Nove hidroelektrarne na Savi?
Državni zbor je danes obravnaval predlog Zakona o načinu izgradnje infrastrukture in pogojih koncesije za izkoriščanje energetskega potenciala srednje Save. Predlog zakona je s podporo še 19 poslancev tako iz koalicijskih kot opozicijskih strank vložil poslanec Ivan Hršak iz poslanske skupine DeSUS. Predlog predvideva podelitev koncesije za dobo 50 let družbi Srednjesavske elektrarne, ki je v 100-odstotni lasti Holdinga slovenske elektrarne, ta pa bi na srednji Savi zgradila tri hidroelektrarne. Hršak je predlog zakona vložil samostojno, saj naj bi 8 mesecev čakal na podporo največje koalicijske stranke SMC in je nato ni dobil. Predlogu zakona okoljevarstvene organizacije nasprotujejo iz več razlogov. Moti jih izključitev iz postopka oblikovanja predloga in sam predlog, ki po njihovih besedah ne upošteva naravovarstvenih predpisov.
Predlog zakona predvideva podelitev koncesije na delih vodnega telesa reke Save med Medvodami in Zidanim Mostom, tako imenovane srednje Save.
Razloge za vložitev zakona in glavne rešitve, ki jih prinaša, pojasni prvopodpisani poslanec Ivan Hršak.
Po njegovih besedah gre za pomemben razvojni projekt tako za Republiko Slovenijo kot zasavsko regijo.
Hršak kot enega od razlogov izpostavlja tudi, da gre pri hidroelektrarni za obnovljiv vir električne energije.
Pred vložitvijo predloga zakona v parlament javna razprava po besedah več sogovornikov ni bila opravljena. To predstavlja kršitev Aarhuške konvencije, ki ureja dostop do informacij in obveznost udeležbe javnosti v okoljskih zadevah. Da gre za postopkovno kršitev, pojasni Gregor Danev z Zavoda Republike Slovenije za varstvo narave.
Lokalne skupnosti zakon sicer podpirajo, saj podpirajo vsakršno investicijo v regijo. Vendar bi si tudi one v tako velik projekt, kot je izgradnja hidroelektrarn na Savi, želele biti vključene. To pove Tomaž Trotovšek iz Razvojnega sveta zasavske regije.
Hršak očitke, da se z lokalnimi skupnostmi ni posvetoval, zavrača.
Predlogu zakona v okoljevarstvenih organizacijah nasprotujejo. Izpostavljajo, da se območje srednje Save nahaja na območjih Nature 2000. Gre za območja, na katerih je vpliv človeka minimalen in so posebej zaščitena. Ravno zato mora biti vsakršen poseg vanje previden. Pojasni Mihael Toman iz Biotehniške fakultete.
Predlog zakona ne upošteva okoljskega poročila za nacionalni energetski program, ki je ugotovilo vpliv hidroelektrarn na srednji Savi. Postavitev hidroelektrarne namreč vpliva na tok reke, estetski videz in širši ekosistem. Tako Toman.
Zaradi izjemnega vpliva hidroelektrarne na naravni habitat rib, ki v Savi živijo, predlogu zakona nasprotujejo tudi v Ribiški zvezi Slovenije, kot pove predsednik upravnega odbora zveza Miroslav Žaberl.
Pri izgradnji hidroelektrarn je z vzpostavitvijo ribjih stez mogoče in v skladu z evropsko zakonodajo celo nujno poskrbeti za ribe. Vendar pretekla praksa v Sloveniji ni šla v tej smeri. Tako Žaberl.
Zakon v 4. členu sicer določa, da mora biti vpliv na okolje upoštevan, vendar zahteve niso dovolj jasne. Tako Danev.
Poslanci bodo o predlogu zakona glasovali jutri.
Uredniški izbor
Napovedi
Prikaži Komentarje
Komentarji
read!!!
http://longreads.tni.org/state-of-power-2018/flowing-movement-building-a...
when it is still not too late !!!!!!
1.A global corporate elite runs financial and trade flows, geopolitics and the mass media.
2.This has a direct impact on water-management policies: as well as promoting the privatization of water supply and sanitation services, they are pursuing structural reforms whose aim is to ensure that water is available for open-cast mining and energy projects (hydroelectric power plants, fracking and biofuels).
3.Against the attempts to centralize decision-making so that it serves the accumulation of wealth and power, political actors are seeking to introduce democratic, decentralized forms of government so that communities at different levels can take control of the management of water and watersheds.
4.Article 4 of the constitution states that ‘Everyone has the right to access clean, good quality water in sufficient quantities and at affordable rates for their personal and domestic use, together with sanitation services for its disposal.
5.As a result of this constitutional reform, something very unusual took place in Mexico: civil society got organized, without going through the political parties, and drew up a citizens’ initiative for the law.
6.The proposal was not only to draft a Citizens’ Initiative for the General Water Law (IC-LGA); what ultimately brought us together was the aim of building what we call good governance of water, meaning the democratic, participatory, decentralized and sustainable management of water and watersheds.
7.Those currently involved in Water for All include some trade unions and rural organizations, grassroots church communities, journalists and lawyers, as well as several community water committees, CSOs and academics.
8.Mexico is a country of huge social, cultural and climate contrasts. More than half the population lives in poverty, while a few families are among the richest in the world.
9.At the other extreme are the gigantic works of infrastructure with which the megacities seek to meet their water supply and waste-water drainage needs.
10. evo Mira Cerarja: naš je naš!!!!!
Mexico’s water policy has tended to be centralized. The federal government, through the National Water Commission (CONAGUA), has the power to award concessions. Although there have been processes of decentralization since 2004, they have not led to more social and community participation but rather to increased private-sector involvement.
11.In many cases, funds are used in a discretionary way to benefit party-political or private interests.
12.The ineffectiveness of municipal service operators has been used as an argument in favour of privatizing the services. At the same time, as we mentioned earlier, water is becoming a key factor in mining and energy projects.
13.The government’s proposed law favoured privatization and the use of water by different types of megaprojects. It also perpetuated the ‘linear’ and ‘pipe-heavy’ features of the previous law: linear, because it continues to suggest that water management should be based on the extraction > transport > use > pollution > waste sequence rather than a cyclical arrangement; and ‘pipe-heavy’ because it proposes to build transport, pumping and drainage infrastructure, bringing water over great distances in order to supply homes and industries, with adverse, sometimes irreversible, effects on watersheds and the expropriated communities.
da pritisnemo:
1) before taking the decision to implement a project, the state must provide peoples and communities with complete information, which must include studies of the project’s social, cultural and environmental impact, and
2) before issuing any authorization and/or permit, the state must organize a consultation to obtain the community’s consent, and it must take place in the community’s language, abide by its usages and customs, and last as long as may be necessary’.
Komentiraj