Title

The management of transboundary water resources in Europe - The strenghtening of the capacity of territorial authorities for a co-operative and sustainable integrated management - CPR (8) 3 Part II

Europe is the continent where the concept of national sovereignty was born and over the centuries it has become a jigsaw-puzzle of nations and peoples, in many cases over-lapping with the state boundaries which have been drawn according to culture, religion and history, and in many cases redrawn following military conquest. In addition, Europe is a well-watered region with thousands of surface and underground watercourses, many of which cross or form national boundaries. It is therefore the ideal laboratory in which to study the relationship between national sovereignty and transboundary watercourses¹.

The different states of Europe also each contain complex systems of government. Whether democratic, monarchical or those in transition from centrally planned communist systems, in all the nations the political structure is formed by many levels, from the local municipality to the national or federal government. Like water itself, the government effects peoples' lives from everyday local concerns to questions of state security and regional commitment. Just as the nations of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) are currently undergoing the transition from centralised economies, many of the nations of Europe are beginning to recognise the need for a similar paradigm shift from centrally controlled, nationally orientated water management, to more holistic and participatory approaches which consider basins themselves as the logical units of operation. In the case of transboundary watercourses², whether on the scale of the Rhine or the Danube, or small rivers which cross borders, this new approach will require comprehensive inter-state and inter-community cooperation and thereby increase the importance of local and regional authorities relative to purely national bodies.

For an integrated basin management approach to be effective, people from all sectors of society and locations in the basin must be informed about water management - particularly on how decisions made will effect them, and how they can effect the decisions made. Awareness raising is the first challenge for local authorities. Beyond this, people throughout a basin will need to be informed of the activities of others in the region. Information sharing is therefore the first challenge for regional authorities, whether encompassing regions wholly within one state or shared by several. Public perceptions need to change from thinking of water as something managed by the government and over which the people have no control, to seeing water as a shared natural resource in which everyone has a stake and regarding which everyone has a role and a voice. It is also essential that people consider the natural environment as both a user and a provider of water, and make the connection between the water coming from their taps and being disposed from their homes and the quality of the entire terrestrial and aquatic environment in which they live and which must be sustained for the future.

In all of these matters, local and regional authorities have an essential role to play towards the fair and sustainable sharing of Europe's transboundary watercourses.

On 29 March 2001, the Committee on Sustainable Development of the Chamber of Regions adopted a draft recommendation and a draft resolution on “strenghtening the capacity of territorial authorities for a co-operative and sustainable integrated management”. Both texts have been adopted unanimously by the Committee. A special thank goes to Mr Bertrand Charrier and Ms Fiona Curtin experts of Green Cross International whose contribution has been fundamental for the preparation of the recommendation, the resolution and the explanatory memorandum.

Water is so all-encompassing and essential to our lives, to nature and to the development of societies that it does not appear to be feasible to devise a formulation of sovereignty which will satisfy all the possible elements to which water is a factor. Water is a critical resource the possession of which confers power, and it is a substance which summons many distinct images and significances for different peoples. Although water has been a political and military issue in Europe since antiquity, it is only this Century that we have developed the means to dramatically alter, store and divert the natural flow of rivers and access the vital sources of deep underground water. This power has rested largely with State authorities, and the harnessing of water has become a vital component in the economic development of States. The capacity to control watercourses has raised new questions regarding the ownership of water. Now that States have the ability to abstract or divert huge volumes of water from a transboundary river, the question remains as to what rights they have to the waters which flow through their territory and what obligations they have to their fellow riparians down-stream. This question was the focus of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros dispute between Slovakia and Hungary and the subsequent ICJ investigation.

From the other perspective, in cases where the down-stream riparian has been the first to utilise the waters of the river, to what extent does this confer prior ownership rights which must be respected by states further up-stream? Does a State have a right to the amount of water it “contributes” to a watercourse through precipitation within its territory? If so, where does that leave states such as Romania and the Netherlands which rely on water originating outside their borders for the vast majority of their national water supply? These are all questions related to national sovereignty, and the fact that the 1997 UN Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses is yet to enter into force can largely be explained by the reluctance of many states to sign away their sovereignty over the water in their territory. Only a very few states in Europe, and equally few in the rest of the world, have ratified this very moderate Convention.

The development of a system of sharing, cooperation and interdependence, as opposed to national competition and segregation, in transboundary watercourse management is a process which inevitably takes a long time. It involves the complex task of analysing the different needs of the water users in each riparian state and how they can be amicably met, as well as the often reluctant acceptance on the part of states of the need for the joint management of these waters. To begin this process, there is a need for a shift in perception towards seeing water as a naturally shared resource. The gap left by the theoretical and increasingly accepted devolution of absolute sovereignty must subsequently be filled with the appropriate regional (i.e. basin-wide) and local governmental and non-governmental institutions, the potency, capacity and stability of which will be vital to the success of any management scheme.

An emerging theory which has already been embraced by many jurists and international lawyers, is that of the principle of common ownership of international watercourses. The very essence of water is its mobility, or fluidity; flowing water is literally here today and gone tomorrow, and the principle of community of property reflects this essential character. The idea that water flowing between two states is communally owned is based on and assumes full cooperation over such water.,

State sovereignty can be deconstructed into domestic “internal sovereignty”, the relationship between the Representatives of a State and its population, and “external sovereignty”, the relationship of the State itself with other states. Water is essential to sustain and develop the region, the state, the community, the individual and the environment, and thus the exercise of sovereignty regarding water must also be considered on all these levels. There is evidence to suggest that a shift is occurring whereby many people are replacing their allegiance to a particular government and territory as an important element in their identity with new socio-political affinities based on, for example, occupation or ideology. Since states are becoming more heterogeneous, and governments generally more representative and accountable, this is bound to have an effect on the ways in which natural resources will be managed in the future. Increased power of public opinion and the media provide a balance to the strength of the State, and water management could become an important component in the democracy building process in many countries, for example in Eastern Europe and South America. Community participation in decisions and projects concerning water is so important to the creation and maintenance of a healthy and stable society that it can be considered an emerging human right, the provision of which can only re-enforce the strength and support of the Government. By contrast, disruptions in water supplies and perceptions of unfair distribution can quickly lead to protests, a reflection of the urgency of peoples’ dependence on water. This fact implies, by the same token, un droit de regard, a universal entitlement to have a say in the preservation of these common resources.

Thus both the external and internal dimensions of sovereignty need to be analysed in the context of international watercourses as it is both from within and without that the idea of the inviolability of state sovereignty is being challenged, and at both these levels the question of “ownership” of water is relevant. Sovereignty is a highly emotive concept, and the role of state sovereignty as an organising principle and corner-stone of international relations cannot be discounted. Neither should it be artificially or forcibly applied. Regional, basin-wide, cooperation over international water resources may paradoxically help in the protection of the sovereignty of a State from both internal and external pressures thus maintaining its stability. By fortifying regional ties, a State can join with its neighbours to remain in control of its own affairs. In this way states can cooperate in order to preserve their independence, and their cultural heritage. Likewise, by cooperating with its fellow riparians, and encouraging more integrated collaboration between stakeholders and the active participation of the public, a State can both secure a more reliable and adequate water supply and a more representative and popular means of managing it. The state cannot be said to own the water in its territory, but by these methods it can more beneficially and sustainably administer and protect it, and thus increase its security. It is therefore a misconception that state sovereignty is incompatible with interstate cooperation. One of the most important characteristics of an independent state is the ability to enter into international relations; the management of international basins is an obvious area where cooperation between states and peoples is essential, and this collaboration reinforces rather than diminishes the sovereignty of each state.

The identification of the locus of sovereignty over water would perhaps improve stability and foster development, but it is a question that must reflect the many forms that water itself takes. Transboundary water is used across the globe for a multitude of functions, ranging from the generation of power for entire populations, industries and agriculture, to the simple and essential provision of drinking water; likewise its sovereignty must be considered on every level, from the state to the community to the individual. The concept of “national sovereignty” is a fusion of the, sometimes complementary, sometimes opposing, principles of state and popular sovereignty. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between them; but what is most interesting is that the conclusion is applicable to cases both between and within states - that water should be shared and managed by as wide a spectrum of stakeholders as possible, both inside and across international borders.

Water is indivisible in both time and space and as such is part of the shared heritage of peoples and nations. Its rational management involving the widest possible participation is an essential ingredient for both democracy and sustainable development. Water transcends time, and thus should never be entirely appropriated by either the state or the private sector, but managed in cooperation by representatives of all water users. In this discussion, the government and the people must be treated separately. The former is ephemeral, temporary, the latter is as permanent a feature of the region as the water that flows through it. Just as activities in one state can effect the water available to another, so can the policies of a government effect the people in the state, and indeed the whole region, for generations after it has left office. Features of a state’s hydro-electrical infrastructure long outlive the authorities that build them, as do depleted aquifers and increased pollution levels. We therefore have to separate the idea of national sovereignty between the people and the government, and realise that the traditional system of almost total and centralised government hegemony over water policy does not reflect the permanent and finite nature of water.

A more functional, participatory, internal sovereignty over water, with more power residing at the local level, is required to allow decisions regarding the future of their water to be made by the people who will be effected, with due consideration for the future generations that will succeed them. Corresponding institutions, not only on the governmental level but also in the form of independent associations of water-users, scientists and environmentalists should be involved, not only through consultation, but in the actual implementation, monitoring and assessment of water related policies, and play a key role in the decision making process. Water policy has traditionally been firmly in the governmental realm, for the true realisation of national sovereignty over water there needs to be wider involvement and actual participation from every sector in society, including those too often excluded such as ethnic minorities and women.

The reconciliation of the two concepts of National Sovereignty and International Watercourses is a necessary step. Sovereignty is an age-old term and states are rightly protective of it. To have sovereignty over something implies to have absolute rights over it at the exclusion of others. If a piece of land lies within the boundaries of a state it can clearly be said to have sovereignty over it, and it is in no way shared with neighbouring countries. That international watercourses have been subjected to the same “ours” and “theirs” philosophy which has caused violent conflict in Europe throughout history to the present day is a terrible mistake as it is contrary to their very nature and therefore irreconcilable. To place international watercourses under the umbrella of state sovereignty is to ignore the reality of the water cycle. The question of whether a state has “sovereignty” over water flowing through it as part of an international watercourse has been debated for so long, with so little agreement, because it is the wrong question asked for the wrong reasons. This formulation of the problem encourages the protectionist and nationalistic attitudes towards water, which are the source of most disputes, rather than reinforcing the fact that the renewable and fluid nature of water is conducive to sharing rather than dividing.

Questions of ownership of water place the cooperative management of international basins at odds with national sovereignty, implying the need to make sacrifices in the highly guarded realm of sovereignty if any progress is to be made. This is a very static interpretation of the problem and, as has been witnessed repeatedly, is an ineffective approach to dealing with it. The most important relationship between national sovereignty and the management of international watercourses is that they can mutually reinforce each other. This is the perspective that has been largely missed by previous analysis and political debate. Better management of international watercourses can strengthen national sovereignty by ensuring more reliable access to higher quality water, thus averting the civil strife which can be caused by water shortages or interruptions of services and making for healthier, more secure states. National Sovereignty should be seen as a social construct which provides a geographical and institutional framework very important to basin management and reduces the likelihood of tensions arising over water.

Both water and sovereignty are issues that must be tackled in conjunction with other factors, and from more than one angle. Water is essential to sustain and develop the region, the state, the community, the individual and the environment, and thus the exercise of sovereignty over water must also be considered on all these levels. Sovereignty is a highly emotive term which can be deconstructed into domestic or “internal sovereignty”, the relationship between the Representatives of a State and its population, and “external sovereignty”, the relationship of the State itself towards other states. When considering the question of transboundary watercourses, both internal and external manifestations of sovereignty are relevant. For millions of people in Europe the local source of water also happens to be an international waterway. These communities should therefore be assured access to, and given a role in the management of, this water by the authorities in their own State. At the same time, these State authorities have a responsibility to maintain an acceptable level of water quality and quantity for those further downstream, and not to develop in such a way that states further upstream will be hindered in their future water-utilisation plans. National sovereignty ideally describes a complementary union of state and popular sovereignty, the exercise of which considers the needs of all involved, including the environment. In the case of international basins, “all involved” includes people and ecosystems in other states, and, by extension, the exercise of sovereignty over these watercourses should therefore take them equally into account. This calls for a high level of regional understanding and cooperation both between and within states.

It is a misconception that state sovereignty is incompatible with interstate cooperation. One of the most important characteristics of an independent state is the ability to enter into international relations; the management of international basins is an obvious area where cooperation between states and peoples is essential, and this collaboration reinforces rather than diminishes the sovereignty of each state.

National sovereignty over internationally shared water is best expressed through cooperation and effective interdependence between states, peoples and different interest groups. To better comprehend how this should be achieved, and by whom, it is necessary to place water within the appropriate spatial and temporal parameters. Water is a finite resource, the same amount of which has been available throughout time. Its existence in a particular form in a particular region should be respected as a permanent feature of the landscape, along with the people and the natural environment; and it is therefore the needs of people and nature which must be given precedence and made inviolable. This is also the only way in which the interests and entitlements of both present and future generations can be preserved. The over-exploitation of groundwater, and consequent lowering of water tables in many regions, in particular represents the irreplaceable loss of water for future inhabitants of a region.

The value assigned to water by different people is heavily influenced by cultural and geographical factors. The sharing of water was one of the first elements in the progress towards communal living, and rivers have always had great cultural and spiritual significance. This is an important reason why sharing them is such a sensitive matter prone to sparking nationalist sentiments. The historic value of transboundary water systems as part of a people or a region’s cultural heritage cannot be ignored when devising means of exploiting or sharing them. Water is essential to achieving the “right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25), it must be made available to everybody regardless of financial status. It is necessary to strike a balance between the right of everyone to a reasonable amount of water to ensure a liveable environment, the need for water to be used efficiently, and the use of water for enterprise, particularly energy generation, and agriculture. Such a balance must also be reached in the context of the local culture(s) without losing sight of the inherent non-economic values of water.

In Europe the principle of basin-wide cooperation is yet to be fully explored in terms of integrating all aspects of water-use, but there is the growing awareness of the importance of the environment - made evident by the constant physical reminders of the consequences of lack of foresight in the past. Recent efforts to jointly administer the Rhine and the Danube Rivers have been largely successful in reducing pollution and creating more equitable divisions of the water, but effective long-term administration requires a more flexible, inclusive and cooperative approach along the framework of integrated management based on the needs and commitments of different interest groups and a respect for the integrity of the ecosystems of the basin. In the Rhine Basin there is an acceptance, reflected in the newly agreed Convention for the Protection of the Rhine, signed in April 1999, that cooperation between the states is the only solution, but the accomplishment of such collaboration has been difficult to achieve and many of the agreements reached between the basin states have not been kept. Cooperation over the cleansing of the heavily polluted Rhine River also entailed an enormous financial cost, out of reach of states less well-off than Switzerland, Germany, France or The Netherlands.

There is no universal prescription or model for Regional Basin Authorities. Looking at those already in operation reveals that they take on many forms, from internationally recognised bodies to committees of experts, and are as varied in their objectives and activities as the basins themselves. Their priorities also change over time, with one noticeable and welcome recent development being a the trend away from Committees formed with particular goals, usually centred on large engineering projects, towards the establishment of Authorities with more multiple and integrated aims.

Rather than speak of a recommended uniform structure of Basin Authorities, it is more useful to think in terms of the functions which they should fulfil. The starting point for the creation of many such authorities, and in some respects their most fundamental function, is data monitoring and information sharing. Systems of data collection and exchange, including information regarding availability of water resources, water users, hydro-systems and land management are an essential component of any cooperative system. In reality, such information is rarely gathered and seldom available. Data is collected on the hydrological and meteorological aspects of water systems, but is often lacking on water quality, ecosystems, land practices and water users. A priority in any movement towards integrated basin management should therefore be the standardisation of data procurement methods and increased information exchange and transparency between countries and between different sectors of water users and experts.

The next important function is the provision of a forum for open discussion of ideas and problems between states and users. This frequently begins at the level of technicians, but if successful should gradually extend to user associations, local authorities and official basin state representatives. This raises the question of representation. It is always difficult to select people who are truly representative of communities or interest groups, but this is easier in democratic countries. Through the establishment of this forum, information and training can be made available to different categories of users, allowing them to participate more informatively and actively in future debates. Training is particularly urgent. There are currently no training courses for integrated river management, and it is still the case in many regions that the only people who know about water are engineers. It is necessary to develop different training and awareness programmes in the field aimed at government officials, engineers, and most, importantly, all the categories of users.

Once the information and the input of user groups has been gathered, the role of the basin authority should be to devise a Basin Level Master Plan. This is necessarily a long-term project, operating on the basis of a time-frame of about a generation (25 years), which requires the evaluation of the situation, identification of objectives, and development of the means to implement sustainable solutions. Funding is an essential consideration; one way to maintain interest and ensure results is to concentrate on projects and schemes revolving around shorter-term priority investment programmes, without losing sight of the long-term goals. It is also important to organise the funding on the basis of user/polluter-pays principles as public budgets can rarely mobilise funds for the implementation of integrated watercourse management projects.

One of the powers essential to basin authorities is the ability to mobilise funding, without which no action can be taken. Even in basins where there are no specific conflicts or problems it is very complicated and expensive to develop even the information systems needed to exchange data. Long-term project implementation and training programmes intended to reach large sections of the population require technical skill, funding and, above all, the willingness of the people and authorities involved in order to succeed.

The existing Basin Authorities currently active in Europe have all been decades in the making. The ideal situation is to have a Regional Basin Authority founded by a solid and representative Agreement, and involving the willing cooperation of State Governments, local authorities and water user representatives. It is usually most effective to start with the practical, technical exchanges and discussion relevant to the particular basin, and progress gradually towards more and more representative activities. Through increased awareness and cooperation the fact that the problems of a shared basin should be viewed as collective problems, rather than as a collection of problems, becomes evident. The admission that there are problems and the discussion of possible solutions at any level is the beginning of basin-wide cooperation.

The history of cooperation on the Danube River goes back at least to the establishment of the European Danube Commission in 1846. The 1985 Bucharest Declaration focused on regional cooperation in the field of pollution prevention, and in 1992, the Environmental Program for the Danube Basin (DREP) agreed to establish an operational and regional basis for strategic and integrated environmental management in the basin, but the most important recent development has been the signing of the 1994 Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the River Danube (DRPC) which seeks to incorporate all uses of the river, as well as establish a framework for protecting the ecosystem.

The Danube was divided by the “Iron Curtain” for more than 40 years, the majority of it flowing through centrally controlled, autocratic states whose policies displayed little concern for the environment, resulting in heavy pollution and over exploitation. Even now, the political evolution and economic disparities of the 17 basin countries (Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Moldovia, Poland, Italy, Switzerland, Albania, Slovenia, Bosnia Herzegovina and the Czech Republic) makes it difficult to reach common agreements on standards, targets and financial commitments to implement measures and projects for effective pollution reduction and equitable use. Fortunately, one of the main ambitions of many of the central and eastern countries is to join, or at least link with the European Union, necessitating the adoption of European standards for environmental protection in general and water management in particular. The European Commission and UNDP/GEF also provide technical and financial assistance to help states to reach these standards, and to reinforce regional cooperation and a reduction in the transboundary effects of pollution in the Danube and wider Black Sea area.

The DRPC is useful in that it established the essential administrative and legal mechanisms for inter-regional cooperation and the definition of common goals and measures for the sustainable use of the Danube. It has the dual aims of achieving sustainable development and equitable water management in the basin; quite a challenge when considering that 17 countries, 5 major rivers, and 165 million people pour pollution into the river. The Danube also flows through ten cities of more than 100,000 inhabitants, and its banks are host to countless heavy industries, refineries, chemical plants and irrigation systems. With so much human activity it is important not to forget that the basin is also home to thousands of species, and contains some of Europe’s most significant wetland areas as well as the Delta itself, which unfortunately suffers most from the nutrient and pollution build-up. Differences in priorities and economic capabilities between the upper and lower Danubian States is also an impediment. Before they will be able to achieve a truly integrated and equitable system, and adhere to the principles which they espoused to in the DRPC, the riparians will have to engage in more economic cooperation to help transitional states such as Romania and Bulgaria to acquire the means to participate fully in the protection of the Danube. This will be greatly aided by the admittance of the Eastern European states into the European Union. The management of a transboundary resource upon which so much and so many are dependent requires maximum cooperation, integration and participation.

At the moment, cooperation on the Danube River is largely confined to water quality monitoring and pollution control. The conflicts in the Balkans region during the 1990s, which disrupted navigation and increased pollution, and the Baia Mare cyanide spill in 2000, which caused the rapid severe contamination of the lower River, have demonstrated that this is insufficient if the Danube is to be truly protected. Yugoslavia, now the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, has been excluded from agreements since 1991 greatly hindering both quality control and access to information on this important central section of the River. This has served to even further separate the more affluent states of the upper Danube from Romania and Bulgaria, as it is these latter states which are most adversely effected by the communication and pollution problems caused by conflict in the Balkans. The conflicts and pollution disasters have also exposed the lack of any emergency procedures to deal with, for example, the humanitarian and environmental hazards of water pollution caused by the bombing of industrial sites or major industrial leakages.

Despite the diversity of interests, concerns and problems across the Danube basin, the riparian countries share many values and principles relating to the environment and to the conservation of resources. These common ideas constitute the framework of the Strategic Action Plan for the restoration and protection of the Danube River basin. The Plan is the result of the first three-year phase of the DREP, and now supports the goals of the DRPC. The six binding principles are: the precautionary principle; use of Best Available Techniques/Best Environmental Practice; control of pollution at the source; the polluter-pays principle; regional cooperation; and shared information. There is also agreement regarding the responsible sectors and actors.

All of this must take place in a region in the midst of political, economic and social transition, and whose ethnic and religious tensions are known to inspire nationalistic sentiments which can run contrary to the spirit of regional cooperation. The achievement of co-existence should not be under-estimated - and is a step towards seeing the water and land of the Danube basin as an ecological administrative unit whose efficient and sustainable development and protection would improve the lives of all its inhabitants. The Danube River is the artery connecting Western and Eastern Europe. It is a source of drinking water, transport, communication and tourism as well as providing the main supply of water for agriculture, industry and the sustenance of the natural environment of the entire region. Water quality monitoring and pollution control are essential elements to the protection of the Danube, but in such a complex and heavily populated basin a more wide-reaching programme is urgently needed.

The transition period and changing priorities of the early 1990s did lead to one serious dispute; between Czechoslovakia (later Slovakia) and Hungary over the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Dam. The history of this case spans 20 years, from the signing of a treaty between Hungary and Czechoslovakia agreeing to build two jointly operated barrages in 1977, to the International Court of Justice’s 1997 judgement on the dispute that resulted from Hungary’s withdrawal from the agreement and Czechoslovakia’s decision to proceed unilaterally. The judgement has important consequences for the law of international watercourses and for the emergent international environmental law. In the decision on this case, the ICJ accepted that there existed a principle of “ecological necessity” whereby a state may be resolved of responsibility for an otherwise wrongful act, in this case the breaking of a treaty, by invoking the law of State Responsibility on the grounds that environmental degradation threatened an “essential interest” of the State. The effects of the judgement are tempered due to the fact that the Court decided that an “ecological necessity” can only be said to exist when there is a real, grave and imminent peril at the time it is invoked, thereby refuting that Hungary’s more long-term concerns for its wetlands and biodiversity constituted an essential interest.

Regarding Czechoslovakia’s (after 1992, Slovakia) unilateral diversion and control of a part of the Danube, a recognised shared resource, the decision of the Court reflected and thereby fortified the principles laid out in the 1997 Convention on Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, in decreeing that Czechoslovakia had deprived Hungary of its right to an equitable and reasonable share of the natural resources of the Danube. It reaffirmed the principle of the “community of interest” in shared watercourses. With this decision the Court also revealed the disconcerting fact that “states” have a right to equitable use of water, but people and the environment do not. It was the people of Hungary who pressurised the authorities to suspend work on their side of the project, out of fear for their water supply and for the potential consequences to the environment; a clear case of a population reasserting their sovereignty over their water resources after a long period of denial. This should draw attention to the dangers of decisions concerning such essential resources being exclusively taken by Governments, particularly ones which do not democratically represent the people. A more participatory system of management and decentralised decision making would reduce the probability of treaties which do not take the people or the environment into proper account, and threaten regional peace, being signed in the first place.

Water is a factor in security in many different respects. It has traditionally been seen as a crucial element in national security and for this reason is often closely guarded as an element in the power relations between states. However, there is a emerging tendency to shift the focus from national to human and environmental security concerns in reflection of the growing realisation that the actual personal security of the individual and the smaller community is as, if not more, important as the, sometimes largely symbolic, security of the state. This shift is particularly true in areas facing water quality crises, as is the case in much of Europe. There is also increased awareness, highlighted by the events in the Balkans, that internal, social stability can be more vital to the maintenance of national and regional peace and stability than good relations between states. In providing food, sanitation, and possibilities for development, water is an essential component to the realisation of such social security.

The labelling of states considered to be facing “hydropolitical risk” more often refers to the internal social situation rather than to the potential for inter-state disputes. Unpopular or insufficient water policies can be the trigger of civil disturbances and protest, particularly in areas already facing weak economies and ethnic troubles. Internal conflicts have the tendency to cross borders and cause instability and even conflict in neighbouring states, particularly when the effects of the conflict are felt directly in these other states as in the case of refugee outflows. Internal disputes can also often be seen as transboundary when they occur across federal or any type of administrative boundaries within a single state. Increased urbanisation has placed enormous pressure on the water resources of Europe, particularly the major transboundary ones on which many of the large cities are located. There have already been public demonstrations and protests against interrupted water services, and below standard water quality in cities such as Budapest and Bucharest, which only promise to become more frequent if the matter is not urgently addressed on a basin-wide level, and with the involvement of local people.

Water can be a cause of conflict, but it can also be a target in conflict, as it has been in European disputes from Northern Ireland to Kosovo. To date, no adequate legal framework exists for the protection of transboundary watercourses in times of war. The 1999 bombings in the Balkans put the health of the Danube River and its tributaries in jeopardy, potentially affecting millions of people throughout central and eastern Europe, and the continued isolation of FRY prevents measures being taken to protect, share and monitor. The disruption of the vital communication and transportation services of the Danube due to the conflict caused incalculable losses to the region. Just as it has always been considered a crime of war to poison an enemy’s drinking water-source, the “sanctuarisation” of watercourses should be extended to protect them from the horrors of modern warfare, particularly in the case of international watercourses. Among the many legacies of wars, including the Cold War, is the terrible and long-term pollution of waterways - often transboundary ones.

People and authorities within a basin must build up sustainable practices, encouraging the perception of water as a shared and unifying resource, and promoting mutually beneficial solutions to all water related problems before they become out of control. Water is a cardinal resource for stability and prosperity and should be used as a force for regional integration not division. The sharing of water constituted the first steps towards the emergence of civilisation and to this day it is an important aspect in the building and unifying of communities. In contrast, the act of depriving a people of good quality water, or even the belief that one’s own people somehow have a superior right to transboundary watercourses, can be seen as a very fundamental manifestation of nationalism whether within or between the boundaries of a state. As the competition for natural resources intensifies, environmental concerns will become more and more closely related to national and international security issues and therefore dispute avoidance mechanisms, including diplomatic and judiciary practices need to be further developed. Agreements over the sharing of transboundary resources such as water will become essential to maintaining stability throughout the world.

Where people have recourse to representative local authorities, and Parliamentarians and local leaders who are informed and concerned about their constituency's water, tensions are far less likely to arise. Public participation in decisions relating to water management is so crucial that it is starting to be considered as an emerging human right. However, such participation is often lacking in practice. Both within and between States, the involvement and participation of stakeholders is essential to achieving efficient and fair use of international watercourses. As between States, water use between sectors is often considered as a zero-sum relationship; if a certain amount of water is used for agriculture, it is therefore unavailable for municipal use etc.. In fact, with increased cooperation and coordination, water supplies can be significantly increased. Partially treated municipal wastewater can be used for certain types of agriculture, rainwater can be harvested in cities, and the encouragement of a demand management approach can reduce inefficiency and waste in all areas. The integration of all the water-user sectors at the national and international basin level is fundamental to alleviating problems of both water quality and scarcity, a fact which is being increasingly recognised by governments and international organisations. This requires communication and information sharing between stakeholders of all kinds, and most importantly a willingness to actively participate and cooperate in order to improve the water situation for all. An understanding and appreciation of the needs of other sectors is therefore essential to gaining an understanding of how the benefits of well-managed water resources can be shared more equitably.

Stakeholders in water includes everyone in a basin from the individual to the corporate to the government level. Creating the means for communication and awareness raising amongst such a variant group is a challenge for the education, media and information services of any region. In the case of international basins there is the additional aspect of nationality to contend with. To initiate an operative and integrated system, all stakeholders need to be assured that others are also playing their part. No one State or sector should bear a disproportionate share of either the burden or the rewards of water conservation efforts.

It is of great importance to bring about a convergence between the holders of power and money, and those who both want and need changes to be made and have the local experience and knowledge essential to the formation of viable agreements. The issue at hand is that of adequate representation and participation of the people in a basin in the drawing up, implementation and monitoring of the agreements and programmes for international water management. There is an increasing amount of international attention directed at this issue. Several international conferences have recently been dedicated to analysing the role of public participation in water management, and how to encourage it. A UN/ECE group of experts to the 1998 Arhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, has proposed to take into account prescriptions on public participation in water management for improving the quality and implementation of decisions, increasing transparency and public awareness, and contributing to both the development of democracy and the protection of the environment. While all recent basin agreements include reference to the participation and awareness of civil society, further active efforts need to be made to provide the necessary opportunities for the practical application of this principle. The participation of all stakeholders will naturally also work towards the goal of cooperation and integration of the different sectors and groups of water users, and the creation of the climate of confidence and commitment essential to the amicable sharing and conservation of water.

The universal framework, provided by the state-orientated UN Convention, is an important step and like all agreements has the additional benefits of providing greater stability and predictability, but it is far from sufficient to ensure integrated management of all international river basins. An important omission from the international instrument is adequate reference to other stakeholders apart from states themselves, such as local communities, NGOs and even individuals (although there is a clause assuring individuals access to judicial procedures in the event of suffering transboundary harm). Means need to be found for incorporating the wider public in the management of international watercourses, and ensuring greater access to information. This would increase awareness and support for efforts to improve water policies. In addition, the institutions concerned with international human rights law should examine the question of whether there is a right to clean water, a right which would install significant government parameters to guarantee that international watercourses are governed according to the interests of all.

All water instruments, regional conventions etc., should be a part of a consistent legal framework dealing with international watercourses. The rule of law should not be a static phenomenon, but, as concluded by the International Court of Justice in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros case, treaties should be open to the emerging norms of international law, including those regarding the environment. This would encourage the development of a genuine ecosystemic perspective, focusing on the dynamics and linkages existing in freshwater, terrestrial, marine and atmospheric systems. In addition, the law and management of international watercourses needs to placed within the bigger picture and seen in the context of the emerging norms of environmental protection, human rights law, increased globalisation and regional unity, and the changing parameters of the state sovereignty paradigm. Cooperation remains to be further developed towards the effective co-management of transboundary watercourses. Essential elements would combine the inclusion of all water and land which are components of a drainage system; the creation of an institutional framework providing for regular exchange of information to allow riparians to manage the watercourse in the best interests for all; and the involvement of all the various stakeholders in a scheme founded on an ecosystemic perspective and within the economic development context.

Good water practices at the national level can be emulated by, and be a positive influence on, those at the international or basin level. Bad internal practices are a source of social, economic and environmental degeneration, the effects of which will not necessarily be confined to within the state boundaries. Few States have well-established legislation for the organisation of water at the level of the river basin; exceptions are France and Spain each with advanced basin laws. In this regard, however, Europe is perhaps being left behind as in Central and South America, there is an emerging inclination to administer water around the unit of the basin. Brazil, Chile and Mexico are all in the process of developing very complex federal systems of water management in order to decentralise the power over water, and avert the impending water crisis. The growth of huge cities and rapid industrialisation of these states has made such a move imperative as equally accelerated population growth makes water provision a matter of internal security and stability. The new legislation gives water an important role in the more general democratisation process, and their success will depend largely on the will of the people. Success in the joint management of heavily exploited river basins in large, complex, emerging states such as these should both improve stability internally and serve as an example to other states. The increased representation of more localised authorities, and the people themselves, regarding national basins should also encourage increased involvement in creating the necessary mechanisms to share transboundary watercourses. Before the water quality problems are exacerbated further, many of Europe's nations require a review of existing water laws following the principle of the basin as the unit of administration and protection and the desire for more local-level and public participation. The decentralisation of water policy should be encouraged in order to increase the role of local authorities and involve as many concerned people as possible.

Throughout the world the deregulation and privatisation of public utilities is becoming a common strategy for increasing efficiency and attracting much needed investment in services; water and wastewater services, particularly in large urban centres, are no exception. Water service privatisation is a highly emotional issue, and as a result, it is often controversial. Proponents argue that when done right, privatisation will enhance service, encourage conservation, and free public resources towards meeting the needs of the poor and the unserved. Critics argue that "for-profit" water encourages graft and corruption, reduces service quality, raises prices, and cuts off of customers who cannot afford to pay. It beyond question that a policy or management change which improves peoples' access to clean drinking water and sanitation will be responsible for saving and transforming lives. However, changes made without consideration for local concerns, social outcomes, or environmental consequences for the whole catchment area, may lead to conflict and the failure of the best-intentioned privatisation attempts. Such conflicts can be waged in the courts, in the media or on the streets. They can pit the public against the private company concerned, or be fought between those users in the catchment who benefit from the privatisation scheme and those who are overlooked or even suffer as a result. They can even result from a change in government and therefore of ideology regarding public services. In some cities around the world, privatisation has delivered on its promise of better service for more people with less environmental impact; with several major cities in the Danube Basin, notably Sofia, currently moving towards privatisation, it is crucial that both the decision-makers and the public fully comprehend the different options and consequences, and that the private sector providers are sensitive to local social and environmental factors. If this understanding and awareness is not in place, privatisation could become a new source of conflict between water users.

Privatisation of water services in a basin such as The Danube necessarily entails transboundary issues, as the manner in which a city treats its wastewater is of prime importance to those downstream, and the private companies are often international in nature. Regulation, transparency and information dissemination are essential to effective water management whether by the public or private sectors; local and regional authorities must themselves be well informed about the question of privatisation and will be key players in ensuring that the public in any area considering this option know about and are able to participate in the decisions. Uninformed local authorities, on the other hand, are vulnerable to pressure and persuasion by large private companies eager for business opportunities. As the process is carried out in different municipalities it will be essential that everyone is able to learn from both good and bad experiences in handling water privatisation and developing suitable legislation.

France has recently revealed plans to reform their water laws in 2001 to bring them in line with the EU Water Framework Directive (issued in 2000). Plans include the introduction of new water related taxes aimed at a reinforcement of the polluter-pays principle, and reformed water pricing. It is also proposed to set up a "national fund for water solidarity" to finance common initiatives within and across the main river basins. The establishment of the EU Water Framework Directive was considered the first main test of whether the Union is serious about environmental concerns and accountability. With Europe's rivers in such dire conditions, reflected by the depletion of fisheries, disappearance of salman, and the fact that Europe now has only one remaining natural transboundary river system untouched by dams (the Tornealvan River shared by Sweden and Finland), it is a major challenge for the EU to really accomplish concrete results. Everything will depend on regional, inter-state cooperation and local support. With the Framework Directive, the EU has committed itself to improved water management, and created a standard which those seeking to accede to the EU must follow; there should also be seen to be a parallel commitment to support the CEE states in achieving these very high standards.

In the CEE region, the problems are very different, and water management needs to become an integral part of the democratisation process. While citizens of transitional countries have the right to complain and petition their local authorities over environmental or water quality matters, the response to such complaints is reliant on the individual in office. There is a distinct lack of trust in government authority in many nations in CEE preventing the participation of the public in water decision making. Case studies in the region have revealed that there is a lack of clarity in the different roles of municipalities, local and national authorities, lack of information on environmental problems and hazards, and generally insufficient leadership a local levels. The empowerment of local authorities is not yet a reality in much of the region, and this is crucial to improved water management. Water can contribute to this process if people begin to demand involvement. This has recently been demonstrated in Poland where public and NGO opposition at least temporarily halted the construction of a dam on the lower Vistula River. Regional initiatives such as the Local Environmental Action Plan for Central and Eastern Europe are working towards raising peoples' awareness and informing them of how they can participate in the decisions made in their own municipality, and carrying out local environmental assessments.

There remain many transboundary watercourses in Europe which lack any recognised agreement for their common management or protection. Although legal agreements are not essential or fool-proof, cooperation is unlikely to occur or be maintained without them. Cooperation between communities immediately on either side of a national border is gaining increased attention; largely due to the habit of nations to locate polluting installments along or near national frontiers. Along the border between Montenegro and Albania, the Buna River and Shkroda Lake are being severely polluted by mining activities and wastewater discharge, adversely affecting drinking water for the local communities. In the border area between Latvia, Lithuania and Belorussia, several transboundary rivers are being polluted by mining and industrial activities. Without cross-border dialogue tensions are inevitable, and in the case of emergencies such as the Baia Mare disaster over the Tisza River, the absence of established channels of communication can prevent rapid action to reduce damage and inform people of risks. Local authorities from municipalities across borders which share water resources could become such channels of communication and therefore cooperation and understanding. These small initiatives could represent the essential beginnings to the kind of inter-state, participatory systems of cooperation and coordination which have been developing in Western Europe this century, for example on the Meuse and Rhine Rivers and Lake Leman. Inadequate water resources can be a major barrier to development, affect health and prevent trust and security in a state.

The West should extend their water solidarity to the East, in the form of exchange of expertise and assistance with financing and monitoring of projects in order to really work together for the water of Europe in which everyone has a stake. The states and provinces of the Rhine Basin, and those of the upper Danube basin, extending such help to their lower Danubian neighbours would be an excellent example of pan-European solidarity. The fact that effective international water management is being considered a regional public good, meaning something that benefits everyone in the region, should encourage Western Europe to realise that improving the management of the water of the Danube basin is a valuable investment for the future of the whole continent.

International watercourses are a global issue, but “globalisation” is not the answer. Universal principles embodied in the UN Convention should be respected but water is a very regionally and culturally sensitive concern, and should be managed at this level. The significance of the UN Convention is that it lays down the rule that water is a shared resource. The ways in which it is shared are matters to be dealt with at the more local level. Another potential importance of the UN Convention is that it could be used as the defence and protector of smaller states, which have a tendency to be over-dominated in regional arrangements. This tendency is another reason for the fortification and creation of more river basin authorities, such as the ones already mentioned, for international watercourses. Transferring the general management of transboundary water resources from the agenda of State governments to international basin authorities, which subsequently coordinate the relevant local authorities and users groups, relocates the decision making level to that of the basin rather than the State, and should result in more ecological, democratic and efficient water management. It is important not only that these River Basin Authorities are equitable, representative and empowered, but that they work together with local authorities and people for the truly integrated and sustainable management of water for all sectors.

¹ The 1992 ECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, defines transboundary watercourses as “any surface or ground waters which mark, cross or are located on boundaries between two or more States”. (Part 1 Article 2)

² The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers, 1966, describes an “international drainage basin as a geographical area extending over two or more States determined by the watershed limits of the system of waters, including underground waters, flowing into a common terminus” (Article II).