The GWP CEE celebrated June 29th – Danube DayDANUBE DAY HAS BEEN INITIATED BY cooperated in organizing a photo exhibition CREDIT: GWP CEE / R. MULLERTHE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR for the “Lower Danube Corridor” in the cityTHE PROTECTION OF THE DANUBE RIVER of Rousse. A special issue of Water Newslet-(ICPDR), a Vienna-based organization com- ter devoted to Danube Day was printed andposed of representatives of the countries of distributed. GWP Bulgaria also co-organizedthe Danube River Basin and represented by a Bulgarian – Romanian meeting about trans-their ministries. ICPDR is responsible for Wa- -boundary water problems as well as an eve-ter Management in the Danube Basin. ning event in Russe. GWP Romania prepared a workshop on op- portunities for stakeholder cooperation du- ring the implementation of the EU Water Fra- Children’s ensemble Usmev is singing at opening of the mework Directive. Throughout Danube Day, Danube Day at Slovak Ministry of the Environment. participants were “literally” close to the Danu- Slovakia to send their symbolic greetings on be because all presentations and discussions bodies of water ﬂowing through their towns took place on a boat in the Iron Gate reservoir. and villages. In cooperation with Center of Ecological Con- GWP Slovenia participated in the selection of sultancy from the city of Galati (a member of “The Danube Art Master” competition winnersGWP Hungary started an initiative to unite the Danube Environmental Forum), GWP Ro- together with representatives of the Ministry ofthe boats on the Danube on Danube Day. Bo- mania arranged and distributed T-shirts to yo- Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy, theats greeted the Danube at 11 a.m. by sounding ung people who celebrated Danube Day. Institute of Education and DEF in Ljubljana.their horns in Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and GWP Slovakia organized a clean up of the The Danube river basin is the most internati-Slovakia. In addition, the GWP CEE organized Danube riverbank where art school students onal river basin in the world, connecting 13a series of events for the celebration of the celebrated Danube Day by drawing and play- European countries (Austria, Bosnia-Herze-ﬁrst Danube Day, to commemorate the 10th ing musical instruments. The singing en- govina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic,anniversary of the signing of the Danube Ri- semble Usmev contributed to the ofﬁcial Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Ser-ver Protection Convention in Soﬁa, Bulgaria. program held in the Ministry of the Environ- bia-Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia and theGWP Bulgaria participated in selecting “The ment atrium in the heart of Bratislava. GWP Ukraine) and covers 10 per cent of the Euro-Danube Art Master” competition winner and Slovakia encouraged schools from all around pean continent.Danube Day the Serbian town of Zaichar and the Roma- nian town of Kalafat and Members of Parlia- ment. During her address on board the Vidin a special session dedicated to Danube Day and river conservation. The First Danube Day was also celebrated in other Bulgarian towns situ-in Bulgaria ship, Minister Arssenova said that Bulgaria to- gether with all of the Danube countries wo- ated along the Danube River. The main events on June 29th were as follows:THE DANUBE RIVER IS VERY IMPORTANT uld work for the conservation of this great round table on Danube River problems inFOR BULGARIA. It forms the northern bo- European river. Martin Donchev and Dr. Ivan Rousse;undary of the country and a connection with Tsenov, the governor and mayor of Vidin, res- 13 colored balloons, corresponding to theother countries of the continent. The total len- pectively, greeted the participants. Minister number of countries which have signed thegth of the Bulgarian section of the river is 470 Arssenova had a meeting with children from Danube convention, were released over thekm. Ogosta, Iskar, Vit, Osam, Iantra, Rusenski Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia and Montene- Danube at 12 a.m.;Lom are some of its larger tributaries. A very gro, who acquainted her with the message of an exhibition of the natural resources ofsmall part of the Timok catchment is located the children from the three countries regar- the Lower Danube River was opened inon Bulgarian territory. On June 29, 2004, Mi- ding the conservation of the Danube River Ba- Rousse;nister Dolores Arssenova opened the ﬁrst in- sin. The message was handed to Minister Ars- youth competitions on different ecologicalternational campaign celebrating Danube Day senova in the hall of the Vidin Art Gallery. It is issues were organized in the village of Kri-in Vidin. It was held under the motto “A Brid- to be sent to the International Commission for vina on the Yantra River Basin – a tributaryge towards the Future”. The event was atten- the Protection of the Danube River. The parti- of the Danube;ded by the ambassadors of the Danube coun- cipants in the celebration acquainted them- horn salute of the “Rousse-Regensburg” bytries of Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic selves with the work of the Bulgarian Children 26 boats and ships at 7 p.m.;and Serbia and Montenegro, the mayors of Eco Parliament. The child-ecologists organized a large “Beautiful Blue Danube” concert.
Interview with the Minister of Environment Water Talk: Implementation of EU legislation for the new members which entered the EUof the Slovak Republic Prof. László Miklós in May 2004 means an opportunity for the improvement of the environmental infras- tructure with co-ﬁnancing from EU funds. ToWater Talk: GWP deﬁnes Integrated Water cesses of sectors dealing with landscape ex- which measures in the area of water protec-Resources Management (IWRM) as a pro- ploitation. Another problem is that agricultural tion and use is support from the Structuralcess which promotes the co-ordinated de- land is in the hands of private and other ow- Funds and Cohesion Fund from 2004 to 2006velopment and management of water, land ners and the same is true for forest land. Ow- earmarked? Furthermore, who might beneﬁtand related resources, in order to maximise ners have their own and very different interests from that support? How much ﬁnancial re-the resultant economic and social welfare as well as governmental departments. Non-go- sources are needed for the improvement andin an equitable manner without compromi- vernmental organisations are promoting the development of the environmental water in-sing the sustainability of vital ecosystems. inclusive approach, e.g. everybody should be frastructure in the near future?Mr. Minister, you are well known on the na- included in the process of integrated manage-tional and international scene as one of the ment. Some understand integration of mana- Prof. Miklós: Indeed, most support from theﬁrst propagators and implementers of the gement in a way that everybody should mana- EU goes into the water sector the drinking wa-concept of integrated landscape manage- ge something. Of course, it is acceptable and ter supply, waste water treatment and ﬂoodment. How do your visions correspond or necessary for everyone to take responsibility prevention. Besides one project, the major ISPAdiffer from those GWP is trying to imple- for the use of the river basin, but the substance and Cohesion Fund infrastructure projects sup-ment in the practice? must be of understanding the reality; water in ported the water management sector, which needs the most ﬁnancial support. Total costsProf. Miklós: Basically, they do not differ. It calculated in the EU approximation strategyis rather a question of understanding becau- for the Slovak Republic revealed that in orderse integrated management is perceived diffe- to comply with EU legislation, the country ne-rently on different levels. Some perceive this eds 4.7 billion EUR (188 billion Slovak crowns)concept in legislative terms, others as a pro- for the improvement and development of thecess, some as layout or scheme and or even as water protection and management infrastruc-a substance. I think that this needs to be joi- ture and 5.3 billion EUR for operational costsned; all views have to be followed up with ob- (212 billion Slovak crowns), out of which 2.25jective aspects. I can explain my perception of billion EUR is earmarked for waste waters (90the objective aspect of integrated manage- billion Slovak crowns) until 2015 and 0.475 bil-ment: integrated management of water has to lion EUR (19 billion Slovak crowns) for the im-include not only water but also the vessel into plementation of the Flood Protection Program-which water is ﬂowing - the whole river basin. me until 2010. This is a calculated estimationThe river basin consists of the soil, geological of costs; however, some experts are estimatingfoundation, forests, meadows, cities and other even higher costs.material elements, which need to be taken intoconsideration. Understanding that IWRM can Water Talk: So far, WFD is the most com-be implemented merely throughout landsca- plex set of goals, tools and commitments inpe management in the whole basin, not only the EU water sector. Two main WFD goalsin the river itself, has to be followed by ove- are the protection and improvement of wa-rarching legislation. We tried to achieve this in ter ecosystems quality and sustainable, ba-early 1990 during the revision of the Landsca- lanced and equitable water use. This direc-pe Planning Act, which contains features of the landscape needs to be considered as its in- tive, which provides broad opportunities forLANDEP (landscape planning) and USES (ter- tegral part and then to come up for the legisla- public participation in river basin manage-ritorial systems of ecological stability). It is of tion, management, participation of the public, ment, was fully transposed into Slovak le-course only a legislative step realised according etc. I have to admit that many experts at our gislation by new Water Act No. 364/2004to the knowledge and resources of speciﬁc in- ministry and those working in the water mana- in May 2004. How can the participation ofdividuals. The Landscape Planning Act was re- gement sector do not perceive landscape as an the public and NGO’s be ensured during thevised for the second time in 2000 and LANDEP integral system but see only “water”. However, implementation of this directive and espe-(landscape planning) became an obligato- it is not correct to implement integrated wa- cially in preparation of the river basin ma-ry part of landscape plans, and territorial sys- ter management exclusively - because only the nagement plans which have to be comple-tems of ecological stability became obligatory whole landscape can be managed and used in- ted by 2009?regulations. These issues need to be realised in tegrally. This approach is also used by the Wa-practice. Territorial systems of ecological sta- ter Framework Directive (WFD) where the wor- Prof. Miklós: In any case you can see a spe-bility were also included into land alterations, ding “river basin” is used and not only “water”. ciﬁc individual behind the management whowhich are the second most important activities And river basin means not only the river but is up and working. To ensure participation ofin the landscape. Unfortunately, this concept the entire river basin area. At the moment, we the public we have to ﬁrst deﬁne the legislati-has not been introduced in forest management are preparing a systematic solution to the si- ve responsibilities of the private and corporateplanning. And this is really “a stumbling block” tuation through a new Act on Landscape Plan- entities for water quality and ﬂood prevention.- because the integrated approach needs to be ning, which will be absolutely interconnected This requirement is embedded in new legisla-introduced into legislation and planning pro- with river basin management plans. tion, which is compatible with WFD. Another 2
thing is the environmental awareness of the in- are able to transfer their valuable experiencedividual who, as an inhabitant of a village, fe-els personal responsibility for the creation of to other countries. Calendar of Eventsﬂoods. It is given by legislation; however, here Water Talk: More and more, global clima- International Conference “The politicsthe participation of the general public is nee- te changes in the form of ﬂash ﬂoods are of multi-stakeholder participation”ded. I think that the state authority, besides le- affecting the entire region of Central and 30 September - 1 October 2004gislation and perhaps some methodologies, has Eastern Europe. Which measures must be Wageningen, The Netherlandsnothing more to say to the citizens. Of course, adopted in order to reduce the results ofthe state has its responsible institutions such this threat? International Conferenceas the State Water Management Enterprise and “Water: a catalyst for peace“others, but the public as well as each citizen is a Prof. Miklós: The same measures that we star- 6-8 October 2004special individual. NGO’s can help in issues re- ted with – the integrated management of ba- Zaragoza, Spainlated to public participation and their assistan- sins. Integrated management has to be imple- UNESCO‘s PCCP project (from Potential Con-ce is also desired. It is important to be strictly mented in the ﬁeld together with changes in ﬂict to Co-operation Potential) internationalprofessional. Personally, I do not have anything landscape management, proper management conference will bring together water mana-against cases when NGO’s, sometimes not so of agricultural and forest land and a change of gers, decision makers and a broad range ofprofessionally, come up with a problem be- approach of owners, which is indeed very difﬁ- stakeholders to improve their conﬂict mana-cause they are pointing it out. We have to take cult. We have formulated certain management gement skills.into consideration that not everything is true principles for basins and ﬂoods based on threeat ﬁrst glance and experts have to be invited to pillars after the Slovak Water Management Seminar “Tools for public participation, conﬂictexpress their opinions. We have certain expe- Authority became part of our department. The resolution and decision making in waterrience with this. Finally, I would like to sum up ﬁrst pillar is to increase the retention capacity resources management”that three years ago I created the Council for of the landscape and the provision of ecologi- 13 October 2004Integrated River Basin Management, at the Mi- cal demands of the land through a change of London, UKnistry of Environment, where all stakeholders: its use. The second pillar is the re-evaluation of The meeting will present and discuss researchstate authorities, state organisations, research developed locations through landscape plan- and work that has examined the use of diffe-organisations, schools, the Slovak Academy of ning, the re-evaluation of other plans and the rent tools and methodologies to facilitate pub-Sciences as well as NGO’s are participating. introduction of landscape planning in practice. lic involvement in water management The third pillar is technical-administrative,Water Talk: How do you see the opportuni- where we prioritised several new trends which GWP CEE Council Meetingties for the active involvement of environ- we were used to in the past and were neglec- 22-24 October 2004mental NGO’s in the process of WFD imple- ted in recent years – the hatching of streams, Riga, Latviamentation as individual organisations or as constructing of dry polders and increasing ofa part of working groups involved in WFD the absorbing capacity of river meanders. These ICPDR Ministerial Conferenceimplementation? measures mean a more natural and integrated 13 December 2004 approach to basins management. Vienna, AustriaProf. Miklós: This question has already beenanswered. NGO Participation is important;tasks for them will be deﬁned and speciﬁed,but basically their assistance will be sought out GWP Bulgaria is participating in the workif the state administration, expert organisati-ons and research institutions can not or do not of the Bulgarian Scientiﬁc Coordinationknow how to solve speciﬁc problems. Center for Global ChangeWater Talk: In 1994, the Slovak Republicsigned the Convention on Co-operation for THE SCIENTIFIC COORDINATION CENTER FOR GLOBALthe Protection and Sustainable Use of the CHANGE OF THE BULGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCESRiver Danube. It was ratiﬁed in 1998 and (SCCGC-BAS) is a voluntary association of academic rese-Slovakia is actively participating in the ac- arch and development institutes, universities and higher edu-tivities of working groups under the Inter- cational institutions, agencies, organizations, companies andnational Commission for the Protection of other entities in Bulgaria which organizes and conducts activities related to global change in thethe Danube River (ICPDR) based in Vienna. environment and the economic, political, social and spiritual aspects of global change on so-How is the valuable experience gained at ciety. GWP Bulgaria actively participates in the work of SCCGC-BAS, which is an advisory bodythe international level in solving problems of the Steering Committee of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences on global change. The majorin Slovakia used? tasks of the center are coordinating and supporting scientiﬁc research and scientiﬁc, methodo- logical and informational needs related to global change. The center promotes the participationProf. Miklós: I think that Slovak experts have of scientists in national, regional and international global change programs and coordinates thebeen very active all the time, actually in the fo- information exchange within their network. SCCGC BAS provides assessments and expertise andundation of the above-mentioned organisati- develops reviews and position papers as required by governmental institutions, international or-ons as well as during the formulations of their ganizations, business entities, NGO’s and other organizations on various aspects of global chan-programs. Interaction must be on a high le- ge. In addition, SCCGC BAS organizes and supports global change-related scientiﬁc conferences,vel. I would like to add that Slovak specialists courses, training and publications. 3
Tool Box experience has been successfully transferredfrom GWP CEE to the GWP CACENA regionIN 2003, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GWP CACENA REGION (CEN- the private sector and water practitioners from NGO’s. It was anticipatedTRAL ASIA AND CAUCASUS) INITIATED AN INTRODUCTION OF TOOL that the participants would be able to disseminate IWRM approachesBOX ACTIVITIES TO CACENA BASED ON TWO YEARS OF EXPERIEN- shown in the Tool Box throughout the water community in their respec-CE IN THE CEE REGION. Vadim I. Sokolov, Regional Coordinator of GWP tive countries. It was also expected that they would bring their ideas andCACENA, supported the introduction of approaches of Integrated Water experience to generate future case studies for the Tool Box web page.Resources Management (IWRM) though Tool Box and a training series The training package was translated into Russian by Teimuraz Mtibe-for water experts in the CACENA region. During the past 2 years in the lashvili, who has two years of experience in Tool Box testing in the CEE region and who is well acquainted with the speciﬁc state of affairs in the CREDIT: DANKA THALMEINEROVA region because he comes from one of the CACENA countries (Georgia). The main objective of the training was to show participants how to utili- ze the instruments (tools) for IWRM and how they are applied in the wa- ter sector. Furthermore, the training brought into focus the illustration of different aspects of water management, such as public participation, conﬂict negotiation and water project development. All sessions were received with gratitude, especially with respect to the tremendous effort devoted to the Tool Box case study design. The par- ticipants shared information about the results of the website search. They received a comprehensive overview of the structure, types of in- formation and options of the Tool Box. In some cases, it was unclear if or how particular case studies could be useful for replication or if they could be used as a “cook-book” for identical problems to be solved in other parts of the world. There was a special exercise on formatting caseBlue water experts pose for press release photo studies from the existing sources, which the participants received fromCEE region, Tool Box has been used in education and training activities different journals, books and conference proceedings. This point highli-tailored to address the EU accession process in water resource manage- ghted the fact that there were many examples and stories publishedment. Sokolov, together with Danka Thalmeinerova, the Tool Box Focal that could be included in the Tool Box database. The participants werePoint Representative in the CEE region agreed on a concerted 2004 work instructed on how to ﬁt case studies into the required format, how toplan on how to transfer knowledge and experience to the CACENA re- shorten them, how to outline the main IWRM principles and how to se-gion. In addition to the basic Tool Box concepts, training packages also lect appropriate keywords and numbers of tools. The participants statedaddress common water problems. These two regions, despite their ge- that despite the long water management history in their countries, thereographical distance, share a similar past. Both regions consist of young were not so many examples demonstrating the principles of the IWRM.democratic countries established after the collapse of the Soviet Union They further reported that it required experience and training to deve-and the demise of their centrally planned lop a case study suitable for Tool Box publi-economies. Also, there is an obvious inﬂuen- cation. The important issue was that the pre-ce of turbulent economic development com- paration of the case study requires teamworkplemented with old environmental debts. – the involvement of experts from differentThe ﬁrst mission to the CACENA region was water and other sectors. The main expecta-accomplished in May 2004, when Thalmei- tion of the workshop was to train participantsnerova presented the Tool Box at the inter- in using the Tool Box and to transfer expe-national scientiﬁc-applied conference held in rience from the regional Focal Point to theAlmaty, Kazakhstan, where more than 120 participants represented 8 co- local (country) level. Another goal was to prepare nuclei for searchinguntries of the CACENA region. for potential authors in individual countries of the CACENA region. AsDuring the summer, the Tool Box Focal Point for CEE prepared a trai- a result, an essential friendship and potential for further cooperationning package to conduct a two day workshop in the CACENA region. between CACENA and the CEE region was established. The main conclu-The workshop took place in a beautiful resort on the shore of the Is- sions are as follows:syk-Kul Lake, the world’s second largest high altitude lake. It is one of the Tool Box is a useful tool for the dissemination of IWRM ideas andthe most ancient lakes on earth and is estimated to be approximately approaches,25 million years old. Its economic signiﬁcance dates back to about 500 the Tool Box is user friendly because it contains a comprehensiveBC when the Great Silk Road passed nearby. Slightly salty, the lake never set of tools, deﬁnitions, and case studies. However, it has limitationsfreezes, which contributes to its importance as a stopover for migratory with respect to language barriers and limited use for highly specia-birds. The workshop was prepared for a broad group of stakeholders in lized water experts in the CACENA region,the water sector interested in gaining knowledge on integrated approa- it is recommended that similar training activities be conducted onches in water resource management. In order to encourage interaction a “country” level.between trainers and participants, the group was limited to 15 partici-pants comprising all of the CACENA countries and both governmental Danka Jassikova Thalmeinerova,and non-governmental institutions. Participants ranged from decision- GWP CEE Tool Box Focal Point-makers to water researchers, environmental and water experts from email@example.com
Danube Regional Project supports policies for the controlof agricultural pollution THE OVERALL AIM as the signiﬁcant reduction in livestock num- ricultural advisory messages is therefore es- OF THE DANUBE bers and production of animal wastes, has sential, including well written and appropriate REGIONAL PRO- contributed greatly to enhanced water qua- advisory materials, demonstration plots/farms, JECT (DRP) is to lity. The future relationship between agricul- training for advisors and other capacity buil- support the acti- ture and the environment in the central and ding of agricultural extension services. vities of the Inter- lower DRB is however now uncertain – further national Commis- enlargement of the EU into the DRB will ine- There should be more emphasis upon sion for Protection vitably bring environmental and socio-econo- a “farming systems” approach to agriculturalof the Danube River (ICPDR) in implementing mic beneﬁts to many rural areas, but there is pollution control rather than the “input reduc-a regional, basin-wide approach in 11 coun- also the risk of increasing agricultural intensi- tion” approach encouraged by the methodo-tries of the Danube River Basin (DRB) to sol- ﬁcation as economic conditions and access to logy advocated in the terms of reference forving the trans-boundary problems associated markets improve, as well as the continuation this project. It is necessary to promote notwith the protection of the Danube River – in- of existing bad practice where farmers have no only the reduced use of agrochemicals etc.,cluding the sustainable management of surfa- knowledge or incentive to adopt alternative, but also the re-design of farming systems (e.g.ce and ground waters, the reduction of water more environmentally-friendly practices. using an ecological systems approach) to makepollution and the protection of water related The second phase of the DRP will help to ad- them more environmentally sustainable. A go-ecosystems. Objective 1 of the DRP is the cre- dress these issues by supporting the impro- od example of this approach is the promotionation of sustainable ecological conditions for vement and harmonisation of policy objecti- of organic farming which involves signiﬁcantland use and water management. Under this ves and instruments for agricultural pollution changes in crop rotation, soil management,objective there are two key outputs relating to control in the central and lower DRB countries. the storage and management of manure, ma-agriculture: However, even the best, most well-conceived nagement of ﬁeld margins and non-crop habi- and funded policy instruments will only work tats etc. as well as prohibiting the use of pes- Output 1.2 - reduction of nutrients and as well as they are understood, absorbed and ticides and mineral fertilisers. other harmful substances from agricul- adopted by the farming community. This is an tural point source and non-point sources important issue and major challenge for the Information in this article was taken from the through agricultural policy changes. DRP/ICPDR in promoting the concept of Best Final Report for Danube Regional Project Out- Agriculture Practices (BAP) in the region. puts 1.2 & 1.3. Output 1.3 - development of pilot pro- jects on reduction of nutrients and other In this respect, a number of key points must harmful substances from agricultural be noted: point source and non-point sources. The huge diversity of the 11 central and lower DRB countries must be taken into acco- GWP BulgariaPhase I of Output 1.2 and 1.3 was undertakenby GFA Terra Systems (Germany) in co-opera-tion with Avalon (Netherlands). The GFA Terra unt when developing and promoting the con- cept of BAP in the region. Promotion of the Helps to Save theSystems/Avalon consultancy team consistedof 6 international consultants and a network concept of BAP by the DRP/ICPDR must the- refore be ﬂexible, adaptable and above all - Botanical Gardenof 35 national experts in the 11 central and pragmatic! GWP-BULGARIA SUPPORTED THE PROPO-lower DRB countries eligible for UNDP/GEF SAL OF MRS DOLORES ARSENOVA, THEassistance. This article brings main conclusi- Due to land privatisation and restitu-ons of the project supported by Danube Re- tion policies, the 1990s witnessed a huge in- MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND WATER,gional Project. crease in the number of farm holdings in the to change the status of the Botanical GardenThe beginning of the 1990s was a political DRB region creating an extremely diverse set in the town of Balchik. The establishment ofand economic milestone for all of the DRB of actors with contrasting farm sizes, degre- a protected area will save many plant speciescountries. The ensuing decade was accom- es of specialisation and levels of education. and improve the quality of the water in thispanied by substantial socio-economic chan- This represents a major challenge to both ag- tourist area. Many GWP partners are membersges that affected agriculture particularly se- ricultural extension/advisory services and to of the Public Committee for Saving the Balchikverely. Major changes in farming during the environmental enforcement agencies. Local Botanical Garden.first years of transition led to substantial re- capacity-building of these services and agen- Botanical garden in Balchik, Bulgariaductions in both agricultural production and cies remains a major challenge and demands CREDIT: GWP BULGARIAin the input of agrochemicals. This was lin- the commitment of substantial resources atked to an extensification of land use, chan- a national level – political commitment to theges in farm structures and farm management provision of these resources must be encou-practices. These developments have profoun- raged and supported.dly - if maybe only temporarily - changed therelationship between agriculture and the en- Farmers are economically-motivated andvironment in the region it is important to link the promotion of BAPAs far as water pollution is concerned the re- to economic beneﬁts such as improvements insultant changes have largely been positive - yield and savings in the cost of agrochemicalreductions in fertiliser and pesticide, as well inputs – the development of appropriate ag- 5
The GWP CEE Participated in the GWP Consulting Partners Meeting and the 1st Malaysian Water Week THE ANNUAL GWP CONSULTING PARTNERS MEETING WAS OR- lenges included such difﬁcult issues as the role of the GWP country wa- GANIZED IN KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA ON JUNE 11-12, 2004 ter partnerships, public participation, reaching out and receiving input in conjunction with the 1st Malaysian Water Week, an event organized from other sectors, the requisite water governance structures, techniqu- by the Malaysian Water Partnership (MyWP). The integration of these es of fostering political will, ﬁnancing water infrastructure, and building events enabled the participants from Malaysia to interact with a bro- capacity for the implementation processes of improved water manage- ad range of stakeholders from other parts of the world and vice-ver- ment. Based on these experiences, the meeting also added to the GWP sa. Through this forum both audiences shared valuable experience and guidelines document on “how to” in terms of good practices, while ta- knowledge on common problems. king into account the speciﬁcs of individual countries and regions. During the period before the CP meeting, there was a series of GWP CREDIT: GWP CEE/R. MULLER meetings including the Technical Committee, the Regional Chairs and Secretariats, Tool Box and various side meetings. The GWP Central and Eastern Europe region contributed to the meetings with valuable expe- rience in the implementation of Integrated Water Resources Manage- ment (IWRM) in countries that for more than a decade have been un- dergoing the difﬁcult transition from centrally planned economies to market economies. A series of technical visits was organized as a part of the Malaysian Wa- ter Week. These visits featured projects and activities by government and corporate sectors as well as NGO’s in an effort to achieve a balance between the environmental, development and individual needs of the population, particularly in the Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory and the Malaysian Water Partnership organized Water Resources Exhibition with the latest technology, equipment and solutions for IWRM State of Selangor. These visits offered good opportunities for the par- ticipants to experience real-life examples of improved water resources The GWP Consulting Partners (CP) Meeting is the annual general meeting management processes. Additionally, these visits enabled participants to of the GWP Partners. It reviews the GWP network work program activities gain insight into a range of problems and approaches concerning IWRM from year to year as well as plans for the future. This year the CP Meeting which include ﬂood management, water supply development, freshwa- focused on the state of water resource management in Southeast Asia ter wetland construction and stakeholder cooperation. and in other regions and countries in the GWP network. It facilitated the As part of the 1st Malaysian Water Week, the Water Resources Exhibi- sharing of information and experience among countries on their progress tion and several competitions were organized to create more opportu- towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development target of prepa- nities for the general public to participate while enhancing their under- ring integrated water resource management plans by 2005. standing of the need for better water management. Starting in early The meeting focused on the processes of preparing these plans, and the May 2004, competitions included photography and coloring competiti- challenges experienced by countries in this respect. Some of these chal- ons for school children.GWP CEE Task Force on Public Participation in Baltic Sea BasinTHE GWP CEE COUNCIL DECIDED ON ITS Lithuania, Poland and the latest news on IWRM Holding local meetings was very useful for theMEETING IN JANUARY 2004 TO ESTABLISH issues. The web page also has links to NGO’s, water management planning coordinators; theyA TASK FORCE ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. public institutions and pilot projects that are received feedback, and established steady con-The new Task Force aims to contribute to incre- related to water management and public par- tacts on the spot.ased public participation in river basin mana- ticipation issues. You are welcome to visit As a result of the seminars, the local stakeholdersgement planning in the CEE region. Through its www.riverdialogue.org/participation. In additi- also have a broader picture of the status of surfa-public participation efforts, the GWP CEE is ad- on, an e-mail address list was created for those ce and groundwater in their county, GIS systems;dressing new opportunities posed by the Euro- interested in public participation issues in water water management planning economic issues andpean Union Water Framework Directive for the management in the eastern Baltic Sea states. the principles of designing the plan of measures,new EU member states as well as for accession During the spring of 2004, ﬁve water mana- which will be the basis of the implementation ofcountries. Margit Säre, from the Peipsi Center for gement seminars were organized for local go- the water management planning. The presenta-Transboundary Cooperation, leads the public par- vernment ofﬁcials in the Lake Peipsi basin. As tion on the public water supply and sewerageticipation task force activities in the Eastern Baltic the background study showed, only a few mu- (PWSS) development plan was also highly appre-Sea region: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. nicipalities were well informed about the Lake ciated, as only around one third of the local mu-One of the ﬁrst activities of the task force was Peipsi water management planning process. The nicipalities have the plan at the moment. Fromto establish a web site containing training ma- seminars were well timed, as the development 2004, the PWSS development plan is a requiredterials and methodology on different methods of the plan had reached its halfway point, thus document for applying for national and internati-of public involvement, information on river ba- there were plenty of subjects to discuss and lots onal co-funding for local water infrastructure in-sin management projects in Estonia, Latvia, of information to convey to local stakeholders. vestments; thus the compilation of the plans has 6
GWP CEE Regional Coordinator Visits Slovenia MILAN MATUSKA, THE GWP CEE REGIO- ce linked with the country’s hydro-geological “natural processes” of protection/remediation NAL COORDINATOR, VISITED GWP SLOVE- conditions, its importance from the point of of the environment and the water. LIMNOS has NIA AND ITS PARTNERS ON MAY 20 – 22, view of drinking water supply, the observation developed 4 types of eco-remediation methods 2004. The ﬁrst visit was arranged at the Wa- network, the quantitative and qualitative cha- applied in speciﬁc locations in the country ter Research Institute (WRI) in Ljubljana which racteristics and their implications for the ope- where the interest of the local municipality is is mainly responsible for the technical du- ration of the observation network. A discussion supported with relatively small ﬁnances. ties related to the Water Framework Directi- According to LIMNOS, it has become evident CREDIT: MARTINA ZUPAN ve (WFD) implementation. The ultimate goal that the main hindrance to its wider use is of the institute is the elaboration of the River the limited knowledge of the problem and Basin Management Plans on the territory of sometimes even total absence of information Slovenia; these plans will be consulted with on the existence of the method, its applicabi- the public before their ﬁnal adjustment and lity and advantages to water environment. In approval. The institute is accountable to the order to raise the awareness of various tar- Ministry of the Environment, which is respon- get groups - municipal companies, municipal sible for WFD implementation on the natio- and government services, regional develop- nal level. At present, the WRI is concentrating ment agencies, educational institutions and on the technical aspects of WFD implementa- GWP Slovenia organised seminar for teachers others, it is vital that relevant information in Rodica, Slovenia tion; however, it is willing to co-operate with materials be prepared. a partner organization that will organize pub- was then held on EU legislation in this ﬁeld The Ministry of the Environment and Spatial lic participation according to the WFD. This is partially covered already by the WFD but spe- Planning pays close attention to awareness an opportunity for GWP Slovenia to initiate ciﬁcally under development, the importance of rising through the education of young people. a discussion with its partners on how to assist groundwater in the region and possible bilate- Therefore, regular seminars for primary school WRI to comply with WFD requirements in the ral cooperation of the neighboring countries teachers are organized with interesting topics ﬁeld of public participation. sharing groundwater bodies. related to the educational process. Lecturers Mr. Matuska was warmly welcomed by the di- Another meeting was held with the State Un- from universities, the ministry, the paint in- rector of the Slovenian Environmental Agency. der-secretary for Water at the Ministry of the dustry, schools and GWP Slovenia were invi- This was followed by a discussion of the mission Environment and Spatial Planning. She was in- ted to introduce topics for further discussion. of the GWP in the CEE region. The Slovenia. Flo- formed about the recent activities of the GWP Afterwards an excursion was organized along od Forecast and Groundwater Departments of CEE and Work Plans 2004 and 2004-2008. They the “educational path” related to “water to- the Environmental Agency were visited as well. discussed the possible participation of GWP day” and the history of centuries of Rodica. The Flood Forecast Department is taking part in Slovenia in the implementation of the WFD in It was an extraordinary opportunity to parti- the GWP Associated Program for Flood Mana- the ﬁeld of public participation and other as- cipate in such an “educational path” of high gement, and Slovenian experts were interested pects of sustainable water protection and use. professional repute and the interconnection in the scope of reports, the individual phases of Mr. Matuska also visited Limnos, a host insti- of history, culture, water and involving local the project and, of course, the deadlines. Du- tute of GWP Slovenia, actively engaged in the teachers. Finally, the GWP CEE Regional Secre- ring the visit to the Groundwater Department ﬁeld of environmental protection and especial- tariat would like to thank Ms. Martina Zupan comprehensive information on groundwater in ly in eco-remediation. The philosophy of the from GWP Slovenia who made this very in- Slovenia was presented including its inciden- company is based on the approach of using the teresting visit possible.become an urgent question to be solved for many municipalities. Hopefullythe training will help the municipalities to speed up the process of compi- Tool Box User Survey now on line!ling the local PWSS development plans. This will guarantee a steady ﬂow of THE GLOBAL WATER PARTNERSHIP, JAPAN WATER FORUM, NATIONALinvestments into local water supply and sewerage systems, and eventually INSTITUTE FOR LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT (NILIM)decrease the amount of wastewater channeled into Lake Peipsi. AND JAPAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION (JAWA) HAVE JOINED EFFORTS TO CARRY OUT A TOOL BOX USER SURVEY. The purpose of thisThe seminar: “Water Management Planning in the Eastern Baltic Sea Sta- survey is to ensure that the present and future Tool Box developments aretes: Integrated Approaches” - the largest international event of the task based on user needs and preferences. Join the online survey at www.gwp-force - takes place on 20-22 September, in Taagepera, South Estonia. It forum.org now!will bring together water management specialists from Estonia, Latvia, The Tool Box is a comprehensive source of knowledge, experience and guid-Lithuania, Poland and northwest Russia. The general topic of the semi- ance for sustainable water resources development and management includ-nar is the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in the ing service provision. The Tool Box aims to help decision makers and prac- titioners to put together policy packages for sustainable water resourceseastern Baltic Sea region - its problems and challenges in different co- management. The ToolBox draws together experience and shares knowledgeuntries. The seminar topics include: water body classiﬁcation and moni- in implementing IWRM, worldwide. The Tool Box contains some 50 Tools andtoring issues; mitigation of the impact of agriculture on water quality shows how, by combining tools and policies, you can ﬁnd solutions to a wideand water ecosystems, economic issues in water management planning range of water management problems – through building strong institutionsand public involvement in the process of water management. The semi- in a clear policy and legal framework, and adopting concrete managementnar will also promote the establishment of a network and the exchange options. Lessons learned in using the Tools are described in Cases. Case stud-of experiences of water managers in the region. ies are practical descriptions of actual experience, submitted by Tool Box us- ers from all over the world and offering realistic lessons for others. Case Margit Säre studies are peer reviewed through the GWP network. In addition, the Tool Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation Box contains references. All the Tools and Cases are linked to reference ma- firstname.lastname@example.org terials – websites, references and organisations. 7
New GWP CEE regional reports affordability in water management in the CEE region”, “Water, Food and Environment: second phase of dialogue ws FlosourcesNEW REGIONAL REPORTS ARE RESULTS OF NATIONAL on the implementation of the EU Water Framework Direc- cial ater reE region inan enin CE w Faffordabemty t in the ili and ag man Water,AND REGIONAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDERS DIALOGUES tive in agricultural water management in the CEE region” and Environ Food dialogue on ment the implem entation of Water Frame the EU work Directi water manag ve in agricu ement in the lturalHELD IN 10 COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN EU- and “Gender: evaluation of questionnaire on the involve- Second Phase CEE region Report, March ev 2004 aluation on the Gend involv of quest ion er emen and t of wonaireROPE. Based on the dialogues, GWP CEE Task Force leaders ment of women and men in GWP CEE”. Please contact GWP men in GW men P CEEand national experts prepared reports on “Financial Flows: CEE Regional Secretariat, if you wish to get a free copy.Contact our Country Water Partnerships!IN THIS ISSUE OF WATER TALK WE WILL GWP Latvia GWP LithuaniaPRESENT WATER PARTNERSHIPS IN ANO-THER THREE COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL AND Water Partnership Water PartnershipEASTERN EUROPE – HUNGARY, LATVIA Latvia has approximately 34 km3 of surface In Lithuania there are plentiful surface andAND LITHUANIA. water and 4.7 km3 of groundwater resources groundwater resources. Surface water availa- available annually. Generally it does not have bility is 7.043 m3 per capita per year, and clo- a water shortage problem as annual precipi- se to 1000 liters per day of groundwater couldGWP Hungary tation exceeds evaporation by 250 mm, and in wet years even by 500 to 600 mm. There be extracted without any damage to the envi- ronment. Currently the Lithuania Water Part-Water Partnership are more than 12,400 rivers and 2,256 lakes, nership has 80 members. The membership isThe two main rivers - the Danube and the which together with water reservoirs cover comprised mainly of individual persons. TheTisza - and Lake Balaton, together with ther- 3.7% of the state territory. Wetland ecosys- annual work program is prepared in associa-mal springs ensure safe water supplies for the tems, which have been destroyed in most of tion with the GWP Central and Eastern Eu-country. However, water may also cause se- Europe, make up to 10% of the territory of ropean Council. The principal activities of therious problems: authorities, associations and Latvia. The Latvia Water Partnership is ful- Lithuania Water Partnership include awarenessother stakeholders in the water sector are fa- ly consolidated and was registered as non- raising through seminars involving mass mediacing challenges relating to quality, quantity, -governmental organization in 2004. There on important water issues related to EU acces-and ﬂoods, and need to address institutional is a well-structured network in place for in- sion, the IWRM, public participation, the Wa-issues. The Hungary Water Partnership pro- formal exchanges of ideas, information and ter Framework Directive and other water rela-motes cooperation between those interested good practices. The network consists of wa- ted EU directives. The Partnership interacts within IWRM, with special regard to the protection ter management professionals and experts local decision makers and the public, involvingof the aquatic environment, ﬂood and excess as well as representatives of municipal and them in regional and national activities. Bywater protection, in addition to water mana- state administration. Activities include the translating and distributing GWP literature, thegement in shared river or lake basins and the implementation of the IWRM at the river Partnership has advocated and advanced GWPEU Water Framework Directive. basin level. water initiatives throughout the country. Established: Established: February 2002 Established: 2004 September 2000 MR. GYULA REICH MR. MARIS OZOLINS MR. BERNARDAS PAUKSTYSEtele u. 59-61 Kekava Municipality Council Juozapaviciaus street 6/2H-1119 Budapest, Hungary Gaismas 19-9, Kekava LT-09311, Vilnius, LithuaniaTel: +36 1 371 1333 Riga District, LV-2123 Latvia Tel: +370 5 2757 278Fax: +36 1 371 1333 Tel: +371 7935 803 Fax: +370 5 2757 278E-mail: email@example.com Fax: +371 7935 819 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.orgWebsite: www.gwpmo.hu E-mail: email@example.com Website: www.vandensklubas.lt Volume 4, Issue No. 2/2004, October 2004 Water Talk is the ofﬁcial newsletter of Global Water Partnership Central and Eastern Europe (GWP CEE) published twice a year. Water Talk assists GWP CEE to promote principles of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in the region of Central and Eastern Europe. The views and opinions expressed in Water Talk do not necessarily reﬂect the views and opinions of GWP CEE. Publisher: GWP CEE – Global Water Partnership Central and Eastern Europe, firstname.lastname@example.org, Editor: Richard Müller, Language Proofreading: VKM, s.r.o., Layout and Printing: TYPOCON, s.r.o. Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic Registration No: 3244/2004 ISSN: 1336-5525 GWP CEE – Global Water Partnership Central and Eastern Europe, c/o Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute, Jeseniova 17, 833 15 Bratislava, Slovakia, Tel./fax: +421 2 5941 5294, e-mail: email@example.com, http://www.gwpcee.com8