Recent public statements and media reports concerning the Bala II project have created a misleading picture of WWF Central and Eastern Europe’s role in this matter. I would therefore like to clarify the facts.
WWF-CEE did not take legal action against the Romanian Government, did not challenge the Government Decision approving the Bala II project, and did not ask the European Commission to stop, suspend or withdraw funding for the project.
Our involvement concerned whether the project, including its proposed technical solution, complied with the environmental requirements and commitments applicable to it.
The Bala II project was designed to improve navigation conditions on the Danube while also ensuring environmental protection and conditions for sturgeon migration. Its official objectives include, among others, ensuring conditions for sturgeon migration. These were therefore not additional requirements introduced by WWF. They were part of the project as developed and submitted by the Romanian authorities.
WWF-CEE became concerned that the proposed technical solution might not adequately meet these objectives and requirements and could generate significant environmental and hydrological risks. These concerns were based on technical analysis and related, among other matters, to the project’s potential effects on water flows, habitats and sturgeon migration.
We first sought to resolve these concerns directly with the Romanian authorities.
WWF-CEE, through WWF-Romania, first wrote to the Ministry of Transport, setting out the relevant technical and environmental concerns and requesting that the identified problems be addressed. The engagement that followed did not substantially resolve the issue raised.
Only after this attempt at direct institutional dialogue, did WWF-CEE bring the outstanding concerns to the attention of the European Commission, as the institution financing the project and therefore a key stakeholder in its implementation.
This communication was submitted to the European Commission as a complaint and is being handled under its complaint procedure. It is important, however, not to confuse this administrative classification with legal action against the project. We did not initiate court proceedings. We did not seek the annulment of the Government Decision. We did not ask the European Commission to stop financing the project.
We informed the European Commission of unresolved concerns regarding the environmental and technical requirements associated with an EU-funded project, after first attempting to address those concerns directly with the Romanian authorities. Any subsequent decision concerning the financing of the project was a decision for the European Commission to take.
The European Commission has confirmed that the procedure remains open while it facilitates and monitors dialogue between the relevant parties. It has also stated that it remains open to any appropriate solution, provided it complies fully with EU and national legislation, is based on a sound analysis of options and results from meaningful consultation with relevant stakeholders. This is also WWF-CEE’s position.
The current public debate has also presented Bala II primarily as a project intended to secure cooling water for the Cernavodă Nuclear Power Plant. WWF-CEE recognises the seriousness of the exceptionally low Danube water levels and the resulting implications for Romania’s energy security. However, presenting the supply of cooling water as the project’s primary purpose does not accurately reflect the project’s stated objectives. According to the project documentation, its general objective concerns the development of inland waterway transport while ensuring navigation and environmental protection conditions on the Danube. Its specific objectives did not include ensuring the necessary water flow for the cooling of Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant. Therefore, the contribution of the project to securing the minimum water flow required for cooling the Cernavodă reactors is identified as an indirect benefit, rather than as the project’s principal objective.
This distinction matters. Severe drought and exceptionally low water levels on the Danube, against the broader backdrop of climate change, have created serious operational concerns for the Cernavodă Nuclear Power Plant. Recasting the Bala II project as though its primary purpose had been to prevent this situation risks conflating two distinct issues and misrepresenting the project’s stated objectives. Such a narrative does little to help identify the real causes of the current challenges or the solutions needed to address them, least of all in the interest of the Romanian public.
Environmental protection was not an obstacle imposed on the project from outside. It was part of the project itself. The Romanian authorities formally assumed these environmental commitments as part of the project, and compliance with them was therefore an integral part of its implementation. WWF-CEE’s role was to raise concerns when we considered that these commitments were not being adequately met, first with the responsible Romanian authorities and subsequently with the European Commission when those concerns remained unresolved.
It is therefore misleading to suggest that WWF blocked an infrastructure project by raising environmental concerns. Asking that the commitments incorporated into an EU-funded project be respected is part of responsible oversight and constructive engagement. The challenges facing the Danube are real and increasingly complex. Navigation, energy security, climate resilience, local communities and the protection of one of Europe’s most valuable river ecosystems must all be taken seriously. These interests should not be set against one another.
WWF-CEE remains ready to engage constructively with the European Commission, the Romanian authorities, technical experts and other relevant stakeholders in identifying a solution for the Bala area that is technically sound, environmentally responsible and capable of delivering lasting benefits. What is needed now is a fact-based discussion focused on solutions, institutional responsibility and the long-term interests of the Danube and the communities that depend on it.
Andreas Beckmann
CEO, WWF Central and Eastern Europe
