The Danube River Basin
Introduction
The Danube River is the second largest river in Europe, after the Volga.
Originating in the Black Forest region of Germany—only 40 km from the Rhine—it
flows 2,857 km to its mouths at a delta in Romania and Ukraine, discharging into the
Black Sea at a rate of about 6,500 m3/s. With 19 countries comprising its 817,000 km2
basin, the Danube is the most international river in the world (Figure 1). Historically, the
Danube River was the northern border of the Roman Empire; barbarian tribes crossed the
river on their way to sack Roman cities. Today, however, the river is used for industry,
drinking water, navigation, and agriculture for more than 81 million people.
Figure 1. The Danube River Basin
The Danube is divided into three regions: the upper, middle, and lower basins.
The upper basin consists of Germany and Austria from its spring to the Devín Gate at the
border of Slovakia and Austria. The wider middle basin stretches from Devín Gate to the
Iron Gate, a gorge that forms part of the boundary between Serbia and Romania. Portions
of Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, and Serbia-Montenegro are all part of the Middle Danube
Basin. The Lower Danube Basin extends from the Iron Gate to the delta; Sulina, the
middle of three distributaries in the delta is usually referred to as the main discharging
point.
Water Usage
Historically, the Danube River has been an invaluable resource for navigation
purposes. For this reason, numerous empires have fought over control of the river
throughout the ages. It is navigable by ocean vessels up to Braila, Romania and by river
craft all the way Ulm, Germany located 2,600 km from the mouth of the river. In 1992, a
Rhine-Main-Danube canal was built to connect the three aforementioned rivers,
effectively creating a route from the Atlantic Ocean at Rotterdam to the Black Sea. Ever
since its internationalization by the Act of Vienna in 1815, the river has faced
transboundary water issues.
Because of the difference in sociopolitical spheres and standards of the basin
countries, there are inherent issues that must be addressed. The upper basin, being more
technically advanced and industrialized tends to use the Danube River for hydroelectric
power production, industrial uses, and waste disposal. 40 of the 49 planned or existing
hydropower stations are located in Germany and Austria. The middle and lower basins
rely on the river primarily for drinking water, irrigation, and fisheries.
The Danube Delta has been internationally recognized for its aquatic ecosystem.
It is the second largest natural wetland in Europe—comprising about 600,000 hectares—
and houses some endangered species. This ecosystem, however, is threatened by
changing flow patterns, intensive agriculture, and pollution from industrial and urban
uses.
Water quality of the river was not seen as a very important issue until the late
1970s. The Bucharest Declaration of 1985 was a nonbinding declaration in which 8
riparian states agreed to cooperate on the management of the water resources. In 1991 the
Danube Environmental Program was formed. This was put together to focus on the
protection and restoration of the river by supporting monitoring, data collection and
assessment, and emergency response systems. More recently, the International
Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) was established in 1998 to
promote conservation and improve water resource management.
Quarantine of the Lower Danube: The Anglo-Russian Conflict
Navigation conflicts arose between England and Russia around 1829. The English
were displeased with Russia’s lack of information on the hydrography and climate in the
Danube Delta. Though shipwrecks were generally uncommon, they seemed to be many
deliberate and accidental shipwrecks in the delta during this conflict. Due to lack of
maintenance, alluvium filled the delta, making it much more difficult to navigate through
the area. London also protested this non-maintenance of dredging. Because of the
shipwrecks, the English requested more experienced pilots at the Sulina Mouth of the
Danube River. Yet another conflict was the tolls placed on cargo. The English wrongly
claimed that Russia had no right to demand tribute at the mouth of the Danube, since they
believed the Vienna Act of 1815 was not applied to the Danube River at the time.
A controversial quarantine regime was applied at the Danube Delta by the
Russians from 1829 to 1855 because of the plague and cholera epidemics after the RussoTurkish War of 1828-1829. The legitimacy of this claim was questioned by England, who
believed that Russia was exploiting the quarantine as an obstacle to navigation. The
quarantine, however, was not unsubstantiated; the wetlands in the delta were home to
flies and mosquitoes that propagated epidemics. Adding to the problem was the lack of
sanitary facilities and lack of treatment of latrine waters that were emptied in the Danube;
the solids were strained out by stone filters, but the microorganisms were not. The
quarantine was gradually eased by 1856. In 1879 at a European Commission meeting, a
Russian representative acknowledged comments by a French delegate who noted that the
epidemics had decreased and the quarantine was no longer necessary.
The Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project
A treaty in 1977 between Hungary and then Czechoslovakia set forth an immense
project consisting of a series of dams along a 200-km stretch of the Danube River
between Bratislava and Budapest. For the former Communist regime the dams were a
symbol of progress, economic independence, prestige, and national pride. The project as
a whole was aimed to produce hydroelectric power, improve navigation, and reduce
flooding. All this was to be done while at the same time trying to minimize detrimental
effects to nature and the water quality of the river.
The first dam was to be built at the Hungarian town of Dunakiliti, creating a
reservoir and diverting most of the river’s flow through a 31-km bypass canal on then
Czechoslovak territory. A second dam with shipping locks and eight turbines for power
production was to be built at Gabcíkovo, Czechoslovakia. The last dam of the project was
planned at the Hungarian town of Nagymaros. A layout of the project is shown in Figure
2. The treaty stated that the dams were to operate as a “single and indivisible operational
system of works.”
Figure 2. The proposed Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project
In the mid-1980s construction stopped because of protests in Hungary. The public
argued that the project would cause severe damage to the environment and decrease
water supplies in Budapest due to erosion and reduced water levels caused by the dams.
Because of the dissent, Hungary suspended work on the project in 1989 and abandoned it
altogether in 1992. Czechoslovakia pressured Hungary to continue work on the project
and eventually sought alternatives to keep working without Hungarian participation. In
1992, they ultimately came to an alternative solution called “Variant C.” This provisional
solution was to dam the Danube at Cunovo. This would channel much of the Danube’s
flow through the bypass canal as was originally intended.
Slovakia became an independent state on January 1, 1993 and took over the
vested interest of Czechoslovakia; the Czech Republic (like Hungary) saw the project as
a massive relic of Stalinism. On April 7, 1993, Hungary and Slovakia submitted the case
to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ concluded that both sides had violated
the treaty because Hungary had “terminated” it and Slovakia went through with Variant
C. As of 2006, Hungary was still trying to terminate its involvement in the original 1977
treaty. Despite the ICJ’s decision that forced both states to continue their involvement in
the treaty, they recognized that the two countries did have the right to modify the original
plans; this shows the need for international discourse and cooperation.
Required Reading
Fürst, H. The Hungarian-Slovakian Conflict over the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Dams: An
Analysis. Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy, University of
Hamburg, Germany.
Wolf, A. Conflict and cooperation along international waterways. Water Policy (1) 251265, 1998.
Recommended Reading
Finger, M.(ed.), Tamiotti, L.(ed.), and Allouche, J. (ed.). The Multi-Governance of
Water: Four Case Studies. State University of New York Press, 2006.
Fitzmaurice, J. Damming the Danube: Gabcíkovo and Post-Communist Politics in
Europe. Westview Press, 1996.
Focas, S. The Lower Danube River: In the Southeastern European Political and
Economic Complex from Antiquity to the Conference of Belgrade of 1948.
Columbia University Press, 1987.
Jansky, L., Murakami, M., and Pachova N. The Danube: Environmental Monitoring of an
International River. United Nations University Press, 2004.
Lessner, N. The Danube: The Dramatic History of the Great River and the People
Touched by its Flow. Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1961.
Romsics, I. and Béla K. Király (ed.). Geopolitics in the Danube Region: Hungarian
Reconciliation Efforts, 1848-1998. Central European University Press, 1999.