Regional Consultation UNECE Region - Ground Water · 4 Asia and Pacific Region 3‐5 December 2012...

A Global Framework for Action

Final Report

Regional Consultation UNECE Region19-21 March 2013, The Hague, Netherlands

Global Environmental Facility Project “Groundwater Governance: A Global Framework for Action”

(FAO, GEF, IAH, UNESCO‐IHP, World Bank)

FIFTH REGIONAL CONSULTATION: UNECE REGION

The Hague Institute for Global Justice The Hague, The Netherlands

19‐21 March 2013

FINAL REPORT

Jac van der Gun General Rapporteur

Participants of the 5th Regional Consultation Meeting in The Hague, 19‐21 March 2013

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS page List of Acronyms iv 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 OPENING CEREMONY 3 3 PLENARY SESSIONS 43.1 Plenary Session 1: Setting the Scene 43.2 Plenary Session 2: Regional and International Instruments 53.3 Plenary Session 3: Legal and Institutional Aspects 63.4 Plenary Session 4: Groundwater Governance: Regional and National

Experiences in Europe and Central Asia 83.5 Plenary Session 5a: Groundwater Governance: Focus on Canada and USA 83.6 Plenary Session 6 and 8: Groundwater Governance: Regional and National

Experiences (continued) 93.7 Plenary Session 5b: Groundwater Governance: How to Overcome Competition

in Water Scarce Regions and in International River Basins 113.8 Plenary Session 7: Groundwater Data and Information: A Crucial Tool for

Groundwater Governance 133.9 Plenary Session 9: Closing Session: Synthesis of Questionnaires,

Recommendations on Setting up the Framework for Action, and Closing Messages 16

4 WORKING GROUPS 184.1 WG1: Analysis and Assessment of the Major Legislative Instruments in the

Region 184.2 WG2: Rural Groundwater: How to Address the Tensions 184.3 WG3: River Basins Management and Groundwater Governance 194.4 WG4: Private and Public Sectors Interaction: How to Act Together for

Groundwater Governance? 194.5 WG5: Capacity on Monitoring and Management of Groundwater Data: A Key

Target for Institutions 194.6 WG6: Groundwater Governance: Public Participation and Conflicts Prevention 20 5 ROUNDTABLE ON PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS COOPERATION: “WORKING

HAND IN HAND FOR GROUNDWATER GOVERNANCE” 215.1 Background and objectives 215.2 Participants 215.3 Items for the debate 215.4 Structure of the Roundtable 215.5 Summary of outcomes 22 APPENDICES 23Appendix 1: Agenda of the Meeting 24Appendix 2: List of Participants 32Appendix 3: Synthesis of the Replies to the Groundwater Governance Questionnaire 38Appendix 4: Report on the Roundtable on Private and Public Sectors Cooperation 57

iv

List of Acronyms AZE Azerbaijan BGR Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (German Federal Institute

for Geosciences and Natural Resources) BGS British Geological Survey BIH Bosnia and Herzegovina CAN Canada CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (USA) CHE Switzerland CZE Czech Republic DEU Germany DNK Denmark EC European Commission ESP Spain EU European Union FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations GBR United Kingdom GEF Global Environmental Facility GRC Greece GWB Groundwater body GWP Global Water Partnership HUN Hungary HVR Croatia IAH International Association of Hydrogeologists ICPDR International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River IGRAC International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre IHME International Hydrogeological Map of Europe INBO International Network of Basin Organizations INWEB International Network of Water‐Environment Centres for the Balkans ISARM Internationally Shared Aquifer Resources Management ISL Iceland ISR Israel IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management MAR Managed Aquifer Recharge NLD The Netherlands OECD Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development PCM Permanent Consultation Mechanism PPP Public‐Private Partnership RBMP River Basin Management Plan RCRA Resource Conservation Recovery Act (USA) R&D Research and Development ROU Romania SRB Serbia TBA Transboundary Aquifer TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act (USA) TUR Turkey UK United Kingdom UNGA United Nations General Assembly UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

v

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO‐IHE UNESCO’s Institute for Water Education UNESCO‐IHP UNESCO’s International Hydrological Programme UNWC UN Watercourse Convention USA United States of America UZB Uzbekistan WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene WFD Water Framework Directive WHYMAP World‐wide Hydrogeological Mapping and Assessment Programme WHYMIS World‐wide Hydrogeological Map Information System WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization WMO World Water Assessment Programme WWF World Wildlife Fund

1

1. INTRODUCTION “Groundwater Governance: A Global Framework for Action” is a Global Environment Facility (GEF) project, implemented during the period 2011‐2014 by the international organisations FAO, IAH, UNESCO‐IHP and the World Bank, in close co‐operation with relevant regional and national organisations. The main objective of the project is to raise awareness of the importance of groundwater resources for many regions of the world, and to identify and promote best practices in groundwater governance as a way to achieve the sustainable management of groundwater resources. The project is carried out in two phases. The first phase reviews the global situation of groundwater governance and aims to develop a Global Groundwater Diagnostic that integrates regional and country experiences with prospects for the future. This phase builds on a series of case studies, thematic papers, a synthesis report and five regional consultations. The second phase is expected to produce a Global Framework for Action. This will consist of a set of policy and institutional guidelines, recommendations and best practices designed to improve groundwater management at country/ local level, and groundwater governance at local, national and transboundary levels. Written project outputs can be found on the project’s website: www.groundwatergovernance.org. The five regional consultations conducted as part of the first phase of the project are the following:

No Region covered Period Location

1 Latin America and the Caribbean 18‐20 April 2012 Montevideo, Uruguay 2 Sub‐Saharan Africa 29‐31 May 2012 Nairobi, Kenya 3 Arab states 8‐10 October 2012 Amman, Jordan 4 Asia and Pacific Region 3‐5 December 2012 Shijiazhuang, China 5 UNECE Region 19‐21 March 2013 The Hague, The Netherlands

The results of the regional consultations will contribute to the preparation of the previously mentioned Global Groundwater Diagnostic and Global Framework for Action. The direct objectives of the regional consultations are:

Compiling first‐hand knowledge about the main features of the region, provided by direct local sources – groundwater experts, resource managers and actors in different areas

Discussing the different issues that arise from the specific characteristics, challenges and priorities of the region, based on case studies elaborated by national experts

Building partnerships amongst cross‐sectorial collaborating project agencies, stakeholders, decision‐makers and specialists.

The Fifth Regional Consultation in The Hague (19‐21 March 2013) was organised by UNESCO‐IHP, in cooperation with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and with the support of UNESCO‐WMO International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC). It was held under the patronage of the National Commission of The Netherlands for UNESCO, the National Committee of The Netherlands for the UNESCO‐IHP and the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment of The Netherlands. The venue if the meeting was at The Hague Institute for Global Justice, Sophialaan 10, The Hague. The region in focus during this meeting was the territory of the so‐called UNECE region. This region covers the territories of the UNECE member states and includes Europe, Canada and the USA, Israel, Turkey and the countries of Central Asia (see http://www.unece.org/oes/nutshell/member_states_ representatives.html).

2

The programme of the Fifth Regional Consultation meeting is shown in Appendix 1 and the list of participants in Appendix 2. Altogether, 114 persons have attended the meeting or part of it: 42 from The Netherlands, 47 from other European countries, 17 from North America and 8 from other countries, including the Levant and Central Asia. This report presents an overview of the issues presented and discussed during the meeting. It is to a large extent based on the reports submitted by the session rapporteurs mentioned in Appendix 1. In addition, an informal report on the meeting by Jacques Ganoulis was very helpful. The work of these rapporteurs and the efforts done by Marina Rubio (UNESCO‐IHP) to collect all reports and other relevant information are gratefully acknowledged. Finally, the original presentations of this meeting can be found on the project’s website: http://www.groundwatergovernance.org/

3

2. OPENING CEREMONY The opening ceremony of the Fifth Regional Consultation meeting was coordinated by Michael van der Valk, Master of Ceremony and representative of both the Netherlands National Committee of UNESCO‐IHP and the Netherlands Chapter of the IAH. In his Opening Address, H.E. Rob Zeldenrust, Ambassador and Permanent Delegate of the Kingdom of The Netherlands to UNESCO, emphasised that “water does not divide but it connects”. The challenges are in sharing and working together. In this context, groundwater is a difficult, but highly important task. It will require not only experts and private partners, but also intergovernmental instruments such as multilateral organisations and regional or global legal conventions. He expressed the hope that this meeting will contribute to connecting experts and governments, in other words: connecting science to decision‐making. This opening address was followed by six welcome addresses. Ms Elaine Alwayn (Chair of the IGRAC Board) mentioned the aspect of drinking water security and how we may contribute to ensuring this, both by technical measures (e.g. managed aquifer recharge in the dunes in The Netherlands) and by information services and investigations (e.g. by IGRAC). Mr. Abiodun Williams, president of the host institution (THIGJ), welcomed the participants and pointed at the clear connection between groundwater governance and global peace and justice, which makes water and its just distribution a key element of the institute’s mandate. Mr Mohamed Bazza, FAO project coordinator, welcomed the participants on behalf of the Groundwater Governance Project Partners. He expressed the expectation that the meeting would contribute substantially to Global Groundwater Diagnostic and hence will be reflected in the Global Groundwater Vision and the related Framework for Action. Ms Francesca Bernardini (UNECE) referenced, among others, to misconceptions on groundwater and the need for transboundary co‐operation. Mr Robert Quarles van Ufford, Secretary General of the Netherlands National Committee for UNESCO, reminded the participants of the fact that 2013 is the International Year of Water Cooperation. Cooperation is a crucial challenge for dealing with water, in particular groundwater, in a setting of increasing demands for water and a mix of public and private interests. The Netherlands has a rich experience in water governance and having this meeting in The Hague, the global capital of justice, is no coincidence. Finally, Mr Pieter van der Zaag, chairman of the Netherlands National Committee of UNESCO‐IHP, commented that this regional consultation is both very important and timely, certainly will influence the new strategy of the IHP Programme, and in itself is a true example of good water cooperation. Huge efforts and innovative approaches will be needed to address the complex water issues that present themselves. The opening ceremony was concluded by the video message “From Shijiazhuang to The Hague”.

4

3. PLENARY SESSIONS 3.1 Plenary Session 1: Setting the Scene The Groundwater Governance Project

During the first part of Session 1, the Groundwater Governance Project was briefly described by Mohamed Bazza (FAO) and Alice Aureli (UNESCO‐IHP). Mohamed emphasized in particular that the project aims to bring groundwater management on the political agenda and has as its main objective to stop or reverse the actual trends in depletion and degradation of groundwater through effective Groundwater Governance (GWG). In order to achieve this objective, the project has planned to develop the following: (1) thematic papers and country case studies, (2) five regional consultations, (3) a global groundwater diagnostic, a shared vision with key messages and a global framework for action. Alice mentioned that one of the lessons learnt during the four previous consultations is that there is widespread confusion between the concepts ´groundwater governance´ and ´ groundwater management´. Next, Stephanie Neno (FAO) gave an explanation of how to improve communication by the designed Permanent Consultation Mechanism (PCM) and other means of communication. The PCM should inform the stakeholders via an interactive website, accessible to all PCM members.

Finally, Lucilla MInelli (UNESCO‐IHP) outlined the Groundwater Community of Practice ‘Groundwater Talks’ initiative under the GEF IW:LEARN Project.

Selected comments, questions and answers from the debate:

Q: How to get the message across? Role of local champions? A: Local champions certainly are crucial, in combination with local knowledge.

Q: How to develop a common vision, while groundwater conditions are so contrasting between regions? A: Regional and local networks should be used.

C: Are we talking about groundwater governance, or rather about water governance? Groundwater Governance: Definitions, Concepts and Methodologies

There were five presentations during the second part of Session 1, with the purpose to highlight a number of aspects of Groundwater Governance.

According to Aziza Akhmouch (OECD), whose contribution on the OECD programme on Groundwater Governance was presented by Alice Aureli (UNESCO‐IHP), proper identification of existing gaps is important (“mind the gaps ‐ bridge the gaps”). In this context, the gaps are related to administration, information, policy, capacity, funding, objectives and accountability.

Next, Robert Varady (University of Arizona) outlined a number of important elements of Thematic Paper No 5 “Groundwater Policy and Governance”. He presented some definitions, made the observation that groundwater often is missing in water governance and concluded that groundwater governance is still incompletely assessed, very complex and fuzzy.

Stephen Foster (GWP) then focused on a pragmatic and proactive framework for action on groundwater governance. Messages should be simple, in spite of the many complexities. A distinction should be made between urban versus rural water, and between groundwater quantity and quality problems. Groundwater governance is unlikely to function at a national level, due to ineffective institutional arrangements. GW‐MATE has covered many important issues that may help developing groundwater governance.

Todd Jarvis (Oregon State University)raised the question of how to sustain a resource that we are mining. Building aquifer communities and unitization, successful in the oil and gas industry, may be a useful new

5

instruments contributing to good groundwater governance. Niche ‘groundwater’ diplomacy must be considered a key element in foreign policy.

In the last presentation of the session, Ebel Smidt (Water Governance Centre, NL) showed a few examples of technical responses in The Netherlands to changes affecting groundwater: MAR in the coastal dune areas, increasing use of aquifers for energy storage and remediation of groundwater pollution. Effective groundwater governance is reflecting societal change and the way humans perceive the environment, e.g. groundwater being considered as a multifunctional buffer for energy, water and chemical constituents.


C: The water boards in The Netherlands have for one thousand years a water governance tradition with stakeholder participation

Q: What about transfer of knowledge, in particular training groundwater managers? A +C: Many initiatives at the international level, but still much to be desired. What to expect from groundwater management if professional training in this field is lacking or insufficient?

Q: How do private companies fit in? A: Public‐Private partnerships, who does what in groundwater governance is of secondary importance.

Q: Can the term ‘sustainable use’ be applied to MAR? Sustainability has no universal definition, needs to be defined according to setting.

3.2 Plenary Session 2: Regional and International Instruments Plenary Session 2 contained four presentations, followed by a debate.

Francesca Bernardini (UNECE) talked about the UNECE Water Convention (International Water

Convention on Transboundary Watercourses and Lakes, also known as the “Helsinki 1992 Convention” or “Helsinki Rules”). It was signed in 1992, entered into force in 1996 and was amended in 2013 to allow inclusion of countries outside the UNECE region. Concerning groundwater, the convention includes transboundary confined and unconfined aquifers, with special attention on how to avoid groundwater pollution. The convention is based on three main principles: (i) prevention, control and reduction of transboundary impacts, (ii) reasonable use and (iii) obligation to cooperate. The major benefit is the facilitation for establishing legal mechanisms for cooperation and joint management of transboundary waters. In 1999 UNECE made a first inventory and assessment of transboundary groundwater and published guidelines for groundwater monitoring and assessment. More recently, a second assessment was accomplished (2011), followed by model provisions for groundwater (2012). A special cooperation agreement was signed in 2012 between UNECE and UNESCO, within the framework of the UNESCO/ISARM program.

Johannes Grath (Austrian Environment Agency) focused on the contribution of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) to groundwater governance in the region. One of the milestones of the EU‐WFD is the establishment of a daughter directive on groundwater in 2006. Its main objective is achieving good status of all groundwater bodies (GWBs) by 2015. It requires the following key actions on groundwater: (1) Nomination of competent authorities, (2) Delineation and characterisation of GWBs, (3) Monitoring, (4) RBMP: River Basin Management Plans, (5) Defining chemical status (6) Risk characterisation of GWBs. Groundwater management in a cyclic procedure with every 6 years review. Other features of the WFD are CIS (Common Implementation Strategy 2010‐2012), public participation and WISE (Water Information System for Water). The principle of subsidiary provides sufficient flexibility between member states.

Balázs Horváth (European Commission – DG Environment) elaborated on the ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe’s Water Resources’, in which the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) established by member states were assessed by the European Commission. The planning process in the EU‐WFD has 6‐years review cycles and should lead to plans and measures with a legal character. There is a need for horizontal multi‐sectoral coordination and vertical coordination at European level. For groundwater protection,

6

recent challenges come from groundwater uses (irrigation, salinisation, industry) and interactions with other waters. Stakeholder’s active participation in the process is crucial. Financing of measures is important and should be included in an early stage of the planning process.

Finally, Flavia Rocha Loures (WWF) made a relation between the 1997 UN Water Courses Convention (UNWC) and the UNGA Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers. The 1997 UN Watercourses Convention was adopted with only three dissenting in a vote of 106. To enter force, the document required ratification by 35 countries, but as of 2008 it received ratification by only 16. Though unratified, the document is regarded as an important step towards arriving at an international law governing water. In order to facilitate integrated approaches to water management it is recommended to integrate the UNWC and the Draft Articles. Furthermore, it is important to develop the capacity of states to assess the role, complementarities, strengths and weaknesses of global frameworks, and adjust them to their needs in aquifer agreements.


C: The EU‐WFD offers a common long term vision on water resources management in the European Union and it is a success because it contributed to improve capacities of member states.

Q: In the EU‐WFD a groundwater body should have an abstraction rate of at least 10 m3/day. This seems rather small value and perhaps may produce too many groundwater bodies? A: For implementing the EU‐WFD many guiding documents are available in the frame of vertical integration and the value of 10m3/day is not problematic.

C: The UNECE and the UN‐97 conventions together with the UNGA Draft Articles are important legislative documents. All refer also to confined/non‐confined and to connected/non‐connected transboundary aquifers.

3.3 Plenary Session 3: Legal and Institutional Aspects This session included four presentations by members of the international law community.

Kerstin Mechlem (University of Ulster) set the stage for the session by providing an overview of Thematic Paper Number 6, entitled “Legal framework for sustainable groundwater governance”. The objectives of the paper were to assess the status quo, identify key constraints and challenges and identify ways to address them, and discuss prospects. Eight legal challenges at the domestic level were identified: (1) Status of groundwater, whether a public or private resource; (2) Coherence of legal framework for groundwater; (3) Dealing with small scale or de minimis uses; (4) Reconciling formal legislation with customary law, avoiding disenfranchisement of customary right holders; (5) Managing land‐water management interface, which is often neglected; (6) Strengthening stakeholder participation in groundwater user groups and in legislation formulation; (7) Improving implementation and enforcement and addressing fragmented institutional structures; (8) Aligning water law and macro‐level policies, such as agricultural policy, municipal energy, tariffs, etc. At the international level, she noted that the UNECE water convention is not yet global. The 1997 UN Watercourse Convention, the 2008 Draft Articles on the law of transboundary aquifers, and the EU Water Framework Directive were discussed. There are agreements for only five transboundary aquifers. Key issues at the international level are dealing with the principle of sovereignty, developing cooperation, and learning lessons from existing water agreements. Mobilizing external support is important, as is using guidance from global and regional frameworks. Legal issues of growing relevance were noted. Options in addition to formal water rights/permit systems should be considered because permit systems may not be the best way forward due to open access nature of groundwater. There is growing emphasis on environmental concerns and legal responses to climate change. Consideration of human rights to water is influencing water laws. Legal frameworks are needed for addressing new technologies. Finally, there is interest in developing an international groundwater convention.

Gabriel Eckstein (Texas Wesleyan University School of Law) spoke about groundwater resources governance in the United States, with a focus on efforts to address major water pollution through CERCLA and Superfund. He noted the diverse geography and topography of the U.S., where 90% of the volume of

7

freshwater is groundwater and 46% of drinking water comes from groundwater. There is no single federal law governing groundwater resources. Groundwater quality is a federal issue; quantity is a state issue. The federal government regulates drinking water quality through the Safe Drinking Water Act and the quality of discharges through the Clean Water Act. The states rely on five different groundwater governance mechanisms, with a table in his presentation explaining the five. Regarding pollution, there is the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) imposes strict liability for cleanup of hazardous sites. However, the Superfund Trust Fund ran out of money ten years ago. Funding now depends on annual federal budgeting. CERCLA involves prioritizing sites, but it does not specifically focus on groundwater resources. It is broad in scope, however, in how it may apply to aquifers. The presentation concluded with some comments on transboundary groundwater governance, noting that the U.S. has no groundwater policies either between the states or with other countries.

Stefani Burchi (AIDA) spoke about groundwater legislation in selected UNECE countries. He noted a number of themes that emerge from comparative analysis: ownership of groundwater; groundwater extraction and use, including groundwater ‘mining’; conjunctive use; groundwater pollution control; protection of natural recharge; artificial recharge of aquifers; groundwater planning; and participation of groundwater users. The matter of public or private ownership is important, noting that groundwater is still perceived as intensely private even where publicly controlled through permitting. In some cases, the ecosystem support function of groundwater is acknowledged in appraising requests for groundwater permits or licenses. Conjunctive use, prior appropriation and correlation as a single source were discussed. Irrigators using groundwater may actually move return flows to streams, and special boards exist for the joint development and use of surface water and groundwater. Groundwater pollution control from diffuse sources, such as fertilizers, is pursued through adoption of standards for good agricultural practices as well as land use controls. Regarding groundwater quantity management, there are several mechanisms to protect natural groundwater recharge and to permit artificial recharge and well drilling. Groundwater users’ participation through representation in planning groups and advisory committees was also noted. Concluding comments highlighted the rich and diversified nature of groundwater‐relevant regulation, the importance of urban development, the connection between groundwater management and land use controls, and the need for better coordination among the different administrative institutions. In addition, constraints should not be placed on conjunctive use; the ‘use it or lose it’ principle is a potential impediment.

The final speaker, Attila Tanzi (University of Bologna), spoke about governance in the context of transboundary waters. Addressing transboundary groundwater governance has many challenges for lawyers. The law does not dictate governance but rather may enhance governance. Nevertheless, there is a lack of enforcement of existing laws. Law‐making and interpreting the laws includes site visits with hydrogeologists and, in some instances, the parties may get to negotiated settlement. The different geological settings make addressing transboundary governance difficult. In the UNECE region there are no specific groundwater treaties except for the Franco‐Swiss agreement, there is limited reference to groundwater in existing transboundary water agreements, and little cooperation in practice. Problems include lack of administrative coordination, limited availability of information, and poor groundwater monitoring. Coordination is hampered by lack of exchange of information and methodologies and limited involvement of groundwater experts in the work of existing joint bodies. Associated with transboundary groundwater are obligations, such as the obligation not to cause significant harm. The nine provisions of the ILC (International Law Commission) 2008 Draft Articles that were discussed provide non‐binding guidance. They include: reducing transboundary impacts and making sure use is equitable and reasonable; sustainable use; coordinated or joint aquifer characterization and monitoring; integrated management of surface water and groundwater; prevention, control and reduction of pollution; exchange of information and data; joint or coordinated planning; environmental impact assessment and availability of information to the public; and establishment of a joint body. The UN General Assembly draft resolution on transboundary aquifers has helped draw attention to these articles and the importance of addressing transboundary groundwater.

8

There was no debate during this session due to time constraints.

3.4 Plenary Session 4: Groundwater Governance: Regional and National Experiences in Europe and Central Asia

This session comprised five presentations, geographically ranging from the Aral Sea in Central Asia (by Akmal Karimov of IWMI) to the Caucasus (Alishidin Alakbarov of Azerbaijan) to central‐eastern Europe (Hana Prchalova of the Czech Republic; Ruxandra Balaet of Romania; and Teodora Szöcs of Hungary). In each case, the speaker summarized the main characteristics of the area’s water resources, highlighting salient issues. As requested, each presenter also addressed groundwater characteristics and identified interesting governance problems, challenges, and lessons. The water‐use characteristics varied broadly—from a primarily agricultural setting in Central Asia and the Caucasus (where as much as 86‐88% of water is used for irrigation), to much more mixed and even urban economies in the 14‐country Danube Basin, within which the other three countries lie (where in some places, as much as 90% of groundwater is used by households as drinking water).

All speakers offered details about the various institutions—central, provincial and local government ministries and agencies, legislative bodies, user associations, NGOs, and instruments such as treaties that play some role in governing groundwater resources in the respective areas. And while surface water continues to draw most attention in each place, groundwater is increasingly relied on for all sectors. In the Aral Sea region and in the Caucasus, irrigation causes serious pollution, which remains highly localized rather than regional. In the European areas, compromise of quality is much more likely to arise because of industrial activity. The speakers also confirmed that infrastructure—physical, institutional, and informational—is strikingly poorer in the eastern regions than in Europe, where Hungary and the Czech Republic are the best endowed. In addition, all five areas that were reported on have major transboundary aquifers and as a result, confront transnational groundwater governance issues—both in regard to supply and quality. The Danube Basin has 11 transboundary aquifers, and some, such as the ones between Hungary and its neighbours, are especially contentious. In each case, the level of response to transboundary challenges varies, even within a country. Ms. Szöcs of the Hungarian Geological and Geophysical Institute provided examples of some especially innovative transboundary accords, including one on geothermal resources.

Pieter van der Zaag (Chair of the session), in his summary, pointed to the following take‐away messages: (1) In the Aral Sea region, the effects of climate change and the efforts to save energy are especially noteworthy. (2) In Azerbaijan, the audience heard of multiple efforts underway—in spite of the absence of IWRM, the lack of control of groundwater use, the lack of a legal base for groundwater management, and the poor availability of information. (3) The Czech Republic, by contrast, benefits from all of the above and even boasts a surfeit of expertise. (4) Romania, a large country, was shown to be extremely complex, with great regional variation and five neighbours with which it shares aquifers. (5) Hungary, which has an elaborate set of laws and acts, has pioneered some innovative transboundary pacts.

Selected comments from the debate:

Hungary possesses groundwater legislation that is actually being enforced Hungary is a rare example of a where geothermal and groundwater resources crossed by international

boundaries are jointly managed.

3.5 Plenary Session 5a: Groundwater Governance: Focus on Canada and USA In the first presentation of this session, Sharon Megdal (University of Arizona) summarised the results of a groundwater governance survey in the USA. A simple survey has been conducted: one person per state was questioned. One of the main conclusions is that groundwater governance is highly decentralised in the USA and as a result there are many differences between the states. There is a lot of diversity in terms of

9

the users of groundwater subject to state groundwater regulations. Most respondents report that there are formal groundwater policies, rules, or regulations in their state. There is a lot of diversity in tools and strategies to manage groundwater use and quantity; priorities vary between states; the role of the courts in groundwater issues in the states varies; and significant variation exists in recognizing the connection between surface and groundwater and in considering the water needs of groundwater dependent ecosystems. Survey respondents report differences in terms of agency capacity to carry out policies and responsibilities, and of public access to groundwater information. A phase II survey will follow to get ‐among others ‐ also information on what is working and what not, and to get information on variations within the states. In the second presentation, Alfonso Rivera (Geological Survey of Canada) emphasised the enormous size of Canada and the special challenge posed by huge variations (geology, geography and climate) within the country. Canada should be seen as thirteen countries in one. Canada’s water governance is highly decentralised, which has resulted in fragmented (ground)water governance with sometimes negative impacts on the ability to manage water resources. Water is primarily regulated at the provincial or territorial level (13 jurisdictions, subdivided in 4 levels!), though the federal government (20 departments!), aboriginal governments and municipalities also exercise control over different aspects of water. Water policies and legislation across the Canadian provinces and territories are remarkable for their degree of diversity. Vertically, there is inter‐jurisdictional fragmentation between the federal and provincial governments. Horizontally, there is fragmentation across the provinces and territories and both cross‐ and inter‐departmentally within provincial and territorial governments. There is a serious lack of data on groundwater in Canada, which hinders good groundwater management and governance. This is now recognised by all governments as a gap to be filled. The last decade institutions and organisations have been including groundwater in their plans, which helps to improve national cooperation, vision and consensus on groundwater. Strong science‐based regulations are the preferred choice of most provinces for water management and governance. Public consultation, collaboration, shared management and governance are Canadian features of applying a code of values and ethics in all aspects related to governance.


C: Courts in Europe are rarely used as a last resort in water issues, while in the USA they seem to be used upfront

C: From the USA presentation is seems apparent that some areas within a state have ‘high governance levels’ and others ‘low’. It was stated that this should be based on groundwater priorities and that these priorities should be regularly updated.

Q: How are tensions between the federal and the State/Provincial levels addressed? A: Canadian example of oil sands in Alberta: Federal responsibilities lie in development (of oil sands in this case) on one hand. But on the other hand social pressure have lead to fully independent federal panel to evaluate environmental impacts. In USA, federal versus state tensions are not the most relevant issue, even though they exist. Political will to connect land use planning to water resources management is more relevant.

3.6 Plenary session 5b: Groundwater Governance: How to Overcome Competition in Water

Scarce Regions and in International River Basins In his presentation on building groundwater governance in a changing environment, Müfit Şefik Doğdu (State Hydraulic Works, Turkey) mentioned as main groundwater problems in Turkey: groundwater overexploitation and unregistered wells resulting in water shortages, falling groundwater levels and land subsidence and collapsing. Locally there are groundwater quality problems: excess nitrate contents caused by fertilisers and salt water intrusion coastal aquifers. Governance action has triggered the implementation of a large number of measures. Four critical river basins (out of 25) have been closed to groundwater exploitation (=no new wells or increased abstraction)

10

by cabinet decision. Based on the Groundwater Law, wells in critical (4) and semi‐critical (10) basins have to be equipped with flow meters and control cards which prevent abstraction beyond allocation. Groundwater action plans have been prepared to define realistic groundwater allocation schemes. Additional measures are taken to transfer surface water to drought‐prone areas. Irrigation systems are renewed to decrease water losses and measures are enforced by linking measures to abstraction licenses. Capacity building projects have been implemented, including awareness campaigns (TV and posters), education, information meetings for local governments and stakeholders, groundwater‐related database, meetings to increase transparency. There are several laws related to groundwater management. Agriculture is the largest groundwater user; so to improve the situation, agricultural policies should be considered to reduce water use. The presentation of Emilio Custodio (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain) focused on lessons learnt about Groundwater Governance in Spain and the role of the Water Users Associations. Typical groundwater problems in Spain are: groundwater head drawdown, ‘mining’ in some areas, interference of abstractions with spring and river flow, saline intrusion into aquifers, groundwater quality impairment, desiccation of important wetlands, excessive litigation in civil and administrative courts, proliferation of wells that pump more than 7000 m3/year. Groundwater is considered a public good (subject to licensing) only since 1985, while before this date is was considered a private commodity. The corresponding 1985 Law has not been very successful, as most wells in existence before 1985 continue to be in the private domain. Furthermore, there are compliance and enforcement problems. Top‐down government actions have been ineffective (lack of trust and transparency), but ‘bottom‐up’ measures work better: there are good experiences with groundwater user associations based on surface water user associations which have been existing for 7 to 10 centuries! A successful example is the Lower LLobregat Groundwater Users Community. Groundwater users associations are important for governance but progress is slow and they need to develop further and their role needs to be accepted by the government. In his presentation “The Reason for Unreasonableness in Groundwater Quality Governance” Daniel Ronen (Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel) gave several examples of ‘bad groundwater management/ governance’:

(1) Trying to restore contaminated aquifers to pristine conditions: unrealistic goal resulted in extreme costs( $5 billion in USA) with very limited results. This was followed by an over‐reaction:

(2) Natural attenuation to resolve contamination (do nothing). Time frame is unrealistic and some processes of natural attenuation actually result in more hazardous decay products and risks with volatile substances. Through continued research more risks are exposed: e.g. hormones in groundwater, antibiotics, etc.

(3) Managed Aquifer Recharge can result in new groundwater quality risks: e.g. infiltrating run‐off in urban areas.

(4) Ignoring processes like climate change and population growth (increased demand) and putting long‐term policies in place. E.g.: responding to drought as a calamity instead of by long‐term planning.

Possible explanations for such poor groundwater management: (a) Period of time involved in groundwater processes and measures exceeds the residence time of decision makers in their managerial positions (short‐term versus long‐term); (b) Lack of qualified professionals in groundwater management; (c) Lack of an academic curriculum in water management, resulting in: (d) Lack of integrated management of water resources (quantity and quality). Andreas Scheidleder (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River – ICPDR) focused on groundwater governance in the context of International Danube River Basin. He gave an overview of the organisational structure in the Danube Basin, with special attention for the groundwater task group: ICPDR coordinates the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive & EU Floods Directive throughout the entire Danube basin. The ICPDR operates under the Danube River Protection

11

Convention, in regard of (1) protection of water & ecology; (2) sustainable use; (3) reduction of nutrients and hazardous substances; (4) managing floods and ice hazards. There are many parties to the convention: 15 contracting parties, 5 countries linked, and bilateral and interbasin links. Under the ICPDR secretariat there are 8 expert groups and task groups, among which there is a Groundwater Task Group. About 73% of the drinking water in the Danube Basin is derived from groundwater and this serves about 56 million people (out of 83 million). The Groundwater Task Group meets twice a year since 2004.Tasks: transboundary harmonisation (coordination, Water Framework Directive implementation, criteria, procedures, templates), dealing with groundwater related issues of the Danube basin‐wide concern, being a platform to exchange experience, best practice, data & information. It prepared a Groundwater Guidance Document. The task group operates both in the EU‐part of the Danube basin and outside the EU‐part of the basin. Reporting is done on the level of the sub‐basins. Public participation is an important part of the ICPDR work: 22 observing parties, public participation, quarterly magazines, etc (see: www.icpdr.org) The presentation ends with a diagram of the structure in place which should lead to “Good Groundwater Status”. Some of the challenges of ICPDR: large amount of member states in the Danube Basin (10 EU member states and 9 Non EU countries), 16 languages and 20 legislations. But all in all, the organisational structure to achieve the ‘good groundwater status’ is in place.


Q: For Spain, the need for a cultural change has been described to change from water as a private to a public good. What does this change involve? An example is given of WASH: This is often managed in a combined way even though the drivers and dynamics for water supply differ greatly from those in sanitation. Question is if the cultural change needed for sound groundwater management is different from the changes needed in surface water management? A: There are cultural changes. In water scarce areas these changes have started years ago: they had to work together. Question is how to transfer the experience from surface water to the groundwater arena. In groundwater there is no common infrastructure unlike in surface water. The aquifer is the common infrastructure, but this is not sufficiently realised. This realisation is starting to develop. But it will take generations to fully develop this notion. To create cooperation takes a long time and it works best at the lower level of people who have the problem and who can solve the problem (technicians and not politicians or administration). People tend to be very suspicious of the administration. There is a need for champions who can make things work, while the developments have to come from bottom‐up.

Q: ICPDR is a good example of how to resolve problems and maybe even how to avoid conflicts in the Donau basin. Are there transboundary problems between countries in terms of quantity or quality? A: There are problems between the countries, but thanks to the organisational structure there is cooperation on the technical level and a structure in place to take decisions on the political level.

Q: Are Turkey and Israel trying to use elements of the EU WFD? A1: Even though Turkey is no EU member, we use ideas from the WFD and its daughter directive: water bodies and characterisation methodology even though some elements are very difficult to apply (like the 10m3/d threshold and chemical background). A2: Israel is very much centralised, also in its groundwater management. Waters belong to the state there is no such thing as privately owned water resources. Permits are needed for each well and each abstraction.

3.7 Plenary Sessions 6 and 8: Groundwater Governance: Regional and National Experiences (continued)

In his presentation on groundwater governance in the urban context, Ken Howard (IAH and University of Toronto) highlighted that half of the world’s population lives in urban areas. This percentage is increasing, in particular in poor, underserved peri‐urban areas in low‐income countries. Many of these areas are seriously neglected when it comes to urban planning and water and

sanitation services, while groundwater resource management and IWRM often are lacking, which requires good urban groundwater governance. While science is rather strong, urban groundwater governance has to be greatly developed and strengthened and IWRM should now recognize the unique

12

and special attributes of groundwater and systematically integrate groundwater with full participation of all stakeholders. Rob Ward (BGS) and John Chilton (IAH) gave an impression of groundwater governance in the United Kingdom. Groundwater governance there has been developed for the last 50 years, emphasizing the importance of devolution and privatization and enhancing society’s involvement. Priority has been given to water supplies intended for human consumption and for dependent eco‐systems. A risk‐based approach has been adopted and, when uncertainty is high, the ‘precautionary principle’ is applied. There is an increased awareness of the social and economic value of groundwater. The ‘polluter pays principle’ is applied and through various means, stakeholders’ participation is stimulated. The last presentation of Session 6, by Albert Tuinhof (Acacia, The Netherlands) was about experiences in managed aquifer recharge, conjunctive use and groundwater buffering. Among others, he made the following statements: ‐ Conjunctive use is to combine the use of groundwater and surface water in a way that optimizes the benefits of each

‐ Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) increases groundwater recharge over what would have occurred naturally, as a result of interventions designed to enhance groundwater storage and quality

‐ There is a lack of harmonized and adequate regulation.


Q: Concerning groundwater, has IWRM actually failed or could it be that it is not applied correctly? A: No, it is a fact that IWRM does not properly account for groundwater: for instance, the word ‘groundwater’ hardly appears in documents concerning IWRM

C: When elaborating on the contrast ‘strong science’ and ‘weak governance’, we have to be careful: in a number of countries, mostly developing, the capacities needed for correctly using the scientific methods and instruments are not available. It is a major problem of capacity‐building. Besides, in many countries, developed or nor not, there is a problem of lack of data, which adds to the difficulty of benefiting from ‘strong science’.

Q: Is the word ‘urban’ well defined, i.e. when is a set of dwellings considered as ‘urban’? A: It seems to be a European preoccupation because, outside of Europe, there are rather clear differences between urban and rural.

Q: To achieve good groundwater governance, what can be proposed? A: It is a slow process, needing a roadmap, and that has to be adapted to the scale of its object i.e. cities, regions, countries.

Q: When is artificial recharge most efficient? A: It will depend on the aquifer depth i.e. it will work better with shallow aquifers. Research is still needed.

C: Within IWRM, groundwater and surface water are managed as conjunctive resources, but what about a needed agreement between the local actors to finance, allocate and protect the water resource?

In the first presentation of Session 8, Miodrag Milanovic (Institute Jaroslav Cerni, Serbia)) provided some background to the water resources in Serbia, outlining the importance of alluvial and karstic aquifers. He listed the main governance issues confronting a country in transition – mainly economic and financial constraints and lack of adequate monitoring. The country has a new water law from 2010, and is implementing the WFD through the ICPDR, which is important for relations with its EU neighbours. There are 153 groundwater bodies in the country. He briefly described research that his institute is doing on well aging. Didier Pennequin (BRGM, France) presented the groundwater governance experience of France. He listed the general concepts and gave a timeframe of recent laws since 1964, much as Rob Ward had done for the UK. As for many countries, the coming of the WFD required some adjustment to national legislation. He provided long lists of the main stakeholders at national and basin level, and summarised the tasks and

13

responsibilities of each of them, and showed a rather complicated diagram of the linkages. Didier overran, and the last slides were omitted or rushed through. Experiences with groundwater governance in Denmark were described by Lisbeth Jørgensen (Danish Water Forum, i.e. this is not a view from the government regulator). The physical and geological setting was described by way of background, emphasising the east‐ west trends, and greater population density in the east. Public supply is totally from groundwater, and she showed a map of the value of groundwater. There are 400 groundwater bodies at three levels. She showed a map of water supplies, and said there are 75,000 private wells. The water supply companies are private but not for profit, in contrast to the UK. Groundwater is state owned. She summarised the governance structure in Denmark, and described the implementation of the WFD and the public hearings that went with it. There has been a substantial reduction in per capita water consumption since the 1980s. Lisbeth described the quantity and quality challenges facing Denmark. David Zetland (Wageningen University) made a very different presentation from an academic point of view. He listed the causes of governance failure ‐ theft, myopia, subsidies and rescue, and provided examples and how examples of each of these might be tackled by good governance. He wondered whether tradition or complexity are the problem, and said that monopolies (e.g. utilities) can become lazy when they take your money. Selected comments, questions and answers from the debate:

Q: What about the firmness of ‘no’ with respect to subsidies: is this always appropriate? A: In general, there should be a firm ‘no’ for subsidies related to private goods. If users are getting large benefits, this creates an expectation of continuity, and invites corruption. However, subsidies could sometimes be more strongly defended for public goods, for example the dissemination of data.

Q: Does the intergovernmental committee in France meet, what does it do and how, and are its discussions made public? A: The committee was imposed by government, and now is starting to work. It seems as if it does meet, but its operations are not well formalised, and it is not clear whether it has a major coordinating effect. There is also a ‘commission national de l’eau’.

Q: What about public‐private partnerships in France and Denmark and what are the incentives for a not‐for‐profit private water operator? A: Sometimes these partnerships work well, for example for drinking water supply. The incentive for the companies in Denmark is that they are small and locally anchored and locally answerable; most of the consumers are very local and are the people who live in the protected areas from which the drinking water is drawn.

Q: It was said that the ‘Agences de Bassins’ in France were replicable elsewhere, but is this true? A: Probably true, in terms of the success of INBO.

3.8 Plenary session 7: Groundwater Data and Information: A Crucial Tool for Groundwater Governance

In the first presentation of the session, Neno Kukuric (IGRAC) talked about groundwater information availability and reliability in the context of international cooperation. This was preceded by a brief introduction to IGRAC, the UNESCO/WMO global groundwater centre, financed by Netherlands, that facilitates global sharing of groundwater related information. IGRAC maintains a webportal with a Global Groundwater Information System and has many other activities e.g. on the TBA’s of the world (map), ISARM regional assessments, monitoring guidelines and protocols. The importance of terrestrial groundwater monitoring (hard data) needs to be stressed as remote sensing and modelling cannot fill the data gap. IGRAC maintains a Global Groundwater Monitoring Network with aggregated data. Participation of regional experts is a key element, order to obtain not only data but to convert this also into information and knowledge. A few closing remarks: (1)The state of groundwater monitoring varies substantially from non‐existing to automated, telemetric and optimised networks; (2) Worldwide only few countries provide groundwater data on‐line; (3) Very little international cooperation exists on groundwater monitoring; (4)

14

Hardly any global data sets exist that show changes over time in groundwater resources (quality and/or quantity); (5) Contemporary ICT improves information flow and facilitates international cooperation. The next speaker, Willi Struckmeier (German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources), discussed hydrogeological maps as tools for groundwater governance. He did so by taking the International Hydrogeological Map of Europe and WHYMAP as examples. Hydrogeological maps provide easily accessible information on the hydrogeological situation, to be used by Hydrogeologists, planners, executives, scientists and the public at large. Harmonized international hydrogeological mapping started in Europe some fifty years ago: the International Hydrogeological Map of Europe (IHME) scale of 1:1.5 million (UNESCO, IAHS and IAH). IHME covers Europe on 25 sheets and will be completed in 2013. Based on the IHME, new digital data sets on the hydrogeological type and lithological composition of rock bodies as well as areas of sea water intrusion and springs are being derived and will be available for further applications at European scale, e.g. transboundary aquifers in Europe, hydrogeological classification or modelling purposes. Maps are used by policy makers e.g. WFD‐Groundwater bodies, catchment modelling etc. At the global level, the Worldwide Hydrogeological Mapping and Assessment Programme (WHYMAP) is successfully providing groundwater related input into the international water discussion (www.whymap.org). Products include: WHYMAP web applications, the hydrogeological map information system WHYMIS, world maps on Groundwater Resources (2004), Transboundary Aquifers (2006) and River and Groundwater Basins (2012). The latter map is thought to help water managers identify how river and lake basins are linked up with the underlying groundwater basins. The role of area‐specific information in the groundwater governance process and the importance of the form in which it is supplied were highlighted in the presentation by Jac van der Gun (consultant to UNESCO and IGRAC). Area‐specific information is an essential input into the groundwater governance process: without it, it is unknown what issues groundwater resources management should address and what benefits it may produce or what problems it may solve. Area‐specific information comes in many different forms, ranging from mass media messages intended to inform the general public to dedicated databases and modelling studies that are mainly consulted by groundwater specialists. All types of information sources have their own purpose and intended users, in principle including all categories of actors in the groundwater governance process. However, effective communication between the different actors – which is a cornerstone of the governance process – requires that all these actors have a certain common understanding of the basic facts about groundwater in the area considered. In this context, ‘non‐technical compilations and digests’, understandable by nearly all but providing more balanced information than simple mass media messages, may contribute significantly to developing shared views on the realities on the ground. Such compilations or digests can be prepared for different spatial scale levels. The book ‘Groundwater around the World’ by Margat & Van der Gun (2013) may serve as an example of a global level compilation and compendium on groundwater. An impression of the many messages in this book was provided in the form of seven selected ‘windows’: (1) Global patterns of natural groundwater conditions; (2) Compiled global data help correcting erroneous views (e.g., unlike what is suggested by most conventional hydrological cycle pictures, 80‐90% of the global groundwater flow ends up in streams or is lost by terrestrial evapo(transpi)ration, while less than 20% discharges directly into a sea or ocean); (3) Delineation and role of the world’s mega aquifer systems: these are very important in terms of reserves (buffers), but they rate far below average in terms of groundwater flux; (4) Global distribution of groundwater abstraction and its break‐down over the three main water use sectors; (5) Depletion of groundwater reserves around the world; (6) What is likely to become more rare for future generations: wetlands, springs, operational qanats/aflaj, artesian wells; ( 7) Selected success stories related to groundwater resources management. Jacques Ganoulis (UNESCO Chair INWEB, University of Thessaloniki, Greece) demonstrated how new information and communication technologies (ICTs) can enhance collaboration in sharing groundwater, with examples from the Balkans and the Mediterranean Region. After mentioning that there are many definitions of governance, he suggested that governance is an art and that the best way to characterise it

15

in one word is ‘collaboration’. Collaboration is the key to crossing ‘boundaries’ between countries or between different administrations, institutions and groups of stakeholders within the same country. The main difficulties arising in integrated transboundary groundwater resources management are the following two: (1) Lack of political willingness to cooperate (accompanied by limited or non‐effective exchange of data and information); and (2) The gap in communication and understanding between scientists, water professionals, decision makers, stakeholders and the general public. Modern Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) can facilitate the dialogue between parties, by providing interactively on the Internet spatially distributed data and distance‐based collaborative tools. Developments involve Extensible Markup Language (XML) for managing and publishing geographic data on the internet, and Mapserver CGI for interactive mapping on the web (dynamic maps). Smart combination of open source concepts (Google Map, Google API and Google fusion tables, JavaScript, etc) provide tools to combine databases, GIS and collaborative tools to create interactive web‐based mapping applications. An example is INWEB’s spatial database in SE Europe and an application for coastal aquifers in the Mediterranean where users can view information but also add geo‐tagged comments and information.

Finally, Irene Kitsara (WIPO‐ World Intellectual Property Organization) addressed the question how patents can help in groundwater governance. WIPO is a specialised UN agency dedicated to the use of intellectual property (trademarks, patents, copyrights, etc) for the promotion of creativity and innovation. In the presentation it was shown how patents may be used in an unexpected way to create or track down innovation. It is unknown to most scientists that patents (1) are not just for concrete products, but that also concepts or techniques can be patented (e.g. patents for desalination or soil remediation); and (2) that patents have to be published, which means that publicly accessible patent databases can be a source of information unknown to most scientists and policymakers. In fact the patent database is easily accessible; it provides full articles (as opposed to expensive access to scientific publications). Patent publications can be complementary to scientific publications. An example is given of a ‘patent map’ which indicates geographic hotspots for certain types of developments or research: it shows you where the research groups working on certain topics are based. By providing geographic and other analyses of the patent landscape, WIPO gives access to complementary and sometimes new information. The patent landscape reports provide an assessed global picture of related technologies by grouping and presenting relevant information in a structured, non‐expert friendly way. It enables: (1) Identification of emerging techno‐logies; (2) Identification of existing synergies and potential cooperation partners (other research institutes, private actors in an area) for joint research, technology/know‐how transfer, R&D investment, PPPs, joint ventures; (3) Public‐domain technologies to be discovered (lapsed patents, patents not protected in the relevant area, etc.); (4) A better negotiating position. ‘Patent landscape reports’ can be very helpful see also http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/programs/patent landscapes/index.html) and collaboration with WIPO is likely to benefit the groundwater governance group.


C: How can you manage groundwater without data? The importance of data and turning data into information is beyond doubt.

C: It might not always be strategic to say ‘no data – no management’, as the lack of data can be used by wealthy or powerful (private) parties as an argument to stop management initiatives.

C: Mapping and data are crucial, but we need to go one step further as groundwater is spatially 3D. We need to find ways to represent that in a simple way – several efforts are being launched. Maybe also the private sector can help us with this as they have a lot of data on the deep subsurface.

C: Efforts should be continued to use mapping as a tool to communicate to the wider public.

C: In addition to the final maps produced, the process of creating hydrogeological maps is in itself also important, because it establishes cooperation and creates a network of people who develop mutual trust, start talking and are prepared to share information and data.

C: Geothermal techniques have been mentioned. This is one of the often overlooked potentials of groundwater. We should consider mapping this potential.

16

C: By analogy of the example of the ‘Year of Chemistry’ it is suggested to think of a global experiment for youths of the world which relates to groundwater management. The network of UNESCO schools could be used. This could be a very good way to get the global community interested in groundwater issues.

Q: Global data are unmistakably important and we have seen examples of some great efforts. But how to control the data quality for global systems? A: Rigorous control of global data quality is not feasible, but even with some level of uncertainty, global information is still very useful to show trends and patterns. Data aggregated at the global level will never be 100% accurate and reliable, but there are basic methods to validate data, e.g. (1) Using plausibility criteria such as by relating variables to other variables (e.g. comparing drinking water use to population to check whether the data sets make sense); (2) Convergence of evidence: if different assessments or studies that use different data sources or methods produce similar results than this creates confidence.

C: Open access of data is crucial. Scientific data are difficult to access: articles are expensive and data are not shared sufficiently. Let us keep on working on open access to data. WIPO can help in this.

C: We should not forget that data is not all. We need information and data to talk once people are ready to listen. But we need key messages first for people to open their ears to groundwater issues. What are the three key messages that make the community listen to you? How to stress why groundwater is important? E.g. groundwater is a great buffer for climate change; but what can be the other two messages?

3.9 Plenary session 9: Closing Session: Synthesis of Questionnaires, Recommendations on Setting up the Framework for Action, and Closing Messages

The first speaker of this session, Jac van der Gun, presented a synthesis of the replies to the questionnaire on groundwater governance. The questionnaire contained thirteen questions and 33 responses were received: 7 from North America (2 countries), 19 from Europe (14 countries), 4 from Asia (4 countries) and 3 unrelated to a single country. A full report of this synthesis is attached as Appendix 3. Main conclusions drawn from the replies received are the following:

In almost all countries, a large number of institutions are involved in groundwater governance: government agencies and non‐governmental institutions; at national, sub‐national and local levels; sometimes dedicated water sector institutions, but often part of institutions with a wider mandate. In almost all countries the mandate for groundwater management is at the highest sub‐national level.

Most respondents believe in their country these institutions are adequate to address groundwater and perform well (surprisingly the lowest ratings come from North America)

Most frequently mentioned groundwater governance priorities are: groundwater protection; monitoring groundwater state and use, and compliance with regulations; and sustainable and equitable management of the groundwater resources (quantity, quality and use).

Groundwater policies and groundwater legislation are considered to be adequate and satisfactorily enforced in almost all countries.

Barriers to groundwater governance are predominantly related to institutional flaws, insufficient data and information, poor perceptions and methodologies, and lack of motivation and commitment. Most of the mentioned challenges are addressing these barriers.

Main reported problems regarding groundwater quality are pollution and natural quality problems, whereas those regarding groundwater quality include overdraft and depletion, water scarcity and water supply shortages.

Many respondents indicate that for increasing the level of investment in groundwater governance it is not enough to rely on governments and donors. There is also need to recover costs from groundwater users and from polluters, and to look for other mechanisms of financial involvement of stakeholders.

Numerous suggestions were made for establishing and sustaining a multi‐partite interdisciplinary dialogue on groundwater governance. They come under: preparing the mind‐set; organising partners and networks; adopting catalysing elements and ideas; and concrete dialogue actions and events.

17

Similarly, many suggestions were received for establishing a shared regional vision on groundwater governance. Some of these relate to preparation, others to instruments and approaches, and to steps to be taken.

Regarding the main local problems encountered, the replies are predominantly related to human behaviour , including respect, trust, participation and cooperation. The set of proposed steps is not perfectly matching all identified problems.

Finally, the respondents specified groundwater governance case studies in which they have been involved, formulated key messages (e.g. “Care for groundwater today means healthy citizens and ecosystems tomorrow”) and gave a judgment on groundwater governance in their country. Among those, the West‐ and Central European countries gave the most optimistic ratings.

Although the groundwater governance conditions vary considerably within the region, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions on these variations, because the replies to the ‘open’ questions do not only reflect the differences between countries, but perhaps even more the differences in perceptions and views of the individual respondents. The latter is demonstrated by comparison of the alternative replies for one single country (CAN, USA, GBR, NLD, DEU, CZE, HRV). Nevertheless, some differences within the region were evident, e.g. improving technical infrastructure (water supply, sanitation, water treatment provisions) as a priority issue in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, and strong reliance on market forces in the USA and some European countries. Furthermore, the EU Framework directory has a very prominent impact on groundwater governance in the EU member states. Under the heading “Recommendations: Setting up the Framework for Action”, the outcomes of each of the six Working Groups were presented in this plenary session. These reports are briefly summarised in the next chapter. Finally, this ninth plenary session was concluded by a number of closing messages, respectively by Mohamed Bazza (FAO), Ivan Zavadsky (GEF), Shammy Puri (IAH), Greetje van den Bergh (Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO) and Alice Aureli (UNESCO‐IHP).

18

4. WORKING GROUPS

4.1 WG1: Analysis and Assessment of the Major Legislative Instruments in the Region Francesco Sindico (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow) presented the report of this working group. The discussion in this group focused on the role of legislation for improving groundwater governance. First, the fact that the UNECE region includes Central Asia and North America was discussed and explained historically. Then, the science‐policy interaction was analysed and difficulties for enforcing/implementing the law were investigated. In general, major legislation in the region is based on three principles: (i) integration, (ii) inclusion, and (iii) the rule of law. More specifically, it is building on (i) good knowledge, (ii) stakeholders participation and (iii) public consultation. Existing legislation is both flexible by applying the subsidiarity principle and integrative as it is based on the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) framework. A good example of implementation is the Danube River Basin Treaty (ICPDR).

4.2 WG2: Rural Groundwater: How to Address the Tensions

The discussion by this working group was summarised by Ken Howard (IAH and University of Toronto, Canada).

First of all, he presented a long list of issues that were considered:

‐ Stakeholder participation/mobilisation?

‐ Bottom up versus top‐down / horizontal integration?

‐ Centralisation? Decentralisation?

‐ IWRM? IUWM? Education?

‐ Operational capacity?

‐ Capacity Building?

‐ Technologies?

‐ Legal provisions?

‐ Institutional frameworks?

‐ Data?

‐ Financial instruments?

‐ Water as a service versus water as a resource?

‐ Cross‐sector drivers?

‐ Corruption? Surface waters? Plans and adaptive management?

Furthermore, the group focused on lessons and opportunities. Experiences in Denmark, United States, The Netherlands and Canada were mentioned which could be useful models for other regions

Based on the discussion, the working group derived a number of recommendations on priority issues to be addressed:

1. Knowledge and research.

2. Framework for governance: rules of engagement, transparency.

3. Permitting can provide control over allocation, development and management.

4. Solutions should implementable.

5. Conflicts are often about rights. Conflict resolution modalities: groundwater mediation

centres and making room for local knowledge and experiences.

6. Integrate urban planners in decision‐making.

19

4.3 WG3: River Basins Management and Groundwater Governance

The report on this working group, presented by Ruxandra Balaet (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, Romania) stated that the present situation is not very good, but that there is hope for improvement

Twelve recommendations were given in this context:

1) Coordination

2) Stakeholders participation

3) Integration

4) Efficiency

5) EU‐WFD

6) Institutional capacity

7) Groundwater‐Ecosystems

8) Economic benefits

9) Protection and land use

10) Monitoring pollution

11) Compensate farmers

12) Agreements on groundwater

4.4 WG4: Private and Public Sectors Interaction: How to Act Together for Groundwater Governance?

Anthony Turton (Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa) reported on the findings of this working group.

The two sectors have different objectives and views:

The public sector: regulate and provide incentives

The private sector: technology and capital

Time scales: governance (short term)/real problems (long term)

Principles for cooperation are: (1) Fairness (2) Transparency and (3) Trust. Other comments:

Cooperation instruments exist through regulation and compliance.

However there are many risks

Examples from different case studies on mines in Australia

We need: big carrots and small sticks and develop a common language

The role of science/education and knowledge is very important.

Generally: the private sector is willing to cooperate and share data and experience with the public sector.

The main question remains: under which conditions/regulations and under which financial framework.

4.5 WG5: Capacity on Monitoring and Management of Groundwater Data: A Key Target for Institutions

The report, presented by Ebel Smidt (Water Governance Centre, The Netherlands) and Neno Kukuric (IGRAC) included the following main points:

A distinction should be made between data and information. Data and monitoring are necessary for increasing information.

Data concerning groundwater should be public. Monitoring and data collection is in Europe prescribed by the EU‐WFD.

In the USA and Canada groundwater is in general considered a private property related to land ownership.

20

More attention should be given to defining appropriate goals of data collection and monitoring.

The impact of the public opinion in changing non‐sustainable behaviour of private (and public) organizations is growing.

Models that include full recovery of the costs of monitoring need to be collected, compared and improved.

International agencies and funding organizations can be instrumental in developing practical tools and in disseminating good practices.

The Water Information System for Europe (WISE) should be extended to groundwater data.

4.6 WG6: Groundwater Governance: Public Participation and Conflicts Prevention Main outcomes of the discussion of this working group were presented by Todd Jarvis (Oregon State University): The current situation concerning groundwater governance is complicated and the role of public participation is not clear. Politics and politicians should be taken into account. Time scales present a special problem: discrepancy between decades for groundwater recovery and short‐lived political mandates. Some conclusions and recommendations:

Identify constraints on groundwater use.

Education and awareness about groundwater is key.

Public persuasion is every bit as important as public participation.

Collective action must start at the local level, be structured and also be cognizant of the other levels.

Build trust and mutual respect, and acknowledge local knowledge.

Acknowledgement and respecting diversity

Be smart about transaction costs ‐ public participation is not

Cooperate or die.

Selected comments, questions and answers from the debate (final debate of the meeting – therefore addressing more than only the reports of the working groups) :

Q: Is any ‘groundwater governor’ present in this meeting? A: In groundwater governance there are managers, engineers, hydrogeologists and other professionals who can take decisions and influence the governance process. In a proper sense there is no single ‘groundwater governor’ who can decide about everything.

C: In formal education there are not adequate curricula to address the issue of education and training of groundwater managers.

C: The discussion and the questionnaires show that it is interesting to analyse the specific characteristics of groundwater governance in the region.

C: It is very optimistic to conclude from the roundtable on private‐public cooperation that private managers are willing to cooperate, exchange data and experience and contribute to improve groundwater governance.

21

5. ROUNDTABLE ON PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS COOPERATION: “WORKING HAND IN HAND FOR GROUNDWATER GOVERNANCE”

5.1 Background and objectives

This panel session was designed as a contribution to the 2013 United Nations International Year of Water Cooperation. It was organized within the framework of the project on “Groundwater Governance: a Global Framework for Action”, and took place in The Hague on 21 March 2013, prior to the official celebration of the World Water Day on Water Cooperation. Its aims were: (1) to capture the views and interests of the private sector; and (2) to explore opportunities for partnerships and information sharing. A full report on this Roundtable is presented in Appendix 4. Here, only some excerpts and a summary follow.

5.2 Participants

Chair: András Szöllösi Nagy (Rector, UNESCO Institute for Water Education ‐ UNESCO‐IHE) Rapporteur: Alfonso Rivera (Geological Survey of Canada) Facilitator and Wrap‐up: Alfred Duda (UNESCO‐IHP) Presentation “Groundwater Governance: The Socio‐economic Benefit of Cooperation”: Anthony Turton (Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa) Panellists from the private sector:

• Roelof Stuurman (Deltares) • Ron Bohlmeijer (Heineken) • Mark Brune (Mintails Ltd.) • Ronan Le Fanic (Nestlé Waters) • Peter Newborne (Overseas Development Institute) • Svetlana Obradovic (Schlumberger) • Andrew Cameron (Shell Global Solutions) • Rian Kloosterman (Vitens) • Anthony Turton (Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa) • Joppe Cramwinckel (World Business Council for Sustainable Development ‐ WBCSD)

5.3 Items for the debate

The main items for the debate were: (1) Evaluating the importance of improved cooperation with the private sector to enhance the

groundwater governance (2) Thinking out of the ‘water box’: thoughts and ideas from non‐water experts on the essential

ingredients for effective groundwater governance (3) The burning issue of data: how might the issue of data, a key element in terms of the stewardship

of groundwater governance, become an opportunity for cooperation? How might we find a balance between the need to share data and data protection?

(4)Key messages from the private sector in support of, or as a challenge to, the United Nations Year of Water Cooperation (2013).

5.4 Structure of the Roundtable

The discussions followed a four‐steps procedure: (1) a formal presentation was used to open the debate; (2) the chair asked six strategic questions to the panellists; (3) a dialogue was opened with the audience in the room; and (4) as conclusion, each panellist was invited to provide her/his key message.

22

5.5 Summary of the outcomes

The synthesis below is neither intended as an exhaustive analysis of the discussion, nor as the official conclusions of the Roundtable. It is intended as a short executive summary based on factual statements heard during the panel discussions. The issues of trust and mistrust between public and private sectors were raised many times both by the private sector as well as by the audience in the room. It would seem that in many cases it is a matter of interpretations and misunderstandings. The panellists told a few positive stories of trusting mechanisms in place between the private and public sectors. It would appear that the private sector would be willing to cooperate but more often than not, they do not find clear mechanisms for building relationships. They suggest that a clear mechanism for engagement be established. The issue of the data was extensively discussed and the question of sharing or not sharing was clarified. The private sector is ready to share its data but it doesn’t seem to know how. In some cases, the ownership of the data was challenged: does data belong to industry? The private sector extensively invests in innovation; it is part of their business; that is not always the case of the public sector. It was agreed that innovation would go a long way in solving many water‐related issues. Remote‐sensing technologies, for instance, were cited as an example and a way to go in the future. In terms of education, the private sector repeatedly mentioned that groundwater continued to be a mystery for most. The private sector perceives groundwater scientists as a community living in a ghetto. Thus, water education was recommended and more meetings of this type strongly suggested. All in all cooperation between private and public sectors should be based in mutual trust. This will not come automatically, it is something that needs to be built. However, companies in the Roundtable suggested that other important stakeholders (industries or not) should be also involved: water users, agriculture, water companies. It was generally agreed that scientific knowledge and understanding groundwater is a prerequisite to any groundwater governance plan. UNESCO was cited as the main international leader to carry on working hand in hand for groundwater governance. They asked that there is some way of water accounting and that there is more efficiency. The incentives for businesses to participate are strongly linked to opportunities in investments, clearly defined problems to solve, and a strategy and mechanisms to engage.

23

APPENDICES

24

Appendix 1: Agenda of the Meeting

Fifth Regional Consultation: UNECE Region *

The Hague Institute for Global Justice The Hague, Netherlands

19–21 March 2013

Organized by the UNESCO International Hydrological Programme (IHP)

in cooperation with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)

under the patronage of the

National Commission of Netherlands for UNESCO

National Committee of Netherlands for the UNESCO‐IHP

Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment of the Netherlands

with the support of UNESCO‐WMO International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC)

AGENDA

TUESDAY 19 MARCH 09:00–10:00 Opening Ceremony

Master of Ceremony: Michael van der Valk, Netherlands UNESCO‐IHP National Committee and Netherlands International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH) Chapter

Opening address H.E. Mr Rob Zeldenrust, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the

Kingdom of the Netherlands, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO Welcome addresses

Elaine Alwayn –Chair IGRAC Board (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment of the Netherlands)

Abiodun Williams – The Hague Institute for Global Justice Mohamed Bazza – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,

(FAO, Project Implementing Agency) Francesca Bernardini – United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

(UNECE) Robert Quarles van Ufford – Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO Pieter van der Zaag – Netherlands IHP National Committee

Video message: “From Shijiazhuang to The Hague”

* List of UNECE countries: http://www.unece.org/oes/nutshell/member states representatives.html

25

10:00–10:30 Coffee Break

10:30–12:30 Plenary Session 1 – Setting the Scene

10:30–11:35 1A. Presentation of the Groundwater Governance Project

Chair: Shammy Puri (IAH)

Rapporteurs: Vanessa Vaessen (German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources ‐ BGR)

Introduction to the GEF Project on Groundwater Governance: Presentation of the Objectives of the Project /Presentation of the Objectives of the Regional Consultations – Mohammed Bazza (FAO) and Alice Aureli (UNESCO‐IHP) 30’

Permanent Consultation Mechanism, Communication and Project Visibility – Stéfanie Neno (FAO) 10’

GEF IW:LEARN Project: Groundwater Community of Practice (CoP), 'Groundwater Talks’ Initiative – Lucilla Minelli (UNESCOIHP) 10’

Debate 15’

11:35–12:35 1B. Groundwater Governance: Definition, Concept, Methodology

OECD Water Governance Programme – Short Overview – Alice Aureli (UNESCO‐IHP) 5’

Groundwater Policy and Governance (Project Thematic Paper No. 5) – Robert Varady (University of Arizona, USA) 15’

Strengthening Groundwater Governance – A Pragmatic and Proactive Framework for Action – Stephen Foster (Global Water Partnership ‐ GWP) 15’

Groundwater Governance: New Instruments and Niche‐Diplomacy – Todd Jarvis (Oregon State University) 15’

Groundwater Governance and Societal Change: Experiences and Initiatives from the Netherlands – Ebel Smidt (Water Governance Centre, Netherlands) 15’

12:35–13:00 Debate 25’

13:00–14:00 Lunch Break

14:00–15:15 Plenary Session 2 – Regional and International Instruments

Chair: Sharon Megdal (University of Arizona) Rapporteur: Jacques Ganoulis (University of Thessaloniki, Greece)

UNECE Water Convention: On the Way of Improving Groundwater Governance – Francesca Bernardini (UNECE) 15’

26

The European Water Framework Directive (EU WFD): Contribution to the Groundwater Governance in the Region – Johannes Grath ((EU Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Working Group C on Groundwater, Austrian Environment Agency) 15’

“Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water”: Groundwater‐Related Findings– Balázs Horváth (European Commission DG Environment) 15’

The 97 Convention and the UNGA Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers – Flavia Loures (World Wildlife Fund ‐WWF) 10’

14:55–15:15 Debate 20’

15:15–16:30 Plenary Session 3 –Legal and Institutional Aspects

Chair: Marcus Wijnen (World Bank) Rapporteur: Sharon Megdal (University of Arizona, USA)

Legal and Institutional Frameworks (Project Thematic Paper No. 6) – Kerstin Mechlem (University of Ulster, United Kingdom) 15’

Groundwater Resources Governance within a Federal System (including the example of US’s EPA Superfund) – Gabriel Eckstein (Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, USA) 15’

Groundwater Legislation in the UNECE region – Stefano Burchi (International Association for Water Law ‐ AIDA) 15’

Governance in the Context of Transboundary Waters – Attila Tanzi (University of Bologna, Italy) 15’

16:15 –16:30 Debate 15’ 16:30–16:45 Coffee Break

16:45–18:30 Plenary Session 4 – Groundwater Governance: Regional and National Experiences in Europe and Central Asia

Chair: Pieter van der Zaag (Netherlands’ IHP National Committee ) Rapporteur: Robert Varady (University of Arizona, USA)

Groundwater Governance in the Aral Sea Basin of Central Asia – Akmal Karimov (International Water Management Institute ‐IWMI) 15’

Status of Groundwater Governance in the Caucasus Region – Adishirin Alakbarov (AZERSU Joint Stock Company, Azerbaijan) 15’

Issues on the Adoption and Implementation of the EU WFD: Fostering Better Governance – Hana Prchalova (T.G. Masaryk Water Research Institute, Czeck Republic) 15’

27

Governance of Groundwater in Romania and the Context of the Danube Basin IWRM – Ruxandra Balaet (Ministry of Environment and Forests, Romania) 15’

Groundwater Governance in Hungary and Regional Overview – Teodora Szocs (IAH Vice President for Europe, Hungary/Geological and Geophysical Institute of Hungary ‐ MFGI) 15’

18:00–18:30 Debate 15’ 18:30 Welcome Cocktail (Participants are invited by the Netherlands National

Commission for UNESCO to a welcome reception in the Museum Panorama Mesdag)

WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH

09:00–11:00 Plenary Session 5 – Groundwater Governance: Regional and National Experiences

Chair: Ivan Zavadsky (GEF) Rapporteur: Geert‐Jan Nijsten (IGRAC)

09:00–09:30 5A. Focus on Canada and USA

Groundwater Governance in a Federal Framework: Results of a Survey of the 50 States of the USA – Sharon Megdal (University of Arizona, USA) 15’

Groundwater Governance in Canada considering the North‐American Context – Alfonso Rivera (Geological Survey of Canada) 15’

09:30– 09:45 Debate 15’

09:45–11:00 5B. Groundwater Governance: How to Overcome Competition in Water Scarce Regions and in International River Basins

Building Groundwater Governance in a Changing Environment: What Approaches to Adopt – Müfit Şefik Doğdu (State Hydraulic Works, Turkey) 15’

Groundwater Governance in Spain and the Role of the Water Users Associations: Lessons Learnt – Emilio Custodio (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain) 15’

The Reason for Unreasonableness in Groundwater Quality Governance – Daniel Ronen (Ben‐Gurion University of the Negev, Israel) 15’

Fostering Groundwater Governance in the Context of International Danube River Basin – Andreas Scheidleder (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River – ICPDR) 15’

Questions and Answers 15’

11:00‐11:15 Coffee Break

28

11:15–12:15 Plenary Session 6 – Groundwater Governance: Regional and National Experiences (contd.)

Chair: Marc Bierkens (Utrecht University and Netherlands Hydrologic Society)

Rapporteur: Jean Fried (University of California, Irvine, USA)

Groundwater Governance in the Urban Context – Ken Howard (IAH and University of Toronto, Canada) 15’

Groundwater Governance in the United Kingdom – Rob Ward (British Geological Survey) and John Chilton (IAH) 15’

Management of Aquifer Recharge for Water Buffering: Experiences and the Role in Groundwater Governance – Albert Tuinhof (Acacia Water, Netherlands) 15’

Debate 15’


13:15–15:30 Break‐out Sessions Two successive rounds of Break Out sessions are foreseen; they have a duration of 2 hours each. The working group reports will be presented during the Closing Session. PPT presentations and written reports should be provided to the UNESCO Secretariat by Thursday 21, 16:00.

13:15–15:30 First Round of Working Groups

Working Group 1 Analysis and Assessment of the Major Legislative Instruments in the Region Facilitators: Stefano Burchi (International Association for Water Law – AIDA) and Johannes Grath (Working Group C on Groundwater, Austrian Environment Agency)

Rapporteur: Francesco Sindico (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow) Setting the scene: Stefano Burchi

Working Group 2 Urban –Rural Groundwater: How to Address the Tensions Facilitator: Ken Howard (IAH and University of Toronto, Canada) Rapporteur: Albert Tuinhof (Acacia Water, Netherlands) Setting the scene: Ken Howard

Working Group 3 River Basins Management and Groundwater Governance

Facilitator: Teodora Szocs (IAH Vice President for Europe, Hungary)

29

Rapporteur: Ruxandra Balaet (Ministry of Environment and Climate Changes, Romania)

Setting the scene: Teodora Szocs Special presentation: UNECE Summary of Transboundary Groundwaters in the EECCA region – Francesca Bernardini (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNECE) 10’


16:00‐17:30 Plenary Session 7 – Groundwater Data and Information:

A Crucial Tool for Groundwater Governance

Chair: Blanca Jiménez‐Cisneros (UNESCO Dir. Division of Water Sciences and Secretary of IHP) and Alfred Duda (International Expert)

Rapporteurs: Geert‐Jan Nijsten (IGRAC) and Jean Fried (University of California, Irvine, USA)

Groundwater Information Availability and Reliability in the Context of International Cooperation – Neno Kukuric (IGRAC) 15’

Hydrogeological Maps as Tools for Groundwater Governance. Examples from Europe and WHYMAP – Willi Struckmeier (German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources ‐ BGR) 15’

Feeding Area‐Specific Information into the Governance Process: 'Groundwater around the World' as an Example – Jac van der Gun (International Expert) 15’

How New Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Can Enhance Collaboration in Sharing Groundwaters. Examples from the Balkans and the Mediterranean Region – Jacques Ganoulis (UNESCO Chair INWEB, University of Thessaloniki, Greece) 15’

Groundwater Governance: How Patents Can Help – Irene Kitsara (World Intellectual Property Organization ‐ WIPO) 10’

Debate 15'

17:30–18:30 All participants are invited at the meeting of the International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH)

18:45–20:15 Escher Museum (Refreshment and guided visit offered to all

participants by the Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO)

THURSDAY 21 MARCH

09:00–10:15 Plenary Session 8 – Groundwater Governance: Regional and National Experiences (contd.)

Chair: Josee van Eijndhoven (Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO)

30

Rapporteur: John Chilton (IAH)

Experiences with Groundwater Governance in Denmark – Lisbeth Jørgensen (Danish Water Forum) 15’

Groundwater Governance and River Basins Institutions: the French Experience – Didier Pennequin (French Geological Survey ‐ BRGM) 15’

Groundwater Governance in Serbia – Miodrag Milovanovic (Institute Jaroslav Cerni, Serbia) 15’

Groundwater Governance: The Road from Theory to Failure – David Zetland (University of Wageningen, Netherlands) 15’

Debate 15’

10:15–10:30 Coffee Break 10:30‐12:30 II. Second Round of Working Groups

Working Group 4 Private and Public Sectors Interaction: How to Act Together for Groundwater Governance? Facilitators: Andrea Merla (International Expert) and Alfred Duda (International Expert)

Rapporteur: Anthony Turton (Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa)

Setting the scene: Andrea Merla

Working Group 5 Capacity on Monitoring and Management of Groundwater Data: A Key Target for Institutions Facilitator: Neno Kukuric (IGRAC) Rapporteurs: Zelimir Pekas (Croatian Waters) and Ebel Smidt (Water Governance Centre, Netherlands)

Setting the scene: Neno Kukuric

Working Group 6 Groundwater Governance: Public Participation and Conflicts Prevention Facilitator: Erik Mostert (Delft University of Technology) Rapporteur: Todd Jarvis (Oregon State University) Setting the scene: Erik Mostert


13:30–16:00 Roundtable “Working Hand in Hand for Groundwater Governance”

31

Private and Public Sectors Cooperation The panel is a contribution to the “2013 ‐ United Nations International Year of Water Cooperation”. The consultation is organized back to back with the 22nd March official celebration of the World Water Day on Water Cooperation in The Hague.

Chair: András Szöllösi‐Nagy (Rector, UNESCO Institute of Water Education ‐ IHE) Rapporteur: Alfonso Rivera (Geological Survey of Canada)

Facilitator and Wrap‐up: Alfred Duda (UNESCO‐IHP) Presentation

Groundwater Governance: The Socio‐economic Benefit of Cooperation Anthony Turton (Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa) 10’

Panel

(More details in the annexed document “Working Hand in Hand for Groundwater Governance”)


16:30–18:00 Plenary Session 9 – Closing Session Chair: Mohamed Bazza (FAO)

Facilitator: Shammy Puri (IAH) Rapporteur: Jacques Ganoulis (INWEB)

16:30–16:45 Synthesis of the Questionnaires – Jac van der Gun (General Rapporteur) 15’

16:45–17:25 Recommendations: Setting up the Framework for Action (FA)

Reports of the Breakout Sessions: Presentation on the Outcomes of the Working Groups Sessions (10’ each)

General Debate and Recommendations 30’ 18:00–18:15 Closing Messages

Chair: Al Duda (International Expert) Rapporteurs: Marcus Wijnen (World Bank) and Andrea Merla (International Expert)

Messages from:

Mohamed Bazza (FAO)

Ivan Zavadsky (GEF)

Shammy Puri (IAH)

Greetje van den Bergh (Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO)

Alice Aureli (UNESCO‐IHP)

32

Appendix 2: List of Participants

Opening Ceremony (Netherlands)

Family name Given name Country Institution Position

Zeldenrust Robert Netherlands Permanent Delegation to UNESCO

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO

Alwayn Elaine Netherlands

UNESCO‐WMO IGRAC Centre / Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment

Chair / Director of the Water and Soil Directorate‐General Spatial Planning and Water Division

Williams Abiodun Netherlands The Hague Institute for Global Justice

President

Quarles van Ufford Robert Netherlands National Commission of the Netherlands to UNESCO

Secretary‐General

van der Zaag Pieter Netherlands Netherlands' IHP National Committee

Chair

Local Organizers


Primot Sophie Netherlands National Commission of the Netherlands to UNESCO

Policy Officer Science

Van der Valk Michael Netherlands Netherlands' IHP National Committee

Scientific Secretary

Kukuric Neno Netherlands (INTNL)

UNESCO‐WMO IGRAC Centre

Director

van der Gun Jac Netherlands (INTNL)

UNESCO‐WMO IGRAC Centre

International Expert / Advisor

Nijsten Geert‐Jan Netherlands UNESCO‐WMO IGRAC Centre

Project Partners


Bazza Mohamed FAO Water Unit, Senior Officer

Whiting Louise FAO Water Management Officer

Aureli Alice UNESCO IHP Chief Groundwater Section

Puri Shammy IAH Secretary General

Chilton John IAH Executive Manager

Wijnen Marcus WB Senior Water Resources Management Specialist

Zavadsky Ivan GEF Senior Water Resources Management Specialist

Hillers Astrid GEF Senior Environmental Specialist

Minelli Lucilla UNESCO IHP Programme Officer

Neno Stefanie FAO Communication and Information Specialist

JiménezCisneros Blanca UNESCO IHP Director Water Division

Merla Andrea UNESCO Senior Consultant

Rubio Marina UNESCO IHP Consultant

33

Invited experts


Alakbarov Adishirin Azerbaijan Azerbaijan State Water Company

Head of Science, Technology and Strategic Research Division

Andreo Bartolomé Spain University of Malaga Professor

Balaet Ruxandra Romania Ministry of Environment and Climate Changes

Senior Advisor

Bernardini Francesca Switzerland (INTNL)

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)

Secretary of the UNECE Water Convention

Bierkens Marc Netherlands Utrecht University and Netherlands Hydrologic Society

Professor / Chair

Bohlmeijer Ron Netherlands Heineken Hydrogeological Specialist

Brune Mark UK (INTL) Mintails Ltd Executive Chairman

Burchi Stefano Italy (INTL) International Association for Water Law (AIDA)

Burke Jake USA (INTL) World Bank

Closas Alvar USA (INTL) World Bank Consultant

Conti Kirstin UNESCO‐WMO IGRAC Centre

Cramwinckel Joppe Netherlands World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

Director, Water Program

Custodio Emilio Spain Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)

Emeritus Prof. Groundwater Hydrology

Dinca Cornelia Netherlands Climate Focus Consultant

Doğdu Müfit Şefik Turkey General Directorate of the State Hydraulic Works

Hydrogeological engineer (MSc) Geotechnical Affairs and Groundwater Department

Duda Alfred USA (INTL) International Expert

Eckstein Gabriel USA (INTL) Texas Wesleyan Univer‐sity

School of Law

Einarsson Kristinn Iceland Icelandic National Energy Authority

Senior Manager, Energy and Mineral Resources Exploitation

Fedotova Tatiana Netherlands World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

Program Manager, Water Program

Ferguson Grant A. Canada University of Saskatchewan

Associate Professor College of Engineering

Foster Stephen UK (INTL) Global Water Partnership (GWP)

Senior Adviser

Fried Jean USA (INTL) University of California, Irvine Project Scientist

Gadet Aymeric France (INTNL) EDF – Direction du Développement Durable

Pôle Environnement Chargé de mission Eau

Ganoulis Jacques Greece University of Thessaloniki

34

Grath Johannes Austria (INTL) European Commission Chair Working Group C on Groundwater

Gupta Joyeeta Netherlands UNESCO‐IHE Institute for Water Education

Professor

Hahn Mirela Croatia Ministry of Agriculture/ Direction of Water Management

Expert Adviser

Horváth Balázs Belgium (INTL) European Commission DG Environment

Unit D1 Protection of the Water Environment

Howard Ken Canada International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH ) / University of Toronto

President / Professor of Hydrogeology

Hurley Adèle Canada Munk School of Global Affairs

Director, Program on Water Issues

Ismailov Rashail Azerbaijan Azerbaijan State Water Company

Jelinek Gabriella Hungary Ministry of Rural Development

Deputy Head, Department of River Basin Management and Water Protection

Jones Michael UK Thames Water Groundwater Resources Manager, Asset Management, Water Planning & Optimisation

Jørgensen Lisbeth Flindt Denmark Danish Water Forum / Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland

Network Coordinator / Senior Geologist

Jarvis Todd USA (INTL) Oregon State University

Interim Director, Institute for Water & Watersheds and College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences

Jiang Yu Netherlands Wageningen University Master student

Karimov Akmal Uzbekistan International Water Management Institute (IWMI)

Kazmi

Syed Muhammad Nishat Ul Hassan

Netherlands Maastricht University Associate Professor

Kitsara Irene World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

Kloosterman Rian Netherlands Vitens Policy Advisor

Le Fanic Ronan France Nestlé Waters Corporate Water Resources Manager

Leten James Sweden

Water Governance Facility at Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)

Programme Manager, Water Integrity Capacity Building

Loures Flavia WWF

Mechlem Kerstin UK (INTL) University of Ulster

Megdal Sharon USA (INTL) University of Arizona Director, Water Resources Research Center

Milovanovic Miodrag Serbia Institute Jaroslav Cerni Assistant Director

Mostert Erik Netherlands Delft University of Technology

Researcher

35

Newborne Peter UK Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Research Associate

Obradovic Svetlana Netherlands Schlumberger Water Services

Hydrogeologist

Oliver Jean‐Louis France Académie de l'eau Secrétaire Général

Öskaya Simla Turkey Permanent Delegation of Turkey to UNESCO Counselor (Scientific Affairs)

Pekas Zelimir Croatia Croatian Waters, Department

Chief Engineer

Pennequin Didier France BRGM (French Geological Survey)

Regional Director for Normandy

Prchalova Hana Czeck Republic (INTL)

T.G. Masaryk Water Research Institute Project Manager

Rajic Biljana Bosnia and Herzegovina

Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations

Senior Advisor on Water Resources Department for Water Resources

Rivera Alfonso Canada

International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH ) / Geological Survey of Canada

IAH Canadian Chapter / Chief Hydrogeologist

Romijn Reinier Netherlands Unie van Waterschappen

Ronen Daniel Israel Ben Gurion University of the Negev / Israel IHP National Committee

Department of Environmental Hydrology & Microbiology / Chairperson

Rossato Fabíola Netherlands Shell Global Solutions HSSE Consultant Soil and Groundwater

Salles Antoine France Nestlé Waters Director of Public Affairs

Scheidleder Andreas Austria (INTL)

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) Groundwater Task Group

Chairperson

Sindico Francesco UK University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

Reader in International Environmental Law at School of Law

Smidt Ebel Netherlands Water Governance Center

Struckmeier Willy Germany (INTL) German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources ‐ BGR

Stuurman Roelof Netherlands Deltares Water Specialist

Szocs Teodora Hungary

International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH) / Geological and Geophysical Institute of Hungary (MFGI)

Vice President For Europe / Head of Department

SzöllösiNagy András Netherlands (INTL)

UNESCO‐IHE Institute for Water Education

Rector

Tanzi Attila Italy (INTL) University of Bologna Full Professor

Ter Haar Bas Netherlands Netherlands Institute for International Relations Clingendael.

Senior Research Fellow

Tuinhof Albert Netherlands (INTL)

Acacia Institute

36

Turton Anthony South Africa (INTL)

Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa Trustee

Vaessen Vanessa Germany German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources ‐BGR

van Dam Rietje Netherlands Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO

van den Bergh Greetje Netherlands Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO

Chairperson

van der Linden Wim Netherlands Deltares

van Eijndhoven Josee Netherlands Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO

van Oosteren Stein Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Attaché, Permanent Delegation of The Netherlands to UNESCO

van Schaik Henk Netherlands Water Partner

van Tuijn Jac Netherlands NWP Journalist

van Weert Franck Netherlands Wetlands International Technical Officer Water and Climate

van Steenbergen Frank Netherlands MetaMeta

Vanclooster Marnik Belgium IHP National Committee / Université Catholique de Louvain

Chair / Professor, Earth and Life Institute ‐ Environmental Sciences

Varady Robert USA (INTL) University of Arizona Deputy Director and Research Professor, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy

Vermooten Sophie Netherlands Deltares / IAH Hydrogeologist / Secretary‐treasurer IAH Netherlands Chapter

Verweij Wilko Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment

Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health

Vlaanderen Niels Netherlands Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

Zetland David Netherlands Wageningen University Senior water economist

Ziganshina Dinara Uzbekistan (INTNL)

Interstate Commission for Water Coordination in Central Asia (ICWC)

Deputy Director, Scientific Information Center (ICWC)

Zwick Steve USA Ecosystem Marketplace Managing editor

Ward Rob UK British Geological Survey Head of Groundwater Science

Contributing Experts (Not attending)


Akmouch Aziza France (INTL) OECD Water Governance Programme, Administrator

de los Cobos Gabriel Switzerland Canton of Geneva Head of Geology/Hydrogeology Branch / GESDEC (Geology, Soil & Waste) / DIME

37

Jekel Heide Germany

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety

Head of Division WA I 4 / Cooperation in International River Basins, Freshwater Management Conventions, International Freshwater Protection Law

Quevauviller Philippe Belgium European Commission DG Environment, EC Environmental Policy Officer

38

Appendix 3 Summary of the Replies to the Groundwater Governance Questionnaire

(by Jac van der Gun)

1. Introduction During the period preceding the meeting, UNESCO‐IHP circulated among the participants a questionnaire intended to collect information on groundwater governance conditions in the different countries of the region. The questionnaire contained thirteen questions for this purpose. Altogether, 33 replies were received, distributed as follows: Table A3‐1: Breakdown of the replies received to the questionnaires

Region Number of replies

Number of countries

Which countries (ISO‐3 alpha codes)

North America 2 2 CAN, USA Europe 14 14 BIH, CHE, CZE, DEU, DNK, ESP, GBR, GRC, HRV,

HUN, ISL, NLD, ROU, SRB Asia 4 4 AZE, ISR, TUR, UZB EU region 1 UNECE region 1 Unrelated to a region 1

The questions and a summary of the replies received are presented below.

2. The questions and the replies received Question 1: To your knowledge, which institutions are involved in groundwater governance in your area/country? Should additional ones be involved?

The replies are summarised in Table A3‐2. The replies received allowed to make a reasonable differentiation in terms of numbers of different types of institutions, of the government level with the main mandate for groundwater, and the sector affiliation of the mentioned institutions.

Conclusions:

Nearly all responding countries have reported a large number of institutions to be involved in governance – except Israel (1 only)

These institutions include government institutions at several levels: national, sub‐national and local, except in the case of England, Serbia and Israel (only at the national level)

Non‐governmental actors like NGOs, water user associations or the privates sector have been mentioned for the USA, by six (Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany, Romania, Spain and Croatia) of the 14 responding countries in Europe and by none from Asia.

The mandate for decision‐making in groundwater management is in most cases at the highest sub‐national level: states in the USA, ’Länder’ in Germany, provinces in Canada and The Netherlands, and autonomous regions in Spain. Only in Israel and probably also in Azerbaijan this mandate is at the national level.

The institutions involved in groundwater governance come under a wide range of ministries or sectors, in particular those responsible for agriculture, environment, natural Resources or health.

In Europe, the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC and its daughter Directive 2006/118/EC have a strong influence on groundwater governance, but the responsibility for groundwater governance remains with the Member States.

39

Table A3‐2. Institutions involved in groundwater governance

N‐America Europe Asia

Canada 1

Canada 2

United

States 1

United

States 2

United

States 3

United

States 4

US 5 ‐ California

Iceland

Den

mark

UK1: England

United

Kingdom 2

The Netherlands 1

The Netherlands 2

Germany 1

Germany 2

Czech Rep

ublic 1

Czech Rep

ublic 2

S/F Gen

eva aquifer

Hungary

Romania

Spain

Croatia 1

Croatia 2

Bosnia‐Herzegovina

Serbia

Greece

Turkey

Israel

Azerbaijan

Uzbekistan

R F E V J M F E J F W G K S J V P C S B C T P R G D R A

NUMBERS (M= many; x = not specified) # of institutions (undifferentiated) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M # of supra‐national institutions x X # of institutions at national level 3 4 3 3 x X 3 2 2 4 M x X X 4 5 x 4 X X X X x 4 6 1 4 x# of institutions at highest sub‐national level 1 3 M M X M 5 4 M x X X M 3 4 M M X X X M M ? # of institutions at lower levels M M X M M M M M x X M 3 M X X X X M x# of NGOs or WUAs M x M X x X X X X x LEVEL OF MAIN MANDATE National ? x X Sub‐national x x x ? x x x WHICH SECTORS Dedicated water institutions (resources/supply)

x X X X X X X X X X

Other sectors mentioned with broader mandate (Agriculture; Defense; Environment; economy; Fisheries & Oceans; Geology and Mineral Res, Health; Interior; Meteo; Natural Res and Energy; Rural Development; Transport; Urbanism)

EFHNH

A EFN

EI

E

ENM

EN

AE

EN

Ee

E

ADHT

AEM

ERN

E A AEHMT

A AEUe

AEN

AEH

NH

GNH

40

Question 2: Do adequate groundwater institutions exist at different government levels (national/sub‐national1/local) acting in your area/country? In what aspects should then be supported? The replies to this question are very subjective (no criterion for adequacy was provided) and so is the rating shown in Table A3‐3, because the latter is based on an interpretation of usually brief texts by the respondents. The main deficiencies as indicated by the respondents are also indicated in the same table, but it is unlikely that this yields a balanced picture. Fragmentation, insufficient specialist staff and inadequate funding are the most frequently mentioned deficiencies. Question 3: What are the groundwater governance priorities at the different government levels (national/sub‐national/local) in your area/country?

Table A3‐4 summarises the replies. This question triggered a list of priorities, but it is not clear whether these are formal priorities defined by government of the country considered or simply what each respondent believes to be a priority issue (the questionnaire did not explicitly instruct on this). Differentiation according to spatial level was not made. An additional complication is that part of the respondents interpreted the question in terms of ‘main groundwater management issues’, while some even returned very generic answers like ‘groundwater protection’ ‘sustainable/equitable management or use of the groundwater resources’ and ‘good groundwater status’. Consequently, many of the replies are not significantly different for those to Question 6 (several respondents indicated that they considered both questions duplicating each other). An attempt to interpret the answers in terms of generalised governance aspects is shown in Table A3‐4. Due to the complicating factors described above, these outcomes are of very limited value. Question 4: Do formal groundwater policies and legislation exist in your area/country? If so, are they applied and enforced?

A summary of the replies is presented in Table A3‐5 (the ratings seem perhaps too positive?) Main conclusions can be formulated as follows:

Existing policies are considered adequate by 21 and not adequate by 4 of the national respondents. The latter include Canada (policies missing in part of the national territory), Bosnia‐Herzegovina (complex administrative structure), Turkey (out‐dated) and Uzbekistan (immature policy development).

Related to legislation on groundwater there were 29 national responses, of which 25 consider the legislation in their country to be adequate. Exceptions are Canada (part of national territory not covered), Bosnia‐Herzegovina (complex administrative structure), Serbia (water quantity missing) and Turkey (laws outdated).

According to UNECE, the principle of integrated management of surface and ground waters is missing in water‐related legislation in a number of EECCA countries.

EU member states are subject to EU legislation and directives. The EU may impose sanctions to countries that do not comply. The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) and its daughter directive on groundwater have very significantly contributed to upgrading groundwater monitoring, management and governance in its members states.

Implementation is reported to have some flaws in the USA, England, The Netherlands, Czech Republic, Spain and Bosnia‐Herzegovina. This is mostly by limitations in implementation capacity, lack of monitoring compliance with policy/law or administrative complexity.

1 Sub-national: at state, province or departmental level

41

Table A3‐3: Adequacy of groundwater institutions


Canada 1

Canada 2

United

States 1

United

States 2

United

States 3

United

States 4

US 5 ‐ California

Iceland

Den

mark

UK1: England

United

Kingdom 2

The Netherlands 1

The Netherlands 2

Germany 1

Germany 2

Czech Rep

ublic 1

Czech Rep

ublic 2

S/F Gen

eva aquifer

Hungary

Romania

Spain

Croatia 1

Croatia 2


Serbia

Greece

Turkey

Israel

Azerbaijan

Uzbekistan

Rating categories: From very good to very poor

Rating:

WHAT IS INADEQUATE OR MISSING?

Groundwater recently being included in WRM X Groundwater not in RBM planning X X Inconsistencies in groundwater governance X Poorly absorbing international experience X X

Insufficient/inadequate monitoring X X X No or inadequate inventories X No or inadequate regulatory framework X X

Fragmentation – need for more coordination X X X Insufficient specialist staff and critical mass X X X X More financing desired X X X

Weak resources smaller municipalities X Capacity building local administrations X Role of institutions at municipal level? X X

42

Table A3‐4 Groundwater governance priorities


Canada 1

Canada 2

United

States 1

United

States 2

United

States 3

United

States 4

US 5 ‐ California

Iceland

Den

mark

United

Kingdom 1

United

Kingdom 2

The Netherlands 1

The Netherlands 2

Germany 1

Germany 2

Czech Rep

ublic 1

Czech Rep

ublic 2

S/F Gen

eva aquifer

Hungary

Romania

Spain

Croatia 1

Croatia 2


Serbia

Greece

Turkey

Israel

Azerbaijan

Uzbekistan

Infrastructural works x Scientific‐technical support x x x x Policy development X x x x x X Legislation/regulations x x x x X Operational management/implementation x x X x Institutions x Participation and communication x Other

x x x

43

Table A3‐5 Groundwater policy and legislation


Canada 1

Canada 2

United

States 1

United

States 2

United

States 3

United

States 4

US 5 ‐ California

Iceland

Den

mark

United

Kingdom 1

United

Kingdom 2

The Netherlands 1

The Netherlands 2

Germany 1

Germany 2

Czech Rep

ublic 1

Czech Rep

ublic 2

S/F Gen

eva aquifer

Hungary

Romania

Spain

Croatia 1

Croatia 2


Serbia

Greece

Turkey

Israel

Azerbaijan

Uzbekistan

POLICIES In existence and comprehensive 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 x 3Implemented 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 LEGISLATION In existence and comprehensive 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 1 1 1Implemented 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 x 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 GAPS AND FLAWS No policies/legislation in some areas X Insufficient manpower x Monitoring compliance with policy and law x x RBMP measures (partly?) not implemented x Law to be renewed x Policy development immature X KEY Rating: from very good (1) to poor (4) ‘x’ indicates existence without rating

44

In Europe, it is expected or hoped that the EU legislation will be effectively enforced. Otherwise, the EU might take actions against the Member States in cases of infringement. At the national level, the principle of integrated management of surface and ground waters is missing in water‐related legislation in a number of countries in Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. At the transboundary level, groundwater has been missing in international water law until recently, but the Draft Articles of the Law on Transboundary Aquifers (December 2008) and the UNECE Model Provisions on Transboundary Groundwater (November 2012) now have filled the gap. Question 5: What are the challenges and barriers to groundwater governance in your area/country? Why?

The replies included a large number of challenges and barriers (but hardly any reply to ‘why?’). The Tables A3‐6 and A3‐7 list the mentioned challenges and barriers, respectively. The two tables do not show a perfect correspondence. For instance, there are quite a number of country respondents who consider flaws in information, knowledge and monitoring, versus only one who considers it to be a challenge to improve in this category. Nevertheless, it can be observed that a very significant part of the perceived challenges is related to institutional; aspects. Table A3‐6 Challenges to groundwater governance

Institutional and legal challenges: Coordination between national and state levels on priorities and efforts (USA1) Cooperation in an interstate transboundary context (USA1) Optimize number of concerned actors and better coordinate them (USA5) Intersectoral coordination and public participation are main challenges (UZB) More transparency (NLD1) Developing governance principles for regulating groundwater use, based on social value of water use, peer reviewed predictions of impacts, critical point and adequate monitoring (NLD2) Informing and involving general public better in order to sustain agency budgets (GBR1) Improving public participation (CZE1)

Challenges related to Information, knowledge and monitoring: Monitoring and mapping (CAN2)

Challenges in terms of issues, approaches and methodologies Good quantitative governance (ISR) Maintenance of good groundwater status (HRV1) Groundwater only source of water supply (DNK) Conflicts of interests (DNK) Occasional conflicts between local and national interests (ISL) Addressing surface water/groundwater interface of quality and quantity (USA1) Improved planning and goal setting between surface water and groundwater (USA5) Dealing with agricultural pollution (USA5) Balancing groundwater use and protection sustainably (ISL) Fulfilment of ever‐growing needs for different water uses vis‐a‐vis insufficiently investigated resources and inadequate monitoring (HRV2) Integrating water issues into other policy areas, e.g. agriculture (DEU2)

45

Table A3‐7 Barriers to groundwater governance

Lack of motivation and commitment: Relatively low interest in groundwater (CAN1) Lack of political will (USA3) Too much politics in decision‐making (water use as a political weapon) (ESP) Poor awareness of real importance of GG (ESP) Limited stakeholder involvement in governance (ESP) Stakeholders may follow competing concepts for land use and environmental protection (DEU1)

Institutional and legal flaws: Fragmentation of mandates related to water management (5 ministries) (CZE1) Multitude levels of government (CAN1) Institutional fragmentation (BIH) Devolved administrations (GBR2) Lack of coordination (SRB) Absence of effective coordinating institution at the top (ESP) Budget reduction of governmental agencies (NLD1) Cuts in public budgets (GRC) Government budget limitations (USA3) Lack of funds for implementation of groundwater rehabilitation and protection measures ‐ this contradicts replies to question no 4 (HRV2) Financial problems – weak economic status impedes grw management (SRB) Insufficient cost recovery and funding for GG (ESP) Partly due to economic crisis: lack of funding for sewerage systems and waste water treatment (HRV1) Economic downturn and the environmental opportunities it opens (GBR2) Lack of personnel at regional and local levels (GRC) Short‐time changes in political priorities vs effective grw management and protection (GBR2) Part of groundwater use is under private property rules – pre‐85 abstractions (ESP) Private drinking water companies are more expensive than water services of towns and villages (CZE1) Lack of ability to adjust governance framework to changing conditions (USA4) ‐ inertia Inadequate rules for groundwater use (AZE) Absence of legal base and effective mechanisms for controlling groundwater use and well drilling (AZE)

Flaws in information, knowledge and monitoring Lack of info on groundwater (USA4) Lack of knowledge (BIH) Gaps in knowledge (CAN1) Unavailable info on groundwater conditions in zones occupied by Armenia (AZE) Poor access to information (UZB) Modelling results of some institutes do not come available soon enough (CZE1) Whereas groundwater is very important, monitoring is very scarce and there is much illegal use – lack of knowledge and control (HUN) Cost of groundwater monitoring (GRC) Inadequate monitoring – especially deep aquifers (SRB)

Flaws in perception, approaches and methodologies Lack of recognition groundwater‐surface water connection (USA4) Lack of IWRM (AZE) Holistic approaches often not applied (CZE1) Lack of considering water needs of nature and the environment (USA4) Managing upstream land use planning and construction – only at the Swiss side (CHE) Reconciling heat storage and shale gas exploitation with groundwater protection in absence of regulations (ROU) Minds are still focused on supply management rather than demand management (ESP) Groundwater seen as endless source + lack of control of overexploitation and wasting water (TUR)

46

Question 6: What are the main problems related to groundwater quality/quantity in your area/country? What are the scales (national/sub‐national/ local) of the main problems?

Replies to the first question (the second one was hardly addressed) are summarised in Table A3‐8. Regarding groundwater quality, the problems are related to both natural quality problems (such as salinity, high As, Fe and Mn) and pollution (in particular nitrates, chlorides, salinity, volatile organic compounds, emerging pollutants). Pollution finds its origin most prominently in agriculture, followed by mining, industry and energy production. Some countries have a legacy of polluted military areas and industrially contaminated land and mines.

Groundwater quantity problems are predominantly groundwater overdraft, aquifer depletion, water scarcity and water supply deficiencies.

Climate change, abstraction pressures and waste water inflows were considered as important drivers of change, while water scarcity, damage to agriculture and ecosystems, water‐logging and soil salinisation were mentioned as main impacts.

Table A3‐8 Perceived main problems to groundwater quality/quality

Groundwater quality: Local groundwater quality problems due to mining, agriculture or energy production activities (CAN1) Groundwater quality (CAN2) Groundwater contamination (USA1) Nutrient pollution (USA3) Natural arsenic (USA3) Natural arsenic (ISL) Agricultural pollution (DNK) Diffuse agricultural pollution (GBR1) Localised legacy of industrially contaminated land and mines (GBR1) Nitrate (GBR2) Legacy pollution from industrial past (GBR2) Emerging pollutants (GBR2) Diffuse pollution (NLD1) Saline/brackish water upconing (NLD1) Quality problems due to agriculture (DEU1) Point pollution (previous state industries, military areas) and diffuse pollution (agriculture) (CZE1) Groundwater pollution (CZE2) Pollution of the Genovese aquifer (CHE) Poor quality status in 38 out of 185 groundwater bodies (HUN) Nitrate pollution (ROU) Water quality – pollution and excess salinity (ESP) Locally excessive contents of As, Fe, Mn, etc. (HRV1) Groundwater contamination (nitrates, chlorides, volatile organic compounds) (ISR)

Groundwater quantity: Aquifer depletion (USA1) Depletion in fractured rock aquifers (USA3) Overdraft (USA4) Overdraft (USA5) Overpumping and associated nitrification and salinisation (GRC) Overexploitation and resulting drawdown (TUR) Poor quantity status (overexploitation) in 27 out of 185 groundwater bodies (HUN) Insufficient coverage of public water supply (BIH)

47

Limited water resources, need for sea water desalination (ISR)

Drivers of change and pressures: Climate change impacts (USA1) Abstraction pressures (GBR2) Impacts of drought (GBR2) Pollution emissions from industry, agriculture and wastewater (no collection and treatment systems) (HRV1) Insufficient waste water collection and treatment facilities + numerous uncontrolled waste disposal sites + pollution sources from the period of transition (HRV2) Inadequate, intransparent, not integrated groundwater resources management (BIH) Wastewater treatment and regulated disposal (SRB) Nitrate pollution from agriculture (TUR) Salt water intrusions (TUR) Wastewater carried by recharging rivers and pollution by agriculture/irrigation + livestock (AZE)

Impacts: Exploitation impact on stygoregions (USA3) Groundwater level declines affecting agriculture and ecosystems (NLD1) Short‐term economic groundwater uses without good knowledge of effects and impacts (NLD2) Local stress from groundwater use for irrigation (DEU1) Subsidence (USA5) Occasional water scarcity during droughts (ROU) Quantity mostly stressed due to intensive exploitation (ESP) Waterlogging and salinisation of irrigated land, due to shallow water tables. (UZB)

Miscellaneous: Protection and property rights nexus (USA3) Urban‐rural divide (USA3) Deficient water quality monitoring – usually only applied to municipal water systems (USA4) Occasional sparse resources (ISL) Spatial variation of groundwater resources – local scarcity (DNK) Conservation of groundwater‐dependent aquatic ecosystems under threat of abstraction and pollution (GBR1) Mine water discharge (GBR2) Groundwater flooding (GBR2) Legislation, cooperation and coordination (DEU2) Overall coordination of groundwater governance (CZE2) Lack of control at the French side of the Genovese aquifer (CHE) Flaws in financial viability and water pricing (BIH) Lack of laboratory facilities, alert systems, etc. (BIH) Protecting surface water that recharges groundwater (SRB) Lack of protection zones (SRB) Limited water resources, need for sea water desalination, groundwater contamination (nitrates, chlorides, volatile organic compounds) (ISR)

Question 7: What is the best way to increase the level of investment in groundwater governance at local, national and regional levels, and what are the main investment needs?

The replies received on these two questions are summarised in the Tables A3‐9 and A3‐10. Regarding how to increase the level of investment, many respondents suggested that relying only on governments and donors is not sufficient. In particular in the USA and Europe, cost recovery from groundwater users and polluters is also seen as an important and necessary source of financing. It is also clear that much still should be done (e.g. awareness raising) in order to create among public and private entities the preparedness to invest sufficiently in groundwater governance.

48

The main investment needs are related to: (1) data acquisition, studies and monitoring; (2) proper functioning of institutions; and (3) the implementation of measures.

49

Table A3‐9 Groundwater governance: how to increase the level of investment?

Relying on governments and donors : Government budgets + private sector investment (CAN1) Incorporate private investments (USA3) Financing from EU funds, loans or grants (HRV1) More funding from public and private sector (SRB) Funding from WG, ADB, IDB, KfW bank and various donors and international cooperation programmes (AZE)

Cost recovery from groundwater users and polluters: Fees for water rights maintenance (USA3) Well abandonment trust fund (USA3) Permit‐exempt well task force related to ‘de minimis’ wells (USA3) Groundwater extraction fees/taxes for reducing overdraft (USA4) Taxes included in water price (DNK) Groundwater abstraction fees (GBR1) Permits for wastewater discharge (fees?) (GBR1) Permit and license fees (GBR2) Larger penalties for non‐compliance or illegal activities (GBR2) Income from selling clean water to customers (DEU1) Resources should come via the user – earmarked for GG + correcting externalities (ESP) Raising the water tariffs (SRB)

Preparing for larger flow of public/private funding: Public awareness, education and promotion of groundwater (USA5) Multidisciplinary books and curricula on groundwater (USA5) Public awareness building (ISL) Strategic planning (ISL) Public awareness raising (GBR1) Awareness raising (GBR2) Reallocate funds to governance (NLD1) Identifying shared interests (NLD2) Associate public and private stakeholders in potential risks and benefits (GRC) Awareness raising + good information on the value of water and planning (TUR) Increase participation of groundwater specialists in structures and institutional arrangements for water resources management at large (UNECE).

Table A3‐10 Groundwater governance: what are the main investment needs?

Information, studies and monitoring: S&T exploration (CAN1 ‐fed) Science & resource development (CAN1 ‐ prov) Studies for energy development (CAN1‐priv) Nation‐wide info on groundwater (USA1) Studies, monitoring (CZE1) Priority is rehabilitating national hydrogeological network (ROU) Investments in assessment, monitoring (ESP) Groundwater monitoring networks , data bases and modelling (TUR)

Institutional needs: Investing in human resources (USA4) Sustaining agency budgets (GB1) Financing groundwater governance (GBR2) Compensate impact of government budget cuts (NLD1) Transsectoral co‐operation, public involvement, etc. (CZE1)

50

More community involvement at the French side of the Genovese aquifer (CHE) Payment of governance cost and correcting externalities (ESP)

Implementing measures: Protecting aquifers from contamination (USA1) Artificial recharge (USA1) Groundwater protection zones (ISL) Protecting resources and ensuring good quality (DNK) Control of competing groundwater uses that produce stress (NLD2) Compensating farmers for reducing use if fertilizers and agrochemicals (DEU1) Investment funds no problem (EU money), but operational money is (CZE2) Investment funds no problem (EU money) but maintenance money is (ROU) Correcting externalities (ESP) Investments in control, user efforts, infrastructure and compensations (ESP) Strict compliance with groundwater protection measures (HRV2) More intensive stakeholder involvement in groundwater governance (HRV2) Seawater desalination (ISR) Funds needed for water resources protection and for infrastructural works for reservoirs, irrigation, domestic water supply and sewerage (AZE)

Question 8: How could an interdisciplinary dialogue on groundwater governance among public, private, academia, and civil society partners, and between rural and urban partners, be established and sustained?

Table A3‐11 shows the replies received. Broadly, a distinction can be made between the following categories of elements: (1) preparing the mind‐set, (2) organising partners and networks, (3) adopting catalysing elements and ideas, and (4) actions and events. A breakdown of the categories into key elements is given below: Preparing the mind‐set

• Awareness raising • Education • Removing fear for change

Organising partners and networks • Professional organisations, foundations, universities • Government institutions, private sector • Stakeholder identification

Adopting catalysing elements and ideas • GWRM planning with public involvement • River Basin Management Plans • National Water Conferences • Transparency and building trust

Action and events • Public hearings and public consultations • Round tables, workshops, seminars, etc...

Some of the respondents indicated that such an interdisciplinary dialogue is not yet a reality in their country.

51

Table A3‐11 Establishing and maintaining an interdisciplinary dialogue on groundwater governance

Preparing the mind‐set: Public education on groundwater (USA1) Individual partners in the dialogue need to be better educated about groundwater and groundwater governance (HRV2) Fear for change in governance (acquired during the transition) has to be removed (HRV2)

Organising partners and networks: Through IAH and Council of Ministries (CAN2) Building a platform for interdisciplinary dialogue (USA1) Universities can sponsor and moderate dialogues (USA2) Roundtables, workshops and public participation in policy making, scenario development and modelling (DNK) CAMS – Catchment and aquifer management system of the EA (GBR1) UK‐Groundwater Forum meetings (GBR1) Transparent and open procedures, information and round tables (DEU1) Participation of all categories of actors in the governance process, from beginning to final decisions (CZE1) Inventory of stakeholders and their role/level (BIH) Participatory approach in RBMP (SRB) Adequate planning, careful preparation of the consultation process and providing incentives for participation (GRC) Involvement of public and NGOs on governance, public discussions, enlightment of people (economical use of water, protection of water resources, etc. ) and input of experts (AZE) Round tables, workshops and seminars may produce conditions for increasing the level of investment in groundwater governance. (UZB) TBA joint bodies, providing a forum for civil society involvement in water management.

Catalysing elements and ideas: River basin management process (RBMP) under the EU water framework directive (ISL) Coordination of regulatory approaches by UK Technical Advisory Group (GBR2) RBMP (GBR2) UK‐Groundwater Forum (GBR2) Professional groups such as UK Chapter of IAH and Geological Society (GBR2) Stating policy and scientific problems related to more intensive uses for economic and energy purposes (NLD2) Various means of publicity and communication (CHE) Launching GWRM plans with public involvement (HUN) In framework of WB project and RBM Plans (ROU) Transparency and building trust (ESP) Effective participation in decision making, setting standards, monitoring, studies, etc. (ESP) National Water Conference (SRB) WFD Common Implementation Strategy

Dialogue actions and events: Public hearings in provinces (CAN1) Organise transdisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary dialogues (USA3) Providing dialogue with clearly articulated purpose and value associated with that purpose (USA4) Interdisciplinary dialogues facilitated by the districts (USA5) Public consultations by agencies (GBR2) Expanding existing dialogue intensity maybe unfeasible and probably not needed (NLD1)

Question 9: What are the important steps or actions needed to establish a shared regional vision on groundwater governance? How do you see the role of your institution in achieving such an outcome?

52

A summary of proposed steps and actions are shown in Table A3‐12. Table A3‐12 Establishing a shared regional vision on groundwater governance

Preparation and support National framework for collaboration (CAN1) Development shared vision among ministries (CAN1) Coordination of priorities (CAN2) High level political support for dialogue and cooperation (GBR2) BGS research (GBR2) BGR’s coordination of hydrogeological mapping at national, European and global level (DEU1) University of Catalonia can provide support by studies (ESP) Thessaloniki University may contribute to capacity building (GRC)

Steps Interdisciplinary dialogue (USA1) Develop first a state‐wide IWR Strategy (USA3) Cooperation between districts and university (USA5) Maintaining good working relations between actors (ISL) Roundtables and informative meetings (DNK) EC‐WFD and GWPD have strengthened existing vision (GBR1) Periodic updating of (ground)water resources management plans (NLD1) Central standards or regulations, emphasizing the role of interdisciplinary dialogue (NLD2) Prepare maps of physic‐geographic setting as a basis for sound GW governance (DEU1) Input of sharing countries (in TBA setting) of their national policies, and transboundary co‐operation (CZE1) National groundwater management proposal as a starting point (CZE2) Information on the aquifer and its state (HUN) Production of guidance documents through the CIS Groundwater Working Group (EU) Developing bi‐/multilateral cooperation (UNECE) Joint delineation and status assessment TBAs (UNECE) Analyse cooperation agreements and encourage existing joint bodies for TBAs (UNECE) Involve international organisations as facilitators (UNECE). Research, hosting conferences, public outreach (USA1) University may participate in such actions (USA2) Starting dialogue for IWRS, videos on groundwater issues, White Papers, education and training (USA3) Facilitating development of dialogues to establish a shared vision (USA4) University: training in groundwater and groundwater governance (USA5) GEUS can supply info and facilitate dialogues (DNK)

Instruments and approaches Using FWD and river basin planning process or enhancing consistency (GBR2) Enhanced stakeholder engagement accompanied by education and awareness raising (GBR2) Based in interdisciplinary dialogue and knowledge/respect of laws, rules and actions (ROU) Participation, joint action, fair discussions, analysis (ESP) Multilateral cooperation activities (HRV1) Awareness of the importance and vulnerability of the resource (HRV2) Cooperation with neighbouring countries and the wider international environment (BIH) Engage in international cooperation , e.g. Danube River basin (SRB) Information – Dialogue – Involvement (GRC) Groundwater management in IWRM + stakeholder participation (TUR) Cooperation between IWA and universities/experts (ISR) Give state institutions the lead and they should cooperate with the public and NGOs (AZE) Priority for water resources – command of hydrogeological aspects – overall regional view – coordination (CHE) Signing UN convention on transboundary water courses could be a first step to harmonizing between upstream countries (favouring national water law) and downstream countries (international law) in Central Asia – to be followed by IWRM and MAR principles (UZB)

53

Question 10: What are the main local problems and required steps needed to establish an effective action to solve them and to improve local groundwater governance? How do you see the role of your institution on supporting local actions?

TheTables A3‐13, A3‐14 and A3‐15 present a summary of the replies to these questions. Although some respondents mentioned several groundwater management issues, most of the replies are related to governance. Attention for human behaviour , including respect, trust, participation and cooperation is dominant. Note that the set of suggested required steps is not perfectly matching all identified problems. Table A3‐13 Main local problems on groundwater and groundwater governance

Related to information and knowledge: Lack of knowledge about state of groundwater (CAN1) Lack of data/monitoring (GRC)

Related to perceptions, methodologies and approaches: Differences between surface water and groundwater planning (USA5) Differences between quantity and quality management (USA5) Setting common goals across jurisdictions (USA5) Appropriate time and space scales in planning (USA5)

Related to (conditions for) cooperation and action Reluctance to submit to federal authority (USA2) Mistrust of regulation (USA2) Sharing groundwater between municipalities (DNK) Rural‐urban interface – large degree of urbanisation in Catalonia (ESP) National level: pending priorities for effective water rights register, for technical and financial support to building administration‐users partnerships (ESP) Lack of financial resources (HRV1) Limitations of local communities in conducting groundwater protection measures (HRV1) Large number of municipal water service providers ‐ lacking capability (HRV1) Shortage of funds (HRV2) Insufficient qualified staff (HRV2) Limited scientific understanding, political consensus, coordination, public awareness, etc. (BIH) Poor cooperation and coordination between authorities of different levels (SRB) Limited human and financial resources (GRC) No participation (GRC) State neglects groundwater governance, while farmers initiate groundwater development. (UZB)

Miscellaneous: Flooding (USA3) Depleting fractured‐rock aquifers (USA3) Pollution from military/Cold War legacy sites (USA3) Localized drawdown of aquifers (USA4) Limited capabilities of small municipalities (ISL) Brackish water (NLD2) Groundwater pollution (CZE2) Groundwater pollution – nitrate (ROU) Overexploitation (TUR)

54

Table A3‐14 Steps to solve the main local problems on groundwater and improve groundwater governance

Related to information and knowledge: Multidisciplinary studies (CAN1) Invest in applied research by universities (USA3) Exchange of info; monitoring (UNECE)

Related to perceptions, methodologies and approaches: Figuring out how to address issues (USA4) Awareness campaigns to motivate farmers for better storage and use of manure (ROU) Explaining the problem to stakeholders/awareness raising (TUR) Introduction IWRM in capacity building of farmer unions/ local authorities in groundwater governance (UZB). Effective action at regional/local level, which is in line with the subsidiarity principle. This is the remit of the River Basin Districts / Member States (EU). Awareness raising; training of experts; groundwater experts involved in developing policies and legislation (UNECE)

Related to (conditions for) cooperation and action Getting resource extraction industries to buy into groundwater (CAN2) Cooperation between municipalities and with local institutions (ISL) Dialogue and political will to solve problems (DNK) Effective implementation of UK’s Groundwater Protection Policies (GBR2) Transferring results between hierarchical levels, more room for local levels as it comes to finding solutions (DEU2) Groundwater use, equitable distribution, control of intakes, monitoring network, preventing water level declines and pollution, construct sewerage networks (AZE) UNECE: coordination/communication; training of experts; material and methodological support; groundwater experts involved in developing policies and legislation

Miscellaneous: Desalinate brackish groundwater and infiltrate salt residue in deep aquifers (NLD2) Consolidation of water utility sector (HRV)

Table A3‐15 Role or potential role of the respondents’ institutions in this context

Carrying out studies (CAN1) Identifying key protection measures (CAN2) Getting students into research (USA3) Independent analysis and venue for dialogue (USA4) Un. of California: training courses in planning and design (USA5) GEUS can provide estimates of sustainable resources at local and sub‐national scale (DNK) BGS provides decision support (GBR2) MoA plays a role in plans for municipal water supply (HRV) Improve links between authorities of different levels ‐ in data sharing and planning activities (SRB) Capacity building (GRC) Azersu is key player (AZE) The EU has limited capacities to support local actions (except perhaps through Structural Funds) (EU).

Question 11: If you work in or have knowledge of a particular case study related to groundwater governance in your area, please provide a very brief description of it—including characteristics of the groundwater (i.e.: aquifer), area, scale, use, stakeholders, institutional setting, actual groundwater issue/s.

55

The projects mentioned are listed below (a brief description as provided in several cases is omitted here):

Milk river TBA project (CAN1)

Alberta Oil sands assessment (CAN2)

Transboundary GWRM along Mexico‐US border (USA1)

Community based approaches to conflict management: Umatilla case, Oregon (USA3)

Long‐term water supply security programme in Arizona (USA4)

Greater Copenhagen are planning, postponing correcting measures because of uncertainties (DNK)

Data collection and studies to give guidance to groundwater use for drinking water supply (NLD2)

AGRUM Weser pilot project ‐ river basin management with emphasis on control of nutrients (DEU2)

Groundwater for Emergency Situations (CZE1)

Franco‐Swiss cooperation on the Genevese aquifer (CHE)

Transboundary Thermal Groundwater body Mura‐Zala – Hung/Slovenia (HUN)

Eastern Romanian Plain aquifer activities – highly stressed (ROU)

Lower Llobregat aquifer system, Barcelona. Stakeholder incpvolvement in aquifer management (ESP)

The Strategic Environmental Assessment of the River Basin Management Plan in the Republic of Croatia (HRV).

DIKTAS – sustainable use and protection of transboundary aquifers of the Dinaric karst region – from Slovenia to Albania (HRV2)

Groundwater salinisation in the Nestos River delta (GRC)

Overpumping for agricultural irrigation in Thessalia (GRC)

Rationales behind irrationality of decision‐making in groundwater management (ISR)

One of the main authors of “Hydrogeology of Azerbaijan”(AZE)

Syrdarya River midstream case: land allocation based on the source of water . State controls energy for pumping and permits (UZB)

Question 12: What is your key message on groundwater governance and to whom would you like to address it?

Selected key messages (in most cases it was not indicated to whom):

Care for groundwater today means healthy citizens and ecosystems tomorrow (ROU)

Sustainable management and protection of groundwater should be a prime concern of civil society and its leaders (DEU1)

Changes in governance are generally less expensive and easier than improvements in infrastructure (USA2)

Governance needs a shared vision to be developed rooted in reality, thus well‐informed (NLD1)

Groundwater is the part of united water resources and should be managed like that (UZB).

Include as many stakeholders as possible, but these should have a basic knowledge on the themes of the dialogue (HRV2)

Integrate existing rights‐and‐regulation approach with incentive based approach with economic instruments and with tradable property rights approach (USA3)

Water pricing should consider the scarcity value of water (USA4)

Industrial development that does not adequately protect water resources is short‐sighted (CAN2)

Grw governance requires attention and participation of all water users and should take into account groundwater‐surface water connections and the water needs of nature (USA4)

56

Improving education on groundwater in general – for all actor groups (USA5)

Stimulate public participation (USA5)

Groundwater is extremely important for producing drinking water (NLD2)

Priority to management where government conditions are favourable (ESP)

Lack of sufficient investigation and monitoring may have incalculable consequences (HRV2) Question 13: How you define the Groundwater Governance in your region?

This question was interpreted in different ways. Some respondents gave a definition, but most of those who replied produced either a kind of judgement on adequacy (rating) or highlighted a typical feature. Table A3‐16 attempts to summarise these ratings and the additionally mentioned features. Evidently, all this is very subjective.

3. Some conclusions • This inquiry shows that all responding countries make significant efforts and progress on

groundwater governance or groundwater resources management • The EU WFD has a very prominent impact on GW governance in Europe • For most of the respondents the difference between groundwater governance and groundwater

resources management seems vague or unclear • Part of the replies is somewhat inconsistent: for instance, in general rather positive replies to the

policies and legislation question are in several cases contradicted by replies to later questions • In many cases the replies are likely to reflect more the knowledge or perception of the

respondent than the situation in the country considered • The questionnaire has ‘open’ questions and the replies are not necessarily comparable. For a

next enquiry, more rigidity and more uniformity will be useful. This can be achieved by making use of multiple‐choice questions and well‐defined indicators.

57

Table A3‐16 Overall rating of the adequacy of groundwater governance (with some additional comments)


Canada 1

Canada 2

United

States 1

United

States 2

United

States 3

United

States 4

US 5 ‐ California

Iceland

Den

mark

UK1: England

United

Kingdom 2

The Netherlands 1

The Netherlands 2

Germany 1

Germany 2

Czech Rep

ublic 1

Czech Rep

ublic 2

S/F Gen

eva aquifer

Hungary

Romania

Spain

Croatia 1

Croatia 2


Serbia

Greece

Turkey

Israel

Azerbaijan

Uzbekistan

Rating categories: From very good to very poor

RATING:

TRENDS (positive to negative change):

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Little awareness X Limited development of policies X Limitations in scope X X Better integration needed X More attention for TBAs needed X X

Limited transparency in WFD and WMPs X Limited stakeholder involvement X Insufficient coordination X X Financial constraints X Limited monitoring X X Rights and regulations approach X X

Highly variable governance status X

58

Appendix 4: Report on the Roundtable on Private and Public Sectors Cooperation

(by Alfonso Rivera)

1 Background

This panel session was designed as a contribution to the 2013 United Nations International Year of Water Cooperation. The session was organized within the framework of the project on “Groundwater Governance: a Global Framework for Action”, which took place in The Hague on 21 March 2013, prior to the official celebration of the World Water Day on Water Cooperation. An ever‐expanding global population coupled with a diminishing water supply, has resulted in groundwater becoming increasingly significant as a strategic natural resource. Multi‐sectorial cooperation is vital if we are to establish effective groundwater governance at global as well as at regional and local levels. The aim of the roundtable was on one hand to capture the views and interests of the private sector; and on the other hand, to explore opportunities for partnerships and information sharing. The roundtable sought for collaboration to define key messages to be incorporated within the project’s Framework for Action. This chapter summarizes the discussions and main conclusions of the panel.

2 Participants

Chair: András Szöllösi Nagy (Rector, UNESCO Institute for Water Education ‐ UNESCO‐IHE) Rapporteur: Alfonso Rivera (Geological Survey of Canada) Facilitator and Wrap‐up: Alfred Duda (UNESCO‐IHP) Presentation “Groundwater Governance: The Socio‐economic Benefit of Cooperation”: Anthony Turton (Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa) Panellists from the private sector:

• Roelof Stuurman (Deltares) • Ron Bohlmeijer (Heineken) • Mark Brune (Mintails Ltd.) • Ronan Le Fanic (Nestlé Waters) • Peter Newborne (Overseas Development Institute) • Svetlana Obradovic (Schlumberger) • Andrew Cameron (Shell Global Solutions) • Rian Kloosterman (Vitens) • Anthony Turton (Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa) • Joppe Cramwinckel (World Business Council for Sustainable Development ‐ WBCSD)

3 Objectives and items for the debate

The aims of the Roundtable: 1. To capture the views and interests of the private sector; and 2. To explore opportunities for partnerships and information sharing.

The main items for the debate: 1. Evaluating the importance of improved cooperation with the private sector to enhance the

groundwater governance 2. Thinking out of the ‘water box’: thoughts and ideas from non‐water experts on the essential

ingredients for effective groundwater governance 3. The burning issue of data: how might the issue of data, a key element in terms of the

stewardship of groundwater governance, become an opportunity for cooperation? How might we find a balance between the need to share data and data protection?

59

4. Key messages from the private sector in support of, or as a challenge to, the United Nations Year of Water Cooperation (2013).

4 Discussions

The discussions followed a four‐steps procedure: (1) a formal presentation was used to open the debate; (2) the chair asked six strategic questions to the panellists; (3) a dialogue was opened with the audience in the room; and (4) as conclusion, each panellist was invited to provide her/his key message.

Presentation Anthony Turton presented the subject of groundwater governance under the socioeconomic benefit of cooperation by “unpacking the problem.” In his presentation, Turton explored what governments can do, and the role of the private sector, under the scope of a massive groundwater contamination case in South Africa. He presented a case study of an acid‐mine drainage where the issues of groundwater contaminated with uranium were evaluated and a solution to the problem was found. Working together, government and the private sector turned a liability of a contaminated mine to convert it into a “anthropogenic aquifer” by breaking the sandstone within and around the mine and using it as a business case. Turton’s case study did not discuss much about water, rather about how land can be recovered in partnership. He made the point of governments that could use incentives and regulations while private sector could provide capital and technology. He went on to argue that “nurturing partnerships” can go a long way by using “big carrots and small sticks” he pointed out that in cases such as the one he presented, there is high “emotional nonsense” and people on both sides must learn to trust each other. Questions to the panel Turton’s presentation provided the basis for an open discussion on a public‐private dialogue. Chairman András Szöllösi Nagy asked the following four questions to the panellists:

• How do you (private sector) do it? • How do you respond to criticisms of private sector using public data? • Are you ready to share information? • What are your most important challenges?

Alfred Duda then took on the chairman position and asked the panellists two further questions: • How can the UN system cooperate with you? • What is your final key message?

During the discussions and the dialogue with the audience present in the room, questions, issues and comments were raised; these are presented below as clusters by themes, and in a verbatim form. Answers to these questions: Cramwinckel:

“The solution is local. Groundwater is an integral part of a basin; so why do a local case business target groundwater?” “Groundwater governance is part of water governance” “We are all (society) going into that direction of shared governance; so we need to invite other embers of society to the debate” “Do not separate groundwater from water governance; we have to take it more holistic”

Kloosterman: “We want to use water the longest time possible. We use a risk‐management approach” “The risk is: we can’t use water anymore. So we try to make it sustainable (aquifer recharge)” “We need to have strategic outcomes on water” “But it is difficult to deal with government”

60

Cameron: “We have a role to play. But there is the issue of trust; we require transparency” “Recognize that our studies take time” “Regulators sometimes can’t wait” “Clarity of message. Need to have a crystal‐clear definition of the problem we try to solve” “Require multi‐disciplinary efforts” “Agreed with groundwater being part of the water resources” “We need to make them understand (regulators) all those dimensions for governance”

Newborne: “Multinational companies are concerned with water issues/governance” “In Europe, regulations are tough and it’s uncomfortable for us” “Every situation would be different” “There are many possible technical solutions”

Obradovic: “Cooperation is needed” “Data exchange between public and private sectors is not bad” “The good/bad situation depends on the country” “Our main focus is: data management to deliver our business” “For instance, in Saudi Arabia we manage all of data for them” “For us (Schlumberger), it is not only equipment, we support students all over the world” “My personal opinion is that the situation is not as bad (as it seems)”

Le Fanic: “Our process is such that we turn any water into good freshwater” “We are already collaborating with many stakeholders, farmers, etc.” “For us, this has been a long learning process of 50+ years, no sure short cuts”

Brune: “We are a small company with a small region” “We design our business case with government in mind” “Essentially managing AMD; we try to find local solutions”

Bohlmeijer: “We manage a resource we don’t own” “We are increasing our exposure to emerging markets: African, Latin‐American...” “We need good quality water for our product” “To produce 200 M hectolitres of beer, we require 19 M m3 of water” “We want to grow our business, but we are aware of the issues: industry, population, droughts, climate change... these are big challenges for us” “We try to be efficient with a limited resource” “Our goal is to reduce 25% of water in our beers by 2020” “We use source‐water protection plans in water‐scarce areas” “We compensate for water in communities” “We stimulate biodiversity” “Water scarcity needs to be addressed with all sectors” “We are aware that we cannot do it alone”

Stuurman: “We cannot manage what we don’t know” “We involve locals to understand groundwater flows” “It depends on different issues: for example, subsidence in New Orleans, etc.” “Then we look for solutions together” “But there is controlling and we don’t want to spend money there” “I believe in strong government for strong governance”

Turton: “Understand risk to mitigate risk”

61

Questions and comments from the audience Puri:

“I am intrigued by comments from the World Business Council” “How do you mitigate risk?”

Megdal: “How do you incentivise carrot behaviour?”

Panellist: “By reputation” “Companies wish to have a good reputation; that’s a vulnerable issue for us”

Le Fanic: “Carrot equals compliance” “For instance, recharge in protected areas” “External contribution” “The external carrot: mineral water in Switzerland. We helped farmers to better understand recharge areas not to be contaminated, so the Swiss government compensate them” “We manage only groundwater (deeper aquifers). We don’t manage shallow aquifer systems”

Cramwinckel: “The city of Puebla (Mexico) is a good example for trust/no trust between private and public sectors” “Regarding the surface water/groundwater issue, we don’t try to exclude groundwater. “We give governance value to your project” “Is data mutual? We use only data that is available”

Newborne (?): “It is a conundrum when companies become water resources managers ; that is not our business!” “Source‐vulnerability assessment: but for whom? The farmer? Or the company?” “Allocation is the role of government; danger is that basin planning becomes responsibility of private industry!” “That is clearly the role/work of government” “For certain companies such as Nestlé, yes it may be their role, but for others it is naughty”

Vaessen: “Is your data sharable?”

Le Fanic: “Based on regulations in some countries (France), yes we must share it.” “In other countries, it is not a necessary measure to share it (Saudi Arabia)” “It also depends on the type of data. For instance, ministries of Environment are only interested in water quality; whereas for water quantity we deal with ministries of natural resources” “In some cases, we have much better understanding of aquifers than the public sector!”

Audience(?): “On the practice of governance and incentives in France. There have been decades of consultations at different levels. It was hard at the beginning but it worked better with time”

Szöllösi Nagy: “On the sharing of information: is industry willing to share knowledge to help countries suffering from lack of water? “A dialogue of shared responsibility?”

Panellist (?): “No, because government cannot do anything, so industry cannot do anything”

Szöllösi Nagy: “What’s the response of your business when there is degradation of aquifers?”

Cameron:

62

“The roles of each party’s responsibility must be clearly defined” “At the beginning of a business, many times it comes to discussing the different uses and users” “And what about (the responsibility) of water companies (Viola, Lyonnaise des Eaux...)? “Some of those companies are starting to get involved in water basin management”

Le Fanic: “In Saudi Arabia there is no renewable water. Thus, we’re turning brackish water to freshwater” “Cooperation is bases on mutual trust” “We drill down to 2‐km wells” “We are ready to help support access to water to local people”

Aureli: “We are confronted with misconceptions in UNESCO. Sometimes (most) we are confined in our silos → 20 years with UNESCO and do not know much about companies; or how they operate.” “We have to make more efforts to talk to each other”

Puri: “We need to cooperate for instance in innovation. We are frustrated because government doesn’t invest in innovation, so we need you!”

Cameron: “Most companies have innovation plans”

Burchi: “A fascinating debate” “Partnership with the private sector promises for the future” “Some functions must be with government: data and priorities with respect to where water should go”

Szöllösi Nagy: “What are your most important challenges? (In five seconds)”

Panellists: 1‐ Biggest challenge:

Legal, social, licence to operate Trust, confidence, transparency Speak the same language

Minimum requirements wrt water

Balanced partners, public data, public sector speed up Understanding the problem – setting strategies

Long‐term objectives, they’re not the same on each sector 2‐ Most important issues in knowledge:

Put it together Physical, chemical, biological

Relations – trust Groundwater community lives “in a ghetto”

Science goes too fast versus social development

Ability to move knowledge to action

Common language to demystify groundwater 3‐ Knowledge‐information‐data: challenge on groundwater data management:

Capacity of developing countries One open source for the whole World (Microsoft)

Open source Common understanding of why data is needed

Collection – interpretation Available for all Trust Acquire, quality, sharing, meaning of risk

63

“Question of the data we want “Open sources, data talking.

Duda: “UN system: how can they cooperate with you?”

Cramwinckel: “Issue of data: its is a wrong conception that data belongs to the company” “Data collection from space” “Let’s start to move in that direction” “But something bottom‐up” “We have talked about it for about 3 years, but haven’t found a mechanism” “To go global? Well, the hurdles are huge”

Kloosterman: “We would like to share data, but we don’t know how”

Cameron: “Expect the carrot” “Bring certainty for businesses. This implies that if we have that carrot, then yes data sharing will come”

Newborne: “Difficult case stories. But use them as cases for cooperating”

Obradovic: “Meet more often and be ready to listen” “Involve us more often” “Inform about your needs” “Tell us that you wish to collaborate with us”

Le Fanic: “Water education”

Brune: “UNESCO to provide leadership” “Ask us for review – it is better for us to review than to create from scratch”

Bohlmeijer: “Willing to share, but how?”

Stuurman: “Data – Microsoft?”

Turton: “Process of engagement” “Do more as you did today!”

5 Key Messages

• Demystify groundwater: shallow–deep. • We are open and want to communicate; make clear what you expect from us. • This is a process; a mechanism for building relationships, collective objectives – dialogue and building trust. • Define appropriate boundaries. • Knowledge and information are power; try to share. • Try to trust: negotiate and communicate; they lead to powerful results. • People involved in climate change; do you want to listen to us? • Climate variability has always been there. What is the role of groundwater? • Demystify groundwater: technical –non‐technical. Freshwater availability, food‐water nexus, that’s why we’re involved in this debate. • Avoid silos. • Water accounting.

64

• Water companies should be involved. • Groundwater use for other purposes: e.g., energy. • Businesses cannot play all games. • Integrate as much a possible on what is already ongoing. • Engage many other sectors. • Be efficient as much as possible. The four key messages below were directly written by four of the panellists; these were sent to the rapporteur after the Roundtable. Mintails Ltd., Mark Brune Mintails embraces the International Year of Water Cooperation. It is the principles of awareness and cooperation that is being successfully applied to the private‐public engagement addressing the unfolding environmental catastrophe affecting our area of operation – Acid Mine Drainage intrusion into the region’s surface and groundwater resources. We believe that it is through collaborative action addressing immediate solutions to halt and reverse this intrusion that will lead to the formation and articulation of a broader‐based inclusive groundwater governance framework.” Shell Global Solutions, Andrew Cameron: Fresh water availability is emerging as a prominent issue for the energy industry as we seek to meet growing global demand. The food – energy – water nexus creates the possibility for unintended consequences and uncertainty from policy decisions. Greater scientific understanding is required particularly toward water accounting and strengthened regulations, that allow harmonising and useful trade‐offs that support sustainable use of groundwater. Integration of private sector involvement can be improved if we can bring real clarity to the Problem we are trying to solve, the Strategy and how to engage. The incentive is for business to participate is clearly connected to opportunities around investment certainty, fairness and sustainability in water use. Nestlé Waters, Ronan Le Fanic: Water governance is a strategic activity for the coming years. Everything starts by defining a proper boundary to the water system. Engaging proactively with local stakeholders and know their real expectations is absolute key. Support this process with water education will help to increase awareness about this invisible groundwater world. Doing so, keep an open approach and transform threats on water into social and environmental opportunities. Vitens (drinking water company), Rian Kloosterman Water companies, like Vitens, have very much knowledge of the groundwater system in our supply area, but also in the developing countries (Mozambique, Kenya etc) where we are working. Vitens ‐ as public owned company‐ wants to share our knowledge and data for improving sustainability (people, planet and profit).Groundwater is a slow and vulnerable system, with improving economic (energy) potentials. To solve this upcoming struggle between planet and profit a long term groundwater complex system approach is necessary. Outcomes should be defined in terms of understanding the complexity added with physical and chemical equilibriums.

6 Summary

The synthesis below is neither intended as an exhaustive analysis of the discussion, nor as the official conclusions of the Roundtable. It is intended as a short executive summary based on factual statements heard during the panel discussions. The issues of trust and mistrust between public and private sectors were raised many times both by the private sector as well as by the audience in the room. It would seem that in many cases it is a

65

matter of interpretations and misunderstandings. The panellists told a few positive stories of trusting mechanisms in place between the private and public sectors. It would appear that the private sector would be willing to cooperate but more often than not, they do not find clear mechanisms for building relationships. They suggest that a clear mechanism for engagement be established. The issue of the data was extensively discussed and the question of sharing or not sharing was clarified. The private sector is ready to share its data but it doesn’t seem to know how. In some cases, the ownership of the data was challenged: does data belong to industry? The private sector extensively invests in innovation; it is part of their business; that is not always the case of the public sector. It was agreed that innovation would go a long way in solving many water‐related issues. Remote‐sensing technologies, for instance, were cited as an example and a way to go in the future. In terms of education, the private sector repeatedly mentioned that groundwater continued to be a mystery for most. The private sector perceives groundwater scientists as a community living in a ghetto. Thus, water education was recommended and more meetings of this type strongly suggested. All in all cooperation between private and public sectors should be based in mutual trust. This will not come automatically, it is something that needs to be built. However, companies in the Roundtable suggested that other important stakeholders (industries or not) should be also involved: water users, agriculture, water companies. It was generally agreed that scientific knowledge and understanding groundwater is a prerequisite to any groundwater governance plan. UNESCO was cited as the main international leader to carry on working hand in hand for groundwater governance. They asked that there is some way of water accounting and that there is more efficiency. The incentives for businesses to participate are strongly linked to opportunities in investments, clearly defined problems to solve, and a strategy and mechanisms to engage.

Regional Consultation UNECE Region - Ground Water · 4 Asia and Pacific Region 3‐5 December 2012...

Documents

Transcript of Regional Consultation UNECE Region - Ground Water · 4 Asia and Pacific Region 3‐5 December 2012...