Integrated Ecosystem Management in the Prespa Lakes Basin of Albania, FYR of Macedonia and Greece
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
PRESPA PARK COORDINATION COMMITTEE
IN TRANSBOUNDARY ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
[Consultant Report]
Dr. Slavko Bogdanovic
Novi Sad
12 December 2008
The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the
United Nations Development Programme.
A transfrontier region is a potential region, inherent in geography, history, ecology, ethnic
groups, economic possibilities and so on, but disrupted by the sovereignty of governments
ruling on side of the frontier.
DENIS DE ROUGEMONT
L'Avenir est Notre Affaire, Seuil publishers, Paris
1978
The basic principle of transfrontier is to create links and contractual relations in frontier areas so
that joint solutions may be found to similar problems [...]
Regional identities must be sustained and the construction of Europe enriched by the dynamism
and special qualities of local and regional communities situated on each side of a frontier, as
they jointly try to develop a living partnership, true synergy and full solidarity reflecting what a
Europe united in diversity should be.
HANDBOOK OF TRANSFRONTIER FOR LOCAL AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES IN EUROPE
Council of Europe,
2000
Transboundary watershed problems are best resolved by those who live and work in the
watershed. Further, success in resolving local problems will increase as certain conditions
evolve: local participants gain experience in working together on problems and opportunities; a
systemic, ecosystem framework is used in learning about problems and solutions; and trust
among local participants is nurtured through shared work and discussions of
shared values.
THE INTERNATIONAL WATERSHED INITIATIVE
Second Report to the Governments of Canada and the United States;
IJC--International Joint Commission Canada and United States,
2005
2
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
8
I.
INTRODUCTION
11
1.
Brief on Nature of the Prespa Lakes Basin
11
2.
History of Management Efforts
11
3.
Terms of Reference
13
4.
Methodology
13
II.
MISSION SCOPE, CONTENTS AND FINDINGS
15
III.
PRESPA LAKES BASIN IN INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL
20
POLICY AND LAW CONTEXT
1.
Introductory Notes
20
2.
Global and European Instruments
20
3.
Community Acquis
22
4.
Mediterranean Wetland Initiative (MedWet)
25
5.
Other Relevant International Initiatives
27
IV.
TRILATERAL CONTEXT
28
1.
Prespa Park Declaration
28
1.1
Event
28
1.2
Content
28
1.3
Notes on Legal Nature
30
2.
Local Level Co-operation
32
2.1
Co-operation between Local Municipalities
32
2.2
Other Examples of Trilateral Co-operation
32
3.
Concluding Notes
33
V.
PRESPA PARK COORDINATION COMMITTEE
35
1.
Description/History
35
2.
Composition
35
3.
Responsibilities
36
4.
Operational Aspects Rules
37
5.
Secretariat
38
6.
Work and Most Remarkable Results
40
7.
Legal Profile
42
8.
Specific Features of Stakeholders
43
9.
Financial Issues
44
10.
Assessment of the PPCC Operations and Evaluation of its
Capacity
46
11.
Assessment of the PPCC Secretariat
47
12.
Some Conclusions
48
3
VI.
SOME SUCCESSFUL CASES
52
1.
Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC)
52
1.1
Territorial Scope
52
1.2
Subject Matter
53
1.3
Forms of Co-operation
54
1.4
Institutional Setting
54
1.4.1
Conference of the Contracting Parties
54
1.4.2
International Commission for the Protection
of the Danube River (ICPDR)
55
1.5
Expenditures
57
1.6
Other Instruments of the ICPDR Legal Regime
58
2.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
58
2.1
Brief Introduction
58
2.2
Institutional Setting
59
2.2.1 International Joint Commission (IJC)
59
2.2.2 Great Lakes Water Quality Board
61
2.2.3 Great Lakes Science Advisory Board
61
2.2.4 Great Lakes Regional Office of IJC
62
2.3
Funding
62
3.
The Lake Constance
63
3.1
Introductory Notes
63
3.2
International Conference of Deputies for Fishery
63
in the Lake Constance--IBKF
3.3
International Fishermen's Association of the Lake
64
Constance--IFB
3.4
International Commission for the Protection
64
of the Lake ConstanceIGKB
3.5
International Bodensee ConferenceIBK
65
3.6
International Commission for Boating on the Lake
66
Bodensee--ISKB
4.
Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin
66
4.1
General Notes
66
4.2
Scope of Cooperation
67
4.3
Mechanisms of Co-operation
69
4.4
Meeting of the Parties
69
4.5
International Sava River Basin Commission (ISRBC) 69
VII.
DRAFT TRILATERAL AGREEMENT
72
1.
Notes on Legal Status of Draft
72
2.
Contents of Draft
72
3.
Instead of Conclusion
73
VIII.
RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES, ORDER OF STEPS
74
AND TIME FRAME
1.
Introductory Notes
74
2.
Some Explanatory Notes
74
3.
Commitment of the States
75
4.
Recommendations
76
Trilateral Consultative Process (TCP)
76
4
Rapid Comparative Legal Assessment of
77
Cross-Cutting Issues
Performing Pilot SEA in the Prespa Lake Basin
77
Involvement of International Organizations
78
International Prespa Conference
78
5.
Order of Steps & Contents of Activities
79
6.
Time Frame
84
7.
Reminder Notes on Possible Contents of the
85
Prespa Lakes Basin Agreement
7.1
Some Features of the Agreement
85
7.2
Some Features of the Prespa Management
85
Committee
7.3
Some Notes on the Role and Scope of
Competence of the Prespa Management Committee 85
7.4
Note on Working Guidance
86
BIBLIOGRAPHY
87
ANNEXES
90
Annex I
91
IUCN Guidelines Protected Area Categories Management
ANNEX II
96
Terms of Reference
ANNEX III
99
Assessment Methodology
ANNEX IV
101
Debriefing Note
GRAPHIC CHARTS AND TABLES
The Prespa Lakes Basin
14
The Prespa Lakes basin Protected Areas
19
List of International Law Agreements Relevant for the Prespa
21
Lakes Basin--Status of signatories and ratifications
Relevant Community Acquis Instruments
25
List of PPCC Meetings
41
Matrix of Management Objectives and IUCN Protected
91
Area Management Categories
5
ACRONYMS
The acronyms used in this Report have the meanings as indicated bellow.
BWT
Boundary Waters Treaty
DRPC
Danube River Protection Convention
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EU
European Union
FASRB
Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin
GEF
Global Environmental Facility
GEF PD
Global Environmental Facility Project Document
GLWQA
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
IBF
Internationaler Bodenseefischereiverband [International
Fishermen's Association of the Lake Constance]
IBK
International Bodensee Conference
IBKF
Internationale Bevollmächtigtenkonferenz für die
Bodenseefischerei [International Conference of
Deputies for Fishery in the Lake Constance]
ICPBS
International Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea
ICPDR
International Commission for the Protection of the
Danube River
ICSRB
International Commission for the Sava River Basin
IGKB
International Commission for the Protection of the
Lake Constance
IJC
Great Lakes International Joint Commission
IPPC
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
ITA
International Transboundary Advisor
KfW
Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
MAP
Macedonian Alliance for Prespa
MedWet
Ramsar Convention Mediterranean Wetland Initiative
MFA
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MoU
Memorandum of Understanding
NATO
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
PPCCOA
PPCC Operative Arrangements
OSCE
Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe
PD
Project Document
PDF B
UNDP Project Document File B
PM(s)
Prime Minister(s)
PPCC
Prespa Protection Coordination Committee
PPNEA
Protection and Preservation of the Natural
Environment in Albania
PTC
Process of Trilateral Consultation
RCLACCI
Rapid Comparative Legal Assessment of Cross-Cutting Issues
REC
Regional Environmental Centre for South Eastern
Europe
ROP
Revised Rules of Procedure [ICPDR context]
SAA(s)
Stabilisation and Association Agreement(s)
6
SAP
Strategic Action Plan for the Sustainable
Development of the Prespa Park
SEA
Strategic Environmental Assessment
SPP
Greek Society for the Protection of Prespa
TAR
Technical Assessment Report
ToR
Terms of Reference
PPCCToR&OA
Terms of Reference and Operational Arrangements
of the PPCC
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNDP
United Nations Development Program Project Document
UN ECE
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
WWF
World Wild Fund
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Implementation of the UNDP-GEF Project "Integrated Ecosystem Management
in the Prespa Lakes Basin of Albania, FYR of Macedonia and Greece" has
began in 2007, after several years of preparation, in a regional environment
described as differences in capacity, commitment and national policy across
borders, which are strong constraints, in addition to questions of national
sovereignty and policies, barriers to free trade, unsustainable productive
activities, political instability etc. However, the entire region hosts unique
habitats and species, important from both a European and global conservation
perspective, which make the ecosystem of Prespa Lakes being considered as
one of the Europe's major transboundary "ecological bricks".
The Project aims to mainstream ecosystem management objectives and
priorities into productive sector practices and policies. It is designed to
strengthen capacity for restoring ecosystem health and conserving biodiversity
first at national level in Albania and FYR of Macedonian Prespa by piloting
ecosystem-oriented approaches to spatial planning, water use management,
agriculture, forest and fishery management, and conservation and protected
areas management. The third littoral State, Greece, which is the member of EU
Community, is not a direct beneficiary of the GEF funding but actively
participates through parallel financing.
The Project also aims to strengthen on-going transboundary co-operation in the
resource managements and conservation, by empowering the existing
transboundary institution Prespa Park Co-ordination Committee, which was
formed pursuant to the Declaration on Protection and Sustainable Development
of the Prespa Lakes and their Surroundings signed by the prime Ministers of the
three littoral States, 2 February 2000.
"Assessment of the Role of the Prespa Park Co-ordination Committee" is a
project task the purpose of which is to provide the review of existing practices
and challenges in trans-boundary ecosystem management and water
governance in the Prespa Lakes Basin. The emphases was expected to be
placed on an assessment of the mostly informal operations of the Prespa Park
Co-ordination Committee over the past six years and the recommendation of
options for the appropriate legal and institutional arrangements for formal and
effective transboundary ecosystem management, water governance and
sustainable development in the Prespa Lakes Basin. Based on the findings of
the assessment, the task comprises formulation of concrete recommendations
and a detailed plan outlining next steps for the institutional maturation of the
PPCC and its future role. The ToR consists of a number of more detailed
requirements, which finally include presentation of the findings of the
assessment at an identified stakeholder workshop for comments and feedback.
Following the accepted Assessment Methodology, a research into the all
relevant issues was undertaken, including a 12-day mission in the three Prespa
Lakes Basin States, with the aim of meeting representatives of various involved
8
authorities and bodies, as well as NGOs interested in the Prespa Lakes co-
operative process, and a short travel to Vienna aimed at participation on the
meeting in the ICPDR, organized for the representatives of the three States,
PPCC Members and Members of the PPCC Secretariat.
As the result, the Technical Assessment Report (TAR) was prepared, consisting
of eight Chapters and 4 Annexes (containing explanatory material relevant to
management of protected area in the Prespa region and this assessment),
Bibliography and List of Acronyms are added.
An Introduction is contained in the Chapter I, with a brief description of Nature
of the Prespa Lakes Basin and history of management efforts, as well as the
ToR and Assessment Methodology. The Chapter II contains a short review of
the mission scope, contents the concise listing of findings--the results of talks.
The Chapter III consists of a review of international and national policy and law
aspects, relevant for the Prespa Lakes Basin. The review is aimed at
highlighting the broader global and UN ECE framework requirements, and
requirements of the Community acquis, and interdependence of national policy
and law systems on those developments.
The Chapter IV contains a legal analysis of trilateral context of the Prespa
Lakes Basin co-operation. The legal nature of the Prespa Park Declaration was
examined, and notes on local level trilateral co-operation were given. The
conclusions based on those findings indicate the policy character of
Declaration, and lack of stronger commitment that would lead to acceptance of
binding regular duties (firstly of the financial character) of the three States. In
the same time, indication was made on significant positive consequences in
trilateral co-operation based on the Declaration, in spite of lack of a firm legal
ground.
The Chapter V deals with description and history of the Prespa Park
Committee, its composition, responsibilities, operational aspects, and
Secretariat, its work and most remarkable results, its legal nature (profile),
relevant financial issues and finally arrives at several conclusions. It points out
the legal character of Tirana International Working Meeting itself and
conclusions adopted there, the legal effects of those conclusions (which
basically are only authoritative recommendations) on the Prespa Lakes littoral
States, and, in that context, the legal and real effects of the PPCC conclusions.
The Chapter VI contains brief reviews of the four successful cases of
international legal regimes established in regards of shared water resources.
Those are Danube River Protection Convention, the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, The Lake Constance treaties, and the Framework Agreement on
the River Sava Basin. The criteria for choosing these four international cases
were their functionality (including financial sustainability) and time duration. All
of them have elements that could be elaborated and examined (in parallel with
other relevant material) for the needs of the future tripartite Prespa Lakes Basin
agreement.
9
The Chapter VII contains some considerations on the Draft Trilateral Agreement
i.e. notes on its legal status, a brief review of its contents and several notes
instead of conclusions. Detailed examination of the text was not done due to its
complexity. The text should be used during official trilateral consultations,
together with other relevant materials.
The Chapter VIII contains recommended activities, order of steps and time
frame. Instead of recommending a ready made solution that would bring
institutional and financial sustainability, the TAR suggests a process of official
consultation (expert level work) of the three Prespa Lakes Basin States to be
established that would lead to development of a text of trilateral agreement in
regards of the Prespa Lakes Basin, and all legal and financial documents
necessary for establishment and beginning of work of a Prespa Management
Committee, agreed on in such an agreement. Additionally, several research and
administrative activities are proposed to be undertaken with aim of providing
various details in regards of national legal systems of the three States, expected
to be needed for the consultation work, and supporting the Prespa process itself
at the international stage. A graphic chart with detailed time frame, spanning a
period of 36 months was attached.
10
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
Brief on Nature of the Prespa Lakes Basin
The Prespa region, situated in the Balkan Peninsula and encompassing parts of
Albania, FYR of Macedonia and Greece, is a high altitude basin that includes the
interlinked Macro Prespa and Micro Prespa Lakes and their surrounding
mountains. It is considered to be an ecosystem of global significance and has been
identified as one of Europe's 24 major trans-boundary "ecological bricks". The
entire Prespa region hosts unique biotopes that are important from both a
European and global conservation perspective. The lakes and wetlands are
important over wintering, breeding and feeding sites for numerous species of birds.
The flora is composed of over 1,500 species, of which 19 are endemic. The aquatic
ecosystems are also rich in endemic species and the avifauna is highly diverse,
and includes the world's largest breeding colony of the globally vulnerable
Dalmatian pelican and the endangered Pygmy cormorant. The lake area also hosts
mammals, such as bear, wolf and lynx that are endangered in Europe. In addition,
the lake region is considered to be of great cultural and historical importance.1
The unique values of this ecosystem, however, are being progressively eroded
because of either changes in or intensification of specific human activities including
unsustainable patterns of exploitation of natural resources, and inappropriate land-
use practices that result in progressive soil and water contamination, loss of forest
cover, erosion and wildlife loss. Prolonged drought and tectonic activity over the
past two decades have also contributed to a several meter decrease in the water
level in the lakes. Since the Prespa Lakes region extends across national
boundaries, it is also subject to different, uncoordinated and even conflicting
management regimes and policies, which further exacerbate the threats to the
ecosystem as a whole, and make unilateral and piecemeal response measures
ineffective.2
2.
History of Management Efforts
Thus, the development and implementation of a regional, integrated approach to
the region's conservation and management is of paramount importance. The
Governments of the three Prespa Lakes littoral States have recognized the
importance of conserving the region's biodiversity through setting up a number of
legal regimes establishing of the five protected areas3, i.e.:
· In Albania, the Prespa National Park4 was established in 1999, for rehabilitation
and sustainable protection of critical terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of
Macro and Micro Prespa Lakes area;
1 Taken over from: Terms of Reference Prespa Park Co-ordination Committee, REPORT OF
THE SECOND EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE PRESPA PARK CO-ORDINATION
COMMITTEE, Annex II. Web site: http://www.medwet.org/prespa/park/PPCCextraordinary2.pdf.
Last visited 28.10.2007.
2 Ibid.
3 The data taken over from: REPORT OF THE SECOND EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF
THE PRESPA PARK CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE, Annex I. Also can be found on the web
site http://www.medwet.org/prespa/basin/areas.html.
4 National Park is the IUCN Category II protected area, managed mainly for ecosystem
protection and recreation. It is a natural area of land and/or sea designated to:
a) Protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for present and future generations;
11
· In Greece, the Prespa National Forest (in accordance with national forestry
legislation) was designated in1974 for protection of Micro and Macro Prespa
lakes and their catchment area. In 1975, the same area was declared a
"landscape of exceptional beauty"5. Micro Prespa was declared a Ramsar Site6
in 1974 and, recently, Greece applied for the recognition of the Macro Prespa
as a designated Ramsar site.
The Greek side of the Prespa wetland system is a special Protection Area
(SPA), under the EEC Birds Directive7. The entire Prespa Lakes and their
catchment area have been included in the Greek National List of the NATURA
2000 protected sites network, in accordance with EEC Directive on protection
of fauna, flora and their habitats8 and the EEC Birds Directive.
· In FYR of Macedonia, the Pelister National Park was established in 1948, and
Galicica National Park in 1958. Bird Sanctuary Ezerani9 was declared Ramsar
Site in 1996, and Strict Nature Reserve10 and Macro Prespa was declared, in
accordance with national legislation, a Natural Monument11 in 1977.
More on the nature of the proclaimed regimes in the context of IUCN concept of
Protected Area Management Categories, i.e. on the concept origin, on the
management objectives, relevant issues, and description of the IUCN Categories
relevant at the moment for the Prespa Lakes Basin, can be found in the ANNEX I to
this Report. Those data are presented in this Report because of their significance
for determination of scope of competence and tasks of national and international
authorities and bodies responsible for compliance with accepted/adopted
b) Exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area; and
c) Provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities,
all of whom must be environmentally and culturally compatible. See at web site:
http://www2.wcmc.org.uk/protected_areas/data/sample/iucn_cat.htm. Last visited 28.10.2007.
5 Under the IUCN Category V protected landscape/seascape is protected area managed mainly
for landscape/seascape conservation or recreation. It is area of land with coast or sea as
appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of
distinct character with significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural value, and often with high
biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the
protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area. Id.
6 According to Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Ramsar Convention, each Contracting party has
right to designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in a List of Wetlands of
International Importance, maintained by the Ramsar Bureau. According to Paragraph 2,
wetlands shall be selected for the List on account of their international significance in terms of
ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology. In the first instance wetlands of international
importance to waterfowl at any season should be included.
7 Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.
8 Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural Habitats and wild Fauna
and Flora.
9 Bordering northern section of the Macro Prespa Lake, and aimed at protection of migratory
waterfowl and other water bird species.
10 Strict nature reserve/wilderness protection area under the IUCN Category Ia, managed
mainly for science or wilderness protection, is an area of land and/or sea possessing some
outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species,
available primary for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring.
11 Natural monument under the IUCN Category III is a protected area managed mainly for
conservation of special natural features. It is area containing specific natural or natural/cultural
feature(s) of outstanding or unique value because of their inherent rarity, representativness or
aesthetic qualities or cultural significance.
12
international and national legislation in conformity which the protected areas are
declared with.
Commitment to development of a tripartite co-operative approach to the
management of the Prespa Lakes Basin the Prespa Lakes littoral States expressed
through the Prime Ministers' Declaration on the Creation of the Trans-boundary
Prespa Park and the Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development of the
Prespa Lakes and their Surroundings, signed at Aghios Germanos on 2 February
2000. Pursuing such commitment, on the invitation of the Secretary General of the
Ramsar Convention12 delegations from the three Prespa Lakes Basin States,
composed of representatives of environmental authorities and other public
services, as well as NGOs and several international organizations, met at the
International Working Meeting in Tirana on 16--17 October 2000 concluded the
Prespa Coordination Committee for the Prespa Park (PPCC) to be established.13
The PPCC was created as a "provisional" body composed of members
representing national environmental authorities, local communities and NGOs from
the three countries with the voting right and one "ex officio" observer,
representative of the MedWet, without voting right (10 members in total). According
to the position taken by the participants of the Tirana meeting, this "provisional"
body was designed to operate for the period 2000--2002. Its official establishment
was seen to be carried out through a joint document (formal agreement) signed at
the ministerial level, after evaluation of the work of the PPCC at the end of 2002.14
UNDP-GEF Project "Integrated Ecosystem Management in the Prespa Lakes Basin
of Albania, FYR of Macedonia and Greece" was developed with intention to
catalyze the adoption and implementation of ecosystem management interventions
in the Prespa Lakes Basin shared between the three States, that would integrate
ecological, economic and social goals with the aim of conserving globally significant
biodiversity and conserving and reducing pollution of the transboundary lakes and
their contributing waters.15 The Assessment of the PPCC in Transboundary
Ecosystem Management, which this report is dealing with, is a Project task the
realization of which falls at the beginning of the Project implementation.
3.
Terms of Reference
This Report is the expected output based on the findings of research activities
carried out in accordance with the ToR, attached in the ANNEX II to the Report.
4.
Methodology
The methodology applied for fulfilling the tasks designed in the ToR, comprised:
· Detailed planning of all expected activities, including making of an analytical
review of the project task and expected results;
12 UN Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat,
signed at Ramsar, 2 February 1971.
13 See Conclusions 1-5.
14 Appendix I to the Conclusions of the International Working Meeting. For more details on
further developments in trilateral co-operation in regards of Prespa Lakes Basin and various
aspects of the PPCC and its operations see infra Chapter V.
15 UNDP Full Size Project Document, Brief Description.
13
· Collection of relevant national documentation;
· Identification of applicable international policy and legal regimes;
· Analysis and systematization of collected material;
· A field mission in all three Prespa Lakes littoral States in order to meet
representatives, members, staff and experts of authorities, bodies and
organizations involved/interested in the Prespa process;
· A one-day travel to Vienna with the aim of participation in visit and talks with
representatives of the ICPDR, together with the PPCC Members, Members
of the PPCC Secretariat and representatives of environmental authorities of
the three Prespa Lakes littoral States;
· Preparing plan (contents) of Technical Assessment Report (TAR);
· Preparing Draft of (this) TAR;
· Presentation of TAR at a workshop open to the widest circle of stakeholders;
· Preparing and delivery the Final TAR on the basis of Draft TAR and
feedback of involved organizations and experts.
Detailed Assessment Methodology has been given in the ANNEX III to this
Report.
The Prespa Lakes Basin*
* Source: O. Avramoski: ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PRACTICES IN
ECOSYSTEM APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAHEMNT IN THE REGION OF
OHRID AND PRESPA LAKES, p. 72.
14
II.
MISSIONS SCOPE, CONTENTS AND FINDINGS
According to the ToR, a mission was designed with the aim of collecting
information on sources relevant for this project and on current views on the
Prespa process that would indicate commitment in the three States to further
development of the Prespa process and establishment of a trilateral sustainable
institutional arrangement, based in international law, with a secretariat regularly
funded by the budgets of all three Prespa Lakes littoral States. UNDP Home
based FYR of Macedonia planned the mission, organized meetings and
provided all needed logistic support. The mission was realized smoothly,
without delays and almost fully in accordance with plan, in the period 15--26
October 2007. What only were missing from the list of activities were meetings
with the representatives of MFAs of Greece and FYR of Macedonia. In a tight
time schedule it was not possible to arrange such meetings, despite repeated
attempts of the hosts. Additionally, a three-days mission to Vienna was
organized and undertaken 5--7 November, with aim of participate at the
meeting of the Governmental representatives, PPCC and NGOs with the
ICPDR officials.
The mission in three countries comprised travels, meetings and discussions.
The mission had began from Resen (FYR of Macedonia), continued in Aghios
Germanos, Municipality of Prespa and Athens (Greece), Tirana, Korca and
Municipality of Liqenes (Albania), Resen, Skopje and again Resen (FYR of
Macedonia) where it was finished.
During the mission, numerous meeting were held with:
· UNDP and Project personnel;
· WWF Greece and Ramsar Med/Wet representatives and experts;
· Representatives, members, staff and experts of national environmental and
water authorities;
· Representatives of the IPA Unit of the Ministry for Integration and MFA
Albania;
· Regional authorities, bodies and organizations competent for various
aspects of the Prespa Lakes Basin;
· Mayors of the three Prespa Lakes Municipalities (Liqenes, Prespa and
Resen);
· Representatives of national NGOs involved in the Prespa Process (SPP,
P.P.N.E.A);
· Representatives of local NGOs active in the Prespa area and their coalition
in FYR of Macedonia;
· Representatives of business interests;
· PPCC Members and members of its Secretariat.
More details on the mission and activities that follow are contained in the
Debriefing Note and List of Participants in Talks during the Mission, attached to
this report in ANNEX IV.
Various information and documents collected during the mission were used for
writing of this Report. The facts noted are presented elsewhere in the Report
15
and there is no need for reporting here in detail on each of talks. Yet, a brief list
of specific details from the meetings and talks during the mission, concerning
views on and observations of some aspects of on-going cooperative trilateral
Prespa process and future set-up are worth to be given here. They indicate
differences and similarities in views expressed during the talks. Follows a
condensed and non-exhaustive review of opinions, observations, and
proposals:
· Cooperation between three States in regards of Prespa is possible at the
technical level. There is green light for funding programs by Greek
Government, but there are difficulties with legal technicalities. So such
funding had been provided through the NGOs. That solution is not negative,
but better one should be found.
· In search for such solution, political issues should be isolated from
environmental ones. The opinion was expressed that it is still premature for
legally binding agreement between the three Prespa States, But, it was
noted that there are no criteria of such maturity. In any case, no proposal
should be put without previously provided political support. Possible legal
options/arrangements should be explored;
· It is pointed out that entire trilateral co-operation is going through the
national environmental authorities. But those authorities need a proper legal
basis for work. The work on co-operation should be better organized, and
based on an instrument legally stronger than the PMs Declaration;
· The Prespa process co-operation has by now been driven by NGOs,
because of lack of commitment of the Governments and lack of leadership.
All questions and dilemmas should be put at the table clearly. There is need
for new and strengthened mandate. Now is time to put proposal(s) that could
not be avoided;
· Continuation of the Prespa process should be carried on through renewal of
political support. In case of consultations, the consultation process should be
defined;
· A process of (technical) consultations could be initiated and lobbying in
favour of such process would help;
· The basic problem in the Prespa region is political; social-economic
problems come after that. Solution of political problems will bring economic
and social revival into the region;
· Additionally, it was expressed expectation that political obstacles for full
transboundary cooperation shall be lifted soon, what could provide
spectacular results;
· National Parks have been included into the PPCC activities as observers.
National Parks in FYR of Macedonia and Albania have good cooperation
that is developing in a good direction. Such cooperation between FYR of
Macedonia and Greece is conditioned by opening a cross border point and
ease of visa regime.
· The on-going is preparation of drafting and signing a trilateral Protocol on
Collaboration of the Municipalities from three States, adjacent to Prespa
lakes (i.e. Liqenes, Prespa and Resen). This has been considered as having
a (strong) symbolic political significance;
16
· The transboundary cooperation in the Prespa region is affected by the
existing visa regime;
· There is need for opening a new border cross between Greece and FYR of
Macedonia in Markova Noga;
· The Euro Region comprising Prespa area (inter alia, in FYR of Macedonia
the Prespa area and Municipalities of Bitola, Prilep and Ohrid) has facing
functional difficulties. The cause has been seen as coming from the fact that
the Euro Region does not have its own institutional structure, but has been
run through the national authorities;
· The EU integrations have been seen as very important for the Prespa
region, and ways are looking for joint (transbondary local level) programs
that could be funded by EU;
· A tripartite agreement on Prespa Park area, as the only proper solution, has
been drafted and it should be considered at the informal meeting of three
Ministers competent for environmental protection, which should decide on
action to be taken. It was expressed opinion that Albania could facilitate
such communication;
· There are no legal obstacles for conclusion of a trilateral Prespa Lakes
Basin treaty. The obstacles were supposed to be political only;
· The Draft of Trilateral Prespa Agreement was initiated by the PPCC and
worked out by the MedWet Office;
· A trilateral MoU could be signed between environmental Ministers, which the
three Governments would confirm. Such instrument would be the ground for
requesting international donors support;
· Another idea vas mentioned, i.e. the UNDP to develop a text of draft
trilateral agreement on the Prespa Lakes Basin;
· Further activities (i.e. technical consultations) on drafting the Prespa
agreement and establishment of an international personality for co-
ordination should be financed by the UNDP project;
· Agreement on process of technical consultations should be reached. Such
process should be initiated as soon as possible. It was estimated that the
entire process would last some two and a half years.
*****
· In forthcoming activities regarding conclusion of a (new) Prespa treaty,
facilitating of the process by prominent international organizations (e.g. EC,
CoE, UNECE, OSCE and others) would be acceptable and beneficial;
· Involvement of international organizations into further activities regarding
Prespa process would be welcome;
*****
· The members of the PPCC Secretariat, representing the P.P.N.E.A (AL) and
Coalition of NGOs Resen, have been working without any compensation;
· The problem of PPCC is capacity of personnel. The members of Secretariat
should be paid for their work.
· The Secretariat of the PPCC acting through the NGOs is no more workable
solution. Governments of three States should provide funding regularly;
17
· The Ohrid Lake Secretariat was formed on the request of World Bank, after
finalization of a project funded by World Bank. After completion of the UNDP
project the Prespa Committee should be established with a strong legal
position;
· The PPCC should continue its operations until new institution is set-up;
· For the Prespa Lakes Basin a permanent body should be established. The
case of the Lake Constance should be studied;
*****
· The idea of an international conference having the Prespa process in focus
would be beneficial;
· The possibility for forming an International Prespa Trust Fund should be
investigated;
· Environmental
impact
assessments
and
strategic
environmental
assessments are important for the Prespa Lakes Basin;
· Spatial planning and water management should be incorporated into the
Prespa process;
· The role of Integrated Water Management of the Prespa Lakes Basin should
be recognized and stressed;
*****
· MFA of Albania would be happy to help in developing the treaty on Prespa
Lakes Basin and express wish to be included into the consultation process
on that subject;
· It is pity that Albanian Ministry of Integration was not involved in the Prespa
process. The Ministry would like to be included in further activities, which
shall be supported;
· MFA of the FYR of Macedonia must be included in the forthcoming activities
regarding Prespa Lakes Basin;
*****
· Different stakeholders (NGOs, protected areas, business associations) need
various kind of support in order to be able mutually to connect closer and
participate in the Prespa Lakes management process;
*****
Open talks during the mission on certain legally specific details in regards of
composition of administrative structure of the future trilateral institutional Prespa
Lakes Basin set-up have risen concerns from the NGO sector16 that all the
cooperation process developed by now would collapse if representatives of
NGOs, Municipalities and Protected Areas are not included as members of
future management body (with decision-making power). As a paradigm for
choosing appropriate solution, the Ohrid Lake Agreement was proposed, as
well as current trend of forming stakeholder representative bodies for
management of protected areas in Greece and FYROM.
Detailed discussion on such specific issues at that stage of the assessment was
terminated, with the notes that nobody has ready-available solution for the
16 Namely, concerns were expressed on supposition that a solution is going to be proposed
comprising only States' representatives in the future Prespa coordinative body (with decision-
making power) without having representatives of NGOs and other stakeholders in that decision-
making body, but only as positioned in the decision-making advisory body/bodies,
18
Prespa Lakes Basin management and that nobody can bring solution to any
region from somewhere outside The solution should not be a set-in-advance-
option and must be arrived at through the process which will result in the feeling
of ownership of all participating parties.
The Prespa Lakes Basin Protected Areas **
** Source: O. Avramoski: ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PRACTICES IN
ECOSYSTEM APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAHEMNT IN THE REGION OF
OHRID AND PRESPA LAKES, p. 81.
19
III.
THE PRESPA LAKES BASIN IN INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL
POLICY AND LAW CONTEXT
1.
Introductory Notes
Instruments of international law and policy relevant to various aspects of water
resources and environment could be classified in different ways. For example,
concerning their territorial scope they could be global and regional, multilateral
and bilateral, as river/lake basin or sub-basin related etc. They could be
classified as legally binding (e.g. international treaties, like conventions,
agreements, protocols etc), "soft-law" (representing non-binding, evolving law,
law in development), or policy instruments (expressing commitments of certain
subjects to adopt certain decisions and measures etc.) There is no need for
further elaboration of this, more or less theoretical issues.
It is important to note that nowadays a huge variety of international law and
policy instruments relates to the same natural phenomenon, focusing often on
one or several of its aspects. Compliance (transposition, implementation,
enforcement) with international duties taken over through signing a binding legal
instruments is as a rule split between different national authorities, being
competent for certain issues only (and often having different and conflicting
views). So, an integrative (ideally it would be a holistic) approach, that would
comprise such management dimensions as preservation, protection and use of
natural resources in an area, as well as economic and social development
(what would be comprised by the concept of sustainable development) is a real
challenge for national authorities competent for a shared natural unit (for
instance river/lake basin). Therefore the issue of good governance is under
rising attention whenever transboundary cooperation is at stake.
2.
Global and European Instruments
The Prespa Lakes Basin is not an exemption in that sense. The table attached
bellow shows a list of binding international instruments applicable at the
moment, inter alia on the Prespa Lakes Basin too, with data indicating the
status of the three Prespa Lakes Basin States. It is possible to note that there
are several global multilateral conventions developed under the aegis of UN or
its agencies and several regional multilateral conventions developed in Europe
by CoE and UNECE. Indication on status of the Prespa Lakes Basin States is in
the same time indication on the commitment of the States to sign and ratify the
listed international treaties. Commitment to implement of those treaties is
another and separate issue. Compliance of the State with those treaties should
be seen today but as much as in future in the context of the EU integration
processes. The reason for this is the fact that European Community is the Party
of a number of them, making them a part of the Community Acquis.
It is evident that the list is not exhaustive. It could be broadened. However, it is
not possible to make an exhaustive and comprehensive review of binding
international instruments in the framework of this Assessment. What is more
important is clear pointing out the problem of transposition of all those
instruments into the national law systems and their enforcement.
Implementation of listed global and regional instruments is of the same legal
20
nature for all three countries of the Prespa Lakes Basin. They are equal Parties
to those conventions, and share responsibility with other contracting parties for
achievement of the goals established by those instruments.
It is should be noted that the three littoral States of the Prespa Lakes are not the
parties to all the listed international treaties. The most interesting thing is the
case of the UN Convention on the Law on Non-Navigational Uses of
International Watercourses (New York, 1997) that was signed by the all three
States and yet not ratified. Further, FYR of Macedonia is not the Party of the
Convention on the protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and
International Lakes (Helsinki, 1992), Albania and FYR of Macedonia still did not
ratify the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (Kiev, 2003), and
Greece did not ratify PRTR Protocol (Kiev, 2003). Lack of ratification of those
international treaties the EC is the Party of is a signal that there is not yet
political will of the States to be bound by those international treaties. In spite of
that fact, all three littoral States (the Greece being an EU Member State, and
other two being the SEE States participating in the process of stabilisation and
association with the EU) are in position to implement those international treaties
whether through their duties as Parties of them or through duty to transpose,
implement and enforce Community acquies part of which are in compliance with
those international treaties.
List of International Law Agreements Relevant for the Prespa Lakes Basin
Status of Signatories and Ratification17
Albania
Greece
FYR of Macedonia
Title
Signed
Ratified
Signed
Ratified
Signed
Ratified
GLOBAL INSTRUMENTS
UN Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance,
X
X
X
especially as Waterfowl
1994
1975
1991
Habitat (Ramsar, 1971)
UN Convention on
International Trade in
X
X
X
Endangered Species of Wild
2003
1992
1999
Flora and Fauna (CITES)
(Washington, D.C., 1973)
UN Convention on Migratory
Species and Wild Animals
X
X
X
(Bonn, 1979)
2000
1999
UN Convention on Biological
Diversity (Rio de Janeiro,
X
X
X
1992)
1994
1994
1994
Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety to the Convention on
X
X
X
Biological Diversity (Montreal,
2005
2004
2006
2000)
UN Convention on the Law on
Non-Navigational Uses of
X
X
X
International Watercourses
1997
1997
1997
17 The data shown in this Table were collected from: UNDP, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IN
SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE, and the web sites of listed legal instruments
21
(New York, 1997)
UNESCO Convention
Concerning the Protection of
X
X
X
the World Cultural and Natural
1989
1981
1974
Heritage (Paris, 1972)
COUNCIL OF EUROPE (CoE)
Convention on the
Conservation of European
X
X
X
Wildlife and Natural Habitats
1998
1983
1999
(Bern, 1979)
UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE (UNECE)
Convention on Environmental
Impact Assessment in a
X
X
X
Transboundary Context
1991
1998
1999
(Espoo, 1991)
Convention on the Protection
and Use of Transboundary
X
X
Watercourses and
1994
1996
International Lakes (Helsinki,
1992)
Convention on Access to
Information, Public
X
X
X
Participation in Decision-
2001
2006
1999
making Process and Access to
Justice in Environmental
Matters (Aarhus, 1998)
Protocol on Strategic
Environmental Assessment
X
X
X
(Kiev, 2003)
2005
2003
2003
Protocol on Pollutant Release
and Transfer Registers (Kiev,
X
X
2003)
2003
2003
3.
Community Acquis
In regards of Community acquis, the situation is significantly different. Specific
legal instruments (Directives, Regulations and Decisions) adopted in EU are
making the part of the Community acquis. A non-exhaustive list of the most
important EC legal instruments relevant to the subject matter of this Report is
attached bellow.
It is important to note that the Prespa Park Process, that has began in 2000 as
rooted in certain global legal frameworks (Ramsar Convention and MedWet
Initiative) was parallel to the processes of stabilization and association (SAA) in
Albania and FYR of Macedonia. With development of the SAA, the Prespa
Lakes Basin has become subject to the specific legal regimes developed in EU,
much broader and stronger (than policy commitment contained in the Prespa
lakes declaration) and relying on the consent of the States to be bound by them
(largely through adopting SAAs with EC).
Greece as an EU Member Sate participates with other Member States in
development of Community acquis and shares Community acquis as a part of
its national law system (the EU Directives being transposed into the national
legislative instruments) with other EU Member Sates. That means that Greece
22
has duty of enforcement of legislation containing transposed requirements of
EU, and duty of reporting on enforcement to the European Commission.
Naturally, this is not an abstract duty, but obligation comprising all the
instruments listed bellow. As an indication on the level and pace of Greece
compliance (or commitment to comply in accepted time frame) with the
Community acquis can serve the following case. The Commission of the
European Communities, as a powerful watchdog of the constitutive EU treaties,
submitted in 2007 its first report on the first stage in the implementation of the
Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. Analysis of transposition of the
Community acquis into the national legal system of Greece (EU 15 country) has
revealed that the transposition had been only partially completed, and a "non-
conformity" case was opened in 2005 and application to the Court has been
submitted.18 Greece adopted a Presidential Decree19 aimed at the fulfilment of
duty of transposition, but the assessment still has to be done.20 Today, in the
time of finalization of this Report there is a competent authority in place in
Greece, the river basin districts are designated and Greek part of the Prespa
Lakes Basin is a part of the Water District Western Macedonia.
In case of Albania and FYR of Macedonia, the situation is different. The both
countries are on their ways of accession to EU. Among other things the
accession process comprises transposition of entire Community acquis into
their national law systems. In this case, all the EU Directives relevant to water
river/lake basin and ecosystem management are expected to be transposed
into national legal systems, the new legislation implemented and enforced.
Therefore the structural changes of their law systems are in place. The old
legislation inherited from former socialist times and adopted during times of
evolving democracy must be harmonized with the EU requirements and new
legislation adopted, in a planned (and time-consuming) process.
Among other things, the both States adopted new laws relating to waters aimed
at transposition of the EU acquis.21 Assessment of the level and quality of
transposition of the EU requirements in these (and other relevant laws) is
subject to a specific activity of the authorities of both States and EC. It is not
possible in this Report to give any such kind of assessment. What can be
pointed out is the duty of the EC periodically to assess progress in association
process of both countries and initiate specific activities aimed at transposition of
the acquis, and its implementation and enforcement in the frameworks of
national legal systems.
18 C-426/06..
19 On 8 March 2007.
20 Commission STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying document to the
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL "Towards Sustainable Water management in the European Union", Brussels,
22.03.2007, SEC(2007) 362, p. 10.
21 For example, Albania adopted the LAW No. 9 103, date 10.7.2863 ON THE PROTECTION
OF TWMSBOUNDARY LAKES, and FYR of Macedonia Water Law, ("Official Gazette of the
Republic of Macedonia" No. 4/2008).
23
These integrations processes were addressed by the recent Environmental
Ministerial Conference Environment for Europe"22 Namely, the success of
regional environmental cooperation was seen as based on being deepened and
extended to include inter alia:
· Regional cooperation in the framework of Stabilization and Association
Process;
· Implementation of UN ECE multilateral treaties;
· Biodiversity conservation and ecological network;
· Protection and sustainable development of mountain areas;
· Watershed management such as Sava River Basin Commission;
· Environmental management and investments at the local level;
· Cooperation with other sectors such as agriculture and tourism;
· Stronger and more dynamic coordination of donor assistance;
· Transfer of experiences between the countries in the region and from the
neighbouring EU Member States.23
In such circumstances the new trilateral legal and the Prespa Lakes Basin
institutional set-up for the Prespa Lakes Basin should be developed. All those
details relating to compliance of the three States with their internationally
accepted duties, as well as details (including time-frame) in regards of
transposition of EU requirements and implementation (enforcement) of new
legislation, are important for adequate and proper designation of scope of
competence of future Prespa Lakes Basin institution and as much as possible
exact definition of its role in transboundary cooperation in regards of integrated
ecosystem management of the Prespa Lakes Basin.
Added should be that a detailed review of national authorities competent for
implementation of relevant international treaties and transposition of the
Community acquis, with their specific responsibilities in regards thereof, and
mutual official relations, should be clearly known to official drafters of the text of
trilateral Prespa Management Agreement.24 Representatives of those
authorities should bee invited to participate in development of relevant parts of
the Agreement.
22 Held in Belgrade, September 2007.
23 UNDP, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE, Podgorica, 2007
24 It is the reason that a Rapid Comparative Legal Assessment of Cross Cutting Issues was
proposed to be undertaken at the very beginning of the process of trilateral consultations. See
infra, p. 77. Such approach was the basis for preparation a UNDP study entitled DESCRIPTION
AND ASSESSMENT OF THE MACEDONIAN LEGAL, REGULATORY, AND INSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK, by Andreja Stojkovski in 2004. The structure of investigation and findings is
exactly to what seems now being necessary at disposal of participants of the tripartite
consultation process, if, of course such idea is accepted. The findings relating to FYR of
Macedonia seam now outdated and the findings should be reviewed and up-dated. Additionally
the similar structure study should be prepared for both Albania and Greece, and a joint
comparative report should be prepared. Such study, covering comparatively legal issues of all
three countries, would fill the existing gap of legal analysis, notable in many instances.
24
17.11.2007
THE LIST OF RELEVANT COMMUNITY ACQUIS INSTRUMENTS
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the Conservation of Wild Birds
Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December on the protection of groundwater against
pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in
particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture
Council Directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (91/271/EEC)
amended by the Directive 98/15/EC - (UWWT Directive)
Council Directive of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the
market (91/414/EEC)
Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources (Nitrate Directive)
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitat and of Wild Fauna
and Flora
Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 Concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention
and Control
Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the major-accidents involving dangerous
substances (Seveso Directive)
Council Regulation (EC) 3897 of 9 December 1996 on the Protection of Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora by Regulating Trade Therein
Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 Amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and private Projects on the Environment
Directive98/8/Ec of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998
concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market
Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a
Framework for the Community Action in the Field of Water Policy
Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the
Assessment of the Effects of certain Plans and Programs on the Environment
Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 Providing
for Public participation in respect of the Drawing up of certain Plans and Programs and
Amending with regard to Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters
Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on
Public Access to Environmental Information and Repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC
Commission Decision of 17 August 2005 on the establishment of a register of sites to form the
intercalibration network in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council (C(2005) 3140) (2005/646/EC)
Directive 2006/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006
concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing Directive 76/160/EEC
(Bathing Water Directive)
Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on
pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into aquatic environment of the
Community (repeals Directive 76/464/EEC and partially 91/692/EEC i 2000/60/EC)
Directive 2006/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on
the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life
Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December 2006 on
the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration
Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007
establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information System in the European Community
(INSPIRE)
4.
Mediterranean Wetland Initiative (MedWet)
Mediterranean Wetland Initiative was founded in 1991 to encourage
international collaboration among Mediterranean countries, specialized centres
and international NGOs in protecting wetlands. It is governed by the Conference
25
of the Contracting Parties of the Ramsar Convention, which meets once a three
years to review the work carried out by and approve a programme of fork and
budget for the next triennium. The MedWet Committee is composed of 25
Mediterranean countries, Palestinian Authority, The European Commission,
intergovernmental organisations and international conventions and non-
governmental organizations and five wetland centres. The Committee meets
once a one and a half year to review progress in the work undertaken and
advise the Ramsar Convention bodies on issues related to the Mediterranean
wetlands and the work of MedWet.
The MedWet is a forum where its members meet as equal to discuss, identify
key issues and take positive action to protect wetlands, for man and
biodiversity. It is a source of information and knowledge. MedWet helps
Mediterranean countries to evaluate economic, social and biodiversity values of
wetlands, provide technical tools and ensure good management of wetlands. In
2002 MedWet became formally recognized initiative under the Ramsar
Convention. On the 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to
the Ramsar Convention25 the "Guidance to the Development of Regional
Initiatives in the Framework of the Ramsar Convention" was adopted. The
overall aim of the regional initiatives has been defined in this Guidelines as
promotion of the Ramsar Convention in general and implementation of the
Ramsar Strategic Plan in particular, through regional and sub-regional co-
operation on wetland-related issues of common concern.
Further, regional and sub-regional initiatives were envisaged as be based on a
bottom-up approach, entailing from the beginning not only participation of
administrative authorities, but also other relevant stakeholders. Such initiative
was also seen as basing its operations upon strong scientific and technical
backing and on the network of collaboration established upon clearly defined
terms of reference and seeking collaboration with other intergovernmental or
international partners. In this document, a regional initiative was directed to
require both political and financial support from the Contracting Parties of the
Ramsar Convention, and other partners in the region. Financial support from
the Ramsar Convention's core budget was envisaged to last in principle not
more than three years, and after that period, financial support should be phased
out, with expectation that such regional initiative is able to generate its own
resources and become financially self-sufficient.26
Analyses of legal implications of above concisely cited rules contained in the
Ramsar Guidelines would fall far beyond the scope of this TAR, and moreover
there is no specific need for that. However, noted must be that the legal side of
proposed regional and sub-regional initiatives (i.e. legal and institutional aspects
of such co-operation) remained in the Guidelines completely out of perception.
Between political commitments, which are naturally unavoidable in interstate co-
operation, and sustainable funding of a transboundary institutional
arrangements and activities, without which there would be no co-operation at
25 Held in Valencia, Spain, 18--26 November 2002.
26 Ramsar Contracting Parties 8th Meeting (COP8), Resolution VIII, Annex I, p. 3.
26
all, a reliable legal framework should be adopted, without which the gap
between certain political will and desired sustainable results cannot be bridged
over. The case of Prespa Lakes Initiative clearly proves this.
5.
Other Relevant International Initiatives
Besides the MedWet Initiative, other European initiatives aimed ultimately at
halting biodiversity loss should be mentioned here, as relevant to the Prespa
Lakes Basin. All three Prespa Lakes Basin States have been participating in
those initiatives and on-going activities, expressing their commitment to achieve
goals jointly designated with other participating countries.
The Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN) is "a non-binding conceptual
framework which aims to enhance ecological connectivity across Europe, by
promoting synergies between nature policies, land-use planning and rural and
urban development at all scales".27 Following was the Resolution on Biodiversity
adopted at Kiev by the environment ministers in 2003, which committed them to
identifying the core areas, corridors and buffer zones of the PEEN, by 2006 and
put such areas and zones under favourable management conditions by 2008.
The core areas have been formally designated as protected areas (e.g. Ramsar
sites, World Heritage sites, Biosphere reserves, Natura 2000 sites, etc). A
Guideline was developed for designation and development of the Pan-
European Network28.29
The Natura 2000 is a network consisting of Special Protection Areas under the
Birds Directive and Special Conservation Areas under the Habitat Directive. An
European Commission Communication calls for Member States of the EU to
"reinforce the coherence and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network. It also
highlights the need to restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in non-stop
protected rural areas of the EU. Compliance with those objectives is the key to
the implementation of the PEEN within the EU".30
The CoE Emerald network initiative (1999) has been seen as a very successful
for the EU-12 countries in preparing their contribution to the Natura 2000
network before accession. The initiative has been developed under the Bern
Convention, aimed to extend a common approach to the designation and
management of protected areas, equivalent to Natura 2000, to non-EU
countries in Europe and countries in Northern Africa.31
27 CoE: 3rd International symposium of the Pan-European Ecological Network Fragmentation
of Habitats and Ecological Corridors Proceedings; Riga, October 2002; Environmental
Encounters No. 54, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2000.
28 General Guidelines for the Development of the Pan-European Ecological Network; Nature
and Environment Series, No. 107, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2000.
29 EEA: EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT--THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT, Copenhagen, 2007, pp.
186--187.
30 Op. cit. pp.190--192.
31 Op. cit. pp.190--192.
27
IV.
TRILATERAL CONTEXT
1.
Prespa Park Declaration
1.1
Event
The celebration of the World Wetland Day, 2 February 2000, on the occasion of
29th anniversary of the signing of the Ramsar Convention, was the event when
the Prime Ministers of the three States Contracting Parties to the Convention,
i.e. of Albania, Greece and FYR of Macedonia, had met in Aghios Germanos,
Greece, to sign the Declaration on creation of the Prespa Park32. The Prespa,
an area which was said as being "beyond its pure environmental importance
[...] a meeting point between three countries and a crossroads of cultural
exchanges"33, was for a moment in world focus, the place where indication of
"necessity to create a `planetary patriotism'" was expressed, with full awareness
that survival of natural environment should be a subject of elaboration of the
highest national authorities34.
The event, which was considered a part of "the all-round process of
reconstruction of South-Eastern Europe [...]" offering "the right opportunity to
integrate our environmental concerns in such sectors as economic development
and infrastructure"35, marked the beginning of a trilateral process requiring
"political commitment, significant investment and a lot of work in research,
innovative development projects and training."36 With signing the Declaration,
the PMs committed themselves to "join forces across the borders of their
sovereign nations to establish a protected area that should provide great
benefits for the local people and at the same time should contribute to
conserving biodiversity of the planet".37
1.2
Content
The Declaration consists of six Paragraphs, expressing agreement, recognition,
awareness, decision to declare and commitment for enhancing cooperation, of
the Prime Ministers of the three Prespa Lakes littoral States.
The PMs agreed that the Prespa Lakes and their surrounding catchments have
significant international importance due to uniqueness of their:
· Geomorphology;
· Ecological wealth; and
· Biodiversity.
32 Declaration on the Creation of the Prespa Park and the Environmental Protection and
Sustainable Development of the Prespa Lakes and their Surroundings.
33 Address at World Wetland Day ceremonies by H.E. Mr Costas Simitis, PM of Greece. See
web site: http://www.ramsar.org/wwd/0/wwd2000_rpt_prespa2.htm. Site last visited 04.12.2006.
34 Address at World Wetland Day ceremonies by H.E. Mr Ljupco Georgievski, PM of FYR of
Macedonia. Id.
35 Address at World Wetland Day ceremonies by H.E. Mr Ilir Meta, PM of Albania. Id.
36 Mr Delmar Blasco, Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention.
37 Id.
28
Besides, the Prespa Lakes and their surroundings:
· Provide habitat for various and rare species of flora and fauna;
· Offer refuge for the migratory bird populations;
· Constitute a much needed nesting place for many species of birds
threatened with extinction.38
The Declaration recognized that conservation and protection of the ecosystem
of such importance, not only renders a service to Nature, but also:
· Creates opportunities for the economic development of adjacent areas in
littoral countries;
· Proves compatibility of traditional activities and knowledge with conservation
of nature.39
The Declaration expressed awareness of large dependences of conservation of
Nature and sustainable development on respecting of governments and people
of international legal instruments aimed at protection of natural environment. In
that regard, international collaboration has been seen as complementing
national efforts.40
The Declaration recognized the value and importance of work of NGOs,
apparently pointing out the work of the Greek Society for the Protection of
Prespa as an outstanding example of a pioneer approach to wetland
management, which was honoured in 1999 with the Ramsar Convention Award.
In the same context the benefit of public awareness for achieving the goals of
the nature protection and sustainable development was underlined.41
Having in mind the contents of the first four Paragraphs, PMs decided to
declare, in the context of the WWF Living Planet Campaign, the "Prespa Park"
as the first transboundary area in South-eastern Europe, which shall consist of
respective areas around the Prespa Lakes in the three countries declared a
Ramsar Protected Site.42
In the final part of Declaration, the commitment to enhanced co-operation with
regard to environmental matters between competent authorities of the three
countries was declared. This commitment was expressed with the words "joint
actions would be considered [...]". The content of envisaged considerations has
been designed as to:
38 Prespa Park Declaration, first Paragraph.
39 Op. cit, Second Paragraph.
40 Op. cit, Third Paragraph.
41 Op. cit, Fourth Paragraph.
42 Op. cit, Fifth Paragraph
29
· "Maintain and protect unique ecological values of the "Prespa Park";
· Prevent and/or reverse the causes of its habitat degradation;
· Explore appropriate management methods for the sustainable use of the
Prespa Lakes water; and
· Spare no efforts so that the "Prespa Pak" become and remain a model of its
kind as well as an additional reference to the peaceful collaboration among
our countries".43
1.3
Notes on Legal Nature
From the formal legal standpoint, the Declaration is a trilateral document:
· Signed by the PMs (neither on behalf of the three States nor on behalf of the
Governments of the three States)44;
· Not ratified in any form by respective national authorities;
· Having no legislative status neither in international law nor in the three
States.
In that sense, the Declaration is a (more political than) policy document, agreed
on a very high authoritative level. That fact might explain the remarkable
positive impact on development and results of trilateral co-operation in the
following years.
From the material legal standpoint, several details deserve more analytical
attention here. One such detail is commitment of the PMs that, in the text of
Declaration, comprises only "consideration" of joint actions. No commitment to
take over obligations, or undertaking of certain actions/activities was agreed on.
The same is true for adoption of national legislation45, which would transpose
this political document into the legal obligation of the States, or for regular
funding from the State budgets of enhanced activities of transboundary co-
operation.
The "Prespa Park" is only a symbolic "transboundary park"46. There is no such
legal concept as "Transboundary Park" in international law or in national law
systems of the three littoral States. An attempt to give some legal content to the
notion of "Prespa Park" was made in Declaration through determination that
area would comprise "Ramsar Protected Sites". Connected to this, two further
notes should be made. First, such determination of geographical scope of the
"Prespa Park" seems insufficient to cover all existing protected areas in the
three Prespa littoral States47. Second, such determination is far too narrow in
43 Op. cit, Sixth Paragraph.
44 Cf., for example, the title of the Ohrid Lake treaty, i.e.: AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA AND THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
OF THE REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA FOR THE PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT OF LAKE OHRID AND ITS WATERSHED (Skopje, 17.06.2004).
45 For an example of particularly strong national commitment (not directly relating to the Prespa
process only) see infra pp. 75--76.
46 UNDP-GEF Project Document "Integrated Ecosystem management in the Prespa Lakes
Basin of Albania, FYR of Macedonia and Greece". See Brief Description.
47 See supra, pp. 11--12.
30
comparison with the Prespa Lakes Basin, which obviously is a natural entirety
having such precious features worth to be preserved and protected, as
described in the Declaration48. The Prespa Lakes Basin approach to
management of this transboundary area was missing from the perception
here49, and that fact should be taken care of and the approach should be
corrected in development of future Prespa Lakes institutional set-up.
No specific institutional arrangement for implementation of the Declaration in
any form was envisaged. Only commitment to enhanced co-operation between
respective competent (environmental) authorities was declared. Legally
speaking, that means that the Declaration could not serve as the legal ground
for establishing of a co-ordinative body for its implementation.
Finally, worth noting is that no indication of commitment to any systemic form of
support to transboundary co-operation between various groups of stakeholders
in the Prespa Lakes Basin can be found in Declaration.
All those details contribute to understanding why a document of such legal
profile/nature as the Declaration could not have direct legal consequences. This
can explain the later formal involvement in the Prespa process of the three
Governments at the far lower level than expected on the basis of the very clear
political commitment and support to transboundary co-operation of the PMs.
Finally, from the legal standpoint, the Declaration was not drafted, signed and
ratified in accordance with the rules of international law applicable to the treaties
between States (i.e. instruments of international law intended to be bounding on
the states, on the basis of States' consent to be bound by them) as it is set in
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).50 The procedure in which
the Declaration on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Prespa
Lakes
and
their
Surroundings
has
been
drafted
and
lack
of
consent/commitment of the littoral States to be bound by that instrument, makes
the Prespa Park Declaration a purely political, and not a legal document.
These facts in regards of legal nature of the Declaration were noted and
commented from time to time in different occasions, but without significant
consequences.51
48 See Paragraph 1.
49 The expression used in the Declaration "the Prespa Park Lakes and their surroundings" is not
precise enough to be considered as relating to the Prespa Lakes Basin.
50 The Convention was opened for signing 23.05.1969 and entered into force 27.01.1980.
Albania is the Party to the Convention from 2001, Greece from 1974 and FYR of Macedonia
from 1999.
51 See, for example: Report on the Second Regular Meeting of the PPCC, Summary Minutes, pp
2 and 12; Report on the Fifth Regular Meeting of the PPCC, Summary Minutes, p. 9 and
Conclusion 4, at p. 23, etc.
31
2.
Local Level Co-operation
2.1
Co-operation between Local Municipalities
Building up on the earlier efforts52, in the climate originated from the political will
expressed in the Declaration of PMs53, the on-going are efforts on finalization of
the Protocol on Collaboration which would be signed in 2007 by the Mayors of
the Municipalities of Liqenes (Albania), Prespa (Greece) and Resen (FYR of
Macedonia). Wishing to establish cross border co-operation that would improve
the living conditions of their citizens and preserve the area of Prespa, the
Mayors decided to set common goals of collaboration development of cross
border region.
The text of Draft Protocol available designed these common goals as:
· Protection of unique environmental of Prespa;
· Protection from natural disasters (e.g. floods and fires);
· Protection of natural heritage;
· Development of local human resources;
· Direct road connection of the three municipalities for the tourist and
economic unity of the Prespa area;
· Requiring from respective Governments to create and make functional of
border stations and custom stations in the Prespa region between three
countries; as well as
· Requiring creation of a free trade and transaction zone in the Prespa area.
2.2
Other Examples of Trilateral Cooperation
Besides these attempts of formalization of trilateral co-operation in the Prespa
Lakes Basin, there are examples of transboundary trilateral communications the
aims of which are attempts to coordinate certain activities or implementation of
measures. Such are:
· Regular annual meetings of fishermen stakeholders (for setting of fish
catching seasons);
· Meetings of veterinary authorities and fire fighting services;
· A meeting of the authorities competent for spatial planning (under the PPCC
aegis);
52 The mayors of the Municipality of Prespa (Greece), Commune Liqenas (Albania) and
Municipality of Resen (FYR of Macedonia) had met on a Working Meeting held in the town of
Liqenas 19 July 2003, aimed at establishment of close co-operation between the three
municipalities and their joint support to the Prespa Park process and implementation of
forthcoming UNDP-GEF project "Integrated Ecosystem Management in the Prespa Lakes
Basin". This activity was supported financially by Hellenic Aid (International Development Co-
operation Agency of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and SPP/WWF Greece. Established
connections led to drafting a trilateral Memorandum of Understanding in 2006, which
additionally contained joint position of three Mayors on the necessity of opening the new cross
border points between three countries.
53 Supportive to trilateral co-operation in the Prespa Lakes region, comprised environmental
authorities at all levels, in spite of the open political issues between Greece and FYR of
Macedonia, and civil society and business sector (to the certain level) too.
32
· Contacts between management of protected areas (i.e. national parks);
· Cooperation between NGOs etc.
All these sector / stakeholder examples have been supported through the
cooperative process opened by PMs' Prespa Lakes Declaration, which in return
has been supported by them.
In this context, the broader framework of the Euro Region co-operation (that
seems to be at a much lower level of intensity) should be mentioned too.
3.
Concluding notes
The PMs' Prespa Park Declaration is a political/policy and not a legally binding
instrument. It contains the PMs' agreement on certain commitment expressed in
a rather weak form54. In spite of the fact that the PMs' Prespa Park Declaration
is a policy, and not a legal instrument, it was a necessary recognizable basis for
opening the process of trilateral cooperation, with significant positive
consequences. That process has by now included national environmental
authorities, competent regional authorities and public bodies interested for
trilateral cooperation in the Prespa Lakes Basin, all local authorities of the
Prespa region, NGOs of national and local importance in the three countries, as
well as various groups of stakeholders.
The process of cooperation of all those subjects co-ordinated through the
PPCC55 as an "interim" transboundary body, enabled development and
reaching a kind of consensual support to the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for
Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park56. That document, which is of
utmost importance for the Prespa region at this level of trilateral co-operation,
served as the basic input for definition of the GEF PDG Block B, and ultimately
for the beginning of the now on-going Project "Integrated Ecosystem
Management of the Prespa Lakes Basin". Without such good co-operation
climate and wide commitment to better future of the Prespa region it could
hardly be imagined such strong presence and development support of
international community.
However, "consensual support" to the SAP means here, in the principle, support
of all stakeholder groups involved in its development. Formal adoption of the
Governments of the three States has never happened. Legally speaking, no
one public authority in the Prespa Lakes Basin States has felt duty to receive
the result (SAP) of the project the realization of which was coordinated by the
PPCC and which was funded generously by the Greek Government. In other
words, no one public authority in the three littoral countries was officially
54 Additionally, the Declaration, according to the UNDP-GEF Project Document, was the result
of a "very top-down" initiative in adoption of which the local stakeholders around the lakes basin
initially participated very little. See p. 37 of the Full Size Project Document.
55 For more details on the role and legal character of the PPCC and its achievements, see infra,
pp. 40--43.
56 Greek Government funded the project the result of which the SAP was the planned output.
33
designated as beneficiary of the project, and had no obligation to take any move
directed towards its adoption/approval and practical implementation in the
territories of the littoral States.
34
V.
PRESPA PARK CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE (PPCC)
1.
Description/History
As it was mentioned earlier57, on an International Working Meeting held in
Tirana58, pursuing the commitment to peaceful and friendly co-operation
between the three littoral Prespa Lakes States, expressed in the PMs'
Declaration on the Prespa Park,59 the position was taken that "now the
challenge is to give concrete form" to this commitment. As a first step, and as a
provisional arrangement, proposal was put the three States to establish a
provisional Co-ordination Committee for the Prespa Park. Several conclusions
in that regard were adopted, comprising a summary of the decisions and
recommendations agreed upon by consensus.60
Among others, a decision/recommendation was adopted stating that a co-
ordination committee for the Prespa Park should be established, and the three
Governments were required to nominate the members of such committee as
soon as possible. The structure, mandate, responsibilities and operational
guidelines of the Committee have been agreed on as described in the Appendix
I to the Conclusions. Also it was concluded that the Committee should be
established "with the view to the signing of a formal agreement at ministerial
level at a later stage".61
Initially, this arrangement was designed for the period 2000--2002. At the end
of 2002, it was envisaged the three States to evaluate the work of the
Committee and agree on the necessary changes in its structure, form and
operation, and on longer-term provisions for tripartite collaboration concerning
the Prespa Park. The Committee was requested to start operating as soon its
members are appointed. Its official establishment was seen to be carried out
through a joint document signed at ministerial level.62
2.
Composition
The composition of the ten-member Prespa Park Co-ordination Committee63
was designed so to comprise:
· One representative of the environmental authority64 of each of the three
littoral States;
57 See supra, INTRODUCTION.
58 October 16--17, 2000. The meeting was held under the aegis of the Ramsar Convention and
hosted by the National Environmental Agency of Albania. The invitation for the Meeting was
sent by the Secretary General of Ramsar Convention, and Meeting was attended by the
representatives of interested national environmental and other public services from the three
States, national NGOs and international organizations (i.e. REC, UNDP and WWF).
59 Op. cit., Appendix I, Paragraph 1.
60 See at http://www.ramsar.org/mtg/mtg_prespa_mtg1.htm.
61 See International Working Meeting held in Tirana 16--17 October 2000, Conclusions, 5.
62 Op. cit., Paragraph 2.
63 Henceforth: PPCC.
64 In spite of lack of explicit formulation, it is clear that central national environmental authorities
are meant here.
35
· One representative from the local communities in the Prespa region from
each of the three States, designated by respective [central;-S.B.]
environmental authorities;
· One representative of environmental NGOs from each of the three States,
with significant local activities in the Prespa area, designated by respective
[central;-S.B.] environmental authorities;
· One international observer from the Bureau of Ramsar Convention.
3.
Responsibilities
Additionally to its crucial political, administrative and institutional role, the PPCC
was envisaged as having also a significant role in technical issues. Its main
responsibility, guiding "the course of future measures and activities so as to
realize the objectives of the Prespa Park"65, was structured in the following way:
· Preparation of an inventory of all activities and projects in the Prespa region;
· Monitor and co-ordinate development and implementation of the Strategic
Action Plan for the Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park66;
· Monitor and co-ordinate implementation of specific actions/projects, based
on the SAP;
· Identify and propose to the relevant governments and other interested
parties next steps and necessary actions according to the SAP, including
institutional and legislative measures to reinforce the collaboration of the
three Prespa region States;
· Evaluate the results of on-going actions according to the objectives of the
SAP, and disseminate result widely;
· Inform the governmental authorities on achievements of the Prespa Park
objectives, with the aim of obtaining political consensus and support at the
national level for the implementation of the necessary actions, as well as of
identifying and proposing possible funding sources;
· Ensure that information concerning development plans and other planned
actions, policies and programs with a possible effect on the Prespa Park is
available promptly to all three States;
· Contribute to the mobilization of resources of all three States and
international community, to mitigate negative effects in case of unexpected
events, such as floods, forest fires and other natural and anthropogenic
catastrophes.67
At its First Regular Meeting, the PPCC adopted a document entitled Operating
Arrangement68, which contains a number of rules relevant for work of the
PPCC, inter alia the following ones:
65 As set in the last Paragraph of the Prespa Declaration. International Working Meeting held
in Tirana, Conclusions Appendix I, Paragraphs 6 and 7.
66 Henceforth: SAP.
67 International Working Meeting held in Tirana Conclusions, Appendix I, Paragraph 8.
68 This document [Henceforth: PPCCOA], which was in its nature the first PPCC Terms of
Reference, has been adopted in the form of ANNEXX II to the PPCC Conclusions, attached to
the PPCC Report of the First Regular Meeting, held in Skopje, 30--31 January 2001.
36
· Right of the PPCC to modify Operative Arrangements if and when
necessary;69
· In absence of State [i.e. Ministry responsible for environmental issues;-S.B.]
representative, the meeting shall be chaired by his alternative, or by one of
the other members of the countries delegation;70
· All PPCC members [no matter whose representatives they are;-S.B.],
although being appointed officially by the responsible governmental
authority, shall be considered equal and have the right to express their views
and to vote independently. The official MedWet observer [considered an ex
officio member] does not have right to vote;71
· Each PPCC member have right to designate an alternate person, authorized
to replace him/her in case of inability to attend with full membership rights.72
4.
Operational Aspects Rules
The rules have been set in regards of the PPCC meetings, as follows:
· The PPCC shall meet on the regular basis, twice a year;
· Intermediate meetings at a short notice my also be held if need requires so;
· The place of regular meetings rotate among three countries, in alphabetical
order, starting with Albania;
· Preferably, the meetings should be held in the Prespa region;
· The meeting shall be chaired by the State in which the meeting is held;
· The chair continues discharging his duties until the next meeting;
· The PPCC works in English, but may decide on translation of the key
documents into the three national languages.73
PPCCOA contains in its Part A additional details on PPCC operational aspects,
inter alia the following ones:
· The regular meetings shall be held in Spring and in the Autumn;74
· Extraordinary PPCC meetings can be held either at the request of the
Chairperson or at least at request of four members of the PPCC, to deal with
urgent and unexpected developments;75
· Agenda and working documents for each PPCC meeting shall be prepared
by the Secretariat and agreed by the Chairperson;76
· A Quorum for the PPCC meetings quorum was determined as presence of
at least 7 of 9 regular members. But, in of absence the two PPCC members
from the same country, there would be no quorum;77
69 PPCCOA Introductory Paragraph 3.
70 Op. cit., Paragraph 1.
71 Op. cit., Paragraph 2.
72 Op. cit., Paragraph 3.
73 International Working Meeting held in Tirana Conclusions, Appendix I, Paragraphs 12--15.
74 PPCCOA, Paragraph 5.
75 Op. cit., Paragraph 6.
76 Op. cit., Paragraph 9.
77 Op. cit., Paragraph 10.
37
· The PPCC quorum for decision taking was determined as 2/3 majority of the
votes, if there is no possibility to take a decision unanimously;78
5.
Secretariat
The Appendix I to the Tirana International Working Meeting Conclusions
provided for a small PPCC Secretariat, consisting of technical persons from all
three States, whose aim was "operation" of the PPCC. The Greek Society for
the Protection of Prespa was assigned to provide logistic support of the PPCC
Secretariat.79
The PPCCOA contains in its Part B several additional rules in regards of the
PPCC Secretariat, inter alia the following ones:
· The PPCC shall have right to decide on the number and composition of the
Secretariat staff, that should comprise at least one from each country;80
· At this stage, the Secretariat shall consists of three persons, belonging to
the NGOs having members in the PPCC;81
· Requested qualifications of the Secretariat are designed in the following
way:
-
Educational and professional background appropriate to their tasks;
-
Fluency in English;
-
Reasonable computer skills;
-
Ability to spend at least 50% of his/her working time to work for the
Secretariat;82
· The seat of the Secretariat was determined to be at the premises of the
Greece SPP at Aghios Germanos;83
· The Secretariat shall be responsible for preparation of annual and issue-
related work plans of the PPCC, which have to be approved by the PPCC;84
· Besides preparation of the PPCC plans, the Secretariat shall be working on
all day--to--day issues related to the Prespa Park, as they arise, as well as
in realization of specific tasks defined in its ToR adopted by the PPCC;85
· The PPCC shall guide the work of the Secretariat through its decisions, and
the PPCC Chairperson shall supervise the PPCC;86
· The duty of the Secretariat is to submit to the PPCC a brief report on its
activities since the previous meeting.87
78 Op. cit., Paragraph 11.
79 Paragraph 16.
80 Paragraph 17.
81 Id.
82 Id.
83 Id.
84 Paragraph 18.
85 Paragraph 19.
86 Paragraph 20.
87 Id.
38
At its Second Regular Meeting88, the PPCC adopted the Terms of Reference
and Operational Arrangements89 of the PPCC Secretariat90, additionally to the
earlier rules adopted at Tirana and Skopje meetings. Defined now as a
"technical organ established to serve the [PP;-S.B.] CC"91, Secretariat has also
been declared here "a subsidiary organ" of the PPCC, whose "primary task is to
initiate, support, and facilitate the joint activities in the framework of the trilateral
Prespa Park process".92 Also, the Secretariat has been conferred now with
responsibility for ensuring "the implementation of approved work plans and for
the preparation of relevant progress reports and assessments to be submitted
to the [PP;-S.B.] CC for assessment and approval".93 A number of new specific
tasks were designated to the Secretariat, inter alia the following ones:
· Preparation or provision of assistance with regard to trilateral political and
technical meetings and scientific symposia, held in the framework of the
Prespa Park;94
· Preparation and provision of assistance with regard to consultations on
policy and other relevant matters between stakeholders and with regard to
consultations at the policy-preparing and technical level of the framework of
working groups, expert groups, and especially promotion of the dialogue on
the problems and perspectives of the region at the local level (national and
trilateral);95
· Collection, dissemination and assessment of information, including on
follow-up of joint projects and compilation, evaluation and promotion of
scientific research;96
· Contacting and holding meetings with donors and preparation of project
documents.97
In the PPCCToR&OA Part B Operational Arrangements, additional rules in
regards of the Secretariat were adopted, inter alia as follow:
· Possibility for increase the Secretariat staff was introduced;98
· Operation of the Secretariat was defined in the following way:
-
Secretariat operates as a collective organ;
-
Any decisions, positions and proposals, taken in its mandate shall be
adopted by consensus;
88 Held in Psarades, 19--20 November 2001.
89 Henceforth: PPCCToR&OA
90 See Conclusion 9 and Annex IV of the PPCC Report of the Second Regular Meeting of the
PPCC.
91 PPCC ToR&OA, Introductory Paragraph 1.
92 Op. cit., A. Terms of Reference, Paragraph 1.
93 Op. cit., Paragraph 1.
94 Op. cit., Sub-paragraph 4.1
95 Op. cit, Sub-paragraph 4.2
96 Op. cit., Sub-paragraphs 4.3--4.5.
97 Op. cit., Sub-paragraph 4.6.
98 Paragraph 2.
39
-
As a general rule, the workload and responsibilities shall be equally
shared among members;
-
Sharing information between the Secretariat members was set as an
obligation to be ensured by internal arrangements;
-
Each of the Secretariat members shall have duty to carry out in his/her
country the tasks set in the Paragraph 4 of the Secretariat ToR;99
Additionally, an ad hoc ToR for the PPCC Secretariat was specifically
developed and adopted in the framework of the UNDP-GEF PDF Block B.100
6.
Work and the Most Remarkable Results
There is no need for detailed elaboration and analysis of seven-year work of the
PPCC and its results. It will be enough to say that the PPCC, operating in line
with (or, it might be said, in limitations of) the PMs' Prespa Park Declaration
commitments, made the Prespa trilateral co-operation process clearly visible as
a particularly positive example of transboundary cooperation developing in the
SEE. The Prespa process is visible today not only at the national stages of
three States (which initiated the process in a top-down manner) but also at
regional and, what is particularly important, at the local stages. Moreover, the
work of the PPCC served as a catalyzing impulse for more productive activity of
civil society, scientific and business communities in all three countries and the
Prespa region itself.
However, three truly remarkable results of the PPCC achieved in the long-term
course of playing its (initially designed as a shot-term and "provisional") role,
must not be overlooked, and should be appreciated. Those are:
· Development of the Strategic Action Plan for the Sustainable Development
of the Prespa Park (SAP);101
· Participation as a Steering Committee in implementation of the UNDP-GEF
PDF
B
phase
and
contribution
by
providing
comments
and
recommendations to the development of the Full Size GEF Project;
· Drafting the text of Tripartite Agreement on the Protection and Sustainable
Development of the Prespa Park Area.
99 Id.
100 See the Report of the Second Extraordinary Meeting of the PPCC, Annex II. In this
framework, the PPCC Secretariat has its clearly defined role in development of expected main
outputs of the project, i.e. UNDP-GEF Project Brief and full Project Document "Integrated
Ecosystem Management in the Prespa lakes basin of Albania, FYR of Macedonia and Greece".
101 The SAP, was prepared from January 2001 till May 2002 under the responsibility of the
Greek Society for The Protection of Prespa (SPP), with collaboration of World Wilde (WWF)
Fund Greece, Protection and Preservation of Natural Environment in Albania (P.P.N.E.A) and
Macedonian Alliance for Prespa (MAP). The project was funded by the Greek Ministry of
Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works. It was the first joint project of the three
neighbouring countries and the SAP was a product of close co-operation of the NGOs actively
participating in the Prespa Park process and several independent experts. See STRATEGIS
ACTION PLAN [...], Executive Summary, p. 1. The SAP consists of the four Chapters (A--D),
containing presentation of aims and goals of SAP and description of the Prespa Lakes
catchment area, analysis of the area, complete appraisal and evaluation of the area and a
synthesis of all records, and finally proposals for specific programs and management measures
for reinforcement of the transboundary co-operation and for each of the three countries.
40
Notwithstanding the legal deficiencies in the PPCC status, and status of its
decisions, that will be discussed bellow, it is clear that various aspects of
analytical work done by now and the documents completed as the results of
such work make a reliable professional, multidisciplinary and multistakeholder
basis that should be up-graded in the next development phase, in the
forthcoming years. The role of the PPCC in providing that basis can be
described as a pillar and crucial one.
All efforts to support the high level commitment for establishment of the
transboundary Prespa Park, provided generously by the prominent members of
international community (at both global and European level), national
governments, regional and legal authorities of the Prespa Lakes littoral States,
civil society, scientific and business communities--all those efforts passed
through the analytical prism of the PPCC, making it being a coordinative focus,
or may be more accurate to say, serving as an interface between international
community and national, regional and local authorities, science, business
community and civil society.
It does not seems wrong to acknowledge that without such a role of the PPCC,
the results achieved in trilateral cooperation in the Prespa region would not be
remarkable as they are, and prosperous for further achievement of sustainable
trilateral cooperation patterns. Significance of the PPCC itself (as a
transboundary coordinative body) and its "decisions" (being in the form of
recommendations only) has been widely recognized by the members of
international community.102
Several details on the PPC work should be added here.
After the International Working Meeting in Tirana, 16--17 October 2000, the
PPCC was established and by now it has hold 11 regular and two extraordinary
meetings. Basic details are contained in the table bellow. Details are easy
available at the PPCC web site.103
List of the PPCC Meetings
No Kind
Place
Time
I
Regular
Skopje
30--31. 01.2001
I
Extraordinary
Thessalonica
29.06.2001
II
Regular
Psarades
19--20.11.2001
II
Extraordinary
Aghios Germanos
29.03.2002
III
Regular
Korcha
17--18.05.2002
IV
Regular
Oteshevo
07--08.02.2003
V
Regular
Lemos
13--15.10.2003
VI
Regular
Korcha
31.05--01.06.2004
102 For more details, see infra, p. 45.
103 http://www.medwet.org/prespa/
41
VII Regular
Oteshevo
06--07.03.2005
VIII Regular
Lemos
21--22.11.2005
IX
Regular
Korcha
20--21.11.2006
X
Regular
Pretor
17.06.2007
XI
Regular
Agios Germanos
21--22.11.2008
As it was mentioned elsewhere, in performing its multifarious role, the PPCC
has developed connections with almost all groups of stakeholders, trying to
inform them as much as possible of all on-going activities, through the specific
PR activity of its Secretariat, as well as searching for possibilities and fostering
their participation in various activities in the Prespa process frameworks.104
7.
Legal profile
Analysis of the legal status of the PPCC shows that no legal act was adopted
ever, which could be considered as a constitutive instrument (a clear decision or
statute) of the PPCC. Consequently, legally it is not clear who was the founder
of the PPCC, who was supposed to control the work/activities/operations of the
PPCC and assess its success in achieving projected goals (or fulfilling its
mission). In the same row is the issue to whom the PPCC must report? And
finally, who would have legal duty to receive the PPCC decisions / conclusions /
recommendations, and react on such input? In other words, such analysis
shows that the PPCC does not have legal personality. That fact seems was
known from the beginning of the Prespa process, and was commented a
number of times on the PPCC Meetings105.
Lack of clear legally reliable constitutive ground was the cause that the PPCC
itself adopted certain decisions (in the form of conclusions) that are normally in
the scope of founders of legal personalities. As an illustration, here could be
mentioned the PPCC decisions:
· On equality and voting of the PPCC Members;106
· Giving right to the PPCC Members to appoint their alternates;107
· On prolongation its own term of office after 2002;108
· Rules on quorum for validity of its sessions and for decision/conclusions
taking.109
104 For more details on the Prespa Lakes Basin stakeholders, see infra, pp. 43--44.
105 See supra, note No. 51.
106 See supra, note No. 71.
107 See supra, note No. 72.
108 At its Fourth Regular Meeting, the PPCC decided to extend its own term of office ("interim
operation") until the end of 2003, or until the three Governments define a more permanent
structure, form and operation of the PPCC "whichever come first". The Chairman was requested
to inform on this Conclusion the environmental authorities of the three States, by letter.
Conclusion No. 8. No information is available how the environmental authorities reacted on this
PPCC Conclusion.
109 See supra, notes No. 77--78.
42
Similar are decisions regarding the PPCC Secretariat, e.g.:
· Definition of the PPCC Secretariat as "subsidiary organ" of the PPC legally
is not clear and could lead to the confusion in the sense that original (and
by its nature non-transferable) responsibilities of the PPCC itself were
conferred now to its "technical organ" (logically supposing actually to be
nothing more than an administrative support setting of the PPCC);110
· Definition of "primary task" of the Secretariat as the PPCC "subsidiary
organ"111 gives impression that a kind of parallel structure of responsibility
was imposed by the PPCC own decisions. Namely, the Secretariat is now
conferred with such tasks as initiation, support and facilitation of joint
activities in the framework of the trilateral Prespa process.112 Also, the
Secretariat has been now conferred with responsibility for preparation or
provision of assistance pertaining to trilateral political and technical meetings
and scientific symposia, for consultations on policy matters, promotion of
dialog on the problems and perspectives of the region at local and trilateral
level.113
Such decisions no doubt must be seen as a pragmatic response on the lack of
clear legal basis in situation when forthcoming substantive support of
international community required regular and timely activities. In other hand,
certain bilateral political issues, being seen as unavoidable obstacle for proper
legal setting for the trilateral Prespa Lakes Basin co-operation, has been
underlying force pushing for search for quick and pragmatic solutions.
However, such legal uncertainties nowadays could be seen as the cause of in
many cases weak and slow response of the national authorities, and lack of
expected financial support to the PPCC and its operations. If this attempt of
highlighting of existing legal background of the PPCC is acceptable, it should
serve, together with other findings mentioned elsewhere in this Report, as a
basic input in designing future institutional set-up that would be fully in
accordance with international law.
8.
Specific Features of Stakeholders
Planned activities of the PPCC during past years enabled identification of
various groups of stakeholders in the Prespa Lakes Basin and pretty clear
articulation of their interest. The structure and profile of the stakeholders,
similarly to other lake basins comprises:
· Public authorities of all levels, i.e. central (competent for environmental
protection issues, but for other issues, too, e.g. water management,
agriculture, tourism, veterinary, spatial planning, nature and man-made
110 See supra, notes No. 92--93.
111 Without having defined the meaning of the term "subsidiary".
112 See supra, p. 39.
113 See supra, note No. 94.
43
disasters prevention, etc.), regional (including here de-concentrated units of
central governmental authorities) and local (municipal) authorities;
· Public organizations conferred (by the States authorities) with carrying on
public duties in management of protected areas;
· Scientific NGOs of national importance, whose specific interest is focused
on the Prespa Lakes Basin, i.e. environmental or nature conservation
issues;
· Local NGOs and their coalitions dealing not exclusively with environmental
protection or nature conservation issues, but interested for participation in
the Prespa Lakes co-operation process;
· Business/producers
associations
(e.g.
beans,
apple
and
fishery
organizations, or non-formal groups).
All of them, having various interests, often conflicting to each other, are
interested in further successful development of tripartite interstate cooperation.
European experience shows that their horizontal connection (in e.g.
transboundary alliances, coalitions or federations) is important in articulation of
their joint (in this case the Prespa Lakes Basin wide) interest and representing it
at the transboundary Prespa Lakes Basin management level. Development of
such communication (that should by every effort be supported) is visible in on-
going political communication between the three Prespa Lakes Municipalities,
but also between non-formal groups of fishermen, and more formal meeting of
public authorities competent for fire-fighting, spatial planning or veterinary
affairs.
Voice of all of them and possible other stakeholders, not mentioned here,
should be represented as directly as possible in the tripartite institutional
structure, and taken into account in decision-making process, in the way fully in
accordance with the requirements of Aarhus Convention and respective EU
requirements. Such kind of right of all the stakeholder groups must be set in the
future trilateral agreement, as well as corresponding duty of the Parties to the
Agreement to provide realization of such rights of stakeholders.
9.
Financial Issues
Already on the Tirana International Working Meeting the Greek Ministry of
Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works, kindly offered financial
support for covering running expenses of the PPCC Secretariat and PPCC
meetings in the forthcoming two-year period, on the basis of agreed budget.114
Being aware of the crucial importance of financial issues for sustainability of the
entire process of the development and implementation of the idea of the Prespa
Park, the PPCC adopted a rule in attempt to regulate this issue. Namely in the
PPCCOA it provided for its striving "to secure funding for its meetings through
various sources", that may include travel and subsistence of the delegations,
rental of meeting place, stationary and photocopying and reasonable hospitality
expenses.115
114 Conclusions, Appendix I, Paragraph 17.
115 Paragraph 13.
44
The similar provision was adopted for the Secretariat aimed at its striving "to
secure funding for its operation through various sources" and allowing its costs
to include a "modest remuneration of its members, as well as travel and
operational expenses". It is the duty of the Secretariat to prepare detailed
budget for such costs and submit it to the PPCC for approval, as a part of the
work plan.
Without going in detailed analysis of sources for funding the PPCC and its
activities during past years, there is no need for that because of plenty of data
available in the documents posted at the PPCC web site116, here should be
mentioned that, from year-to-year the Prespa process has being supported and
funded (in money or in kind) by international community (KfW, UNDP, GEF,
WWF, Ramsar Bureau, MedWet Initiative), National NGOs (SPP, P.P.N.E.A,
MAP), as well is the Governments of all the three Prespa Lakes littoral States,
Greece being the most active one) and local municipalities. Much of everything
else, willingness of such profile of organizations to participate financially
(although sometimes only symbolically) this shows the vitality and soundness of
the Prespa Park idea.
Putting aside evident legal problems117, it could be concluded that the great and
wide commitment of international community, national, regional and local
authorities, NGOs, scientific and business communities is evident, and desire a
sustainable trilateral management pattern to be established in the Prespa Lakes
Basin, based on integrated ecosystem and lake basin management is visible.
However, such wide and strong political and professional commitment and
support to the Prespa process provided a model of co-operation that could be
denominated as voluntary one only. Substantially, the model is not legally
binding in terms of regular (or sustainable) funding by the three littoral States.
Financial support to established model has been in great deal provided in the
frameworks of programmes of implementation of the Ramsar Convention,
adopted by the Contracting Parties of the Ramsar Convention, and
subsequently apparently kindly supported by the Greece Government.
Voluntary funding in this case means that it could be terminated (through
phase-out process or without it) once when the motives underlying such support
are exhausted and goals achieved. For instance, such situation could be based
on the assessment that the level of promotion of regional-sub-regional co-
operation has been achieved, and that the time has come the interested States
should take over responsibility for further funding and developments. In such
light seen, the Prespa process as whole and the PPCC were financed
voluntarily, perfectly in compliance with Ramsar Convention (and its
implementation documents) and PMs' Prespa Declaration.
116 http://www.medwet.org/prespa/. Last visited 13.11.2007.
117 The PPCC representatives of environmental authorities of all three States, expressed on the
PPCC sessions awareness of that problem pointing out that regular financial support to the
PPCC could be provided only once when the proper legal setting is in place. See the Reports
of Seventh, Eight and Ninth Regular Meetings of the PPCC, respective Summary Minutes.
45
For arriving at an institutionally and financially safe (and sustainable) platform,
the three Prespa Lakes littoral States should adopt such an international legally
binding instrument that would contain not only bare commitments of certain
authorities to co-operation, but detailed binding rules providing for such
commitments to be realized in practice. In other words, the States should bi
bounded for providing certain funds regularly, for certain purposes in certain
procedures.
The way of providing funds might be considered sustainable if it is an
international obligation of the States. Could an international financial obligation
accepted in a framework of an international instrument signed by the Minister of
Environment be considered an international obligation of State, and under
which conditions, is another issue. (This would require additional investigation
of national legal systems and internal budgetary rules). But, it seems
unnecessary complicated and uncertain way for achieving an arrangement in
regards of (today relatively conventional goal) transboundary water resources
sustainable management. International practice is indicative enough in terms of
reliable models. The model of sustainable financing of the International Sava
River Basin Commission is one of the newest and clearest in the SEE region.
Finally, no one financial model will be enough good if it is not negotiated in a
formal procedure, between official representatives of the States, and developed
as their common solution and not a solution gifted to the States or to the region
by whoever else. Yet international community can immensely support the
process and help the States in their search for a most acceptable financial
solution.
10.
Assessment of the PPCC Operations and Evaluation of its Capacity
As it was mentioned in the previous paragraph and elsewhere in this Report, in
spite of legal deficiencies in its legal nature, the PPCC achieved several really
remarkable results, including identification of all stakeholder groups and
facilitation of initial contacts and establishment of their transboundary
collaboration. Such successful development may be explained by dedicated
work of professionals situated in various institutions in all the three countries,
willing to see results of their efforts in terms of achieving prospect of sustainable
transboundary management of the Prespa Lakes Basin. Besides, highly
authoritative political support to (a kind of multi-stakeholder, preferably informal,
i.e. not binding for the States) huge and complex activities contributed at large
to success of the PPCC's operations. Further, international community has
recognized the natural values of the Prespa Lakes region and conceptual and
practical quality of the trilateral cooperation, what was the basis for lasting
financial support of work of the PPCC and its operations. In the same time, no
satisfactory funding support was provided by the littoral States to the PPCC and
its operations (except the financial support provided by the Greek Government,
through the Greek NGO sector). Moreover, it was clearly pointed out by the
representatives of the authorities of the three States, that only on the basis of
46
concluded a trilateral agreement, regular financial support to the PPCC and its
operations can be provided by the States.118
Such situation gives enough bases for the conclusion that the idea of the PPCC
as a trilateral institution responsible for transboundary (multi-stakeholder)
cooperation in the Prespa Lakes Basin has its full justification. Its role as an
interface for meeting and addressing various interests (that was broadly
recognized) is perhaps the most valuable achievement. However, lack of
strong, clear and comprehensive commitment of the littoral States to such kind
of transboundary cooperation (that should be much broader than the expressed
will that "joint actions would be considered"), subsequent legal deficiencies in
the PPCC's legal nature, as well as lack of the States' commitment to enter into
negotiations on the basis of (informally drafted and proposed text of the) Draft
Trilateral Agreement, clearly define operation limits of the PPCC. Additionally, it
seems clear that without permanent international support for its regular activities
and operations, the PPCC in the existing circumstances does not have
sustainable perspective. This assessment is one of the basic standpoints in
designing recommendations for overcoming the identified limits and providing
sustainable conditions for playing such role in future trilateral cooperation that
might not enjoy such strong international donor support as it has been as of
now.
11.
Assessment of the PPCC Secretariat
As it was described earlier, the PPCC Secretariat has been designed as
consisting of the three technical persons, belonging to the NGOs from all three
countries. The Greek Society for the Protection of Prespa has been assigned to
provide logistic support to the PPCC Secretariat. The aim of the Secretariat was
"operation" of the PPCC. Later, the Secretariat was defined as a "technical" and
"subsidiary" organ, whose "primary task" become per definition similar to PPCC
ToR. It has its seat in the Agios Germanos, at the premises of the SPP.
The Members of the Secretariat were supposed to be paid for their work by their
NGOs. Such construction led to the situation that the Members of the
Secretariat from Albania and FYR of Macedonia were not paid, and their
contribution to the Prespa Park Initiative was completely voluntary.
A technical body of an international coordinative arrangement of any kind,
cannot take over tasks and responsibilities of the coordinative arrangement.
The situation of unclear relations between the PPCC and its Secretariat, similar
to unclear relations of the PPCC and littoral States, is due to the lack of a
constitution of the PPCC. Such relations, including duty to report and duty to
make decisions based on the reports, are the elements or features of legal
personality of an international body established under international law.
Provisional and unclear rules adopted in different occasions by the PPCC were
not satisfactory for providing safe environment for decision making and
communication with national authorities. Such situation influenced the work of
118 See infra, ref. No. 117.
47
the PPCC at its sessions (the minutes show repeated discussions on the same
organisations issues).
Due to the fact that the PPCC and accordingly, its Secretariat, should continue
work (activities, operation) until the new institutional set-up is in place, it should
be considered how the UNDP-GEF Project could help better functioning of
existing structure. It seems reasonable to propose financial support to be
provided for work of Albanian and FYR of Macedonian Members of the
Secretariat (and expenses for respective Members of the PPCC).
12.
Some Conclusions
Legal aspects of the PPCC, its work and decisions should be kept in mind when
choosing the most appropriate instrument for regulation of future trilateral
relations, and suitable solutions for the most vital elements of such instrument.
In other words, the reasons leading to the need of this assessments and search
for a sound legal solution must be clear in making the basis for further work.
First
A note should be made on the fact that the basic document the actual trilateral
cooperation has been carried on, i.e. the PMs' Prespa Declaration, does not
address directly institutional issues. Namely, the environmental authorities of
the three States at the Tirana International Working Meeting and thereafter,
which were indicated in the Declaration as collaborative authorities, agreed to
establish the PPCC, as a provisional (short-term or interim) body, and in that
way basically to carry on their mutual co-operation through the PPCC and its
activities. In that sense, the establishment of the PPCC seems an innovation
falling out of the commitment limits, expressed in the Declaration. The question
is whether such "enhanced" commitment has any significance from the legal
standpoint?
For answering that question, the status of the Tirana International Working
Meeting should be briefly examined. Namely, in the above cited available
documents119 it was stated that "official delegations of the Governments of
Albania, Greece and FYR of Macedonia..." met in Tirana. No additional
indications were found that would confirm that delegations from the three States
were official governmental level delegations. The most likely, the delegations
were formed by the ministries competent for environment as not so formal ones.
This issue is important for accurate assessment of legal status of the meeting
and consequently for assessment of legal significance and validity of decisions
taken on such meeting (in terms of their effects and obligation of national
authorities for their implementation and enforcement).
If the above finding is right, it could lead to the conclusions that such informal
meeting cannot be forum for the formal, legally binding decisions. In best case,
conclusions agreed upon could be accepted by addressees only as (more or
less) authoritative recommendations. But, the fact should be accepted that
conclusions / recommendations adopted at such informal forum fall properly in
119 See supra, notes No. 59--61.
48
the scope of commitments expressed by the PMs in the Prespa Park
Declaration, i.e. commitment for "consideration" of relevant issues by national
environmental authorities (without clearly defined duty of national authorities for
feedback to the proponent's recommendations, decisions, proposals).
Second
Conclusions adopted at an informal forum in regards of establishment of a
trilateral institution, i.e. PPCC, consequently did not have formal legally binding
effect on the Prespa Lakes littoral States. In that sense the PPCC might be
considered as a kind of a "soft-law" or political body. The same is true for
decisions/ recommendations of the PPCC. The fact that the highest
environmental authorities of the three States have participated in the tripartite
co-operation process contributed only to the authority of activities carried on
under the co-ordination of the PPCC, but did not change the fact that legally
binding nature in the entire process was missing from the beginning. So, it
seems that answer on the above formulated question is clear: Participation of
the representatives of environmental Ministries in the activities of the PPCC and
adoption of its conclusions did not contribute to the legal soundness of the
PPCC itself and outputs of its activities.
Third
From the very beginning of trilateral co-operation concerning Prespa Park the
idea was launched and agreed upon that later a trilateral agreement should be
signed at the ministerial level.120 According to available information, the choice
was not based on previously made assessment of relevant legal possibilities
and comparison between feasible options. Actually, no rationale for choice of
such legal instrument (a trilateral agreement that would be signed by the
Ministers responsible for environment of three States) was provided neither in
the documents available from the Tirana International Working Meeting nor in
the documents reflecting work of the PPCC, produced later. Therefore, it is not
clear what the legal arguments were used in favour of the opinion that such an
agreement would be suitable instrument for securing sustainability of future
Prespa institutional arrangement.
In any case, a clear rationale must be the basis for choosing any of various
legal possibilities. The basic reason for this should be attempt to avoid and
prevent uncertainties of specific legal impacts on future processes of co-
operation, rooted in legal nature of various instruments feasible for setting
trilateral relations. The feasible options should be studied in advance and their
strengths and weaknesses assessed and compared, and adequate choice
made in an official negotiation process.
Forth
The results achieved in a bit less than eight-year lasting trilateral co-operation
on developing and consolidation of the transboundary Prespa Park, without
established a sound legal ground for such activities, are remarkable and must
be appreciated. Involvement in the cooperative process of central, regional and
120 See supra, note No. 62.
49
local authorities of all three States, of the most significant environmental
national NGOs (i.e. Greek SPP, Albanian P.P.N.E.A. and FYR of Macedonia
MAP), as well as numerous local NGOs, local business associations and other
stakeholders, has shown the huge development potential of the Prespa Lakes
Basin and broad commitment for preservation and protection of natural and
cultural values and their use in a sustainable way.
Such positive climate in the region, and its ability to design a complex
development vision in the form of a multi-sectoral Strategic Action Plan, was
noticed by international community which has been generously supporting the
Prespa process from the beginning. Moreover, equally important as
conventional financial support is the commitment of international community,
provided through the UNDP project "Integrated Ecosystem Management in the
Prespa Lakes Basin of Albania, FYR of Macedonia and Greece", to support
financially and otherwise work on establishment a formal trilateral institution
under international law, that would be based on certain political and financial
obligations of all three Governments of the Prespa Lakes littoral States, which
are expected to fund full-time Secretariat of such institution by the year four of
the Project implementation.121
Fifth
As an informal body (without having legal personality under international law)
the PPCC satisfied initially, through its activities and operations, the great for
transboundary trilateral cooperation in the region of the Prespa Lakes. The
Prespa Lakes Basin may easily become a European Region and in the EU
perspective should be managed in accordance with principles developed for
river basin management and sustainable ecosystem management. Such
potential, originally based on exceptional natural values and huge biodiversity,
was the fertile soil for successful activities of such a body as PPCC supported
by the high level authorities of all three littoral States.
However, legal uncertainties in establishing the PPCC and unsatisfactory
commitment of the littoral States to trilateral cooperation have formed the limits
for the PPCC activities and operations and for up-grading cooperation on the
visible and remarkable results achieved during first eight years of the Prespa
park initiative. Further development of cooperation can be expected only
through a series of steps that should be taken under the aegis of international
community and that would lead to the (new) States commitment to trilateral
cooperation, rooted firmly in the EU legal frameworks and international law3 on
trities.
Sixth
Deficiencies in the legal nature of the PPCC in conjunction with a rather weak
commitment for trilateral cooperation of the littoral States and lack of consent of
the littoral States to be bound by a treaty indicate the nature of the steps that
should be taken towards establishment of a sustainable institutional
management solution. The steps that should be undertaken should lead to a
121 UNDP Full size Project Document. See p. 60.
50
new, clear commitment of the littoral States to enter into trilateral formal
consultations on drafting a trilateral treaty on cooperation for sustainable
management of the Prespa Lakes Basin, and subsequent negotiation, signing
and ratification of that treaty in accordance with the rules of international law on
treaties. The aim of consultations and negotiations would be providing for all
necessary conditions under international law for sustainable management of the
Prespa lakes Basin (based on the ecosystem approach and lake basin
approach is they are adopted in the framework of the Community acquis).
Seventh
In addition to analyses and findings presented elsewhere in this Report, and
together with notes on the Draft trilateral agreement contained in the Chapter
VII of this report, the above conclusions make the basis for designing
recommendations contained in the Chapter VIII.
51
VI.
SOME SUCCESSFUL CASES
This Chapter contains a brief review of several successful cases of regulation of
mutual relations between riparian, littoral of river or lake basin countries.
Success is considered here as functionality (including financial sustainability)
and time duration. The review concentrates on the most relevant aspects of
mutual interstate relations, highlighting underlying principles and rules of
international law with the aim of offering different options for tripartite relations in
the Prespa Lakes Basin.
1.
The Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC)
The Danube River, flowing from the Black Forest in Germany predominantly
south-east reaches the Black Sea after 2.700 km. The Danube River Basin has
been shared between 19 countries in whose territories it covers 801,463 km2 in
total. The Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of
the Danube River (the Danube River Protection Convention122) was signed 29
June 2004 at Sofia. Today, 14 Basin countries and European Community are
Contracting Parties to the DRPC each having more than 2,000 km2 of the Basin
surface.123
1.1
Territorial Scope
The territorial scope of the DRPC is catchment of the Danube River, which is
hydrological river basin as far as it is shared by the Contracting Parties.124 The
goals and principles of cooperation comprise inter alia:
· Striving at achieving the goals of sustainable and equitable water
management, including the conservation, improvement and rational use of
surface and underground waters in catchment area, as far as possible;
· Making all efforts to control hazards originating from accidents involving
substances hazardous to water, floods and ice hazards of the Danube
River;125
· Taking all appropriate legal, administrative and technical measures to at
least:
- Maintain and improve current environmental and water quality conditions
of the Danube River and of waters in its catchment area;
- Prevent and reduce adverse impacts and changes occurring or likely to
be caused;126
· Setting priorities as appropriate, strengthen, harmonize and coordinate
measures taken and planned to be taken at national and international levels
throughout the Danube Basin, aiming at:
122 Henceforth: DRPC.
123 Those Danube River Basin countries are Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and
Ukraine. See, ICPDR: ACTIVE FOR THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN; Vienna, 2004
124 See, DRPC, Article 1 (b).
125 Op. cit., Article 2 (1).
126 Op. cit., article 2 (2).
52
- Sustainable development; and
- Environmental protection of the Danube River.
This objective is particularly directed to ensure:
- The sustainable use of water resources for municipal, industrial and
agricultural purposes;
- Conservation and restoration of ecosystems; and
- Other requirements connected to public health;127
· Developing water management cooperation so to be based on the criteria of
a stable, environmentally sound development, which are at the same time
directed to:
- Maintain the quality of life;
- Maintain continuing access to natural resources;
- Avoid lasting environmental damage and protect ecosystem; and -
exercise preventive approach.128
1.2
Subject Matter
The DRPC is applicable in particular to the planned activities and on-going
measures that cause or are likely to cause transboundary impact, which are
listed as follows:
· Discharge of waste waters, the input of nutrients and hazardous substances,
both from point and non-point sources;
· Construction of water works, in particular river training and run-off and
storage level control of watercourses, flood control, as well as the effect of
facilities situated in or aside watercourse on its hydraulic regime;
· Other planned activities and measures for the purposes of water use, such
as power utilization, water transfer and withdrawal;
· Operation of hydroelectric constructions; measures to prevent environmental
impact including deterioration in hydrological conditions, erosion, abrasion,
inundation and sediment flow, measures to protect ecosystem;
· Handling of substances hazardous to water and the precautionary
prevention of accidents;129
· Fishery and inland navigation, as far as problems of water protection against
pollution caused by these activities are concerned.130
127 Op. cit., Article 2 (3).
128 Op. cit., Article 2 (5).
129 Op. cit., Article 3 (2).
130 Op. cit., Article 3 (3).
53
1.3
Forms of Cooperation
The regular forms of cooperation under the DRPC are set as:
· Consultative and joint activities in the framework of the International
Commission for the Danube Protection131;
· Exchange of information on bi- and multilateral agreements, legal
regulations and on measures in the field of water management, exchange of
legal documents and directives and of other publications, and other forms for
the exchange of information and experiences.132
1.4
Institutional Setting
Institutional setting of the DRPC consists of Conference of the Parties and
ICPDR with its Permanent Secretariat and working groups, the basic legal
features of which follow bellow.
1.4.1 Conference of the Contracting Parties
The Contracting Parties to the DRPC shall obligation to meet at the Conference
upon recommendation of the ICPDR.133 The purpose of their meeting is in
particular:
· Review of the policy issues in regards of DRPC implementation. The basis
for such review shall be a report of the ICPDR;
· Adoption of appropriate recommendations and decisions.134
The Contracting Party whose head of delegation acts as President of the
ICPDR shall play the part of the Chairperson of such meeting.135 The
Conference of the Parties shall have quorum for passing recommendations and
decisions if, after regular invitation, delegations of at least ¾ of all Contracting
Parties are present. The Conference shall duty to make every effort to reach
agreement by consensus. If consensus is no attainable, the Chairperson shall
declare that all efforts were exhausted, and after such declaration,
recommendation or decision shall be adopted by a 4/5 majority of the
Contracting Parties present and voting.136
The decision of the Conference of the Contracting Parities shall become binding
on the first day of eleventh month following the date of its adoption that voted
for it, under condition that they have not in that period notified the Executive
Secretary in writing that they are unable to accept decision. But, if such
notification was made, it may be withdrawn at any time, and shall become
effective upon receipt by the Executive Secretary. Such a decision shall
become binding on any other Contracting Party which have notified the
Executive Secretary in writing that it is able to accept decision, from the moment
131 Henceforth: ICPDR.
132 Op. cit., Article 4.
133 Op. cit., Article 22 (1).
134 Op. cit., Article 22 (2).
135 Op. cit., Article 22 (3).
136 Op. cit., Article 22 (4).
54
of the receipt of that notification or on the first day of the eleventh month
following the date of the adoption of the decision, whichever is later.137
Recommendation or decision of the Conference of the Contracting Parties that
would have financial implications must be adopted by consensus.138
1.4.2 International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
(ICPDR)
The ICPDR was established as an international body with the view of
implementing the provisions of the DRPC and achieving its objectives. The
ICPDR has such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise its
functions and the fulfilment of its purposes in accordance with the law
applicable at the headquarters of its Secretariat. It is a forum in the framework
of which the Contracting Parties cooperate. In implementing of obligations of the
Contracting parties, set by DRPC, ICPDR have duty to elaborate proposals and
recommendations addressed to the Contracting Parties.139
In addition to affairs explicitly entrusted to it, the ICPDR is competent to deal
with other affairs too, entrusted to it by the Contracting Parties.140
Implementation of decisions taken by the ICPDR is supported inter alia by the
obligation of the Contracting Parties for reporting to the ICPDR141, which
comprises:
· Reports and documents determined by the DRPC or requested by the
ICPDR;
· Information on existence, conclusion, amendment or withdrawal of
international treaties pertaining to the protection and management of waters
in the Danube River Basin;
· Information on their respective national legislation applicable to the waters of
the Danube River Basin;
· Communication, after the ICPDR has taken its decision, on the way, in
timeframe and the financial expenses for implementation of action-directed
decisions at the domestic level (recommendations, programs, measures);
· Designation of competent institutions to be addressed for co-operation in the
framework of the ICPDR or by other Contracting Parties;
· Communication on planned activities, which could cause transboundary
impacts.142
The ICPDR can propose to the Contracting Parties amending of the DRPC.143 It
has right to take decisions on co-operation with international and national
organizations or bodies with the aim of enhancing co-operation and avoiding
137 Op. cit., Article 22 (5).
138 Op. cit., Article 22 (6).
139 Op. cit., Article 18 (1) and Article 10. of the ICPDR Statute.
140 Op. cit., Article 18 (3).
141 Op. cit., Article 18 (4).
142 Op. cit., Article 10.
143 Op. cit., Article 18 (5).
55
duplication.144 The structure, procedures and competences of the ICPDR are
stipulated by the Statue of the ICPDR, which is attached in the ANNEX IV to the
DRPC145.
The ICPDR consists of delegations of the Contracting Parties. Each Contracting
Party can nominate five members of its delegation at utmost, including the head
of delegation and his deputy.146 Each delegation may take the necessary
number of experts, whose names should be communicated to the ICPDR
Secretariat.147 The Chair of the ICPDR is held by the Contracting Parties in turn
by English alphabetical order for one year. The delegation looking after the
Chair nominates one of its members to become the President of the ICPDR.148
It is the rule that the President, during his Presidency does not take the floor on
behalf of his delegation. Further details on Presidency have been regulated by
the ICPDR Rules of Procedure, including the representation of the ICPDR.149
The ICPDR convenes an ordinary meeting at least once a year on invitation of
the President, at place determined by him. Extraordinary meetings shall be
convened by the President on request of at least three delegations.150 The
President proposes the agenda items that may include reports of the ICPDR
Standing Working Group and its expert groups. Each delegation has the right to
propose agenda items. The ICPDR decides on the order of sequence for the
agenda items, by the majority of votes.151
Each delegation has one vote.152 Specific rule on votes of European Community
has been specifically set.153 The ICPDR constitutes quorum with the presence
of delegations of 2/3 of the Contracting Parties at least.154 Written procedure is
allowed under conditions determined by the Rules of Procedure.155
Initially, the ICPDR had established a Standing Working Group and several
Expert Groups that could be standing and ad hoc.156 Such Expert Groups were:
EG for Legal and Strategic Issues, EG for River Basin Management, EG for
Ecology, EG for Emissions, Monitoring, Laboratory and Information, EG for
Accident Prevention and Control, EG for Flood Protection, EG for Cartography
and GIS, EG for Economic Analysis, and the Danube--Black Sea Joint
Technical Working Group. Now, the IPDR has seven Expert Groups--the EG
on River Basin Management, The Pressures and Measures EG, The Monitoring
and Assessment EG, the EG for Flood Protection, and ad hoc EGs: on
144 Op. cit., Article 18 (6).
145 In accordance with Article 18 (2) of DRPC.
146 ICPDR Statute, Article 1 (1).
147 Op. cit., Article 1 (2).
148 Op. cit., Article 2 (1).
149 Op. cit., Article 2 (2) and (3). See also the ICPDR Statute Article 10 (2).
150 ICPDR Statute, Article 3 (1) and (2).
151 Op. cit., Article 3 (4).
152 Op. cit., Article 4 (1).
153 Op. cit., Article 4 (2).
154 Op. cit., Article 4 (3).
155 Op. cit., Article 4 (4).
156 Op. cit., Article 6 (1).
56
Information Management and GIS, on Public Participation, and Strategic EG.
Additionally there is the Danube-Black Sea Joint Technical Working Group.157
The members of Experts Groups consist of delegates and experts nominated by
the delegations to the ICPDR. Earlier, the Standing Working Group was
attended by the delegates from all Contracting Parties. The ICPDR nominated
its Chairman and determine the utmost number of members. The ICPDR also
determines the number of experts in Experts Groups.158
The Permanent Secretariat with the headquarters in Vienna has been
established by the Statute of the ICPDR.159 It is a duty and right of the ICPDR to
appoint and Executive Secretary and make provisions for the appointment of
such other personnel as may be necessary, and to determine duties of the
Executive Secretary position and the terms and conditions for it.160 The
Executive Secretary performs functions that are necessary for administration of
the DRPC and for work of the ICPDR, as well as other duties entrusted to him
the ICPDR in accordance with Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations.161
When making its assessments, evaluation of results gained and analysis of
special issues the ICPDR may entrust particularly qualified persons, scientific
institutions or other facilities.162 The ICPDR has a duty to submit to the
Contracting parties and annual report on its activities and other reports as
required, which particularly must include the results of monitoring and
assessment.163
1.5
Expenditures
The ICPDR adopts annual or biennial budget of proposed expenditures, and
considers budget estimates for the fiscal period following thereafter.164 The total
amount of budget, including any supplementary budget adopted by the ICPDR
shall be provided by the contributions of Contracting Parties, in equal parts,
unless unanimously decided by the ICPDR. Exception is made for European
Community, which shall contribute no more 2,5% of administrative costs to the
budget.165
It is duty of each contracting Party to pay expenses related to the participation
in the ICPDR of its representatives, experts and advisers, as well as the costs
of current monitoring and assessment activities, carried out in its territory.166
157 ICPDR: THE DANUBE BASIN ANALYSIS (WFD Roof Report 2004) PART A--BASIN WIDE
OVERVIEW,
Summary;
Vienna,
2005.
See
also
http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-
pages/expert_groups.htm. Web page visited 11.12.2008.
158 ICPDR Statute, Article 6 (2) and (3).
159 Op. cit., Article 7 (1) and (2).
160 Op. cit., Article 7 (3).
161 Op. cit., Article 7 (4).
162 Op. cit., Article 8.
163 Op. cit.., Article 9.
164 Op. cit., Article 11 (2).
165 Op. cit., Article 11 (2)--(4).
166 Op. cit., Article 11 (5) and (6).
57
1.6
Other Instruments of the ICPDR Legal Regime
Besides the DRPC (and its four Annexes, the Annex IV containing the Statute of
the ICPDR) the most important legal instruments defining the legal personality
of the ICPDR and legal regime under which it operates are the following:
· Agreement between the ICPDR and Republic of Austria regarding
Headquarters of the ICPDR (2000);
· Financial Rules (1998);
· Decision on Legal Status of Participation and Observership under DRPC
(1998);
· Detailed Guiding Criteria for granting Observer Status (1998);
· Revised Main Functions and Job Descriptions of the Permanent Secretariat
of the ICPDR (2001);
· Revised Staff Regulations of the ICPDR (2001);
· Memorandum of Understanding between the International Commission for
the Protection of the Black Sea (ICPBS) and the ICPDR on Common
Strategic Goals (2001);
· Revised Rules of Procedure of the ICPDR (ROP) (2002).
2.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
2.1
Brief Introduction
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement167 was signed by the Governments
of the United Sates of America and Government of Canada168 15 April 1972,
renewed in Ottawa 22 November 1978 and supplemented by a Protocol in
1983. It reaffirmed in a spirit of friendship and cooperation the rights and
obligations of both countries under the Boundary Waters Treaty, signed in
Washington D.C. 11 January 1909169,170 and was developed on the conclusion
that the best means to preserve the aquatic ecosystem and achieve improved
water quality throughout the Great Lakes System is adopting common
objectives, developing and implementing co-operative programs and other
measures, and assigning special responsibilities and function to the
International Joint Commission.171
The purpose of the GLWQA has been defined as restoration and maintenance
of chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes
167 Henceforth: GLWQA.
168 Parties to the Agreement, according to the Article I (n).
169 The Boundary Waters Treaty (henceforth: BWT) was signed by plenipotentiaries of the
President of the United States of America, Elihu Root, Secretary of State of the USA and His
Britannic Majesty, the Right Honourable James Bryce, O.M., his Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary at Washington; who, after having communicated to one another their full
powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the text of the articles of the Treaty.
The Treaty was ratified by the President of the USA, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, and by His Britannic Majesty. The ratifications were exchanged 11 January 1909.
170 Preamble, Paragraph 5.
171 Preamble, Paragraph 9.
58
Basin Ecosystem.172 Besides provisions on specific objectives173, the GLWQA
contains provisions on standards, other regulatory requirements and
research174, programs and other measures175, powers, responsibilities and
functions of International Joint Commission176, joint institutions and Regional
Office177; submission and exchange of information178, consultation and
review179; implementation of the GLWQA180; existing right and obligations,
amendments, entry into force and termination and supersession181. To the
GLWQA 17 Annexes are attached regulating in detail various aspects of
transboundary co-operation aimed at achievement of adopted goals. Here is
worth mentioning that Annex 11 regulates in great detail surveillance and
monitoring activities, that would be undertaken, ecosystem health indicators for
the Great Lakes that would be developed and Annex 13 details in regards of
pollution from non-point sources (among other things preservation of wetlands).
Attached to the GLWQA is the Terms of Reference for the joint institutions and
the Great Lakes Regional Office.182
2.2
Institutional Setting
2.2.1 International Joint Commission (IJC)
The International Joint Commission183 have been established and maintained
by the High Contracting Parties to the Boundary Water Treaty, on the ground of
its Article VII. The IJC is composed of six commissioners, three on the part of
the USA, appointed by the President of the USA, and three on the part of the
United Kingdom, appointed by His Majesty, on the recommendation of the
Governor in Council of the Dominion of Canada.
172 Article II, Paragraph 1. Definition of the Great lakes Basin Ecosystem comprise the
interacting components of air, land, water and living organisms, including humans, within the
drainage basin of the St. Lawrence River at or upstream from the point at which this river
becomes the international boundary between Canada and the United States of America.
Article I (g).
173 Article IV.
174 Article V.
175 Article VI. Specified are programs and other measures which the Parties, i.e. Canada and
USA, shall continue to develop and implement in co-operation with "State and Provincial
Governments" (later being the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Government of the Province of
Ontario; Article I (s)). These programs and other measures comprise inter alia pollution from
municipal sources, pollution from industrial sources, inventory of pollution abatement
requirements, eutrophication, pollution from agriculture, forestry, and other land use activities,
surveillance and monitoring, remedial action plans and lake wide management plans.
176 Article VII.
177 Article VIII.
178 Article IX.
179 Article X.
180 Article XI.
181 Art. XII--XV.
182 The International Joint Commission United States of America and Canada Office
Consolidation of the GLWQA (comprising the GLWQA 1978, Phosphorus Load reduction
Supplement signed 16 October 1983, and amended by Protocol signed 18 November 1987),
made in September 1989, can be found at http://www.ijc.org/re/agree/quality.html. Site last
visited 31.10. 2007.
183 Henceforth: IJC.
59
The IJC has two national sections--one of Canada and one of USA. The
commissioners of the sections appoint one of their members as chairman.184
The permanent offices of the IJC are at Washington D.C and Ottawa.185 Both
sections of the IJC have their secretaries, which act as joint secretaries at all
meetings and hearings of the IJC.186
The purpose of the IJC is assistance in the implementation of the GLWQA.187
Its responsibilities are set by Article IX of the BWT and additionally by Article VII
of the GLWQA188. There is no need for reviewing of its responsibilities in great
detail here. Yet some details, particularly concerning decision making rules,
should be presented, as they are set in the Rules of Procedure189. Majority of
the IJC is empowered to render decision concerning certain water use. The
rules are set for case of evenly divided IJC.190
The IJC have duty to submit its "no less frequently than biennially" full reports to
the Contracting Parties as well as to the State and Provincial Governments,
concerning progress toward the achievements of the general and specific
objectives, including the matters related to Annexes. The report must include an
assessment of the effectiveness of the programs and other measures
undertaken pursuant to the GLWQA and advice and recommendations.191 The
IJC may in its discretion publish any report, statement or other document,
prepared by it in discharge of its functions.192
The IJC may decide that its meetings shall be open to the public. In that case it
shall give an advance notice to this effect as it considers appropriate in the
circumstances.193
The IJC carry out its responsibilities utilizing principally the services of:
· Water Quality Board; and
· Science Advisory Board.
The IJC have duty to ensure liaison and coordination between the institutions
established under GLWQA and other institutions "which may address concerns
relevant to the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem [...]".194
The above mentioned Boards are designated to assist the IJC in exercising of
its powers and responsibilities. The IJC appoints the members of both Boards,
184 Rules of Procedure, 2 (1). http://www.ijc.org/re/agree/water.html. Site last visited 31.10.2007.
185 Op. cit., 3.
186 Op. cit., 4 (1).
187 GLWQA Article VII, Paragraph 1.
188 See, Paragraph 1 (a)--(g).
189 Adopted on February 2, 1912, and subsequently amended.
190 See, BWT, Article VIII, Paragraph 7 and Art. IX and X.
191 Op. cit., Paragraph 3.
192 Op. cit., Paragraph 4.
193 BWT, Paragraph 5 (1)
194 Op. cit., Paragraph 6.
60
after consultations with the appropriate government or governments
concerned.195
The functions of the Boards are set in the ToR attached to the GLWQA.196
2.2.2 Great Lakes Water Quality Board
The Great Lakes Water Quality Board is the principal advisor of the IJC. It is
composed by equal number of members of the Contracting Parties [Canada
and USA; --Note: S.B.] including representatives from the Contracting Parties
and each of the State and Provincial Governments.197
The Board, at the direction of the IJC, shall make recommendations on the
development and implementation of programs to achieve the purpose of the
GLWQA, assemble and evaluate relevant information, identify deficiencies in
the scope and funding, examine the appropriateness of programs and advise
the IJC on the progress and effectiveness of programs. It is under the
competence of the Board to undertake liaison and coordination between the
institutions established under the GLWQA and other institutions and
jurisdictions which may address concerns relevant to the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem. The aim is to ensure a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach
to planning and to the resolution of problems. The Board has duty to report to
the IJC periodically.198
2.2.3 The Great Lakes Science Advisory Board
The Great Lakes Science Advisory Board provides scientific advice on research
to the IJC and to the Water Quality Board. The Science Advisory Board consists
of managers of Great Lakes research programs and recognized experts on the
Great Lakes water quality problems and related fields.199
This Board is responsible for developing recommendations on all matters
related to research and development of scientific knowledge pertinent to the
identification, evaluation and resolution of current and anticipated problems
related to the Great Lakes water quality. To effect these responsibilities, the
Board has duty to review scientific information in order to examine impact and
adequacy of research and the reliability of research results, and ensure
dissemination of the results, to identify research requirements, and to identify
specific research programs for which international cooperation is desirable. Its
duty is to advise jurisdictions of relevant research needs too.
The Board has right to seek analyses, assessments and recommendations from
other scientific professional academic, governmental or intergovernmental
sources, relevant to Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem research. The Board has
duty to report to the IJC and to the Water Quality Board periodically, or on
195 GLWQA, Article VIII, Paragraph 4.
196 Id.
197 GLWQA, Article VIII, Paragraph 1 (a).
198 GLWQA. Attachment "Terms of Reference for Joint Institutions and the Great Lakes Regional
Office".
199 Op. cit., Article VIII, Paragraph 1 (b)
61
request, on all matters of a scientific or research nature relating to the operation
and effectiveness of the. GLWQA.200
2.2.4 The Great Lakes Regional Office of the IJC
Administrative support and technical assistance to the IJC and two Boards and
their sub-organizations, as well as providing public information service for the
programs,
including
public
hearings,
undertaken
by
the
IJC and Boards, provides the Great Lakes Regional Office of the IJC.201 The
Office is located in Windsor, Ontario.
The Office is headed by a Director appointed by the IJC, in consultation with the
Parties and with the Co-Chairmen of the Boards. The position of Director is
alternate between the citizen of Canada and the USA. The term of its office is
subject to determination of the Parties. The Director is responsible for the
management of Regional Office and its staff. The Co-Chairmen of the Boards
determine the activities which the Office will carry out for the Boards in
consultation with the Director of the Office. The Director is responsible to them
for activities carried out on behalf of, or in support of such Board, by the Office
or individual staff members. The Director is responsible for preparing an annual
budget to carry out the functions of the Boards and the Regional Office for
submission jointly by two Boards to the IJC for approval and procurement of
resources.202
2.3
Funding
Obligations undertaken on the ground of the GLWQA are subject to
appropriation of funds in accordance with constitutional procedures of Canada
and USA.203 The Parties to the GLWQA committed themselves to seek:
· The appropriation of funds required to implement the GLWQA, including the
funds:
- needed to develop and implement the programs and other measures
provided for in Article VI of the GLWQA;204 and
- funds required by IJC to carry out its responsibilities effectively;
· The enactment of any additional legislation that may be necessary in order
to implement the programs and other measures provided for in Article VI of
the GLWQA; and
· The cooperation of the State and Provincial Governments in all matters
relating to the GLWQA.205
200 Op. cit., Attachment "Terms of Reference for Joint Institutions and the Great Lakes Regional
Office".
201 Op. cit., Article VIII, Paragraph 3.
202 Op. cit., Attachment "Terms of Reference for Joint Institutions and the Great Lakes Regional
Office".
203 Article XI, Paragraph 1.
204 See supra, note No. 173.
205 GLWQA, Article XI-Implementation.
62
The IJC has a duty to prepare and submit an annual budget of anticipated
expenses to be incurred in carrying out its responsibilities under GLWQA, to the
Parties for approval. Each Party has no obligation to pay a larger amount than
the other toward this budget.206
3.
The Lake Constance
3.1
Introductory Notes
The Lake Constance is the second larges lake in Alpine foreland (536 km2) that
is shared between Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Increasing human impact
on the Lake and its catchment area has causing drastic ecological changes and
consequently reactions by inhabitants and their representatives. Transboundary
cooperation has a long tradition in the Lake Constance region. Nowadays there
are more than 10 large and approximately 200 small transboundary
associations working in the region.207
The Upper Lake Constance is under in Europe a unique legal regime. Namely,
the national boundaries between littoral States have never been defined. The
water area from the shoreline to 25 m water depth is considered national
territory of the littoral States. The major part of the Upper Lake is considered a
"condominium", common property.208 In the smaller Lower Lake the frontiers
are clearly defined between Switzerland and Germany. Historical events led to
this situation in which no one national administration felt responsible for the
Lake or setting legislation for use of its resources.209 But, such situation also led
to conclusion of a number of treaties, regulating various issues210 and
establishment of several international commissions dealing with such issues in
the transboundary context. A brief review follows.
3.2
International Conference of Deputies for Fishery in the Lake
Constance (IBKF)
An international agreement was reached in 1841, on the protection of juvenile
salmon in the Rhine region, between France, the State of Baden and several
Swiss cantons. First attempt to regulate fishing in the Lake were made in 1869,
but political reasons caused that negotiations were long and complicated. In
1881 delegates from administrations of riparian States agreed that "countries
should work out their own national regulations in a similar manner".211
206 GLWQA, Article VIII, Para. 4.
207 See, Schröder, Transboundary Water Management in Lake Constance: from Tradition to Co-
operation
208 The term "condominium" denominates joint sovereignty over a territory by two or more states,
but also is used for the territory subject to joint sovereignty.--OXFORD DICTIONARY OF LAW;
New York, 2002.
209 See, Schröder, op. cit.
210 Unsustainable use of the Lake has its ecological, social and economic aspects, threatening
the landscape and waterscape. The issues subject to transboundary co-operation span from
wild life and habitats, tourism and recreation, shoreline construction, agriculture and drinking
water, to fisheries, forestry, water management, catchment management, services and industry
and energy consumption.
211 Id.
63
Those cooperative efforts ultimately led to conclusion of "Agreement of
Bregenz"212, in 1893, aimed at sustainable development of fishery in the Lake,
by protecting and increasing valuable fish species. With that goal the
International Conference of Deputies for Fishery in the Lake Constance (IBKF)
was established.213 The IBKF decisions adopted by consensus, are not binding
by international law, but they have been implemented in the frameworks of
national legal systems. The IBKF deals additionally with restriction of fishing
licenses and definition of closed seasons. During 1950s fishery was affected by
eutrophication, and results of research into that problem of this Commission
provided the basis for foundation of the International Commission for the
Protection of Lake Constance--IGKB. During 1960, the IBKF continued to deal
with its original purpose, e.g. with over-fishing, mesh-size and improved fish
hatchery, and since 1979, the IBKF has been successful in the protection and
support of threatened fish species.214
3.3
International Fishermen's Association of the Lake Constance
(IBF)215
In 1909 this organization was founded as an international community of
interests for the fishermen of Lake Constance. Actually, this Association
established the wastewater commission in 1950, which become the committee
of the IBKF and dealing with problems of water eutrophication prepared the
ground for establishment of the IGKB 1959.
3.4
International Commission for the Protection of the Lake Constance
(IGKB)
The IGKB was founded in 1959 by the three bordering States, Austria, Germany
and Switzerland, in order to preserve the Lake ecosystem from further
degradation. The Agreement on the Protection of the Lake Constance from
Pollution was signed in November 1960. The duties of the IGKB comprise:
· Observation of the Lake;
· Confirmation of causes of its pollution;
· Recommendation for coordinated preventive measures;
· Discussion the planned measures.216
The Commission is composed of delegates from the three member
Governments, and a limited number of high officers of those Governments. The
Commission is an advisory agency, and cannot decide on rules and actions
connected with environmental protection, but, by the agreement, the regional
governments are obliged to transpose the recommendations of the IGKB into
the legal systems of the regions. A technical and scientific board of experts
serves as official consultants to the Commission, with task to elaborate
research program and prepare reports on the research supported by the
212 Agreement on the use of similar regulations for the fishing industries on the Lake Constance.
213 Internationale Bevollmächtigtenkonferenz für die Bodenseefischerei--IBKF.
214 Schröder, op. cit.
215 Internationaler Bodenseefischereiverband--IBF.
216 See, Hammerl, M; Gottenhoehner, U.: Lake Constance Bodensee--Experiences and
Lessons Learned, p. 14
64
Commission. The board of experts has three working groups dealing with the
topics "Lake", "Catchment Area" and "Accident Defense". Their reports have
been published as "green reports".217
The stakeholders are involved in this work in the frameworks of possibilities
guaranteed by national legislation. Financing of the Commission is provided by
the littoral federal States and cantons, according to their size, population and
share of the lake shore. Baden-Württemberg has the highest quote (57%). EU
funds special projects through interregional cooperation.218
3.5
The International Bodensee Conference (IBK)
The International Bodensee Conference was established in 1972 as an inter-
governmental organization of the riparian federal States and cantons.
Nowadays, there are ten members:
· The Swiss Cantons of St. Galen, Thurgau, Schaffhausen, Appenzell
Innerrhoden, Appenzell Ausserrhoden and Zürich;
· The German States of Baden-Württemberg and Bayern;
· The Austrian State of Vorarlberg; and
· The Principality of Liechtenstein.219
This Commission takes all decisions by consensus. The common activities are
financed by the members. The share of each member is fixed according to the
extent of the territory. The Conference has its Permanent Committee and seven
commissions. Every year a conference with the prime ministers of the member
States take places in one of the member States.220 Communication of the
Conference with the IGKB is secured through it's one-member representation in
the permanent committee of the IBK. Co-operation between the Conference
and other international Lake Constance commissions and institutions is not
regular.221
It is important to note here the fact that the federal constitutional structure of all
three States riparian to the lake Constance means responsibility of the federal
units for regional cooperation (including through adoption of appropriate
legislation and conclusion of international treaties).
IBK has an office in Constance, for PR. The Stakeholders are also involved
through a public forum, "Parlamentarier-Kommission", which exchange
information with the Conference.
217 Id.
218 Id.
219 Id.
220 In 1999 the Environmental Commission published a report summarising the existing
problems, including legal and administrative framework, and necessary activities and measures
to be taken, especially concerning transboundary co-operation between administrations. The
title of this report was MEASURES IN THE FIELDS OF AGRICULTURE AND WATER
PROTECTION IN THE LAKE CONSTANCE REGION.--Id.
221 Id.
65
3.6
International Commission for Boating on the Lake Bodensee
(ISKB)222
This Commission was established by Austria, Germany and Switzerland in 1973
and its responsibility is limited to delivering recommendations related to the
boating on the Lake to the Federal States and Cantons, only. There is no direct
involvement of stakeholders in its work. The ISKB does not have its own
budget. All costs of meetings are covered by the host State on the rotation
basis.223
4.
The Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin (FASRB)
4.1
General Notes
The Sava River Basin is a sub-basin of the Danube River Basin. Once being a
national river, the Sava River and its basin has become an international river
shared between States originated in the territory of former Yugoslavia during
1990s.
Recognizing that the Sava River Basin and the related natural resources and
environment are natural assets of immense value to all the riparian countries,
for the economic and social well-being and living standards of their people, and
acknowledging the great political, economic and social changes that have taken
place in the region, which necessitate these efforts to reassess, redefine and
establish the future framework of their cooperation,224 the four States arisen
after dissolution of the Socialistic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, signed the
Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin on 3 December 2002 at
Kranjska Gora (Slovenia). The FSARB was the first regional agreement signed
between these countries after Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement.225
The FASRB is the newest international treaty having (holistically) for its subject
matter one river basin and all aspects of water management, including
navigational and non-navigational uses of water. Due to decomposition of the
community of States Serbia and Montenegro, Montenegro stood aside of the
FASRB and the part of the Sava River basin in the territory of Montenegro out
of the territorial legal scope of the FASRB. It is for expectation that Montenegro
shall become the party to the FASRB soon.
222 Internationale Schiffahrtskommission für deb Bodensee--ISKB.
223 Id.
224 Letter of Intent Concerning the International Sava Basin Commission Initiative signed at
Sarajevo 29 November 2001 by the MFA Ministers of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, and
Slovenia, and Minister for Civil Affairs and Communications of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
225 The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina was signed at
Paris, 14 December 1995, by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Croatia and
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in Witness of EU, France, Germany, Russian Federation, UK
and USA. Negotiations at Dayton, Ohio, USA, and signing a number of annexes to the General
Framework Agreement took place 21 November 1995.
66
4.2
Scope of Cooperation
The objective of the FASRB is determined as cooperation of the Parties in order
to achieve:
· Establishment of an international regime of navigation on the Sava River
and its navigable tributaries;
· Establishment of sustainable water management;
· Undertaking the measures to prevent or limit hazards, and reduce and
eliminate adverse consequences, including those from:
- Floods;
- Ice hazards;
- Droughts; and
- Incidents involving substances hazardous to water.226
For the purpose of carrying out those goals, the Parties took over obligation to
cooperate:
· In the process of creation of joint plans; and
· Development programs of the Sava River Basin; and
· In harmonization of their legislation with the EU legislation.227
The Parties declared that their cooperation aimed at attainment of the FASRB
goals, shall be based on the general principles as follows:
· General Obligation to Co-operate, comprising:
- Sovereign Equality;
- Territorial Integrity;
- Mutual Benefit;
- Good Faith;
- Conformity with the EU Water Framework Directive;228
· Exchange of Data and Information, comprising, on regular basis exchange
information on:
- The water regime of the Sava River Basin;
- The regime of navigation;
- [Their;-S.B.] legislation;
- organizational structure [of their competent authorities;-S.B.]
- [Their;-S.B.] administrative and technical practices;229
· Cooperation with International Organizations, comprising:
- ICPDR;
226 FASRB, Article 2. 1.
227 Op. cit., Article 2.2.
228 Op. cit., Article 3.
229 Op. cit., Article 4.
67
- The Danube Commission [for navigation regime. Note: S.B];
- UN ECE;
- Institutions of the EU.230
· Cooperation with national organizations, comprising:
- Nominated authorities and bodies competent for compliance with the
FASRB;
- Informing the Chairman of the International Sava River Basin
Commission on such nominations;231
· Implementation of international water law principles, comprising:
- Reasonable and equitable sharing of beneficial uses of the Sava River
basin watercourses;
- Determination of such sharing to be subject to implementation of relevant
factors according to international law;232
· Regulation by separate treaty (a Protocol to the FASRB) issues connected
to transboundary impacts, comprising issuance of water law rights
instruments (licenses, permits and confirmations) for installations and
activities that may have a transboundary impact on the water regime;233
· Undertaking of all appropriate measures to prevent causing significant harm
to other Parties.234
The FASRB Parties agreed to co-operate on management of waters in a
sustainable manner, which includes integrated management of surface and
underground water resources in the Sava River Basin, in the manner that would
provide:
· Water in sufficient quantity and of appropriate quality for preservation,
protection and improvement of aquatic ecosystems (including flora, fauna
and eco-systems of natural ponds and wetlands);
· Waters in sufficient quantity and of appropriate quality for navigation and
other kinds of use/utilization;
· Protection against detrimental effects from water (flooding, excessive
groundwater, erosion and ice hazards);
· Resolution of conflict of interests caused by different uses and utilizations;
and
· Effective control of water regime.235
230 Op. cit., Article 5.
231 Op. cit., Article 6. 1. and 2.
232 Op. cit., Article 7. 1. and 2.
233 Op. cit., Article 8.
234 Op. cit., Article 9.
235 Op. cit., Article 11.
68
The FASRB Parties agreed to develop joint or integrated Plan on the
management of the water resources of the Sava River basin and to co-operate
on preparatory activities that would be adopted by them on the proposal of the
ICSRB. These activities shall be co-ordinated with the activities of the
ICPDR.236
4.3
Mechanism of Cooperation
4.3.1 Meeting of the Parties
The Meeting of the Parties is an institutional setting responsible for keeping
under continues review the implementation of the FASRB, on the basis of the
reports of the ISRBC, through:
· Reviewing the work and operations of the ICSRB and taking decisions
based on recommendations;
· Consideration and adoption of proposals for signing the Protocols and
Amendments to the FASRB;
· Consideration and undertaking of any additional action that may be
necessary for the achievements of the FASRB purposes.237
The Parties meet once in two years238 and take decisions by consensus239.
4.3.2 International Sava River Basin Commission (ICSRB)
For implementation of the FASRB, an international commission, the
International Sava River Basin Commission (ICSRB) has been established, with
international legal capacity necessary for exercise of its functions.240 The
ICSRB consists from two representatives of each party, one member and one
deputy member.241 The ICSRB may establish its permanent and ad hoc expert
groups.242 The rules in regards of Chairmanship of the ICSRB and the sessions
of the ICSRB are contained in the ICSRB Statute,243 and in great details in the
Rules of Procedure.
The functions of the ICSRB are designated as making:
· Decisions aimed at providing conditions for safe navigation244;
236 Op. cit., Article 12.
237 Op. cit., Article 14. 2.
238 Op. cit., Article 14. 1.
239 Op. cit., Article 14. 3.
240 Op. cit., Article 15.
241 ICSRB Statute, Article 1. 1.
242 ICSRB Statute, Article 1. 2.
243 See, Art. 2. and 3.
244 It is worth noting that, in accordance with the Protocol on the Navigation Regime to the
FASRB (signed at Kranjska Gora, 3 December 2002 and later ratified by all the FASRB Parties)
navigation on the watercourses the FASRB applies on shall be carried in accordance with the
Rules of Navigation that shall be determined by the ICSRB and the competent authorities of the
Parties. However, the Rules determined by the Parties must be in accordance with the decision
of the ICSRB.
69
· Decisions on the financing construction of navigable waterways and their
maintenance;
· Decisions on its own work, budget and the procedures;
· Recommendations on all other issues regarding realization of the FASRB.245
Decisions listed under the first three bullets above shall be binding upon all the
Parties. In case of decisions of the two first bullets, the members of ICSRB may
withdraw their votes within 30 days after the date when decision was adopted
by the ICSRB, or inform the ICSRB that such decision is subject to the approval
of the relevant authority his/her State.246 The formulation of this provision allows
conclusion that the ICSRB decisions on "its own work, budget and procedures"
are binding on the Parties without any additional approval procedure.
More detailed the tasks and competences of the ICSRB are elaborated in the
ICSRB Statute, including empowering the ICSRB to adopt additional legal
instruments needed for discharging its functions, such as:
· Rules of procedure;
· Financial Rules;
· Decisions on Main Functions and Structure of the Secretariat and job
Description of the officials and Support Staff; and
· Staff Regulations of the Secretariat.247
Each Party has one vote.248 Decision and recommendations shall be adopted
by the unanimous vote.249 The ICSRB may use written decision-making
procedure in urgent case, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.250
The Sava Commission has been financed by equal regular annual contributions
of the Parties and from other sources.251 The budget ICSRB adopts its annual
or biennial budget and budget estimates for the fiscal period following
thereafter.252 The Parties bear expenses related to participation of their
representatives, experts and advisers in the ICSRB,253 as well as the costs of
regular monitoring and assessment activities, carried out in their territories.254
The ICSRB has been given right to establish its Secretariat.255 It is established
with the seat in Zagreb. The Secretariat has been managed ("run") by a
Secretary, who is responsible to the ICSRB and who has three deputies.256 The
245 Op. cit., Article 16. 1.
246 Op. cit., Article 16. 2.
247 ICSRB Statute, Article 4.
248 ICSRB Statute, Article 5. 1.
249 ICSRB Statute, Article 5. 3.
250 ICSRB Statute, Article 5. 2.
251 Op. cit, Article 17 and The ICSRB Statute (adopted in the form Annex I of the FASRB),
Article 6. 1.
252 ICSRB Statute, Article 6. 2.
253 Op. cit., Article 6. 3.
254 Op. cit., Article 6. 3.
255 FASRB, Article 18. 1.
256 FASRB, Article 18. 2 and 3.
70
ICSRB Secretariat has been designed to perform administrative and executive
services for the ICSRB,257 and it consists of officials (Secretary, his Deputies
and Advisors258) and support staff.259 Appointment of the officials is the right of
the ICSRB, following a competitive selection procedure and requirements set in
the rules and regulations by the ICSRB. The Secretary is competent for
appointing the support staff, also in accordance with the ICSRB rules and
regulations.260 The officials must be nationals of the parties.261
257 ICSRB Statute, Article 7 1.
258 Which are international civil servants. See, Staff Regulation of the Secretariat, Article 4.
259 ICSRB Statute, Article 7. 2 and 3.
260 ICSRB Statute, Article 7. 4.
261 ICSRB Statute, Article 7. 5.
71
VII.
DRAFT TRILATERAL AGREEMENT
1.
Notes on Legal Status of Draft
Pursuing the choice made at the very beginning of the Prespa process262 that a
trilateral agreement should be drafted, and signed by the environmental
Ministers of the three States, a document entitled "Draft263 Tripartite Agreement
on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park Area" was,
according to available information, designed by the MedWet, and distributed
among interested authorities and stakeholders264. No rationale is attached to
the text available.
For a proper assessment of the legal status of this document, as an output of
preceding activity aimed at achieving sustainable result in future trilateral
cooperation, it would be important to have clear answers on e.g. following
questions:
· Was the decision regarding drafting taken by legally eligible subject(s)?
· How decisions on certain options in the Draft Agreement were taken (i.e.
what was underlying and supporting rationale for choosing certain option)?
· Was a ToR for making draft, reflecting principles and basic policy framework
of future trilateral cooperation, adopted? By whom?
· Did national authorities commit themselves to accept the output of such
drafting process for their future joint trilateral action?
· Was such action jointly agreed on?
Analysis of above listed issues, accompanied with additional details, would
highlight legal validity of the document, which can help to understand reasons
why it was not efficient in development of new set-up for trilateral cooperation.
2.
Contents of Draft
The Draft contains provisions on:
· Objective of the Agreement;
· Basic obligations of the Parties;
· Environmental standards and criteria;
· Sustainable water management;
· Exchange of data and information;
· Transboundary environmental impact;
· Cooperation with international organizations and donors;
262 See supra, note No. 62.
263 The most probable, it is clear that this document cannot be entitled as a "draft", because of
exclusive right of the State authorities involved officially to determine such kind of status of a
document. Yet, this note is important for future work that shall be aimed exclusively to
development of "texts" of certain legal instruments only, in a time limited formal procedure that
would lead to giving certain legally clear status by the competent national authorities, to the
texts agreed on.
264 No details on time when the document was finalized are available at the moment.
72
· Mechanism of cooperation, including a "high-level segment" and Prespa
Park Management Committee with a working group;
· Dispute settlement;
· Amendments;
· Entry into force;
· Relation with other treaties;
· Duration and withdrawal.
3.
Instead of Conclusion
The Draft Trilateral Agreement was not negotiated by the littoral Prespa Lakes
States. It can rather be considered as an informal initiative (probably it might be
said the NGO one) for conclusion of a binding trilateral treaty in accordance with
international law (i.e. Vienna Convention). Deficiencies in drafting procedure
(absence and lack of participation of the States' representatives empowered to
participate in the drafting/negotiation process) obviously led to a situation similar
that explained in regards of the SAP--no one public authority in the littoral
States felt ownership over the final product (the Draft text of the Trilateral
Agreement) and consequently duty to undertake any formal move after
receiving the text of the Draft. Noted should be (again) that commitment for
drafting the Trilateral Agreement in such a way was reached/expressed by the
environmental ministers, not by the littoral States of the Prespa Lakes.
Detailed specific analysis of text of the proposed legal norms would be
demanding and time-consuming task, with no clear vision what the result of
such analysis would be in its legal meaning and who (which forum) would use it.
Experts from all three States involved in commenting the text of Draft by now
have given valuable contributions to improvement of the text. The text is subject
to further considerations among various experts, including specialists from
MFAs legal affairs departments, and authorities of all three States.
But, it seems obvious that such work would not mean wasting time only if it is
framed in an official procedure, agreed on in advance by the States involved, as
well as with agreed important legal aspects of such work, participants to be
included and outputs expected.265
In that sense, no further analysis of the text of Draft shall be continued in this
Report. The Draft should be used during the process of official trilateral
consultations with all other appropriate material as it might be considered
necessary by participants.
265 For more details on this issue, see infra in Chapter VIII Recommendations.
73
VIII.
RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES, ORDER OF STEPS AND TIME
FRAME
1.
Introductory notes
In accordance with the ToR, this Technical Assessment Report is expected to
offer concrete recommendations on the most appropriate institutional
arrangements / set up for transboundary ecosystem management and water
governance in the Prespa Lakes Basin, in view of the PPCC playing this role, its
current capacity to do so and next steps for its institutional maturation. Such
recommendations should be based on previously made reviews in regards of
current national legislation of the three Prespa Lakes littoral States, i.e. Albania,
Greece and FYR of Macedonia and their commitments to implement broader
legal and policy requirements set at global, UNECE and EU frameworks, as well
as assessments done on institutional set up of the PPCC and its existing and
future financial sustainability, and review and assessment of a text of current
draft of tripartite treaty on the Prespa Park Area.
Having completed the necessary reviews and assessments, as it has been
presented in the chapters above, it was possible to formulate a set of
recommendations. Instead of a broad formal rationale for the chosen approach,
several explanatory notes, reflecting the basic findings, hopefully should
sufficiently indicate why the applied approach has been chosen in formulation of
the recommendations.
2.
Some Explanatory Notes
Experience has shown that in regulating interstate relations regarding their
shared water resources or transboundary ecosystem management, it would be
not possible to take over (import) any other transboundary institutional water
set-up as a ready-made legislation model, and implement it successfully in
another transboundary legislative unit. This is valid for the Prespa Lakes Basin
too.
Each transboundary waters case is a case per se. However, rich and diversified
enough international law theory and practice can offer plenty of ideas that could
inspire drafters (participants in official consultations and negotiators) in their
search for best and feasible solutions. In other words, the future Prespa Lakes
Basin institutional arrangement should be good enough if it is specifically
tailored for the Prespa Lakes Basin only.
Interstate regulation of their relations concerning shared water resources or
transboundary ecosystem management, depend on commitment of the
interested states to co-operate, negotiate and to reach an international (bilateral
or multilateral) agreement. Such co-operation is subject to certain principles that
should be applied in accordance with international law, e.g.:
· Sovereign equality; and
· Territorial integrity of states;
· Mutual benefit;
74
· Reciprocity;
· Good faith, etc.
In the UN ECE region, such co-operation is primarily expected to be
implemented through the elaboration of agreements between countries
bordering the same waters that should be based on the principles of:
· General obligation to cooperate;
· Reasonable and equitable use of waters;
· Obligation not cause significant harm;
· Regular exchange of information;
· Notification concerning planned measures with possible adverse effects, etc.
Such co-operation, based on those and other recognized international law
principles should lead to development of harmonized policies, programs and
strategies covering relevant catchment area or part thereof, aimed at the
prevention, control and reduction of transboundary impact and at the protection
of the environment of transboundary waters or the environment influenced by
such waters, etc.
Necessity for transboundary co-operation in regards of shared waters is
strongly supported by multilateral global and UN ECE treaties and rooted in the
EU policy, particularly regarding waters in transboundary catchment areas.
Having in view the facts that Greece is the Member of the EU and that Albania
and FYR of Macedonia declared their commitment to participate in the
European integration processes with the aim to became Members of the EU
too, it is reasonably to expect that next phase in co-operation regarding the
Prespa Lakes Basin shall be based and up-graded on the remarkable results
achieved during last eight years.
The momentum should be used that international community is strongly
committed to support a process of joint trilateral search for the most suitable
tripartite arrangement for the Prespa Lakes Basin that would bring institutional
and financial stability and sustainability of relations between three States aimed
at achievement of integration of ecological, economic and social goals in the
Prespa Lakes region. In that way, the initial commitment expressed in the
Declaration of the Prespa Lakes, would be sustained through the desire that
"Prespa Park become and remain a model of its kind as well as an additional
reference to the peaceful collaboration" among three countries.
3.
Commitment of the States
Additionally to the ("soft-law") commitment expressed in the Prespa Park
Declaration (2000), a new commitment of the three Prespa Lakes littoral States
to co-operate in the elsewhere above described framework of international law
applicable to the Prespa Lakes Basin, should be shown in the implementation
frameworks of the UNDP-GEF project "Integrated Ecosystem Management in
the Prespa Lakes Basin of Albania, FYR of Macedonia and Greece". As an
example of particularly strong form of national commitment to transboundary
75
waters co-operation, here should be quoted the provision of Article 20.2 of the
Albanian Law No. 9103, date 10.7.2003 on the Protection of Transboundary
Lakes:
The management plans should comply with the international conventions on the lake
protection and management, as well as be in compliance with the agreements signed
with the neighbouring countries.
In searching for a "more permanent and mature" institutional arrangement that
would be sustainable in a long-term perspective in performing complex duties
relating to the management of the Prespa Lakes Basin (and in that way further
up-grading the concept of Transboundary Prespa Park), a set of "pragmatic and
ambitious" recommendations for consideration has been formulated bellow.
4.
Recommendations
The Recommendations bellow, structured in the way as they are, shall provide
not only bare answers to the ToR requirements. If accepted and fully
implemented they could provide a chance for development of a feeling of
regional ownership over designed solution(s). The best theoretical solution shall
not be successfully applied in practice if it is not embraced by interested people
and felt as their own.
4.1
Trilateral Consultative Process
A process of formal trilateral consultations should be established with the aim
of:
· Development of legal and institutional basis for the transboundary integrated
water and ecosystem management in the Prespa Lakes Basin, in conformity
with international law;
· Drafting the text of a trilateral treaty concerning the Prespa Lakes Basin;
· Drafting texts of all legal instruments necessary for establishment and
beginning of work of a trilateral Prespa Lakes Basin institution, responsible
for implementation of the said treaty, and having law personality under
international law;
· Developing and proposing the model of financial sustainability of such
trilateral institution.
The Process of Trilateral Consultations (PTC) in the context of this Report
means (expert multi-sector) joint effort of three official States' delegations
(joined in one Working Group) on investigation and assessment of all issues
relevant for and formulation of the rules applicable to the Prespa Lakes Basin.
Political differences between the Prespa Lakes Basin States shall not be dealt
with during the PTC.
"Establishment of the PTC" has in the context above the meaning of:
· Addressing of the UNDP to the three Prespa Lakes Basin States through
diplomatic channels with formal proposal for their commitment to enter
76
into the Process of Trilateral Consultations on the Prespa Lakes Basin
treaty;
· Drafting the text of a Letter of Intent containing all elements of such
commitment (in the meaning, goals to be achieved, principles the
consultations and treaty should be based on, the way how to run the
PTC, activities, time frame for all activities, etc);
· Addressing of the UNDP to respective international organizations (as
proposed bellow) for support for the PTC.
This approach would lead towards making the draft of the Trilateral Agreement,
which would contain satisfactory solutions for all the States involved.
After finalization of a text of the trilateral treaty, it would be officially delivered to
the three States as an output of joint efforts of their national experts.
Besides its regular tasks, as designated in the PPCCToR&OA, the PPCC shall
play the role of POC to the project "Integrated Ecosystem Management in the
Prespa Lakes Basin of Albania, FYR of Macedonia and Greece", as designed in
the UNDP Full Size Project Document, until the establishment of new trilateral
institutional set-up in the Prespa Lake Basin, as a result of implementation of
that project. Financial support for the Albanian and FYR of Macedonian
members of the PPCC Secretariat should be provided by the UNDP-GEF
Project with aim to sustain such role of the PPCC.
PTC should be open for participation of all national stakeholders (in the sense
of being able to submit their opinions to national delegations). Representatives
of international community should be given chance to address directly to
delegations. General public should be informed from time to time on the
progress.
4.2.
Rapid Comparative Legal Assessment of Cross-Cutting Issues
Soon after beginning of PTC, a rapid assessment of national legal and
institutional context for development / supporting an advanced good water
governance model for the Prespa Lakes Basin--the Rapid Comparative Legal
Assessment of Cross-Cutting Issues (RCLACCI) in all three littoral States
should be undertaken with the aim the results to be at disposal to participants of
the PTC. This should comprise legal options, possibilities and obstacles, for
inter-sectoral (in the meaning inter-departmental, inter-ministerial), multilevel (in
the meaning of central, regional and municipal) networking.
Possibilities for further strengthening national NGO networks and different
stakeholder group networks (e.g. fishermen, agriculture, tourist etc.) interested
in the Prespa Lakes Basin activities should be investigated as well as possibility
for their networking at the transboundary trilateral level.
4.3
Performing Pilot SEA in the Prespa Lakes Basin
For certain chosen public plans in each of the Prespa Lakes Basin States one
Strategic Environmental Assessment should be performed in the framework of
this Project, on the pilot basis, with the aim of demonstrating significance and
77
power of that environmental protection management instruments and on three
practical examples identify accurately possible role of future Prespa Lakes
Management Committee (i.e. transboundary dimension of SEA).
Similar activity might be undertaken for Environmental Impact Assessments
(EIA).
In all cases, full public involvement in accordance with the Aarhus Convention
would be demonstrated.
4.4
Involvement of international organizations
Additionally to the efforts invested by now into the Prespa Park process by
certain prominent international organizations (e.g. Ramsar Convention Bureau,
MedWet Initiative, WWF) and notwithstanding to their valuable support and help
in future, other international organizations, recently active in fostering various
aspects of transboundary co-operation, particularly related to waters and
environmental issues in the SEE countries, should be involved in the PTC.
In parallel with preparatory activities for the PTC, UNDP should approach to
such international organizations as:
· European Commission (EC);
· Council of Europe (CoE);
· UN Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE);
· Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE);
· North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
On the basis of previously reached agreement of the three Prespa littoral
States, the UNDP would ask them to participate in the PTC in the observers'
status, and provide assistance based on their experience, and other kind of
assistance (in e.g. chairing and facilitating the consultation process) if needed.
4.4
International Prespa Conference
Organizing a scientific/professional international conference on policy, legal,
institutional, good governance, and management and development issues in the
transboundary context focused on the specific Prespa Lakes Basin case would
be beneficial for the PTC itself, but to all three Prespa littoral States too.
Besides provision of a deep insight into the current development world's and
particularly EU trends, such an event would significantly enhance visibility of
unique on-going co-operative processes in the Prespa Lakes region, and
hopefully contribute to establishment of new connections and open new co-
operation and business possibilities.
78
5.
Order of Steps & Content of Activities266
The proposed Tripartite Consultation Process (TCP) aimed at conclusion of the
Agreement on the Prespa Lakes Basin would be phased, as followed267:
PHASE I
PREPARATORY ACTIVITIES AND EXPRESSION OF COMMITTMENT
1.
Preparatory activities
1.1
UNDP officially to inform the three Governments on the proposed
plan of next steps for institutional maturation
[Formal proposal to be attached. This information could be accompanied with proposed
text of a Letter of Intent that would contain basic elements of commitment of the three
States to (technical) consultations.
Request for official confirmation of commitment to participation in the forthcoming
process, in case the Letter of Intent would not be signed]
1.2
UNDP officially to inform on the planned process, ask support and
propose participation in the status of observers to the
organizations members of international community, i.e.:
· European Commission (EC)
· Council of Europe (CoE)
· OSCE
· UN ECE
· NATO
· MedWet
· WWF
[The list is not exhausted. Other interested international organizations as well as
interested States can join the TCP.
EC, CoE and OSCE should be asked to provide a more concrete support in the form of
the facilitating the TCP and chairing official consultative sessions.
UNDP shall decide on the moment of this official communication]
2.
Official responses to the UNDP
2.1
Three Governments to confirm (may be in form of signing the
Letter of Intent) of official participation in the tripartite consultation
process aimed at reaching a tripartite agreement, in accordance
with Recommendation 4.1
2.2
Three Governments to communicate officially to the UNDP information
on national delegations empowered for participation in consultation
process, with data on:
·
Head and deputy of delegation (with power to express final
position of the delegation concerning considered issues)
266 All institutional titles in this text (i.e. "Tripartite Prespa Lakes Agreement" (Prespa
Agreement), "Consultation Logistic Unit (CLU)", "Prespa Management Committee" (PMC)) are
tentative and not intended to suggest any final denomination, and serve only to help in more
precise explanation of concepts proposed in this text.
267 Recommended activities are numbered. Additional explanations are given in square
brackets.
79
·
Composition of delegation
[Data on experts, professional profile, communication data etc. Delegations
should be composed as multidisciplinary expert teams with multi-stakeholder
representation. Participation of MFA legal departments is crucial]
· Possibility for inclusion of more experts etc.
· Way of official communication and official contact point during the
TCP
2.3
Three Governments to express their support for participation of
international community members
[In conformity with 1.4 above. May be contained in the Letter of Intent]
2.4
International community members invited to participate in the TCP
officially to respond on the request of UNDP
3.
UNDP to establish CLU, as an Interim Secretariat of TCP
[CLU would be established by UNDP and under its control and in one of its premises.
All communications in the TPC would go exclusively through the CLU.
CLU would be composed of a long-term full-time coordinator (int'l expert)268 and a technical
secretary269.
ToR to be adopted shall be prepared by UNDP and agreed on at first formal meeting of the
States' expert teams/delegations. Commitment for UNDP funding a long-term international expert
position was expressed in the GEF PD]
268 The GEF PD foresaw funding a full time co-ordinator, which was inconstantly mentioned as
the "Executive Secretary of the PPCC", separate from the position of International
Transboundary Advisor (ITA), but as well as ITA playing the role of the Executive Secretary of
the PPCC. In regards of those GEF PD references and proposal for establishment of specific
organisational unit--CLU to serve the trilateral consultancy process, some additional highlight of
details is necessary. It seems that any role of ITA in the PPCC would lead to the conflict of
interests, because of controlling function of ITA over the project funds.
A clearly established function of CLU is of vital importance for smooth development of TCP and
achievement of projected results in determined time-frame. Its purely high-level professional
impartial performance and dedication solely to the TCP, together with strongly-supportive
participation of authoritative international organizations, are those factors that would provide a
climate of confidence and enthusiasm in the TCP. In that context it seems unrealistic to expect
ITA to play this role successfully, additionally to his on-going activities.
Having in view approach taken in this Report (i.e. recommendation a three-year TCP to be
established and run) a pragmatic reading of the GEF PD would actually provide basis for
funding the CLU (which should be under the full control of UNDP, i.e. ITA). If there is still need
for initially envisaged support to the PPCC secretarial work, it should be considered separately.
The proposal elaborated here is only one concept, intended more to illustrate the need for such
logistic support to the PTC than reflecting an exact need. The PTC can last shorter, what
depend on teams appointed for consultations and experts chosen to draft legal documents.
Similarly, if there are no Project funds enough for covering the entire PTC, other possibilities
should be searched for. Perhaps a separate project funded by additional sources (like in the
case of the FASRB) could be established, etc.
269 Technical Secretary of CLU would be seen here as a possibility for funding additional work
through short-term engagement of high-school profile person for enhanced and time pressure
activities.
80
PHASE II
PROCESS OF TRIPARTITE CONSULTATIONS
4.
First/Initial formal meeting of the States' consultative teams/delegations
4.1
Invitation by the hosting country, UNDP and facilitating
organization
[Tentative Agenda and all material to be prepared by UNDP CLU. Tentative Agenda
could comprise:
(a) Detailed information on commitment to the process expressed by the Governments
of three States and members of international community
(b) Adoption of interim program and plan of consultation
(c) Adoption of Methodology of Work and a tentative activity time frame
(d) Adoption of ToR for Rapid Comparative Legal Assessment of Cross-Cutting Issues
(RCLACCI)
The elements for RCLACCI of would be:
-
Compliance with relevant global, CoE and UNECE treaties and transposition of
the Community acquis
-
Institutions competent for compliance, transposition and enforcement
-
Networking of relevant national institutions
-
National experts / lawyers should be engaged. International consultant /
lawyer should be engaged for consolidation of Joint Report. Total time for
execution would not last more then 45 days. Engagement of experts through the
UNDP competitive procedure]
(e) Initial talks on the text of the Prespa Agreement, e.g.:
-
Tentative title
-
Contents
-
Preamble
-
Principles
-
Territorial scope
(f) Next meeting set-up
(g) Forming of Task Forces
[If there is need for additional in-depth analysis of certain issues, Task Forces might
be formed for elaboration and reporting. ToRs and conditions for their work to be
agreed on by delegations.]
4.2
First Session holding
4.3
Establishment of electronic consultative network
[List of persons. Openness for proposals and comments. Status of and
handling with proposal and comments]
5.
Formal Tripartite Consultations Process
5.1
Work
· Work between official meetings
[Comprises: Logistic work of CLU; Work of participants of TCP; Work of experts /
Task Forces; Work of authorities; Work of stakeholders; Information and reporting
by all]
· Work on the official meetings
[Comprises: Drafting the text of legal norms; Planning of work; Taking joint conclusions
aimed at needs of TCP Working Team; Reporting to the Governments (through UNDP
CLU]
81
5.2
RCLACCI Report and other reports when completed on request of
TCP Working Team
5.3
Finalization of consultation aimed at reaching (expert/technical)
agreement on text of the tripartite Prespa Agreement
5.4
Final text of Prespa Agreement delivered to UNDP
6.
Facilitating international organization and UNDP official delivery of the
agreed text of Prespa Agreement to the three States
[Facilitating organization, UNDP and MFAs of the three States would officially facilitate signing the
Agreement]
7.
Formal consultations on further steps
Plan for work in the III PHASE
[Should comprise: Setting the task evolved on the basis of agreed text of the Prespa Agreement;
Expected results; Interim institutionalisation of the process in the III Phase, in terms of forming the
expert team(s), organisation of their work, duty of reporting, reporting authorities, etc.; Tentative
time frame; Participation of MFAs & Ministries for Environment, at least; Facilitation by UNDP and
other members of international community; Logistic by CLU; ToR(s)]
III.
PHASE
NEGOTIATIONS. RATIFICATION. LEGAL INSTRUMENTS & BUDGET
DRAFTING. PREPARATION OF FIRST SESSION OF PRESPA
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
8.
On-going process of negotiation and ratification
8.1
Now the States would have a very satisfactory result achieved through
their joint effort. They would be owners of the Draft text of one
international law instrument. They would be in position to negotiate the
nature and details of Agreement and time frame for its ratification.
[More solutions could be chosen at this stage, in accordance with international law, but
all of them must be negotiated. Rich possibilities in accordance with Vienna Convention
might be investigated in search for satisfactory solution for all the interests of negotiating
States.]
8.2
After having completed negotiations, the States would sighn the
Agreement and initiate the process of its ratification
9.
First meeting of [three States delegations/teams] drafting experts
9.1
Invitation
[Invitation by host country, facilitating organization and UNDP.
Tentative Agenda and all material to be prepared by UNDP CLU. Tentative Agenda
could comprise:
(a)
Informing on ratification process
(b)
Review of Work Plan and ToR(s)
This may comprise drafting of texts of the following documents necessary for
successful establishment of trilateral management body under international law:
-
Statute
-
Rules of Procedure
-
Staff regulations of the Secretariat
82
-
Regulations on Main Functions & Structure of Secretariat & Job
Description of Positions of the Officials and Staff
-
Financial Rules
-
Methodology for Monitoring of Compliance with Tripartite Agreement
-
Seat Agreement
-
Draft Work Plan for the First Year
-
Draft Budget for the First Year
-
Tentative Agenda for the First Session
-
Final report on work
(c)
Detailed time frame, including limitation of time for work on certain documents
(d)
Methodology of work
(e)
Choosing basic material for work
9.2
Holding of first meeting
10.
Joint drafting of texts of documents
[Agreement on solution of situations when participant were not able to agree on certain option
shall be set in advance, to avoid wasting time in fruitless discussions]
11.
Finalisation of work and preparation of Final Report
11.1
Preparation of agenda & materials for the First Session of new
international Prespa Management Commission
11.2
Adoption of Final Report
11.3
Submitting officially to the new Prespa Management Commission for its
First Session the Final Report on the work done and all the text of
documents agreed
12.
PRESPA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE IN PLACE. First Session
83
e
e
c
e
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
a
n
d
Gr
o
f
M
R
Y
l
b
a
n
i
a
,
F
a
s
i
n
o
f
A
r
e
s
p
a
L
a
k
e
s
B
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
P
e
a
n
a
g
e
m
M
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
E
7.
REMINDER NOTES ON POSSIBLE CONTENTS
OF THE PRESPA LAKES BASIN AGREEMENT
The following reminder notes are written with the one purpose only: to inspire
search for the best legal solutions and in the same time to indicate the
complexity (of a multifaceted efforts) of designing and establishment of a
sustainable institutional solution for such an area as the Prespa Lakes Basin is.
The listed issues, and others not listed here, concerning for instance scope of
the agreement, institutional setting, institutional operations, decision-making
process and financing and budget, must be discussed, negotiated and an
agreement should be reached on each of them in a trilateral negotiation
process.
7.1
Some Features of the Agreement
· The territorial scope would be the Prespa Lakes Basin;
· Anticipation of all the WFD requirements;
· The Agreement might have Annexes as needed for comprising all issues in
detail;
· The Agreement shall set the legal grounds for additional legislation needed
for full development of legal personality of the Prespa Management
Committee;
· When draft text is completed in the consultation process, the States shall
decide in negotiation process what kind of international treaty it shall be, and
sign it in the way they will found appropriate.
7.2
Some Features of the Prespa Management Committee
· It shall be responsible for implementation of the Agreement;
· It shall have international legal capacity necessary for performing its duties,
comprising right to sign contacts, to purchase and own assets, to sue and to
be sued etc;
· It shall have right to set an international Prespa Trust Fund, if needed;
· It shall have legal possibility to be owner of the Prespa Lakes trade marks, if
so agreed;
· It shall have its own premises, obtained on the basis of a Seat Agreement
concluded with the host country. The seat of the Committee shall not be
subject of consultation. It shall be decide between three States through
diplomatic channels.
· Institutional structure of the Committee should be:
- Simple and transparent, with clear lines of communication, and reporting
duty;
- In terms of regular expenses tailored to the economic possibilities /
strengths of the region
- Officials and staff members of the Secretariat should be employees of
the Committee.
7.3
Some Notes on the Role and Scope of Competence of the
Prespa Management Committee
Each aspect of the scope of the competence of the Committee must be
correlative to the goals and aims of trilateral co-operation and defined as much
as possible. No paper should be saved for description of those goals and
related competences, the most probable in the annexes to the Agreement.
85
The role of the Committee should be designed against various activities on-
going in the Prespa Lakes Basin, on the basis of national legislation (enforcing
or expected to transpose EU requirements), such as inter alia:
· Strategic planning affecting the Prespa Lakes Basin;
· Development of the Prespa Lakes Basin Management Plan in the context of
the WFD;
· Institutional collaboration with the three respective water councils (or boards)
competent for the Prespa Lakes Basin;
· Harmonization of relevant national legislation;
· Issuance of legal instruments setting various kinds of water use rights of
which would affect the status of water bodies in the Prespa Lakes Basin;
· Monitoring;
· Environmental impact assessment procedures (SEA and EIA);
· Integration Prevention and Pollution Permit procedure;
· Interface for articulation of the Prespa Lakes basin stakeholder interests and
helping in searching for "win-win" solutions;
· Development of nature and man made disaster combating strategies and
related risk assessment in the Prespa Lakes Basin (e.g. droughts, fire
fighting, floods, aviary influenza);
· Spatial planning in the Prespa Lakes Basin;
· Implementation of BEP in the Prespa Lakes Basin;
· Harmonizing the Prespa Lakes fishery management;
· Developing Prespa trade marks;
· Forestry management;
· Water quality management;
· Harmonizing protective measure in the protected area;
· EU policies adjustment to the needs of the Prespa Lakes Basin;
· Reporting on the state of environment (e.g. achievement of the goals of the
Agreement);
· Research into various relevant aspect of the Prespa Lakes Basin
Management;
· Coordination efforts with activities on-going in the framework of the Ohrid
Lake Basin, and other relevant broader initiatives (e.g. continue
exceptionally good cooperation with the Ramsar Bureau and MedWet
Initiative);
7.4
Notes on Working Guidance
Summary Reports on the Thematic Sessions 1 ("Institutionalizing co-operation
and stakeholder involvement") and 2 (Sustainable financing), held in the
framework of International Roundtable on "Integrated Shared lake Basin
Management in the Southern Europe", organized by Global Water Partnership
Mediterranean and Lake Ohrid Watershed Committee 12--14 October 2006 at
Ohrid, can be used alongside with the above bulleted notes, as an indicative
work guidance.
86
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Avramoski, Oliver: ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PRACTICES IN ECOSYSTEM
APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAHEMNT IN THE REGION OF OHRID AND
PRESPA LAKES; A the thesis submitted to the Department of Environmental Sciences and
Policy of CEU in fulfilment of the Degree of Master of Science; Budapest, 2002
Bogdanovic, Slavko: Good Governance of the Sava Basin--Legal realities and Practical
prospects; Journal of Water Law; Law Text Publishing Ltd.; 2004; 15 WL3/04
Bogdanovic, Slavko: Legal Aspects of Transboundary Water Management in the Danube Basin;
Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart; Large Rivers, Vol. 16. No. 1-2, Arch.
Hydrobiol. Suppl. 158/1-2, 2005
Caponera, Dante A.: THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL WATER RESOURCES; FAO, Rome,
1980
Chardalopulos, Gianis: INTRODUCTION OF A PRESPA PARK TRADE MARKS--Preparatory
Investigation; Final Synthesis Report; Society for the Protection of Prespa, 2006
Council of Europe: GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAN-
EUROPEAN ECOLOGICAL NETWORK; Nature and Environment Series, No. 107, Strasbourg,
2000
Council of Europe: 3rd International symposium of the Pan-European Ecological Network
Fragmentation of Habitats and Ecological Corridors Proceedings; Riga, October 2002;
Environmental Encounters No. 54, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2000.
Declaration on the Creation of the Prespa Park and the Environmental Protection and
Sustainable Development of the Prespa Lakes and their Surroundings; Aghios Germanos, 2000
EUROPEAN COMMISSION; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN RELATION TO THE WATER
FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE: Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework
Directive (2000/60/EC), Guidance document 8; European Communities, 2003
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY: EUROPE'S ENVIRONMENT--The Fourth
Assessment; Copenhagen, 2007
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature, Conservation and Nuclear Safety & World Bank:
PETERSBURG PROCESS--PHASE II; Berlin Recommendations; 2005
Glesos, Milton: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ON TRANSBOUNDARY FIRE-FIGHTING AND
CONTINGECY COOPERATION IN THE PRESPA PARK AREA: Society for Protection of
Prespa; Aghios Germanos, 2004
Global Water Partnership: EFFECTIVE WATER GOVERNANCE--Learning from Dialogues;
Paper presented at the Third Water Forum Kyoto, 16--32 March 2003
Great Lakes Science Advisory Board: EXPERT CONSULTATION ON EMERGING ISSUES OF
THE GREAT LAKES IN THE 21ST CENTURY; Report to the International Joint Commission
Canada and United States; November 2006
Hammerl, Marion; Gattenboehner, Udo: Lake Constance/Bodensee--Experiences and Lessons
Learned; Paper present at the Lake Basin Management Initiative Regional Workshop for
Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, held at St. Michale's College in Vermont, USA, 18--21
June 2003
ICPDR: ACTIVE FOR THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN; Vienna, 2004
ICPDR: THE DANUBE BASIN ANALYSIS; WFD Roof Report 2004; PART A--BASIN WIDE
OVERVIEW, Summary; Vienna, 2005.
87
IHP UNESCO: RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT; Proceedings of the International Workshop, The
Hague, 27--29 October 1999
International Joint Commission Canada and United States: ADVICE TO GOVERNMENTS ON
THEIR REVIEW OF THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT; A Special report to
the Governments of Canada and United States; August 2006
International Joint Commission Canada and United States: Discussion Paper on THE
INTERNATIONAL WATERSHED INITIATIVE; Second report to the Governments of Canada
and the United States; June 2005. www.ijc.org. Site last visited 31.10.2007
Johnstad,
Mark:
BEST
PRACTICES--POLICIES
AND
INSTITUTIONS
FOR
TRANSBOUNDARY WATER AND BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT, In Support of Development
and Design of the Transboundary Prespa Park Project;
Kliot, Nurit; Shmueli Deborah; Shamir, Uri: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR
MANAGEMENT OF TRANSBOUNDARY WATER RESOURCES; Vol. One: Institutional
Frameworks as Reflected in Thirteen River Basins; Water Research Institute, Haifa, 1997
MED EUWI: SMAP 2005--NATIONAL PROGRESS REPORT OF GREECE;
http://www.minenv.gr/4/48/00/National%Report%20GREECE%20%20SMAP2005.pdf
MedWet: MEDITERRANEAN WETLAND STRATEGY (1996--2006);
http://www.medwet.org/medwetnew/en/00.TEXTS/MedWet_Strategy_1996.doc
Mylopoulos, Y; Kolokytha, E.; Vagiona, D; Kampragou, E.; Elefteriadou, E.: Hydrodiplomacy in
Practice: Transboundary Water Management in Northern Greece; Global NEST Journal, Vol. X,
2007
OXFOR DICTIONARY OF LAW; Oxford University Press, New York, 2002
PPCC--Prespa Park Coordination Committee: Meeting Reports, I-IX Regular & I and II
Extraordinary; http://www.medwet.org/prespa/park/meetings.html
Rogers, Peter; Hall, Allan W.: EFFECTIVE WATER GOVERNANCE; Global water Partnership;
Stockholm, 2003
Schröder, Germ H.: Transboundary Water Management in Lake Constance: from Tradition to
Cooperation; Extended Abstract; Institut für Seenfoschung der Landesanstalt für Umweltschutz
Baden-Würtemberg International Workshop "Value of Water--Different Approaches in
Transboundary Water Management"; 10--11 March 2005, Koblenz
SPP--Society for the protection of Prespa: STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN FOR THE
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRESPA PARK; Aghios Germanos, 2002; Executive
Summary, 2003
Stojkovski, Andreja: DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE MACEDONIAN LEGAL,
REGULATORY AND INSTITUIONAL FRAMEWORK; A report submitted in fulfilment of the
requirements for the project Transboundary Prespa Park; UNDP-GEF, 2004
Tsarikis G.; Cavadias G.: Pangalou D.; Nanou A.: Greece; In Iglesias A.(ed); Drought
preparedness and mitigation in the Mediterranean: Analysis of the organizations and
instituitions; Zaragoza, CIHEM-IMAZ, 2005;
http://wwwresources.cihem.org/util/search/detail_article.php?id=06600009&langue=fr
UNATED NATIONS: MANAGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL WATER RESOURCES--
Institutional and Legal Aspects; Natural Resources / Water Series No.1; UN Secretariat with the
assistance of Rober D. Hayton; New York, 1975
UNDP: ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IN SOUTH--EASTERN EUROPE; Prepared for
"Environment in Europe" Ministerial Conference, Belgrade, 2007
88
UNECE:
ACCEPTANCE
AND
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
UNECE
MULTILATERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE; Sixth Ministerial
Conference "Environment for Europe!, Belgrade, 10--12 October 2007.
UNESCO ROSTE: REPORT ABOT THE LAKE OHRID WATERSHED REGION; 2004
XXX:
Petersburg Phase II / Athens Declaration Process: SUMMARY REPORT FROM
PARTICIPANTS EVALUATIONS; International Roundtable on "Integrated Shared Lakes Basin
management in South-eastern Europe", 12--14 October 2006, Ohrid
XXX:
Petersburg Process--Phase II, BERLIN RECCOMMENDATIONS; International
Roundtable, Protection and Sustainable Use of Transboundary Waters in South East Europe,
5--7 December 2005, Berlin
89
ANNEXES
90
ANNEX I
IUCN Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories*
(Relevant excerpts)
At the IV World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, meeting in Caracas,
Venezuela in February 1992, participants concluded that more and better managed protected
areas were urgently required. Participants emphasized that protected areas are about meeting
people's needs: that protected areas should not be islands in a sea of development but must be
part of every country's strategy for sustainable management and the wise use of its natural
resources, and must be set in a regional planning context.
The Caracas Congress also declared its belief in the importance of the full range of protected
areas, from those that protect the world's great natural areas to those that contain modified
landscapes of outstanding scenic and cultural importance. Within this broad spectrum of uses,
many names have been applied to protected areas; Australia alone uses some 45 names and
the US National Park Service has 18 different types of areas under its mandate. Globally, over
140 names have been applied to protected areas of various types. Bringing some order to this
diversity is clearly a very useful step.
The purpose of these guidelines, therefore, is to establish greater understanding among all
concerned about the different categories of protected areas. A central principle upon which the
guidelines are based is that categories should be defined by the objectives of management,
neither by the title of the area nor by the effectiveness of management in meeting those
objectives. The matter of management effectiveness certainly needs to be addressed, but it is
not seen as an issue of categorization.
The guidelines build on work done by IUCN in this field over the past of a quarter century. In
particular, they draw on the efforts of a task force established in 1984.
* * * *
Matrix of Management Objectives and
IUCN Protected Area Management Categories
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE
Ia
II
III
V
l
l
y
t
i
a
n
Scientific research
1
2
2
2
t
e
o
P
.
Wilderness protection
2
2
3
-
3
;
e
t
i
v
c
Preservation of species and genetic diversity
1
1
1
2
j
e
b
o
l
e
b
Maintenance of environmental services
2
1
-
2
r
y
a
a
d
l
i
c
n
p
o
p
c
Protection of specific natural/cultural features
-
2
1
1
e
t
a
o
.
S
2
;
;
-
N
Tourism and recreation
-
1
1
1
e
e
t
i
v
t
i
v
c
c
j
e
j
e
Education
-
2
2
2
b
b
o
o
r
y
l
e
a
b
a
Sustainable use of resources from natural
-
3
-
2
r
i
m
l
i
c
p
ecosystem
.
P
p
1
a
:
Maintenance of cultural traditional attributes
-
-
-
1
Y
E
K
* * * * *
* http://www.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/1994-007-En.pdf
91
Issues which have emerged in the interpretation of the 1978 system are:
· The size of protected areas;
· Zoning within protected areas;
· Management responsibility;
· Ownership of land;
· Regional variations;
· Multiple classifications;
· The areas around protected areas;
· International designations.
* * * *
IUCN CATEGORIES DESCRIPTION
CATEGORY Ia
Strict Nature Reserve
Protected area managed mainly for science
Definition
Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological
or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for scientific research and/or
environmental monitoring.
Objectives of Management
· To preserve habitats, ecosystems and species in as undisturbed a state as possible;
· To maintain genetic resources in a dynamic and evolutionary state;
· To maintain established ecological processes;
· To safeguard structural landscape features or rock exposures;
· To secure examples of the natural environment for scientific studies, environmental
monitoring and education, including baseline areas from which all avoidable access is
excluded;
· To minimize disturbance by careful planning and execution of research and other
approved activities; and
· To limit public access.
Guidance for Selection
· The area should be large enough to ensure the integrity of its ecosystems and to
accomplish the management objectives for which it is protected;
· The area should be significantly free of direct human intervention and capable of
remaining so;
· The conservation of the area's biodiversity should be achievable through protection and
not require substantial active management or habitat manipulation (c.f. Category IV).
Organizational Responsibility
Ownership and control should be by the national or other level of government, acting through a
professionally qualified agency, or by a private foundation, university or institution which has an
established research or conservation function, or by owners working in cooperation with any of
the foregoing government or private institutions. Adequate safeguards and controls relating to
long-term protection should be secured before designation. International agreements over areas
subject to disputed national sovereignty can provide exceptions (e.g. Antarctica).
Equivalent Category in 1978 System
Scientific Reserve / Strict Nature Reserve
92
CATEGORY II
National Park
Protected area managed mainly for
ecosystem protection and recreation
Definition
Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more
ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to
the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific,
educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and
culturally compatible.
Objectives of Management
· To protect natural and scenic areas of national and international significance for spiritual,
scientific, educational, recreational or tourist purposes;
· To perpetuate, in as natural a state as possible, representative examples of
physiographic regions, biotic communities, genetic resources, and species, to provide
ecological stability and diversity;
· To manage visitor use for inspirational, educational, cultural and recreational purposes at
a level which will maintain the area in a natural or near natural state;
· To eliminate and thereafter prevent exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of
designation;
· To maintain respect for the ecological, geomorphologic, sacred or aesthetic attributes
which warranted designation; and
· To take into account the needs of indigenous people, including subsistence resource
use, in so far as these will not adversely affect the other objectives of management.
Guidance for Selection
· The area should contain a representative sample of major natural regions, features or
scenery, where plant and animal species, habitats and geomorphologic sites are of
special spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and tourist significance;
· The area should be large enough to contain one or more entire ecosystems not
materially altered by current human occupation or exploitation.
Organizational Responsibility
Ownership and management should normally be by the highest competent authority of the
nation having jurisdiction over it. However, they may also be vested in another level of
government, council of indigenous people, foundation or other legally established body which
has dedicated the area to long-term conservation.
Equivalent Category in 1978 System
National Park
CATEGORY III
Nature Monument:
Protected area managed mainly for conservation of
special nature features
Definition
Area containing one or more, specific natural or natural/cultural feature which is of outstanding
or unique value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural
significance.
Objectives of Management
· To protect or preserve in perpetuity specific outstanding natural features because of their
natural significance, unique or representational quality, and/or spiritual connotations;
· To an extent consistent with the foregoing objective, to provide opportunities for
research, education, interpretation and public appreciation;
· To eliminate and thereafter prevent exploitation or occupation inimical to the purpose of
designation; and
93
· To deliver to any resident population such benefits as are consistent with the other
objectives of management.
Guidance for Selection
· The area should contain one or more features of outstanding significance (appropriate
natural features include spectacular waterfalls, caves, craters, fossil beds, sand dunes
and marine features, along with unique or representative fauna and flora; associated
cultural features might include cave dwellings, cliff-top forts, archaeological sites, or
natural sites which have heritage significance to indigenous peoples);
· The area should be large enough to protect the integrity of the feature and its
immediately related surroundings.
Organizational Responsibility
Ownership and management should be by the national government or, with appropriate
safeguards and controls, by another level of government, council of indigenous people, non-
profit trust, corporation or, exceptionally, by a private body, provided the long-term protection of
the inherent character of the area is assured before designation.
Equivalent Category in 1978 System
Natural Monument / Natural Landmark
CATEGORY V
Protected Landscape/Seascape:
Protected area managed mainly for
Landscape / seascape conservation and recreation
Definition
Area of land, with coast and sea as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over
time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, ecological and/or
cultural value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this
traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area.
Objectives of Management
· To maintain the harmonious interaction of nature and culture through the protection of
landscape and/or seascape and the continuation of traditional land uses, building
practices and social and cultural manifestations;
· To support lifestyles and economic activities which are in harmony with nature and the
preservation of the social and cultural fabric of the communities concerned;
· To maintain the diversity of landscape and habitat, and of associated species and
ecosystems;
· To eliminate where necessary, and thereafter prevent, land uses and activities which are
inappropriate in scale and/or character;
· To provide opportunities for public enjoyment through recreation and tourism appropriate
in type and scale to the essential qualities of the areas;
· To encourage scientific and educational activities which will contribute to the long term
well-being of resident populations and to the development of public support for the
environmental protection of such areas; and
· To bring benefits to, and to contribute to the welfare of, the local community through the
provision of natural products (such as forest and fisheries products) and services (such
as clean water or income derived from sustainable forms of tourism).
Guidance for Selection
· The area should possess a landscape and/or coastal and island seascape of high scenic
quality, with diverse associated habitats, flora and fauna along with manifestations of
unique or traditional land-use patterns and social organizations as evidenced in human
settlements and local customs, livelihoods, and beliefs;
· The area should provide opportunities for public enjoyment through recreation and
tourism within its normal lifestyle and economic activities.
94
Organizational Responsibility
The area may be owned by a public authority, but is more likely to comprise a mosaic of private
and public ownerships operating a variety of management regimes. These regimes should be
subject to a degree of planning or other control and supported, where appropriate, by public
funding and other incentives, to ensure that the quality of the landscape/seascape and the
relevant local customs and beliefs are maintained in the long term.
Equivalent Category in 1978 System
Protected Landscape
95
ANNEX II
CONSULTANT: ASSESSMENT OF PRESPA PARK COORDINATION
COMMITTEE IN TRANSBOUNDARY ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Location :
Resen, FYR Macedonia/home based
Application Deadline :
31-Aug-07
Type of Contract :
SSA
Languages Required :
English
Starting Date :
(date when the selected candidate is expected to
15-Sep-2007
start)
Duration of Initial Contract :
35 working days in the period indicated,
Expected Duration of Assignment :
35 working days in the period indicated,
Background
The Prespa region is situated in the Balkan Peninsula and is shared among the three
neighbouring countries Albania, FYR of Macedonia and Greece. It is considered to be an
ecosystem of global significance and has been identified as one of Europe's major
transboundary "ecological bricks". The entire Prespa region hosts unique habitats and species
that are important from both a European and global conservation perspective.
The difficulties impeding transboundary cooperation are also multiple. In general, differences in
capacity, commitment and national policy across borders are strong constraints, in addition to
questions of national sovereignty, security and high transaction costs. Economic constraints
include divergent national development status and policies, barriers to free trade, unsustainable
productive activities, political instability etc.
This GEF project aims to mainstream ecosystem management objectives and priorities into
productive sector practices and policies. The project is designed to strengthen capacity for
restoring ecosystem health and conserving biodiversity first at the national level in Albania and
FYR-Macedonian Prespa by piloting ecosystem-oriented approaches to spatial planning, water
use management, agriculture, forest and fishery management, and conservation and protected
area management. The third littoral State, Greece an EU member- is not a direct beneficiary of
the GEF funding but actively participates through parallel financing.
The project also aims to strengthen ongoing trans-boundary cooperation in resource
management and conservation by empowering the existing transboundary institution (i.e. the
Prespa Park Coordination Committee) and piloting / reinforcing trans-boundary management
and conservation activities.
Prespa Park and the Coordination Committee
The Prespa Park, established on 2 February 2000 by the Prime Ministers of Albania, Greece
and the FYR of Macedonia, has been the first transboundary `protected area' in a politically
sensitive region of the Balkans. It covers the hydrological basin of Micro and Macro Prespa
Lakes. Besides this trilateral designation, the effectiveness and adequacy of which is the
subject of the present consultancy, the Prespa basin includes two Ramsar sites, as well as
other nationally protected areas in all three countries.
The Prespa Park, according to the founding Declaration of 2 February 2000 has the following
ultimate goals:
The enhancement of living standards of the inhabitants of Prespa through the
preservation of its natural and cultural values and the sustainable use of its resources;
Peace and cooperation among the three countries.
The main challenges the three States want to address through long-term cooperation are:
(a) the conservation and protection of the unique biodiversity of Prespa;
96
(b) preventing or reversing the causes of habitat degradation;
(c) exploring suitable management regimes and methods for the wise use of its water
resources;
(d) providing a model and reference point for peaceful collaboration in the wider region
With the support of the Ramsar Convention and its MedWet Initiative, the trilateral Prespa Park
Coordination Committee (PPCC) was established in 2001. Members of the PPCC are the
representatives of the Ministries for Environment, Mayors or the Local Municipalities, and one
NGO from the three countries (with strong local involvement). MedWet/Ramsar participates as
an ex officio member of the PPCC with a non-voting status. The PPCC is supported by a
trilateral Secretariat, consisting of the NGOs represented in the PPCC, with a seat in the office
of the Society for the Protection of Prespa in Aghios Germanos, Greece.
In the six years of its operation the PPCC convenes biannually, and has held ten regular and
two extraordinary meetings. The PPCC serves as a forum for information exchange,
collaboration, and coordination of joint actions and interventions in Prespa. Such joint activities
have included the preparation of a Strategic Action Plan for the sustainable development of the
Prespa Park, and the contribution to the development and submission of a GEF Prespa Park
project proposal. This assessment is a component of the GEF project which officially started in
September 2006.
The purpose of this assessment is to review the existing practices and challenges in trans-
boundary ecosystem management and water governance in the Prespa Lakes Basin. The
emphasis will be placed on an assessment of the (mostly informal) operations of the Prespa
Park Coordination Committee (PPCC) over the past six years and the recommendation of
options for the appropriate legal and institutional arrangements for formal and effective trans-
boundary ecosystem management, water governance and sustainable development in the
Prespa Lakes Basin.
Duties and Responsibilities
The overall responsibility of the consultant will be to assess past and current role of the PPCC
with regard to the PP objectives, namely transboundary ecosystem management and water
governance contributing to sustainable development and model transboundary collaboration
between the three littoral states. Based on the findings of the assessment, the consultant will
provide concrete recommendations and a detailed plan outlining next steps for the institutional
maturation of the PPCC and its future role.
It is anticipated that the assessment will incorporate (but is not limited to) the following tasks:
A review of the current institutional set up of the PPCC, capacity to perform its duties,
the role of its secretariat and current operations in relations to its mission and objectives
with recommendations on how to strengthen its capacity.
Assessment of the financial sustainability of the PPCC operations, future funding
mechanisms and commitment from the littoral States to sustain its operations.
A review of the current legal and institutional provisions at the national level in relation
to transboundary ecosystem management, water governance and sustainable
development.
A review of existing commitments with regard to multilateral environmental agreements,
bilateral agreements, EU Water Framework Directive etc in relation to transboundary
ecosystem management , water governance and sustainable development in view of
the potential role of the PPCC.
An assessment and review of the current draft tripartite agreement on the Protection
and Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park Area.
Formulation of concrete recommendations on the most appropriate institutional
arrangements/ set up for transboundary ecosystem management and water governance
in Prespa in view of the PPCC playing this role, its current capacity to do so and next
steps for its institutional maturation.
97
Presentations of the findings of the assessment at an identified stakeholder workshop
for comments and feedback.
Expected Output
A comprehensive technical assessment report with recommendations and a work plan
detailing next steps for institutional maturation of the PPCC for effective trans-boundary
ecosystem management, water governance and sustainable development in the Prespa
Lakes Basin.
Time frame
The duration of the contract is in total a period of 35 days from the 15th of September to
30th November 2007. It is anticipated that this will consist of 10 days of preparation and
review, one trip to the site with 10 days of consultations (this will include mini-
workshops and meetings with individual key stakeholders in the 3 countries) and 15
days of write up. The consultant will therefore be required to travel to all 3 littoral States
and consult with key stakeholders.
A first draft of the assessment report is expected by 31 October 2007. This will be
distributed to key stakeholders for comments. The consultant is expected to present the
findings of the assessment at a key stakeholder workshop (possibly in mid November).
The consultant will then finalize the report and submit it to UNDP by 30 November
2007.
98
ANNEX III
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
ANALITICAL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT TASKS
A systematic analytical review of designed project tasks shows that the work on their realization should comprise
reviews, assessments, recommendations and presentation of the findings to the (interested) public.
I.
Review of current national legislation in regards of:
1.
Trans-boundary ecosystem management;
2.
Water governance;
3.
Sustainable development;
II.
Review of exiting commitments in regards of:
1.
Global and UNECE environmental treaties applicable to the region;
2.
Relevant bilateral agreements;
3.
Relevant parts of the Community acquis, especially WFD;
in relation with elements listed under I. above and with a prospect of future role of the PPCC;
III. Review of existing institutional set up of the PPCC in regards of:
1.
Capacity to perform its duties;
2.
Role of its Secretariat;
3.
Current operations in regards of its mission and objectives; &
4.
Recommendation how to strengthen its capacity;
IV. Assessment of:
1.
Financial sustainability of the PPCC operations;
2.
Future funding mechanisms;
3.
Commitment from the littoral states to sustain its operations;
V.
Review and assessment of current draft tripartite treaty on the Protection and sustainable Development of
the Prespa Park Area;
VI. Formulation of the concrete recommendations on the most appropriate institutional arrangements/set up
for:
1.
Trans-boundary ecosystem management; &
2.
Water governance;
- In the Prespa Lake Basin; &
- Having in view of the PPCC:
Playing its role;
Its current capacity to do so;
3.
Next steps for its institutional maturation
VII. Presentation of the findings and assessment at identified stakeholder workshop for:
1.
Comments; &
2.
Feedback.
NOTE:
Details shown in the above analytical review could be broadened during the work, with the aim of comprising additional
aspects needed for better accomplishment of the output requested.
ANALITICAL REVIEW OF THE EXPECTED OUTPUT
The expected output is defined as the Technical Assessment Report, which should comprise:
1.
Reviews and assessments listed above under I--V; and additionally
2.
Recommendations, as it is shown under VI, above; &
3.
A work plan detailing next steps for institutional maturation of the PPCC for:
-
Effective trans-boundary ecosystem management;
-
Water governance; &
-
Sustainable development;
In the Prespa Lakes Basin.
PROPOSAL OF METHODOILOGY
Above analyzed tasks require the following methodology to be applied:
Preparation and Review (15 September--04.October)
1.
Set detailed plan and time schedule of all activities in collaboration with UNDP Office and PPCC Secretariat;
2.
Collection of relevant national referent material:
-
Policy documents;
Sources:
-
Law instruments (primary and secondary);
-
Reports of authorities;
-
Bilateral instruments;
-Internet;
-PPCC;
3.
Identification of applicable international:
-Competent national authorities;
-
Policy; &
-
Legal regimes;
-UNDP;
-Other.
-
Sources for potential financial support;
4.
Analysis and systematization of material;
5.
Draft contents of Technical Assessment Report (TAR)
6.
Detailed plan for trip to the site prepared by UNDP Office and PPCC Secretariat
[Details in regard of preparation of this plan should be decided before the trip].
Existing national policy documents (particularly those relating to spatial planning, environmental protection, water
99
management and land use) and related legislation (primary and secondary), as well as bilateral or trilateral policy and
legislative settings shall be compared with global and EU policy and law instruments serving as a paradigm, cross
cutting issues shall be identified and gap analysis done.
Trip to the site (05.October--14 October)
Contacts & meetings/mini workshops with:
1.
PPCC/PPC Secretariat;
2.
Competent national authorities (central, regional, local);
3.
Key stakeholders/members of interested public in all three countries;
Consultations shall be prepared (in terms of content; a brief list of issues/questions might be prepared and spread in
advance) and documented (memos).
Writing the Draft of TAR (15--31 October)
The structure (contents) of Draft TAR shall be as discussed earlier.
Recommendations and work plan with detailed next steps leading towards institutional maturation of the PPCC shall be
formulated having in view:
1.
Findings of current state of things and assessments (in regards of local/bilateral/trilateral policy and legal
frameworks; institutional and legal PPCC setup);
2.
Identified broader paradigms (global and particularly UNECE, and EU policy/legal transposition requirements);
3.
Possibility of adjustments of local (national) setup to the broader requirements in a feasible time;
4.
Commitment of three countries to sign the Prespa Lakes Basin treaty, based on the accepted international Water &
Environmental Law principles.
Presentation of Draft TAR (Mid-November)
1.
Power Point presentation;
2.
Discussion;
3.
Recorded notes, remarks, and proposals.
Finalized TAR (delivered on 30 November 2007 at latest)
Corrections of Draft TAR in line with received comments and stakeholder workshop results.
100
ANNEX IV
DEBRIFING NOTE
After having accomplished, in accordance with plan, mission that comprised meetings and talks
with a number of persons being involved in the Prespa Park process in Albania, FYR of
Macedonia and Greece, in the period between 14--26 October 2007, it is possible to undertake
further steps in accordance with the project Terms of Reference. Following is the
DRAFT CONTETS OF THE TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
Brief of nature of the Prespa Lakes Basin
2.
History of management efforts
3.
ToR
II.
MISSION SCOPE, CONTENT AND FINDINGS
III.
PRESPA LAKE BASIN IN INTERNATIONAL LAW CONTEXT
1.
Global
2.
UNECE
3.
EU
IV.
TRILATERAL CONTEXT
V.
NATIONAL POLICY AND LEGAL SYSTEMS
VI.
PPCC
11.
Description/history
12.
Legal profile
13.
Legal nature of decisions
14.
Secretariat
15.
Specific features of stakeholders
16.
Financial issues
VII.
DRAFT TRILATERAL AGREEMENT
VIII.
RECCOMMENDATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GLOSSARY
ANNEXES
This structure could be changed during further work/writing, in accordance with needs (in terms
of e.g. splitting in more subchapters) but essentially the issues to be dealt with as are grouped
into the chapters above would be the basic framework for work.
Detailed study of collected material and further collection of new documents is on-going. As by
now I did not receive any reply on questionnaires. But, even without that, still is the huge pile of
collected material to be analyzed. I expect that during writing I could need some specific
documents. In talks on mission everybody was supportive and willing to help. So, I do not
expect problems in obtaining additional material if there is need for that.
Further work will, actually, be writing and filling in the structure set above.
Advices, proposals, remarks etc. are welcome.
I hope the Draft report shall be completed as planned, i.e. until 20 November 2007. After that,
the UNDP Office shall have time enough to distribute it to stakeholders and organize a
workshop for reviewing and discussing the text. The procedure is, of course in the hands of
UNDP, but in my view as more stakeholders are involved as better.
Having in view that several authoritative international organizations are particularly active in the
field of transboundary cooperation in Europe regarding shared water resources, I would
propose UNDP to contact them, inform on the on-going activity and ask them to participate in
the process as observers. Those organization are (the list is not exhausted) European
Commission (EC), UNECE, Council of Europe (CoE), OSCE, NATO. According to my
knowledge, their presence in similar processes was only beneficial and helpful. This issue, of
course, should be discussed more. In talks during the mission this idea was accepted and
101
supported. Here the idea is specifically mentioned with the aim of leaving enough time for initial
contacts with them, if the idea is finally accepted.
The list of persons I met and talked with during the mission is attached to this Note.
Further contacts and exchange of information should be regularly maintained, during
preparation of Draft Report.
Novi Sad, 30.10.2007
Dr. Slavko Bogdanovic
102
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN TALKS DURING THE MISSION
[Chronological order of talks]
Alvin Lopez, UNDP-GEF Project International Transboundary Advisor (ITA)
Dimitar Buzlevski, Mayor of the Municipality of Resen, FYR of Macedonia
Vivi Roumeliotou (SPP--GR), PPCC Secretariat Member GR
Sonja Spirovska, Public Health Institute, Bitola-Resen-- FYR of Macedonia, PPCC Secretariat
Member
Lazaros Nalpantides, Mayor of the Prespa Municipality, GR
Myrsini Malakou, Director of SPP, GR
Daphne Mantziou, WWF and SPP Secretariat, GR
Spyros Plessas, PPCC Member, GR
John Vournas, Director General for the Environment in the Ministry for the Environment,
Physical Planning and Public Works GR
Ms. Nikolau _________, Special Secretariat for Water Management. GR
Dimitra Spala, Department of Conservation Management in the Ministry for the Environment,
Physical Planning and Public Works GR
Panagiota Maragou, WWF GR
Demetres Karavellas, Director of WWF GR
Giannis Chardaloupas, SPP, WWF GR
Thymio Papayanis, President of SPP, MedWet Senior Advisor and PPCC ex-officio
Eno Dodbiba, UNDP-GEF AL
Violeta Zuna, National Project Coordinator, UNDP-GEF Prespa Project AL
Zamir Dedej, former PPCC Member, AL
Spase Shumka, Member of PPCC Secretariat, P.P.N.E.A., AL
Pellumb Abeshi, Secretary General of the Ministry of Environment, Forestry, Water and
Agriculture AL (MoEFWA), Project Director and GEF focal point
Suela Ibrahimi, lawyer, Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, AL
Roza Dedja, Expert in Instruments of Pre-Accession (IPA) Unit of the Ministry of Integration, AL
Ledina Luzi, Expert in Instruments of Pre-Accession (IPA) Unit of the Ministry of Integration, AL
Adriana Micu, Head of Crosscutting Cluster of the UNDP AL
Mihallaq Qirjo, REC AL
Ardit Konomi, Coordinator of GEF Project in Korca, AL
Gezim Adri, Director of Forestry Directorate in Korca, AL
Eva Dhimitri, Specialist for Communication Project, Regional Council of Korca, AL
Edmond Temelko, Meyer of Liqeineas, AL
Pande Kostovski, Director of National Park Prespa, AL
Vasil Jankula, Society for Use of Mountains and Pastures of the Municipality of Pustec
"Prespa", AL
Valentina Vangelovska, NGO Integration of Women in Society, Gorica, AL
Kosta Trajce, Fishermen Association "Prespa", AL
Naume Toskovski, Alliance of Agriculture Associations for the Prespa Region, FYR of
Macedonia
Aleksandar Blazeski , UNDP-GEF Prespa Project FYR of Macedonia
Janko Kolemisevski, Chief of the Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Economy, Resen, FYR of Macedonia
Zivko Djurovski, "Ribomak" Resen (the Prespa Lake fishery concession holder), FYR of
Macedonia
Anita Kodzoman, UNDP FYR of Macedonia
Dejan Panovski, Secretary of State of the Ministry for Environment and Physical Planning, FYR
of Macedonia
Darinka Jantinska, PPCC Member, FYR of Macedonia
Samir Memedov, UNDP FYR of Macedonia
Aleksandar Nastov, Head of Department for Biology in the Directorate of Environment of the
FYR of Macedonia
Robertina Brajanoska, Advisor in the Agency for Environment in the Ministry for Environment
and Physical Planning, FYR of Macedonia
Sasko Jordanov, Head for Spatial Nature Heritage Management in the Ministry for
Environment and Physical Planning, FYR of Macedonia
Vasil Anastasovski, Chief of Sector in the Ministry for Environment and Physical Planning,
FYR of Macedonia
103
Danica Pavlovska, Spatial Planning, in the Ministry for Environment and Physical Planning,
FYR of Macedonia
Bojan Durnev, Head of Sector in the Administration for Water Management in the Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, FYR of Macedonia
Igor Bojadzievski, Head of Department for Cattle Breeding in the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Water Economy, FYR of Macedonia
Norimasa Shimomura Nakamura, Deputy Resident Representative, UNDP FYR of Macedonia
Sonja Fuzevska, NGO coalition, Resen, FYR of Macedonia
Andon Bojadzi, Director of National Park "Galicica", FYR of Macedonia
Tome Petkovski, NGO FOKUS and PPCC Deputy Member, FYR of Macedonia
104