dw.com
Buk-Bijela Hydroelectric Plant: Revived Project Faces Legal and Environmental Hurdles
The Republika Srpska's plan to build the Buk-Bijela hydroelectric plant on the Drina River, despite legal challenges and environmental concerns, reignites a 20-year-old debate over the Tara River's preservation.
- How do the legal and political disputes surrounding the project affect its feasibility and environmental impact assessment?
- The project, valued at €250 million, has faced delays due to legal challenges and interstate disputes. The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina ruled against the Republika Srpska's claim of jurisdiction, citing the river as state property. Despite this, construction has partially commenced.
- What are the immediate impacts of the proposed Buk-Bijela hydroelectric plant on the Tara River and surrounding communities?
- The Republika Srpska plans to build the Buk-Bijela hydroelectric plant, despite a 2004 declaration banning construction in the Tara River canyon. A new proposal suggests a lower dam, claiming it won't affect Montenegro's territory. However, environmental concerns remain, impacting tourism and biodiversity.
- What are the long-term ecological and socio-economic consequences of the Buk-Bijela hydroelectric plant, considering its potential impact on biodiversity and tourism?
- The planned hydroelectric plant raises significant ecological concerns, potentially harming the Tara River ecosystem. A new environmental impact study is underway, expected in May 2024, but initial drafts downplay the risks. The long-term consequences for biodiversity and local communities remain uncertain, particularly in light of past environmental damage.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article is largely negative towards the dam project. The headline (while not explicitly provided in the text) would likely emphasize the controversy and potential environmental damage. The inclusion of quotes from local residents expressing concerns about the impact on tourism and the detailed description of past protests set a negative tone. The article prioritizes the environmental arguments and the opposition's voices, shaping the reader's perception of the project as predominantly harmful.
Language Bias
The language used throughout the article leans towards portraying the dam project negatively. Terms like "uništi ekosistem", "nepovratno promeni pejzaž", and "štetne uticaje" are used to describe potential consequences, suggesting a strong negative connotation. While these terms accurately reflect concerns about the project, they lack the neutrality expected in objective reporting. More neutral alternatives such as "affect the ecosystem", "alter the landscape", and "potential negative impacts" could be used.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the perspectives of those opposed to the dam project, giving less weight to the arguments in favor. While it mentions the claims of the proponents that the dam will not affect Montenegro and will even benefit the fish population, it does not delve deeply into these claims and mostly presents them as counterarguments to the opposition's points. The lack of detailed analysis of the economic benefits of the dam and the potential employment opportunities it could create also constitutes a bias by omission.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by focusing primarily on the environmental concerns and opposing voices, thus creating an impression that the only significant aspect of the project is its potential negative environmental impact. The economic and energy security benefits are mentioned but not explored in depth.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the potential negative impacts of the Buk-Bijela hydroelectric power plant on the Tara River ecosystem, a key component of the Durmitor National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage site. The construction threatens the biodiversity of the area and the livelihoods of local communities dependent on tourism. Quotes highlight concerns about ecosystem destruction and the irreversible changes to the landscape. This directly contradicts efforts to protect terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity, crucial aspects of SDG 15.