Danube-Oder-Elbe Living Rivers or Canal

Transcription

1 Danube-Oder-Elbe Living Rivers or Canal An updated assessment from the viewpoint of nature conservation by Alexander Zinke, bio-geographer April 1999 English summary by Ulrich Eichelmann, WWF-Austria

2 Introduction Danube-Oder-Elbe Living Rivers or Canal An updated assessment from the viewpoint of nature conservation by Alexander Zinke, biogeographer Summary by Ulrich Eichelmann, WWF - Austria In spring 1999, the project of the Danube-Oder-Elbe Canal (DOEC) was once again brought to recollection through the Austrian press. This is not at all surprising, as the Canal project has haunted the media and various circles of experts for many years, each time vanishing shortly afterwards from the sphere of public attention. This has caused many critics of the Canal not to take this project seriously. For why should they deal with something intensively that has been planned for centuries and has, however, never been realized? This passive attitude, though, is dangerous because an international canal lobby has developed that is increasingly pushing forward planning activities and decision-making processes. The most pressing group is the Prague-based Danube-Oder-Elbe Society, among whose members are the Austrian Federal provinces of Lower Austria and Vienna, together with numerous enterprises of the building and transport industries. The DOEC is not a national, but an international project! This fact has so far hardly been accounted for in the discussions, controversies having been dominated by national and regional perspectives. In Austria, for example, the people in charge act as if the Canal's end were at the Slovakian border. Advertisements say that new recreation areas and biotopes will emerge, without offering the slightest insight into the ecological dimensions of the Canal as a whole. The Canal project has to be considered in its entire dimension. This applies above all to aspects of nature that have so far been analyzed most superficially and in fragmentary form if at all. WWF Austria and WWF International (Danube-Carpathian Programme) are the initiators of this study, which aims at quantifying for the very first time the scale of interference in existing and projected nature preserves along the entire route. The findings of this study illustrate impressively the enormous scale of destruction that would be brought about by the "outdated vision" of the canal lobby. It would doubtlessly be the biggest concerted destruction of nature in modern Europe. In the face of this knowledge, conclusions must be drawn on national and European levels. It is high time to put an end to this nightmare once and for all! Ulrich Eichelmann WWF Austria Andreas Wurzer WWF International Danube-Carpathian Programme

3 Danube-Oder-Elbe Living Rivers or Canal An updated assessment from the viewpoint of nature conservation Objectives and Method The objective of this study was to establish, on the basis of existing data on the route and dimensions of the Danube-Oder-Elbe Canal, a quantitative balance with regard to interference in wildlife and nature. Existing and future protected areas that would directly or indirectly be affected by the Canal have been considered with regard to size. Another point was to collect data on the dams that would have to be built in order to overcome differences in height. As there is certainly a number of further significant habitats along the route that neither enjoy nor will enjoy the status of protected areas, the findings of this study refer but to the minimum extent of nature destruction. Results The building of the Canal of a length of roughly 1,600 kilometers would deteriorate or destroy about 400,000 hectares of most precious riparian landscape in five countries - Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and Germany. Among the 61 protected areas affected there are two national parks, 6 Ramsar preserves and 2 biosphere preserves. In order to level out differences in height along the route, between 73 and 83 dams and 2 to 3 ship canal lifts would have to be built, depending on the variant chosen. Austria Areas concerned in Austria: The Danube National Park with the Viennese part called Lobau, the March-Thaya Ramsar preserve and the new Natura 2000 site of the "Pannonian Sand Dunes" in Marchfeld. The Lobau with a size of 2,700 hectares and the Natura 2000 site covering 3,700 hectares would be directly cut through by the Canal and would therefore be severely degraded. The March-Thaya floodplains would be indirectly affected. It is one of the best preserved riparian landscapes in Central Europe, providing important habitats for sea eagle, black stork, greylag, grey heron, corncrake, Volga zander, and beaver. Particularly well-known is also the colony of white stork in the village of Marchegg with about 60 couples. Protected areas in Austria affected: New dams: 1 national park, 1 Ramsar preserve 1 Natura 2000 site 19,400 hectares 1 weir Slovakia In Slovakia, the Ramsar preserve of the March floodplains of a size of 5,100 hectares, which is directly adjacent to the Austrian Ramsar preserve, will be affected. The vast riparian meadowlands of the March, providing a natural safeguard against flooding, are particularly

4 important. They constitute a vital food source for the Marchegg stork and provide breeding places for rare species such as the short-eared owl and curlew. Apart from direct losses with regard to size, this area would mainly be influenced by the changing of the waterway, flood dynamics, and quality of the water due to the operation of the Canal. Since the mid-1990s, this area has been subject to management and renaturization measures conducted by the GEF Biodiversity Programme of the World Bank and the EU Phare- Danubia-Environment Programme. Building the Canal would mean degrading these measures or even working against them. Protected areas in Slovakia affected: 1 Ramsar preserve 5,100 hectares New dams: 1 to 3 Czech Republic For many years the Czech Republic has been the main proponent of the Canal project, and of all countries concerned interference in wildlife and nature would be particularly severe just here. Along the March, Oder, and Elbe, altogether 3 Ramsar preserves and another 26 protected areas would be damaged or destroyed. Contrary to statements made by the proponents of the Canal, large stretches of Czech riversides are still intact and of a quality that is rare for entire Central Europe. Along the March, the 9,600 hectare preserve of Litovel north of Olomouc is concerned. Here, the river winds through the landscape still unregulated. The diversity of species is accordingly big: black stork, beaver, otter, oriole, kingfisher, plover, etc. Similar findings apply to the Oder. Among experts, the preserve of Poodri ranks among the most intact riverside landscapes in Central and Eastern Europe, with a high breeding rate of rednecked diver, black-tailed godwit, black stork, and common bittern. On the Elbe, the Czeske Svycarsko (Bohemian Switzerland) National Park is soon to be opened, providing for the protection of precious riparian landscape. Protected areas in the Czech Republic affected: New dams: 3 Ramsar preserves 21 existing protected areas 5 projected preserves 27,000 hectares 23 to 26 plus 2 to 3 ship canal lifts Poland There are currently no concrete plans for the Canal in Poland, but the route would doubtlessly run through the Oder river. In order to render the river navigable, it would have to be dammed up completely, with about 16 dams having to be built. This would affect the estuaries of the Neisse (4,000 hectares) and Warta (3,000 hectares), which are ecologically most significant. Further endangered riparian landscapes would predominantly be those in the vast national-parklike preserve north of Raciborz (4,000 hectares) and the Ramsar preserve of Slonsk (5,000 hectares) with a complex whole of low moors, wetlands, and sidearms. Finally, two further large-size protected areas on the Oder would be affected, located directly opposite the German Lower Oder Valley National Park.

5 This study merely takes into account the larger preserves. Along the stretch of the Oder concerned, there exist another 200 protected areas. Currently, the WWF Riparian Institute (Germany) is setting up a "Map of the Oder Riverside", which for the first time will supply a detailed summary. Protected areas in Poland affected: 1 Ramsar preserve 5 protected areas of riparian forests 4 landscape preserves 33,600 hectares New dams: 16 Germany In Germany the Canal would take the route through the Elbe and Oder rivers. Both are characterized by a high degree of naturalness. Due to insufficient depth and long periods of low water they are presently not really suitable for navigation. In order to make them fit for the Canal, these rivers would have to be dammed up completely, and the building of 32 to 36 dams would be necessary. The resulting damage would have a negative effect on huge dimensions. The Lower Oder Valley National Park is located on the Oder, and along the Elbe there is the largest European riverside preserve of a length of 400 kilometers, a biosphere preserve called Middle Elbe Riverside. In the latter alone, there live 2,000 beavers, 1,000 couples of white stork, 32 species of fish, sea eagle, crane, and old world otter. Protected areas in Germany affected: 1 national park 2 biosphere preserves 314,800 hectares New dams: 32 to 36 Conclusion The Danube-Oder-Elbe Canal as a connection of the Danube, North Sea, and Baltic Sea of a length of 1,600 kilometers would thus have the following consequences: 1. Building of 73 to 82 dams, 2 to 3 ship canal lifts, 1 to 2 ship bridges and 2 to 3 tunnels 2. Direct or indirect bearing on roughly 400,000 hectares in 61 protected areas, among them: 2 national parks 6 Ramsar preserves 2 biosphere preserves Unfortunately, these gross negative effects on the environment have so far not been considered in the discussions about the Canal project. In the face of the large number of protected areas concerned and of the fact that only few intact European riparian habitats have survived, a realization of the project according to EU standards seems to be inconceivable. The losses of ecological resources in Europe would be so enormous that they would by far outdo the economic benefits for navigation and other industries, which may be regarded as uncertain anyway. For example, a WWF study of 1992 points out that the option of a railway route would be remarkably cheaper and in addition would have a transport capacity 20 percent higher than that of the Canal.

6 Appendix: Selected Proponents of the Canal and Decision Makers in Austria and the Czech Republic Austria * WIENER HAFEN GesmbH (VIENNA PORT Society) Seitenstraße 15 A-1020 Vienna Has a big interest in the building of the Canal and is a member of the "Danube-Oder-Elbe Society". * BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR WISSENSCHAFT UND VERKEHR FEDERAL MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TRANSPORT Supreme Navigation Authority (Oberste Schifffahrtbehörde) Rennweg 5 A-1010 Vienna In charge of canals in Austria. Czech Republic * DANUBE-ODER-ELBE SOCIETY U Luzického Semináre Malá Strana CZ Praha 1 The Society was founded by carriers, port operators and planning societies in order to do lobbying for the Canal. * REDITELSTVí VODNÍCH CEST CR (Waterway Administration) 1060 Holesovice-Bubny CZ Praha 7 Founded in 1998, this organization aims at extending existing waterways in order to make them navigable all year round, and at pushing forward the D-O-E Canal. * MINISTERSTVO DOPRAVY A SPOJU CR Nábrezí Ludvíka Svobody 12 CZ Praha 1 This ministry is responsible for the political decision as to whether pursuing the project or not.