Hutovo Blato – Reconciling Nature, Water, and Energy Needs Through Integrated Transboundary River Basin Management

Hutovo Blato is a wetland protected under the Ramsar Convention and a national nature park. It is located in the Neretva-Trebisjnica river basin, a transboundary catchment spanning over Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Tensions continue to exist between these two countries since the end of the war, but even more so between the two entities within Bosnia and Herzegovina – Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are partially covered by the catchment. These tensions are reflected in the management of the basin’s water resources, especially with regard to the share of water for hydropower and agriculture, which has lead to increased pressure on the Hutovo Blato wetland. The reduced water intake of Hutovo Blato is demonstrated and began when hydropower plants were built in the 1970s. More hydropower plants are currently in the pipeline and would worsen the situation even further.

 

Bosnia and Herzegovina has a complex political structure. It is a federal state, which is subdivided into two entities: Republika Srpska, mostly composed of Serbs, and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, of which the population mainly consists of Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats. This distribution of ethnicities reflects the complexity of the political situation and legacy of the war. Adding to this is the fact that the entities have de facto more power in numerous fields, including the energy sector, which has lead to a fragmentation of competences and to random enforcement of legislation adopted by the Federal State, including international commitments, and alignment with EU legislation.

 

The country’s energy sector is in the hands of each entity’s power utility or “Elektroprivreda”. Due to the relative independence in the operations of their hydropower plants, their decisions could affect transboundary waters and not necessarily reflect the country’s international commitments. Moreover, until the war, the two utilities were part of one sole company, the Yugoslav power utility, and so were those of Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia; today, managers still tend to communicate, cooperate, and negotiate directly with their counterparts from the respective “Elektroprivreda” of each entity/country.

 

As a result, there is a strong horizontal –or sectoral- coordination, while the vertical governance axis is seriously ignored and thus important decision-making processes, including at the diplomatic level, are skipped. The energy sector acting in isolation has also led to an exclusion of civil society, both in the national and international context, from participating in decision-making processes with regard to new infrastructure development and environmental protection. The enforcement of the country’s commitments under the Espoo and the Aarhus Conventions, as well as the EU Water Framework Directive, is thus significantly jeopardized.

 

For the past 5 years, WWF has therefore dedicated intensive efforts to find solutions based on extensive dialogues with key stakeholders – including the energy sector, NGOs, nature park managers, water basin agencies, municipalities, the cantonal government, and others – on both sides of the border. This dialogue is based on an open attitude that recognizes the needs of all parties, but advocates recognition and respect for nature’s water needs. The dialogue with the many stakeholders was prompted by scientific information gathered on Hutovo Blato’s degradation, which proved how the hydropower plants have deprived the wetland of crucial water for its ecosystem, thus resulting in the loss of biodiversity.

 

The open attitude of listening and discussing everyone’s needs and requests has led to the recognition of responsibilities in the degradation of the wetland and to a collaborative approach towards finding solutions to restore the wetland. Different solutions are currently under scrutiny, they range from the provision of more water for Hutovo Blato to mitigating the impacts through a fund that would allow for the tight management of the park.

 

Key Conclusion:

Before constructing major water infrastructure on transboundary waters, countries should enter into an open and fair dialogue process related to environmental and social impacts and agree upon prevention and/or mitigation measures early in the process, involving all stakeholders. Only engaging in this upon completion of the project is too late and is a grave shortcoming in matters of governance.

Despite transboundary agreements, such as the Espoo and Aarhus Conventions, as well as progressive alignment with EU legislation, covering the construction of hydropower plants in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the political context in the country remains incredibly complex as a result of the ethnic war between the former Yugoslavian states. An active and well-trained civil society can raise the awareness on such issues and help promote the dialogue between different stakeholders on both sides of the borders. However, for more effectiveness, transboundary dialogues would gain in being fostered by governmental players. These dialogues are time- and resource-consuming, but essential if consensus is to be built and water management solutions identified.