Pan-European landscape of cooperation on transboundary waters

Pan-European landscape of

cooperation on transboundary

waters: main issues and security implications

Dr. Annukka Lipponen Environmental Affairs Officer

UNECE

Basis: the Second Assessment of Transboundary Rivers, Lakes and Groundwaters

•  Prepared under UNECE Water Convention (1992) for the 7th “Environment for Europe” Ministerial conference (Astana, September 2011)

•  Covers more than 140 rivers, 25 lakes, about 200 groundwaters and 25 Ramsar Sites & other wetlands of transboundary importance

•  Covers pressure factors, quantity and quality status of waters, transboundary impacts, management responses and future trends

•  Process: ~50 countries, datasheets filled by nationally nominated experts, 5 subregional workshops (>2 years)

Main issues and pressure factors on transboundary

waters •  Agriculture: diffuse pollution (e.g. nutrients,

pesticides) and withdrawals (in water scarce areas)

•  Insufficiently treated and/or untreated municipal wastewaters a significant factor degrading water quality; exception: the EU

•  Hydropower: Central Asia, the Caucasus & South-Eastern Europe (SEE)

•  Legacy of industrial pollution: the EECCA subregion, notably Central Asia

•  Mining (locally, pressure reduced): SEE, Caucasus, Central Asia, Northern & Eastern Europe

•  Hydromorphological changes •  Policy coherence and integration!

Cooperation on transboundary waters in

Europe

Bilateral agreement covering all shared waters

Lake or specific water use agreements

Watercourse related agreements

Map: Zoï

1990s

Cooperation on transboundary waters in the Caucasus, Central Asia and

the Russian Federation

Bilateral agreement covering all shared waters

Lake or specific water use agreements

Watercourse related agreements

Map: Zoï

Legal, policy and institutional frameworks: European Union & borders

•  Strong legal framework for water management and pollution control in the EU; Many examples of effective cooperation at multilateral and bilateral levels, including on wetlands

•  In Western and Central Europe, the agreements generally cover a broad range of issues and set up commissions

•  WFD not enough for transboundary cooperation •  slow identification of transboundary groundwater

bodies •  SEE: Uneven level of cooperation: some very good

examples (Sava, promising Drin) while in many basins no agreements, or very old or non-implemented one. EU WFD and the UNECE Water Convention are the two main regional frameworks

•  Eastern Europe: still many bottlenecks, in particular across the EU border

•  Agreements from 1990s & later, mostly modeled on the UNECE Water Convention

•  Growing scope of cooperation but in many cases too sectoral and not covering the whole basin; infrastructure related agreements

•  Institution of plenipotentiaries common •  Need to strengthen institutions for cooperation:

weakness of the cooperation framework in the Aral Sea basin; A lack of formal multilateral cooperation in the Kura basin, a legal framework and joint body lacking; few bilateral agreements (low level of implementation, AZ-GE negotiations encouraging)

Legal and institutional framework:

Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia

Four indicators used for comparing the level and

characteristics of transboundary cooperation 1.  bilateral or basin-wide agreements on

transboundary waters; 2.  a joint body and some key characteristics of

its functioning; 3.  the commitment by riparian countries to

cooperation on the platform of international water law, as indicated by their accession/ratification of the UNECE Water Convention; and

4.  cooperation on river basin management planning

The factors above combined to an index.

Some high and low scoring rivers on the selected indicators of formal

elements of cooperation High scoring (examples): the Elbe, the Ems,

the Rhine and its tributaries the Moselle and the Saar, the Meuse, the Scheldt and the Oder, the Danube, the Sava, the Torne, the Vuoksi, the Näätämö, and the Narva, the Chu and the Talas

Low scoring (examples): the Daugava, the Bug, the Neman, the Dnieper, the Dniester, the Kura and the Aras/Araks, the Sulak, the Terek, the Psou

The way ahead

•  The approach being refined – feedback and ideas welcome; adding e.g. aspects of data exchange and monitoring cooperation, joint projects, characteristics/functioning of joint bodies (e.g. constituency, funding basis), detailing components of public participation under consideration

•  Next assessment of transboundary waters (by 2015) on selected basins and thematically focused; –  Options currently considered: 1) Water-food-energy nexus 2) Climate change adaptation and water

efficiency –  Partners and funding sought