 |
| The proposed canal cuts the Danube Delta in two and crosses the strictly protected zone |
The main argument the Ukrainian authorities put forward in favour of building
a canal through the Kilian Arm of the Delta was that the old port of Ust
Dunaysk was dying due to the build-up of sediment that had closed the channel
for navigation and diverted to the Romanian port of Sulina all deepwater
cargo ships travelling up the Danube from the Black Sea. The new canal,
the Ukrainian authorities hoped, would attract a large portion of the cargo
ships to use this "Ukrainian gateway to Europe".
However reasonable this argument may have sounded at first sight, on close
examination it quickly became clear that under the scenario endorsed by
the Ukrainian Ministry of Transport the canal would run through the Bystroye
Estuary of the Danube Delta, located within the specially protected area
of the Danube Biosphere Reserve, and that it would cut the Danube Delta
Biosphere Reserve in two parts.
The Danube Reserve is part of the UNESCO bilateral biosphere reserve "Delta
of the Danube" established in Romania and Ukraine. According to Ukrainian
national legislation, such activity in a specially protected area of a biosphere
reserve is prohibited. It has recently come to light that the Ministry of
Transport of Ukraine is about to issue a decree, signed by the president,
under which the Bystroye Estuary would be withdrawn from the Danube Biosphere
Reserve.
Since the Bystroye Estuary is not deep enough for the planned canal, it
is planned to be deepened. Since the Danube transports an average of 65
million tons of firm particles per year, the appropriate depth of the canal
should be maintained artificially, by continuous removal of sediment. In
addition, the banks are planned to be fixed with concrete.
Ukrainian experts have concluded that the construction and operation of
the canal through the Bystroye Estuary would have harmful consequences.
It would enhance the water flow through the Bystroye Estuary and lower it
in other estuaries, which in turn would impact the natural ecosystems and
the water supply regime at Vilkovo. It would also speed up the euthrophication
of the inner water ponds, and turn wetlands into meadows, thus undermining
one of the most important ecological functions of the Danube Delta –
that of biofiltration.
 |
| Vilkovo, also known as Ukrainian Venice, since a united water control system allows access by boat to practically all parts of the town. |
The construction works and the operation of the canal would cause damage
to the habitat and feeding base of the majority of the fish species dwelling
in this area (seven species listed in the European Red List, 16 in the Red
Book of Ukraine).
The Danube Biosphere Reserve hosts 257 kinds of birds (nine species listed
in the European Red List, 42 in the Red Book of Ukraine). The construction
and operation of the canal will result in losses to their mass nesting area;
breeding conditions of the birds will be worsened, and the places of rest,
feed and wintering will be lost.
The livelihoods in the area near the mouth of the Danube are based mainly
on fishing. The construction of the canal threatens to undermine this economic
activity, and may destroy the traditional system of management and worsen
the social and economic conditions in the region.
The fact that the government pushes such a plan clearly shows that some
of the former Soviet countries’ governments do not respect their national
laws. Evidence is found in the fact that no environmental assessment has
been conducted nor has the Ukrainian Academy of Science, responsible for
the management of the reserve, been consulted. Moreover, in late 2001 the
Ministry of Transport took the first steps towards the construction of the
canal by removing one of the sand banks closing up the estuary. Boris Paton,
head of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, intervened to stop these illegal
works.
The environmental movement was set in motion and organized "bottom
up” protests both in Ukraine and Russia. It must be pointed out that
the environmental movement does not in principle oppose navigation in the
Ukrainian part of the Danube Delta; it accepts that a canal should be built,
but insists that it should be constructed outside the biosphere reserve.
Alternative solutions in terms of the course of the canal have been developed
and should be further considered.
The authorities seemed to be convinced, since in early 2002 the news came
that the canal would be built along one of the alternative routes that would
not affect the reserve. Sadly, it turned out to be a "red herring”.
In June 2002, the Ministry of Transport finalized its project proposal:
5600 ha of the most valuable territory should be taken out of the Biosphere
Reserve and be used for the canal. During all this time the Danube Biosphere
Reserve, its administration and employees, were under enormous pressure:
bribe-money was offered to local authorities, and a ranger's house was even
set on fire in August. The pressure peaked in November, when the Ministry
of Transport tried to push the project through. The civil society was immediately
mobilised in a campaign designed to influence the decision-making bodies
and the Ukrainian president, Leonid Kuchma. The response from both national
and international levels was unexpectedly high: letters were sent from 64
countries, demonstrations were held in front of Ukrainian embassies, thousands
of individual signatures poured in.
Faced with the threat of an international scandal, the Ukrainian authorities
finally decided not to approve the proposal immediately, but to develop
a study about alternative projects that would not affect the reserve.
This is a promising first step, but the environmentalists need to continuously
keep an eye on the government’s next steps. Now it is in the hands
of the authorities to stop the unsustainable and unreasonable plans of the
Ministry of Transport and to develop a sound proposal for the canal, taking
into account the biological importance and the socio-economic situation
of the Delta.
|
FOR INFORMATION As regards surface waters, the overall aim of the WFD is that Member
States should achieve "good ecological and chemical status”
in all bodies of surface water by 2015. Some water bodies may not
achieve this objective. Under certain conditions the WFD permits Member
States to identify and designate artificial water bodies (AWB) and
heavily modified water bodies (HMWB) according to Article 4(3). The
assignment of less stringent objectives to water bodies and an extension
of the deadline for achieving the objectives is also possible. These
derogations are laid out in Articles 4(4) and 4(5) of the WFD. |