Empowerment of Public Participation in Transboundary Water Management: Lake Peipsi Case Study

1. Empowerment of Public Participation in Management of Transboundary Waters in Countries in Transition: Lake Peipsi (Estonia-Russia) Case Study Margit Säre

2. Last decade has been for decision makers anintensive period for exploring new directions and instruments aimed to increase public participation (PP) in environmental matters Integrated water management in transboundary context is more complex and political than within one state, where management measures are implemented in homogeneous socio-economic, cultural, institutional and political context Transboundary WM is faced with the task of solving complicated problems dependent on the specific conditions created by the interaction of two or morepolitical systems

3. Inside EU, differences in border areas are minimal, opposite to the striking difference in the new EU external borders However, these complexities on external borders should be taken into account when designing participatory approaches on water management

4. Case study area:Lake Peipsi/ChudskoeEstonia-Russia • 4th largest lake in Europe (area 3555 km2) • The new border region –Estonia became re-independent in 1991 • Located in the new EU external-border region

5. Development of legal basis on water use and -protection of Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe • There are still several unsolved problems at intergovernmental level between Estonia and Russia Solution of water management issues in the beginning of 1990swas hampered by a lack of cross-border coordination, financial constraints, differences in monitoring methodologies, communication problems • 4 main international agreements, regulating use and protection of natural resources in the transboundary context

6. Differences in environmental standards, norms & institutional frameworks in the Lake Peipsi Basin Russia is not obliged to apply to the EU Water legislation but Russian Water Code is following the overall principles of EU WFD Estonian Water Act is harmonized with the EU Water Framework Directive

7. For local people it is difficult to grasp transboundary WM issues and get involved in implementation of trans- boundary waterpolicies • Innovative PP methods are needed, to securethat concerns of localpeople are incorporated in WM plans

8. Peipsi CTC tested different innovative public participation methods, to bring the voice of local stakeholders to the respective governments- Group interviews-Focus groups - Citizens´ juries

9. Focus groups- determining issues of concern on regional scale A focus group is a planned discussion among a small group of people on a specific topic. Peipsi CTC conducted 9 focus groups on water management issues with major stakeholder groups in Emajõgi river basin Focus groups proved to be an effective approach that could be used on the water management planning stage to collect opinions of stakeholders about major issues in a river basin

10. CITIZENS’ JURIES– public input in to developing solutionsof water management problems Citizen’s jury is a randomly selected panel of people whomeet for 2-5 days for a careful examination of an issue of public significance in the locality. A group (12-16 people) hear evidence, question witnesses from different sectors, discuss the issue and then make an informed judgment (reeccommendations).This PP method promotes political dialogue aimed at mutual understanding, which does not mean that people will agree, but rather that they try to resolve conflicts by discussion

11. Citizens’ juryproved that also ordinary people are able to discuss complex environmental management issues after presentation and possibility for give questionsNext stage:transboundary citizen jury. However, here are problems in connection with high expenses of visa and travel; working language. Citizens’ jury: Water transport on River Emajõgi. What would be the compromise between the interests of local inhabitants, environmentalists and entrepreneurs ?”

12. CONCLUSIONSWater management in a transboundary context is much more complex and political rather than water management within one nation stateTransition countires in EU external borders have many differences between institutions, socio-economic development etc.Transboundary basins should focus more on communication, information exchange, and developing trust between partners

13. CONCLUSIONSFocus groups and citizens’ juries demonstrated to be effective public participation approaches that make voices of local stakeholders heard also on a transboundary water basin scaleThe exchange of experience in other transboundary water basins:Peipsi CTC started cooperation with Chu - Talas rivers (Kyrgyzstan-Kasakhstan); River Daugava (Latvia-Byelorussia-Russia),Lake Ohrid Involvement of local stakeholdersin developing a shared vision and water management policies for transboundary basins is a prerequisite for the long-term sustainable development. This requires taking into use new innovative methods of public participation

14. More info at websites (EU 5th FP funded projects)River Dialogue: www.riverdialogue.orgMantra East: www.mantraeast.orgPeipsi infoportal: www.peipsi.org

15. Thank you!