C.F.M. Files: Lot M–88: Box 2061: CFM Documents
Report of the Committee on the Hydro-Electric Aspects of the Austrian Claim for a Minor Rectification of the Austro-Italian Frontier in Alto-Adige69
C.F.M. (46) 120
The Deputy Foreign Ministers, at their meeting of 7th June, 1946, agreed to establish a Committee on the hydro-electric aspects of the Austrian claim for a minor rectification of the Austro-Italian fronier. The Austrian claim consists of the North-Eastern part of the Alto-Adige. Its limits are indicated in the Austrian memorandum (C.F.M. (D) (46)92)70 and it is hereinafter referred to as the “area concerned”.
In this connexion the Deputies gave the following instructions to the
Committee (C.F.M.(D) (46) 141):
For reference purposes, the relevant extracts from the Italian Memorandum are attached to this report as Annex II.72
In accordance with these terms of reference, the Committee, composed of experts representing the U.S.S.R., U.S.A., U.K. and France commenced their work on June 12th only, as the same experts until June 12th had been at work as the sub-committee of experts on the existing hydro-electric supplies in the Tenda–Briga area.
On June 13th, the Committee invited for consultation the experts representing Italy who orally replied to the questions put to them pertaining to the Committee’s terms of references.
On June 13th, the Committee also heard the experts representing Austria who orally replied to questions put to them pertaining to the Committee’s terms of reference.
After this, making use of the files, plans, schemes and documents dealing with the subject (detailed list of which is attached as Annex III)72 that had been received by the Council of Foreign Ministers from the representatives of Austria and Italy, the Committee carefully examined the data available to them in an attempt to find the answers to the problems put to them by the Deputies in the Committee’s terms of reference.
As a result of their meetings the Committee came to the following conclusions which they respectfully submit for the consideration of the Deputies.
I. “The Committee will examine the plans described in the latest Italian Memorandum for the future development of hydro-electric potential in the area now claimed by Austria, in order to determine whether these plans are practicable and the figures and statements of fact are correct.”
[Here follows the Committee’s review of the facts and figures as well as the practicability of carrying out the plans proposed by the Italian Government.]
In view of the foregoing figures and considerations submitted, it has been difficult for the Committee to form an exact opinion. The only acceptable conclusion is that the annual output capacity of the plants which may practicably be developed in the area concerned, has a maximum figure of 1,637 million Kwh, but that considerations of economic feasibility might reduce this figure.
II. “The Committee will examine the part played in the economic life of Italy by the existing hydro-electric installations situated in
- (a)
- the area now claimed by Austria
- (b)
- the same area, excluding Brixen and its power-station,
with a view to determining, in the event of either area being ceded to Austria, what would be the effect on Italy if the facilities, rights and guarantees offered by Austria were (1) duly honoured or (2) were disregarded at some future date.”
[Here follows the Committee’s description of the four principal hydro-electric plants in the area concerned, those at Prati (Pfitsch), Bressanone (Brixen), Pusteria (Vals), and Versciaco (Vierschach).]
The Bressanone and Pusteria plants are owned by the Italian State railways.
The Bressanone plant is by far the largest of the 4 plants under consideration. Its output of 534 million Kwh represents some five sixths of the total of 640 million Kwh produced by the 4 stations. Owned by the Italian State Railways, the railways have at all times a first call on the electricity produced and at present about one third of its annual output (say 180 million Kwh) is used for that purpose. All the electricity is generated at 50 cycles and transmitted South for use outside the territory under consideration. That part which is used for the railways is converted to direct current at the point of delivery to the track. The proportion of the electricity which is used for the railways is increasing as sections of the railways are recommissioned after repair from war-damage and is likely to continue to increase as existing contracts for supplies of electricity purchased from other sources for the railways terminate and are replaced by supplies from Bressanone.
The remainder of the electricity generated at Bressanone (at present say 354 million Kwh per annum) is used for general purposes and to a large extent for the production of fertilisers and aluminum.
The Pusteria plant has an annual output of about 28 million Kwh, of which some 10 million Kwh is used for the local requirements of the town of Bressanone, the remaining 18 million Kwh being transmitted [Page 566] to the Bressanone plant, where it is combined with the output from the latter.
The Versciaco plant is the smallest of the four. It is located in the south-east corner of the territory under consideration and the annual output of 7 million Kwh is transmitted and used nearby in Italy for general purposes.
It is clear that the part played in the economic life of Italy by the existing hydro-electric installations situated in the area now claimed by Austria is considerable.
On the other hand, the part played by those installations in the same area but excluding Bressanone (Brixen) and its power-station is not substantial since only some 60 million Kwh per annum (i.e. 35 million Kwh at Prati, 18 million Kwh at Pusteria and 7 million Kwh at Versciaco) generated in that area, is used outside that area. For the reasons mentioned under Item 3 of our terms of reference, however, it should not be assumed that the Bressanone (Brixen) plant would not be affected if that town and plant were excluded from the Austrian claim.
Dealing with the effect on Italy, if the facilities, rights and guarantees offered by Austria were (1) duly honoured or (2) were disregarded at some future date, it appears to the Committee that, although wide in their scope, the arrangements suggested in the “Austrian proposals regarding the settlement of the future economy of the hydro-electric power industry in the Southern Tyrol” which accompanied the Aide-Mémoire (C.F.M.(D) (46)92) fall short of Mr. Gruber’s statement before the Deputies on 30th May, that Austria’s offer amounted practically to extra-territorial rights for Italy in respect of the existing hydro-electric installations.
[The Committee are not satisfied that these proposals do amount practically to extra-territorial rights for Italy. In order to ensure that Italy obtained the same freedom of action in respect of the existing hydro-electric installations as she possesses at present, the Committee are of the opinion that the facilities, rights and guarantees offered by Austria would have to be amplified, amended and much more precisely stated. The actual wording to give effect thereto would have to be the subject of careful legal drafting taking into account the particular situation in the area concerned; in that event, if the guarantees thus drawn were honoured, Italy would not be materially affected in respect of her existing hydro-electric installations (a) if the area now claimed by Austria or (b) if the same area excluding Brixen and its power-station, were ceded to Austria.]73
(Note: The Soviet expert does not accept the preceding bracketed paragraph and proposes the text which is set forth in the conclusions of this report.)
[Page 567]In any event, if the guarantees were disregarded at some future date, the Committee are of the opinion that Italy could then be substantially prejudiced if the area now claimed by Austria or if the same area, excluding Bressanone (Brixen) and its power station, were ceded to Austria. The reasons for this view are that:
- (i)
- The control of the whole of the supply of water to the Bressanone plant is located at the Fortezza and Rio de Pusteria Reservoirs. Both these sources of water supply are situated adjacent to the railway, the acquisition of which is one of the reasons advanced by Austria for her territorial rectification claim, and if the guarantees were disregarded, the supply of water to the Bressanone plant could be completely cut off and that plant could thereby be sterilised whether whether or not that plant were included in or excluded from the ceded territory. Italy could then be deprived of say 180 million Kwh per annum (on the present basis of output) generated at Bressanone and used for the Italian railways. This represents some 13% of the total electricity requirements of all the Italian railways. Italy could also be deprived of the remaining 354 million Kwh per annum generated at Bressanone and used in Italy for general purposes, particularly for the production of fertilizers and aluminum.
- (ii)
- The further effects on Italy if the aforesaid guarantees were disregarded would be that Italy could be deprived of the 60 million Kwh per annum (i.e. 35 million Kwh from Prati; 18 million Kwh from Pusteria and 7 million Kwh from Versciaco) used in Italy for general purposes.
The total loss to Italy could be nearly 600 million Kwh per annum which represents 3% of her present total electricity requirements.
III. “The Committee will, in particular examine how far the power-station at Brixen is dependent on water stored in reservoirs or lakes lying in the territory referred to in paragraph 2 (b) above.”
The power station at Bressanone (Brixen) is entirely dependent on water stored above the station in two reservoirs, at Fortezza on the Isarce (Eisack), about 7 kms above Bressanone, and Rio de Pusteria on the Rienza (Rienz), about 10 kms above Bressanone which reservoirs lie in the territory referred to in paragraph 2 (b) of the terms of reference, namely the area now claimed by Austria, excluding Bressanone and its power-station. These two reservoirs depend for their supply, in turn, on water stored in reservoirs and lakes as well as on streams in this same territory. The railroad line linking the Brenner pass with Brunice (Bruneck) and Lienz (in E. Tyrol) passes north of Bressanone and immediately adjacent to both of the reservoirs.
The power-station at Bressanone takes no water directly from the Rienza, on the banks of which it is situated, or the Isarce into which the Rienza flows just below the station. All the water which is supplied [Page 568] to the plants comes through underground conduits which take their water directly out of the Fortezza and the Rio di Pusteria Reservoirs. If these reservoirs were emptied, or if the sluice gates opening into the conduits were closed, no water would reach the Bressanone station and it could no longer supply electricity to the Italian electric system. It appears, however, that there would be nothing to be gained for Austria herself in cutting off from Bressanone the water from these reservoirs.
Conclusion
In submitting the above conclusions to the Deputies for their consideration, the Committee feel it necessary to draw their attention to the fact that all these conclusions were arrived at by the Committee here, in Paris, as a result of oral statements and written data submitted by the two parties concerned, i.e. by the representatives of Austria and Italy and of publications of Italian origin available to the Committee. Therefore, it appears difficult to rely on the data as being completely impartial and absolutely precise when using them as the basis for the conclusions outlined above.
The above Report was adopted unanimously at the Meeting of the Committee on June 20, 1946, with the exception of Paragraph 2, page 6, the Soviet Expert being unable to agree to the Conclusions contained therein in brackets and proposing the following text instead:
“On the ground of the conclusions and data submitted in this Report, the Committee in reply to Paragraph 2 Sub-paragraphs ‘a’ and ‘b’ of the Terms of Reference have come to the conclusion that the guarantees offered or ‘special statutes’ would fail to make up for the damage to Italian economy in general and to her power economy in particular which Italy would suffer if the Austrian claims are satisfied and the whole of the north-eastern Alto-Adige District, or the same District, excluding Bressanone (Brixen) and its power station, is ceded to Austria.”74
- At their 80th Meeting, June 23, 1946, the Deputies examined this report and agreed to submit it to the Council of Foreign Ministers together with the views expressed by the Deputies. This report and the views of the Deputies regarding it were considered by the Council at its 24th Meeting, June 24, 1946; see the United States Delegation Record of that meeting, p. 588.↩
- Ante, p. 454.↩
- The memorandum referred to here is not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Brackets appear in the source text.↩
-
In a supplementary memorandum, which was annexed hereto but is not printed, the Committee of Hydro-Electric Experts observed that while it had not been instructed to consider the possible effect of Austrian proposals on the future exploitation of potential hydro-electric resources in the area in question, it had nevertheless formed certain opinions in relation thereto. The Committee doubted whether Austrian annexation of the area in question would be satisfactory to Italy, and it cited the two main difficulties which would be encountered:
↩“First, as already mentioned, it can be assumed that the whole of the hydroelectric resources would be required for the internal use of Italy. This being so, it appears that the whole of the capital would have to be provided by Italy. There would of course be no financial inducement to Italy to provide that capital for investment in another country except from the necessity of obtaining the electricity.
“Secondly, there is no doubt that, as mentioned in the Committee’s consideration of Item 1 of the terms of reference, the potential hydro-electric resources in the area are considerable and would involve possibly 24 major civil engineering projects dispersed over the area. These in turn would involve workers’ encampments and possibly road, river and railway diversions and land submersions. The Committee are of [the] opinion that these matters would result in difficulties and might well render the projects impracticable unless the full consent and support of the Government in whose territory the projects were situated, was forthcoming.”