The Ministry of Agriculture emphasizes that addressing the hydro potential of Bileća Lake primarily involves the route of Montenegro – BiH (Republika Srpska), particularly as parts of Montenegro are situated within the basin.

“With regard to the downstream utilization of Bileća Lake and its waters, solutions for these issues must be negotiated trilaterally with Croatia. We need to establish appropriate joint commissions to effectively tackle these matters,” the Ministry representative commented to Forbes Montenegro, highlighting their responsibility in water management and cross-border water issues.

Since 1968, Bileća Lake has been providing electricity to BiH and Croatia through the Trebišnjica hydropower system, including Hydroelectric Power Plants 1, Trebinje 2, Dubrovnik 1, and Čapljina. According to studies, approximately 40 percent of the watercourse emerges from Montenegro, yet only a fraction of the lake area has received any compensation for electricity produced by this system.

Montenegrin authorities have repeatedly raised this issue without success. In Trebinje, a recent meeting with RS representatives resulted in an agreement for retroactive compensation to the Nikšić municipality for submerged land, payments that have been outstanding since 1992. The topic of hydro potential distribution was briefly touched upon, with a follow-up meeting planned by the Montenegrin Ministry of Energy.

Analyst Dejan Mijović believes that energy production—and other utilizations—by Croatia and the Second Entity of BiH, including RS, necessitates an agreement on fees for those usages.

He reminds us that the 2017 Water Management Strategy explicitly states the need to establish a Trilateral Commission.

“This document advocates for integrated water management (p. 25 and 26), but our Government seems to only partially address the waters of Trebišnjica and Bileća Lake, framing it as merely a hydropower issue and focusing bi-laterally with BiH,” Mijović explained to Forbes Montenegro.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry asserts that Montenegro’s water management should be compensated based on the amount of electricity generated through water sourced from Montenegro that fills the Bileća Lake hydro-accumulation.

The compensation structure relies on:

– The volume (M3) of hydro-accumulations determined by technical documentation, and

– The useful surface (m2) of temporarily flooded land, calculated from the variances in water levels (m2) during the maximum and biologically minimal accumulation volumes as outlined in technical documents.

Importance of Resolving the Agreement with BiH

The Ministry of Water Management did not directly participate in negotiations with RS regarding the distribution of Bileća Lake’s hydropower potential.

It is noted that Montenegro (EPCG) primarily engaged in these discussions with expert teams set up by Montenegrin governments, and afterward by the Ministry of Economy overseeing energy matters.

“Notably, in 2010, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management initiated discussions for a contract with the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina aimed at mutual water management on issues of common interest. This contract was intended to establish a legal framework for cooperation on water usage, protection, and mitigation of adverse effects. However, no significant discussions on this draft agreement prepared by the Government of Montenegro have occurred since then,” the Ministry stated.

The Ministry believes that due to the passage of time, it is essential for the Government of Montenegro to reinvigorate discussions regarding these negotiations to restart this process.

It emphasizes the high-quality water available for drinking and energy production is currently in use, but requires equitable distribution regarding the hydro potential and agreements on past and future water usage from Bileća Lake.

“Lacking this distribution or agreement denies Montenegro the right to benefits it should justly receive, while RS has disproportionately benefited from these resources. The distribution of hydropower potential must reflect an agreement on the current and forthcoming uses of Bileća Lake,” they concluded.

Moreover, a significant concern that needs addressing is how to utilize the energy potential from terrains in Montenegro that have been overlooked.

“Additionally, topics surrounding payments and rightful benefits for utilizing water that fills the lake from Montenegrin territory require attention,” they mentioned.

Bileća Lake is one of the largest artificial reservoirs in the Balkans, straddling the border between Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was formed by the construction and inauguration of the Grančarevo Dam at the Trebišnjica River in March 1968. The lake has a length of 18 km and a width of 3-4 km, with a surface area of about 33 square kilometers, contingent on the water level. Its overall volume is 1,280 million M3, while the useful volume stands at 1,100 million M3. The submerged area of Montenegro for Bileća Lake spans 4.88 km2, accounting for 18% of the lake’s total area. Furthermore, Montenegrin territory makes up 23.88% of the accumulation’s total volume, with a catchment area of 598.52 km2 from Montenegro, reflecting 44.9% of the total basin.

Montenegro’s Participation Unacknowledged

According to a map of Bileća Lake featured on the official website of Republika Srpska’s leadership and the Twelfth section of the Trebišnjica River, the entire lake is attributed to RS, despite the state border bisecting the river and portions of the lake.

Montenegro’s rights and involvement regarding these waters remain largely unaddressed.

Dejan Mijović points out that BiH and Croatia have not reported to the United Nations Economic Commission (UNECE) about their cross-border cooperation in joint watercourses to address issues concerning Rijeka Trebišnjica and Bileća Lake with Montenegro.

“On the contrary, Croatia’s UNECE report claims a contractual relationship with Montenegro in water management, including matters concerning Rijeka Trebišnjica, despite no surface and groundwater intersecting between our nations. The report presented only aimed to benefit the residents’ drinking needs with Montenegrin partners and did not necessitate a comprehensive report on cross-border cooperation with Montenegro,” Mijović elaborated.

The Herceg Novi Municipality sources drinking water from the Trebišnjica system via a pipeline through neighboring Croatia’s Konavle region.

Mijović explains that Croatia’s water management contract with Montenegro essentially prevents any water utilization or management actions related to Trebišnjica and Bileća Lake without prior consultation with Croatia.

“This creates an indomitable legal framework for water supply management, accumulation filling for hydropower plants, etc.,” Mijović added.

Moreover, he remarked that it is unsurprising that Croatia and BiH have withheld information from international institutions, desiring not to forfeit crucial water resources, but it is perplexing that Montenegro engages in similar tactics.

“In a 2020 report, the Ministry of Agriculture in Montenegro didn’t mention that (contrary to the Sava and Danube) there exists no interstate cooperation or Commission regarding Trebišnjica and Bileća Lake, virtually rejecting its formation,” he stated.

Conversely, Montenegro has removed any reference to Rijeka Trebišnjica as an important public watercourse from its strategic documents, hence it is no longer obligated to develop a special management plan for it.

“Only Bileća Lake is publicly acknowledged, yet a management plan remains undeveloped for it,” Mijović remarked.

He emphasized that this neglectful attitude toward Montenegro’s water resources has prevailed among all previous governments and warrants explanation from the Ministry of Agriculture, particularly under the continuity of the same minister (Vladimir Joković) for three years, on why more diligence wasn’t pursued in resolving this ongoing dispute with neighboring countries until it recently garnered significant public attention.