Uploaded on

Water Talk 1/2010

Water Talk 1/2010

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
644
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Vol. 10 June 2010 The GWP network celebrates World Water Day region, celebrated World Water Day on 22 March with a number of activities and events in Calendar of Events Danube Day different countries of the region, including par- 29 June 2010 ticipation in seminars and the organisation of Danube Region workshops for experts and policy makers. GWP Consulting Partners Meeting In Bulgaria, the Ministry of Environment and 3-4 September 2010 Water and the Scientific-Technical Union of Stockholm, Sweden Water Affairs organized a national celebra- tion in the city of Sofia on 22-23 March. The 2010 World Water Week in Stockholm Regional Inspectorate of Environment and 5-11 September 2010 Water, in cooperation with GWP Bulgaria, host- Stockholm, Sweden ed a regional conference in the town of Veliko Tarnovo on 22 March. GWP partners discussed On 23 March, a seminar related to World Water various aspects of Integrated Water Resource Day was organized in Vilnius by GWP Lithuania. Management such as “Sustainable Sanitation The Nemunas River Basin Management Plan was – a Challenge for Water Framework Directive presented and discussed with 46 stakeholders. Implementation,” “Precipitation in the Lower Danube River” and “Results of Economic Analy- The international organization Humanitas sis Actualization as a Part of River Basin Man- organized a conference entitled “Water as agement Plans”. The presentations showed the a Global Challenge” on 18 March in Ljubljana, seasonal variations of precipitation since 1961 Slovenia. The conference was part of the Euro- and the subsequent rise of drought periods in pean wide campaign “WATER: Water Access the Lower Danube River. According to the Water through Empowerment of Rights” which seeks “CLEAN WATER FOR A HEALTHY WORLD” WAS Framework Directive Economic Analysis until the recognition of everyone’s right to water. Mr. THE THEME OF THE 2010 WORLD WATER DAY. 2015, state and municipal authorities will face Samuel Zbogar, the Slovenian Minister of For- It is still a reality that an estimated 1.1 billion serious problems in financing expensive waste eign Affairs, gave the keynote speech. Mr. Tomo people rely on unsafe drinking-water sources, water treatment and drinking water technical Kriznar, a well known Slovenian human rights and every year 1,500 cubic kilometers of waste- solutions. GWP Bulgaria recommended a sus- activist who has worked in Darfur and Sudan, water are produced globally. The GWP CEE net- tainable sanitation approach as one possibility spoke about the turbulent struggle for water, work, with more than 150 partners across the to meet the needs of local people. which was in fact one of the basic reasons for CREDIT: GWP SLOVENIA CREDIT: GWP SLOVENIA Slovenian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Samuel Zbogar at Water as a Global Challenge Conference conflicts there. During the expert panel, Ms. Martina Zupan, from GWP Slovenia, delivered a presentation on GWP activities and the main challenges related to the preparation process of river basin management plans in Slovenia from a civil society point of view. World Water Day celebration in Ljubljana
  • 2. GWP CEE at the Danube Conferences CREDIT: GALIA BARDARSKA/GWP BULGARIA THE GWP CEE PARTICIPATED IN CONFERENCES ON THE EUROPEAN UNION STRATEGY FOR THE DANUBE REGION. The Danube is the longest river in the European Union. After the Volga, it is Europe’s second longest river and home to almost 80 million people. In the region of GWP Central and East- ern Europe, eight countries - Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine – are located in the Dan- ube River Basin. Setting the scene The goal of the strategy is to strengthen macro- regional cooperation in Europe. In order to get feedback from relevant stakeholders, several con- ferences were organized across the Danube Riv- er Basin. The first conference of the EU Strategy series for the Danube Region was held in Ulm, Germany on 1-2 February 2010. Regional Chair, Mr. Liviu Nicolae Popescu, Regional Coordinator, Mr. Milan Matuska and Public Participation Task Danube River forms a natural border between Bulgaria and Romania Force Leader, Ms. Monika Jetzin participated on behalf of GWP CEE. This event explained why a of the conference was to discuss the issues of ed communities facing waste water treatment strategy was needed and its added value. It gath- transport, energy, urban areas, the environment challenges.” The conference ensured interaction ered more than 350 relevant stakeholders who and the information society. All of these issues between different perspectives to underline the expressed their willingness to contribute to the are high on the agenda of the European Union integrated approach of the strategy. preparation of the strategy. European Commis- (EU) as confirmed by the recently proposed sion representatives presented the preparatory strategy ‘EU2020’ - A European strategy for What’s next process and received the first input on possible smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. GWP The objective of the fourth conference was to dis- topics to be addressed by the strategy. CEE provided its views on specific topics relat- cuss the governance and implementation of the ed to IWRM such as floods, nature protection EU Strategy for the Danube Region. It was held Focus on energy, environment and transport and water quality. Mr. Popescu highlighted the on 10-11 May in Ruse, Bulgaria and Giurgiu, Ro- The third conference was held in Vienna and importance of a basin-wide water monitoring mania. Regional Chair, Mr. Liviu Nicolae Popescu Bratislava on 19-21 April 2010. The GWP CEE network. As a concrete example, Milan Matus- and Ms. Galia Bardarska, of GWP Bulgaria, took delegation was comprised of Mr. Liviu Nicolae ka stated, “GWP CEE’s sustainable sanitation part. GWP CEE provided its views on how to im- Popescu, Mr. Milan Matuska and Communica- initiative was mentioned as an integrated and plement a Danube Strategy with specific trans- tion Officer, Mr. Richard Muller. The objective efficient solution for rural and socially exclud- boundary projects related to integrated water re- source management principles. Participants of CREDIT: RICHARD MULLER/GWP CEE previous Danube Conferences called for an in- tegration approach as a key to successful Strat- egy implementation in the current programming period 2009-2013 and beyond. According to Ms. Bardarska, in the future, GWP CEE “will propose a sustainable sanitation initiative as a region- wide, crosscutting and efficient solution for the poorest communities struggling with access to affordable waste water treatment facilities.” The conference topics included Danube Strategy im- plementation, mobilisation of resources, includ- ing the contribution of a Cohesion Policy and capacity-building and institutional cooperation for the further development and integration of the Danube macro-region. For more information, please visit: ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/ Plenary session in Bratislava danube/index_en.htm 2
  • 3. ICPDR Ministerial Meeting MINISTERS AGREE ON DETAILED ACTIONS FOR ies. These include the reduction of organic and the Danube catchment area were also adopt- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN THE DANUBE nutrient pollution stemming from settlements ed at the ministerial meeting. These sub-basin RIVER BASIN. and agriculture, stopping negative effects of plans, which have been developed in the frame- man-made changes to the river, for example work of the ICPDR Action Programme for Sus- Ministers and high-level representatives re- tainable Flood Prevention, contain hundreds of sponsible for water management from the Dan- concrete measures including re-naturalization ube River Basin countries Austria, Bosnia and of wetlands, creation of natural flood barriers, Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Re- upgrading of dykes and improvement of alarm public, Germany, Hungary, Montenegro, the Re- and forecasting systems. The Danube countries public of Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, will take these actions to protect their popula- Slovenia, Ukraine and the European Commis- tions from floods and to mitigate flood damage sion have endorsed the ‘Danube Declaration’ and losses, such as those caused in the years at a ministerial meeting held on 16 February in through the construction of fish-passes, the 2002, 2005 and 2006. Vienna, Austria and hosted by the International introduction of phosphate-free detergents in Commission for the Protection of the Danube all markets and effective risk management of “Our success will be measured on the results River (ICPDR). accidental pollution. Measures to protect and achieved for the 80 million people calling the reconnect wetlands will also be taken. The plan Danube Basin their home,” Mr. Bricelj conclud- “The Danube waters are shared by us all and addresses key requirements of the European ed. ”The Danube and its tributaries such as the therefore we also share the responsibility,” said Union Water Framework Directive. Sava and the Tisza are lifelines for man and na- ICPDR President Mitja Bricelj. “We meet to en- ture. The actions for protection are set – their sure that the resources of the Danube Basin “The agreement on coordinated actions to im- joint implementation will follow”. are managed in an environmentally sustainable prove the waters in the most international river manner.” basin in the world is a remarkable achievement GWP Network Officer Mr. Bjorn Guterstam, ac- and requires the strong political commitment companied by GWP CEE Chair Mr. Liviu Nicolae The Danube River Basin Management Plan out- that was expressed at today’s meeting”, explains Popescu, presented statement on behalf of all lines concrete measures to be implemented by Philip Weller, ICPDR Executive Secretary. observer organizations to ICPDR. the year 2015 to improve the environment- al condition of the Danube and its tributar- Flood action plans for the 17 sub-basins in For more information, please visit www.icpdr.org CREDIT: ICPDR Danube ministers and high representatives for water management formally adopted the Danube River Basin Management Plan 3
  • 4. GWP CEE Helps Kaliningrad to Advance Water Agenda REPRESENTATIVES OF GWP LITHUANIA AND sented experiences from integrated water re- GWP POLAND PARTICIPATED IN THE WORKSHOP source management planning at the district level “INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT and the implementation of the European Union FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENT- Water Framework Directive. AL SUSTAINABILITY IN THE KALININGRAD OB- LAST & BALTIC SEA REGION“. Janusz Kindler and Tomasz Okruszko, from GWP Poland, stressed the importance of a joint riv- The workshop, organized by GWP Poland in er basin management plan for the Pregola Riv- cooperation with the Stockholm Internation- er Basin District in Poland and Kaliningrad in al Water Institute (SIWI) took place on 15-17 a presentation entitled “Polish Experience and March in Warsaw. Bernardas Paukstys, Chair of Progress in Implementing Water Resource Man- GWP Lithuania, together with Tomasz Okruszko, ministration on water reform. The Kaliningrad agement Frameworks.” Bernardas Paukstys, of Chair of GWP Poland and prof. Janusz Kindler, Oblast representatives were invited to present GWP Lithuania, focused on Lithuanian experi- the former Chair and Bjorn Guterstam, the GWP a project approach at Stockholm World Water ence and progress in implementing water re- Network Officer, participated in the workshop. It Week in September 2010. In the future, pro- source management frameworks. “It is import- is a part of the Stockholm International Water ject partners will help the Kaliningrad adminis- ant to develop a joint river basin management Institute’s (SIWI) project supported by the Swed- tration to implement effective water resource plan for the Nemunas (Neman) River Basin Dis- ish International Development Agency (SIDA) to management. trict in Lithuania, Poland and the Kaliningrad Oblast,” says Paukstys. CREDIT: BERNARDAS PAUKSTYS Bjorn Guterstam, the Network Officer for China, Central Asia-Caucasus, and Central and Eastern Europe, presented “Regional Lessons in Imple- menting Integrated Water Resource Manage- ment Frameworks.” GWP’s mission to support the sustainable development and management of water resources at all levels were explained and examples of good water management prac- tice were presented. The workshop resulted in a plan for a brief on water resource reform for economic growth and environmental sustainability in Kaliningrad and the wider Baltic Sea Region. It also explored other possible avenues of engaging the Kaliningrad ad- ministration in reforms providing improved live- lihoods and regional cooperation. In the future, “we are interested in further assisting the Kali- ningrad Oblast in integrated water resource man- agement planning,” concluded Paukstys. CREDIT: BERNARDAS PAUKSTYS Lithuania and Kaliningrad Oblast share Curonian Lagoon assist the Kaliningrad Oblast in water resource Integration is the key management, using the experience of neigh- Andreas Lindström, from SIWI, then presented boring countries. Presentations on Lithuanian, “Potential Benefits of Good Water Management Swedish and Polish experiences and progress in Kaliningrad.” Natalya Smorodinskaya, of the in implementing water resource management Institute of Economy at the Academy of Science, frameworks were delivered. Moscow, focused on Kaliningrad’s baseline scen- arios of social and economic development in the At the beginning of the workshop, Jacob Gran- 2000s. Vladimir Dmitrevsky and Lina Kramen, of it, SIWI Project Director, presented the object- the Northern Dimension Foundation, underlined ives and expected outcomes of the workshop the importance of stakeholder analyses, the legal and future steps. The project seeks to support framework and the on-the ground perspective. the Kaliningrad Oblast in developing a strategic Mats Hellstrom, from Sweden, highlighted the water resource planning framework, propos- strategic cooperation with Russia in the field of ing strategies for engaging Kaliningrad’s ad- regional environment issues, challenges and op- ministration on water reform and developing a portunities. Lennart Sorby, of the Vastmanland road map for the briefing of Kaliningrad’s ad- County Administrative Board of Sweden, pre- The Lithuanian Baltic Sea coast 4
  • 5. Scaling up Sanitation and Hygiene in Slovakia A RECENT STUDY HAS ASSESSED THE ALTERNA- CREDIT: MILAN MATUSKA/GWP CEE TIVES OF WASTE WATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF RICH- NAVA IN EASTERN SLOVAKIA. The village is located in Eastern Slovakia, 400 kilometres from the capital city of Bratislava. It has a growing population of 2400 inhabitants, out of which 700 live in the village and 1700 live in an illegal Roma settlement. The village lacks a public drinking water supply and a waste water treatment plant. Local water courses flow into the Hornad River which is part of the wider Richnava village in Eastern Slovakia Danube River basin. sis of investment and maintenance costs and a “The design project should be prepared by a cer- comparison of their strengths and weaknesses. tified expert or organization because it is one Richnava announced a tender for a feasibility of the conditions for obtaining co-funding from study to map the possible alternatives of waste Get the public involved European Union funds or any other fund for the water collection and treatment in May 2009. Another study for the shelf? Certainly not. The construction of selected waste water disposal Dr. Igor Bodik, from the Technical University in municipality of Richnava plans to discuss the and treatment systems,” says Matuska. Bratislava, initiated a group of experts that was alternatives within its council and with citizens further facilitated by GWP Slovakia. The Expert during a meeting in June 2010. Based on the re- The study describes 13 alternatives that are group was comprised of Milan Matuska – team sults of consultations, the municipality shall de- feasible from a technical point of view. This in- leader, Elena Fatulova – responsible for nature cide on a suitable alternative for which a project cludes traditional approaches as well as exten- conditions and the legal and financial aspects, for waste water disposal and treatment in Rich- sive waste water treatment methods based on Igor Bodík – responsible for the waste water nava and the Roma settlement will be developed. natural processes that permanently improve disposal and treatment proposals, Robert Zvara However, public consultation needs to be care- the quality of the treated waste water. It is im- – responsible for the decentralized waste water fully prepared with the possible involvement of portant to mention that estimates of the con- sewage system for the Roma settlement. public participation experts. This process is quite struction and operating costs introduced in unique because to date, the pre-selected tech- the study may differ significantly from a de- After the initial exchange of information between nical solutions have often been implemented tailed project selected by the local municipality. the expert group and the local municipality rep- without consultation with the public. According Therefore, a financial analysis is only descriptive resentatives regarding the feasibility study, the to Milan Matuska, “it will be crucial to invite the and helps to compare individual alternatives in expert team made a field trip in August 2009. The state water administration to the public consulta- the study because the data were gathered using visit resulted in the clarification of the feasibility tion, because it will only be possible to permit the the same methodology based on known unit study’s goals and content which was further re- selected alternative with its seal of approval.” prices for similar waste water treatment plants vised by e-mail. In addition, the team made a visit CREDIT: 2010 EUROSENSE/GEODIS SLOVAKIA to the nearby Roma settlement; this visit provid- ed valuable information for the waste water dis- posal system proposal. The goals of the feasibility study were established according to information gained during the field trip, the study of archive documents and cor- respondence with the Ministry of Environment. The study comprises a short analysis of the nat- ural conditions, the status of existing pollution sources, legislation related to local municipal- ity possibilities and responsibilities in the field of waste water, identification of funding sources and alternative proposals for waste water collec- tion and treatment. The proposed alternatives in- clude centralized and decentralized systems with traditional and alternative technologies using natural waste water treatment, a financial analy- Roma settlement is located in southern part of the village 5
  • 6. and sewage networks. This is valid for tradition- treatment project because they produce a sig- any of the proposed alternatives for the Roma al systems and extensive waste water treatment nificant amount of waste water. Their popula- settlement strongly depends on close cooper- systems. tion is twice the size of the population of Rich- ation between the local municipality and state nava. Whole families, including children and the administration. Too many variables elderly, are living on forestland in poor dwell- One of uncertainties is the existence of the il- ings located above the village. The problem of An answer could be the implementation of legal Roma settlement which, according to the Roma settlement can not be solved im- a state programme for the inclusion of the legislation, must be taken into account. Despite mediately and for many reasons (human rights, Roma population that has yet to be fully imple- the fact that the Roma citizens are officially risk of epidemic diseases, unsuitable location mented. Richnava should certainly follow this registered in Richnava, they have the status of for permanent settlement) it will be necessary programme because it would be impossible to homeless persons. Nevertheless, they have to to arrive at an interim and effective solution decide on any alternative without or with the be included in the waste water collection and on how to help the population. The success of Roma settlement. Local municipalities lack basic infrastructure CREDIT: RICHARD MULLER/GWP CEE ACCORDING TO RECENT RESEARCH, THE TOP networks. Out of the total number of people PRIORITY FOR RURAL MUNICIPALITIES IN SLO- connected to public sewage networks, 81,777 VAKIA IN THE COMING YEARS WILL BE WATER live in the towns of Nitra and Vrable (96%) and INFRASTRUCTURE. 3,260 live in local municipalities (4%). So far, the evaluation of the Structural Fund’s The situation regarding the drinking water sup- impact on the local environment has not been ply is better, although water resources in the Ni- properly addressed by similar research. Existing tra District do not meet the growing demand studies focus more on the regional level (NUTS for water. Currently, the deficiency is 395 liters III and II) due to the availability of data for statis- per second, which will increase to 555 liters per tical analysis. The research carried out between second by 2015. Therefore, the majority of lo- 2006 and 2009 used evaluation methodology cal municipalities rely on a long distance drink- with a special emphasis on quantitative methods ing water supply from groundwater reservoirs for the assessment of the impact of Structural in the Zitny Island near Gabcikovo. Four villages Funds on local sustainable development, espe- lack a drinking water supply system. cially on the quality of rural environment. Research also indicated that innovative projects The evaluation of the Structural Fund’s iden- are not in the pipeline of local municipality of- tified water infrastructure is one of the most fices and businesses. A few notable exemptions critical challenges for the development of lo- Jelenec Water Reservoir, Slovakia included local energy generation from biomass cal municipalities (NUTS V). Small local munici- and the development of ecological farming. palities need to build or upgrade existing waste Out of 60 local municipalities (villages) only 11 water treatment plants, sewage networks and have up and running waste water treatment For more information please visit drinking water supply systems in order to satis- plants and 12 are connected to public sewage www.gwpceeforum.org fy the needs of their inhabitants and comply CREDIT: RICHARD MULLER/GWP CEE with national and EU regulations. In comparison to other EU countries, Slovakia has a dense structure of settlements with a majority of small municipalities with fewer than 1,000 in- habitants. Overall, there are 2,831 municipalities, out of which 70% (1,984) have fewer than 1,000 people (17% of the total population). Recent research in the Nitra District (NUTS IV) in Western Slovakia established how European Union Structural Funds could affect the qual- ity of the local environment in rural areas. Ac- cording to the 2001 census, there were 163,000 inhabitants in the Nitra District. Part of the re- search was devoted to the water infrastructure (waste water treatment plans and sewage net- works and drinking water supply) in the villages of the Nitra District. Until recently, the water infrastructure was financed from state sub- sidies rather than Structural Funds. Jelenec Reservoir Water Discharge, Slovakia 6
  • 7. GWP CEE at Waste Water Roundtable THE GWP CEE PARTICIPATED IN THE INTER- ope for a Common Future and Bulgarian NGO for future consumer charges.” Liviu Nicolae NATIONAL ROUNDTABLE ON DECENTRALIZED “Earth Forever” (GWP partner). The event fo- Popescu presented GWP CEE work on sus- WASTE WATER TREATMENT FOR RURAL COM- cused on waste water treatment technologies tainable sanitation that could be beneficial MUNITIES ON 18 MARCH IN SOFIA. for settlements with less than 10,000 people, for rural communities throughout the region. where actually a large part of the Bulgarian and The Open Waste Water Planning process, rec- Romanian populations live. The participants ommended by Swedish sustainable sanitation also discussed the implementation of Euro- experts, helps local decision makers, stake- pean wastewater directives in Romania and holders and citizens select the most available Bulgaria. Good practices were presented from waste water treatment option that best suits other countries such as Germany, Slovakia and the their local economy, social conditions and the United Kingdom. state of environment. “We need to demonstrate these low-cost sys- The final declaration recommends the use of tems,” said Dr. Galia Bardarska of GWP Bul- more natural and less expensive ways of sanita- garia; “too many too expensive waste water tion infrastructure and the need for a pilot nat- treatment plants are being built. People here ural wetland waste treatment plant in Bulgaria cannot afford to pay the same fees for waste and Romania respectively. GWP CEE Chair, Eng. Liviu Nicolae Popescu and water as in other European countries. Citizens Dr. Galia Bardarska (GWP Bulgaria) took part in need to be involved in the decision making, For more information, the roundtable, organized by Women in Eur- and know what technology choices will mean Dr. Bardarska e-mail: bwp@dir.bg GWP CEE launches new project GWP CEE LAUNCHED THE PROJECT “TOOLS FOR The project builds on the solid experience and BETTER TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN regional technical expertise of the CEE region CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE” IN MAY. in managing transboundary waters in the re- gion. The project is also a concrete contribution Overall, the goal of the project is to enhance the of the GWP CEE region to the enhancement of GWP ToolBox with transboundary cooperation global technical knowledge, specifically, its ex- tools and to document and share lessons learned perience in managing transboundary waters. from IWRM implementation in the Central and and resource use data of transboundary basins, Over the next 12 months, GWP CEE will carry Eastern European region. The project complies conflict management and stakeholder partici- out an analysis of ToolBox tools and recom- with the overall GWP Strategy 2009 — 2013 and pation on the transboundary level and the joint mend improvements in specific areas, including the Regional CEE Water Partnership Strategy. basin planning and implementation of IWRM the legal aspects of transboundary cooperation, plans spanning the administrative, economic arrangements of transboundary cooperation, “While IWRM processes are well recognized in and social spheres of an individual country. institutional arrangements, stakeholder in- national water-related legislation, the compli- volvement and conflict management, and man- CREDIT: RICHARD MULLER/GWP CEE cated features of transboundary waters are far agement tools for the implementation of IWRM more challenging, including stakeholder par- plans on the transboundary level. ticipation, the legal jurisdiction of transbound- ary basins, harmonizing the interests of inter- In addition to the analysis of tools, GWP CEE will national water users and the implementation of develop six case studies and reference docu- environmental management tools such as pol- ments from two transboundary commissions in luter pay principles, the cost recovery principle CEE, the International Commission for the Pro- and water pricing”, says Dr. Danka Thalmein- tection of the Danube River (ICPDR) and the Hel- erova, ToolBox Officer at GWP Secretariat. sinki Commission (HELCOM). The case studies will summarize experiences, especially those related The GWP ToolBox includes several recommen- to the transboundary water management plan- dations and discusses the implications of the ning process and when appropriate, the adap- management of water resources in a trans- tation to climate change and flood prevention. boundary context. “However, the only tool that The GWP CEE Regional Secretariat will also iden- specifically addresses transboundary cooper- tify potential case studies from IW:LEARN fund- ation relates to institutional roles”, adds Dr. ed projects. In the future, the project can be rep- Thalmeinerova. The current GWP ToolBox is lim- licated in other GWP regions to enrich ToolBox ited in exploring other key tools, such as inter- with their region specific tools. national water treaties, funding opportunities and the challenges at transboundary basins, the Management of hydrological transboundary data is a chal- For more information, please contact GWP CEE management and processing of hydrological lenge for GWP ToolBox Regional Secretariat at gwpcee@shmu.sk 7
  • 8. GWP at European Policy Forum THE THEME OF THE POLICY FORUM WAS WA- TER 2030 – WHO CARES? The Global Water Partnership Executive Secretary Dr Ania Grobicki and the GWP Central and Eastern Europe Chair Mr. Liv- iu Nicolae Popescu participated in the Eu- ropean event “Aquawareness Policy Forum” on World Water Day 22 March in Brussels, Belgium. The conference focused on the strengths, weaknesses and practical ac- tions required to realize the European Wa- ter Vision. The Forum was organized by the European Water Partnership with the aim of advanc- ing the European Water Vision that was launched in June 2008. The European Water Vision has the ambition that by 2030 Europe will be able to announce: We have achieved the Council Presidency. This multi-stake- are of tremendous value to communities sustainable water resource management holder event linked high-level policy makers and policy-makers everywhere.” and universal access to modern and safe with practitioners coming from business, in- water supply and sanitation because we val- dustry, agriculture and civil society, set out The Global Water Partnership and the Euro- ue water in all its dimensions – in its eco- practical actions needing to be taken on the pean Water Partnership signed a Memoran- nomic, social, environmental and cultural pan-European level in order to realize the vi- dum of Understanding on 16 August 2009 importance. sion’s aims and thus achieve sustainable wa- in Stockholm where both organizations ac- ter management. Dr Grobicki, who delivered knowledged their “common interest in im- At the Forum the policy recommendations a closing address at the conference, com- proving water resources management for were discussed and fine-tuned together mented: “as the focus of World Water Day sustainable development”. with the new European decision and policy 2010 is on Clean Water for a Healthy World, makers – the new Members of the European the know-how and lessons learned from the For more information, please visit www.ewp.eu/ Parliament, the European Commission and European approach to water quality issues events/special-events/2010/policy-forum New ToolBox Case Study NATIONAL DIALOGUES FOR BETTER RIVER BA- changes in policies and legislation. They re- fy gaps that were later addressed by GWP or SIN MANAGEMENT PLANS. flected priorities on the national level ranging its partner organizations. In most cases out- from river basin planning, sustainable sani- comes of the dialogues were instrumental to The case study summarizes lessons learned tation, water governance, and cross secto- governments reporting on the progress of from National IWRM Dialogues run by GWP ral cooperation. The dialogues were the op- IWRM plans and EU Water Framework Direc- CEE Country Water Partnerships in 2006- portunity for Country Water Partnerships to tive as well. 2007. Goal of the dialogues was to address clarify the EU concept of river basin planning national IWRM priorities, strengthen coop- brought by Water Framework Directive and For more information, eration with major stakeholders and initiate IWRM planning. They also helped to identi- please visit www.gwptoolbox.org Volume 10, Issue No. 1/2010, June 2010 Water Talk is the official newsletter of GWP CEE Regional Water Partnership published twice a year. The views and opinions of authors expressed in this issue of Water Talk do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of GWP CEE. Publisher: GWP CEE - Global Water Partnership Central and Eastern Europe, gwpcee@shmu.sk, Editor: Richard Müller, Language Proofreading: Euro VKM, Ltd, Layout and Printing: TYPOCON, Ltd. Registration No: EV 1796/08 ISSN: 1336-5525 GWP CEE – Global Water Partnership Central and Eastern Europe, c/o Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute, Jeseniova 17, 833 15 Bratislava, Slovakia, phone: +421 2 5941 5294, fax: +421 2 5941 5273, e-mail: gwpcee@shmu.sk, http://www.gwpceeforum.org 8