April 2005

ICPDR OPEN-SPACE WORKSHOP

Book of Proceedings

AUTHORS

Workshop has been prepared by Instinct Domain. This report is a compilation of results of the 15
Working Groups, with participation of the ICPDR Heads of Delegations.

Instinct Domain

Große Neugasse 1/5
A-1040 Vienna
+43/1/585 39 31
+43/1/585 39 31 14
office@instinct-domain.com
//www.instinct-domain.com

INFORMATION FOR PARTICIPANTS
What is the background to this workshop?
The process of examining issues and opportunities for organizational development of the
ICPDR was initiated at the Ordinary meeting of the Commission in Vienna in December 2003.
Specifically the Commission mandated the Executive Secretary:
"...to develop for the 2nd Standing Working Group Meeting, proposals for restructuring
the EGs and the Secretariat (with attention to budgetary limits) to meet the workload
expected in 2006 and subsequent years."
Developing such proposals for ICPDR was thought necessary to ensure that the Commission
had appropriate resources and structures in place to meet future challenges brought about by a
number of key factors affecting the work of the Commission (enlargement of the EU, winding
down of the UNDP DRP etc). It should be emphasized that this consideration was thought
necessary not to correct major failures but to ensure that the existing successes would be
sustainable.
At the Ordinary meeting of the ICPDR in December 2004 a proposal was made to convene a
HOD workshop in April 2005 in order to provide the necessary input for further decision
making.
The UNDP Danube Regional Project has agreed to support the costs of this workshop and to
finance facilitation of change-related activities. In order to prepare this workshop a small
planning committee with representatives of the Troika and the Executive Secretary
formulated guiding principles allowing all of us to make use of this Open Space workshop in
the most effective and innovative way. You will find these principles listed below under ,,The
Givens".

Who is invited to the HOD Open Space workshop?
Participants at the meeting will involve:
up to three representatives of each country delegation
· chairpersons of expert groups
· technical experts of the Secretariat
· senior UNDP/GEF DRP Staff
Please note that financial support for travel and accommodation is available from UNDP/GEF
Danube Regional Project for only two representatives of eligible countries and expert group
chairpersons.

1

What is an Open Space Workshop?
When you arrive for the workshop the meeting room will be set up with a circle of chairs.
Please take a seat whereever you like. There is no specfic seating order. At the beginning our
facilitator will guide us through instructions for the process. (For this reason we strongly
recommend to arrive on time as important information will be given at the very beginning of
the workshop.)
We will create the agenda for our time together during the first forty minutes. Through the
creation of the agenda, leaders of topics will identify themselves. Participants will be invited
to sign up for the topics they are interested in. Participants will manage their own time and
energy, attending and
contributing to sessions which are of interest to them. Theme leaders will only be responsible
for getting their topic going during the meeting, and ensuring that a written workgroup report
is produced for entry into a book of proceeding.
There will be a 1 ½ hour break for lunch. During the Open Space workgoups there will be no
formal coffee breaks, however, beverages and food will be available throughout the time and
you are encouraged to be sure your needs are looked after.
At the beginning of Friday we will gather in a circle again to share the results of the previous
days workshops. Finally we will be presented with a copy of the book of proceedings that has
been created during the workshop. We will have time to read this book, and then we will have
a chance to vote for those topics that we feel we have the most personal energy and
committment for. The final component of our meeting will be to gather in the big circle for
closing comments.

How Long will our Open Space Workshop last?
Our workshop will begin on Wednesday evening April 27 at 06:00 pm with an introductory
session on the question:
What are my personal experiences so far with ICPDR working arrangements and
structures?
A dinner will be arranged for all participants following the introductory session. The
introductory session itself will last 2 hours the longest.
Open Space introduction will begin on Thursday, April 28 at 09:30 am. There will be a 1 ½
hour break for lunch. Conclusion on that day will be at 05:00 pm.
A joint dinner will be held that evening at the invitation of the UNDP Danube Regional
Project.
The final day session on Friday, April 29 will begin at 09:00 am and end at 12:30 noon.

2

Who is the facilitator?
Erich Poettschacher is an expert in large group interventions and was trained by
internationally renowned Open Space pioneer Birgitt Williams. He has been using Open
Space facilitation with cities, regions, NPOs and NGOs as well as cultural enterprises
including participants from many different nations. Erich Poettschacher founded in 1994 his
own firm Instinct Domain.

What can not be changed?
The Givens
During our Open Space workshop you have the chance to make practical proposals related to
issues and opportunities optimizing ICPDR working arrangements and structures. If you want
to become a theme leader there are only a few limitations for your inputs and ideas.
We call them the givens. You should know beforehand that the following givens are valid
and will not be up for discussion at this workshop:
· We do not want to change the text of the convention.
· WFD-related timetables plus all existing commitments of Danube countries remain
valid.
· GEF Funds phase out by mid 2007.
· Financial resources of the regular ICPDR budget will not change.
· Reports created during this meeting will be treated as working documents. These
papers may also be read by people not taking part at the Open Space workshop.
· The ministerial declaration from December 2004 gives the main direction for ICPDR
future development.
It is also important to keep the following sign posts and milestones in mind:
· We actively invite you to make proposals on different levels of activity. These levels
are:
o ICPDR Secretarial level
o Expert Group level
o Your own country level
· Please consider that latest by December 2009 the RBM plan should adopted. This plan
ideally integrates other sectorial policy areas as well (agriculture, land use, etc.)
· ICPDR aims to achieve a manageable knowledge base which enables us to analyse the
transboundary impact of water uses.
·
Latest by December 2007 ICPDR is committed to have an operational mechanism for
public information and involvement.

3

Workgroup Report
Important notes for Theme Leaders:
Please write reports after your workgroup has finished. Remember: reports will
be read and evaluated also by others who have not taken part in your session.
Please write your report clearly. The better other people can read and understand
the outcome of your workgroup the greater are the chances of the ideas being
implemented. All reports will be collected latest at 06:00 pm on Thursday.

Theme of the Working Group:

Dealing with Water Quantity Data (WQND) within ICPDR

Theme Leader:
Mr. Karoly FUTAKI (Secretariat)

Names of Participants in this Workgroup:
Ms. Eva SOVJAKOVA, Ms. Maria GALAMBOS, Mr. Liviu N. POPESCU

Three most important Highlights of our Discussion:
·
Obligations to deal with WQND (both for surface- and groundwater) comes from the DRPC
(Art. 5 para (2) point (a))
·
Currently TNMN DB constrains some WQND (water level, water temp., daily average water
discharge) but these are related only to surface water (SW) and at the time of sampling,
which will not be enough for RBMP in future
·
WQND can be explored first at Observers responsible for WQND data collection in the DRB
(e.g. DC, IHP, IAD, etc.) and agreement is needed on: (1) only link to those data shall be
established, (2) data will regularly taken over into DANUBIS, or (3) ICPDR will use EC data
·
in order to properly address water quantity issue, creation of an ad-hoc group within MLIM
EG will be necessary
·
issue of WQND should be discussed in a wider context: (a) information on water use; (b)
needs for different kind of modelling at DRB level (e.g. hydraulicmorphological data)

5

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:
(a)
start bilateral discussions with basin-wide organisations responsible for WQND

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:
(a)
create a working (drafting) group to define: (1) purpose of WQND collection; (2) WQND to
collect; (3) what data frequency is needed; (4) how to link external DBs, if possible or needed; (5)
how WQND would be accommodated in DANUBIS
(b)
what are exactly the needs of RBMP in term of WQND
(c)
what are the needs of the EGs in term of WQND
(d)
start establishing Hydrology Eg/ESG (ToR)
(e)
define monitoring sites

We propose the following Measures at the national level:
·
define responsible institution at national level

We need the following decisions from the:

a) ICPDR:
·
create an ad-hoc group within MLIM EG to deal with WQND issues

b) Secretariat:
·
designate TE responsible for WQND issues

c) Country Authorities (HODs):
·
identify responsible institution for WQND

d) other: in the discussion it also came out a question: what other results/products of the ICPDR
partners (Observers) could be useful for the ICPDR, or how their capacity in any other form can be
utilised for supporting the ICPDR objectives.

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Mr. Karoly FUTAKI

6

·
Should ICPDR continue to play a role in promoting with a regional perspective financial
support from donors and IFI for investments and projects?

·
Is there a need for an ICPDR JAP complementing the future WFD related programmes of
measures having in mind that there are Non EU countries for whom the DRPC is the legal
basis for action?

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:

·
Unfortunately no specific proposals yet. There was a request|\demand for improving the
capacities of the secretariat for supporting sub-basins initiatives and Non-EU-Countries but
no consensus emerged.

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:
·
The need to review the data collection requirements and data bases in light of the new
tasks was mentioned. Another comment referred to the need to develop or improve
mechanisms for managing the corporate knowledge of the ICPDR

We propose the following Measures at the national level:
No proposals yet.

We need the following decisions from the:
a) ICPDR:

b) Secretariat:

c) Country Authorities (HODs):

d) other:

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Thomas Stratenwerth

8

Three most important Highlights of our Discussion:
·
Priorities result from DRPPC and WFD
·
Ultimte goal is sustainable use of water resources in DRB taking into account ecological,
economic and social aspects
·
Priorities are:
o Information exchange
o Joint decisions on basin-wide level and transposition on sub-basin and national
level (framework for cooperation)
o River basin management
Should include water supply
More work on flood protection
Include cost estimations
Divided by sectors
o Transboudary issues
·
Take into account situation in different countries needs framework / timetable for
countries in transition
·
Role of the ICPDR as facilitator to inform public about the work / results

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:
no proposals yet

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:
no proposals yet

We propose the following Measures at the national level:
no proposals yet

We need the following decisions from the:

a) ICPDR:

b) Secretariat:

c) Country Authorities (HODs):

d) other:

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Ursula Schmedtje

10

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:
·
the position of the RBM expert is maintained

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:
·
The RBM EG sticks with its original mandate and serves as a roof for all activities related to
the implementation of WFD in the DRB

We propose the following Measures at the national level:
·
Contracting parties have at national level corresponding national mechanism for
coordination of WFD implementation including external funding to it.

We need the following decisions from the:
a) ICPDR:
·
to agree on the opening sentence on focus of ICPDR on its basic functions and merit of
activities

b) Secretariat:

c) Country Authorities (HODs):

d) other:

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Mr. Wolfgang Stalzer

12

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:
·
To recognise the sub-regional coordination as added value for Secretariat.

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:
·
To pay an extra attention on sub-regional activities (specifics) regarding trans-boundary
pressure and impacts.

We propose the following Measures at the national level:
·
Need for active coordination national/transboundary/regional issues.

We need the following decisions from the:

a) ICPDR:
·
To welcome the sub-regional approach

b) Secretariat:
·
To assist the countries as catalyst ONLY

c) Country Authorities (HODs):

·
To take care and responsibility about national/trans-boundary coordination
to reduce pressure and impacts on water environment.

d) other:

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Mitja Bricelj

14

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:
·
responsibility for minimizing travel costs
·
Responsibility for careful preparation of meetings well in advance and to give a clear
picture of the results to achieve.
·
Optimize timetable of meetings in order to achieve minimum of time/ costs for meetings of
expert groups but also for secretariat
·
Responsibility to look for best choice of meeting locations:
a/ Minimize overall costs
b/ rotation of host countries because sharing of burden and rotational involvement and
enhancing wider participation of the host country

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:

·
optimize tasks/ size and composition of expert bodies
·
Employ staff members with ability to cover several/ many sectors responsibility for
minimizing travel costs
·
Responsibility for careful preparation of meetings well in advance and to give a clear
picture of the results to achieve.
·
Optimize timetable of meetings in order to achieve minimum of time/ costs for meetings of
expert groups but also for secretariat
·
Responsibility to look for best choice of meeting locations:
a/ Minimize overall costs
b/ rotation of host countries because sharing of burden and rotational involvement and
enhancing wider participation of the host country

We propose the following Measures at the national level:
/

We need the following decisions from the:

a) ICPDR: /

b) Secretariat: /

c) Country Authorities (HODs): /

d) other: /

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Richard Stadler

16

Three most important Highlights of our Discussion:
·
Build on existing measures
·
Build on established corner stones,
·
Define what means basin-wide importance
·
Define objectives for basin-wide issues, e.g. define nutrient levels for the Black Sea
·
Basis for planning of PoM:
o compliance with EU directives (UWWT, Nitrates, Drinking Water, Ground water
o compliance with Aquis Communitaire
o Measures from Accession Treaty of the new EU member states
o Define programme of other 4 DRB countries (non-accession)
·
ICPDR cannot go beyond EU requirements
·
Combined approach (emission control quality standards)
·
Assess gap: current status versus standards set by Aquis Communitaire + WFD
·
Get overview as basis for planning avoid double planning / double investments

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:
·
Develop Programme of Measures for A and B level in parallel
·
RBM EG should prepare "Road Map
o Identify milestones
o Identify data gaps

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:
no proposals yet

We propose the following Measures at the national level:
no proposals yet

We need the following decisions from the:

a) ICPDR:

b) Secretariat:

c) Country Authorities (HODs):

d) other:

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Ursula Schmedtje

18

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:
·
reporting scheme for this specific EG proposed resolutions after the adoptions has to be
(re)considered

We propose the following Measures at the national level:

The reporting system has to be provided with two major information streams:
(i)
from the ICPDR (ordinary sessions) to the national level and
(ii)
from the national level to the ICPDR (feedback) during the implementation process, the
(ii) could be via EG and /or directly in the plenary sessions

We need the following decisions from the:

a) ICPDR:
·
to promote (if this is advisable) the proposed system after the HoDs approval

b) Secretariat:
·
to develop (might be the ICPDR internet website/Danubis) the proper logistics

c) Country Authorities (HODs):
·
to nominate a contact person

d) other:

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Aurel Varduca

20

Workgroup Report
Important notes for Theme Leaders:

Please write reports after your workgroup has finished. Remember: reports will
be read and evaluated also by others who have not taken part in your session.
Please write your report clearly. The better other people can read and understand
the outcome of your workgroup the greater are the chances of the ideas being
implemented. All reports will be collected latest at 06:00 pm on Thursday.

Theme of the Working Group:
ICPDR working groups of the future / for the future

Theme Leader:
Helmut Blöch, EU

Names of Participants in this Workgroup:

L. Popescu, U. Schmedtje, R. Stadler, K. Futaki, G. Holló, N. Marjanovi, I. Zavadsky, S.
Tóth, I. Liska, P. Weller, M. Galambos, M. Bricelj, D. Nedvedova,
N. Andjeli, E. Kos, Z. Ostojic, V. Roiatchka, M. Dimki, Mihaela Popovici

Three most important Highlights of our Discussion:

· Decisions of 2004 Plenary (Danube Declaration, Roof Report, Flood Action Plan) have
set priorities as well as a sound point of departure for future ICPDR work; priorities set
(WFD; floods) require optimisation of working structure, at ICPDR level, sub-basin level
and in the individual Danube basin countries;
·
Resources (staff, budget) will continue to be limited, at ICPDR as well as national level, and
GEF funding will be phased out making optimisation of working structure even more
urgent to meet the mandatory deadlines set;
·
Future structure must ensure basin-wide coordination in all fields of activities by a river
basin management group, i.e. WFD as well as floods; at the same time maintain the
network of excellence and experience, and ensure in-depth expertise (e.g. in making
operational biological, chemical and quantitative parameters for `good status')

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:
a) Secretariat to further develop the findings of this group, leading to adoption of the new Working
Group Structure by the December 2005 ICPDR Plenary; b) staff of Secretariat to reflect the defined
priority needs, to ensure optimal support of the working groups
We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:
New working group structure to reflect the challenges identified in the Danube Declaration:

21

1. River Basin Management Working Group
Responsible, within the time frame set, for
-
Coordination/integration of WFD- and floods-related work, and their linkages
-
coordination between basin-wide and sub-basin activities (Tisza, Sava, Prut)-

2. Permanent Working Groups
Responsible, within the time frame set, for key issues under WFD and floods, e.g.
"assessment/monitoring/impacts", "pressures/measures", "flood action plan"

3. Regular coordination meeting between working group chairs

4. Ad-hoc Working Groups
Responsible, upon specific decision, and within a set time frame, for defined tasks.

Note: This working structure reflects the almost unanimous opinion of the group; an alternative
solution with only temporary ad-hoc groups at ICPDR level (and all other activity at sub-basin
level), received the support only of its promoter.
In the work programme, inter alia the following challenges need to be addressed:
Distribution of tasks between ICPDR and sub-basin activities, and their coordination; public
participation (distribution of tasks between ICPDR, sub-basin and regional/local efforts); making
`good status' operational by parameters (biology, chemistry, quantity); facilitate transfer of
knowledge and experience; checking cost-effectiveness of environmentally possible options for
measures; maintain storage and accessibility of available data and experience

We propose the following Measures at the national level:
-
resources: maintain network of knowledge developed within ICPDR bodies, and ensure
adequate input to the work of the ICPDR and sub-basin activities on WFD as well as floods (e.g.
shared responsibilities between regional and national administrations whilst improving the flow
of information between both)
-
funding: GEF funding to end, therefore prepare for optimal use of available funding tools
(Cohesion Fund, ISPA, CARDS etc); key steps from the current pressure and impact
assessment & Roof Report to the River Basin Management Plans & Programmes of Measures
are eligible for funding under these tools;
-
exchange of knowledge and experience: ensure flow of information on experiences gained, and
make best use of experiences in other regions / sub-basins, those on cost-effectiveness of
environmentally possible solutions; identify knowledge gaps and request action to be
coordinated at ICPDR level;

We need the following decisions from the:
a) ICPDR: Decision, at the 2005 Plenary, on future working group structure
b) Secretariat, c) Country Authorities (HODs), d) other: none for the time being

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any):
Helmut Blöch, Phil Weller, Joachim D'Eugenio

22

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:
·
Develop an outline for the next Standing Working Group, about the next steps to clearly
describe a) the target groups of the ICPDR, b) its mandate and c) its adapted visual
branding.
·
Contact the right external experts (creative people) to receive help in this process and
securing the funding from the DRP for this undertaking

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:

We propose the following Measures at the national level:

·
Actively think about the image of the ICPDR and provide feedback to the Secretariat

We need the following decisions from the:

a) ICPDR:
·
OK to embark on this process and mandate the Secretariat to carry out the different tasks

b) Secretariat:
·
Carry out the tasks as mandated by the ICPDR

c) Country Authorities (HODs):

d) other:

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Jasmine Bachmann

24

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:

·
Public participation and train to promote and education people.

We propose the following Measures at the national level:

·
Try to promote dialog and strategy which will definitive in ICPDR.

We need the following decisions from the:

a) ICPDR:

b) Secretariat:

c) Country Authorities (HODs):

d) other:

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Philip Weller.

26

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:

·
Develop and define clear criteria for the cooperation with industries (precondition is that
the industries can not influence the decision making of the ICPDR)

·
Actively address possible industry partners (with the active support of Coca-Cola as well as
the countries)

·
Checking the environmental performance of the potential partners of the industrial sector
and report to the ICPDR

·
Explore the possibilities to develop a ICPDR fund for the industries (free money)

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:

We propose the following Measures at the national level:

·
Actively cooperate with the Secretariat

We need the following decisions from the:

a) ICPDR:
·
OK for working together with industries and mandate the Secretariat to carry out the tasks
as described above

b) Secretariat: carry out the tasks as described above

c) Country Authorities (HODs):

d) other:

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Jasmine Bachmann

28

Workgroup Report
Important notes for Theme Leaders:

Please write reports after your workgroup has finished. Remember: reports will
be read and evaluated also by others who have not taken part in your session.
Please write your report clearly. The better other people can read and understand
the outcome of your workgroup the greater are the chances of the ideas being
implemented. All reports will be collected latest at 06:00 pm on Thursday.

Theme of the Working Group:

Sustainable Financing of ICPDR activities
Theme Leader:

Thomas Stratenwerth
Names of Participants in this Workgroup:
Maria Galambos, Ivan Zavadsky, Michaela Popovici, Karoly Furtaki, Alan Cibilic,
Joachim Heidemeier, Peter Whalley, Gyula Hollo, Fritz Holzwarth
Three most important Highlights of our Discussion:

·
In addition to regular coverage of the costs for staff and infrastructure of the secretariat
demands for financial resources for external technical assistance and support to the EGs in
implementing ICPDR`s work programme will continue to exist beyond 2007
·
Support and assistance to Non EU-Countries for contributing to ICPDR activities (in
particular WFD/RBMP), because they are not legally bound by the WFD, and also for
ensuring their participation in ICPDR activities may still be necessary
·
Severe constraints for using the regular budget for covering these needs have to be taken
into account, therefore early planning is necessary to allow for applying for external
financial support in time (be aware of the time needed for preparing applications and for
the respective decision making processes)
·
Further financial needs are related to communication and public relations activities and to
maintaining GIS and Danubis

29

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:
·
Mid term planning of financial needs which can not be covered by the regular budget based
on proposals from EGs
·
Identifying possible sources of financial support (EU-funds, sponsoring, national funds,
research programmes)

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:
·
Early identification of demands for external technical support and assistance related to their
work plan with estimation of costs taking into account experiences gained with the
implementation of the GEF-UNDP Project

We propose the following Measures at the national level:
·
Take commitment seriously and ensure the necessary capacities at national level to assist
the activities of the ICPDR and its EGs (qualified people, external support)

We need the following decisions from the:
a) ICPDR:
·
Request to EGs and Secretariat to embark in a mid term planning of the needs for external
support and assistance to implementing the work programme

·
Request to RBM EG to assess what kind of assistance to Non EU Countries might be
necessary in order to ensure that they can at least meet minimum requirements with
regard to contributions to the RBMP taking into account the experience from producing the
roof report 2004

·
An amendment of the contribution key could be considered keeping the contributions of A
and GER at current levels whilst rising the contributions of other countries step by step to
the same level until equal shares are achieved.

b) Secretariat:

c) Country Authorities (HODs):
·
Ensure necessary capacities at national level to assist the activities of the ICPDR and its
EGs (qualified people, external support)

d) other:

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Thomas Stratenwerth

30

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:

Coordination of activities in different tributaries basins in order to achieve objectives of the WFD in
the DRB

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:

Promote creation of the Ad-hoc expert group for concrete tributary basin (if necessary)

We propose the following Measures at the national level:

Creation of the River Basin Council, especially in case when tributary basin is shared by EU and
Non EU countries

Initiate relevant projects

We need the following decisions from the:

a) ICPDR:

b) Secretariat:

c) Country Authorities (HODs):
- Support capacity building in respective basin for implementation of the WFD
- initiate and promote cooperation on bilateral and regional (tributary basin) levels
d) other:

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Dumitru Drumea

32

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR Secretariat level:
·
Establish a full list (for all the countries) of:
o Main religious holidays
o National holiday
o Official holidays
·
Update the list annually

We propose the following Measures on ICPDR (expert group) level:
·
Plan meetings on the basis of the Holidays List provided by the Secretariat
·
Try not to schedule meetings on dates in the Holiday List
o If not possible keep a record of holidays "destroyed" for each country and
observe those countries' holidays in subsequent conflicting meeting date options

We propose the following Measures at the national level:
·
Provide the Secretariat with the national Holiday List and update it annually

·
Provide other relevant information how holidays are organised (e.g. 2-3 days put together;
which holidays are most important)

We need the following decisions from the:

a) ICPDR: Decision
·
No meetings organised or coordinated by the ICPDR should be scheduled in the week
before and the week after the 2 most important (religious) holidays for any country, unless
an agreement by this country has been obtained.

b) Secretariat:

c) Country Authorities (HODs):

d) other:

Contact Person for follow-up steps (if any): Violeta Roiatchka

34

ICPDR WORKING GROUPS OF THE FUTURE / FOR THE FUTURE

· Basic understanding on main elements achieved , certain elements to be
further elaborated (number of WGs, attributed tasks & time frame)

· First paper to that end to be elaborated by Secretariat (permanent groups;
ad-hoc groups) for StWG June 2005 for discussion and guidance by Heads of
Delegations

· After StWG further elaboration; Secretariat + Troika plus probably one
meeting open to all delegations, leading to:
o Adoption of news structure by the 2005 Plenary
o Preparation at national / regional level to best support, and make best use
of this new working structure

REGIONAL / SUB-REGIONAL COOPERATION

Three aspects for successful implementation
1. Develop principles for cooperation and coordination
2. Appropriate personal involvement (bottom-up, top-down)
3. Sustainable development oriented approach

DEVELOP PROGRAMME OF MEASURES (POM)

1. RBM EG will develop road map for development of PoM incl. individual national
plans for non - accession countries w/DRP

2. ICPDR will endorse road map in December 2005 (ordinary Meeting) and letter of
ICPDR President to all Contracting Parties

3. ICPDR agrees on appropriate working structure for development of PoM with RBM
EG as leading expert body

35

SUSTAINABLE FINANCING

· Mid term planning for matching identified needs and external funding options

· Explore innovative options for fundraising (sponsoring ....) look for examples
from other organizations/ promotion

·
Responsibilities:
o EG's: identify needs when elaborating workprogramme
o Sec: prioritizing (proposals to ICPDR)
Identify sources
Matching
Practicalities
Evaluation
o Parties: explore possibilities for voluntary contributions

36