|
Seminar on Integrated Water Management in the Tisza River Basin
Final Report - IX
3. MAIN POINTS FROM DISCUSSIONS AND WORKING GROUP SESSIONS
Discussions, Working Groups Sessions and Closing of the Seminar
27) Discussion and wrap up of the first day
Lead by Mr. Tobias Salathe
28) WG I - Recommendations for a joint approach
On behalf of WG I: Mr. Jacob Burke
29) WG II - Flood prevention/mitigation
On behalf of WG II: Mr. Douglas Taylor
30) WG III - Sector interests, e.g. agriculture, environment, rural development
On behalf of WG III: Mr. Alfred Evers
31) WG IV - Implementation of the WFD
On behalf of WG IV: Ms. Karina Kitnaes
32) Discussion on the second day
Plenary Discussion
33) Closing session of seminar
By Mr. Dzsingisz Gabor, Agricultural Counsellor of the Embassy of the Netherlands, and
by Ms. Maria Kadlecikova, FAO Sub-regional representative of Central and Eastern Europe
27. Discussions and Wrap up of the first day
Lead by Mr. Tobias Salathe
Mr. Salathe made a short wrap up of the first day's presentations and expressed that he was struck by all the national, bilateral and multilateral activities, which were already ongoing in the five countries in relation to trans-boundary IRBM and implementation of the WFD.
Mr. Damen made a comment on the FAO project outline expressing his hopes that the findings and recommendations from the working group sessions will make it possible to build on these outcomes. Based on the findings, recommendations and agreements on a joint approach for the Tisza, the FAO will decide whether to continue with developing and assisting with a project on IRBM of the Tisza River.
Other comments made during the wrap up of the first day:
The five governments have already agreed on cooperation regarding IRBM for the Tisza on ministerial level. The doors between the countries are open and cooperation is ongoing, but there is a need for financial and organisational support for seminars and on defining and identifying programme elements and funding opportunities.
When discussing flood prevention, more attention should be paid to how to avoid flooding in terms of how practical management will mitigate flooding/minimize flooding, not only on water flood prevention.
When discussing the WFD, the main issue for the countries is to implement the WFD on practical administrative level (regional, national, bi-lateral and multilateral) and to look at what the consequences of implementing the WFD is. It was expressed that the five countries need to agree on a common approach on implementing the WFD for shared waters.
It seems clear that the five countries agree to commit to an agreement on a joint approach on the Tisza. But the question is then on how directly and practically to work together, on how to work across borders and work inter-country instead of on an individual country level.
28. WG I - Recommendations for a joint approach
On behalf of WG I: Mr. Jacob Burke
Political realities:
 5 political systems and need for harmonisation.
The relative status of bilateral agreements versus multilateral agreements still emerging.
National institutions not necessarily compatible across borders
Possible institutional solutions:
Existing Tisza Forum could expand mandate
CEMAT initiative - the Ljubljana Declaration - may serve as a basis
Institutional structure will need an explicit link with the ICPDR as an umbrella institutional frame
The ICPDR has the advantage of being endorsed by all riparian countries, but does not have capacity to go into sufficient detail at sub-basin level.
There needs to be a complementary approach under ICPDR
Eventually a specific legal frame may need to be invoked for the Tisza
EU obligations for each of the countries very different; the WFD is not the only focus
Recommendations and Conclusions:
Clarify the scope of IRBM in the context of the Tisza
Scope of interest has to include droughts as well as floods
Find practical activities - standards, trans-boundary hydraulics, information exchange etc,
Balance basin wide concerns to be reconciled with economic priorities articulated at local level
Political and institutional basis for co-operation exists, but mechanisms may need refining.
National priorities (e.g. EU accession) need to be reconciled with basin-wide concerns
Specific trans-boundary concerns on the Tisza still need definition.
29. WG II - Flood prevention/mitigation
On behalf of WG II: Mr. Alfred Evers
Organisation (inventory):
The five involved countries have all together 7 bilateral commissions, which are good functioning.
Their structures are similar and they all have three sub-commissions: 1) water quality and pollution hazards, 2) flood prevention and protection, 3) hydrometeorology. The government commissionaires are heading the commission. To this inventory, the Tisza Water Forum is added (multilateral).
Actions needed:
Five items are mentioned, which should act as a catalyst for further actions:
upstream digital mapping (UA)
capacity building of the WFD for legal aspects for non-EU members (Serbia and Ukraine)
Early warning system on Tisza River Basin
Help to find funding
Workshop on expert level to discuss application for further action.
Fundraising: The TCP of FAO should support the five actions under "Actions needed". A CADSES (Interreg IIIB) application should be prepared by one of the five involved countries.
30. WG III - Sector interests, e.g. agriculture, environment, rural development
On behalf of WG III: Mr. Douglas Taylor
Constraints - Opportunity:
Inter-ministerial competition for authority: Use regional strategy or agreements to reduce internal problems, to enable transboundary success
Lack of capacity at local authority level: Build capacity and use best practice within catchment
Finance availability, often has to be channelled through central government
Farmers cannot easily adapt their intensive, often arable, skills to diversified farming or non-farming opportunities: Capacity building, market promotion and publicity
Lack of retention in the catchment, leading to need for disaster prevention measures: Increase catchment retention
Need clear framework for action: FAO could assist in setting up opportunities for whole Tisza catchment with sector groups for each of water, agriculture, rural development etc.
Lack of incentive-based approach to encourage positive contribution to good catchment management: Encourage harmonisation of trans-boundary incentives for wise use of land
Conflict management and need to build trust: Provide capacity building through counselling?
Other relevant suggestions: Make more use of local agreements and knowledge, use NGOs to maximise cooperation and help to overcome institutional suspicions.
31. WG IV - Implementation of the WFD
On behalf of WG IV: Ms. Karina Kitnaes
The WFD - current situation:
All countries agree to implement WFD
There is a platform for trans-boundary management
Harmonisation on multilateral level in the frame of the ICPDR
For instance bilateral agreement between Romania & Hungary regarding the WFD
New Water Acts - adopted/to be adopted
Differences - top to bottom / bottom to top approach
On sub-basin the countries do work with integrated management
Differences between country efforts put into implementation of the WFD
Differences between countries in understanding of IRBM
Integration of different sectors
Integration and coordination of sectors
Mechanisms to coordinate actions.
Gaps/constraints:
Capacities are still limited to implement WFD
Lack of expertise on water management
Lack of economic analyses for implementation of WFD
Lack of financial resources for implementation of WFD and for IRBM
Lack of coordination on national level between sectors
Differences in culture between countries regarding water management
Lack of dissemination of information
Lack of platform for exchanging information of regional information.
32. Discussion on the second day
After the presentation of the findings from the working group sessions, the FAO made clear that the country representatives are welcome to express how they see the next steps of the process towards IRBM of the Tisza River.
Mr. Damen pointed out that the FAO finds it important to know whether the present delegations support this initiative and are willing to agree to continue the process on the basis of the FAO project outline. This seminar is only the third step in a sequence of events that could lead to substantial funding for integrated water management, but the FAO can only act on request from the countries, so therefore the FAO would like to get a feedback from the participants on their needs and wishes of a regional FAO programme.
To answer a question from the participants, the FAO agreed that FAO can facilitate and organise meetings to bring the countries together to discuss the next steps. Furthermore, the FAO is willing to assist the five Tisza basin countries financially with implementing a regional programme on the Tisza.
During the discussion, the following comments were made by the participants:
Not all relevant issues have been addressed in this workshop, i.e. there is a strong wish for capacity building, for harmonising across borders, and for evaluating how similar or different the countries are in IRBM and water management
There is a need for the FAO to act as facilitator to establish the framework between the countries on the Tisza and also to investigate whether there is a political will to upgrade the Tisza Forum Initiate both on expert level or governmental level
It was suggested to maybe use the ICPDR as a kind of institutional umbrella to steer the process towards IRBM of the Tisza
But this seminar can only suggest the Tisza Forum to participate in a FAO project on the Tisza, but there is not the mandate present to decide or to agree to use the Tisza Forum
There exist already many agreements related to the Tisza River Basin, but this seminar did not come to the conclusion that there is a need for a multilateral commission or agreement
One important issue is the financial aspects of the implementation of IRBM
Another important issue is the people living in the Tisza River Basin and thus to address the needs and wishes on regional, national and multinational level
It will be important to take into account the issues of agricultural impact on water management and the impact on agriculture by IRBM planning
The Tisza River Basin is a very large area with many different and important issues. There is a need for both bilateral and multilateral cooperation and to have a multinational forum.
After the seminar, the FAO project outline needs to be developed into a project proposal. With the findings at this seminar, the FAO has now a better understanding of the situation and needs of the five countries, which will make it possible to develop an action programme, where many of the issues raised today will be addressed. The FAO can identify some of the weaknesses of the individual countries and can maybe help them to come in line with the other countries, so that in the end all the countries can achieve the common goal of IRBM of the Tisza River Basin.
After the discussions on the wishes, needs and recommendations, Mr. Damen summarized the findings into the main conclusions and recommendations of the seminar, which are presented in section 4 of the report "Seminar conclusions and recommendations".
To close the discussions, the delegations thanked Ms. Kadleckova and expressed their gratitude and appreciation to the FAO for arranging the seminar. Furthermore, the delegations pointed out that there is still a lot we don't know about the Tisza and the five countries, but that this seminar has provided a good opportunity to meet and discuss the issues. The delegations hoped that it will be possible to develop a good project programme.
33. Closing session of seminar
On behalf of the Netherlands, Mr. Dzsingisz Gabor, the Agricultural Counsellor of the Embassy of the Netherlands, expressed his hope that it will be possible to elaborate a plan to form the basis of cooperation. With this seminar it has become possible to formulate the building blocks of a common programme for the management of the Tisza River. Mr. Gabor closed his speech with saying that he was sure the Dutch government would like to contribute to this process.
On behalf of FAO, Ms. Maria Kadleckova, Sub-regional Representative for Central and Eastern Europe, made the closing speech of the seminar. Ms. Kadlecikova made a special thanks to each of all the present national and international delegations, donors, organisers and participants of the seminar.
It is the hope, that FAO can be able to provide technical assistance for a future project on the Tisza. For FAO, the task is to act as facilitator on how to cooperate inter-sector and multi-national.
As closing comment to the seminar, Ms. Kadleckova expressed her wish for everybody to return to their offices with new enthusiasm.
Conclusions
There is common agreement on continuation with existing bilateral cooperation, but concrete steps should be taken towards more multi-lateral/sector cooperation within a five country Tisza family
The Tisza Water Forum on Flood Control is a body that has the support of all five involved countries and international organisations alike
The FAO project outline has been approved and needs, in the framework of its general objectives, directions for elaboration, which take into account the findings of this seminar
Recommendations
The Tisza water forum on flood control could be gradually transformed into a more multi-disciplinary/sector committee with a larger mandate across agriculture and environment issues and capacities to complement the implementation of the WFD in the accession countries.
The FAO is encouraged to elaborate the already approved regional TCP outline into a project. This project should build further on the existing initiatives and actions of the coordinating bodies, which are already in place. Furthermore this project should develop an action programme for integrated water management in the Tisza river basin to be submitted for international funding (e.g. EU Interreg IIIC / IIIB, EBRD, ERDF, GEF etc).
From the seminar moreover the following concrete actions were proposed:
Digital mapping basin wide
Capacity building (legal aspects of WFD for non-accession countries)
Establish early warning system in Tisza basin(JRC)
Develop knowledge about access to international funding (CADSES, World Bank, ERDF etc.).
The final content of the project proposal will take note of these proposals and elaborate them into a coherent project design.
|
