Ukraine-Romania: the Danube shoals

By: Tetyana Sylina

After the verdict of the Hague International Court Ukrainian experts have expressed cautious hope: now, when the decision of one of the thorniest issues in bilateral relations is resolved, Ukraine and Romania finally would be able to peacefully cooperate "in a spirit of friendship and good neighborly relations." But the shelf is divided, the Snake island issue is almost forgotten, but there is still no trace of good-neighborly relations and friendship. Moreover, it seems that Romania consciously and deliberately pursues the deterioration of relations with our country. The arsenal of methods and tools is rich – ranging from international scandals (consider alone a public drama around recent spy scandal) to small dirty tricks such as attempts to disrupt the reception and concert organized by our Embassy in Bucharest National Operetta Theater in honor of the 18th anniversary of Ukrainian independence (with enhanced security measures and slamming the door shut in the face of Ukrainian Ambassador and invited guests).

Obviously, in such a "friendly" atmosphere it is difficult to discuss any issues, let alone the chronic problems. And the mean tricks that Romania is using against us are not always that petty. On September 16-17, 2009 one of its "good neighborly" activities became the subject of consideration by an implementation committee of the UN Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo) in Geneva. (This Convention provides for the obligations of its party-states with respect to the impact on the environment in the early stages of planning. The document contains a general obligation of countries to notify and consult each other on all major projects that could have a significant impact on the environment, beyond the territorial boundaries.) Back in March of this year, Ukraine, that is also a party to the Convention, submitted to the committee information on violation of the provisions of the Espoo Convention by Romania during the implementation of its projects in the Danube delta, causing significant adverse consequences for our country.

In particular, as Ukraine’s Ambassador at Large Oleksiy Shovkoplyas explained at the press conference, deep-water and coast protection works in the Sulina and St. George channels conducted by Romania have led to man-made redistribution of water balance in favor of the Romanian branches of the river. In addition, dumping of the soil dredged from Romanian channels into the common Ukrainian-Romanian Danube’s Kiliya arm leads to contamination of the Ukrainian territory by heavy metals and chemicals.

The problem of the redistribution of water balance in the Danube Delta has a very long history. (Details were described by our newspaper as early as in 2003, in its № 10 issue of March 15th, 2003 in Yevheniy Yeremin’s article "A Look at the Danube’s Delta through the Prism of Time". We only remind you that according to the decision of the European Danube Commission, the majority of whose members at that time were hostile to Russia, construction of the first Danube-Black Sea channel was initiated in 1880 in dry Romanian Sulina arm, which then accounted for only eight per cent of the flow of the Danube. Much deeper, full-flowing (about 70% of the flow) and, therefore, convenient for shipping Kiliya arm was ignored for political reasons - in order to prevent Russia to get any advantages on the Danube. Moreover, in 1902 a training dike was built at Cape Izmail'skii Chatal cutting off a significant part of the Kiliya arm and directing water into the arm of Sulina. In 1980s, Romania had undertaken straightening works similar to Sulina channel on St.George’s arm, thereby greatly reducing its length. As a result of Romania’s activities in the Danube’s delta, by 2003 the proportion of Kiliya arm has decreased from 70% of the flow of the Danube at the apex of the delta as of the beginning of last century, to 52%. Currently, our neighbors are proceeding with full swing works on their Sulina and St. George arms. According to the representatives of the Ukrainian Danube Shipping Company, it looks that Romania, in addition to the Sulina arm, is still building St. George's arm, straightening, deepening and widening the channel arms, reinforcing its shores with stones and concrete, causing even greater environmental changes in the Danube delta.

Sulina channel is also being deepened: despite recommendations of the Danube Commission to keep the depth of the channel at 24 feet, Romania is trying to bring it up to 26-28 feet. According to Romanian data, only in the course of 10 months of 2008 approximately 230 thousand cubic meters of soil were dredged from the Sulina channel. According to the Ukrainian data, these figures are significantly higher.

One more circumstance that causes a considerable reduction of the Kiliya arm of the Danube water balance is Romania’s construction of artificial water canals that take away around 2 cubic kilometers (!) of water from Kiliya arm. According to Ukrainian data, currently there exist nine (!) points of such water intake. In natural conditions, water from a wetland between the Sulina and the Kiliya outfalls fed the Kiliya arm. Nowadays, after hydro technical interference of Romania on the site its water has been directed to the Romanian Sulina outfall.

According to Ukrainian experts, if Romania does not stop its hydro technical works the share of the Kiliya arm flow will drop below 50% over the next couple of years for the first time in 200 years.

What doest it mean for Ukraine? Negative consequences are numerous. The reduction of the Kiliya arm flow causes degradation of the Ukrainian part of the Danube delta. The Ukrainian part of the Danube region has found itself on the brink of ecological disaster. Ukrainian arms of the Danube – Stepovy and Dunaets – are becoming shallow, muddy and eventually are dying out. Situation is critical with the Kiliya arm, the level of water is falling in the Danube region lakes and the whole region is experiencing acute drinking water scarcity.

Not only Romanian activities have caused the change of the Danube water balance to its favor, but Romanians go as far as unloading silt and sand pumped out from the bottoms of their river arms into the shared waters which brings even more muddying and chemical waists pollution of Ukrainian river arms. Perilously enough the Danube waters fulfill 7% of the all-Ukrainian water intake. Dumping of a soil into the Kiliya arm caused a serious threat for the villages and towns drinking water supply safety of Vylkove and especially Kiliya and Tatarbuna districts of Odesa region.

There is even no need to mention the challenges for navigation that are caused by the uncontrolled soil dumping into the Danube riverbed. They are obvious.

But the threat to Ukraine’s territorial integrity should be mentioned separately. The most part of soil unloaded into the Kiliya arm is carried by the current further and accumulated around sand spits. This brings the decrease of water drain recorded by Ukrainian hydrologists. But some part of the dumped soil settles on a small distance behind the training dike on Izmailskii Chatal cape located on the Romanian bank creating a shallow that constantly grows. The results of cosmic survey conducted by Ukraine show that at the beginning of 2003 the shallow did not exist, in March 2006 its area already amounted to 4,3 thousand square meters, and in August 2008 – it expanded to almost 20 thousand square meters. What challenges brings further enlargement of this shallow on the Romanian side to Ukraine? Territorial ones. Our state border is located in the middle of the fairway, and the increasing shallow makes it move towards Ukraine. Giving the aggressiveness and forcefulness of Romanian diplomacy it won’t be a surprise if after a while Bucharest will offer Kyiv to revise the border on the Danube.

Ukraine’s numerous appeals to Romanian colleagues for the explanations regarding their activities in the Danube delta as well as persistent suggestions to start the joint monitoring along the whole delta did not bring any results. The Romanian authorities either have been keeping silence or giving runarounds meanwhile not suspending the actions so disturbing for Ukraine. On September 21, 2006 Romania approved a law on the National Territory Development Plan which envisages the building of new man-made canals and dredging the existing channels for navigation purposes enhancing their internal channels. During the first meeting of the Ukrainian-Romanian expert group held in December 2007 the Ukrainian delegation requested information from its Romanian partners about their projects in the Danube delta that might have trans-border impact. Even though the Romanian party agreed to provide such information in compliance with the provisions of Espoo Convention, Ukraine has never received any substantial response to its queries. This relates in particular to Romania’s plans of the Sulina channel reconstruction project (the riverbed deepening), the National Territory Development Plan (construction of new canals, ports, scouring of the existing transportation channels network), straightening of St. George channel and some other projects. Responses received to Ukraine’s diplomatic notes mentioning the requirement to provide Kyiv with this information according to the Espoo Convention were only formal runarounds.

Later on Ukraine has sent a request to the Secretariat of the Danube Commission, and from the response of the Commission’s General Secretary it found out that Romania is conducting its activities in the Sulina channel in the framework of the two projects whose budgets are 76 and 64 million dollars. The projects have been planned for 2004-2009 and 2006-2009 and supposed to be focused on river banks fortification, topographic and hydrographic researches and establishment of signaling system.

And finally Kyiv decided that instead of idle recalls to the neighbor about the existence of such a lever as the Espoo Convention, it would be wise to use it. To tell the truth, Romania ratified the Convention yet in 2001 and in 2002 began to discharge soil into common water. Hence, Ukraine had a right to turn for international support already a couple of years ago. Yet, either Kyiv did not want to complicate the background for even those cumbersome talks on delimitation of the continental shelf or counted on support from Romania to its European and Euroatlantic aspirations or simply did not hit upon the idea of it. Yet, better later than never. In general terms, as we have recalled above, Geneva received the Ukrainian petition on Romania's breach of the Espoo Convention. It is perceived in Kyiv that Romania's activity in implementation of development plans for own transport infrastructure in Danube estuary makes significant negative impact on ecology of the estuary and creates serious treads to navigation in its Ukrainian part. According to the Ukrainian experts, the actions of Romania make negative impact onto all components of lithosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere of the adjacent territories – onto geodynamic modalities and terrain, underground water regime, climate, soils, flora and fauna. For instance, according to the research of Ukrainian ichthyologists, Georgian and Sulin branches of the Danube estuary are of the most important significance for migration of certain kinds of fish. Longstanding works on deepening and straightening of the river bed in these tributaries have created a serious tread for spawning migration, in particular, the Danube herring, which is the main fishery object (up to 80% of yield) on Ukrainian part of the Danube.

The scientists are confident that distortion of the hydrologic regime, natural dynamic and processes of migration of chemicals, escalated processes of repeated water pollution in Kili branch of the Danube and decline in its ability for self-purification owing to the industrial activity of Romania in the estuary can lead to ecological catastrophe of its Ukrainian part and destroy the unique estuary of the Danube.

Kyiv received from Bucharest the answer to its claims after appellation to the Committee on Enforcement of the Espoo Convention in June. As it turned out to be, Romania does not recognize at all that her abovementioned activity falls under the jurisdiction of this Convention and respectively, considers that she does not breach any right of Ukraine under this document. Besides, to Romania's opinion, claims of Ukraine are groundless, while Romania, as it is occurred, had not been working out any of the projects, which would anticipate wide-scale hydro technical works on Sulin and Georgian branches and had not throw soil into Kili branch. As far as works on floor deepening in Sulin channel are concerned, argue the Romanians, it has nothing to do with the Espoo Convention, while these (works) are being undertaken according to Romania's obligations in the framework of another convention – The Belgrad Convention – with the aim to maintain the navigation and ensure 24 –foot depth recommended by the Danube Commission. There were no works on the Georgian channel, while there is a limited navigation there – exclusively for local and tourist needs. The official reply of the Romanian side also denies any project on creation of the Saint George channel. As to the soil throwing into the Danube waters, the Romanians justify this with the necessity to lessen the impact from riverbank erosion, which allegedly endangers Romania with partial losses of its territory. In order to strengthen riverbanks and prevent vanishing of residential places there the Romanian authorities – as it is claimed – approved a decision to burial ground disposal in areas, which suffered the most. As it is stems from the official reply of Bucharest, there are no nine water abstraction points from the Kili branch into the Sulin one, with one artificial channel instead. Moreover, water reallocation among the Danube branches is caused by natural processes and Romania has no fault in it.

The truth is, how convince us our neighbors, that the real infringer is Ukraine with its project for Bystre river-bed. Now she (Ukraine) tries to pay-off Romania for its appeal to the mentioned Committee on Enforcement of the Espoo Convention with the claims on Ukraine, who (the Committee) finally prohibited Ukraine from implementation of the second queue Danube-Black Sea in Bystre tributary.

It is just in Bystre, to be precise – in its deepwater navigation path (DNP) - that's were the shoe pinches. On severe peripeteias over reactivating DNP, which runs through the Danube biosphere conservancy area, the "Dzerkalo Tyzhnya" had been writing a lot and in a detailed way, presenting different viewpoints. The first queue of the channel was opened in 2004. Having overcome the difficulties of its running in earlier years, nowadays DNP clearly proves the end of a Romanian monopoly over the transit routes across the Danube. Recent August there was a new record – 180 vessels went through the Bystre tributary, while through the Romanian Sulin channel – 124. It is necessary to mention that the Ukrainian DNP operates in experimental regime. Besides, charges at our channel are 14 cents per one cubic meter of a cargo, while at the Romanian one – 70 cents (prior to opening of the Ukrainian DNP they had been racking even twice higher). Do you see now what "happiness" condescended on Romanians? Moreover, ours is a two-way channel and operates twenty-four-hour, while the Sulin channel – one-way only in a day-time. One can get it clear what competitiveness has been created by our channel Danube-Black Sea to the Romanian one. Just imagine, what will happen to the Romanian DNP once the Ukrainians introduce the second queue? You are getting its right;it is highly likely that everyone forgets the Romanian Sulin channel. Thus, the Romanians are acting on the offensive in all shooting galleries in order to prevent this scenario by all means. They have been frightening the world community with the irresponsibility of Ukraine, which has intruded into the biosphere conservancy area with its channel (however, our country has just reactivated the navigation, which has been existed for decades), meanwhile constructing the Georgian branch channel in a corner, the fact that has been occasionally announced by the Romanian media. Indeed, putting the Georgian channel into operation enables the two-sided navigation in the Romanian part of the Danube. Disregard that a construction of the necessary communications and road infrastructure will lie in the very heart of the biosphere conservancy area, which is under the UNESCO protection and major part of which is housed onto the territory of Romania.

The Romanians blame us in posing treats to the ecology in the Danube estuary, meanwhile throwing off soil from their channels on the sly. The mud shall sluice into Ukraine and upon Ukraine. For Romanians to deepen the channels for themselves means to make them shallow for us. They have enough funds for that, while we are short for money for purification. In 2005 we were forced to freeze works on DNP deepening. Is it not the Ukrainian poverty, senseless, lack of a coherent position and – as a consequence - disability to stand for national interests that the Romanians count on?

Yet, for making an appeal to Geneva Ukraine gathered itself and prepared reasonably good. There was a consistency of efforts of diplomats, militants, border guards;and even National Academy of Sciences – which is famous for its implacable position over DNP – helped this time.

It looks like the evidence on detrimental impact of Romania's activity onto the environment in a transborder context, which was brought forward by Ukraine, impressed the members of the Committee on Enforcement of the Espoo Convention more than the explanations of the Romanians. The very fact that the Committee approved the decision to prepare a respective report testifies that it recognizes non-fulfillment of provisions of the Convention by Romania. Besides, according to Oleksiy Shovkoplyas, the Committee recognized that carrying out by Romania those or that projects under commitments of other conventions and obligations before the Danube Commission does not absolutely exempts her from the commitments under the Espoo Convention, while carrying out these projects.

The reassurances of the Romanians that they have not been throwing soil into the Kili branch close to the border with Ukraine were invalidated by the materials of photo- and video shooting, which Border Guard Service of Ukraine have been making since 2002. Our border guards filmed and documented over 270 cases of soil downthrow by the Romanian dredger "Dunarea". In relation to this the Ukrainian party underlined that the Belgrad Convention, which the Romanian side uses as a smear, in no way requires soil downthrow into the Kili branch. As far as the Romanian explanations on soil erosion and the need to reinforce riverbanks are concerned, Mr O.Shovkoplyas reported to the Committee that the Ukrainian side carefully studied the most popular technologies for riverbanks' protection but found no indication on soil downthrow into a river-bed among them. The most mysterious is that the Romanians "reinforced" their riverbanks by throwing the soil into the middle of the river-bed and more often – even closer to the Ukrainian riverbank. In response to the Romanian concerns over possible decreasing of its territory there was evidence of the Ukrainian hydrologists submitted, which proved that the downthrow soil whirled away down the stream into the Kili branch and subsided onto rifts, which caused a decrease in water flowing through the branch. And a sandbank near the Ismail Chatal, clearly depicted at the presented satellite imagery, threatens Ukraine – not Romania - with the territory loss. All of nine artificial channels which redirect water from Kili branch into the Sulin one are also clearly shown at the satellite imagery.

Appealing to the Committee members as well as to all the parties of the Espoo Convention, the Ukrainian side called for all necessary actions in order to:

1) implement all procedures on economic activity of Romania in the Danube estuary foreseen by the Convention;

2) bring to stop further decrease of the Kili branch stream flow and renew the Danube hydrologic balance:

3) bring to stop and prevent any future activity of Romania, which would lead to changes in the Danube water balance;

4) clean the Kili branch from all the soil, which had been downthrown by the Romanian dredger and to cure the emerged sandbank (the Ukrainian party is ready to participate in that);

5) prevent increase of the Sulin branch depth over the recommended by the Danube Commission 24 foots;

6) prevent further activity in the Georgian branch, which causes the degradation of the Kili branch of the Danube;

7) oblige the Romanian government to prepare a report on implementation of the Resolution from the 17th Committee's meeting and to present it during the next meeting of the mentioned body.

Experts of the Committee on Enforcement of the Espoo Convention had enough time to study the arguments of Romania and the evidence of Ukraine. The draft Committee report on that issue is to be approved in March 2010. Its final approval will be at the meeting of all the participants of the Convention in 2011. Yet, one hopes that already by that time Romania will have stopped its activity, which go ill with not only the Ukrainian Cisdanube, but also with the entire Danube estuary. If the implementation of the mechanisms of the Espoo Convention does not help in putting Romania wise, one can try to turn to the International Court in the Haague. Well, it is now the turn of Ukraine, isn't it?