M E D I A

  They all know about the dam because it's the biggest "environmental" story in Hungary. It's definitely the biggest environmental case to go to the International Court of Justice at the Hague and so much of the world now knows about it. In fact, the Court's judges even took an unprecedented trip to the Danube, the first time they'd ever left their courtroom comforts to inspect the "scene of the crime."

  Many would admit that the dam controversy was used to trigger the political collapse of the former communist regime in Hungary. Back then, one couldn't safely protest against the communist government directly, so floods of Hungarians protested indirectly by attacking its dam mega-project, crying out in the name of environmental protection.

  And as you can see, it worked. Both the dam and the communists lost... temporarily at least.

  But there was still that dam on the Slovak side drinking up Hungarian water, and Slovakia had modified an international border river. The result was the resurfacing of age-old nationalistic hostilities masked during communism, crystallising in harsh words over water. All when these countries were to show the world, NATO and the EU, what good neighbours they were.

  Unable to agree, they turned to the Hague in 1993.

  But what are the problems? According to the media, the "problem" until now has been mainly political, with little talk of how the dam affects the natural environment. So there really isn't very much that's "environmental" about this famous environmental issue, in the media at least. But that's nothing new. This story is a perfect example of how environmental stories only get public and media attention if they're sensational, like the recent massive flood in the Czech Republic and Poland, or if they're politically or economically significant. A dangerous result, because sides are taken on an environmental question without analysis of the environmental problems. And no matter how many reports and scientific documents one may have to prove an environmental point, if the people and the government are only talking politics, the truth will not be heard, misinformation may be generated and a political decision may be made without regard to whether or not it benefits or hurts the environment.

  As Hungarian elections came closer, Prime Minister Horn and his government were in a bind. If they built at Nagymaros, they'd probably lose votes, and opposition parties would jump on them, including Zoltan Illes of the party FIDESZ who continues the Hungarian tradition of indirectly attacking the former communists (MSZP) by attacking their alleged anti-environmental decisions. If Hungary decided not to build, poor relations would continue with Slovakia with the EU shaking its finger.

  Then there's the energy loss. Neither country is blessed with domestic energy reserves but both must keep up with high expectations of economic growth. (Of course, all countries could do more in maximising the efficient use of existing energy sources rather than increasing energy production.) In Hungary, utilities are being privatised while energy prices are going up, and it will be sending free electricity to Austria for years for having backed out of the 1977 treaty. Austria lent Hungary some 2.8 billion shillings to build the dam on the grounds that they'd get energy from it in return. Dam or no dam, Austria is still getting their electricity.

  As for the Slovaks, they say they're losing half a million dollars a day. Gabcikovo works by storing the Danube's water behind the dam in a reservoir, releasing it, and turning its energy into electricity. The Nagymaros dam, located some 100 kms downstream,was designed to manage the gush caused by peak flows released from Gabcikovo. No Nagymaros, no peak energy output.

  Regarding international political economy, ever since the new diversion channel was built in Slovakia, some foreign ships have got stuck, so the international community wouldn't mind two shipping channels - the new one and the old one, which would require returning quite a bit of water back to the old one.

  Regardless of the political and economic issues raining on the dam project, the media should do more to discuss the environmental impacts of the case. If Hungary, Slovakia and the international community recognised their common environmental interests, improvements to their political and economic interests would likely follow.

- Paul Csagoly