Resolution for a Living Danube and Navigation
In contrast to many other Europe?n rivers, the Danube, including the tributaries, continues to have great ecological value, with unique biodiversity and great potential for ecological improvement. Additional benefits of these natural river courses are flood prevention, self purification, drinking water, forestry, fishery and tourism. In the framework of the Trans-European Network for Transport, or TEN-T, the Danube is projected to be used more intensively for inland shipping. So-called ?bottlenecks?, shallow waters usually of great ecological value, were identified in 2003 as part of the TEN-T revision and are to be modified, deepened and destroyed. According to the European Commission, more than 65% of the so-called ?bottlenecks? are existing or potential Natura 2000 sites. Also potentially affected by the measures are 3 National Parks, 11 Ramsar sites, and one world heritage site. With this, the planned measures for shipping threaten the very ecological basis of Europe?s lifeline. At the same time, however, we see an opportunity to permanently improve the situation on the Danube and its floodplains through the introduction of careful and ecologically sensitive shipping projects. We NGO representatives of the Danube countries call on the governments of the Danube countries especially the Ministers responsible for water and environment as well as the representatives of the European Commission to ensure that:
¬ the principle of non-deterioration (Water Framework Directive ? WFD) is upheld. The hydro-morphological system of the Danube must not be negatively affected by shipping projects;
¬ the improvement demand of the WFD is applied. For all shipping and other river engineering projects, there must be clear ecological improvements (e.g. riverbed widening, reconnection of sidearms to the main channel, moving back dykes);
¬ the principle of true public participation is comprehensively applied. That means the involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including affected communities and environmental NGOs in the planning and decision making processes from the beginning;
¬ no new depth requirements beyond existing ones (Danube Commission; AGN) are applied and existing depth recommendations have to be assessed in terms of ecological and economical requirements;
¬ the principle of cost recovery (internalisation of costs) and cost effectiveness, according to WFD, is applied to economic, resource and environmental costs of the infrastructure development plans;
¬ the Commission delegates an European Environmental Co-ordinator for the whole EU-TEN process to safeguard and co-ordinate the environmental protection and rehabilitation tasks of the projects and the whole river corridor involved. He/she should also revise the present priorities of the process and projects involved.
Furthermore, we call upon the future government of the Ukraine as well as the European Commission to do all they can to prevent further construction works on the Ukrainian Danube-Black Sea Canal and to restore the damage that has already been done.
Agreed by:
WWF
Bund Naturschutz Bayern
BI Donaufreunde
Ecopravo-Lviv
Bürgeraktion ?Rettet die Donau?
European Nature Heritage Fund
(Euronatur)
European Rivers Network (ERN)
Makk – Hungarian environmental
economics centre
Danube Circle / Association of Danube
Settlements / Ecoplan
Eco Counselling Centre Galati
Greenpeace
GLOBAL 2000
VIRUS – Umweltbureau
Green Action / Zelena Akcija
LENA ? citizen group network
Ecological Movement of Moldova
Danube Environmental Forum
Eco Counselling Europe
BI Rettet die Lobau ? Natur statt Beton