Blog entry

How to win energy sovereignty and avoid a gas trap in Poland

The European Commission introduced the REPowerEU communication, outlining an action plan to make Europe independent from Russian fossil fuels well before 2030, starting with gas. Poland, which is highly dependent on Russian fossil fuels imports, is also looking for a quick alternative. The Polish government announced the amendments to the obsolete energy strategy, the Polish Energy Policy by 2040 (PEP 2040). Their main goal: reducing dependency on fossil fuels from Russia in Poland’s energy policy. Sounds solid, but the devil is in the details.

Reasonable solutions and dead ends

The good news is that Minister of Climate and Environment, Anna Moskwa, told the media that power from renewables will be increased to 50 gigawatts during this decade. And by 2040, we will be producing half of our energy from renewable energy sources (RES). It is a significant shift in the Polish energy policy. This is three times more than the current potential of renewable energy and over 12 gigawatts more than the current power from coal and gas-fueled plants. But to achieve that, we need fewer words and more action.

For a long time, the government has been suspending the development of new onshore wind farm projects – currently the cheapest source of electricity. It resulted in delaying the submission of a draft act aimed at amending the wind energy planning regulation. This regulation sets a radius of ten times the height of the windmill that should be maintained between a wind turbine and the closest residential buildings.

This rule excludes 99.7 per cent of the Polish territory from building new onshore wind farms.

Another problem that may stand in the way of the dynamic development of domestic renewable energy potential, is the insufficient capacity of the energy network when it comes to accepting growing volumes of energy from renewable sources. Therefore urgent investment is needed to make the grid fit-for-purpose in an increasingly decarbonised, decentralised and digitalised power system.

Prime Minister Morawiecki told journalists that he does not want to pay for the expensive Norwegian gas as a substitute for costly Russian gas. We need to replace it with renewable energy sources in the long run. But again, the government plans to spend a big chunk of cohesion funds and recovery plan money on massive gas and roads investments. Around EUR 1.77 billion is allocated for investments related to natural gas under the largest infrastructure, climate and environment programme (FEnIKS).

Poland’s recovery plan is still under risk of rejection due to the rule of law dispute with the EU. In the last available version from almost a year ago, i.e. 30 April 2021, the specific amount earmarked for fossil gas is impossible to determine. However, the draft of the plan suggests that it will dominate investments in district heating and replacement heat sources in residential buildings.

And last but not least, EUR 4.5 billion is allocated under the FEnIKS programme for roads. This will contribute to the increasing dependency on Russian fossil fuels given that 70 per cent of the fuel used in vehicles on Polish roads comes from Russia. Currently, the FEnIKS earmarks only EUR 599 million for renewable energy investments – ten times less than roads and natural gas.

Missing elements

Instead of these measures that will further lock Poland into fossil fuels dependance, we need thought-out and systemic investments in renewable energy sources, modern distribution networks and new energy storage facilities.

There are still no renewable energy-based energy communities in Poland that are more resilient and flexible than a centralised energy system in a crisis or war. They would be a great addition to Polish energy security, but our law still blocks their development, despite the EU law requirements.

But most of all, we need to reduce the amount of energy consumed. Poland’s crucial problem is energy inefficiency. We need investments in energy savings and increased energy efficiency, including massive renovations of buildings, as well as we need investments in clean transport, circular economy and decarbonisation of industry.

Democracy first

Nearly sixty Polish civil society organisations concerned with state’s dependence on Russian fuels, wrote a statement and requested that the Polish government and the European Commission direct EU funds into a green transition in Poland. The stream of European money has to be channelled in the right direction, to redirect sources from gas and road construction.

We have received EUR 140 billion funds for Poland in recovery and cohesion funds along with the Modernisation Fund. According to the European Commission, over thirty per cent should go to climate action. This time, climate action is tightly connected to gaining energy security and sustainability from Russian gas.

Although we do not have the benefit of time, we should not forget about democracy and transparency.

Green transformation must be inclusive and participatory.

Meanwhile, the new implementation law (regulating spending of cohesion and recovery funds) introduced by the government sets new rules for monitoring committees, effectively blocking independent civil society organisations from overseeing the implementation and monitoring of these EU funds. The increased risk of corruption and particular political interests may derail the green transformation efforts due to the lack of that independent scrutiny.

North Macedonia’s Go-Slow on Greener Energy is Costing Lives

Forty years have passed since the first unit of the Bitola coal-fired power plant was put into operation in what is now North Macedonia.

One of two such plants in the country, they have provided 50 to 70 per cent of its electricity production over these years.

But, alongside generating electricity, the Bitola power plant has also been generating air pollution on a scale rarely seen in Europe.

Evidence of the detrimental impact of the dirty air on the environment and public health has been piling up for a decade.

The latest analysis, compiled by Bankwatch, released this week, shows that fine dust, PM2.5, concentrations alone are responsible for up to 8.43 per cent of all deaths among adults in the nearby village of Novaci.

This means that in this small, sparsely populated municipality, up to 6 people die prematurely every year due to PM2.5 pollution.

Dust and sulphur dioxide emissions from the power plant are consistently higher than emissions’ legal limits.

In the past few years, the plant has frequently been ranked among Europe’s top five emitters of pollutants.

In addition, coal ash, a by-product of the electricity production process, is deposited in the open near the plant, and was found to contain heavy metals whose radioactive levels also exceed allowed limits.

Locals have voiced concern many times. In 2014 and 2015, the town of Bitola saw thousands of protesters taking to the streets to demand cleaner air.

NGOs working on health issues publish alarming figures about the number of pollution-related diseases in the region, and citizens and businesses are coming together to install air-quality sensors.

The findings of the latest report are based on Bankwatch’s own measurements over nine months in 2021, and the data confirm that the coal power plant, the ash disposal site and the open-cast lignite mine, which are all operating without environmental permits of any kind, are the main sources of air pollution.

Worryingly, few days went by during the whole monitoring period when the pollution did not exceed the World Health Organisation’s recommended limits for ambient air quality.

In other words, people in Novaci are exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution throughout most of the year.

Novaci is not an isolated case. Almost all countries in the Western Balkans face the same issue of coal power plants poisoning the air.

The report “Comply or Close”, released by Bankwatch and CREA in September 2021, revealed that the addiction to coal in the Western Balkans was responsible for nearly 19,000 premature deaths in the region and beyond.

All five Western Balkan countries that have coal power plants are under infringement procedures initiated by the Energy Community Secretariat for not complying with emission limits.

Yet, in spite of this dire situation, governments in the region have done little even to monitor air quality and provide regular and real-time information to citizens in the coal regions, let alone implement measures that would bring down levels of pollution.

The time for coal-generated electricity is over. In its latest energy strategy, North Macedonia’s government set 2027 as the date for a coal phase-out – but this ambition needs to be translated into action.

Planning for a transition for the Bitola region is long overdue, and investments in energy transformation can no longer be delayed.

If the country is to follow its own government strategy, all these processes have to speed up.

Meanwhile, it is unacceptable for the authorities to avoid investing in pollution control for the REK Bitola mining and energy complex until it is closed.

Five more years – at least – of constantly living in an environment as polluted as Novaci’s will cost many more lives.

This article was first published on balkaninsight.com.

Bulgaria’s energy transition without Russian fossil gas and new nuclear capacity

Putin’s brutal aggression against Ukraine and the unprecedented sanctions imposed by the EU on Russia make it necessary to rethink the main directions of Bulgaria’s energy plans.

While the EU is attempting to minimise energy dependence on Russia, some Bulgarian politicians still wish to continue business as usual, serving private, oligarchic interests which reinforce corruption and increase energy dependence on Russia. This means blocking a European path that would allow for the country’s development in the direction of increasing energy efficiency, decentralisation of electricity production and easier access to renewable energy for households.

The Bulgarian government has neither the time nor any excuse to delay energy reforms. Adopting more ambitious green transition targets is a guarantee for increasing the country’s energy independence and for mitigating the consequences of new political and energy crises in the region. Such reforms will have strong support from the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility and Just Transition Fund.

The abandonment of the corruption-riddled project for the construction of the Belene Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), Unit 7 of the of the Kozloduy NPP and contracts with Gazprom is mandatory. Such a move has already been signalled by Bulgaria’s deputy prime minister Asen Vassilev, who recently stated that when Bulgaria’s 10-year deal with Gazprom expires at the end of 2022, Sofia will look elsewhere to meet its natural gas needs.

Nuclear and gas projects that are detrimental to the Bulgarian energy transition are still being considered viable options by some politicians. They still push for such harmful projects as the renewal of the discredited Belene NPP, which has caused losses of more than BGN 3 billion to the budget, or the construction of Gazprom’s Turkish/Balkan Stream.

Nuclear false solutions

The occupation of Chernobyl and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (the largest in Europe with six 1000-MW reactors) has been used as a threat during the war, which should raise concerns in the Bulgarian government about planned increases to Bulgaria’s nuclear power capacity.

The construction of new nuclear power plants in Bulgaria should be out of the question for obvious environmental and financial reasons.

Now, on top of that, any needed Russian equipment is impossible to obtain due to the EU sanctions, which will also affect the Belene project. EU sanctions have also put a stop to plans for expanding the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant with a Russian reactor. The US small modular reactors recently promoted by our politicians are not an alternative: they have no license anywhere in the world and the most optimistic date for building nuclear capacity based on such reactors is around 2035.

The Bulgarian government is furthermore facing a huge unresolved problem linked to the management and storage of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel at the Kozloduy plant, which will only worsen with the addition of another nuclear power plant.

For more on this topic, see Small modular reactors and big ambitions (in Bulgarian).

Gas pipe dreams

Europe’s vulnerability due to its dependence on fossil fuels is not a new problem. Back in early 2009, Putin demonstratively stopped gas supplies through Ukraine, which affected several EU countries, including Bulgaria. Unfortunately, no measures were taken to reduce the EU’s or Bulgaria’s dependence on Russian fossil gas.

The construction of the Turkish/Balkan Stream, a Gazprom project paid for with nearly 3 billion leva from the national budget, is completely meaningless for the Bulgarian energy transition. The war has also reminded us that it could be a serious concern for the country’s energy security, as well.

Fair and green energy transition

It is time to put an end to Bulgaria’s energy dependence on Russia, finally turning our attention to sustainable solutions for increasing the country’s energy independence, preserving nature and improving people’s quality of life.

The changed environment in Europe puts the Bulgarian government to the test of implementing real reforms for a faster fair energy transition. These are the necessary steps in this process:

Adoption of energy policies towards a green transition and a green economy.
Abandonment of energy mega projects – Belene, Kozloduy 7, combined-cycle power plants – which are blocking the development of the energy sector.
Development of an energy sector based on modern renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency and decentralisation of electricity production.
Investing in renewable energy and energy storage technologies will be a key focus in the coming years. Moreover, there will be additional funds from the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the Modernisation Fund, the Just Transition Fund and Territorial Just Transition Plans.
Planned and gradual decommissioning (phase-out) of coal plants, starting with those that have not met environmental standards for years. The Just Transition Fund should be used to make the energy transition fair for workers in the sector.
Establishing a detailed professional reorientation plan for employees affected by the energy transition, including the development of an analysis of the jobs currently held, education level and age group, based on which a clear strategy for employee opportunities after the phase-out of the coal facilities. This would significantly mitigate the negative attitudes of much of society in the region towards energy transition.

This has been adapted from the original article in Bulgarian: https://www.zazemiata.org/energien-prehod-bez-gazprom-aec/

Business with Russia: multilateral banks must rethink their approach to Russian exposure

The London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), created in April 1991 to ‘foster the transition towards open market-oriented economies and to promote private and entrepreneurial initiative’, has suspended investments in Russia since the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and in Belarus since the fraud elections in 2020.

In March, the Bank launched a formal resolution process with its Board of Governors to formally cut Russia and Belarus from its resources, which, when adopted by its Board of Governors, would allow it to stop disbursements under numerous sovereign infrastructure projects in Belarus.

In comparison, the EU-controlled European Investment Bank (EIB) suspended all such disbursements in the summer 2021, following adoption of EU sectoral sanctions.

Quite remarkably, the China-led, Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which typically does not demonstrate concern for human rights, also suspended all activities relating to Russia and Belarus calling a spade (war) a spade. The New Development Bank (known as the ‘BRICS bank’, with founding members Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) is much less outspoken, with its two-line statement on 3 March 2022 acknowledging that it had ‘put new transactions in Russia on hold’ amid ‘unfolding uncertainties and restrictions’.

Some multilateral institutions, including the EIB, EBRD and IMF-World Bank Group have already announced resilience packages to help Ukrainian citizens, companies and institutions affected by the war. The EUR 2 billion resilience package from the EBRD also includes support for neighbouring countries affected by the humanitarian crisis, as nearly 4 million refugees have fled the war in Ukraine.

In parallel, in response to the shock of Russian aggression, over 400 companies (including Microsoft, Apple, Volvo, Rolls Royce, Toyota, etc.) are pausing, pulling out, divesting, or winding down their business in Russia and Belarus.

IKEA – which remained deaf to the calls of Belarusians activists and its own trade unions to stop purchasing timber from Belarusian dictator – felt it had to pause all export from and import to Russia and Belarus and closed its stores. British-American Tobacco, who also showed unfettered support to the Belarusian dictator and his cronies until it had to stop operations in Belarus as a result of US sanctions, first stated that it would continue its operations in Russia before making a U-turn just two days later.

Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Crédit Agricole and Commerzbank AG made important steps in cutting ties with Russia; others like Intesa Group, Société Générale and Auchan are still pursuing a ‘business as usual’ approach towards Russia.

While Italian bank Unicredit is ‘considering exiting Russia’, Austrian Raiffeisen is taking time to assess its ‘strategic options’ in the country. Raiffeisen, with 4.2 million customers and EUR 22.9 billion in direct exposure to Russia, is actually one of the few western lenders to have increased its presence there following the annexation of Crimea eight years ago. Hungarian OTP Group also plans to stay in Russia in the long term.

Even though most of the multilateral development banks have pulled out of Russia and Belarus (see above), they are still prepared to finance commercial banking groups present there. By doing so, they indirectly support these businesses’ operations in Russia and Belarus and hence, Putin’s war and Lukashenko’s assistance and domestic repression.

Here are some illustrations:

Prior to the Russian agression in 2022, following allegations of support by Raiffeisen group (RBI) to the corrupt and terrorist regime of Lukashenko, the EBRD withheld any new financing to Raiffeisen’s local subsidiary, Priorbank. However, the London-based development bank never questioned the Raiffeisen group’s global attitude and RBI’s genuine commitment to their advertised ethical values and continued financing this group in many other countries (e.g. unfunded risk sharing with Raiffeisen Bank Romania, a EUR 100 million guarantee to Raiffeisen Bank Albania). This complacent attitude has certainly nothing to do with Raiffeisen group being the lead-sponsor of the EBRD Annual Meeting for years.
At this very moment, the EBRD is considering providing financing of EUR 48 million to Banca Intesa Belgrade. This group’s presence in Russia is ‘under strategic review’.

Multilateral development banks must not engage in double-talk – saying one thing while doing another. They must ensure that they do not support clients that choose to continue business in Russia or Belarus.

Bosnia and Herzegovina illegally extends lifetimes of deadly coal plants

Right at the end of last year, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBIH)’s Parliament adopted changes to the Law on Electrical Energy allowing the FBIH government to limit electricity price rises for companies if a price rise of more than 20 per cent is expected compared to the previous year. This was followed on 7 January this year by a government decision to do just that.

While undoubtedly motivated by real needs to shield certain consumers from the Europe-wide energy crisis caused by high gas prices and consequently high electricity prices this winter, the decision was taken in haste without any attempt to identify which companies would be most affected by price rises. It shields all types of companies, irrespective of their ability to pay.

The FBIH government’s decision instructs the Federal Ministry for Energy, Mining and Industry to analyse the impacts of the decision within three months of its entry into force, and if necessary to propose some adjustments. But already in early February, Elektroprivreda BIH wrote to the Federal Prime Minister saying that it wouldn’t be able to break even after this decision.

As a solution, Elektroprivreda BIH made two alternative proposals. The first was to use the electricity allocated for sale to ArcelorMittal Zenica for sale elsewhere at a higher price, and the second was to extend the lifetime of the Tuzla 4 and Kakanj 5 coal units.

These units are subject to a so-called ‘opt-out’ regime under the Energy Community Treaty, in which they are allowed to run for a maximum of 20,000 hours between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023. Bosnia and Herzegovina agreed to this decision, which represents a compromise for old plants that are still needed but for which it is not worth investing in additional pollution control equipment.

Bosnia and Herzegovina has known that this mechanism is available since 2013 and since 2016 it has been confirmed that these two units are on the opt-out list. This time should have been used for transitioning to new generation capacity, but the FBIH government and Elektroprivreda BIH have kept pushing the controversial Tuzla 7 project long after it should have been clear that it has no future, and have failed to invest in sufficient solar and wind capacity.

After exhausting their 20,000 hours, Tuzla 4 and Kakanj 5 are allowed to work only if they adhere to the emission limits for new plants from Annex V of the Industrial Emissions Directive. But this clearly isn’t going to be the case here, as no pollution control investments are planned. Coal power plants in Bosnia and Herzegovina already pollute almost ten times as much as allowed, so these lifetime extensions will only add to the pollution.

Instead of adjusting the hastily-made decisions limiting electricity price rises for companies, first the House of Representatives on 9 March and then the House of Peoples on 24 March accepted the government’s proposals, irrespective of the law and people’s health, despite being warned by civil society organisations and the Energy Community Secretariat that the move was illegal.

The move to extend the coal units’ lifetime is seen by some as a victory for FBIH’s miners, who justifiably fear for their employment. But in reality, the decision is yet another short-term sticking plaster to get the government through to this October’s elections. It is not even clear how long Tuzla 4 and Kakanj 5 can technically operate for, given that they are both more than fifty years old.

Meanwhile, decisions that would really help to orient Bosnia and Herzegovina’s energy sector and enable a planned and participatory just transition for mining communities are inexcusably delayed. Despite work having started on the country’s Integrated Energy and Climate Plan several years ago, no draft is yet publicly available, while a new draft FBIH Law on Renewable Energy has been inexplicably languishing in a government drawer since 2019. A temporary solution to connect Tuzla’s district heating to the existing unit 6 instead of unit 4 has also been delayed. These simply must move forward if Bosnia and Herzegovina is to avoid a major energy crisis in the next few years.

The river Bosna – a neglected gem of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The River Bosna in September 2021, photo: Dobrica Mitrović

The Bosna is the largest river that is completely within Bosnia and Herzegovina. From its source in the outskirts of Sarajevo, it flows north for 271 kilometres to its mouth in the river Sava. Surprisingly, it is also one of the few large Balkan rivers with no hydropower plants or major dams, despite some plans being around for decades.

After concerns were raised by environmental organisations and protests from local people, on 28 January 2022 Germany’s KfW bank confirmed it was dropping financing plans for the 13 MW Janjići hydropower plant near Zenica. But Bosnian power utility Elektroprivreda BiH is still trying to push forward this project as well as the larger Vranduk plant downstream.

Shortly after the news about Janjići, people from Kakanj – a few kilometres upstream – strongly opposed a new plant called Bilješevo and the municipal council refused to give consent for the plant until a public consultation has been carried out.

Due to the threats from hydropower construction and a lack of updated knowledge about the biodiversity of the Bosna, CEE Bankwatch Network and the local NGO Eko Forum Zenica organised a survey of the aquatic animals that inhabit the river. Our study found proof that the globally threatened Danube salmon, also known as huchen (Hucho hucho) and the recently described Sava bleak (Alburnus sava) inhabit the river. With at least 17 species of fish protected by the Bern Convention and the EU Habitats Directive still found in the river, it is crucial to include Bosna in the Emerald Network, the pan-European ecological network.

The survey among fishermen in Zenica

30 face-to-face interviews were carried out in December 2021 with local fishermen from around Zenica who regularly fish on the river Bosna. They shared their knowledge on all the fish and other animals they knew from the river, the best fishing areas, the quantities of fish that could be caught in a day, and the threats and changes to the river. After the interviews they also shared photos of fish caught recently in the river.

“We have been fishermen for generations and we have taught many people to love fish. Zenica has many fishermen”, explains a fisherman from the Kanal district of Zenica.

A total of 34 fish species were described by the local fishermen, most of them of fishing importance, but also many rare species whose habitats need to be protected in Europe (see Table 1 below). The exact scientific names were verified afterwards by ichthyologists whom Bankwatch contacted and they gave their opinion that a few other species probably occur in the river, elevating the total number to above 40.

All the fishermen described how, during the 1990s war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, much of the industry along the river was destroyed, which led to the self-purification of the river and the quick recovery of aquatic life. In recent years, the water quality has deteriorated due to industry and construction of roads, but still a lot of fish survive.

“The river Bosna has always been rich in fish. The improvement of water quality during the war led to a large migration of fish from the Sava, so that’s when there was the most fish, and they’ve largely remained today”, says another fisherman from Nova Zenica.

Fifteen of the fishermen affirmed that the Danube salmon was still found in the river, although some commented that it was on the brink of extinction. Nevertheless, the photos we received of two large individuals caught in the winter 2020-2021 in the river Bosna show that the Danube salmon still inhabits the river.

Other protected fish known by the fishermen include the asp (Aspius aspius), Danube barbel (Barbus balcanicus), Vladykov’s lamprey (Eudontomyzon vladykovi), Balkan loach (Cobitis elongata) and even the Sava bleak (Alburnus sava) which was described as a new species for the first time in 2017.

Danube salmon caught in the river Bosna - winter 202021 2

Danube salmon caught in the river Bosna – winter 2020/21, photos from local fisherman courtesy of Eko Forum Zenica

Sava bleak caught in the river Bosna, July 2021, photo from local fisherman courtesy of Eko Forum Zenica

Most of the fishermen confirmed the presence in the river of otter and crayfish, but interestingly, thirteen fishermen also knew of the presence of the Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber), another species protected by national and European legislation. It seems that the species has recolonised the Bosna recently as the beaver population in the country is growing. A beaver family was found already in 2009 on the river Lašva, a left tributary of the Bosna.

Sixteen of the fishermen said that in recent years they’ve been able to catch more than five kilograms of fish on the best days; nine said that they could catch between two and five kg and only five said that they could catch between one and two kg. The reported quantities before 2010 were slightly higher, with 20 fishermen reporting more than five kg on the best days. “The river Bosna is still rich in fish, but the law limits the catch to eight specimens”, says another local fisherman.

A large individual of European grayling caught in the river Bosna, photo from local fisherman courtesy of Eko Forum Zenica

Most of the fishermen reported problems with waste, pollution, construction and illegal fishing in the river, but still believe that the Bosna and its fish are hugely important for local people. What all of them fear is the construction of hydropower plants. “If they build a hydropower plant in Janjići, all the fish upstream from Zenica will disappear,” says a fisherman from Raspotočje.

How can we explain the extraordinary importance of Bosna for the protection of fish?

Popularly known as being very polluted from industry and wastewater, few people can imagine the incredible aquatic life the river Bosna now supports. There are several reasons for this:

The river’s self-purification capacity. It is still almost natural, with no major construction in the riverbed. Its diverse natural habitats, like the spectacular rapids near Janjići and the riparian forests along its whole length, help the river clean itself. Investigations show that the self-purification of streams from nitrates and phosphates is more effective in natural stretches than in regulated stretches.
The destruction of much of the industry along the river during the 1990s war. Although the city of Zenica suffers from serious industrial pollution, it seems that the pollution levels are still not like those in the Yugoslav times.
The size of the river Bosna. The large volumes of water the river carries still allows most of the fish species to survive. The average annual outflow in the lower stretch of the Bosna is 142 m³/sec and pollution can be diluted in a lot of water. According to the Environmental Impact Assessment report of the Janjici plant, the affected river stretch is in good ecological status based on macroinvertebrate indices.
The lack of dams and other barriers in the river. There is no major barrier stopping fish migration from the Danube, through the Sava and Bosna rivers all the way to Sarajevo. This allows many species to move from one stretch to another depending on the conditions and their ecological needs.

Time to throw away old assumptions

Old assumptions that the “river is already in heavy use, as a result of which its ecological condition is already being impacted” need to be forgotten. Our survey confirmed that river Bosna is a highly valuable river.

Because of the quantity and quality of fish and other rare animals, in 2015 scientists working on the creation of the Natura 2000 network in Bosnia and Herzegovina proposed it for protection as the Rijeka Bosna Natura 2000 site. With stricter control of pollution and implementation of restoration activities, the river Bosna would further improve its status and become even more attractive for local people and for international fishing tourism. But in order to achieve that, the authorities will need to drop all plans to build hydropower projects here.

Table 1. Fish species reported from the river Bosna by local fishermen:

This publication was produced in collaboration with EuroNatur and RiverWatch in the frame of the Save the Blue Heart of Europe campaign, with financial support from MAVA Foundation.

« Previous Page