Strasbourg, 31 August 2004
[files03e_2004.doc]
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE
AND NATURAL HABITATS
Standing Committee
24th meeting
Strasbourg, 29 November - 3 December 2004
Possible New File
Shipping canal in the Bystre estuary
(Danube Delta, Ukraine)
Report of the on-the-spot appraisal
(22-24 July 2004)
by
Mr Hervé Lethier EMC²I (Switzerland)
Secretariat Memorandum
prepared by
The Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage l
This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy.
Ce document ne sera plus distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire.
-2-
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
I. TERMS OF RÉFÉRENCE
The visit took place from 22 to 25 July 2004 (cf Appendix 1), in the presence of the Head of the
Council of Europe's Natural Heritage and Biological Diversity Division.
Its purpose was to1:

examine the project to build a shipping canal using the Bystre estuary, located in the Ukrainian
sector of the Danube delta;

assess the possible impact on fauna and flora species and their habitats;

study the legal status of the area concerned, paying particular attention to the transfrontier
context;

examine financing arrangements;

dialogue with the authorities and the NGOs concerned;

make appropriate recommendations to the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention.
II BACKGROUND
The Bern Convention secretariat received a complaint by letter dated 10 February 2004 from the
"Danube environmental forum" association concerning the ecological impact of the Bystre shipping
canal project on biological diversity in the Danube delta.
The secretariat contacted the Ukrainian authorities on 26 February, asking them for a summary of
the environmental impact study for the works envisaged, on the grounds that these works could
seriously affect populations of species protected by appendix II to the Bern Convention and might be
in breach of Ukraine's international commitments, particularly in respect of articles 4 and 6 of that
Convention.
The Bureau of the Convention Committee examined the complaint on 16 April 2004 and
proposed that an on-the-spot appraisal be organised; the Ukrainian authorities agreed to the appraisal
in principle on 12 May 2004.
III DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS INTEREST
The site is located in the active part of the Danube delta, on the territory of Ukraine, close to the
small town of Vilkovo built on the left bank of the river's Chilia arm. It lies within the wetland of
international importance of "Kiliyskiye mouths"2 and the Dunayskiy reserve3, which is part of the
Danube delta transfrontier biosphere reserve forming an ensemble of some 700 000 ha, of which 17%
is in Ukraine4.
1
Mission order DG IV FB/vdc of 21 June 2004.
Designated on 23 November 1995.
3
Designated on 10 August 1998.
4
46 492 ha.
2
-3-
Map 1: Europe, location of the site (source, WWF)
Map 3: Danube delta, location of the site
(source DDBR).
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
Map 2: Danube catchment basin, location of the site
(source, WWF)
Map 4: Danube delta transfrontier biosphere reserve,
Ukrainian sector (source: UNESCO).
The European and international importance of the Danube delta is well documented. This
wetland forms a homogeneous and functional ecosystem that is unique in Ukraine, in Europe and even
in the world, shared by three countries: Moldova but essentially Ukraine and Romania. The surface
area of this continuous expanse is comparable to that of Europe's other great wetlands, such as the
Coto Donana, Spain (55 000 ha) and the Camargue, France (85 000 ha).
Some members of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly recently reiterated the
importance of this area, deploring threats to European deltas and more specifically to the Danube
delta, in connection with the present project5.
5
Motion for a resolution, "Protection of European deltas" (Doc. 10194, 3 June 2004).
-4-
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
Map 5: Dunayskiy biosphere reserve, Ukraine (source, RDB)
The unity of the delta means that it is not possible in ecological terms to detach the Ukrainian
sector from the Romanian sector; natural processes follow their course on this scale and there are
close, ongoing relations of major significance between the physical and biological elements making up
the delta system as a whole. Indeed, it was this unity that prompted the signing, under the auspices of
the Council of Europe, of an Agreement on the creation and management of a transfrontier nature
protection area between Moldova, Romania and Ukraine, in the natural reserves of the Danube delta
and lower reaches of the Prut6, covering the project zone.
The sector concerned by the development project provides habitats for strictly protected species,
both plant (eg Salvinia natans) and animal: fish (eg Huso huso), mammals (eg Felis sylvestris, Lutra
lutra, Mustela lutreola etc) and birds (eg Cygnus cygnus, Larus minutus, Pelecanus crispus, Pelecanus
onocrotalus, Platalea leucorodia etc), listed in appendices I and II of the Bern Convention; some are
under threat worldwide (eg Numenius tenuirostris …). Large concentrations of water birds are also
regularly seen there (eg Branta ruficollis, Egretta garzetta, Haliaeetus albicilla, Platalea leucorodia,
Recurvirostra avosetta etc), during migration, breeding or wintering.
IV DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The region of Vilkovo has greatly suffered in recent years from the collapse of the portuary
activities that formed the cornerstone of its economy, leaving it profoundly marked by a heavy
shortfall in employment. That is why the Ukrainian government wishes to revitalise the river transport
sector7, and therefore adapt and modernise the existing infrastructures.
All of the foodstuffs coming from the Black Sea currently transit via the Sulina arm, particularly
via the port of the same name located on Romanian territory; accordingly, all of the trade revenue
generated by river transport activities contributes to the economy of this neighbouring country while
bypassing Ukraine.
6
7
Date of signature, 5 June 2000.
The project is expected to generate 4 500 new direct and indirect jobs (unofficial source).
-5-
4
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
3
21
A
B
2
Map 5: main infrastructure alternatives (1, Bystre canal; 2, Ochakivskiy arm; 3, artificial channel of
Zhebryanskaya bay; 4, irrigation channel)
artificial dikes
alternatives
The project therefore entails creating in the Ukrainian part of the delta a shipping channel
ultimately capable of accommodating 10 000-tonne vessels that would attract a share of these
activities by cutting both transport distances8 and costs9. This is a praiseworthy intention on the part of
the Ukrainian authorities, facing a tricky socio-economic situation which they wish to improve in the
general interest of the country and for the well-being of its people.
Ten or so technical alternatives have been considered; studies were produced for eight of these,
and for four of them in greater detail (map 5). The choice was made to rehabilitate the estuary and the
Bystre canal (1), running over a stretch of 13 km, which carried shipping until 1958 and is located in
the active part of the delta at the heart of the core area of the biosphere reserve.
The works, contracted to a German company, began on 1 May 2004 and, up to the day of the onthe-spot appraisal10, had entailed dredging the bottom of the estuary about 1 km from the shore, in
order to create a shipping channel along which vessels can reach the Bystre canal.
8
At present, ships coming from the Black Sea in the direction of Vilkovo cannot use the Chilia arm because of a
submerged transversal sill in the river mouth; their passage through the Bystre canal would be shortened by
between 500 and 600 km and take place wholly on Ukrainian territory (unofficial information from Delta pilot).
9
By half according to estimates (unofficial figures from Delta pilot).
10
Carried out on 23 July 2004.
-6-
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
A partly immersed dike (A)11, about 1 km long and running NE-SW, must ultimately be built in
the estuary zone, in order to limit blocking of the access channel by natural deposits produced by the
dominant E-SE marine currents. The dike will be built using rock-based materials, it will rise about
0.50 m above the water surface and be about 3 m wide at the top. A lengthways protection barrier
must also be built within the Bystre canal, on the right bank side, running about 3.5 km from the shore.
All these works form phase 1 – the only phase authorised to date by the government – of a more
ambitious project, ultimately including dredging operations in the Chilia arm of the Danube at a dozen
or so sites, to facilitate shipping access to ports upstream on the lower Danube (phase 2).
This alternative was chosen on the basis of a financial analysis geared to the lowest cost and of
the canal's topographical features, its current depth, averaging 8 m, not necessitating, at this stage, any
special work to allow the transit of vessels; it was deemed legitimate in a resolution adopted at the
close of an international workshop organised in Odessa from 16 to 20 October 2003, bringing together
international experts from six countries12.
However, a question may be raised over the project's cost-effectiveness, with the cost of phase 1
alone evaluated at some 10 million euros and additional costs of maintaining the canal put at 250 000
euros/year13. Counting all the phases, the project would represent an investment of 30-40 million
euros, to be considered in relation to the expected number of ships using the canal (1 000-1 500
vessels/year, or about 3-5 vessels/day) and jobs created - some 4 500 (the small town of Vilkovo,
which would be the prime beneficiary of the operation currently has a population of 10 00014).
Further analysis is not possible on the strength of the economic evaluation data provided.
Moreover, the appraisers were not made aware of any risk studies.
V IMPACT ANALYSIS
Such a project would have both direct and indirect effects, linked to the construction of the
installations and their use15. In the case at hand the impact will be all the greater in that the
infrastructures are located at the heart of the active part of the delta, in the Ukrainian sector which is
the most dynamic in hydraulic terms, the most interesting and the most sensitive as regards biological
and landscape diversity.
To sum up, the project would adversely affect:

species, particularly birds, which would be subject to significant disturbances from the passing of
shipping and the transformation of natural habitats, particularly marine and shore habitats; the
impact on fish stocks in this part of the delta is likely to be to the detriment of the primary
local economy;

the natural habitats16 themselves, on the shore and inland, particularly through the transformation
of the shoreline generated by the dike, which will induce a new current system and sedimentation
phenomena close to the canal entry point17, where important bird breeding grounds are currently
located;
11
The dike would rise about 50 cm above the water surface and be about 1 to 2 metres wide at the top.
Vietnam, Greece, Georgia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia.
13
Dredging of approx. 200 000 m3 of sediment/year (unofficial figure from Delta pilot).
14
For a regional population estimated at 140 000.
15
For further information see the Code of practices for the introduction of biological and landscape diversity
considerations into the transport sector (Nature and environment series, no. 131, Council of Europe publishing).
16
Deterioration, spread, fragmentation, penetration etc
17
It is likely that these alluviations will gradually reach the Sulina arm further to the south.
12
-7-
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3

the delta landscapes18;

the natural processes and more specifically the river dynamics19 largely instrumental in them.
During the appraisal Ukrainian experts mentioned the disturbance caused by the works in
progress to nesting bird colonies and the recent formation of a mineral deposit mark close to the shore
towards Sulina, seen as a direct consequence of the works. This seems likely but it is worth confirming
given the complexity of shoreline dynamics. Even so, the sedimentation conditions and the delta front
formation and development process will ultimately be significantly affected by the installations
envisaged, whose aim is precisely to modify them.
Moreover, it is likely that the drag current after dredging will modify the dynamics of the Bystre
canal and also the hydraulic system of the Chilia arm, with foreseeable consequences for the natural
balances of the delta's western sector, including the area located on Romanian territory. The
importance of these modifications is difficult to evaluate today in the absence of any precise data and
simulations provided to the expert; they will be only partly compensated for by the underlying
increase in the flow of the Chilia arm as the other arms upstream are naturally filled in. These
phenomena have been anticipated by the project developers, who do not rule out the necessity of later
building a deflector at the entry point to the Bystre canal, on the right bank of the Chilia arm, to limit
the diversion of water flow within the canal20.
In this connection, the report of the joint UNESCO/Ramsar appraisal made last October made it
clear that the impact study for the project was inadequate and recommended that a further study be
prepared, covering the full range of possible effects of such a development on the delta.
Despite the repeated requests made to the Ukrainian authorities prior to and during the present
appraisal visit, it has not been possible to obtain additional/more detailed information concerning, on
the one hand, the expected effects of the works and the prevention and compensation measures
envisaged and, on the other hand, the economic (and not solely financial) analysis of the other
technical alternatives possible. It is not certain either that the project reflects an integrated and
sustainable vision of regional development.
Finally, despite the shipping regulations that would apply to vessels transiting through the canal21,
at the heart of a sector of the delta that is currently free of any significant pressure from human
activity, the passing of large vessels and increased frequentation of the site can only have major
adverse effects on the biological and landscape quality of the sector and also of the entire lower
Danube delta.
18
Integrity, composition, noise etc
Water system and distribution (change in rhythms and flows).
20
Unofficial information from Delta pilot.
21
restriction of vessel tonnage (1 0000 t), the number of ships using the canal at one time (1 ship), speed (8
knots), noise (50 db at 500 m distance), constant electronic monitoring of ships, prohibition on mooring and
shore access etc (unofficial information from Delta pilot).
19
-8-
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
VI THE LEGAL CONTEXT
Ukraine has international commitments under several agreements that are strongly relevant to this
project; these are mainly and in chronological order of entry into force:

the Convention on the regime of navigation on the Danube22; however, this agreement applies
only to the river itself and the Sulina arm (art. 1);

the Convention on wetlands (Ramsar Convention)23: the convention places the parties under
obligation to formulate and implement their planning so as to promote the conservation of the
wetlands included in the List (art. 3), to compensate for any change made to such a wetland area
(art. 4.2), and to consult with each other concerning transfrontier wetlands (art. 5);

the Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals24; the Parties must
strive to conserve the habitats of the species listed in appendix I (eg Pelecanus crispus) and
prevent, remove, compensate for or minimise factors that are endangering or are likely to further
endanger these species (art III, 4.a, b, c);

the Africa-Eurasia migratory water bird agreement (AEWA)25, which covers numerous species
present in the project zone (eg Pelecanus onocrotalus and P. crispus, Casmerodius albus, Branta
ruficollis, Aythya nyroca, Botaurus stellaris, Numenius tenuirostris etc); the action plan
accompanying the agreement provides inter alia that the parties shall endeavour to give special
protection to those wetlands which meet internationally accepted criteria of international
importance (art. 3.2.2) and in particular to avoid degradation and loss of habitats that support the
aforementioned water bird populations (art. 3.2.3)26;

the Convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context (Espoo
Convention)27; in this connection the parties shall take all appropriate and effective measures to
prevent, reduce and control significant adverse transboundary environmental impact from
proposed activities (art. 2.1) and ensure that an environmental impact assessment is undertaken
prior to a decision to authorise or undertake an activity that is likely to cause a significant
adverse transboundary impact (arts. 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5);

the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to
justice in environmental matters (Aarhus Convention)28.
Three treaties, two of them regional, are of particular importance in the present case:

the European Landscape Convention29, committing the parties inter alia to devise transfrontier
programmes for the protection, management and development of transfrontier landscapes (art. 9);

the Agreement on the creation and management of a transfrontier nature protection area between
Moldova, Romania and Ukraine, in the natural reserves of the Danube delta and lower reaches of
the Prut. The agreement, deposited with the Council of Europe, has not been ratified by
Ukraine to date, but it has been signed by the authorities of that country and thereby constitutes a
22
Date of entry into force: 14 May 1949 (source: Ecolex).
Date of entry into force: 1 December 1991 (source: Ramsar Convention website).
24
Date of accession: 1 January 1999.
25
Signed on 16 October 1998 and ratified in 2002 (source: Biodiversity conservation of Ukraine, 2 nd national
report, 2003).
26
See also art. 4.3.1 and 4.3.5 concerning the projects and infrastructures likely to threaten the state of
conservation of the water birds present.
27
Date of entry into force: 20 October 1999.
28
Date of entry into force: 30 October 2001.
29
Date of signature: 17 June 2004.
23
-9-
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
strong political commitment on its part at regional level. It applies to the project zone and its aims
are precisely to (art. 2): maintain and improve the natural landscape and its special character,
conserve the natural heritage, preserve ecological and physical assets, … supervise and guide
economic, social and cultural activities, taking a global approach in accordance with the
principles of sustainable development …without modifying the character of the protected area,
any changes to this area requiring agreement between the parties (art. 1.3);

the Convention on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of the Danube30; there has
been correspondence on this subject between the Ukrainian authorities and the secretariat of the
convention.
In addition, there is currently a dispute between the Ukrainian government and the biosphere
reserves committee of UNESCO's MAB programme, as to whether the Bystre canal itself lies within
the strictly protected area of the Dunayskiy reserve. The ruling on this question will be interesting
from a legal viewpoint31 but is not relevant as regards the Bern Convention.
It is the Bern Convention that has the most to say regarding the lawfulness of this project32:

art. 4 of the Convention places the Parties under obligation to take appropriate and necessary
legislative and administrative measures to ensure the conservation of the habitats of the wild flora
and fauna species, especially those specified in Appendices I and II, whereas the construction of
the associated infrastructures, particularly the access channel and the dikes intended to protect it
against sedimentation, has the very purpose of modifying the maritime and shoreline dynamics
and will indeed transform the habitats frequented by such species, including areas used for
migration, wintering, staging and especially breeding, within the meaning of paragraph 4 of this
article;

art. 9 authorises the contracting parties to make exceptions from the provisions inter alia of article
4, on the dual conditions of there being no other satisfactory solutions (art. 9.1) and the exception
not being detrimental to the survival of the population concerned; while the planned installations
and their operation doubtlessly do not constitute a direct threat to the survival of a specific
population, it is clearly established that alternatives to this choice do exist and are technically
realistic and financially acceptable. We will consider this question in more detail later on;

finally, this exception must be made on specific grounds and it seems, in the case at hand, that the
project's priority public interest is the only ground that could be claimed; it will be for the bodies
of the Convention to appreciate whether this is a genuine claim, in the light of the site's
exceptional interest for European wildlife and natural habitats and in connection with the
existence of other possible alternatives, less costly in ecological terms.
It is clear from discussion on the spot and the lack of any information provided to the contrary
that the alternatives have not been examined in-depth and the option of developing the Bystre canal
was taken without the ecological costs being incorporated or the economic analysis - and not only the
financial aspects of the project - showing a positive outcome.
30
Date of entry into force: 13 March 2003 (source: Ecolex).
It is also to be noted that any modification made to the territory of a biosphere reserve must be submitted
beforehand to the international MAB (Man and Biosphere) Committee; in this connection, see the letters
SC/ECO/JR/5864/535 of 23 February and 23 July 2004, from UNESCO/Division of ecological sciences to the
National Committee for Ukraine in respect of UNESCO.
32
Date of entry into force: 1 May 1999 (source: Ecolex).
31
- 10 -
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
The evaluation of the project's impact within the meaning of the Espoo Convention (art. 2.3 in
particular) and the Aarhus Convention (art. 5) as well as the comparative analysis of the alternatives
are inadequate33 and the arguments put forward to date are not fully convincing34. Moreover, it appears
that, while Ukraine's scientific community did not oppose the principle of creating a shipping channel
in the region when consulted on the project, it did not regard the Bystre canal option as the best
alternative.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Three of the alternative routes are worth considering in closer detail (options referenced as nos. 2,
3 and 4 respectively on map no. 5)
All are located in the northern part of the delta, outside its active area, technically realistic and
financially more costly than the Bystre canal option but likely to entail substantially lower
environmental costs.

option 2: this would involve widening an existing navigable arm, the Ochakivsky arm, over a
distance of 18 km. This arm lies immediately south of Vilkovo, within the transit area and just at
the northern limit of the core area of the biosphere reserve; the waterway reaches the sea in the
north-east, flowing into Zhebryanskaya bay, close to old port infrastructures, although in a sector
used as a spawning ground by acipenseridae;

option 3: an artificial channel with locks would be created, linking the Chilia arm in the southwest to Zhebryanskaya bay, following a route from south-west to north-east of comparable length
to the previous option, and located a few kilometres north of Vilkovo. This appears to be the
preferred option of the Academy of Sciences, the reserve's administration and the local NGOs
and it could receive private funding35, which is furthermore in line with the priority given by the
States to developing "Type 2" partnerships. While keeping adequate control of the construction
and operation of the infrastructures36, it opens the way for more harmonious development of the
Vilkovo region, clearly distinguishing the active delta, with its natural role, from a zone of
economic activity close to the town and oriented towards the lower reaches of the Danube; this
would preserve both the interest of the biosphere reserve, which is home to most of the area's
wildlife, and the delta's natural habitat of European interest, without really compromising the
ecological characteristics of the wetland designated as internationally important under the
Ramsar Convention. In this connection, the argument put forward by the Ministry of the
Environment37 that this option would affect part of the wetland and dune habitats of ecological
interest must be seen in the relative context of the seriously damaged state of these areas as a
result of past forestry activities38 and strong pressure from human activity39. Ecological
restoration of these areas could even be undertaken on this occasion, by way of measures to
compensate for the infrastructure works. Finally, while the cost of widening the channel would
be double that of work on the Bystre canal, maintenance costs would be about one third of the
Bystre project, a definite economic advantage in the long term, which is where such a project
must be situated.
33
See also the report of the Ramsar/UNESCO appraisal visit of October 2003.
Letters no. 7097/26-7 of 24 June 2004 and no. 7196/26-7 of 29 June 2007 of the Ukrainian Minister of the
Environment, to Margot Wallstrom, European Commissioner, and to the Advisory committee for biosphere
reserves of UNESCO's MAB programme respectively. Letter sent by Sergiy Komarchuk to the Secretary
General of the Ramsar Convention in January 2004.
35
Unofficial statement by the engineer who designed the project.
36
Cf Johannesburg summit (2002) and 5th Ministerial Conference "an environment for Europe", (Kyiv, 2003).
37
Letter 7196/26-7 of 29 June 2004 of the Minister of the Environment to the Advisory committee for biosphere
reserves of UNESCO's MAB programme.
38
Artificial stands of Pinus nigra.
39
Unorganised tourism.
34
- 11 -

T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
option 4: another option would use an existing irrigation channel, about 60 m wide and currently
about 2 m deep, located a little further north than the previous option and linking the Chilia arm
to lake Sasyk. The project to develop this channel could form part of an overall development plan
for the area, including the rehabilitation of lake Sasyk, where there are major conservation
problems apparently linked to the present dike separating it from the sea. The lake is close to an
area where large-scale seaside tourism is being developed and, through such a scheme, could
have its ecological balance restored and constitute a major asset for local fishing and tourism
business, while making it possible to organise rational river transport activity, where appropriate,
including adequate portuary infrastructures which would not be possible with the Bystre canal
option. While it is financially more costly than the previous alternatives40, this option is the most
ambitious and most economically integrated, founded on a global sustainable development
approach for the Vilkovo region, where shipping business, among others, can play a significant
role. Like the previous two options, it has the benefit of sparing the active part of the delta and
preserving the integrity of its ecological assets, which might be enhanced by other more
acceptable ways and means, such as environmentally-friendly tourism.
The aforegoing factors call for the project to be reconsidered, not in terms of its purpose but as
regards its definition.
While it is conceivable that Vilkovo and its region can enjoy an economy partly based on the
development of river transport between the Black Sea and the lower Danube, the project must
nevertheless form part of a sustainable development approach based on the long term and seeking to
optimise the choices.
It is for the Ukrainian authorities alone to decide on the development choices they think best for
their country, but they also have an interest and a duty to ensure that, on the one hand, the strategies
adopted are fully compatible with Ukraine's international commitments and, on the other hand, that
their decisions are taken in the light of prior environmental impact analyses, taking all of the public
costs into account, including ecological costs, pollution and nuisances generated by the project:

legally speaking, it is considered that the obligations of Ukraine under articles 4 and 9 of the
Bern Convention are not satisfactorily fulfilled;

more generally as regards the content of the project, it is strongly recommended that the
Ukrainian authorities examine the alternative solutions in greater depth, thinking in the long term
and on the functional scale of the delta as a whole, with the assistance of the international
community.
These conclusions lead us to propose that the Standing Committee make the following
recommendations to the government of Ukraine:

to immediately suspend ongoing works in the Bystre canal estuary and abandon implementation
of phase 2 of the project, for the purpose of preventing any significant modification of natural
habitats of species listed in appendices I and II of the Convention and settled in the neighbouring
maritime and shoreline areas; to carry out in-depth monitoring in physical and biological terms of
the evolution of the Bystre estuary and canal;

to act on the recommendations set out in the UNESCO/Ramsar appraisal report (October 2003),
which called for a fuller and more in-depth environmental impact study, analysing and
comparing the costs to the public of the possible alternatives and the consequences of the works
at transfrontier level;
40
This option, like option 3, would require, for example, the building of a canal-crossing facility by the approach
roads to Vilkovo
- 12 -
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3

to organise an international workshop in autumn 2004, under the auspices of the Council of
Europe, with a view to drawing up a strategic plan for the sustainable development of the
Vilkovo region. This event, held at the invitation of the Prime Minister, should bring together,
alongside the ministries responsible inter alia for regional planning, environment, tourism and
transport, representatives of scientific bodies (Academy of Sciences, Kyiv University, Institute of
Ecology etc), local authorities (municipality of Vilkovo) and local NGOs, as well as the main
international organisations concerned by the project (MAB/UNESCO, Bonn/AEWA, Bern,
Ramsar conventions and ICPDR);

to invite the other two countries signatory to the trilateral agreement on cooperation in the natural
reserves of the Danube delta and lower reaches of the Prut, namely Moldova and Romania, to
participate in this event;

to ask for the assistance of international organisations to draw up this plan, in particular WWF
International and IUCN, and that of the multilateral lending agencies for its implementation (EU,
EBRD, World Bank etc);

to reinforce protection of the active part of the delta by including the delta isle of Limba, located
close to the mouth of the Chilia arm, right bank, in the core zone of the biosphere reserve, as well
as the habitats of major ecological interest, lying to the south of Vilkovo and currently included
in the reserve's buffer and transit zones.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks are due to the following individuals for their constant efforts to assist the smooth
running of the appraisal visit: Mrs Zarudna and Messrs Komarchuk, Syzov and Voloshkevich. Thanks
are also due to Mr Grytsenko, Deputy Minister for protection of the natural environment, and Mr
Tymoshenko, mayor of Vilkovo, for their hospitality, and to all the experts who provided information
for the members of the appraisal team, particularly the staff of the Danube biosphere reserve.
St Cergue, 4 August 2004
Hervé LETHIER
Le belvédère
Chemin de l’observatoire
1264 St Cergue
SWITZERLAND
- 13 -
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
APPENDIX 1
VISIT PROGRAMME
22 July afternoon
arrival in Kyiv
meeting at the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources
23 July morning
flight from Kyiv to Odessa
23 July afternoon
car journey from Odessa to Vilkovo
visit of the project zone (Bystre canal)
24 July morning
visit of the alternative sites
24 July afternoon
public meeting in the municipality of Vilkovo
24 July evening
car journey from Vilkovo to Odessa
25 July morning
summing-up meeting and discussion
25 July afternoon
departure from Odessa to Geneva
- 14 -
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
APPENDIX 2
Convention on the Conservation
of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
Standing Committee
Draft Recommendation No. … (2004) of the Standing Committee, examined on
3 December 2004, on the proposed excavation of a shipping canal in the Bystre estuary
(Danube Delta, Ukraine)
The Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural
Habitats, acting under the terms of Article 14 of the Convention,
Having regard to the aims of the Convention to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural
habitats;
Recalling that under Article 4 of the Convention each Contracting Party shall take appropriate and
necessary legislative and administrative measures to ensure the conservation of the habitats of the wild
flora and fauna species, especially those specified in Appendices I and II, and the conservation of
endangered natural habitats;
Recalling that Article 4 of the Convention stipulates that the Contracting Parties in their planning and
development policies shall have regard to the conservation requirements of the areas protected under
the preceding paragraph, so as to avoid or minimise as far as possible any deterioration of such areas;
Referring to the report of Mr Hervé Lethier on the project to re-excavate a shipping canal in the Bystre
estuary (Danube Delta, Ukraine), drawn up following his on-the-spot appraisal [document
T-PVS/Files (2004) ..];
Bearing in mind the work carried out by the Council of Europe under the Pan-European Biological
and Landscape Diversity Strategy, notably the code of practice for the introduction of biological and
landscape diversity considerations into the transport sector, as well as the targets for the setting-up of
the Pan-European Ecological Network decided at the 5th Ministerial Conference “an Environment for
Europe (Kyiv, May 2003);
Noting that the Danube Delta constitutes one of the most important hotspots of biological diversity of
the whole continent, which support globally threatened and other rare species and habitats of European
and world importance that Ukraine has undertaken to protect the Ukrainian part of the delta under its
national and international legislation;
Considering that the protected area concerned is the most important wetland in Ukraine, is a wetland
of international importance, as designated by Ukraine under the Ramsar Convention, has received
international recognition of its value as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and will be a major component
in the implementation of the Bern convention Emerald Network;
Conscious that economic imperatives linked to the development of the Danube Delta region have
received priority to environmental considerations on the long-term conservation of the area;
Noting with concern that the limits of the strictly protected core zone of the protected area have been
modified to exclude the Bystre estuary so that the proposed development could legally proceed;
Firmly stating that the modification of limits of protected areas to accommodate development projects
should in general be avoided, as it weakens any system of protected areas;
- 15 -
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
Considering that the excavation of the canal and its future use is likely to cause serious adverse
environmental damage and change the hydrological regime of part of the delta;
Noting that, as mentioned in the expert report of UNESCO and the Ramsar secretariat (October 2003),
no sufficient environmental impact assessment has been done before the start of the field operations
and was not still available during the appraisal;
Noting that the excavation of the shipping canal and its exploitation will deteriorate natural habitats
protected under Article 4 of the Convention and that the development will affect populations of
species protected under Article 6 of the Convention;
Noting that such engineering works and future shipping exploitation in an area of paramount
biological importance can only be contemplated as “exceptions” in the sense of Article 9 paragraph 1
of the Convention, that states that Parties “may make exceptions from the provisions of Articles 4, 5 ,
6 and 7”, among other reasons “in the interests of public health and safety, air safety or other
overriding public interests”;
Noting, however, that Article 9, paragraph 1 of the Convention, states that a Party “may make exceptions
of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 ... provided that there is no other satisfactory solution” and conscious that viable
alternative solutions exist, but that they have not been sufficiently explored and analysed, the project
chosen being the one that requested the smallest investment;
Noting that in this case Ukraine has failed to comply with the terms of the Convention and regretting that
it has not been possible to find so far an acceptable balance between development and conservation;
Transboundary aspects
Taking into account the transboundary aspects of the projects and the fact that not enough consultation
has been established with neighbouring states that may be affected;
Considering that the planned activities may have significant adverse transboundary environmental
impacts in the sense of the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a
Transboundary Context, and that these activities are among those listed in appendix 1, § 9 of the above
mentioned Convention;
Recalling that, under the aegis of the Council of Europe, the Minister of Environment and Territorial
Planning of the Republic of Moldova, the Minister of Waters, Forests and Environmental Protection of
Romania and the Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources of Ukraine signed in Bucharest,
on 5th June 200 an Agreement for the creation and management of a cross-border protected area
between Moldova, Romania and Ukraine in the Danube Delta and the lower River Prut nature
protected areas (document STRA-REP (2000) 8);
Regretting that the above-mentioned Agreement has failed to enter into force, as it article 7 states that
the “Agreement shall take effect on the date of receipt by the depositary of the last notification in
which the Parties shall inform on the completion of the legal procedures required under their national
law for the entry into force of this Agreement”, such notifications having not yet taken place;
Considering, however that by signing such Agreement the three states concerned have shown a
willingness to co-operate in the issues dealt with by the Agreement ;
Recalling that Article 1 of the above-mentioned Agreement refers to a “nature-protected zone
comprising the Lower River Prut Scientific Reserve of the Republic of Moldova, the Danube Delta
Biosphere Reserve of Romania and the Danube Biosphere Reserve of Ukraine”, noting that the
Agreement states that “The nature-protected zone can be modified by consensus of the Parties” and
unaware of any modification of the limits of the nature protection zone referred to in the Agreement;
Recalling that Article 2 of the above-mentioned Agreement states that “the Parties undertake to
conserve its natural heritage (fauna, flora, habitats) and preserve its ecological and physical assets”
and that “the Parties undertake to harmonise their methods of management and to co-ordinate all
development projects or improvements by means of a comprehensive action programme leading
- 16 -
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
ultimately to the development of a joint management plan” and noting with regret that the project to
excavate a shipping canal in the Bystre estuary has not been subject to the co-ordination referred to in
the Agreement;
Noting that the Agreement has not been properly implemented by the signatory Ministries and that
dialogue between neighbouring states concerning this project and other issues concerning the
ecological preservation of the Danube Delta has been imperfect;
Conscious of the need to reconcile the economic and ecological issues raised by this project and
convinced of the necessity to further explore alternatives that, being economically sound and
affordable, would be compatible with the preservation of the ecological character and functioning of
the Danube Delta,
Recommends Ukraine to:
1. suspend all works, including dragging in the Bystre arm of the Danube Delta (phase 1 of the
project) and abandon this and other projects (including foreseen phase 2) that would result in
fragmenting and affecting negatively the core zone of the protected area and the hydrodynamic
characteristics of the Danube Delta;
2 explore thoroughly other alternative solutions for creating or recreating a shipping canal in the
Danube Delta, assessing both the impact of the works and navigation on the protected areas, as well as
the secondary impacts that new activities (including industrial activities and housing) may cause in the
whole Danube Delta ecosystem; in this context prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment Report,
considering all possible alternatives, so as to minimise as far as possible deterioration of important
areas for biological diversity, especially in view of the recognised nature values of international
importance;
3 provide, in case of construction of a canal, for measures of ecological compensation for any
possible environmental damage; in that context consider the possibility to extend the core zone of the
protected area to the South West and to other appropriate ecologically valuable areas at the North East
of the protected area;
4 invite in the coming months the international community to participate in a process to elaborate a
Strategic Development Plan for the region that would stress the sustainability of social and economic
activities and would assure the maintenance of the unique ecological values of the area and their longterm preservation;
5 maintain the ecological integrity of the core zone of strict protection, consolidating a large area of
strict protection free as far as possible of human interference, placing to the North of the Reserve and
outside the protected area economic activities that are likely to negatively affect biological diversity,
such as industrial activities linked to shipping, new building, etc.
Recommends Moldova, Romania and Ukraine to
6 complete the legal procedures required under their national law for the entry into force of the
“Agreement for the creation and management of a cross-border protected area between Moldova,
Romania and Ukraine in the Danube Delta and the lower River Prut nature protected areas”, which
specifically aims at fostering dialogue among the three states concerning the maintenance of natural
landscapes, the conservation, monitoring and management of the Danube’s Delta natural heritage, the
protection of cultural heritage, the promotion of education for sustainable development, the
supervision and guidance of economic, social and cultural activities, among other issues; notify the
Council of Europe, as depositary of the Agreement , of the completion of appropriate legal procedures;
7 use the framework of that agreement to promote dialogue on environmental issues affecting the
biological diversity of the Danube Delta;
- 17 -
T-PVS/Files (2004) 3
Recommends that Ukraine
8 call without delay for a meeting of the states signatories of the Agreement to discuss relevant
matters concerning this issue and other relevant issues concerning the matters dealt with in the
Agreement;
Invites the Council of Europe, in its capacity of depositary of the Agreement to support as
appropriate the implementation of the Agreement.