Int. Roundtable on Transboundary Waters Management, 15-16.12.2011, Miroslav Kukobat
Roundtable on Trans‐boundary Water ou dtab e o a s bou da y ate Management Miroslav Kukobat Miroslav Kukobat Senior Expert on Energy and Infrastructure Regional Cooperation Council Zagreb Z b 15‐16 December 2011
South East Europe is moving forward• The SP SEE (1999) ‐ reconciliation, stability and good neighbourly relations• The RCC as the operational arm of the SEECP (major political framework for regional cooperation) ‐ enhance regional cooperation on the path towards European and Euro‐Atlantic h h d d lintegration•R i Regional cooperation – k l ti key prerequisite of the EU enlargement i it f th EU l tpolicy and complementary segment of national European policy agenda agenda• Keeping the regional approach – benefits• Laying ground for the resolution of remaining issues and Laying ground for the resolution of remaining issues and developing a new image.
Evolving role of the Regional Cooperation Council• As a new, regionally owned organisation the RCC represents the region, supports and initiates regional cooperation ‐ 13 SEE beneficiaries • The RCC operates under the political umbrella of the SEECP. Its objectives, working methods and priority areas for action are defined by objectives, working methods and priority areas for action are defined by the Statute and other documents adopted at Annual Meetings and endorsed by SEECP Summits • A th As the main focal point for regional cooperation, the RCC: i f l i tf i l ti th RCC a. supports economic and social development and related reforms p b. promotes the region’s European and Euro‐Atlantic integration of which regional cooperation is an essential regional cooperation is an essential part c. links the region with donor community in areas with a regional dimension
Membership (47)• Members from the South East Europe (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Moldova Montenegro Romania Serbia Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Turkey) and UNMIK on behalf of Kosovo in accordance with the UNSC Resolution 1244 (13)• European Union, represented by a representative of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and a representative of the European Commission• Donor countries (Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States) (20)• I t International organizations/institutions (C E C ti l i ti /i tit ti (CoE, Council of E il f Europe Development Bank, EBRD, EIB, European Parliament, OECD, OSCE, NATO, SECI, UN, UNDP, UN ECE, World Bank) (13)
RCC Programming Role – complex inputs CC og a g o e co p e puts5+1 priority areas: Economic and Social Development, Energy and Infrastructure, JHA, Security Cooperation, BHC and Parliamentary Cooperation Cooperation4 categories of beneficiaries: EU members, candidates, potential candidates and a country covered by EU Neighbourhood Policycandidates and a country covered by EU Neighbourhood PolicyDiversified players: beneficiaries’ institutions, regional initiatives, EU, IFIs, other international organizations, individual donor countries, CSOs, private foundations, business sector, local communities networks etccommunities’ networks etc.
RCC Platform Result of a RCC Platform – Result of a Broad Consultative Process Civil Society Organizations International Businesses Organizations National Donors Administrations Regional RCC SEECPinitiatives Platform
RCC – RCC ITWRMRegional cooperation in ITWRM currently limited due to different reasons – EU accession; ensure protection, sustainable and fair use of TWR avoiding conflicts and promoting developmentRCC SWP 2011 2013: Integrated approach (territorial, multi sector, RCC SWP 2011‐2013: Integrated approach (territorial, multi‐sector,multi‐stakeholder, multi‐level),`bottom‐up` approach, innovative financing schemes, SEDRI – (EU SDR)International Workshop on Transboundary Water Resources International Workshop on ``Transboundary Water ResourcesManagement in South‐Eastern Europe,`` Sarajevo, 18 ‐ 20.05.2009 (i) institutional and legal settings for cooperation (ii) multipurpose use of water resources(iii) climate change adaptation(iv) preparations of the 2nd assessment of transboundary waters (i ) ti f th 2 t ft b d tunder the UNECE Water ConventionMinisterial ``Combating CC in SEE``, Sarajevo, 14.11.2008 ‐ CCFAP/A, IPCC estimates (by 2100, temp↗2.2‐5.1°C, precipitation↘27%)IPCC i (b 2100 ↗2 2 5 1°C i i i ↘27%)Roundtable on fundraising activities for ISRBC projects, Sarajevo, 17 May 2011
RCC – ITWRM ICAM‐RBM process, (ICPE&ECPD) p ,( )‐ Network of Observing Systems in the Adriatic Region ‐ by Maritime Biology Station, Piran, Slovenia‐ The HEART of Adria: Heritage, Environment, Archeology and Tourism ‐ by University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia‐ Integrated Management of the Sava River between Krško and Zagreb ‐ by Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning and Water Science Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia I tit t Lj blj Sl i‐ Contribution of the SME and entrepreneurship sector to the Development of Sava‐Danube Region ‐ by Institute of Economic Development of Sava Danube Region by Institute of Economic Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia RCC raising the awareness on the political level of the need to RCC‐raising the awareness on the political level of the need to develop efficient trans‐boundary cooperation and sustained political support for long‐term cooperation
EC‐RCC MB IPA Programming Process EC RCC MB IPA P i PStatistics; Justice, Freedom and Security; Public Administration Reform; Cultural Heritage and History; Human Rights and Minorities and Vulnerable Groups; Infrastructure; Environment and DRR; Private Sector Development and Investment Climate SEE EU Countries Countries’ interests Regional Interests National Interest MBIPA National National Interest I t t Interest Cross‐border Cooperation
Successful Projects CriteriaCompeting projectsC ti j tInterest explicitly expressed by a few regional countriesConcrete, quick and visible resultsC t i k d i ibl ltObvious added value and regional impactFeasibility (technical and financial) with clear identification of F ibilit (t h i l d fi i l) ith l id tifi ti frealistic sources and modes of financingRemoving obvious bottlenecks and financially not very much Removing obvious bottlenecks and financially not very muchdemandingRecognition of common problems, preparation of shared Recognition of common problems preparation of sharedprojects in order to find jointly solutionsQQuick and visible results – to be presented to the public in p porder to maintain support and facilitate replication
Thank you firstname.lastname@example.org kukobat@rcc int Ph. +387 33 561707 Mob. +387 62 341515