Upper Drina and Lim river Brodarevo HPPs project cross border influence analysis, environmentalist regional alliance form opposition blocks and warns stakeholders

20. May 2013. / SEE Energy News

Bad quality of documents and lack of public discussion, in case of Drina and Lim river new HPP projects, are good arguments to recommend turning back the process of evaluation of cross border influence and analysis repeating of environmental influence studies elaborates to further investigation. This is the main conclusion of the Montenegro NGO alliance statement regarding Upper Drina HPP projects of Republika Srpska and RWE and Lim river HPPs Brodarevo 1 and 2 of Canadian REV company.

NGOs Green Home and Ecological Movement “Ozon” thinks that attitude of Commission for Estimation of environmental influences of Drina’s HPPs are against the interest of Montenegro and that the commission did not acted in the best interest of the citizens.

It was stated from Environmental Protection Agency yesterday that Commission for Environmental Influences of HPPs Buk Bijela and Foca on Drina river in BiH and HPPs Brodarevo 1 and 2 on Lim in Serbia has delivered report for estimation of HPP construction studies. According to Commission’s opinion, Environmental Influence Estimation Study for HPP “Buk Bijela” should be edited and adjusted in order to analyze the size of influence on Montenegrin territory more precisely. On the other side, Commission estimated that there won’t be any important cross border influences from planned accumulation.

NGOs stressed that bad quality of documents, disrespect to the point of environmental influence estimation, senselessness of public discussion, not considering cumulative effects and cross border influences what is disrespect toward ESPOO Convention are disputably sufficient arguments to recommend turning back subject Elaborates to further work.

It was said in these organizations that they expected Commission to advise with NGOs from Montenegro, to take their opinions and reports on environmental protection in consideration. NGOs suggested to Commission to reply clearly on the influence to Montenegrin territory of HPP Buk Bijela which is totally realistic scenario.

“The space for later political negotiations is made here. We doubt that ecological effects will be reconsidered adequately but that economy calculation will decide i.e. energy balance which is not public interest of future generations”, it is stated in reactions. Republika Srpska and its power company ERS already disregarded the fact that Upper Drina project  is under the authority of federal Bosnian government. RWE was promised probably that cross border political arrangement will be done quietly and within usual channels. ERS also settled the project financial background with Serbian power utility EPS, but according to the Belgrade medias not all was settled.

Canadian REV is also on the same path. After several years of mistakes in Brodarevo HPPs, REV entered similar deals in Republika Srpska. Their Lim river Brodarevo HPPs is also claimed to have cross border influence and with the help of Serbian Energy minister they started mitigating the project cross border influence in Montenegro as well. NGOs alliance, regional alliance including Montenegro – Serbia – Republika Srpska – Bosnia prepared reports and white papers for different EU actors.

NGOs submitted their reports and opinion to Energy Community and EU Delegatation in Montenegro. EU alliance for environmental protection and Bank watch is also informed. NGOs added that they will also inform RWE and REV shareholders.

They also think that Commission should declare in this report about negative influences of Buk Bijela on environment in Montenegro. There is a question of sustainable regional development and strategy of regional countries’ energy development which is crucially different from recommendations of Commission for “arranged use and hydrology classification” which was also expected from the beginning of the process,  it is said in the statement.

Representatives of these organizations are emphasizing that they noticed that there is no mentioned letter or answer from Commission on it on the internet page on the official site of Environment Protection Agency despite copy of electronic message from Nikola Jablan which was unsatisfied because disrespect to his opinion.

“We underline this because there is a conversation about our represents’ withdrawal on website so it would be completely unexpected to do the same in the case of Nikola Jablan because it is very important for public to follow how the whole process from the beginning until giving final report went”, it is concluded in reactions.

Source; Serbia Energy See desk/Vijesti/Agencies

Download as PDF :

Download PDF