Abstract
Debates over large dams are not rare. In fact, most of the large dams in the world have caused social, economic and political tensions and have become targets of environmentalist criticism.1 In the 1950s and 1960s dams and hydroelectric plants were regarded as reasonable solutions for energy production and for irrigation. When their harmful environmental and social consequences became known and public, the surge in dam projects has shifted to poorer countries, especially to the Third World, where hundreds of dams are being built even today. But public opposition is growing there as well.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
The World Rivers Review, a periodical of the International Rivers Network, devoted a special issue to large dams in 1991 (Volume 6, Number 3, May/June 1991), on the occasion of the 17th ICOLD (International Commission on Large Dams) Congress in Vienna in June 1991. In this issue Leonard Sklar and Phil Williams list 12 problems dam builders cannot solve, such as reservoir sedimentation, coastal erosion, downstream channel erosion, increasing flood damages and risk, aging and decommissioning of dams, reservoir water quality and disease, soil waterlogging and salinization, safety problems, earthquakes, unpredictable flows, poor operation of reservoirs, and underestimating costs. Other articles describe protest against the Pak Mun Dam in Thailand, a national coalition in Brazil to stop dams, protest against construction of Icha Dam in India, a blockade to halt construction at the Czorsztyn Dam in Poland, and the emptying of the Nove Mlyny reservoir in Czechoslovakia, Southern Moravia, due to increasing criticism of environmentalists. Other issues of the journal describe several other examples from all over the world.
Goldsmith, E. and Hildyard, N., 1984. The Social and Environmental Effects of Large Dams, Volume I. (Volume II: 1986). Wadebridge Ecological Centre, Cornwall.
A good summary of the arguments, illustrated by examples, can be found in Williams, P. B., “The Debate Over Large Dams — The Case Against”, Civil Engineering, August 1991.
This study is a revised, updated and largely rewritten version of a study written by the author in 1990: Galambos, J., “Political Aspects of an Environmental Conflict: The Case of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Dam System”, in: Kakonen, J. (ed.), Perspectives on Environmental Conflict and International Relations, 1992, Tampere Peace Research Institute, published by Pinter Publishers Limited, London and New York.
The author would like to express her thanks to Janos Vargha, who generously shared the rich documentation of ISTER (Institute for East European Environmental Research) about the case with her.
This chapter was based on information gained from Kien, P. (pseudonym of Janos Vargha), MA nagy szlovak csatorna, Beszelo, 9, 1984, samizdat; Fisher, D., “Public intervention in pollution aspects of transboundary watercourses and international lakes. European experience.”, manuscript, 1989; Fleischer, T., “Capafogsor a Dunan: a dunai vizlepcso esete”, Tarsadalomkutatas, 2/1992.
Vargha, J., “Egyre tavolabb a jotol”, Valosag, 11/1981.
Uj Szo, Bratislava, February 12, 1982.
An expert committee was commissioned by the Nemeth government to prepare a background study for decision-making. The committee was lead by Peter Hardi, director of the Foreign Policy Institute in Budapest. The committee consisted of Hungarian, Slovak, Czech, Austrian, German, and American experts. They prepared a cost-benefit analysis of the project, according to which its complete cancellation was more favorable in the long run from an economic point of view. For the Hungarians, even in the short run, the costs of cancellation and continuation were estimated to be about the same. Their report suggested that a solution could also be found for the international legal aspects: compensation agreement or litigation between Austria and Hungary; a modification of the Czechoslovak-Hungarian agreement was recommended to be initiated, with reference to the points that stipulated the preservation of water quality and other environmental guarantees which have not yet been implemented. It was suggested that a bilateral agreement could be reached in terms of the net difference of gains and losses caused to both sides by the abandonment of the project. Hardi, P. et al., “The Hardi Report. Summary for the Council of Ministers of an expert review concerning the ecological, environmental, technical, economic, international and legal issues of the Bos-Nagymaros Barrage System”, Budapest, 1989.
Josef Vavrousek told about it in an interview with Cynthia Whitehead, journalist of Environment Policy Europe, on July 31, 1991.
Non-governmental organizations
Uj Szo, Bratislava, November 2, 1992.
In the summer of 1992, when it became obvious, that Variant C was being constructed, and that it had to be taken seriously, in spite of what Janos Vargha and Danube Circle had said, Andras Lanyi initiated the formation of the Danube Defense Action Committee. It consisted of the Danube Circle, Reflex, Ecoservice, Clean Air Action Group, and Slovak groups. The committee published a booklet The Danube Blues: Questions and Answers about the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Hydroelectric Station System, and organized public protest against the construction of Variant C.
Bechtel was already approached by Hungary in 1988, to work as a consultant for the project. Bechtel was asked to develop an operation mode which would be an optimum solution between water management, energy production and ecology, giving priority to ecological considerations.
The press conference was held in the Presseclub Concordia, in Vienna, on October 22, 1992.
The historical chapter was based on the following materials:
Declaration of the Government of the Republic of Hungary on the Termination of the Treaty Concluded Between the People’s Republic of Hungary and the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia on the Construction and Joint Operation of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System, Signed in Budapest on September 16, 1977, handed over, accompanying a note verbal, to the Embassy of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic in Budapest on the May 19, 1992.
Protocol of the negotiations between the governmental representatives of the Hungarian Republic and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic on issues related to the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System on September 6, 1990 in Bratislava and on October 17–18, 1990 in Budapest.
Kien, P. (pseudonym of Janos Vargha), “A nagy szlovak csatorna”, Beszelo, 9, samizdat, 1984.
Fisher, D., Public intervention in pollution aspects of transboundary watercourses and international lakes. European experience, manuscript, 1989.
Position of the Environmental, Economic, and Foreign Affairs Committees of the Hungarian Parliament on the hearing of Josef Vavrousek, Environmental Minister of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic on September 11, 1991.
The resolution No. 104 of the Environmental Committee of the Czech and Slovak Federal Parliament on the problems of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System, adopted on September 18, 1991.
Resolution No. 239 of the Slovak Parliament adopted on January 31, 1992.
Nagy, B., A Hungarian Chronology of the Bos (Gabcikovo) -Nagymaros Dam System, manuscript, 1991.
Hajosy, A., Hollos, L., Damned Dams — The Danube Story, manuscript, Budapest, February 1991.
Mission Report of the Commission of the European Communities, Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, and Republic of Hungary, Fact Finding Mission On Variant C of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, Bratislava, October 31, 1992.
Leaflets of WWF Austria, SZOPK, Eurochain, the Danube Circle, Bela Liptak; Hungarian and English translations of Slovakian expert opinions and newspaper articles; numerous newspaper clippings from Hungarian and Slovakian newspapers (especially Uj Szo, which is published in Hungarian in Slovakia).
A detailed analysis of this problem can be found in Williams, P.B., “The Debate Over Large Dams — The Case Against”, Civil Engineering, August 1991.
Bela Borsos gave a detailed analysis of this mechanism in Dams and Reforms in the East, Budapest, 1989, manuscript.
See e.g. Vodni hospodarstvi 4/92, a journal published by the Federal Ministry for Environment in Prague.
More information about the Austrian dam-building industry can be found in Wiederstein, A. and Svarstad, H., “Dams: the Industry of Power”, in World Rivers Review, 6, No. 3, May/June 1991.
For example, the Ataturk dam in Turkey, which has such undeniable potential as a strategic weapon, that even the World Bank refused to get involved in the project. Designed with the capacity to turn off the entire water flow of both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the project gives Turkey the ability to control the main supplies of fresh water to both Syria and Iraq. Quoted from Wiederstein, ibid.
See Hardi P. et al, The Hardi Report, ibid.
Szabo, M., “Vannak-e alternativ tarsadalmi mozgalmak Magyarorszagon?” Are there alternative social movements in Hungary?>, in: L. Solyom and M. Szabo (eds), Azold hullam The Green Wave>, Eotvos Lorand Tudomanyegyetem Allam- es Jogtudomanyi Kar, Budapest, 1988.
See a more detailed analysis in Fleischer, T., “Capafogsor a Dunan: a dunai vizlepcso esete” Jaws On the Danube: The Case of the Middle Danube Hydroelectric Dam, Tarsadalomkutatas 2/1992, Budapest.
The following historic explanation was first published in samizdat, by Janos Vargha, under the pseudonym Peter Kien. Beszelo, 1984/9.
Kisalfold, May 11, 1992.
This section was based on the following literature: “Construction and Operation of Variant C of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project under International Law”, Legal Study for the World Wildlife Fund for Nature by Rechtsanwalt Dr. Georg M. Berrisch, LL.M., Brussels of Schon Nolte Finkelnburg & Clemm, October 1992;
Nagy, B., “Five Theses on the Legal Possibilities of termination of the Intergovernmental Treaty of the Bos(Gabcikovo)-Nagymaros Barrage System, Concluded in 1977”, April 1992, ISTER, Budapest;
Nagy, B., “The Danube Dispute: Conflicting Paradigms”, ISTER, November 1992, submitted to the New Hungarian Quarterly for publication;
Hunter, D., “The International Legal Aspects of Unilaterally Constructing the Gabcikovo Dam”, Center for International Environmental Law, Washington, May 21, 1992 (draft);
Balas, V., “The Case of Gabcikovo-Nagymaros: International Legal Aspects”, Institute of State and Law, Prague, September 1992; “International law analysis of Option “C” — Completion of the Gabcikovo Water Project on Czecho-Slovak Territory without Agreement with Hungary”, Prague, October 29, 1990 (in English, no author’s name on the manuscript).
Nagy, B., “The Danube Dispute: Conflicting Paradigms”, ibid.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1993 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Galambos, J. (1993). An International Environmental Conflict on the Danube: The Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Dams. In: Vari, A., Tamas, P. (eds) Environment and Democratic Transition. Technology, Risk, and Society, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8120-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8120-2_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4294-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-8120-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive