Regulars
CONSERVATION
Water wars

by Andrew Taylor
October 2004

Around the beginning of last month Romanian newspapers reported that Ukraine intended to build a navigable canal from their side of the Danube Delta to connect with the sea. This caused much indignation in editorial columns and the minds of ordinary Romanian citizens. It was an indignation that was justified by the alleged environmental destruction such a significant diversion of water would cause to a world heritage site. Much discussion ensued of the importance of persuading the Ukrainian government to think again, by appeals to the EU, UN and anyone else who might listen.

Within a few days of the first reports being published we then watched on television as the new canal was actually opened. Your columnist was baffled. How could such a large project be completed in such a short time? Then it was revealed that the project had actually been underway for some time; years, in fact.

So why didn't the Romanian government notice what was happening on its border? After all local fisherman were shown on television claiming that they had reported the construction activity to police, customs and local authorities two years ago. Furthermore it seems that the Ukrainian government held a tender for the contract, which was won by a German company. We know this because the television news people tell us that it surely can't be right for an EU company to commit such vandalism to a world heritage site in an applicant country.

The heady mixture of ecological disaster and national pride has caused the most basic issue here to be lost, which is how the Romanian government failed to notice what was happening. Are they really so incompetent that such large scale construction works being executed right up to their borders was somehow overlooked? If not, the question we are forced to consider is why they did nothing? Only two logical answers provide credible motives. First, some kind of political horse-trading has taken place, as a result of which Romania has agreed to accept the canal. Second, the ugly possibility that the government, or some of its constituent members have some kind of interest in this scheme going ahead.

Let us assume for a moment that it was incompetence that led to the failure to notice the works and take appropriate action. What has the Romanian government done subsequently to rectify the situation? Much noise has been made locally; promises to take action in the Hague and with the EU have followed. Yet there has been no international incident to speak of. We have not heard of Prime Minister Nastase being reported in the Times, or on CNN demanding an explanation from the Ukrainians. There has been no massing of gunboats at the canal entrance. In short there has been no sabre rattling at all.

To cap it all, the buoy placed by Ukrainian authorities at the canal entrance (in Romanian waters) had to be towed away by local fisherman, because the Romanian authorities did nothing.

The smell of media management rooted in older times is pervasive around this subject. Everything about what is happening with this new canal suggests news management by a government seeking to outsource blame for a problem and divert the attention of the population abroad. It is after all an election year and the issue has died away, with little critique of the government's role in this whole sordid affair. The important questions of what is really going on here - who will gain what - remains unanswered. One can only hope that in drawing attention to the real point of issue those journalists with greater resources will choose to dig deeper.

Andrew Taylor runs Connect-CEE, an outdoor training company.