Central Europe's wider reconciliation.
The details of the Compromise Plan been submitted to the International Court of Justice by the Foundation to Protect the Hungarian Environment.
The financial interpretation of the Court's ruling is that "each party must compensate the other.. for damage caused" In this regard Hungary "won", because the original treaty distributed the construction costs evenly between the parties and Hungary's 50% consisted of building the lower canal, Dunakiliti and Nagymaros. Of these, she has fully constructed the first two and partially the third, while Czechoslovakia paid for the building of the upper canal and Gabcikovo. Therefore, the only "saving" which Hungary realized was that she did not fully complete Nagymaros. BUT, this did not make the burden on the Hungarian taxpayer any less, because Hungary also paid for the demolishing of the Nagymaros dam and Hungary will be paying Austria 1.2 billion KWH/year until 2015 for the work that was done. Therefore, the total construction costs to each of the two sides are about the same, approximately $1.2 billion.
The other financial component is the income from the operation of Gabcikovo, which is designed to generate 2.7 billion KWH/year of electricity plus shipping fees.
This income of over one billion dollars during the last 5 years, should have been equally shared between the parties, but was kept by Slovakia. Therefore, 1.0 of the 1.2 billion Slovak investment has already been returned, while Hungary's $1.2 billion investment brought nothing but legal expenses, plus environmental destruction, loss of drinking water, loss of agricultural production, loss of shipping revenues, which total several billion dollars.
In the early 1980s, an Interdisciplinary Commission of the Hungarian Academy of Science (MTA) determined, that the B-N project would destroy the ancient ecosystem of the Szigetkoz and would threaten the drinking water supplies of the region. The shortage of funds and the joint opposition of the environmentalists and MTA succeeded in delaying the start of construction at Nagymaros until 1985, when the Austrian finance minister Hannes Androsch arranged for a loan of 5.8 billion Austrian schillings to be repaid between 1996 and 2010, by supplying electricity, at a rate of 0.91 billion KWH/year for 15 years. This would have taken 67% of Hungary's share of the electricity generated by the G-N project. (The total production at Gabcikovo today is about 2 billion KWH/yr. As half of that should belong to Hungary, Slovakia's share represents 4% of her electricity needs.)
It was at this time that (being the editor of the Environmental Engineers' Handbook) I was asked to obtain international support for saving the Danube wetlands. With the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, Friends of the Earth, WWF and many others, we organized the first international day of environmental protest ever held on the 31st of October, 1988. Simultaneous protest marches were held in 49 cities around the World, and in our handouts we asked the environmentally conscious youth: not to ski in Austria that year. The protests succeeded, and on May 13 1989 the construction was halted.
If you take the trouble of contacting your national and international leaders and your local media about this, you will help to establish an international legal framework for the protection of the remaining natural treasures of this planet. Please write that letter.
Contact key leaders and encourage them to support the compromise plan:
For periodic updates, please sign up to the "Danube List" by sending an E-mail to: liptakbela@aol.com. These E-Mail updates are prepared by Bela Liptak, an adjunct professor at Yale University and editor of the Environmental Engineers' Handbook. For more information contact:
prof. Béla Lipták,
84 Old N. Stamford Road,
Stamford, CT
06905-3961
Tel: 203-357-7614,
Fax: 203-325-3922,
e-mail: liptakbela@aol.com
The writer is the editor of the "Environmental Engineers' Handbook"
and
president of the Foundation to Protect the Hungarian Environment.