Guadeloupe: NGO ask for Help: Dam in Nationalpark

DECLARATION OF CURITIBA

Curitiba, Brazil, March 11-14, 1997

APPROVED AT THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL MEETING
OF PEOPLE AFFECTED BY DAMS

CURITIBA, BRAZIL

We, the people from 20 countries gathered in Curitiba, Brazil, representing organizations of dam-affected people and of opponents of destructive dams, have shared our experiences of the losses we have suffered and the threats we face because of dams. Although our experiences reflect our diverse cultural, social, political and environmental realities, our struggles are one.

Our struggles are one because everywhere dams force people from their homes, submerge fertile farmlands, forests and sacred places, destroy fisheries and supplies of clean water, and cause the social and cultural disintegration and economic impoverishment of our communities.

Our struggles are one because everywhere there is a wide gulf between the economic and social benefits promised by dam builders and the reality of what has happened after dam construction. Dams have almost always cost more than was projected, even before including environmental and social costs. Dams have produced less electricity and irrigated less land than was promised. They have made floods even more destructive. Dams have benefited large landholders, agribusiness corporations and speculators. They have dispossessed small farmers; rural workers; fishers; tribal, indigenous and traditional communities.

Our struggles are one because we are fighting against similar powerful interests, the same international lenders, the same multilateral and bilateral aid and credit agencies, the same dam construction and equipment companies, the same engineering and environmental consultants, and the same corporations involved in heavily subsidized energy-intensive industries.

Our struggles are one because everywhere the people who suffer most from dams are excluded from decision-making. Decisions are instead taken by technocrats, politicians and business elites who increase their own power and wealth through building dams.

Our common struggles convince us that it is both necessary and possible to bring an end to the era of destructive dams. It is also both necessary and possible to implement alternative ways of providing energy and managing our freshwaters which are equitable, sustainable and effective.

For this to happen, we demand genuine democracy which includes public participation and transparency in the development and implementation of energy and water policies, along with the decentralization of political power and empowerment of local communities. We must reduce inequality through measures including equitable access to land. We also insist on the inalienable rights of communities to control and manage their water, land, forests and other resources and the right of every person to a healthy environment.

We must advance to a society where human beings and nature are no longer reduced to the logic of the market where the only value is that of commodities and the only goal profits. We must advance to a society which respects diversity, and which is based on equitable and just relations between people, regions and nations.

Our shared experiences have led us to agree the following:

1) We recognize and endorse the principles of the 1992 'NGO and Social Movements Declaration of Rio de Janeiro' and the 1994 'Manibeli Declaration' on World Bank funding of large dams.

2) We will oppose the construction of any dam which has not been approved by the affected people after an informed and participative decision-making process.

3) We demand that governments, international agencies and investors implement an immediate moratorium on the building of large dams until:
a. There is a halt to all forms of violence and intimidation against people affected by dams and organizations opposing dams.
b. Reparations, including the provision of adequate land, housing and social infrastructure, be negotiated with the millions of people whose livelihoods have already suffered because of dams.
c. Actions are taken to restore environments damaged by dams - even when this requires the removal of the dams.
d. Territorial rights of indigenous, tribal, semi-tribal and traditional populations affected by dams are fully respected through providing them with territories which allow them to regain their previous cultural and economic conditions - this again may require the removal of the dams.
e. An international independent commission is established to conduct a comprehensive review of all large dams financed or otherwise supported by international aid and credit agencies, and its policy conclusions implemented. The establishment and procedures of the review must be subject to the approval and monitoring of representatives of the international movement of people affected by dams.
f. Each national and regional agency which has financed or otherwise supported the building of large dams have commissioned independent comprehensive reviews of each large dam project they have funded and implemented the policy conclusions of the reviews. The reviews must be carried out with the participation of representatives of the affected people's organizations.
g. Policies on energy and freshwater are implemented which encourage the use of sustainable and appropriate technologies and management practices, using the contributions of both modern science and traditional knowledge. These policies need also to discourage waste and overconsumption and guarantee equitable access to these basic needs.

4) The process of privatization which is being imposed on countries in many parts of the world by multilateral institutions is increasing social, economic and political exclusion and injustice. We do not accept the claims that this process is a solution to corruption, inefficiency and other problems in the power and water sectors where these are under the control of the state. Our priority is democratic and effective public control and regulation of entities which provide electricity and water in a way which guarantees the needs and desires of people.

5) Over the years, we have shown our growing power. We have occupied dam sites and offices, marched in our villages and cities, refused to leave our lands even though we have faced intimidation, violence and drowning. We have unmasked the corruption, lies and false promises of the dam industry. Nationally and internationally we have worked in solidarity with others fighting against destructive development projects, and together with those fighting for human rights, social justice, and an end to environmental destruction.

We are strong, diverse and united and our cause is just. We have stopped destructive dams and have forced dam builders to respect our rights. We have stopped dams in the past, and we will stop more in the future.

We commit ourselves to intensifying the fight against destructive dams. From the villages of India, Brazil and Lesotho to the boardrooms of Washington, Tokyo and London, we will force dam builders to accept our demands.

To reinforce our movement we will build and strengthen regional and international networks. To symbolise our growing unity, we declare that 14 March, the Brazilian Day of Struggles Against Dams, will from now on become the International Day of Action Against Dams and for Rivers, Water, and Life.

Aguas para a vida, não para a morte!
¡Aguas para la vida, no para la muerte!
Water for life, not for death!

french version, translated by Marie Arnould (ERN, European Rivers Network)

DECLARATION DE CURITIBA

Affirmant les Droits à la Vie et aux Moyens d’Existence des Personnes affectées par les Barrages

Nos combats ne font qu’un parce que, partout, les barrages forcent les gens à quitter leurs maisons, submergent des terres agricoles fertiles, des forêts et des lieux sacrés, détruisent les pêcheries et la ressource en eau potable, et sont la cause de la désintégration sociale et culturelle et de l’appauvrissement économique de nos communautés.

Nos combats ne font qu’un parce que, partout, un immense fossé existe entre les avantages économiques et sociaux promis par les promoteurs et la réalité de ce qui se passe après la construction des ouvrages. Les barrages coûtent presque toujours plus que prévu, même sans inclure leurs coûts environnementaux et sociaux. Ils produisent moins d’électricité et irriguent moins que promis. Ils rendent les crues plus dévastatrices. Ils profitent aux grands propriétaires terriens, aux corporations agro-alimentaires et aux spéculateurs tandis qu’ils dépossèdent les petits agriculteurs, ouvriers agricoles, pêcheurs, communautés tribales, indigènes et traditionnelles de leurs biens.

Nos combats ne font qu’un parce que nous luttons contre les mêmes puissants intérêts, les mêmes investisseurs internationaux, les mêmes agences d’aide et de crédit multilatérales et bilatérales, les mêmes compagnies qui construisent et équipent les barrages, les mêmes consultants en ingénierie et en environnement, et les mêmes corporations qui profitent d’industries à forte consommation d’énergie et largement subventionnées.

Nos combats ne font qu’un parce que, partout, les gens qui souffrent le plus des barrages sont exclus du processus de décision. Les décisions sont prises à leur place par des technocrates, des politiciens et des élites économiques qui accroissent leur propre pouvoir et richesse en construisant ces ouvrages.

Nos combats communs nous ont convaincus qu’il est à la fois nécessaire et possible d’en finir avec l’ère de ces barrages destructeurs. Il est également nécessaire et possible de mettre en place des moyens alternatifs de production d’énergie et des modes de gestion de l’eau qui soient équitables, durables et efficaces.

Pour cela, nous demandons une authentique démocratie dans la mise en place des politiques de l’eau et de l’énergie, qui soit fondée sur la participation publique et la transparence, ainsi que la décentralisation du pouvoir politique de façon à ce que les communautés locales puissent s’approprier les décisions. Nous devons réduire les inégalités par des mesures qui comprennent notamment un accès équitable aux terres. Nous insistons également sur les droits inaliénables des communautés au contrôle et à l’utilisation de leur eau, terres, forêts et autres ressources, et le droit de chacun à un environnement de qualité.

Nous devons avancer vers une société dans laquelle les êtres humains et la nature ne soient plus réduits à la logique du marché dont la seule valeur est celle des biens matériels et le seul but, le profit. Nous devons avancer vers une société qui respecte la diversité, et qui soit fondée sur des relations équitables et justes entre les personnes, les régions et les nations.

Nos expériences communes nous ont menés à souscrire aux points suivants:

1) Nous reconnaissons et approuvons les principes de la « Déclaration des ONG et Mouvements Sociaux de Rio de Janeiro » de 1992 et de la « Déclaration de Manibeli » de 1994 sur le financement des grands barrages par la Banque Mondiale.

2) Nous nous opposerons à la construction de tout barrage qui n’a pas été approuvé par les personnes affectées au terme d’un processus de décision qui les informe et les implique réellement.

3) Nous demandons que les gouvernements, agences internationales et investisseurs décident un moratoire immédiat sur la construction des grands barrages jusqu’à :
a. L’arrêt de toutes formes de violence et d’intimidation contre les personnes affectées par les barrages et les organisations opposées aux projets.
b. La négociation de mesures compensatoires, comprenant notamment des terres arables, des logements et des infrastructures sociales, pour les millions de gens dont les moyens d’existence ont été détruits par les barrages.
c. La restauration des milieux naturels détruits par les barrages - même lorsque cela nécessite le démantèlement des ouvrages.
d. Le plein respect des droits territoriaux des populations indigènes, tribales, semi-tribales et traditionnelles affectées par les barrages. Ceci implique notamment des terres de compensation qui permettent à ces communautés de recouvrer leur niveau de vie économique antérieur et de préserver leur culture - ceci peut également nécessiter la destruction de barrages.
e. La création d’une commission internationale indépendante chargée de conduire un examen complet de tous les grands barrages financés ou soutenus de quelque autre façon par l’aide internationale et les agences de crédit, et la mise en application de ses conclusions. Les procédures de l’examen doivent être soumises à l’approbation et au suivi par des représentants du mouvement international des personnes affectées par les barrages.
f. La réalisation par chaque agence nationale ou régionale qui a financé ou soutenu de quelque autre façon la construction de grands barrages d’un examen complet et indépendant de chaque grand barrage qu’elle a financé ainsi que la mise en application des conclusions de l’examen. Ces examens doivent être menés avec la participation de représentants des organisations de personnes affectées.
g. La mise en place de politiques de l’énergie et de l’eau qui encouragent l’utilisation de technologies et de pratiques de gestion durables et appropriées à chaque cas, fondées sur les contributions à la fois de la science moderne et des connaissances ancestrales. Ces politiques doivent également décourager le gaspillage et la surconsommation et couvrir équitablement les besoins de base.
4) Le processus de privatisation qui est en train d’être imposé à des pays dans de nombreuses régions du monde par les institutions multilatérales accroît l’exclusion et l’injustice sociales, économiques et politiques. Nous n’acceptons pas l’affirmation selon laquelle ce processus est une solution à la corruption, à l’inefficacité et aux autres problèmes des secteurs de l’énergie et de la gestion de l’eau lorsqu’ils sont contrôlés par l’Etat. Notre priorité est le contrôle public, démocratique et effectif, des organismes qui fournissent l’électricité et l’eau de façon à ce que soient garantis les besoins et les désirs des populations.
5) Au fil des ans, nous avons montré notre force croissante. Nous avons occupé des sites de barrages et des bureaux, manifesté dans nos villages et cités, refusé de quitter notre terre même lorsque nous étions confrontés à l’intimidation, la violence ou la noyade. Nous avons démasqué la corruption, les mensonges et fausses promesses de l’industrie des barrages. Au niveau national et international, nous avons travaillé de concert avec ceux qui luttaient contre des projets de développement destructeurs, et de concert avec ceux qui luttent pour les droits de l’homme, la justice sociale et contre la destruction de l’environnement.

Nous sommes forts, divers et unis et notre cause est juste. Nous avons stoppé des projets de barrages destructeurs et avons forcé les constructeurs de barrages à respecter nos droits. Nous avons stoppé des projets de barrages dans le passé, et nous en stopperons d’autres dans le futur.

Nous nous sommes engagés à intensifier la lutte contre les barrages destructeurs. Depuis les villages d’Inde, du Brésil et du Lesotho jusqu’aux salles de conseil de Washington, Tokyo et Londres, nous forcerons les constructeurs de barrages à accepter nos exigences.

Pour renforcer notre mouvement, nous allons créer et renforcer des réseaux régionaux et internationaux. Pour symboliser notre unité, nous déclarons que le 14 mars, la Journée des Luttes contre les Barrages au Brésil, sera désormais la Journée Internationale d’Action contre les Barrages et pour les Rivières, l’Eau et la Vie.

Aguas para a vida, nao para a morte !
Agas para la vida, no para la muerte !
Water for life, not for death !
L’eau pour la vie et non pas pour la mort !

For more information * Roberto A EPPLE or Marie Arnould, ERN-European Rivers Network by e mail !
tel +33 471020814 fax +33 471026099
* Adrian Gurza or Sandra Ines Gomes, MAB, Sao Paulo: tel/fax +55.11.256.0839
* Glenn Switkes, International Rivers Network (IRN), Latin America office, Brazil: tel/fax +55.65.627.1689 (email: glen@nutecnet.com.br)
* Patrick McCully or Aleta Brown, IRN: tel: +1.510.848.1155 or fax: +1.510.848.1008 (email: patrick@irn.org)

Press Release:
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF PEOPLE AFFECTED BY LARGE DAMS

* Adrian Gurza or Sandra Ines Gomes, MAB, Sao Paulo: tel/fax +55.11.256.0839
* Glenn Switkes, International Rivers Network (IRN), Latin America office, Brazil: tel/fax +55.65.627.1689 (email: glen@nutecnet.com.br)
* Patrick McCully or Aleta Brown, IRN: tel: +1.510.848.1155 or fax: +1.510.848.1008 (email: patrick@irn.org)

The Stealing of the Danube Updates 12 April 97 and older (by Béla Lipták)

March 3 to 7	Presentation of the Hungarian (environmentalist) position
March 24 to 28	Presentation of the Slovak (construction lobby) position
April 1 to 4	Unprecedented visit by all ICJ judges to the "island region" of Szigetkoz (where there are no islands left, where swimming in the Danube, which is like an open sewer, sends the swimmer to the hospital and where the drinking water of the villages is delivered by trucks.)
April 11 and 12	Hungarian response to Slovak position
April 13 and 14	Slovak response to Hungarian position
September-October	Judgement

From: Liptakbela@aol.com Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:38:47 -0400 (EDT)
To: Liptakbela@aol.com
Subject: The Last two days of the Danube Lawsuit in the Hague (April 10-11)
Dear Colleagues, I would like to thank those of you who wrote letters to President Clinton, Vice-president Gore or Secretary Albright, because it seems that we have finally gained the attention of Washington. At least, today, I was interviewed today by the Voice of America (VOA) about these letters and about our desire that the USA help enforce the ruling of the International Court of Justice in the fall (which can be nothing else but an order the return of the Danube into its riverbed.)
The VOA is also scheduling a 60 minute call-in program for the 8th of May, during which I will answer any questions that the radio receives from anywhere in the world. (VOA pays for the calls and the program is live.) Let us make this program an international testimonial in favor of a new world order in which national governments are no longer free to destroy the natural treasures of the planet, a world order in which the international community has the legal means at its disposal to defend the ecosystems of the planet.
The attached are the notes of the last two days (10th and 11th od April) of the case in The Hague:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Hungary gave its first day of oral presentations in Reply to Slovakia’s legal arguments presented from 24 to 27 March.
Professor James Crawford, Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge, opened Hungary’s presentation. He began by answering some of the questions posed by the Judges during the last round and during the site visit, and identifying the key legal issues over which the parties disagreed. He pointed to the numerous Slovak silences on legal and factual matters, and summarized the history of the case so far. In concluding he said that "the Court has itself the vocation to act in a precautionary mode", that Hungary had legitimate concerns, and that the Court should declare the 1977 Treaty to be no longer in force.
Professor Alexandre Kiss, Director of Research, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, responded to Slovakia’s argument that the Court should only give narrow answers to the three questions put to the Court. He gave a detailed analysis to the Court of the Special Agreement between the Parties which sent the case to the International Court. He argued that the Court had a duty to give a judgment that would provide a basis for a long-term solution to the dispute over the Project, looking to the future as Hungary wanted, and not just the past as Slovakia wished.
Ms Katherine Gorove, consulting Attorney and former Professor at the Central European University, challenged the Slovak arguments on the Studies related to the Original Project, as well as expressing concerns over its viability. She pointed out that Slovakia had quoted selectively from scientific reports, and had failed to open and read texts which it had three weeks ago held up in front of the Court.
She said that the Project had not been properly studied before 1977, and that although there may have been some knowledge about the possible adverse impacts there was no understanding about the extent of those impacts. She said that Hungary had acted reasonably in 1989 on the basis of new studies which pointed to real concerns, and added that contrary to the Slovak view the project did not bring real benefits for flood control and navigation/
Dr Klaus Kern, consulting Engineer, returned to the subject of the Original Project’s likely impacts. He challenged the Slovak version of the science, pointing out its numerous inaccuracies and the contradictions between the views of Professor Mucha, a scientist on the Slovak side, expressed three weeks ago and his previous writings in which he had expressed concerns about the Original Project and its impact on water and nature
Mr Philippe Sands, Reader in International Law at the University of London and Visiting Professor at New York University provided a detailed rebuttal to Slovak arguments on environmental law, on the history of decisions and negotiations between 1989 and 1992, and Hungary’s right to suspend work on Nagymaros and terminate the 1977 Treaty on the grounds of environmental necessity. As to Slovakia’s commitment to the environment, Mr Sands said that Slovak Counsel had "made not a single mention of any one of the environmental treaties" to which the Slovak Agent, Dr Tomka, had expressed his support. He also described the Slovak approach as being "to ignore arguments we have made, but address those we have not made".
Professor Boldizsar Nagy, Associate Professor at the ELTE University, Budapest pointed out that contrary to what Slovakia had claimed, Variant C was neither temporary nor reversible. He also underlined the failure of Slovakia to provide any justification for the construction done after 1992, referred to as Phase II of Variant C.
Professor Howard Wheater of Imperial College, University of London, concluded the day’s presentation by describing the Impacts of variant C on water and biodiversity. He said that the PHARE Report of which Slovakia had made so much in fact contained much evidence which supported Hungary’s environmental concerns in 1989, 1992 and today.
The second and final day of Hungary’s Reply presentation will take place tomorrow, Friday 11 April 1997 at the Court.
Professor Howard Wheater continued his presentation today (Friday, 11th of April) on the impacts of Variant C. He provided a detailed exposition as to the various ways in which the PHARE report essentially supported the Hungarian arguments, whilst noting nevertheless some serious concerns that have arisen as to the methodology of underlying assumptions which had supported the PHARE project. He cited two independently refereed studies which supported Hungary's view that whilst the PHARE report provided a helpful first step, it clearly required considerably more work. In particular, it could not be used as a basis for predictions as to the future impacts of Variant C.
Professor Pierre-Marie Dupuy returned to the theme of the timing and illegality of Variant C. As to timing, he repeated Hungary's assertion that all the evidence pointed to a decision having been taken by Slovak authorities in January 1991 to proceed with Variant C. This contrasted with Slovakia's claim that no decision was taken until July 1991. He was especially pleased to refer the Court to the passage in a book distributed by the Slovak Government during last week's site visit which expressly stated that the decision had been taken by Slovakia on 17 January 1991. He restated Hungary's arguments as to the Illegality of Variant C under bilateral regional and general international law. He concluded that Slovakia's justification as to Variant C on the theory of "approximate application" had no basis in international law and was entirely without foundation.
Professor Laszlo Valki addressed the issue of Slovakia's claim that Hungary could not have lawfully terminated the Treaty because it had not formally invoked Article 27 of the Treaty which provided for the settlement of disputes. He said that the Slovak arguments were without foundation, since (1) Czechoslovakia and Hungary had in practice relied on the dispute settlement mechanisms provided by Article 27; (2) Article 27 did not establish an exhaustive or exclusive set of procedures; and (3) in any event, the use of Article 27 would have made no difference in practice. Quoting hisBritish colleagues, he said that this Slovak argument was a "red herring".
Professor James Crawford returned to the subject of the status of the 1977 Treaty. He repeated Hungary's arguments as to why the Treaty had never been enforced between Hungary and Czechoslovakia. First, both Czechoslovakia and Hungary had, by their actions, repudiated the Treaty by mid-1992. Second, Hungary had lawfully terminated the 1977 Treaty in May 1992, invoking, inter alia, Czechoslovakia's material breach through the construction of Variant C, fundamental change in environmental, economic, and political circumstances, and that in any event Slovakia had not succeeded to the Treaty.
Professor Dupuy returned to the theme of the legal situation for the Parties arising from the fact that the 1977 Treaty was not in force between them. he addressed the questions of Slovakia's responsibility to provide reparations and identified the legal instruments which governed the continuing relations between the Parties over Variant C.
Professor Roland Carbiener gave a short speech in which he indicated the principles of sustainable development which should govern the Court's determination of future arrangements. He said that the Court must look to the future and not to the past, as Slovakia continued to insist, and that inspiration for the Court could be drawn from the 1994 Convention on Sustainable Development for the Danube - the Sofia Convention.
Dr. György Szenasi, the Hungarian Agent, concluded Hungary's presentation. He considered that the Court had an important role to play in assisting the Parties to reach an appropriate solution. Although the Court should not at this stage lay down a precise regime for the future, it should set out the applicable principles.
He said (1) that Hungary was entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon work on Nagymaros and Gabèíkovo;
(2) the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was not entitled to proceed to the provisional solution of Variant C; and
(3) that Hungary had lawfully terminated the 1977 Treaty. he specifically asked the Court to declare
(1) that the 1977 Treaty had never been in force between Hungary and Slovakia;
(2) that Slovakia was responsible to Hungary for the operation of Variant C;
(3) that Slovakia was internationally responsible for the damage and loss suffered by Hungary and its nationals because of Variant C;
(4) that Slovakia had to repair such damage;
(5) that Slovakia is under the following obligations: (a) to return the waters to the Danube; (b) to restore the Danube to its original situation; and (c) to provide guarantees against repetition of the damage to Hungary and its nationals. He reminded the Court that under the Special Agreement, either Party could return to the Court within six months of its judgment if no final agreement had been reached.

From: Liptakbela@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 15:38:30 -0500 (EST)
To: Liptakbela@aol.com
Subject: Danube Lawsuit Report

Dear Colleagues, I have just returned from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague where I spent the last week, listening to the arguments of the Slovak Government in the Danube lawsuit. Slovakia supports the position of the construction lobby, denies that the up to 10 feet drop in groundwater levels has caused environmental damage, that the blocking of the Danube has converted the river into a health hazard and an open sewer, and also denies that the drinking water supplies of the region have been harmed. They argue that Hungary had no right to pull out of the joint construction contract (citing environmental concerns) and Slovakia was justified in unilaterally rerouting the Danube onto her own territory.
Being the editor of the Environmental Engineers' Handbook, I was admitted to the press table in the court and later in the week (on Wednesday) I was able to also hold a press conference: I described the proposed Compromise Plan and outlined the position of the coalition of the nine NGOs, who's position paper was accepted by the Court as a "Memorial from the friends of the court." The nine members of the NGO coalition are:
Greenpeace (Slovakia), Human Rights Advocates (USA), International Rivers Network (USA), Natural Heritage Institute (USA), REFLEX (Hungary), Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (USA), Slovak Rivers Network (Slovakia), SZOPK (Slovakia), WWF (Switzerland).
Throughout the week, picketing continued in front of the court. The demonstrators' banner read: "Save the Blue Danube" and listed the names of the organizations in the NGO coalition. The newsreports from The Hague emphasized that this lawsuit sets a precedent not only because this is the first international environmental lawsuit, but also because this is the first time that the ICJ received and accepted Memorials not only from the two national governments, but also from representatives of mankind: the NGO Coalition. The Court has established yet an other precedent this week, when the judges visited the Danube region in order to personally inspect the environmental damage.
There is little doubt in my mind that the Court will rule (in the fall), that Slovakia must return the Danube into its natural riverbed. Unfortunately, it is also likely, that Slovakia will not obey the ruling and pressure from the international community will be required to force her to do so. This will require action by the leaders of the UN, Europe and the USA.. The attached letters have been prepared to serve that purpose. If you agree with them, please mail these or similar letters in the name of your organization.
Sincerely yours, prof. Bela Liptak

From: Liptakbela@aol.com Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 17:39:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Press Conference in the Hague-E Content-ID: <0_15103_858724650@emout17.mail.aol.com.7470> Content-type: text/plain Dear Colleagues, Please find attached an invitation to our press conference in The Hague. In the attachment, you will find this same invitation, provided with the artwork logo. If you have contacts to the press/media, please do send on this material. Best regards: Bela Liptak XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX PRESS CONFERENCE THE TOPIC: The Danube lawsuit is in progress, the governments involved have spoken. But mankind too has an interest in the outcome! At this press conference, a voice of this third party will be heard. It will be argued that this, the first international environmental lawsuit before the International Court of Justice, should set a precedent. It should rule that the millennia old Danube wetlands do not belong to any government, but are the common treasure of mankind and so should be protected. HIGHLIGHTS: 1) The Memorial submitted by the coalition of nine NGOs (Greenpeace of Slovakia, Human Rights Advocates of USA, International Rivers network of USA, Natural Heritage Institute of USA, REFLEX of Hungary, Sierra Club of USA, Slovak Rivers Network of Slovakia, SZOPK of Slovakia and WWF headquartered in Switzerland) and accepted by the ICJ on an "amici curias" basis and 2) Compromise Plan offered by the Foundation to Protect the Hungarian Environment. FORMAT: The English language press conference will start with a short lecture during which visual aids will be used. This will be followed by a question-answer period. A photograph album, containing "before and after" photographs of Szigetkoz (island region, where today there are no island left) will also be circulated. TIME: Wednesday, the 26th of March, starting at 2:30 PM PLACE: International Press Centre NIEUWSPOORT, Lange Poten 10, Den Haag Tel: +31.70.364-9440, Fax: +31.70.364-2380 SPEAKER: Bela G. Liptak (USA), editor of the Environmental Engineers' Handbook and former adjunct professor at Yale University. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Stichting Hongaarse Federatie in Nederiand, POB 178, NL-3500 AD Utrecht, Tel:+31.70.358-7248, Fax:+31.70.358-4983 or +31.70.251-4789 WEB PAGE: Please visit our web-page at: http://www.goodpoint.com/duna.htm

From: Liptakbela@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 17:46:30 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Newsrelease: Danube Lawsuit

If you need more detailed information about the lawsuit, refer to: http://www.goodpoint.com/duna.htp
NEWSRELEASE:
Today, Prince Philip, the honorary president of WWF spoke up for the protection of the Danube environment.
Janos Vargha, president of Danube Circle has arrived in The Hague
International NGO representatives and their banner reading "Save the Blue Danube" will arrive in The Hague on Friday.
SECOND DAY IN THE HAGUE

On the second day of the Oral Pleadings before the International Court of Justice in the Hague the legal counsel and scientists of the Hungarian party dealt with the object and purpose of the Original Project of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System (GNBS), the risks and damages occurring in connection with the operation of the barrage system, the expected benefits from its operation and with the rules of international law permitting the suspension and abandoning of the construction. At the beginning of the Presentation, Boldizsár Nagy, Professor of the Eötvös Loránd University Budapest, demonstrated that the 1977 Treaty had two objectives, a political and an economic one: the political objective was to strengthen the ties of friendship between the two countries and their integration into COMECON whilst the economic objective was the comprehensive utilization of the resources of the Danube. Prof. Nagy highlighted that the planned barrage system needed to comply with the evolving rules of international environmental law, both during its construction as well as in its operation. The scientific concerns arising in connection with the Original Project were presented in detail by Dr. Klaus Kern consulting engineer, Karlsruhe, and Prof. Howard Wheater, Professor of Hydrology at Imperial College, London. They characterised the planned peak power mode operation of the Original Project as unprecedented in Europe, and went on to demonstrate the expected harm and risks. In his presentation, Prof. Wheater demonstrated the great threat to the bank filtered wells of Szentendre Island which supply the drinking water of Budapest, and he also demonstrated the effects on the capacity of bank filtered wells upstream of Nagymaros. Later Professor Wheater and Dr. Kern showed the wide scale harm which would have been caused by the planned diversion of the Danube at Dunakiliti and the consequent impacts of the deprivation of free flowing water along a 30 km long section to the surface and ground water resources of the Szigetköz region and to the unique and diverse flora and fauna of the only inland delta in Europe. Katherine Gorove, former visiting Professor of the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest enumerated the expected benefits of the barrage system and demonstrated that both in the field of navigation and flood protection alternative solutions were and presently are available. She highlighted the serious threats to the barrage system of high seismic exposure. As to energy production, Prof. Gorove called the attention of the Court to the fact that the energy to be produced by the barrage system would have covered only a fraction of the two countries present needs and that there were numerous possibilities for its substitution by efficient energy utilization or import. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor of International Law at the University Panthéon-Assis (Paris II), an experienced advocate before the Court, demonstrated that Hungary acted legally when it suspended and subsequently abandoned the works first at Nagymaros, then at Dunakiliti. He showed step by step that all the circumstances were given for the invocation of the international rules of necessity precluding the charges of wrongfulness. The Oral Presentation finished at 1 PM and will restart at 10 AM Wednesday morning.
END

From: Liptakbela@aol.com
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 19:22:55 -0500 (EST)
To: Liptakbela@aol.com
Subject: Newsrelease #3 (1st day of Danube Lawsuit in The Hague)-E

NEWSRELEASE #3: THE FIRST DAY IN THE HAGUE:
OPENING ARGUMENTS IN FIRST ENVIRONMENTAL CASE
Hungary presented opening arguments this morning, the first of five days of submissions in the first major environmental case to come to the World Court. Opening the case on behalf of Hungary, Ambassador György Szenasi, Agent of the Republic of Hungary and Head of the International Law Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, summarised the background to the case and indicated the structure of Hungary's submissions over the next five days. He expressed the hope that "the Court would indicate ... the principles and rules according to which the two countries would in future cooperate on the waters of the Danube", having described the breaches of law resulting from Czechoslovakia's unilateral diversion of the Danube in October 1992. Professor Laszlo Valki, Professor of International Law at Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest, outlined the history of the dispute between Hungary and Slovakia, including the circumstances of Czechoslovakia's unilateral diversion in October 1992. He said " In October 1992 Czechoslovakia unilaterally diverted the Danube ... onto its own territory. Since that time only 10-20% of the flow has been released into the natural river bed, whilst 80-90% of the water flow runs" into Slovakia and the Gabcikovo plant, generating electricity. Professor Alexandre C. Kiss from Strasbourg University summarised for the Court the rules of international law which it should apply. Apart from the 1977 Treaty between Hungary and Czechoslovakia relevant treaties included the 1976 Boundary Waters Convention, the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity signed at the Rio Conference, and the rules of international law governing the protection of the environment. Professor Kiss reminded the Court of its Advisory Opinion of July 1996 concerning the legality of the use of nuclear weapons, where it had held that the obligation of States not to cause damage to the environment of its neighbours was now part of the corpus of customary international law. Professor Gabor Vida, Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, introduced Hungary's presentations on science. The Court viewed a 20 minute video which explained and graphically illustrated the damage caused to the Danube by Czechoslovakia's unilateral diversion. Professor Vida emphasised "the high quality and great quantity of drinking water resources in the affected area" and explained that "the disruption of the natural dynamics of the river ... seriously threatens the exceptionally rich, unique and irreplaceable floodplain system". Professor Roland Carbiener, Professor Emeritus of the University of Strasbourg described for the Court the destructive impacts of similar dams on other rivers, in particular the great threat to drinking water supplies and biodiversity. In the context of the very large costs associated with river restoration on the upper Rhine he noted that impacts may only reveal themselves over the long term, one or two decades after the unilateral diversion of October 1992. He called for urgent measures to "reanimate the Danube pulse for the well-being of future inhabitants in Hungary and Slovakia". Professor James Crawford, Professor of International Law the University of Cambridge and Hungary's principal international counsel, concluded the first day'sarguments by summarising the differences between Hungary and Slovakia and addressing the function of the Court. He said that the Court "...does have to decide whether there were serious scientific concerns on issues affecting vital resources, and ... whether Hungary's concerns crossed the appropriate threshold of seriousness". In the first major environmental dispute to come to the World Court it had to show that it could "...deal with a complex dispute in a way which assists the parties to cooperate as distinct from acting unilaterally". Arguments resume on Tuesday morning at 10 a.m. END

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 11:02:25 -0500 (EST) From: Liptakbela@aol.com
Subject: Pre-trial Danube debate (Liska-3)e

Dear Colleagues, As you might already know, a debate is taking place on the "Water Resorces" Internet list concerning the Danube. Miroslav Liska, the representative of the Construction Lobby has presented the Slovak position in Ten(10) points and I am in the process of refuting them one at a time. Attached are my arguments against his 3rd point. If you would like to get the Liska statement, which summarizes the Slovak position, or if you did not receive my comments on the first two of his arguments, I will be glad to send them to you. Please help the environmental NGOs by distributing this information. The better informed the general public is, the more likely it is that justice will prevail in The Hague. Bela Liptak XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Dear Water Resources List Members, I thank Mr. Istvan Lippai for posting this third installment of my corrections of the distortions posted by the representative of the Slovak construction firm, which "stole" Hungary's border river, the Danube" and built Gabcikovo (Bos), Miroslav Liska. In his 3rd paragraph, Mr. Liska makes four statements as follows: 3a) He claims that the signing of the Gabcikovo (Bos) construction agreement was not forced by the Soviet Union. The fact is that the Soviets wanted a "dependable" harbor, as close to the NATO "front line" as possible. It was inconvenient for them to transfer military gear, shipped from the Black Sea, onto trucks at Budapest and since 1956, they also had doubts about the "reliability" of the Hungarians. In contrast, the Soviet generals trusted the Slovaks, they believed that the Slovak Government was more loyal and more "oriented towards the East," so their goal was a reliable and large port at Bratislava, which required the damming of the river into a lake under the Slovak capital. The second phase of their plan was to use this artificial lake as the water supply for the Danube-Morava-Oder Canal, which would have connected the Soviet military port of Bratislava with the Baltic Sea. The Soviet generals believed that this plan would solve "the problem of the Carpathians," the natural protection of Europe from the East, provided by this mountain range. To say that the Gabcikovo (Bos) project was not forced on the participants by the Soviets is false. As will be shown in the International Court of Justice, it was conceived by the Soviet military, the meetings were arranged by the Soviets and were presided over by the representatives of the Soviet Union. 3b) The spokesman of the Slovak Construction Lobby claims that Gabcikovo (Bos) was built to solve Slovakia's energy needs. The facts are as follows: * In 1995, Gabcikovo (Bos) produced 2.64 billion KWH electricity, in the previous years, even less. While Slovakia has unlawfully appropriated all the produced energy, legally only half of that belongs to her, as half the water in the Danube belongs to Hungary. Therefore, the lawful share is 1.3, which is 2.72% of Slovakia's total electricity consumption. 2-3% does not solve a nations energy needs. * If energy was the motivation for the construction, the plant would have been built in the mountains, not in the plains region, where the elevational drop is insignificant. * Prior to building the facility, it was claimed that when Gabcikovo (Bos) starts up, Slovakia can stop burning polluting coal and will stop the construction of the Chernobil style nuclear power plant at Muhovice (Mohi). The falseness of the energy argument is proved by the fact that the coal plants are still operating and the nuclear plant is nearing completion. 3c) The spokesman of the Slovak Construction Lobby also claims that Gabcikovo (Bos) "protects against catastrophic floods." Just the opposite is true: By damming up 2 billion cubic feet of water to an elevation of ten stories in a seismic region is asking for a catastrophe. In addition, by keeping the reservoirs full, eliminates the previously existing safety margin, which the empty flood banks provided for storing the excess waters. 3d) The spokesman of the Slovak Construction Lobby, Miroslav Liska also claims that Gabcikovo (Bos) provided an "improvement in navigational conditions". The facts are as follows: * Shipping has become slower, less reliable, and more expensive. Fatal accidents, failures of lock doors, days of waiting are the characteristics of Gabcikovo (Bos), when shipping is possible. Right now, no ships are moving at all. Shipping on this section of the Danube river has became impossible, because only 15% of the yearly average flow is sent into the natural riverbed. Not even a motor-boat can pass this section of the Danube, because a newly built dike completely blocks the riverbed. *Shipping in the artificial canal is also at a standstill, because the designers (in spite of all their mathematical models) did not anticipate that water freezes in the winter and therefore, this facility is incapable to handle ice. It is for this reason, that last year, shipping on the Danube was stopped for months. * Because the design intent was for transporting military convoys, the locks are oversized for normal river traffic. As a result, the ships either have to wait a long time until others arrive, or have to pay very high fees. * The Compromise Plan submitted to the International Court of Justice calls for a redesign, so that ice would not stop shipping and would not pose a potential catastrophe, in case of a sudden melting of the ice combined with a wind direction matching that of the canal. This Plan also calls for making the natural riverbed navigable. I hope that I am not overstaying my welcome on your list. I suspect, that what I am writing is much more than what you would want to know about this monument to Stalinism, but I do not know any other way to refute and discredit their propaganda, but by stating the facts. So I apologize for planning to bore you some more in the coming days, but I have no choice, as Mr. Liska's disjointed ramblings do continue for seven(7) additional paragraphs and I have no choice but to refute every one of them. You have two choices: You can delete all this or maybe you can think of this exchange, as a rehersal of the arguments which will be heard in The Hage, when this, the first international environmental lawsuit is heard. Would that make it more interesting?
Bela Liptak

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:52:57 -0500 (EST)

From: Liptakbela@aol.com To: Liptakbela@aol.com

Subject: Vladimir Meciar is trying to abort Danube lawsuit in The Hague

Recent news from Bratislava suggests that on January the 13th and 14th, the Prime Pinister of Slovakia, Vladimir Meciar has made a new offer of out-of-court settlement to his Hungarian counterpart: Gyula Horn. The proposal would in effect complete the original 1977 plan, except that the lower dam would be rebuilt a few kilometers to the west of Nagymaros and the C-variant at Cunovo (Dunacsun) would be eliminated. The Hungarian Prime Minister has the following to consider: 1) The Hungarian Constitution requires all governments to protect the integrity of the nation's territory and therefore no Hungarian Government can agree to give away any section of Hungary's border river. 2) The Hungarian Parliament's vote (resolution 93/25) is still in effect and requires the Hungarian Government to follow through with the Hague lawsuit. Before they can legally abort the lawsuit, it is necessary for the Parliament to reverse its previous vote. The Parliament is in recess. 3) The Meciar proposal does not include compensation for the approximately $1 billion value of electricity, which Slovakia obtained from the energy of the jointly owned border river. 4) The proposal does not include the restoration of the Szigetkoz wetlands, nor the protection of the drinkingwater supplies (ground and river waters). 5) The Gabcikovo (Bos) project, this white elephant of stalinist gigantomania (including environmental and water supply costs) has already cost Hungary $6.8 billion, some of which is yet to be paid (to Austria). Even the present composition of the Parliament is not likely to approve an other $1+ billion for a new dam. 6) If the lawsuit in the Hague is carried to its conclusion and the Court approves the NGO proposed Compromise Plan, the ecosystem and the water supplies would be restored and the above costs saved. For the above reasons, it seems, that an out-of-court Meciar-Horn deal would have serious political consequences. Yet it is not unthinkable, because both prime ministers were in favor of the project as Communist functionaries prior to 1989. prof. Bela Liptak

ERRATUM

Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:56:58 -0500 (EST) From: Liptakbela@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Your article in ENVCEE-L

Dear Collegaues, A few days ago I made an error in describing Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar's background. My excuse is that I am a technical person, I have to make a living by teaching and writing, and I try to help in saving the Danube wetlands at night, with very little assistance. I apoligize for the factual errors. The attached letter more accurately describes Mr. Meciar's background than did mine: Best regards: Bela Liptak XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Dear Professor Liptak, I am writing to inform you about factual imprecision in your article published in ENVCEE-L list on Thu, 16 Jan 1997 under subject "Vladimir Meciar is trying to abort Danube lawsuit in Th". In the last paragrpah, you wrote " For the above reasons, it seems, that an out-of-court Meciar-Horn deal " would have serious political consequences. Yet it is not unthinkable, " because both prime ministers were in favor of the project as Communist " functionaries prior to 1989. I don't know where your informations cooroborating such assertion came from, but Vladimir Meciar was prior to 1989 a little entreprise lawyer in Glassworks in Nemsova, where he was busy with writing letters for unpaid invoices and so on. He was a member of Party prior to interna- tionalist help of Soviet (and Hungarian) troops and was sacked togetherwith thousands of other communists in purges 1969-70. Camrad Meciar has attended courses in Moscow when he was in the Socialist Youth Union (Socialisticky zvaz mladeze). His links with obscure circles there were never cleared. His Russophilia today is obvious. With all the respect for your work for the cause of the environment in Central Europe, I am affraid that it's exactly such useless assertions as "in favor of the project as Communist functionaries prior to 1989" can be easily used as basis of an attack on your way of working with facts. Roman Kanala

Danube Gabcikovo Court "decision-Update received on 29.12.96"

from Mr Bela LiptakBela Liptak 84 Old N. Stamford Road, Stamford, CT 06905-3961 Tel: 203-357-7614, Fax: 203-325-3922, e-mail: liptakbela@aol.com The writer is the editor of the Environmental Engineers' Handbook and president of the Foundation to Protect the Hungarian Environment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: The Stealing of the Danube Danube Lawsuit: Statement of Miroslav Liska of Slovakia (November 26, 1996, London) In February, 1997, the Danube lawsuit is to get started in The Hague. On one side will be Hungary, supported by the environmental community of the world, on the other, Slovakia, supported by some of the construction and banking interests. The arguments of the Slovak side were summarized in London, on the 26th of November, 1996, at the International Water Power and Dam Construction conference, which dealt with the financing of hydro power projects. The case in favor of the so called Gabcikovo Project, was made by Miroslav B. Liska, an employee of the Water Development Enterprise of Slovakia. In the following text, quotations from the Liska statement are given in capital letters and are followed by my comments, in small case letters. Miroslav Liska's presentation was titled: "Attempt of NGOs and irresponsible individuals to influence financing of the Gabcikovo Project." In it, he attacked four individuals by name: Mr. Zinke of the World Wildlife Fund(WWF), Mr. Williams of The International Rivers Network (IRN), Mr. Ody of Cousteau Equippe, and myself, the president of the Foundation to Protect the Hungarian Environment. As it is not my place to speak for the other three gentleman, I will only respond to the statements, which were directed at me. Here is the first quotation from the "lecture" by Miroslav Liska. He uses the term HES G-N as the name of the Gabcikovo Hydroelectric dam on the Danube: MISUSE OF INTERNET IN THE "INTIFADA" AGAINST DAMS: ONE OF THE MOST ARDENT OPPONENTS OF THE HES G-N IS MR. BELA LIPTAK, A HUNGARIAN EXILANT, NOW A CITIZEN OF UNITED STATES, BUT HIS NAME DOCUMENTS HIS SLOVAK ORIGIN, WHAT HE DOES NOT DENY. True, I am proud that one of my grandfathers was of Slovak origin. On the other hand, I am not an "exilant", but Hungarian-American, who came to the United States as a refugee, after the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. IN 1989 AND LATER, HE LOBBIED FOR ABANDONING THE PROJECT IN HUNGARY I first learned of this project in 1975 from a member of the Hungarian Academy of Science. He asked for my help, because he had a copy of my 3-volume, 3,000 page, Environmental Engineers' Handbook, and felt that I would be in a position to help in their effort against "this white elephant of Stalinist gigantomania." of.. PROMISING TO ARRANGE VERY ADVANTAGEOUS LOANS FROM FOREIGN BANKS. A groundless and silly fabrication for two reasons. First, because I was opposing the investment altougether. Second, because at the time I was an adjunct professor at Yale University and never had anything to do with loans, international or otherwise. AND THREATENED, TO BLOCK ANY FOREIGN SUPPORT OF THE COUNTRY, IF HUNGARIAN AUTHORITIES WOULD "YIELD TO THE SLOVAKS". This too is a total fabrication. In addition, Miroslav Liska also invented the quotation marks. I have always worked closely with the Slovak environmentalists (Jaromir Sibl, Huba Mikulash, etc.) and consider this fight to be between the construction lobby and the environmentalists of both nations. HE WANTED TO PROPOSE ALSO HIS "VERY ADVANTAGEOUS" SOLUTION TO THE SLOVAK PRESIDENT, I did prepare a Compromise Plan, and I did present that plan to the staff of the President of Slovakia, Michal Kovac, on March 26, 1993. WHICH CAN BE CHARACTERIZED VERY CONCISELY: "DO WHAT YOU WANT, BUT LEAVE ALL THE FLOW IN THE OLD DANUBE." Again, the above quotation is also an invention. The Compromise Plan calls for returning the island region (Szigetkoz) into its original state and for sending only the excess waters on to Gabcikovo. While protecting the environment and the drinkingwater supplies, the plan also provides for electricity generation, good shipping and for a "European Free Zone" for the region. HIS ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT HE IS A LAYMAN IN HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES. IN SPITE OF THAT, HE TRIED TO BRING THE ISSUE TO BE DISCUSSED IN THE US CONGRESS. Let me get this: A layman in hydraulic structures can not contact his Senator or Congressman? And what is wrong with the US Congress trying to protect the Danubean wetlands, a unique and common treasure of all mankind? HIS COUNTRY-MATE, PROF. KARADY FROM THE MILWAKEE (sorry for all the spelling and grammatical errors, which are not mine) UNIVERSITY, CHARACTERIZED HIM IN HIS 1993 LETTER TO SENATOR DODD: Interesting! And how does an employee of the Water Development Enterprise of Slovakia obtain a copy of a letter of this "country-mate" of mine? Do they possibly work for the same construction firm? "WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF HYDRO DEVELOPMENT, MR. LIPTAK IS IN NO POSITION TO ASSESS THE PROS AND CONS OF THE DANUBE PROJECTS." Apparently, prof. Karady never read my handbook, otherwise he would not write such a sentence. Fortunately, Senator Christopher Dodd knows by background and so do Senators D'Amato, Liberman, Congressman Shays and our other supporters, including the vice-president Albert Gore . AN OTHER COUNTRY-MATE, ALSO A WORLD WIDE KNOWN EXPERT IN HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENTS, PROF. E. MOSONYI Miroslav Liska forgets to mention one thing about this "country-mate" of mine: He happens to be the designer of the Gabcikovo project. PUT IT IN AN INTERVIEW MORE BLUNTLY, SPEAKING ABOUT A "CRAZY MAN." So this country-mate of mine is also a world wide expert on psychoanalysis? AND LATELY, WHEN MR. LIPTAK ACCUSED THE PRIME MINISTER OF NOT DEFENDING (IN THIS ISSUE) THE INTERESTS OF HUNGARY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REALISTIC GREEN CLUB IN HUNGARY CALLED HIM AN "INTERNATIONAL IMPOSTOR." The reader should know, the difference between the "Greens" and the "Realistic Greens": The distinguishing characteristic of the "realistic greens" is, that they also send copies of their letters to Miroslav Liska. The "green" which they favor, is not nature's color, but that of the compensation they receive for their "services." In contrast, we in the environmental NGOs, are spending our own time and money, and receive financing from nobody. THIS OVERZEALOUS FIGHTER FOR SOMETHING, HE TOUGHT TO BE HUNGARIAN INTERESTS, CAME TO AN EXCELLENT IDEA.. HE ADDRESSED THROUGH INTERNET SEVERAL INFLUENTIAL PERSONS, TO SEND A PETITION TO THE GROUP OF BANKS HEADED BY J.P.MORGAN'S, TO REFUSE SLOVAKIA A LOAN FOR END BUILDING OF GABCIKOVO AND OTHER HYDRAULICPROJECTS IN SLOVAKIA.. This is very interesting: On July 25, 1996 I received a letter from Margaret W. Southerland, Vice President of J.P.Morgan, who advised that they received assurances from Miroslav Liska's employer, that none (!) of the loan will be spent at Gabcikovo. Ms. Southerland emphasized that this was a condition for the loan, because J.P. Morgan does not want to finance the finalization of a project, which is the subject of an international lawsuit and is still pending in court. TO MAKE IT EASIER, HE OFFERED A "PREFABRICATED" LETTER, THAT HAD TO BE ONLY COPIED, COMPLETED BY THE DATA OF SENDER AND ITS SIGNATURE AND SENT BY E-MAIL TO THE GIVEN ADDRESS. IT IS AMAZING THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE SO NAIVE, TO FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS AND CONDEMN SOMETHING AND SOMEBODY, WITHOUT EXACTLY KNOWING WHY, IN GOOD FAITH: "HE WOULD NOT DARE TO ASK FOR IT, IF IT WOULD NOT BE TRUE!" Good point, which reminds me: If you, the reader of this text, care about the survival of the Danube wetlands, please do drop a note to: Ms. Margaret W. Southerland, Vice President J.P. Morgan, 60 Wall Street, New York, NY 10260-0060 and advise her, that according to Miroslav Liska, the representative of the Water Development Enterprise of Slovakia, J.P. Morgan has been mislead by their Slovak client and the J.P. Morgan loan is being used for "end building of Gabcikovo." IN MAY/JUNE 1995, SEVERAL NGO's ADRESSED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (IJC) A MEMORIAL, REQUESTING TO ACCEPT THEM AS A THIRD PARTY IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE HES G-N. MR. LIPTAK ENGAGED AGAIN HIS COMPUTER WRITING LETTER TO ALL SIDES, ASKING HIS ADDRESSES (MOSTLY OF THE HUNGARIAN LOBBY) TO BURRY THE JUDGES IN A HEAP OF LETTERS, AND TO INFLUENCE THUS THEIR VERDICT IN FAVOR OF HUNGARY. Miroslav Liska has forgotten to inform his audience, that the 100 page NGO memorial was signed by Greenpeace of Slovakia, Human Rights Advocates, International Rivers Network, Natural Heritage Institute, Reflex of Hungary, Sierra Club, Slovak Rivers Network, SZOOPK of Slovakia and WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) Switzerland. In addition to the over 30 experts participating in its preparation, the chief contributors of the memorial were Prof. Dinah L. Shelton of the University of Santa Clara Law School in the United States and Prof. Alan E. Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Edinburgh, Scotland. Miroslav Liska has also forgotten to mention, that The International Court of Justice has accepted (!) the Memorial. THIS KIND OF JUSTICE, NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE AND FACTS BUT ON BIASED OPINION OF UNINFORMED GENERAL PUBLIC, WAS WELL KNOWN - NOT ONLY IN THE WILD WEST OR SOUTH OF USA (LYNCH, KU-KLUX-KLAN), BUT ALSO IN THE COMMUNIST REGIMES OF EASTERN EUROPE, WHERE THOUSANDS WERE HANGED ONLY BECAUSE THEY DID NOT APPROVE THE OFFICIAL IDEOLOGY. I would like to remind the reader, that I did not leave out a single word from Miroslav Liska's text. The above sentence comes right after the previous quote. In other words, this is what Miroslav Liska thinks of the International Court of Justice and the above listed signers of the NGO Memorial. He is reminded - by the submission and acceptance of the NGO memorial,- of lynchings and hangings. I AM SURE THAT THE JUDGES OF THE ICJ WILL BASE THEIR VERDICT ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, RATHER THAN ON INTERNATIONAL HISTERY. "Histery" or not, I do hope, that the judges will visit the Szigetkoz (Island Region) and will note that there is not a single island left there, because without water there can be no islands, nor fish, nor fishing birds. I also hope that the Court will use this, the first international environmental lawsuit, to show, that rivers and wetlands are not the property of construction firms, nor of nations, but are the common treasure of all mankind and that it is the duty of the international community to defend them.. Bela Liptak 84 Old N. Stamford Road, Stamford, CT 06905-3961 Tel: 203-357-7614, Fax: 203-325-3922, e-mail: liptakbela@aol.com The writer is the editor of the Environmental Engineers' Handbook and president of the Foundation to Protect the Hungarian Environment

Oct. 27th 96: AUSTRIA SETS UP A DANUBE NATIONAL PARK

On October 27th, the dream of the opponents to the Hainburg dam on the Danube, has at last come true: 10,000 hectares of riverine forest in the area of the cancelled project has officially become a national park, thus finally protecting the last large and ecologically fairly intact middle-European riverine forest and its amazing biodiversity. In December 1984, Austria had made headlines in international media when thousands of people had non-violently resisted brutal police attacks to oppose the construction of this hydroelectric power plant. With the creation of the Danube national park, WWF Austria and associated NGOs have achieved an extraordinary victory, which took 13 years of intensive effort towards protection and against hydroelectric power plant projects. The first steps towards this goal were relatively quick: in 1984, after the events opposing demonstrators and the police, the Austrian government announced a «reflection break»; in 1985, the project was cancelled, after the WWF-Austria won the lawsuit filed to the Austrian higher court. But the final victory took years to come. To promote the idea of a national park, WWF Austria launched a campaign «Bail out nature» in 1989, with the support of most of the main Austrian media. This campaign motivated more than 100,000 people - among them many celebrities, private large donors and sponsor companies - to donate more than $9 million, allowing WWF to buy 411 hectares in the riverine forest key-area. In 1996, a renaturation project, with notably the re-opening of dams isolating old side-arms of the Danube from the main stream, raised international awareness. The area bought by WWF became a «mini national park» and served as a model for the whole future national park. On October 27th, the campaign led by WWF Austria and associated NGOs throughout these years has at last borne fruit, in spite of attempts on the part of the hydro-electric company to launch new dam projects in 1994. 10,000 hectares of living Danube, home to at least 5,000 animal species, many of them threatened, has definitively been saved.

ERN, Roberto Epple, 8, rue Crozatier, 43000 LE PUY. Mobile phone : + 49 171 753 24 14
office phone: +33 471 05 57 88

back to the Homepage

These pages and their content are © Copyright of European Rivers Network.
For more information, remarks or propositions, send us a message !. rivate large donors and sponsor companies - to donate more than $9 million, allowing WWF to buy 411 hectares in the riverine forest key-area. In 1996, a renaturation project, with notably the re-opening of dams isolating old side-arms of the Danube from the main stream, raised international awareness. The area bought by WWF became a «mini national park» and served as a model for the whole future national park. On October 27th, the campaign led by WWF Austria and associated NGOs throughout these years has at last borne fruit, in spite of attempts on the part of the hydro-electric company to launch new dam projects in 1994. 10,000 hectares of living Danube, home to at least 5,000 animal species, many of them threatened, has definitively been saved.

ERN, Roberto Epple, 8, rue Crozatier, 43000 LE PUY. Mobile phone : + 49 171 753 24 14
office phone: +33 471 05 57 88

back to the Homepage

These pages and their content are © Copyright of European Rivers Network.
For more information, remarks or propositions, send us a message !.