Peeter Unt

1

Strategies for Public Participation in the
Management of Transboundary Waters in Countries
in Transition Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe
(Estonia/Russia) and Lake Ohrid
(Macedonia/Albania) Project report
2
The report was prepared within a project
implemented by two regional international NGOs
Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation
(Estonia/Russia) and Alliance for Lake
Cooperation in Ohrid and Prespa
(Macedonia/Albania) with the support of the WWF
International. The report is available at
www.ctc.ee
3
Public participation has gained wide
recognition as a key principle for water
management, but its implementation is
problematic. Potential benefits of public
participation include better informed and more
creative decision-making, more public acceptance,
less litigation, fewer delays, and more effective
implementation of water policies public
participation can promote social learning, a more
open and integrated government, and democracy
and sustainable water management (Mostert, 2002).
4
EFFECTIVE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
REQUIRES PRACTICAL GUIDANCE!
5
Available methods of PP1. INFORMATION
public gets information through mass media,
information centers, cultural events, leaflets
and brochures2. CONSULTATION public is asked
for opinion interviews, comments in writing,
opinion polls, public hearings, internet
discussions3. DISCUSSION Real interaction
takes place between the public and government
workshops4. CO-DESIGNING public takes an
active part in developing policy or designing
projects5. CO-DECIDING Negotiations,
resulting in a Volunteer agreement6.
DECIDING Public performs public tasks
independently water users associations
6
Need to develop strategies and specific methods
to stakeholder participation within existing
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR PP - UN ECE
Convention on the Protection and Use of
Transboundary Watercourses and International
Lakes- UN ECE Aarhus Convention- EU Water
Framework Directive ON DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALES- International river basin - National
level- Local level
7
Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe BasinSurface Area
3,558 km2Basin Area 44,240 km2 Shared by
Russia (56) and Estonia
(44)Average Depth 7.1 mMaximum 15.3
mPopulation about 1,000,000
8
Lake Ohrid BasinSurface Area 358.2 km2Basin
Area 1,129 km2Basin is shared by Macedonia (70)
and Albania (30)Average Depth 163 mMaximum
Depth 289 mPopulation about 150,000.
9

Stakeholder participation on national level
Specific features public participation on the
international river basin level has to be
integrated into the existing processes on
national level where the widest range of
stakeholders is involved in decision- and policy
making. Stakeholder groups businesses, farmer
associations, local authorities and NGOs, a wider
public. Associations of citizens play a crucial
role. Role participate in preparation of new
legislative acts promote effective
implementation of the national legislation.
10

• Examples of stakeholder involvement on national
  level Estonian Water Clubs under the Global
  Water Partnership

11

International basin level Specific feature
involvement of the wider public remains limited
to a few large NGOs and well-organized interest
groups. Public participation at the basin level
can be a valuable supplement to participation at
the national level, but it can never replace it.
Stakeholder groups involved major businesses,
agricultural associations, other larger interest
groups such as fishermen and regional NGOs. Role
promoting trust building between the riparian
states on the initial stages of cooperation,
enhancing information exchange and communication,
promoting effective implementation of
international committments.
12
Peipsi CTC is actively participating in the
Commissions working group
13
In 2001 Peipsi CTC initiated an email list on
Peipsi issues for all the interested parties in
the region
14

Local level Stakeholders local community
including youth and women groups, schoolchildren,
small businesses Role addressing local problems
- water pollution are to be managed locally
Specific features diverse ways depending on
local specific cultural and economic background.
One of the most important stakeholder groups at
local level is local government that has a role
of a mediator between the decision-makers and
interested stakeholders.
15
Tartu Volunteer Center, which organizes voluntary
actions, e.g. lakeside cleanings
16
Recommendations - There is a very large range
of stakeholders with a large spectrum of
interests differing from each other ready to
participate in the water management issues-
Each of those stakeholder groups at every water
management level needs a special approach to
reach their needs and interests - different
channels and tools of communication, different
information packages, different timing different
level of detailed description but all of them
need clarity and transparency in the information
17
Recommendations - One of the most important
pre-condition for stakeholder involvement is to
formulate very clearly the problems and questions
in which stakeholders can contribute the most.-
The package of programs and activities to enhance
public participation should be as diverse as
possible and reach the audience wherever
possible- Special attention is needed to the
local level at local municipality and
stakeholders level often insufficient planning
and implementation capacity of local governments
takes place due to inadequate resources and
limited information and awareness.
18

• Final comments
• No cookbooks available for PP for every water
  basin, a stakeholder analysis (who are the
  stakeholders and what are their inherent
  interests) has to be conducted and a stakeholder
  involvement plan should be developed
• The stakeholder involvement plan has to be tailor
  made applying most suitable available methods of
  PP for EACH level of governance and EACH STEP of
  preparation and implementation of a basin
  management plan.

19

• Final questions
• How to create awareness among water managers of
  the importance of working with stakeholders?
• Where to start with developing capacity and
  adequate competency of river basin authorities
  for developing and implementing stakeholder
  involvement plans?

20
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PRACTICES IN TRANSBUNDARY
LAKE OHRID WATERSHED Albania, Greece and
Macedonia
21
LAKE OHRID WATERSHED
22
OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENTATION

• Why do we need a (new) strategy?

• What are the current participation structures and
  methodologies in Lake Ohrid Watershed?

• How do we actually define the Lake Ohrid
  Watershed?

23
WHY NEW STRATEGY

• State- and locally-driven (competing) agendas at
  the same time

• International actors play an important role, but
  their agendas may differ

• Polycentric watershed management

in order to promote further and enhance the
public participation, the joint bodies in Lake
Ohrid watershed would need new (appropriate)
strategies
24
ONGOING ACTIVITIES
SEVERAL PARALEL PROCESSES

• Lake Ohrid Conservation Project ALB-MKD (NOT
  GR!) GEF founded

• Transboundary Prespa Park ALB-MKD-GR GTZ
  supported

• Local Environmental Action Plans ALB-MKD
  financed coordinated by ISC, US

25
Participatory structures and methodologies
LOCALY- OR STATE-DRIVEN?
The Lake Ohrid Conservation Project is
predominantly locally driven the public in the
watershed is intensively involved in the project
implementation at national level.
At international level, the Lake Ohrid Management
Board provides for involvement of the local
officials, scientists and NGOs. The role of the
local actors in shaping the policy agenda of the
Board fluctuated over the last four years.
In the case of the Transboundary Prespa Park, the
policy agenda is strongly state-driven,
influenced by the highest state officials
including the prime ministers of Albania, Greece
and Macedonia.
There are no institutional arrangements that
would provide for wide involvement of the
stakeholders.
The preparation of the Local Environmental Action
Plans is entirely locally driven. There is no or
there is very weak connection to watershed scale
planning.
26
Participatory structures and methodologies
REPRESENTATIVE OR DIRECT PARTICIPATION?
The participation methodologies may substantially
differ.
The Lake Ohrid Conservation Project pushes
towards a more inclusive (direct) participation.
The approach of the Coordination Committee of the
Transboundary Prespa Park is typical of elite
participation
27
INSTEAD OF CONCLUSIONS
The issue of defining the system boundaries
becomes central. It is related to the
identification of the stakeholders and ultimately
to the question of what type of participation
organizations/institutions we need and what
participation methodologies should be applied
Do we change the institutions?
or
we change the strategy
28
Participatory structures and methodologies
Or, put in other words
What are the system boundaries
Is polycentric watershed management really bad
thing?
29
Thank you for your attention