Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Novo pismo Europskoj komisiji: Novi planovi regulacije Dunava protiv su okolišnih zakona EU te prijete Rezervatu biosfere Mura-Drava-Dunav
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Novo pismo Europskoj komisiji: Novi planovi regulacije Dunava protiv su okolišnih zakona EU te prijete Rezervatu biosfere Mura-Drava-Dunav

4,030
views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Travel

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
4,030
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Open complaint to the European Commission1 New river regulation projects along the Danube in Croatia contravene EU environmental law and threaten planned Transboundary Biosphere reserve “Mura-Drava-Danube”, Natura 2000 sites and protected areas1 Supporting information to the NGO letter to the European Commission about the planned new river regulation projects on Mura, Drava, Danube, Sava and Neretva rivers in Croatia dated 02nd February 2011
  • 2. To: On behalf of the NGOs:Mr. Janez Poto nik, Commissioner, DG Environment Mr Andreas BeckmannMr. Štefan Füle, Commissioner, DG Enlargement WWF-DCPO Ottakringerstrasse 114-116Rue de la Loi, 200 A-1160 ViennaB-1049 Brüssel Mr Tibor Mikuska Croatian Society for Bird and Nature Protection Gunduli eva 19a HR-31000 Osijek Zagreb, Vienna, Budapest, Radolfzell, akovec, Koprivnica, Virovitica, Osijek, 4 July 2011Ongoing and planned regulation of the natural Danube river between Croatia and Serbiaa) Regulation projects threaten intact river ecosystem within planned Natura 2000 sites, protectedareas and the planned Transboundary UNESCO Biosphere Reserve “Mura-Drava-Danube”b) The projects confirm outdated river management in Croatia, which is not in line with EU legislation,international standards and the “Joint Statement on Guiding Principles for the Development of InlandNavigation and Environmental Protection in the Danube River Basin”Dear Commissioners,On behalf of the signed NGOs we would like to call your attention to the ongoing and planned destruction ofnatural values along the Danube River between Croatia and Serbia, within future Natura 2000 sites, protectedareas and the planned five-country Transboundary UNESCO Biosphere Reserve “Mura-Drava-Danube”.The regulation projects, current status and impactsCroatian Water Management Authorities2 are planning heavy structural works for improving the navigabilityof the Danube River in Croatia. The first project includes over 92 spots along a 53 km long river stretchbetween Croatia and Serbia where new groins, embankments and dredging are planned (Annex 1, regulationstudy for download: http://puo.mzopu.hr/UserDocsImages/Elaborat_14_05_2010_1.pdf). The second projectincludes a 4 km river stretch where new embankments are planned.The regulation projects on the Danube River clearly demonstrate that the Water Management Authorities ofCroatia are trying to maintain the outdated system of river management practices and to gain approval offurther major works before Croatia joins the EU and EU legal provisions – including the EU WaterFramework Directive, EU Habitats and Bird Directives – come into force.These projects are in clear violation of the Joint Statement on Guiding Principles for the Development ofInland Navigation and Environmental Protection in the Danube River Basin3 (adopted by theDanube Commission, Sava Commission and International Commission for the Protection of the DanubeRiver) and its specific recommendations on integrated planning principles which facilitate the fullfilment ofrelevant EU environmental legislation. The Joint Statement specifically calls for completing procedures forthe Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for projects aswell as ensuring that there are no technically viable, environmentally better and not disproportionately costlyalternative means to achieve the required objective, in line with the requirements of Article 4(7) of the WaterFramework Directive.2 Ministry of Regional Development, Forestry and Water Management; Ministry of the Sea, Transport and Infrastructure; Croatian Waters and Agencyfor Inland Waterways3 http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/navigation_and_ecology_process.htm 2
  • 3. Description of natural valuesThe Danube stretch and its floodplains between Hungary, Croatia and Serbia – from the mouth of Sio River inHungary downstream Ilok in Croatia – is the best preserved and most natural river section in the wholePannonian basin. The floodplain area extends over 100,.000 hectares and includes the wetlands of Kopacki ritin Croatia4. This site holds the highest density of breeding pairs of White-tailed Eagles in continental Europe(up to 15 pairs per 10 km2) and regularly supports over 20,000 waterbirds. The whole area in Croatia is aRamsar site and part of the National Ecological Network (HR1000016 Podunavlje and Donje Podravljeincluding several sub-sites), a future NATURA 2000 site. The most valuable areas are already protected asNature Park Kopacki rit (IUCN category V) and Special Zoological Reserve (IUCN category Ib). The area inSerbia is protected as the Special Nature Reserve “Gornje Podunavlje” and a Ramsar site. The whole area ispart of the future five-country Trans-Boundary Biosphere Reserve “Mura-Drava-Danube”. Commitment toestablishing this joint reserve was signed recently by the ministers responsible for environment and natureprotection of Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia and Slovenia at a meeting hosted by the Hungarian EUPresidency at Gödöllö near Budapest on March 25, 2011 (Annex 7). Projects and threatsCroatian Water Management Authorities plan to change the natural flow of the meandering courses of theDanube River and divert it into a unified regulated river corridor. This regulation corridor, which was definedabout 30 years ago in former Yugoslavia, describes a constant width of the Danube riverbed at 300-450 m inthis river section. According to the project studies, the main purpose of these plans is to improve navigationand flood protection.First project (rkm 1380-1433)5, 6This project aims to regulate 53 km of the natural Danube stretch between Croatia and Serbia – from theCroatian-Hungarian border (at 1433 rkm) downstream to the mouth of Drava river (at 1380 rkm) byconstruction of a series of river training structures and by extracting sediments from the riverbed.Construction of at least 92 new river training structures (72 T-groins, 15,5 km of new embankments and 2parralel structures) are planned between Croatia and Serbia, though most of the works are envisaged onCroatian territory. In 2010, the Croatian Agency for Inland Waterways started the Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) preparation. The EIA in Croatia is still ongoing (as far as we are aware, no similarprocess has yet started in Serbia). However, parts of this project (e.g. from 1405-1406 rkm) have alreadybeen approved by the relevant Croatian ministries (e.g. Ministry of Environmental Protection, PhysicalPlanning and Construction) and implemented in 2008 and 2009 without any previous EIA or SEA norTransboundary Impact Assessment with Serbia according the ESPOO Convention. Implementation of theproject has continued in the first half of 2011 with construction of a new embankment at Kazuk area inCroatia (1412 rkm) (see Annex 2).Second project (rkm 1321-1325) 7During 2010, the Croatian Agency for Inland Waterways announced a second project for the regulation of a4-km long Danube stretch (from 1321-1325 rkm). On 8th September 2010, the Ministry of EnvironmentalProtection, Physical Planning and Construction issued a permit without any EIA or SEA nor TransboundaryImpact Assessment with Serbia according to the Espoo Convention. Environmental and political problems resulting from these projects (see also Annex 3)According to the project studies, the main purpose of the plans is to improve the conditions for navigation andflood protection. However, no justification is given for such massive technical interventions along theDanube. On the contrary, there are no settlements or infrastructure that are threatened by flooding, nordo modern approaches to navigation require such measures.As the projects date back to former Yugoslavia (the current "Croatian" regulation study is based on theregulation plan developed by the Jaroslav erni Institute in Belgrade in the 1980s), no alternative optionshave been investigated to this regulation project nor has “state of the art” practice in river management in linewith EU legislation been considered. No technically viable, environmentally better and notdisproportionately costly alternative means, in line with the requirements of Article 4(7) of the WaterFramework Directive, have been investigated.4 www.ramsar.org5 http://puo.mzopu.hr/UserDocsImages/Elaborat_14_05_2010_1.pdf6 http://puo.mzopu.hr/UserDocsImages/Uputa_06_07_2010_1.pdf7 http://puo.mzopu.hr/UserDocsImages/Rjesenje_08_09_2010_2.pdf 3
  • 4. No Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been carried out for the project taking into account thefull scale of impacts of the planned measures, nor any transboundary Environmental Impact Assessmentaccording to the Espoo Convention between Croatia and Serbia. No cost-benefit analysis has beenundertaken, especially demonstrating the economic needs for and benefits of an improved navigation route.On 16 February 2011 the EU Parliament has issued a resolution8 on the 2010 progress report on Croatiawhich demands in relation to the planned regulation of the Danube to “respect the landscape context, which isunique in Europe”, and “to apply EU rules on development authorisation from the outset”. Theregulation projects as they stand now are in clear conflict with these demands.We are very much concerned about these projects as they are based on an outdated approach of CroatianWater Management Authorities to regulate the Danube River according to the once defined river regulationcorridor and on false arguments for navigation and public safety. The main purpose of the projects is tomaintain a system of outdated water management practises in Croatia, part of an overall strategy of CroatianWater Management Authorities to regulate all natural river stretches across the country (see NGO letter dated2nd Februray 2011).The fact that current river management practice in Croatia is outdated, environmentally and economicallyunsustainable and not in line with the legal requirements of the Water Framework Directive is well knownfrom the results of the EU Twinning project „Implementation of Water Framework Directive inCroatia“, which was carried out between 2007 and 2009 in Croatia and which concluded, among otherthings, that “Croatia’s water administration is still focusing on traditional, technical oriented measures and isnot really aware of the paradigm shift that took place in member states”9 (Annex 4).The fact that Croatian Water Management is not willing to change its practice has also been documented onthe Drava River. In 2009 the European Commission conducted a Fact Finding Mission to Croatia andtwo international experts were hired to assess river management projects and impacts along the Lower DravaRiver. Though the experts clearly recommended in their report not to “carry out this planned project” butto develop and apply modern “state of the art” practices on the Drava in line with EU laws and to “stopsediment extraction”, Croatia Water Management Authorities have already started to implement theregulation project on the Drava river since 2010 in at least five locations (see photo documentary Annex 2).Moreover, illegal gravel extraction on the Croatian part of the Drava at Pitoma a (176 rkm) has beenongoing since 2007 (see letter to the European Commission dated 24th June 2009).Our recommendationsWe, the undersigned NGOs, still see considerable lack of political will and interest of Croatian WaterManagement Authorities to implement sustainable river management in practice in line with Croatian and EUenvironmental law and according to international standards. This is disconcerting in light of the green lightthat was recently given by the EU Commission and EU Council for Croatia’s accession to the EU.Implementation of these projects along the Danube would prevent the achievement of EU priorities related toriver basin management and the maintenance of valuable ecosystem goods and services, including floodmanagement, sustainable forestry, provision of drinking water and sustainable navigation along the Danube.Given the ongoing resistance of the water management sector of Croatia to find an appropriate strategyfor the development of the rivers in compliance with the EU environmental acquis and harmonised andsustainable river basin management planning, we therefore ask the European Commission within themonitoring of Croatia’s commitments to fulfill EU standards and laws by the time of its accession to theEuropean Union to immediately urge Croatia, respectively the Ministry of Regional Development,Forestry and Water Management, the Ministry of the Sea, Transport and Infrastructure as well as theMinistry of Environmental Protection, Physical Planning and Construction, to: Desist from taking any further decisions or steps regarding the implementation of these projects and to impose a moratorium on these river regulation and sediment extraction. Current regulation works as recently documented along the Danube e.g. at Kazuk (1412 rkm) or along the Drava must be stopped immediately (see Annex 2).8 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0059+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN9 http://www.wfd-croatia.eu/userfiles/file/Activity%20reports%20final/Project_results__engl.pdf 4
  • 5. Initiate a round table between all relevant stakeholders to discuss and review current projects and practices and find sustainable alternatives in line with Croatian and EU law.In particular, we ask the EU Commission to urge the relevant Croatian ministries and institutions to: Comply with the EU Water Framework Directive, Floods Directive, Habitats and Birds Directives (Natura 2000), with protected areas and the Joint Statement on Guiding Principles for the Development of Inland Navigation and Environmental Protection in the Danube River Basin in the development of these projects. No works should be done instead of following these requirements even before accession of Croatia. Investigate alternative forms of navigation development and “state of the art” practice in river management. Technically viable, environmentally better and not disproportionately costly alternative means, in line with the requirements of Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive must be investigated. Carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as well as transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment according to the Espoo Convention together with Serbia. Carry out a thorough cost-benefit analysis, especially demonstrating the economic needs for and benefits of an improved navigation route. Carry out a cost-benefit analysis to calculate the short and long term costs of the project, the costs of maintenance of the navigation route and the costs if the ecological services will decrease, or disappear along the Danube. Develop a study on the hydro-morphological and ecological alterations which must follow the suggestions of Article 4.7 of the Water Framework Directive. Guarantee participation of relevant stakeholders, including NGOs and affected population from the beginning in the further development of these projects.We are prepared to provide further and more detailed information if required and would be happy to supportand discuss alternative options with all relevant stakeholders that can ensure the future sustainabledevelopment of the rivers as a treasure of Croatian and European natural heritage.Yours sincerely,Andreas Beckmann Martin Schneider-Jacoby Irma Popovic Darko Grlica WWF DCPO EuroNatur Dujmovic Drava League Croatia WWF Medpo/Croatia Helena Hecimovic Tibor Mikuska Goran Safarek Ecological Society of Croatian Society for Bird Ana Bajsic Baobab Croatia Koprivnica and Nature Protection ZEO Nobilis Croatia Goran Cizmesija Jasmin Sadikovic Ivan Grlica Gábor Figeczky ZEUS Croatia Green Osijek Croatia Natural History Society WWF Hungary Drava 5
  • 6. cc: Mr Karl Falkenberg, European Commission, DG Environment Mr Michael Leigh, European Commission, DG Environment Mr Ladislav Miko, European Commission, DG Environment Mr François Wakenhut, European Commission, DG Environment Mr Stefan Leiner, European Commission, DG Environment Mrs Pia Bucella, European Commission, DG Environment Mr Julio Garcia-Burgues, European Commission, DG Environment Mr Peter Gammeltoft, European Commission, DG Environment Mr Jorge Rodriguez-Romero, European Commission, DG Environment Mrs Marieke Van-Nood, European Commission, DG Environment Mr Timo Makela, European Commission, DG Environment Mr Nicholas Hanley, European Commission, DG Environment Mrs Anne Burrill, European Commission, DG Environment Mr François Delcueillerie, European Commission, DG Environment Mr Paul Vandoren, Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Croatia Mr Richard Masa, Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Croatia Mr Davor Percan, Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Croatia Mr Hannes Swoboda, Member of the European Parliament Mr Božidar Pankreti , Croatian Ministry of Regional Development, Forestry and Water Management Mr Božidar Kalmeta, Croatian Ministry of the Sea, Transport and Infrastructure Mr Jasen Mesi , Croatian Ministry of Culture Mr Branko Ba , Croatian Ministry of Environmental Protection, Physical Planning and Construction Mr Tomislav Mihoti , Croatian Ministry of the Sea, Transport and Infrastructure Mr Danijel Mileta, Croatian Ministry of the Sea, Transport and Infrastructure Mr Miroslav Ištuk, Agency for Inland Waterways Mr Jadranko Husari , Croatian Waters Mr Nikola Ružinski, Croatian Ministry of Environ. Protection, Physical Planning and Construction Mr Zdravko Krmek, Croatian Ministry of Regional Development, Forestry and Water Management Mr Zoran Šiki , Croatian Ministry of Culture Mrs Kornelija Pintaric, Croatian Ministry of Culture Mr Davorin Markovic, State Institute for Nature Protection Croatia Mr Oliver Dulic, Serbian Ministry of Environment, Mining and Spatial Planning Mr Srdjan Jovicic, Serbian Ministry of Environment, Mining and Spatial Planning Mr Dusan Petrovic, Serbian Ministry of Trade, Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management Mr Jovana Stanisljevic, Serbian Ministry of Trade, Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management Mr Dejan Komatina, ISRBC-International Sava River Basin Commission Mr Phil Weller, ICPDR – International Commission for the protection of the Danube River Mr Tobias Salathe, Ramsar Bureau, Gland, Switzerland Mr Nick Bonvoisin, Espoo Convention 6
  • 7. Annex 1 – Overview map of planned regulation along the Danube and Drava Rivers and extract of theDanube regulation studyWhole study for download - http://puo.mzopu.hr/UserDocsImages/Elaborat_14_05_2010_1.pdf 7
  • 8. 8
  • 9. 9
  • 10. 10
  • 11. Annex 2 - Photos of current regulation works along Danube and Drava Rivers (date: June 2011)Newly built embankment at Kazuk/Danube (1412 rkm)Newly built embankment at Dalj/Danube (1352 rkm) 11
  • 12. Newly built embankment (14 rkm)/Drava where Sand Martin colony of 400 pairs was destroyedNewly built embankment (25 rkm)/DravaNewly built embankment (44 rkm)/Drava 12
  • 13. Annex 3 – Environmental, legal and political implications of the regulation projectThe regulation plan for the Danube: dates back to the socialist times of former Yugoslavia and is in clear contradiction with the principles of sustainable development and environmental protection of the EU. would cause irreversible deterioration of the current “ecological status” and natural values of the Danube River and clearly contravenes EU environmental legislation (including the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats and Bird Directives) and Croatian environmental law (Nature Protection Act). is clearly not in line with the Danube River Basin District Management Plan conclusions 10, Joint Statement on Guiding Principles for the Development of Inland Navigation and Environmental Protection in the Danube River Basin and its specific recommendations, as well as so called “Platina manual” (Manual on good practices in sustainable waterway planning)11 whose development was funded by the European Commission. The Croatian regulation projects envisage the maintenance of shipping corridor through disconnection of the river from its floodplain completely neglecting the ecosystem functions, services and benefits provided by wetlands to the humans. threatens European endangered habitats and species within planned Natura 2000 sites and sites of the National Ecological Network (www.cro-nen.hr/nem) such as 91E0*: Alluvial forests (priority habitat), 3270: Rivers with muddy banks; species included in Annex II of the Habitats Directive such as Schraetzer, Streber; as well as species included in the Annex I of the Birds Directive such as Great Egret, Little Egret, White-tailed Eagle, Black stork and Kingfisher. endangers the best preserved still meandering river stretches in the Middle Danube incl. vast wetland areas and alluvial forests, including protected areas and wetland areas of international importance (Ramsar sites) in Croatia. Trough the disrupption of natural hydro- morphological processes the project would have major impact on protected areas as the Nature park and Special Zoological Reserve Kopacki rit in Croatia, as well as Special Nature Reserve Gornje Podunavlje in Serbia, both protected as Ramsar sites and part of the declared Transboundary UNESCO Biosphere Reserve “Mura-Drava-Danube”.10 http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/danube_rbm_plan_ready.htm6 http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/platina_manual_waterway.htm 13
  • 14. Annex 4 - Key findings of the EU Twinning project „Implementation of Water Framework Directive inCroatia“, which was carried out between 2007 and 2009 in Croatia12 „In regard to flood management, Croatia’s water administration is still focusing on traditional, technical oriented measures and is not really aware of the paradigm shift that took place in Member states. Intensive technical oriented flood protection and maintenance activities, especially in the Pannonian region, have caused already significant ecological damages and will put the rivers at risk to fail the Water Framework Directive objectives (see 2.1 and 4.3). In the field of renaturation of rivers enormous efforts are made in Member State countries showing that ecology and flood protection can go hand in hand. In addition these integrated flood management concepts proved to be more cost-effective than traditional technical solutions”. “Morphological alterations turned out to play an important role, especially in the Pannonian part of the country. Results compiled by the Twinning Project clearly indicate that a large number of rivers are strongly degraded and are at high risk of failing the objectives (see Activity 2.1). Nevertheless Croatia’s water administration still focuses on technical river regulation (canalization, diking). Thus, the current maintenance of rivers contradicts Croatia’s efforts to harmonize its environmental legislation with the EU water acquis”. “In terms of hydromorphology Hrvatske Vode should reduce maintenance of rivers (e.g. no removal of all bank vegetation), apply soft engineering techniques and follow the “give space to the rivers”- approach (see also 1.7). For flood protection an approach that focused on strengthening dikes should be substituted by an approach that develops flood storage areas and provides ecological and recreational benefits”. “River regulation measures are frequently deteriorating the status of rivers. Those investments should be reduced significantly. The resources could be used more efficiently for investments in the urban wastewater sector”. The current approach of river maintenance focusing on flood protection does not comply with objectives of the WFD, especially considering its ecological dimension. Therefore budget reallocations between different water management activities need to be efficiently coordinated in order to increase effectiveness before considering exemptions. Linked to this, further interference with natural river morphology that is transforming natural river courses into uniform canals, leads to significant degradation of the ecological status, which is against WFD objectives (see 4.3). The present way of maintenance and morphological alterations is not only cost intensive, but will also result in considerable costs for river renaturation in order to achieve the good ecological status/potential. Reduced river maintenance however, would lead to an improvement of the ecological status and would also enable the use of remaining funds for other restoration measures”.12 http://www.wfd-croatia.eu/userfiles/file/Activity%20reports%20final/Project_results__engl.pdf 14
  • 15. Annex 5 - National and international press coverage from June 2011 on planned Danube regulationSee international WWF press release, dated 17. June 2011 - http://wwf.panda.org/?uNewsID=200699Internet linksInternational 1. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jsQeX8SFYIp7tdZYIVO- tgBvvs0A?docId=CNG.7cb7d99990eea60a7a2805cbbc294dbf.2c1 2. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110621/environment/Croatia-s-waterway- management-plans-destroying-Europe-s-Amazon-WWF.371631 3. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110617/sc_afp/croatiaenvironmentwaterwwfeu_20110617160734 4. http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/croatia-environment.ap7 5. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/WWF_says_Croatia_is_destroying_Europes_Amazon_999.html 6. http://auscro.com/general-news/2011/06/wwf-says-croatia-is-destroying-europes-amazon-2/ 7. http://vidamaestros.blogspot.com/2011/06/wwf-says-croatia-is-destroying-amazon.html 8. http://www.poland.us/wiadomosc,13,275793.html 9. http://www.earthknowledge.net/index.php/knowledgeportal/36674-massive-destruction-of-europes- amazon-planned-ahead-of-croatias-accession-to-the-eu 10. http://www.eurocharity.gr/en/story/7814 11. http://europetopnews.com/35305/wwf-says-croatia-is-destroying-europes-amazon-2.htmlAustria 12. http://derstandard.at/1308186306225/Kopacki-rit-Flusslandschaft-an-der-Donau-droht-die- Austrocknung 13. http://fm4.orf.at/stories/1684242/ 14. http://www.biorama.at/naturschutzgebiet-kopacki-der-amazonas-europas/ 15. http://www.liferadio.at/news/view/browse/30/article/14/wwf-warnt-vor-zerstoerung-von-donauauen- in-kroatien/ 16. http://www.kleinezeitung.at/nachrichten/chronik/2766885/wwf-warnt-vor-zerstoerung-donauauen- kroatien.story 17. http://www.salzburg.com/online/nachrichten/chronik/WWF-warnt-vor-Zerstoerung-von-Donauauen- in- Kroatien.html?article=eGMmOI8Vf1wbVrCMWQCHWTjc1pEBOQnvQvJCOyR&img=&text=&mo de= 18. http://www.heute.at/news/welt/Kroatien-WWF-warnt-vor-Zerstoerung-von- Donauauen;art414,570761 19. http://www.nachrichten.at/nachrichten/ticker/Umwelt-Naturschutz-Wasser-Schifffahrt-Kroatien- CEE;art449,652441 20. http://www.volksblatt.at/index.php?id=7605&tx_posapaxmlimport_pinews[uid]=55163 15
  • 16. 21. http://www.pr-inside.com/de/wwf-warnt-vor-zerstoerung-von-donauauen-in-kroatie-r2662679.htm 22. http://www.oekonews.at/index.php?mdoc_id=1060033 23. http://relevant.at/chronik/europa/141873/wwf-warnt-vor-zerstoerung-donauauen-kroatien.story 24. http://www.austria.com/wwf-warnt-vor-zerstoerung-von-donauauen-in-kroatien/apa-1144311562 25. http://www.meinwienheute.at/allgemein/2011/06/17/CMS1308318253588/Croatia 26. http://www.dnevno.hr/vijesti/balkan_express/eu_je_najveca_opasnost_za_dunav_dravu_i_muru_u_p osljednjih_30_godina/325638.html 27. http://www.tportal.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/134504/Moramo-zaustaviti-unistavanje-Mure-Drave-i- Dunava.html 28. http://www.alertonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=88:vladine-planove- regulacije-rijeka-udruge-ocjenjuju-neprihvatljivima&catid=2:hrvatska&Itemid=4 29. http://www.poslovni-savjetnik.com/hrvatska/eko-aktivisti-pozvali-europu-u-pomoc-protiv- devastacije-mure-drave-i-dunava?quicktabs_5=2 30. http://www.tjednik.hr/vijest/vijesti/7585/EKO-udruge-Moramo-zaustaviti-uni-tavanje-Mure-Drave-i- Dunava- 31. http://www.hrt.hr/index.php?id=475&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=119940&tx_ttnews[backPid]=474&cHash =67c848031c 32. http://www.monitor.hr/clanci/eko-aktivisti-zaustaviti-projekte-na-muri-dravi-i-dunavu/152234/ 33. http://www.h-alter.org/vijesti/ekologija/stetni-planovi-regulacije-rijeka 34. http://www.slavonija-info.com/vijest/osijek/6100-eko-aktivisti-ele-zaustavljanje-projekata-na-muri- dravi-i-dunavu.html 35. http://www.glas-slavonije.hr/mvijest.asp?rub=3&ID_VIJESTI=10446 36. http://www.glas-slavonije.hr/mvijest.asp?rub=3&ID_VIJESTI=10447 37. http://www.zamirzine.net/spip.php?article10810 38. http://www.tportal.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/134716/Reformirajte-Hrvatske-vode-i-novac-dajte- proracunu.htmlGermany 39. http://eu-koordination.de/umweltnews/news/wasser-meere/930-flusszerstoerungqeuropas-amazonasq- in-gefahr 40. http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=6&article:oid=a19484Serbia 41. http://www.balkanmagazin.net/kolumna/energetske_vesti/zaustaviti_projekte_na_muri_dravi_i_duna vu.xhtml 16
  • 17. 42. http://www.pressonline.rs/sr/Green/Zastita_zivotne_okoline/story/165210/Novinari+u+poseti+rezerva tu+biosfere+na+Dunavu.html 43. http://www.economy.rs/planeta/8259/zastitimo-planetu/WWF-i-Euronatur-zajedno-upozoravaju-na- regulacije-reka-Dunava--Drave-i-Mure.html 44. http://www.serbia- energy.com/serb/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1027:novinari-u-poseti- rezervatu-biosfere-na-dunavu&catid=6:aktuelnosti-iz-energetike&Itemid=11 45. http://www.serc.org.rs/aktuelnost/529/Novinari-u-poseti-rezervatu-biosfere-na-Dunavu- 46. http://www.chapter4.rs/vest.php?id=wwf-i-euronatur-zajedno-upozoravaju-na-regulacije-reka- dunava--drave-i-mure 47. http://www.zelenasrbija.rs/region/409-novinari-u-poseti-rezervatu-biosfere-na-dunavu 48. http://vesti.aladin.info/2011-06-15/730296-novinari-u-poseti-rezervatu-biosfere-na-dunavu 49. http://www.smedia.rs/vesti/webpresek.php?id=277187&vest=Novinari-u-poseti-rezervatu-biosfere- na-DunavuSlovenia 50. http://www.dnevnik.si/tiskane_izdaje/dnevnik/1042453565 51. http://www.siol.net/svet/znanost_in_okolje/2011/06/okoljevarstveniki_nasprotujejo_hrvaskim_projek tom_na_muri_dravi_in_donavi.aspx?vote=1Some selected newspaper articles (in german)Der Standard 17
  • 18. News (largest weekly newspaper in Austria) 18
  • 19. Raifeissenzeitung 19
  • 20. Annex 7 – Signing of the five-country Ministerial Declaration between Austria, Croatia, Hungary,Serbia and Slovenia for the establishment of a Transboundary UNESCO Biosphere Reserve “Mura-Drava-Danube” (25. March 2011, Informal Ministerial Meeting within Hungarian EU Presidency/GödöllSee international WWF press release, dated 25. March 2011 -http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?199772/Worlds-first-five-country-protected-area-to-conserve-Europes-Amazon 20