Public Participation in Transboundary Waters

Negotiations and Cooperation: Dniester River Case

Ilya TrombitskyEco-TIRAS

Moldova

Baseline situation• Dniester River is shared by Ukraine and Moldova• Interrelations are regulating by old-style agreement on boundary

waters (1994), contradicting WFD and Water Convention (no basin approach, no stakeholders and PP)

• Both riparian countries announced European integration as a mainstream policy

• NGOs from 1997 started lobbying of modern river basin and IWRM approach to Dniester management via adoption of a river basin agreement

• In 1999 the Eco-TIRAS Dniester basin net of eco-NGOs was founder, currently with 60 NGOs-members from MD and UA

• In 2004 UNECE/OSCE project on Dniester River (Dniester-I, Dniester-II, Dniester-III) started

NGOs involvement

• NGOs proposed Dniester River basin draft Convention (Kiev, 2003, side event at Ministerial “Environment for Europe” Conference)

• In Moldova NGOs lobbied Presidential decree to initiate negotiations on Dniester River Convention (Feb. 2003)

• NGOs were involved from the beginning in activities of Dniester inter-governmental WGs

• Some of governmental WGs in frames of riparians cooperation are coordinating by NGOs

Governmental reluctance to new Dniester river basin agreement

• Until 2010 both governmental sides were managed by water agencies’ people

• Both water agencies preferred do not involve other stakeholders, monopolizing cooperation in accordance with 1994 agreement, but had to demonstrate openness to the reforms (i.e. openness to public participation)

Taken decisions on public participation in Dniester-related

issues• Adopted Regulation on participation of stakeholders in

Institute of Governmental Plenipotentiaries on Border Waters (2007) provides:

- Right to be informed about draft agenda and draft decisions 30 days before session and right to present comments, which should be taken into consideration

- No right to participate as observers.In practice: Regulation is not respected by both Parties, but

they permit stakeholders to participate, mostly as national delegations members

Regulation on Ukraine-Moldova Waters boundary cooperation on Dniester River (2007)

• Plenipotentiaries are obliged to manage joint website to inform stakeholders on their activities

• In reality website is not in action

Sanitary-epidemiological cooperation on Dniester waters

• Bilateral WG is coordinating by NGO person• Most successful WG:- Dniester Water & Health WG is managing by

NGO to avoid disputes between parties- Every 3 months WG collects water samples on

transboundary points of Dniester and each lab analyses them and transfer data to NGO, but NGO to OSCE (coordinator).

Another example on Prut River

In very short time MD and RO decided to sign Prut River agreement, so quickly that both violated internal procedures.

No public participation and no taking into consideration of public comments.

In result:

- New 2010 MD-RO Prut River agreement does not correspond WFD, no involvement of stakeholders, neither basin approach no ecosystem approach.

Lessons learnt

• Legal framework for PP in transboundary cooperation issues is necessary

• Even existence of legal duties is not a guarantee of PP duties’ implementation

• Almaty guidelines on PPIF should be extended to bi-lateral environmental cooperation

• Introduction of PPIF duties of government in national legislation helps in international PPIF implementation.

Thank you for attention!

Ilya Trombitsky

Eco-TIRAS International Environmental Association of Dniester River Keepers

www.eco-tiras.org