Before the Danube can handle more traffic, the EC argues that bottlenecks – barriers that prevent year-round passage – need to be eliminated. Not everyone agrees, however, mainly because of fears of environmental damage. WWF has been active for years campaigning against changing the river to accommodate shipping traffic, arguing instead that the interests of the river should come first. WWF found that most of the bottlenecks identified by the EC were in ecologically outstanding areas, some of the last remaining natural areas along the Danube and many with high levels of nature protection.

Inland navigation can contribute tomaking transport more environmentally sustainable, particularly where it substitutes for road transport. it can, however, also have significant influence on river ecosystems, jeopardising the goals of the EU Water Framework Directive, which aims for the ‘good ecological status’ of all waters by 2015.

Economic growth is linked to investments in infrastructure; to improve cross-country transportation, the European Commission (EC) has therefore developed the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) with guidelines and financing for Pan-European road, rail, air and waterway transportation corridors. The Danube has been identified as Corridor VII.

Otto Schwetz, Chairman of the Pan-European Transport Corridor VII and President of the International Navigation Association Section Austria, speaks to journalist Natasha Christl about how to reconcile what might be conflicting interests.

Christl: Are the needs of navigation and the environment always at odds?
Schwetz: I am convinced that all countries in the Danube region have the right to have access both to the Black Sea and to the Danube itself, whether through a port, canal or some other channel. On the other hand, there are rules governing the protection of the environment around the Danube, and those rules must be observed. That is why we support inland navigation: because it is the cleanest mode of transport. But in order to use inland navigation, we need the means of doing so. This can be a problem.

Christl: Such as the controversial work on the deepwater navigation canal in the Bystroe Branch of the Danube Delta…
Schwetz: The Bystroe arm is a very short branch of the Danube, which is a good thing in that it provides a short route to the sea. But the delta is a very sensitive area in need of protection. It is one of the few remaining natural areas that we have. The wildlife in the area is terrific, as is the fauna.

Ukraine made a mistake in failing to consult the Romanian authorities and agree on the conditions for the construction of the canal, as required by international norms. It should have invited the Romanian authorities and international experts to visit the site and see for themselves what was being done.

Christl: So it is important to consider all stakeholders and their needs in the planning stage?
Schwetz:We have to take into consideration that people need some way of making a living. A major problem is the difference in fees charged for passing through the navigation waterways in both parts of the Danube Delta, Romanian and Ukrainian. The Bystroe canal is much cheaper than Romania’s waterways. There should have been a conference between the EU, Corridor VII, Ukraine and Romania to consider how to handle that problem. The question as to how the system should be organised is crucial, and one that should be addressed by the port authorities.Who does what?Which vessels should use which waterway? Constanza is a main port and the main entrance to the Black Sea, but the other ports are also important.We must find a way to improve navigation together, to decide on the kind of vessels that use the existing canals and to use the Danube in the best possible way.

This is why the ICPDR and the Danube Navigation Commission and the International Sava Commission under participation of Corridor VII issued a ‘Joint Statement on Inland Navigation and Environmental Sustainability in the Danube River Basin’, setting out mechanisms for the development of the infrastructure for inland navigation and addressing ways in which to overcome such problems, especially the common way to start new projects. The statement was a response, among other things, to the Bystroe Canal. I think that both Ukraine and Romania must now hold direct bilateral consultations on how to handle the problem; if they can’t reach agreement, perhaps the EU should help. The ICPDR should adopt a tough stance in any such consultations. And I think that if both sides are willing to do what is best for the region, then that is the best way forward.

Christl: Should measures be proposed to compensate for damage caused by the construction and maintenance of the canal?
Schwetz: In Vienna we are very familiar with the idea of compensatory measures; for example, if trees over a certain size are cut down in a public park or a private area, there is a legal requirement that those trees must be replaced. I think that that is a good thing, provided that compensatory measures are reasonable.

While a navigable fairway is necessary as a transport ‘artery’ – not only for Ukraine but for the whole of the EU – the whole area must be protected. Something must be offered in compensation in order to provide that protection. It is also important to make Ukraine a greener country and promote its green image. Many parts of Ukraine are industrial and suffer from widespread land pollution and other problems. While some efforts are being made to address those problems, much more must be done. I should add that the Ukrainian authorities have taken certain measures, but they are not enough.

Christl: What should the compensatory measures include?
Schwetz: Discussions between the ICPDR, Ukraine and Corridor VII are needed on the kind of compensation that could be offered. It is important to handle the issue with a clear understanding of what is possible and what is not.

The restoration and rehabilitation of wetlands and abandoned agricultural polders and fish ponds could also be a very good idea; this should be carried out. The restoration of the Lower Danube lakes is also important, since the lakes are in a beautiful area that should be protected. The public should be able to use and enjoy the area, although there should of course be certain limitations as to the extent to which it is used. The area should not be exclusively used by a small and privileged group, or by experts and scientists. The public should have an opportunity to get close to nature.

Christl: What would be needed to implement this idea?
Schwetz: I think we should hold a conference with representatives from the ICPDR, Ukraine, Romania, Corridor VII and the Directorate General for Environment of the EU, perhaps in Brussels, Odessa or Vienna, to discuss the next steps, because implementation will take time. Some research should be carried out beforehand. We should draw up a step-by-step programme in
order to achieve the aims we discussed earlier.

This should be discussed by the international organisations concerned, the European Commission and the Ukrainian and Romanian authorities. This will also foster good neighbourliness. Ukraine and Romania are already implementing a joint project in Bukovina; the regions of Suchava and Chernivzi are working together across the border, provided that there is sufficient political will. However, I think that the two countries need international organisations as partners; they need support and funding.

We have had a good experience with the joint Austrian– Slovakian border commission, which focuses on waterrelated issues; I think Ukraine and Romania should establish a similar body, but under the supervision of the EU and the ICPDR. While Ukraine is not an EU member, it borders the EU region and could benefit from many existing EU programmes.

Natasha Christl is a freelance journalist and a media expert.