Rapporteurs: Carolina W. JACOBS (The Netherlands) and Liviu Nicolae DRAGNEA (Romania)

---------------------------

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. Introduction

The Danube River basin contains eighteen states at very different stages of development and spanning a wide variety of political systems. It is just ten years since the Cold War divide that split the basin between east and west was lifted; as the example of the Rhine river basin illustrates, ten years is a very short time in terms of developing integrated, cooperative river basin management. It is also a very short time to introduce a market economy, a decentralised democratic system of government, and change the fundamental relationship between human society and the environment from one of exploitation to one of interdependence and respect, all of which have been taking place simultaneously and with varying degrees of progress from state to state within the basin.

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) requires a complex network of policy makers, government authorities at different levels, professionals, investors and consumers with full understanding and a responsible attitude to water use and conservation. In any river basin which crosses administrative or political boundaries, strong cooperation and joint management among these regions is also a pre-requisite for IWRM. When these regions are themselves located in different states the challenges are even greater as it is necessary to establish inter-state and multilateral cooperation, without forgetting the regional level where so much of the practical work which IWRM requires has to take place.

This is the challenge which the states and regions of both the Rhine and the Danube river basins face. Both rivers have been affected by and influential in determining the course of European history and defining the borders, cultures and demography of the continent, and there has been cooperation and conflict amongst the states and regions of both these great European rivers for centuries. From the end of the Second World War until the early 1990s, the majority of the states of the Danube basin were “Warsaw Pact” states under centralised socialist republics and this had a huge influence over the way in which the water resources were managed, and greatly reduced the degree to which members of the public and territorial authorities and administrators could be involved in the decision making process. During the same period, representative democracy within the states of the Rhine basin was further strengthened, and increased prosperity and closer European integration, combined with the beginnings of the environmental movement, led to the development of an unprecedented programme to rehabilitate the river.

In 1971, the public and governments of the Rhine basin were shocked by the all time low of the quality of the water, leading to states deciding to take concrete, specific steps to reduce the pollution of the river. Between 1971 and 1985, the countries along the river spent approximately $40 billion on building a system of purification plants; however, as an integrated plan and long term vision for the basin were still lacking, until1986 no real progress was made on the rate of cleaning up the Rhine. It took a serious accident, the Sandoz chemical fire which devastated aquatic life in the river in 1986, to spark the publicity and political attention needed to raise the issue of Rhine pollution higher among national and regional priorities. By 1987, three ministerial conferences had been held to address the problem and the Rhine Action Programme was agreed. Later, terrible floods in 1993 and 1995 turned attention on the need for cooperative action for flood protection and spatial planning in the basin, and the Action Plan on Flood Defence for the Rhine was adopted in 1998.

The transformation of the Rhine from the “sewer of Europe” which horrified the public in the 1970s, to a comparatively clean transboundary river which has met most of its pollution and flood protection targets and where salmon swim once again, has led to the Rhine initiative becoming an example for major river basins across the world and an important inspiration behind the development of the breakthrough European Union Water Framework Directive. While it is of course impossible to duplicate a model which worked on one river basin and impose it on another, it is certainly worthwhile identifying the elements of the Rhine programme which helped ensure its success and ascertaining how lessons-learned can be put to use in other basins, including the Danube.

As the European Union prepares for expansion into Central and Eastern Europe, the relevance of the comparison between these two rivers becomes clearer as the future water resources planning and management of both basins will be largely determined by the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive which entered into force in 2001. For the EU accession states of the Danube basin, adherence to these requirements is the dominant water policy objective driving decision-making today.

EU expansion presents a huge challenge, but also a great opportunity for Eastern Europe and the Danube basin in particular. Substantial progress towards inter-state cooperation between Danubian states has been made in the last ten years, with the 1994 Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River (DRPC), the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution and the establishment of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)¹: but while the institutional framework exists the co-ordination of the different initiatives and their implementation has been insufficient. There has so far been limited investment in the priority projects identified in the environmental programmes and strategies drawn up by the ICPDR and the environmental degradation and health problems in many parts of the region continue to worsen rather than be reversed.

Like the Rhine in the 1970s, the Danube is subject to increasing pressure from the supply of drinking water, irrigation, industry, fishing, tourism, power generation and navigation, and it is also too often the final destination of untreated wastewater. Also like the Rhine, the rehabilitation of the Danube needs an integrated basin-wide approach with the strong participation and commitment of all national governments, regional authorities and the public. It is in the area of the latter two groups that there remain many weaknesses in effecting much needed water management reform. It is often the case that institutions established to facilitate cooperation over transboundary watercourses concentrate at the state level, as this appears to be the greatest challenge, forgetting that public participation and the practical involvement of local and regional authorities within basin states is equally essential and must be integrated into the process from the beginning, for it is at the local and regional level that implementation if agreements and policies must take place.

Local and regional authorities in the CEE states of the Danube basin today face a great many challenges, and their roles have been fundamentally altered by the political transition of the last decade. In the field of water resources management, the rapid decentralisation of government authority has given local and regional authorities greater autonomy to manage natural resources and provide services to their communities. While this is welcomed as an essential element in the progress towards democracy, in the absence of corresponding increases in the institutional, technical and financial capacity of many territorial authorities, this decentralisation has at some levels caused disintegration and even deterioration in municipal and regional water management and utilities. The need to reach the standards of the Water Framework Directive (EU WFD) places additional pressure on territorial authorities, and has generated concern amongst them as to where the necessary resources to update inadequate infrastructure and implement the needed reforms will come from. This has highlighted the question of whether and how to involve the private sector in water services. The central role which local and regional authorities will have in meeting these EU standards will also require greater cooperation at the inter-regional level, including across state borders, and an enhanced role in decision-making and programme development within the transnational institutions of the Danube basin, such as the ICPDR.

On the positive side, the streamlined legislation of the EU WFD provides the CEE regions with a clear legal and policy framework, and the fact that the Directive supports the subsidiary principle indicates that the needs of territorial authorities will be taken into account by the mechanisms put in place to facilitate EU enlargement. In addition, closer connections and policy alignment with the EU will give the regions of the Danube basin greater access to the technologies, decision-support tools and experiences of regions in the transboundary basins of Western Europe, in particular in the Rhine basin where the regions have played an integral part in the successful development towards IWRM and democratic decision-making.

Whereas the nations of the Rhine were stimulated to improving water management and strengthening their cooperation by a negative event - the Sandoz disaster, the rehabilitation of the Danube has the chance to originate from the two most positive movements of recent European history – the democratisation of the former Warsaw Pact states, and the enlargement of the European Union.

Only an estimated 60% of the population of EU accession countries currently have access to piped water supplies, just over 40% of waste liquids are treated, and the Danube, its tributaries and delta continue to be the depository of unacceptable levels of pollution and suffer from lack of coordinated and integrated management. As is evidenced in the case of the Rhine basin, it can take many decades and large amounts of dedicated financing to achieve cooperation and integrated water resources management on a major transboundary watercourse; but the social and ecological situation faced by the Danube-Black Sea region necessitates that, while states and regions should adopt a long-term vision, no time or effort must be wasted in enacting reforms and programmes to protect the region from further deterioration and regenerating the Danube for the future.

To achieve this, rather than focussing on controversial and seemingly irreconcilable differences related to the sharing or division of the water resources between regions and nations, the people and authorities of the Danube basin should turn their attention to developing ways to equitably share the benefits of integrated water resources management, and to neutralise their comparative disadvantages and weaknesses through cooperation and exchange of ideas. Territorial authorities must play a central role and be fully implicated in this process.

2. Framework and Background to this Report

In 2001, the Congress initiated an important activity in the field of water management in river basins. The main idea was to: analyse the situation of the Danube river basin, take into consideration the best practices of the Rhine river basin and try to extend these practices to the Danube.

The activity, carried out on the basis of the study on “the role of Territorial Authorities in the management of river basins: an analysis of the Danube based on the experience of the Rhine” is the result of broad consultation and in depth research across the Danube basin carried out by Green Cross International, with important comparisons and lessons-learned emanating from the Rhine Basin experience with the assistance of experts from the Province of Gelderland in The Netherlands.

The Consultation in the Danube Basin was carried out at three levels:

1. A questionnaire on the Role of Regional Authorities in River Management was sent to the regional authorities of 16 countries (Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, The Netherlands, Republic of Yugoslavia, Romania, Slovakia, Switzerland, Ukraine). The goal of this questionnaire was:

to learn more about the different levels of responsibility held by regional authorities over water resources management;
to obtain information about the most difficult problems experienced in the management of river basins and water services;
to obtain proposals which could be useful for future elements for the Danube basin Project.

Although the rate of return of these questionnaires was disappointing, with only thirty regions responding, the replies received were very insightful and represented a broad range of regions – both geographically, with responses coming from nine different states spanning from EU, EU accession to former Soviet NIS states, and in terms of management structure and financial and technical capacity. The responses to this detailed questionnaire therefore provided a useful cross-section of problems and different levels of responsibilities amongst widely distributed regions. (see Annex 1)

A pilot project was implemented in Maramures County in Romania, near the Hungarian border, where more detailed questionnaires relating to water management, financing and decision-making were distributed in person with the help of volunteers and the cooperation of the regional authorities. One questionnaire was directed at the local and regional authorities, and another at local citizens. 500 of each questionnaire were distributed with an almost 100% return rate. Responses to these questionnaires provided in depth information about the problems faced, demands, and levels of information of public authorities and citizens in both large and small towns and rural areas. (see Annex II)

3. In Hungary, two consultation processes took place. The first was amongst experts, authorities and stakeholders in the Kapos basin, a sub-catchment of the Danube, and focussed on obtaining experience in the development of catchment plans, conflict resolution and conflict prevention in the basin. The second focussed on the experience of a cross-section of local and regional authorities and consumers in the operation of both public and privatised water services in Hungary. (see Annex III)

In addition to the consultation process, research was carried out on “International and European Law, Privatisation and the Role of Local and Regional Authorities in the Danube River Basin”, and on the specific cases of the water resources governance systems and legal frameworks in Romania and Hungary. These two basin states were selected as the representative pilot states of this stage of the project for a number of reasons, not least because they together account for over 30% of the entire Danube basin, and between them they represent different levels of development – between Hungary, a front-runner EU accession state, and Romania which is struggling to meet the environmental, economic and other conditions of accession and has severe water problems. Despite their economic differences, their interdependence was clearly demonstrated at the time of the Baia-Mare (Aurul) cyanide spill in 2000 which wiped out most of the flora and fauna of the Tisza river, a major tributary of the Danube. Hungary and Romania are both located almost entirely within the basin of the Danube river, which is therefore the single most important natural feature of the two states.

This project has sought to identify the most pressing problems facing local and regional authorities and citizens in the Danube basin, with particular reference to the new challenges being faced as a result of decentralisation, changes in national and international legislation and commitments, increasing privatisation, and the need for adherence to the European Union Water Framework Directive.

On 10-12 April 2003, the Congress in co-operation with the Teleorman County Council (Romania) and the Province of Gelderland organised a Conference in Turnu Magurele in order to finalise the Report by consulting the governmental authorities, experts in the management of river basins and non-governmental organisations. The Final Declaration of the Turnu Magurele Conference is in appendix to the Resolution of the Congress and can be considered as one of the most important parts of it.

Both the Resolution and the Recommendation have been approved by the Committee on Sustainable Development of the Chamber of Regions during the meeting held in Strasbourg on 24 April 2003.

3. Co-operation in the International Rhine Basin

This part describes in outline the cooperation between the different organizations in the different countries in the Rhine basin. This description creates a reference framework that can serve as an example for the ongoing process that is taking place in the international Danube basin.

Institutional frameworks and treaties

The most important institutional frameworks and treaties for cooperation in the international Rhine basin are:

International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)
In 1950 a number of states in the Rhine basin started cooperating on a voluntary basis. This resulted in the formal establishment of the ICPR in 1963.
The shared aims of all the participants in the ICPR are:
­ sustainable development of the Rhine ecosystem, in particular through the maintenance and improvement of water quality, natural functions, national interactions and natural habitats, the protection of populations of organisms and species diversity, and the environmentally sound and rational management of water resources taking ecological requirements into account when implementing technical measures, e.g. for flood protection, shipping or use of hydroelectric power
­ the production of drinking water from the waters of the Rhine
­ improvement of sediment quality in order that dredged material may be deposited
or spread without adversely affecting the environment
­ general flood prevention and protection, taking into account of ecological requirements
- the restoration of the North Sea through measures in the Rhine basin in conjunction with other actions taken to protect it

Border treaty between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany
This 1960 treaty provides among other things for the proper use of and access to all cross-border waters between the Netherlands and Germany with the exception of the Rhine, Eems and Dollard. The treaty addresses the following matters:

· in regard to water management, it provides for parties on both sides of the border taking one another’s interests properly into account
· it also provides for agreements being entered into in respect of the implementation of projects aimed at improving water management
· it also provides for arbitration if the parties do not reach agreement or in the event of disputes
· the implementation of the treaty is the responsibility of a committee, which is divided into subcommittees.

These frameworks and treaties create constraints for the courses to be charted in the different regions of the international Rhine basin and the associated measures. Plans have been developed and measures have been taken on the basis of the frameworks and treaties outlined above. A great deal has already been achieved in physical terms, such as the construction of pumping stations and improved water management, and in regard to cross-border cooperation between regions and organizations, for example in the European regions.

Experience with working under the umbrella of the border treaty is positive and it is considered to be an initial chapter with regard to working in sub-catchment areas.

It is important when defining and achieving objectives to divide up the total international basin into manageable units, i.e. the sub-catchment areas. Generally speaking the division is based on hydrological limits. This means that in principle they are not tied to national or regional boundaries.

This catchment area approach is informed by searching for interdependence in water management. The elements this contains are combating flooding, the ecology, surface water quantity and quality, and the space needed for these elements.

The cooperation in such sub-catchment areas can grow out of shared interests, using the treaties referred to above as a starting point.

Ongoing cooperation and interdependence in water management

The initiatives and treaties arose out of a need to cooperate. In recent years they have acquired a place in current European regulations, with the Water Framework Directive as an exponent in the area of international water management. The objective of the Framework Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of land surface water, transition water, coastal water and groundwater. The most important environmental goal is to achieve healthy conditions in natural surface water and good ecological potential for the non-natural waters. The Water Framework Directive also aims to achieve harmonization of the very fragmented European legislation relating to water. By working in sub-catchment areas, the European regions are becoming involved in fleshing out the measures in the overall basin. There are no prescribed lines that this elaboration has to follow; it may be worked out in consultation with the regions.

Cooperation between the Dutch Province of Gelderland and the German State of North Rhine-Westphalia

The cooperation between the Dutch Province of Gelderland and the German State of North Rhine-Westphalia can be quoted as an example of cooperation that is based on a shared interest in water management and in a part of the international Rhine basin.

Although the water management in the countries concerned is organized differently in terms of both legislation and organizational structure, the overarching agreements in the international Rhine basin offer sufficient common ground to provide a joint contribution to the overall objectives as formulated in the ICPR.

In order for the cooperation to proceed as smoothly as possible it is important to analyse the organizational structure in the regions concerned and to identify the possible forms of cooperation. The Netherlands and Germany organize their water management differently. In the Netherlands local water management is the responsibility of specific authorities with their own tax systems and elections. As a result of this local participation is actively implemented and independent local authorities have input in the development of policy relating to water management. In Germany local water management is more dependent on higher tiers of government, and consequently ways to influence policy are less developed and the organizations involved can be characterized as executive agencies as far as water management is concerned.

Local participation

Local participation and the involvement of the general public are important in order to achieve sustainable water management. After all, water management has a direct impact on the quality of life. To reach this goal it is important to establish how and at what level those immediately involved can exert their influence. This can be done using the principle of subsidiarity.

In order to activate local involvement, cross-border frameworks need to be created within which the local and regional initiatives can be supported. This support is more than substantive and financial in nature. It also has to be possible to establish and maintain contact with one another and to learn from one another. Activities like these certainly contribute to the development of regions and they ultimately result in cooperative efforts.

The European Union is an important element in water management and it is an umbrella for a great deal of regional and local development between regions. The Council of Europe is also able to indicate possible frameworks. The process of democratization is an important objective of the Council of Europe. The approach to water management currently being discussed is a functional portal for such processes because it has an immediate impact on an individual’s living environment. Cooperation between the different regions in this Council therefore presents opportunities.

However, every member state, regional authority and local authority retains its own responsibilities and will be held accountable for how it has discharged them. But cross-border initiatives can be initiated within the scope of the statutory responsibilities and as a result of this a contribution can be made to the intended overall objective. These local and regional initiatives moreover contribute to the formulation of ideas and possible fine-tuning of the strategy at catchment area level.

Based on what has been described above it can be stated that the development of the cooperation between the regions in Germany and the Netherlands was not initiated on a top-down basis but as a result of a natural need and a sense of responsibility with regard to making a contribution to creating conditions that enable sustainable cross-border water management. This cooperation and the projects and measures that have arisen out of it are regionally focused yet they fit into a broader backdrop and are supported by the EU and the ICPR.

Where are we now and what have we learned?

The international Rhine basin has been divided into sub-catchment areas on a provisional basis and cooperation has been initiated between the different regions. This cooperation has contributed to the development of the realization that it is not necessary for everyone to reinvent the wheel and that the parties involved should seek one another out to discuss ideas and in this way can acquire a joint understanding of the problems. This type of action in the Rhine basin resulted ultimately in a European programme (IRMA) that, by making financial resources available, has stimulated cooperation between regions in the area of flooding awareness, knowledge and information exchange, taking measures and beacon projects. This has contributed to the development of the “retain-contain-drain” principle that has been accepted as a principle throughout the entire basin.

The differences in organization and culture have been taken into account under this European initiative. This has without doubt resulted in improvement in the cooperation in the international Rhine basin. Perhaps a similar European initiative is possible in the future for the Danube too.

4. Challenges faced by territorial authorities in the Danube Basin

Four very positive and inter-related movements have fundamentally changed the way in which water resources and river basins are managed in the Danube basin, and the role which regional authorities have to play:

Democracy. Government accountability to the public and, as enshrined in the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, commitment to ensuring community participation and access to information about natural resources have greatly increased. As the most direct form of representation of the people, local and regional authorities are clearly the vehicle through which public interests and needs are reflected and hopefully championed. It can be argued that there is no better way to cultivate good governance than in the management of water resources because this is so basic to all human existence. In The Netherlands, it has been argied that the management of water via “Waterschappen” or water boards became the foundation of the democratic process

Decentralization. This process has taken place across the board, but in water management it has been particularly dramatic in many countries, with local and regional authorities going from having very little responsibility in this field to being the prime managers of the resource. The principle of subsidiarity, which calls for decisions and actions to be taken at the appropriate level, as close as possible to the citizen, is increasingly recognised in international law and called for in the preamble to the European Water Framework Directive.

Integrated Water Resources Management. IWRM is a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare, paving the way towards sustainable development, in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems. This system has become the accepted best practice in river basin management, reflecting increasing concern for and awareness of interdependent social and environmental aspects of water management.

European Union Enlargement. This will bring the western and eastern states and regions of the Danube basin closer together, and remove problems caused by differing water policies and priorities across borders as every state is bound by the same requirements and general principles of management – most important being the recognition of the basin as the logical unit of management and planning for water resources. Even the non-EU Accession basin states have committed to respecting the EU Water Framework Directive as the framework for management of the entire Danube basin.

All of the challenges and problems faced by local and regional authorities outlined below stem largely from the combination of the above four movements, and successfully meeting these challenges will require full understanding of their effects and the opportunities which they present. Territorial authorities in the Danube basin states are increasingly responsible for water supply, wastewater disposal, maintaining water quality, land management and spatial planning, protection of public health and safety, and to varying degrees across the basin are also in charge of environmental aspects of water resources management in their regions, which can include flood prevention and pollution control. These are all services of central interest to the public and vital to the sustainable and economic development of every state in the basin; it is therefore essential that barriers and weaknesses which currently prevent territorial authorities being able to fulfil these crucial responsibilities be remedied. However, it is important to note that the below list of problems is inevitably a generalisation; most regions do not suffer from all of the shortcomings outlined, but this list is made up of the concerns which were identified as major problems affecting a large number regions in the Danube basin.

Summary of Challenges and Problems

a. Rapidly shifting responsibilities:

During the last 100 years, several deep-rooted changes in regional water management and its social and economic implications have taken place in the Danube Basin. The first such shift brought about large scale river regulation and flood control which involved a significant modification of the natural features of existing riverbeds, especially effecting lower plain areas of the basin. The main goal of this social and economic development was to extend the size of areas used for agricultural cultivation and to manufacture easily marketable products. One implication of the works carried out, which were also aimed at improving the safety of life and property and accelerating social and economic progress, was that it was the people who enjoyed the benefits of water related interventions that also had to bear the risks and burdens. After the Second World War, when the centralised state systems came into being, the state became predominant in both taking responsibilities and bearing burdens. In many instances large scale developments and land planning (construction of infrastructure, community development, etc.) took place in areas which were converted from flood zones into usable land. For this reason, maintaining the safety of communities and property became an increasingly centralised issue.

The past ten years have seen rapid and massive changes in the political system, and consequently to the way in which responsibilities and costs for water management are distributed. Almost exclusive state domination has been replaced by governance structures based on the distribution of responsibilities and greater levels of autonomy at the regional level. This has made it necessary to develop new and more complex networks of partnerships, subsidies and regulation (a process which is still underway), and has raised the potential for conflicts to develop between the increasing numbers of different parties and players involved in water management, as there is still not a clear legal or regulatory framework in place in many states. In many cases problems have been compounded by the withdrawal of distorted incentives and subsidies in agriculture, energy, and water, before the establishment of a regulatory framework and development of institutional capacity for environmental management at the local/regional level has been completed. It also takes time for all parties to come to accept and learn how to deal with their new roles and responsibilities.

b. Incoherence and unpredictability of laws and policy:

In some instances, new and changing water-related legislation and policy have resulted in contradictions, confusion and even conflict between different levels of public authority and subsequently hindered the development of integrated water resources management and transboundary cooperation. Clarifying the legal framework in each country is likely to be a medium to long-term process, but identifying the list of specific legal contradictions can and should be done immediately. This varies from state to state. In Romania, the introduction of “Ordinance 32” in 2002 will, when ratified by Parliament, fundamentally change the principles applicable to the supply of water and sewage facilities throughout the country. It must be ensured that this Ordinance is compatible with the existing legislation concerning water resources management and provision of public services, and is accompanied by a regulatory framework. In Hungary, basic laws and regulations pertaining to the involvement of regional governments in water supply and sewage disposal services have been subject to repeated modifications. Rapidly changing laws make long-term planning and financing difficult and the related unpredictability is not attractive to private investors. In addition, the incompatibility between international principles, EU policy, basin level agreements, bi-lateral treaties and national laws, is a potential cause for conflict, even in such otherwise basic issues as, for example, the application of the “polluter-pays” principle.

Lack of policy integration:

Closely related to the above mentioned problem of incoherence and contradictions, is the lack of sufficient integration between the management of different water-related issues. Again largely as a result of decentralisation, different elements essential to IWRM are in the hands of different authorities, and in some cases private individuals, land-owners and companies. Agriculture, industrial pollution, land development, forestry, tourism, transport, wild-life protection, etc. are all interconnected and need to be taken into account in river basin management planning. Unfortunately, decentralisation has in some cases been accompanied by dis-integration. New ownership structures, especially concerning agricultural land tenure and the transfer of control of water and sewage facilities to regional authorities, has from a certain perspective made the system more unstable, and negatively effected the level of professionalism, security and effectiveness of water resources management. In Hungary, before 1992, 28 council companies and five government companies were engaged in water supply, now there are 400 waterworks owned by local and regional authorities, as well as the five government companies; such major changes cannot happen over night without problems.

Again, this can be seen as a transitional problem and inevitable considering the changes which have been taking place, but it is a critical concern and will require a major shift in thinking on the part of regional authorities to fully integrate decisions related to the provision of local public services, and their role in the management of transboundary land and water resources. This requires a high level of expertise and coordination within and between the regional authorities. To date, regional authorities appear to concentrate foremost on their day-to-day duty to provide safe water for drinking and bathing, rather than seeing the strong links between this and the preservation of water resources and the integrity of river basins in their region. Regional authorities need to develop a “vision” for the basin, and relate the decision they take regarding water in pipes to the natural waters of the Danube and its tributaries.

Insufficient inter-regional cooperation and exchange; Different systems of governance within the basin:

While the simultaneous processes of decentralisation within and internationalisation of the Danube basin (through the Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube Basin, EU enlargement and International Conventions such as Aarhus and Ramsar) have led to, in the former case greater responsibilities for local and regional authorities, and in the latter case greater cooperation at the inter-state level, the practical links between these two processes are yet to be adequately made. Although in a highly inter-connected river basin such as the Danube one region’s problem is every region’s problem, there is insufficient emphasis on, or institutional facilities for, direct cooperation or information and experience sharing at the region-to-region level within and between the basin states of the Danube. This problem is made more complicated by the different systems of water administration and governance amongst the Danube basin states, ranging from those which remain highly centralised (such as Croatia), to nations where local and regional authorities have been granted prime responsibility (such as Hungary), to fully federal systems (such as the German “Bundeslander” and Swiss “Cantons”), which makes region-to-region cooperation and the identification of counterparts more difficult as they do not have the same responsibilities and competencies.

The basin-wide survey showed marked differences on this score: while direct cooperation and dialogue is fully established between the Province of Salzburg and the State of Bavaria, and the region of Upper Austria also reported good cooperation with neighbouring regions, responses from regions further to the East did not depict such a positive situation. There appears to be almost no direct inter-regional coordination or even discussion between bordering regions which are in different states – despite obvious need for this for issues such as flood warning and contamination control. This need has not been given priority in financing or in developing the institutional facilities for water management. Some matters which could be dealt with more efficiently through joint action and coordination between two regions on either side of national borders, or by several regions sharing a sub-basin, are still being handled via the central governments often without adequate consultation with the regions in question or the public. Another cause for concern is that the central government representatives charged with dealing with bi-lateral water agreements and problems, are often not the same individuals dealing with multi-lateral negotiations. This can lead to inconsistencies between bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements and commitments and further complicate the tasks of the local and regional authorities which must implement these commitments on the ground.

One of the main duties of regional authorities is to draw up a regional development plan and within that, a regional water management plan applicable for the territory. It is currently difficult to obtain information about the plans of neighbouring regions and therefore impossible to harmonise different regional objectives and to schedule coordinated implementation. The ongoing process of dividing the Danube basin into 15 sub-basins should serve to help this conflict of interests between regional and state boundaries and natural water catchments. The commissions formed for each sub-basin, many of which will still be transboundary, should be made up of both regional and national representatives and have as one of their main objectives the enhancement of inter-regional coordination and information exchange. Within and between these sub-basins, regions in different states which share common problems (location of major settlements, wetlands, flood-risks, industrial zones, etc) or border each other should be particularly encouraged to share experiences and develop cooperation systems. There must also of course be close links between these 15 sub-basin commissions and the Danube Commission, which has been charged with monitoring the implementation of the WFD in the Danube basin.

The complex task of balancing regional, national and basin-wide responsibilities is not unique to the Danube, but is one shared by all states located within transboundary basins. For example, the Netherlands has a long history of integrating and implementing national water policy in four different international river basins (Scheldt, Meuse, Rhine and Ems). The operational management of the national policy for the river basin is the combined duty of the state, the provinces and the Waterboards, whereas reporting to the European Union of the environmental objectives, the measures taken and monitoring is the duty of the national government. This clearly requires a great deal of coordination, and there is a wealth of institutional knowledge on how to manage this which could be of great help to Danubian states.

In addition, the International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine river (ICPR) has over the past decade or so become more and more open to non-state actors being granted observer status and engaging in discussions. Related river commissions such as the Central Commission for the Rhine navigation, the Moselle and Sarre Commission, the Lake Constance Commission, and even the Elbe Commission have had observer status at the Plenary Assembly and the meeting of the ministers of the ICPR since the early 1990’s, and some Non Governmental Organisations which deal directly with Rhine issues have been invited to both meetings since 1998. The ICPR also enjoys the direct involvement of regions and regional associations, some of which (such as the RIWA in The Netherlands, ARW in northern Germany, and IAWR - the umbrella regional association for the whole basin) long pre-date formal inter-state cooperation in the Rhine basin. Methods of integrating regional authorities and associations within inter-state cooperation processes which have been successful in the Rhine could also be of interest to the Danube. The Danube counterpart to the IAWR, the IAWD, has already been established thanks to the close links between the City of Vienna and the Rhine basin which facilitated the creation of this body: a good example of West-East cooperation and exchange.

Two developments need to take place to address this problem. First is enhanced inter-regional cooperation, which are difficult as there is neither the institutional facilities, nor the tradition for regions to take part in international discussions. Second, regions need to be encouraged to be more actively involved in basin-wide decision making and cooperation, which has been primarily focussed on the nation state level, with both power and information remaining in the state capitals despite the fact that the implementation of agreements are increasingly in the realm of responsibility of local and regional authorities. A “trickle-down” of information, financial assistance and authority is needed to match the principle of subsidiarity which is becoming the standard in water management in Europe.

Lack of finance:

One point on which almost all regional authorities surveyed across the basin agree is that insufficient funds is a principal reason for their inability to carry-out much needed management reform and infrastructure development. In extreme, but not uncommon, cases, universal access to clean water is being endangered by the deteriorating financial status of municipal and regional water and wastewater utilities – placing public health and nature at risk. The survey of local people in Maramures County in Romania demonstrated that improving water quality and services are considered matters of top priority by populations (higher than other essential services such as electricity and transport), but this is not always reflected in the allocation of regional development and service budgets leading to lack of correlation between public concerns and government spending.

EU resources (PHARE; TACIS; ISPA) are limited and available for the purposes of a few major investments only and are not always responsive to the priority issues identified in the water resources management plans of regions. Some local and regional authorities which previously received support have had this assistance withdrawn or reduced and the amount of available funds varies on a year to year basis and grants are subject to lengthy and complicated application procedures.

Most local and regional authorities still rely heavily on support from the state for both construction and maintenance of infrastructure and subsidising operational costs, but this can also be unpredictable and is usually conditional on the region raising at least a portion of costs themselves. In Hungary, for example, territorial governments can use central government support for up to 80-85% of the value of their investment projects. If a regional authority wishes to make an investment, it has to apply for the amount of its project to at least four different government sources. Residential contributions amount to 20-25% but in many cases this is difficult to raise (partially because people do not pay their water bills), often leaving to delays and the failure of projects. Territorial authorities dedicate significant amounts of time to preparing applications and are often disappointed. Lack of self-generated funds prevents local and regional authorities from being either truly autonomous or effective in fulfilling their water management duties.

It is vital that systems through which local and regional authorities obtain funds from central government are streamlined and adapted to be most convenient for the regions; they should also be directed to the areas of greatest need in terms of public welfare and the environment. Territorial authorities should also be informed and trained to fully understand and make the best use of the system of accessing national funds. Local and regional authorities should also express the wishes of their constituents and place pressure on central governments to give more priority to water management and services.

In addition, territorial authorities need to become more financially independent. This will require establishing more varied and direct sources of funds so as to rely less on the central governments. One important aspect of this will be the correct pricing of water and wastewater services to the public and to industrial and agricultural users (see section i. below), and also implementing the “polluter pays” principle which can be an important source of revenue as well as an incentive to reduce pollution. Territorial authorities should be made aware of other sources of funds, and where appropriate coordinate their applications for funds or development of investment proposals with other regions and thereby pool their resources more effectively.

In many areas of the Danube, small and medium sized towns find it particularly difficult to obtain financing. In Romania for example, 17 municipalities of over 150,000 inhabitants have benefited from capital investment programmes for the rehabilitation of their water and wastewater infrastructure. However, of the country’s 263 urban localities, 230 are considered to be small or medium sized and these have not been able to attract funding from either international financial institutions or the private sector. Left with only central budge contributions, these towns have made little investment in the last decade and their infrastructure and quality of service is now very poor. That said, these towns must still comply with national and in the future with EU standards for drinking water and wastewater treatment, and ensure an adequate standard of living and protect the health of their populations. The funds available to rural areas have also been steadily declining in the past ten years leading to large service gaps. Particular efforts must be made to ensure that small towns and rural regions have the funds to invest in their water infrastructure; this will require the adoption and implementation of carefully developed policies focussed on meeting the real needs of the population if services are to be available and affordable to everyone.

Other sources of financial support which should be investigated can also include region-to-region assistance and cooperation projects between themselves and regions in other countries (for example in Western Europe). There are already many examples of such region level initiatives. One example is a Tacis funded cooperation project between Latvia and the North Rhine Bundeslander in Germany which is aimed at sharing the considerable water management expertise of the North Rhine region and establishing local and regional authority partnerships. Another notable case is the cooperation between the Netherlands Province of Gelderland, in the Rhine basin, and Lublin in Poland, in the Vistula basin, which focuses on policy exchange, training of local and regional authorities and identifying potential sources of funding for future projects.

Inadequate institutional and human resources:

It is clear from the results of the surveys that there is in many cases insufficient institutional capacity to manage the many water management responsibilities which have been relatively recently given to local and regional authorities. Some regions, for example Galati County in Romania, are fortunate to host an environmental or water research centre which can offer facilities and be a source of information and local expertise, but the majority indicated a lack of such resources and this has a very negative impact on management. If local and regional authorities are, as is hoped, to play a key role in water management in the Danube basin, they must have the institutional backing to permit them to keep up to date and involved in the myriad activities, meetings and policy developments taking place all the time. This requires both funding, and commitment on the part of the territorial authorities to build up their capacity in this field. It is also essential in areas or towns where any aspect of water service provision is privatised that the local or regional authority has the institutional capacity to implement and enforce regulations on the private contractor. This is at the moment often not the case (see section f. below).

Many territorial authorities surveyed also reported a severe lack of practical knowledge and skills in water resources management, and placed this problem at the same level of importance as the lack of finance. High turn-over of staff was a factor that was clearly shown in the more in depth survey of Maramures County in Romania, and this is likely to be a problem across the basin. As in many other regions of the world, it is becoming difficult to offer adequate incentives and prospects to attract the highest quality professionals to the civil service, and to encourage individuals to stay. This results in a lack of accumulated knowledge and experience and insufficient training of people in decision-making and administrative positions. Professional training programmes for the representatives and staff of territorial authorities, which can be sponsored and run by regional authorities with more resources (again, in particular from regions within EU states) would help address this problem.

Poor information and data:

This problem exists on two inter-related but distinct levels. The first is the simple fact that many local and regional authorities in the CEE basin states which are now responsible for crucial elements of water management have reported a lack of adequate information concerning many essential issues, including: changes to national legislation, the terms of the WFD, how to access EU and other grants and loans, privatisation and regulation of water services, and methods of involving the public in decision-making. This must be addressed and rectified by central government departments in charge of regional affairs, and other international (the European Commission, etc.), basin-level (the ICPRD, the IAWD, etc.) and national bodies which develop new policies, strategies and agreements. It should become standard policy for such bodies to disseminate information to the regions. However, it is also important for local and regional authorities to be more proactive in this regard and make the necessary requests for information and keep themselves informed through other means and sources than standard receipt of documents from the central government. One proposed output from this research and consultation project is the development of information handbooks for local and regional authorities, adapted for and in the language of territorial authorities in the different Danube basin states. Surveys indicated that this would be a welcome initiative.

The second tier of this problem is perhaps more serious and challenging to remedy. It is of great concern that the many extreme situations and crises which have occurred recently in the Danube basin (e.g. disruption caused by the Balkans conflicts during the 1990s, the Baia Mare cyanide contamination in 2000, devastating floods in 2002) have demonstrated that the mechanisms for rapid information exchange and coordinated action currently in place are inadequate to prevent severe transboundary damage. Local and regional authorities are often the first point of information on a contamination disaster or flood warning in their region, and are also responsible for warning their constituents of any risks, it is therefore imperative that they are well connected to the basin water information network and have their own effective communication system in place.

Efficient cross-regional and inter-state disaster alert systems is fortunately an area where the Danube basin has already benefited from the experience of the Rhine. The Alarm model developed to monitor pollution in the Rhine covers the Rhine river from the Bodenmeer lake to the North Sea, including the Aar, Neckar, Main and Moselle tributaries, and the model calculations involve the location and conditions of the initial pollution, decomposition and drift capacity of the harmful substances, water levels, and dispersion. If required, the progress of the pollutant wave can be envisaged from the source to the North Sea, and the speed of flow and therefore predicted arrival time of harmful substances can be very accurately forecast. The Rhine Alarm model was used as the basis for formulation of an alarm model for the Danube, but the Danube model went one step further and also calculates the cross flow of the pollution across the river. This additional feature was also included in the latest version of the Rhine Alarm model, at a later stage, making it an excellent example of inter-river cooperation with mutual benefits. It is necessary to ensure that the local and regional authorities of the Danube are incorporated into this alarm system and other essential data-exchange facilities as they have been in the Rhine.

As the data available on the different aspects of the Danube basin becomes more reliable and widely available with the development of integrated basin management plans, the use of sophisticated Decision Support Systems (DSS) should become more widespread and improve the quality of transboundary and inter-regional water management as it already has done in the Rhine and other river basins. Access to GIS and DSS tools will help local and regional authorities to meet their new management challenges, monitor human impacts and gain deeper understanding of the many inter-related aspects of water resources in the Danube basin and the sub-catchments. Initiatives to fully integrate information and DSS systems into decision making processes in the Rhine was largely pioneered by the regions, including Gelderland in The Netherlands.

Haphazard systems of public information and participation:

Levels of public participation vary greatly across the basin and are not sufficiently structured or transparent. Some regions described advanced and multifaceted public information and consultation processes involving multi-media (print, TV, internet, radio, etc.) information campaigns, regular public hearings and permanent consultation facilities. Other regions admitted to not involving or informing the public at all. There was a certain amount of correlation but far from uniformity amongst regions within the same country; and the authorities in Maramures reported that they supported involving the public but did not know how to go about this.

It is essential for local and regional authorities to establish effective systems of public information and permanent and transparent methods to actively involve and respond to the concerns of citizens regarding water resources and services. Citizens need to be not only informed of decisions after they are taken, but made aware and play a role in the decision-making process itself. A broad acceptance of the outcome of the process by the general public is an indicator of good quality of decision making. Just as decisions made by the central government need to involve the regional administrators in order to gain acceptance, decisions made by the regions should involve the people directly affected by them. The following questions should be asked when implementing decisions: Have the interest groups been able to bring forward their opinions, and have these interests been reflected in the policy? Were there formal public hearings? Were alternative plans presented to the public? Are adversely affected people being offered compensation? Is there a clear system for citizens to file objections to a project or appeal to an administrative or civil court?

The speed of legislative reform in many states has left stakeholders feeling that they have not been adequately consulted, and even though their rights to consultation and information have increased enormously in the past decade, lack of resources and established systems for participation mean that in many regions little has changed in this area. It is a major responsibility of regional authorities, as direct representatives of their communities, to fully engage the public in the decision making and programme implementation processes – especially regarding so essential an issue as water. As an excellent way of improving water understanding in the future, special information and education programmes should be developed to target children and young people, whether through schools or at home.

Need to manage pricing, develop partnerships and regulate the private sector:

There is a strong need to move from supply-side to demand-side management. At the moment, inappropriate water prices stimulate greater than necessary water use, perpetuate inefficient use, and result in increased stress on water resources, which in turn inevitably leads to disputes between different uses and users. Rational economic instruments, including water tariffs with incentives for conservation and appropriate sanctions, are a necessary element of effective water management, ensuring that water services (different from water in its natural state) are treated as an economic good and used efficiently. At the same time, “lifeline” tariffs must be available to provide a safety net to ensure that the poor and vulnerable have access to adequate quantities of water. Demand management should also reduce the marginal cost of water, postponing or even cancelling the need for enhancing water supplies trough further storage and abstraction. Changes in pricing will result in a change in the way water is perceived by the public, and larger scale users in industry and agriculture, and assign more value to this essential and limited resource.

The responsibility to set the tariffs for water and wastewater services is assigned to different bodies in different Danube states, and also differs if the service has been privatised. Where it is the responsibility of the local or regional authority they are faced with a large number of complex questions and dilemmas. In Hungary, the change of ownership of waterworks to local authorities have been accompanied by the right to set prices. Therefore, 80% of the water services in the country are now rendered by 400 public utility waterworks owned by local authorities, and the remaining 20% is still in the domain of five public utility works still owned by the central government which also acts as pricing authority in these areas. The central government also influences pricing methods of local government through the subsidy system, but they are not centrally regulated. In Romania, Ordinance 32, also assigns responsibility to set prices to territorial authorities.

Territorial authorities now must balance their diversity of interests. Their responsibility to supply water to their citizens represents a general social interest. They also have proprietary interest as the owners of the public utility waterworks. Based on their pricing authority, local governments also have financial interest and responsibility. Their role as protectors of water quality and the natural features of their region adds the interest of the environment. Setting prices is a task which in itself must balance all these considerations and, as well as requiring economic skill to calculate the costs which need to be recovered in the prices, can raise many dilemmas for the authority. What should be done if providing services to protect the environment result in prices which people cannot afford to pay? How should the authority react to pressure from citizens demanding low prices?

The monopoly nature of water utilities creates many problems, especially when the local government which sets the prices is also the owner of all the waterworks and service providers in the region. Citizens that receive poor service cannot turn to another provider. Policies are needed to ensure that consumers have a voice, and also to ensure that the judgment of local and regional authorities (many of which lack the necessary trained staff in this field) is not clouded by political pressure from citizens demanding unreasonably low prices even at the expense of quality service for all people in the community, or the environment. In Romania, this is the job of the newly formed National Municipal Services Regulatory Authority which regulates water pricing across the country. However, in general the methods used for pricing are not subject to regulation even by means of mere recommendations and there is lack of social control over operating water prices.

Involving and informing the public of policies, and the rationale behind them, is essential. People must be made aware that the higher prices which they are being expected to pay are generating revenue which will lead to better quality service and protection of water quality, and they must have the ability to complain and demand action if these promises are not kept. The survey carried out in Maramures revealed that over 70% of citizens would be willing to pay higher rates for better quality service, even though many believed that the current rates were too high considering the standards of service received. Local and regional authorities must use awareness raising to combat the decline in peoples’ willingness to pay, which leads to liquidity problems for the service provider. In Hungary, lack of willingness to pay is a major problem as prices have been raised considerably at the same time as people have perceived a decrease in quality of service, and have themselves become less able to pay due to the economic situation in the country.

Water and sewage charges are high compared with the income of the population. In Hungary people pay an average of 2% of their income on water charges, compared with the average of 0.5-1% in the EU. In Maramures, 87% of people surveyed said their family does not have enough income to cover their monthly expenses (64% reported an income of less than 170 Euros per month), and 30% of these expenses are on utility bills (water, electricity, gas, etc.) representing the largest costs faced by the family. This reality clearly presents a huge challenge to the public authorities who must both protect the health and well-being of their citizens, especially the poorest people, and run an efficient and self-financing water service.

The use of an open decision making process for major activities and policies also provides the opportunity for constructive involvement of the private sector, which can be a source of innovation, creativity and investment. However, it is also a cause of major concern the privatisation of water and wastewater services, particularly in large cities in the Danube basin (Budapest, Pecs, Bucharest, Sofia), is taking place in situations of inadequate information or public participation, leading to insufficient regulation and consumer protection and therefore potential conflicts. Privatisation often takes place in locations facing scarcity of capital, placing great pressure on the public authority responsible, and this can also be a reason for going ahead with the privatisation process without full consultation with the public or fully investigating different options. The contracts drawn up with the private operator also need to be developed very carefully and with full information and understanding of the implications in different scenarios. In reality, many issues are currently settled outside the scope of contracts due to the uncertain relationship between the local authority and the private operator. This leads to uncertainty and potential for conflict.

This report does not aim to put forward any opinion or judgement on the positive or negative implications of privatisation, but to reflect the concerns of people and authorities consulted and recommend that, when privatisation is considered, full consultation be carried out with affected people and that the authority in question ensures that they have full information specialist legal advice in the drawing up of contracts. It is also fundamental that the local or regional authority has the technical and institutional capacity to regulate the private operator and the ability to impose the terms of the agreement. Already in the Danube basin there has been much public resistance to the privatisation of water supplies in cities and this negatively effects peoples’ willingness to pay, and therefore the private company’s ability to operate efficiently, and the ability of the local or regional authority to regulate. In Hungary, where privatisation is most advanced, adverse opinions stem from the lack of an appropriate legal framework for the privatisation of public water supply and the fact that the general public was not prepared correctly and there was no publicity campaign. In Maramures, where water supply is in public hands, the people expressed the opinion that private suppliers would provide better service. This shows how opinions vary across the basin, and that more information on this subject is needed across the board, amongst both the public and the staff of local and regional authorities. It will not be desirable if local and regional authorities turn to the private sector in desperation due to shortage of funds and pressure to meet increasingly high standards, rather than as a result of a rational, informed and participative decision making process. Privatisation is a complicated issue, and it could be highly advantageous for local authorities to not only receive technical information about it, but have the opportunity to discuss the matter with other authorities who have faced similar dilemmas or who have longer experience in dealing with the private sector. This way each region will not have to learn from its own mistakes, but also the mistakes and successes of others.

Regaining/maintaining public and consumer trust:

Whether water services are public or privately managed, it is essential that all decisions and activities be fully transparent and that the public has easy access to information. The inadequate financial, human and technical resources of local and regional authorities to meet their new responsibilities in water management and service provision has led to near collapse of services in some regions, and this has been accompanied by a lack of consumer and environmental protection and loss of trust in the ability of public authorities to provide these essential services.

Misuse of public funds in the water sector is a problem faced all over the world, and as local and regional authorities in the Danube basin gain greater budgetary responsibility their accountability to the public also increases. All transactions must be fully transparent and penalties for any form of corruption or misuse should be severe. All surveys revealed that citizens consider water management and supply to be of the utmost importance to themselves personally and to their region: it follows that the manner in which local and regional authorities manage this resource will also be a major factor in determining peoples’ judgement of the success or failure of their administration in general, and of their level of faith in the government.

5. Conclusion

The Resolution and the Recommendation stressed all the problems listed above and tried to propose concrete solutions in order to help solving them. Given the number and the dimension of these problems, their solutions cannot be immediate but nevertheless two ideas for immediate action come out from the Resolution of the Congress: the Turnu Magurele Conference in fact launched two proposals:

the first one is to establish in Turnu Magurele (Romania) a “Centre for Local and Regional Authorities in the Danube River Basin” having the task to co-operating with the relevant institutions and international structures responsible for the management of water resources and of initiating and monitoring concrete projects in the basin;

the second proposal is to create a European network to bring together the major river management authorities of the Council of Europe’s member States with the aims of encouraging exchange of information and co-operation, fostering partnership for a wise management of river basins and strengthening the role of local and regional authorities in the management activities.

The hope is that the implementation of these proposals will contribute to the ecological reconstruction of the Danube and other European rivers as these represent a primarily source of life for our populations.