Balkan Report Blue Water

8/7/2019 Balkan Report Blue Water

1/14

BALKAN VITAL GRAPHICS


2/14

BACKGROUND MINING WATER NATURE

BLUE

WATER


3/14


Establishing international cooperation on water resources

Many bilateral and multilateral treaties concerning

water resources in the Balkans were concluded in thesecond hal o the 20th century. In particular, the ormerYugoslavia was keen to develop such partnerships, inkeeping with its position as a non-aligned country in adivided world and its commitment to peaceul co-ex-istence and riendship between peoples. In addition,water treaties paved the way or urther development.

The treaties established cooperation between nationalauthorities responsible or water management, with a

view to improving their ability to deal with challengesarising in shared river basins. Typical concerns includ-ed oods, drainage, the construction o dams and hy-droelectric power plants, shipping and fshery. Waterpollution was also an issue, oten with the specifc pur-pose o reducing the amount o pollution dischargedinto the water to protect fsh or allowing fsh speciessuch as the Danube sturgeon to migrate reely. How-ever, although legislation on pollution and migrationexisted, it was oten not enorced.

Prior to 12, there were only six international river basins in the Balkans,

but ater the break-up o ormer Yugoslavia, the number more than doubled.

There are now 13 internationally shared river basins and our transboundary

lake basins. Such a ragmented situation means that new international legal

regimes specifcally or water basins need to be worked out. Talks between

the countries concerned are also essential to develop uture policies on hy-

droelectric power generation.

The treaties generally set up joint commissions. Some

o them are still at work. The Danube Commission, orinstance, was established under the Belgrade Conven-tion on the Danube Navigation Regime in 1948.

Apart rom international waters, ormer Yugoslaviaalso had to manage its national waters divided be-tween the various ederal units six republics andtwo autonomous provinces. Water compacts be-tween these units had a constitutional and legal ba-sis. A good example o this type o legal instrument

is the compact governing use o the Trebiat Riverwatershed, agreed by Bosnia and Herzegovina andCroatia. It remains an open question why such anexcellent example o intra-state cooperation was notully implemented.

The all o the Berlin Wall in 1989 marked the end o adivided Europe and a bipolar world. New activities led toseveral multilateral environmental agreements. Almostall o them concern transboundary waters in one way or


4/14


Balaton

Dunav

Sava

Dra

vaTisa

Olt

Mure

ul

Dunrea

Siret

Prut

Kupa

Kolp

a

Una

C

etina

Vrbas

Bosna

Nere

tva

Drina

Sava

Mora

a

Dri niiZ

i

Drin

Vard

ar

Axio

s

Struma

Mesta

Nes

tos

Strimonas

Arda

Maritsa

Tundzha

Ergene

Ev

ros

A

D R

I

AT

IC

S

EA

A G E A N

S E A

B L A C K

S E A

Villach Klagenfurt

Udine

Szombathely

Zalaegerszeg

Kaposvr

Dunajvros

Veszprm

Hdmezvsrhely

Bkscaba

Zlau

Bistria

Turda

MediaAlba Iulia

Deva

HunedoaraLugoj

Reia

Slatina

Petroani

Trgu Jiu

Vidin

Montana

Vratsa

Serres

Kavala

Kastoria

Ioannina

Volos

ArtaLamia

Kerkyra

Veles

Ohrid

Kor

Vlor

Durrs

Shkodr

Bar

Zrenjanin

Smederevska

Palanka

Poega

Novi Pazar

Leskovac

Bor

Bijelo Polje

Tuzla

Zenica

Mostar

Slavonski Brod

Karlovac

Zadar

Dubrovnik

Pula

Ascoli Piceno

Teramo

L'Aquila

Chieti

San Severo

Manfredonia

Barletta

Campobasso

Benevento

Avellino

Potenza

Matera Brindisi

Crotone

Lamezia

Brko

Roman

Vaslui

Brlad

OnetiSfntu

Gheorghe

Trgoviste

Slobozia

Clrai

Tulgea

Izmayil

Silistra

Razgrad

Gabrovo

Veliko TrnovoLovech

Asenovgrad

Krdzhali

Dimitrovgrad

Khaskovo

Yambol

Lleburgaz

Tekirda

orlu

Bandrma

Yalova

Gemlik

Akhisar

Salihli

dermi

Panevo

anakkale

Alexandria Giurgiu

Graz

Maribor

Trieste

RijekaOsijek

Split

Ancona

Pescara

Foggia

Napoli

Torre delGreco

Salerno

Bari

LecceTaranto

Cosenza

Catanzaro

Pcs

Szkesfehrvr

Kecskemt

Szeged Arad

Cluj-Napoca

TrguMure

Sibiu

Rmnicu

Vlcea

Piteti

Craiova

Drobeta-

Turnu Severin

TimioaraSubotica

Novi Sad

Ni

Pritina

Pleven

Pernik

Plovdiv

Thessaloniki

Larisa

Tetovo

Gostivar

Bitola

Banja Luka

Pazardzhik

Kyustendil

Blagoevgrad

PiatraNeam

Bacu

Tai

Focani

Galai

BrilaBuzu

Ploieti

Braov

Constana

Tighina Tiraspol

Odessa

Stara-Zagora

SlivenBurgas

Varna

Dobrich

Shumen

Ruse

Edirne

Istanbul Kadky

Kartal

zmit

Bursa

Balkesir

zmir

Manisa Uak

LJUBLJANAZAGREB

SARAJEVO

PODGORICA

TIRAN

SKOPJE

SOFIYA

BEOGRAD

CHIINU

BUCURETI

H U N G A R Y

S E R B I A

R O M A N I A

B U L G A R I A

A U S T R I A

C R O A T I A

B O S N I A -

H E R Z E G O V I N A

A L B A N I A

G R E E C E

M A C E D O N I A

MONTENEGRO

I T A L Y

S L O V E N I A

M O L D O V A

UKRA

I N E

T U R K E Y

Republika Srpska

Federacija Bosnai Hercegovina

K o s o v o

R.S.

Brko

Source: Zinke Environment Consulting/Fluvius

another. Several new treaties were signed in Kiev in 2003in an eort to introduce more detailed regulations.

Following the conicts o the 1990s and the breakup oormer Yugoslavia, six new countries emerged in the Bal-kans. In addition to creating new states, ormer nationalwater resources now are o concern to several countries,creating the need or specifc international rules.

Contrary to the situation in the 1950s and 1960s,there are now several internationally accepted policyand legal instruments such as the Stockholm Dec-laration (1972) or the Rio Declaration (1992). Along-side the UNECE international instruments mentionedbelow, they constitute an overall ramework or newlegal regimes between states, old and new, coveringthe management o international water resources.


5/14

BALKAN VITAL GRAPHICS8

Maritsa Bulgaria Greece TurkeyDrina Montenegro Bosnia-Herzegovina

Serbia

Sava Slovenia Croatia Bosnia-Herzegovina Serbia

Tundzha Bulgaria TurkeyVardar Axios Macedonia GreeceKolpa Kupa Slovenia Croatia

Mesta Nestos Bulgaria GreeceStruma Strimonas Bulgaria GreeceSerbia Macedonia

Vardar Axios Macedonia Greece

Ergene Evros Turkey GreeceArda Bulgaria Greece

Una Croatia Bosnia-Herzegovina

Neretva Bosnia-Herzegovina Croatia

Drin Albania Macedonia SerbiaVardar Axios Macedonia Greece


6/14


Adapting to international rules

All the Balkan countries are now committed to the Eu-ropean integration progress, with the goal o joining theEuropean Union. They must consequently accept the

acquis communautaire and transpose it into theirnational legislation. One major challenge and not justor new member states is the Water Framework Di-rective, which introduces new rules or water manage-ment hinging on river basins.

On joining Europe, a country automatically accepts theterms o all international treaties to which the EU is part.In the case o the UNECE conventions, this means thatBalkan countries must comply with them even i they

have not actually ratifed them. Serbia, or example,complies with the Espoo Convention and the StrategicEnvironmental Assessment Protocol without being partto either. The same is true o the Aarhus convention.

But Balkan countries would beneft by signing up tointernational treaties already ratifed by the EU, particu-larly as doing so would strengthen their environmentalpolicies and commitments at a national level and serveas a ramework or transboundary cooperation on en-

vironmental damage and hazards. The UN Conventionon the Law o Non-Navigational Uses o InternationalWatercourses is yet another case in point. To acceptthe principles underpinning international instrumentsprotecting the environment and water resources, andto work within their ramework would surely bring ben-efts, stability and security to the Balkans.

How Balkan countries go about complying with EU re-quirements in this respect depends on how successulthey are in changing the national water management

systems they inherited rom the socialist era. Thismeans accepting new, and in the most part very ad-vanced, approaches to water management, which in-volve active co-operation with neighbouring countriessharing a river basin. Over the last 12 years, all Balkancountries, except Serbia, have passed new water legis-lation, replacing outdated water management methodsand acing up to uture challenges.

The body of EU legislation which candidate countries must adopt tobecome EU members.

Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Trans-boundary Context (EIA, Espoo Convention, Espoo 1991)Convention on the Transboundary Eects o Industrial Ac-cidents (Helsinki 1992)Convention on the Protection and Use o TransboundaryWatercourses and International Lakes (Water Convention,Helsinki 1992)Convention on Access to Inormation, Public Participation

in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmen-tal Matters (Aarhus Convention, Aarhus 1998)Protocol on Water and Health (London 1999)Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEAProtocol, Kiev 2003)Protocol on Civil Liability and Compensation or DamageCaused by Transboundary Eects o Industrial Accidentson Transboundary Waters (Kiev 2003)Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transer Registers(PRTR Protocol, Kiev 2003)

Water-related multilateral agreements

acilitated by the United NationsEconomic Commission or Europe


7/14


Vlado AlonsoBor Bus (Bor 2006)


8/14

BACKGROUND MINING WATER NATURE 1

Vlado AlonsoGazela (Belgrade 2007)


9/14


Building a new legal ramework

When developing new (bilateral) legal regimes or sharedwater resources, the new Balkan states must considernumerous international policy and legal requirements ap-plicable to the region. Projects concerning internationalwaters that are prepared unilaterally or disregard basicprinciples such as public participation in the decision-making process stand little chance o success. For ex-ample, a campaign by non-government organisationstemporarily held up the construction o the Buk Bijela hy-

droelectric power plant on the Tara River in Montenegro(see page 57). But there is more to be learnt rom this story.The governments o Montenegro and Republic o Srpska,who were directly concerned, discussed the scheme. Butsuch projects also require the involvement o other basinauthorities, in this case in Bosnia and Herzegovina andSerbia, as well as the Sava Commission. UNESCO is anequally important stakeholder because it recognizes theTara canyon as a natural and cultural heritage site. Whenplanning new hydroelectric power plants, any viable ap-

proach must be based on the clearly established princi-ples o international water and environmental law.

All the new states in the Danube River Basin, except Mon-tenegro, have joined the Danube River Protection Con-vention and concluded bilateral agreements on sharedwater resources (Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia;Croatia and Slovenia; Croatia and Hungary). Collabora-tion is visible between Montenegro and Albania, as wellas between Albania, Greece and Macedonia (the Pre-

spa Lakes Basin) and Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania andUkraine (Lower Danube Green Corridor). However, themost remarkable regional achievement was undoubtedlythe ratifcation o the Framework Agreement on the SavaRiver Basin and the protocol regulating the navigationregime on the Sava River and its tributaries (2002). Theagreement established the Sava Commission to imple-ment the treaties aecting the basin. Additional protocolsthat should fll the ramework and enable implementa-tion o the agreement are yet to be concluded. The treaty

was signed and ratifed as a river basin agreement be-

tween Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Re-public o Yugoslavia and Slovenia. It consequently doesnot apply to the parts o the Sava River Basin urthestupstream, in Montenegro, now an independent state andnot yet a party to the agreement.

The scope o uture action is increasingly clear, revisingand replacing the old water treaties and establishingnew relations. Cooperation hinging on the Prespa Dec-laration should lead to a trilateral agreement between

Albania, Greece and Macedonia. Water treaties mayalso be needed to improve management o the VardarRiver (Macedonia and Greece) and the Tisa River Basin(Serbia and other upstream countries).

Regardless o the fnal status o Kosovo, the soonerSerbia and Kosovo settle their dierences on trans-boundary water issues the better. The Serbian popula-tion living beside the various rivers located downstreamclearly stands to gain rom a proper legal ramework.

Recognizing that water is an opportunity or close regionalcooperation rom a global perspective, the German gov-ernment and the World Bank launched an initiative calledthe Petersberg Process. Since it started work in 1998, theinitiative has organized six round tables on transboundarywaters to debate the specifc issues involved and how todevelop an integrated approach to solving them.

The process addresses issues rom the point o view odevelopment, the environment, and policy on securityand the economy. The activities are closely linked with theAthens Declaration Process. That process, between theGovernment o Greece and the World Bank, was initiatedin 2003 during the Hellenic Presidency o the EuropeanUnion and ocuses on actions to promote sustainablemanagement o transboundary water resources in south-east Europe and mediterranean region.

The Petersberg and the Athens

Declaration Process


10/14

BACKGROUND MINING WATER NATURE 3

When comparing traditional water management sys-tems with todays dynamic development o good wa-ter governance, it is clear that the practices inheritedrom the past in the Balkans are based exclusively on acentralized top-down approach. This does not allowpublic involvement in decision making and rarely ad-dresses environmental issues (except in ofcial state-

ments). To make matters worse, this approach lacksthe proper instruments to implement its stated com-mitments. Water resources are treated piece by piece,without an integrated approach reasoning in terms oan entire river basin and its ecosystem. Old institution-al arrangements and their workings stay well out o thepublic eye.

With todays approach to water management, not tomention global climate change, national authorities with

various responsibilities must interact closely. Dierentgovernment departments are in charge o protectingwater quality and aquatic ecosystems, supplying wateror public consumption, and use by industry and thepublic sector. Others oversee navigation, hydroelectric

power production or indeed measures to protect thecommunity against water-related hazards. Each playerhas segmented responsibility in specifc felds. Tomor-rows water management systems need to be muchmore highly integrated at all levels (international, na-tional, regional and municipal). This may also involvedeveloping partnerships bringing together the relevant

public authorities, the private sector and civil society.

I the Balkans are to achieve sustainable developmentin an increasingly global world, water managementsystems clearly need to change a great deal. But suchchange is possible i new concepts are accepted andimplemented, backed by UNECE and EU policy re-quirements, which serve as the basis or cooperationbetween the international organizations to which allBalkan countries belong. Future action should embrace

new approaches to water management. This involvesjoining the international treaties discussed above andreplacing existing legal instruments, at a national andinternational level, with others reecting current trendsin the sustainable management o water resources.

The Convention on the Protection and Use o Trans-

boundary Watercourses and International Lakes (UNECEWater Convention) was signed in Helsinki in 1992 andcame into orce in 1996. Albania and Croatia are the twonon-EU Balkan countries that are parties to the Conven-tion. It aims to protect surace and ground water, prevent-ing transboundary impacts on health, saety and nature,which in turn aect the quality o lie. It also promotesecologically sound management o transboundary wa-ters, and their reasonable and equitable use as a way oavoiding conicts.

Parties to the convention must agree on a common action

plan to reduce pollution, in addition to accepting water qual-ity objectives and waste-water emission limits. They are alsorequired to cooperate on inormation exchange, monitoringand assessment. Early warning systems must be estab-lished to warn neighbouring countries o any critical situa-tion such as ooding or accidental pollution that may have atransboundary impact. Parties are also required to inorm thegeneral public o the state o transboundary waters and anyprevailing or uture measures. Joint bodies such as the Savaor Danube commission implement these requirements.

Convention on the Protection and Use o Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes

National and international water management practice


11/14


Blue energy

The regions political and economic instability has discour-aged any substantial investment in the energy sector. Ex-cept or some places such as Kosovo, the Balkans have noossil uel deposits, which are signifcant on a global scale.The Balkan countries are neither big energy producers nor

consumers, so the region can rely on renewable energy tocater or tomorrows growing electricity demand. Hydroelec-tric power covers a signifcant share o electricity consump-tion in the region (43 per cent in 2004). Hydroelectric powerdropped noticeably due to lower rainall in 2002 and 2003,but the increase in overall electricity consumption neverthe-less seems likely to continue driving demand upwards.

Further development o hydroelectric power will depend onseveral actors, perhaps the most important being market

deregulation. Specifc measures are needed to encouragehydroelectric power. One specifc measure would be tosupport new investment in production acilities, this beingthe best way o meeting environmental challenges and im-proving the stability o supply. It would also help to rame aregional energy policy, promoting more sustainable ormso energy production and consumption. Furthermore, todevelop a ree market in the region, it is vital to set up in-dependent authorities to manage electricity generation,transmission and distribution.


12/14



13/14


In the early 1980s, countries in southeast Europe, suchas Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and the ormer Yugo-slavia were acing an energy crisis that was seen asa window o opportunity by Albanian President En-ver Hoxha, who was determined to boost the Albanianelectricity industry and its huge hydroelectric powerpotential. In 1986, shortly ater Hoxhas death, Albaniasigned trade agreements or the export o electricity.

Albania has a long history o hydroelectric power, dat-ing back to 1936 when the frst small plant was built atTithkuqi, in the southern Korca area. By 1984, Albaniahad 1.350 MW o installed capacity supplied by threepower stations located on the Black Drin river in north-east Albania. That year total hydroelectric power outputin Albania reached 3.220 GWh. This ar exceeded localdemand, leaving more than hal o it to be exported.The uture looked promising and work was underwayto increase capacity.

Ater the all o communism in the early 1990s energydemand rapidly increased. But there was no substan-tial investment in power generation, leaving it unableto keep pace with rising demand. While hydroelec-tric capacity only increased by eight per cent in twodecades the number o hydropower plants increasedto 91 units including mostly small-scale capacities.Hydroelectric output increased at the same by 67 percent covering about 90 per cent o the gross powerconsumption in 2004. Once the regions largest elec-tricity exporter, Albania today is unable to meet do-mestic electricity demand and needs to import elec-tricity rom its neighbours.

One o the major obstacles aced in hydroelectric pow-er generation in Albania is the dry climate with sporad-ic low rainall. This leads to alling water levels and adrop in generator output, with corresponding electric-ity shortages. 2001 and 2002 saw a dramatic drop inhydroelectric power output, with production down to68 per cent and 59 per cent o overall national con-sumption, respectively. The massive power cuts trig-gered a social and economic crisis. The problem wasaggravated by the act that consumers did not reducedemand or make adequate use o alternative uels. Thegovernment subsidized energy imports, diverting stateresources rom other critical programmes. In 2001, thesubsidy amounted to US$31.5 million. To make mattersworse, Albania can only import limited amounts o elec-tricity because the national grid is in dire need o repairand upgrading to boost capacity. A similar incident oc-curred in the summer o 2007 orcing the governmentto take short-term measures, including a cut in publicsector ofce hours to save power. Outages in someparts o the country lasted up to 16 hours a day.

As reported by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Net-work (BIRN), the Albanian power grid is estimated toneed US$1.6 million million in investments to eliminatepower outages. KESH, the stated-owned electricityutility which has a monopoly o the market, is currentlypreparing an application to national regulators to raiseprices in line with the higher cost o imports. To boostenergy production capacity, the government is buildinga ossil-uel power station at Vlora, in the south. Theplant, unded by the World Bank, is slated to be opera-tional by the end o 2007.

Albanias ongoing energy crisis


14/14

CASE STUDIESBACKGROUND MINING WATER NATURE

This is the main message broadcast by the MOST non-governmental organization or its campaign to stopconstruction o the Buk Bijela hydroelectric power planton the Tara river in Montenegro. A 144 kilometre stretcho the river runs through the country, joining the Pivariver near the border with Bosnia and Herzegovina toow on towards the Drina river. The area was desig-nated as the Tara river basin biosphere reserve in 1977and, as a part o the Durmitor national park, became aUNESCO world natural and cultural heritage site at thebeginning o the 1980s.

Local activists argue that ooding the canyon wouldcompletely change its microclimate and ecosystems.Additionally, it would impede increasing eco-tourism inthe area. At the same time, they believe that the poten-tial o other renewable energy resources in the countryis underestimated and unexplored.

The idea o building the Buk Bijela acility on this river isnot a new one. Leading energy generation companiesin ormer Yugoslavia started taking an interest in thearea in 1957. In 2004, the governments o Republic o

Srpska and Montenegro agreed to build the Buk Bijeladam, with a hydroelectric power plant. Following sev-eral lively protest campaigns, at home and abroad, theplan was shelved the ollowing year. But not or long.According to the Nezavisne Novine daily, a meeting othe Committee or Cooperation between Republic oSrpska and the Republic o Serbia in Banja Luka on 5September 2007 (attended by the presidents and primeministers o both countries Milan Jelic, Milorad Dodik,Boris Tadic and Vojislav Kostunica) recommended start-ing construction o plant. It was stressed that both gov-ernments should be involved as partners in the project.To make matters worse, under the master plan, drawnup by Montenegro in 1997 and still in orce, several hy-droelectric power plants could be built in the area.

The impacts that this controversial project might haveon the environment were presented in an environmen-tal study (Buk Bijela and Srbinje hydropower plants)published in Belgrade in March 2000. However, thedocument drew serious criticism rom UNESCO andvarious non-governmental organizations due, amongothers, to the lack o a sound scientifc basis.

I dont want a swamp, I want the Tara

Balkan Report Blue Water

Documents

Transcript of Balkan Report Blue Water