REC: The Bulletin 6/4: Hungary and Slovakia to square off at the Hague

D A N U B E  D I L E M M A

Hungary and Slovakia to square off at the Hague

Sarah Roe reports on the build-up to the first environmental case to be heard by the International Court of Justice. The court's decision will set a precedent for future international disputes over the environment.

Future environmentalists will probably look back on 1997 as a historic turning point but it remains to be seen whether it is a good or a bad one. From the beginning of March, Hungarian and Slovak representatives put their arguments for the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros hydroelectric dam dispute at the Hague-based International Court of Justice (ICJ). The decision will set a precedent for cross-border environmental disputes in the future. Since the late 1980s the dam project has sparked protests and inspired writers over its threat to the Danube river's unique wetland ecosystem and one of the largest high quality underground water reserves in Europe. Slovakia diverted the Danube under an alternative 'Variant C' project in 1992. The move came soon after Hungary backed out of an original 1977 treaty between the two countries to build a joint dam system where the river forms a natural border. The Nagymaros dam, further downstream, was to be the Hungarian contribution. Hungary stopped building the dam during the eighties and had repeatedly pressed for suspension of the treaty while environmental investigations were made into possible effects of the dam. Scientists and environmental protesters in both countries cautioned that in 1977 insufficient attention was paid to the effects a dam could have in this area.

BARGES PASS THROUGH the locks at the controversial Gabcikovo Canal on the Danube near the Hungarian/Slovakian border.

The Variant C alternative was based on the same principle as the joint dam system. It diverted the Danube onto Slovak territory at Cunovo into a reservoir and through a concrete canal. At peak periods water now flows down from here and through turbines at Gabcikovo. As a result of this unilateral move, both Hungarian and Slovak experts say that significant and possibly irreversible environmental damages have been wrought on the Hungarian island and beauty spot, Szigetkoz and the Slovak's Zitny Ostrov. The threatened area is also central Europe's largest high quality underground water reserve, providing 45 percent of Hungary's drinking water and a comparable amount for the Czech and Slovak Republics. Continued use of the dam threatens to pollute and deplete this supply.

A decision by the court is expected to be reached by the autumn but the two parties must still negotiate after that. Hungarians and Slovaks largely disagree over three main issues: Whether it was legal for Slovakia to unilaterally divert the Danube in 1992 or not, whether Hungary had the right to cancel the Nagymaros dam, which represented its side of the deal made in 1977 and whether it was legal for Hungary to terminate its side of the 1977 treaty without Slovak agreement. The two countries, which have not enjoyed good political relations over recent years, have repeatedly tried to negotiate a settlement but failed to agree. Slovaks say that Hungary had no legal right to pull out of their half of the 1977 treaty and that the country was justified in building its diversion reservoir and canal. Hungarians argue that not enough was known about the environmental implications of the dam system when it was signed and that Variant C was illegal.

AREAS IN DISPUTE

1. Locks at Cunovo, where the Danube was diverted onto Slovak territory	3. Szigetkoz, the Hungarian nature area threatened by the diversion of the Danube	5. Nagymaros dam. Hungary stopped construction in 1977
2. Bypass canal	4. Dam and turbines at Gabcikovo
OBSERVED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF VARIANT C
Threat to the last inland delta in Europe: Two large islands, the Szigetkoz and Zitny Ostrov, several hundred square kilometers large, support unique wetlands. But below Variant C, 80-90 percent of the Danube's natural flow was diverted, making water levels drop by 2.5-3 meters and narrowing the river. As a result, sedimentation has increased, while the chemical and biological nature of the river's dense side branch system has changed. The river is increasingly losing its ability to clean itself, posing problems in dispersing such pollutants as agricultural chemical run-off. The drop in surface waters also affects groundwater, causing levels to drop by as much as 3 meters in some areas. This has negatively changed soil structure, agriculture, forestry, flora and fauna. Agricultural areas in Middle Szigetkoz lost 78.3 percent of their natural sub-irrigation supply. During the summer months lack of ground water has a more dramatic effect on the area as sub-irrigation becomes more important. The large underground drinking water reserve in this area, which supplies much of Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, is now fed mainly by the reservoir and side arm system, which are of increasingly unacceptable quality. As the reservoir and side arms are becoming clogged up by sediment, this reserve will be supplied less and less. Serious decline in biodiversity and depletion in the number of fish.

The issue is clouded by the fact that only vague mention was made in the 1977 treaty of safeguarding the environment, it was signed both before Czechoslovakia split into two countries and during a different political system. The Soviet Union had backed the project ironically, considering it to be one which would strengthen relations between the two countries.

However the environmental effects of Slovakia's actions are now clear. By diverting the Danube from its natural bed, water flow in the original river is reduced to 10 percent of its average 2000 cubic meters per second. This engineering feat has left a graveyard in its wake. In the Szigetkoz area dead tree trunks litter the old river bed and numerous species of flora and fauna have died out through lack of water, only to be replaced by weeds and tougher plants. "From a biological point of view the situation is chaos; new species have emerged and those requiring more water have started to disappear," notes biologist Janos Vargha of Danube Circle, the non profit organization which was one of the project's main protest voices since the 1980s. The idea of compromise is not an issue for Mr. Vargha. Either the original project will be completed including the Nagymaros Dam and environmental concerns forgotten, he argues, or this method of electricity generation must be abandoned in favor of water protection.

However it is unlikely to be as clear-cut as that. Newly independent Slovakia has invested considerable resources and time to developing the dam and will be reluctant to give up what is perceived as a symbolic achievement for a country which has limited energy sources. Gyorgy Szenasi, head of the Hungarian Foreign Ministry's International Law Department dealing with the case, is confident that the ruling will be in Hungary's favor. But he would be happy if water can flow back through the original river bed and side arms at an agreed level probably to be set by the court. "We ask: please give back our water as this unilateral diversion was illegal," he says, stressing that priority to the environment must be the key future consideration. He also cites river navigation as important. If water flowed back through the abandoned river ships could use the waterway, rather than passing through the locks at Cunovo, which have been known to break down. He adds that if these factors will allow future energy generation, that would be acceptable.

The Hungarian and Slovak governments recently held closed-door meetings in an attempt to reach a settlement, one of which was rumored to be a dam near the city of Esztergom, part of a number of options favored by the Slovak contingent. A second dam downstream (as agreed in 1977) would raise the water level between the two barrages and the power stations would work in combined mode. Mr. Vargha is adamant that such an option would solve no long-term problems since any dam would cause environmental problems in this region.

The court is at least expected to rule that Slovakia returns half of the diverted water back to Hungary. But this will not necessarily solve the problem. According to Mr. Vargha, if the water level in the old river bed was raised by 50 percent there would still be environmental implications and the Slovaks' electricity generation capacity would be reduced. "If they make a compromise within a few years the question will be reopened and the tension will still be there; there will be two losers."

Editor's note: this story is largely weighted towards the Hungarian point of view, primarily as that is the environmental side of the argument, however, The Bulletin would like to invite comments from all interested parties. If you would like to voice an opinion about this topic please send your comments to editor@rec.org.

As of the time of publication, the ICJ heard testimony from Hungary's legal representatives who opened arguments during the week of 3 March. The presentation of the Slovak side began on March 21. During the first week in April, the ICJ judges will make an unprecendented site visit to the Danube shores for a first-hand inspection of the site.

REC * PUBLICATIONS * THE BULLETIN * WINTER 1996