IV. Stakeholders
The Danube River is highly trafficked and used for a large variety of different economic, social, and recreational uses. Currently, the 18 countries within the basin are struggling with water quality issues, especially the nutrient levels mentioned previously.
The main stakeholders are seen in Table 1 on the following page, which can each also be split by geographic location. The upper countries are less concerned about the water issue because in that area it isn't as severe. Due to the fact that the water in these northern areas isn’t an issue, they continue to pollute and are the initial source. Specifically, the agricultural industry, the multitude of involved countries, and the ICPDR are the parties most involved with the Danube’s crisis.
Table 1. Shows the stakeholders in concern, their interest in the problem, their level of organization and their power to influence the problem.
|
Group
|
Description
|
Interest
|
Organization Infrastructure
|
Power
|
|
Upper River Agriculture
|
People who produce crops and make use of the river for agricultural needs. Their water is at acceptable levels near the mouth of the river, so there is no motivation to better their agricultural practices.
|
Not worried about how they are affecting other countries downstream
|
Can form industry groups but complications arise due to the multinational nature of this problem. These countries have the most resources to help the issue.
|
Fertilize runoffs is one of the main sources of excess nutrients in the Danube. Their choice of fertilizer and agricultural practices affect the river. Nothing is being done, however.
|
|
Lower River Agriculture
|
These countries are generally more impoverished and can’t afford to better the quality of the water. Several non-EU countries are located here, where conditions are the worst.
|
Producing maximum crops at the lowest price. Money is too scarce to spend on any type of solution
|
Many small countries. They do not work together and each focuses on their own interest, now of those surrounding them.
|
Being that they are not in the EU and lack resources and funding, the majority of the lower river countries have little to no power, except for anything that can be done within their own country.
|
|
Upper River Countries
|
A combination of the people and the governments bordering the river north of Iron Gates.
|
Main focus is about maintaining their own economy and national prosperity.
|
The larger, more well know countries that belong to the EU. Resources are available, and national governments are well established.
|
These countries do have the resources to potentially assist those downstream. Also, being members of the EU, they have better chances at passing regulations or guidelines in terms of nutrient/pollutant levels.
|
|
Lower River Countries
|
These countries are generally more impoverished and can’t afford to better the quality of the water. Several non-EU countries are located here, where conditions are the worst.
|
Producing maximum crops at the lowest price. Money is too scarce to spend on any type of solution
|
Many small countries. They do not work together and each focuses on their own interest, now of those surrounding them.
|
Being that they are not in the EU and lack resources and funding, the majority of the lower river countries have little to no power, except for anything that can be done within their own country.
|
|
ICPDR
|
Works to ensure the sustainable and equitable use of waters and freshwater resources in the Danube River Basin.
|
Worked to find sources of the problem and currently are trying to implement a policy to prevent it from reoccurring.
|
The ICPDR is formally comprised by the Delegations of all Contracting Parties to the Danube River Protection Convention, but has also established a framework for other organizations to join.
|
The ICPDR gets its power from the Danube River Protection Convention. The convention was signed in Sofia in 1994 and came into force in October 1998. No legal power.
|
In terms of agriculture, the upper parts of the river tend to be more prosperous and developed. The farmers there have the wealth and resources to possibly help reduce the nutrient level issues, but because the water in their area is at relatively acceptable levels, they don’t feel the need to waste money on another country’s problems. Alternative fertilizers and management practices are available, but northern countries lack the motivation to make the investment. Further downstream, countries become less and less wealthy, lacking the resources and structure for alternative solutions. When national and individual economy is so low, the only concern is crop yield and trying to maximize profits. There is no time or money to try and solve water issues, and many of these farmers and countries are focused solely on short-term solutions, not thinking about future generations (Kroiss, Lampert, Zessner).
With 18 countries bordering or relying on the Danube’s resources, it is hard to create policy and force regulations. Over the years, many different attempts have been made to better the river’s water quality, but with so many transboundry issues, it is near impossible to satisfy everyone’s needs. As mentioned with the agricultural status, the countries downstream are impoverished and don’t have the power to make much change. Some are not members of the European Union, which holds the most power and greatest chance at regulating the variety of needs. All but four countries currently belong, with those four being the poor countries downstream (www.icpdr.org). In the end, they can all agree that a reliable supply of clean water in necessary for their economy’s, citizens’, and future’s well-being.
The ICPDR is the current organization that brings all of these stakeholders together and is working on satisfying all of their needs. After being put into force by the European Union in 1998, the ICPDR has spent the last ten years observing and analyzing the status and trends of the river. Being associated with the EU, it does hold substantial power, but it cannot directly enforce or punish countries/parties for any malpractice. They have set a plan into effect that should have the river at “acceptable” levels by 2015, and then continue to better and maintain the quality after that. The ICPDR has done its best to involve all 18 countries, but not all have cooperated, and the ones not in the UN or associated with the EU have been left out. Their largest obstacle to overcome is the large number of individual policies, previous UN regulations, and in certain cases World Trade Organization (WTO) mandates (www.icpdr.org). This stakeholder focuses on the conjoined issues and conflict throughout the Danube, and the political conflicts associated. Other areas that are affected are the fishing markets. This issue is more serious in the Black Sea and other waterways nearby. With such a high death rate amongst the fish population, many fishermen throughout the 19 countries lost their jobs and traditions. Many social, recreational sports were no longer available once countries in the lower parts of the river were forced to pass regulations involving restricted living conditions and access (Kroiss, Lampert, Zessner).
There are numerous other small stakeholders who are affected by the Danube’s current water issues, but for the most part they would be satisfied by a solution to the previously mentioned problems. Quantity isn't currently a demanding issue (in some areas the amount of clean drinking water is depleting), so if a level for nutrients and pollutants could be agreed upon, and eventually reached, almost all involved parties should be content. The only downside is the cost, which would mainly upset farmers and possible smaller countries, but would be beneficial to the stability of the European economy.
Previous Back to Main Page Next
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.