INTERNATIONAL WATERS
EXPERIENCE NOTES

http://www.iwlearn.net/experience


2008-019
Fostering Transboundary Cooperation
Through Regional Dialogue Processes



Abstract: With 90% of the territory of Southeastern Europe (SEE) countries falling within shared water
basins, the effective management of transboundary water bodies is of particular importance for the
region. Such a fragmented situation means that international legal frameworks and cooperation
arrangements need to be worked out to ensure protection and sustainable use of these transboundary
water resource systems. This Note examines whether and how a regional dialogue process can leverage
such outcomes. It examines whether experience-sharing and consensus building lead towards the types
of confidence-building measures needed to foster trust or highlight shared benefits. The intervention
specifically included the fostering of a regional community of practice engaged through a series of
roundtables and capacity building workshops. Operationally, six types of activities constituted the formal
aspects of this regional dialogue process (a Coordination Group, Roundtable Dialogues, Capacity
Building Materials, Targeted Workshops, Information Management and Partnership Building) The Athens-
Petersberg Process, through a suite of different types of activities, leveraged some key outcomes,
especially in the period 2004 to 2008. The series of activities under the Athens-Petersberg Process
demonstrates that such technical level dialogues and exchange of experience improve understanding and
communication and offer the basis for the initiation of cooperation processes among stakeholders; they
may also offer real political outcomes. The Athens-Petersberg Process is demonstrating that water can
indeed be a catalyst for cooperation. Replication rests on financing, incremental progress, shared
benefits/joint visions, keeping partners and stakeholders focused and sustained investment.

Mish Hamid
mish@iwlearn.org
GEF IW:LEARN
1

---

Fostering Transboundary Cooperation Through Regional Dialogue
Processes

Experience of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) sponsored

"Strengthening Global Capacity to Sustain Transboundary Waters: The
International Waters Learning Exchange and Resource Network (GEF
IW:LEARN), Operational Phase" (UNDP-UNEP/GEF Project)
GEFID: 1893

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
UNOPS serves as GEF IW:LEARN's executing

agency (EA).
GEF IW:LEARN consists of two projects, one

UNDP- and one UNEP-implemented, which
In order to best leverage the core competencies
focus on strengthening transboundary water
of each implementing agency (UNDP, UNEP
resources management (TWRM) by facilitating
and World Bank) GEF IW:LEARN aims to
structured learning and information sharing
synthesize and disseminate practical
among stakeholders of GEF IW projects. In
experiences and findings of GEF IW projects,
pursuit of this global objective, IW:LEARN's
GEF agencies' broader water programs, and
website provides easy access to relevant
related initiatives and to foster peer-to-peer
information and knowledge-sharing resources,
learning communities across the GEF IW
and IW:LEARN also assists GEF IW projects in
community. To strengthen networking with wider
improving their information base, replication
global communities of expertise, and to sustain
efficiency, transparency, stakeholder ownership
the benefits of knowledge-sharing beyond the
and sustainability of benefits.
current GEF IW:LEARN cycle, the project has

contracted partnerships with IUCN's Water &
GEF IW:LEARN's stakeholders include the GEF
Nature Initiative and Global Marine Program,
International Waters project portfolio, their
UNESCO-IHP and IGRAC, LakeNet, the Global
partners and stakeholders as well as
Water Partnership-Mediterranean, the University
cooperative initiatives around shared water
of Rhode Island, the Peipsi Center for
bodies that are not supported by the GEF. At
Transboundary Cooperation and UNECE, World
local, regional and global scales, GEF IW
Fish Center, InWEnt, the Global Environment
stakeholders adapt and apply learning,
and Technology Foundation, the Environmental
information, skills and tools obtained through
Law Institute, Eco-Africa and the Gender &
IW:LEARN and other means to advance and
Water Alliance.
sustain ongoing project benefits in their

respective transboundary waters regions.
The GEF IW:LEARN project was involved with

four regional dialogue processes, whose
UNDP serves as lead implementing agency for
purpose was to convene, financially and
structured learning activities (with oversight
technically support GEF IW projects participation
provided by a World Bank Learning
(and integration) in activities to foster
Coordinator), global stocktaking meetings, and
transboundary cooperation across projects and
stakeholder engagement activities in this GEF
national partners within a given region or sub-
project. UNEP serves as lead Implementing
region. The four dialogue processes too place in
Agency for the GEF IW information
the Caribbean, Pan-Africa, Europe-Central Asia,
management system and services to GEF IW
as well as in Southeastern Europe. GEF
projects. These joint projects are implemented in
IW:LEARN also provided participant financing
close programmatic cooperation with the GEF
and other support to other global dialogues (like
International Waters Task Force, and are
the Global Oceans Forum and the Commission
administered by a Steering Committee
on Sustainable Development). This note
comprised of GEF IW leads from the GEF
examines the project's involvement and
Secretariat, UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank.
leadership with a regional dialogue process in
Southeastern Europe from 2004 to 2008.
2

---

government and World Bank launched the
THE EXPERIENCE
Athens Declaration Process in 2003, introducing

a framework for cooperation on capacity building
Issue
and knowledge sharing on Integrated Water

Resource Management (IWRM) and the
With 90% of the territory of Southeastern Europe
development of IWRM plans for transboundary
(SEE) countries falling within shared water
basins in southeastern Europe and the
basins, the effective management of
Mediterranean, modeled on the 2002
transboundary water bodies is of particular
Johannesburg targets. The two processes
importance for the region. There are thirteen
progressively came together in order to generate
(13) major transboundary rivers, four (4) shared
synergies and maximize the outcomes for the
lakes as well as more than fifty (50)
benefit of the SEE region. The Global Water
transboundary aquifers in the region. More than
Partnership ­ Mediterranean (GWP-Med) is the
50% of the transboundary basins are shared by
technical facilitator of collaborative activities.
three (3) or more riparian countries. Such a
Starting in 2005, with technical and
fragmented situation means that international
administrative assistance provided by the GWP-
legal frameworks and cooperation arrangements
Med, the GEF, through IW:LEARN, started co-
need to be worked out to ensure protection and
financing a number of initiatives and activities in
sustainable use of these transboundary water
the South Eastern European region under the
resource systems.
rubrique of the Athens-Petersberg Process. GEF

IW:LEARN provided both coordination as well as
The SEE region is also characterized by
direct meeting support to the process, which
additional challenges to cooperation. Parts of
convened stakeholders of transboundary waters
the region witnessed hostilities to various
in the region in different types of dialogue
degrees in the 1990's, both within today's
process activities. Together, the German
countries and between them. Violence was
Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation
worst among and within the countries that
and Nuclear Safety, the Greek Ministry of
emerged from the breakup of Yugoslavia. On
Foreign Affairs, the World Bank, GWP-Med and
top of that, systems of government have been
the GEF formed the "Core Partners".
radically changed and market-based economics

introduced. These significant systemic
The GEF intervention specifically included the
challenges resulted to some extent, in less
fostering of a regional community of practice
capacity to manage water resources. These
engaged through a series of roundtables and
days, the principal driver in the region is
capacity building workshops. The collaborative
accession to the European Union. Some states
activity also envisioned the creation of a
are already in the Union (Slovenia, Bulgaria,
Transboundary Waters Information Exchange
Romania), others are candidates and others are
Network for Southeastern Europe
preparing stabilization & association
(www.watersee.net), a website to support the
agreements. Strikingly, almost all countries in
community. The overall goal of these activities
the region are voluntarily adopting the EU Water
was to foster cross-fertilization between
Framework Directive, which sets water quality
competent organizations and key people
standards and mandates integrated water
working with basin commissions and joint water
resource management (IWRM) in all shared
management bodies in southeastern Europe,
basins. The systemic challenges, high goals and
and to also create a forum for the introduction of
weaker capacity suggest a need for efforts to
new approaches and experiences from outside
mitigate them.
the region.


Addressing the Issue
Roundtables and capacity-building workshops

were planned and implemented in cooperation
Viewing water as a catalyst for cooperation, the
with key stakeholders in the SEE countries. The
German government and World Bank launched
wide acceptance of this series of Athens-
the Petersberg Process in 1998, to provide
Petersberg activities for capacity building and
support to translate into action then current
exchanging of experience was reflected in the
developments and opportunities for future
broad participation (both by country and by type
cooperation on transboundary river, lake and
of organization) of the target audience in all
groundwater management in SEE. The Greek
activities. More specifically, all events were
3

---

hosted and co-organized with either the relevant
some six roundtables were designed and carried
Ministries of the respective countries or with
out. Each roundtable involved about sixty to
Joint Commissions (established by the riparian
seventy participants covering broad sets of SEE
countries) of the shared water body on which the
stakeholders as well as international experts.
event was focused.
The Process provided travel support to

participants from the region. Each roundtable
Operationally, six types of activities constituted
lasted approximately three days, including a
the formal aspects of this regional dialogue
half-day side trip for site or technical visits. The
process, and will be described in turn as well as
site visit was usually scheduled early in the
some lessons that have been derived from each
roundtable to promote bonding and a spirit of
of these processes in terms of their impact,
learning exchange. Meeting content included
applicability and replicability. The enormous
presentations of external experience (both
amount of informal interventions will not be
similar case studies and topical presentations by
described as such, but they form a critical part of
experts) in transboundary water management,
the overall effort, i.e. the track-two diplomacy
as well as presentations of cases from within the
and behind-the-scenes interventions made by
region to promote exchange. Meetings were
the Core Partners to support desired outcomes.
also often built around thematic tracks, such as

Stakeholder Engagement or IWRM, through
Coordination Group. Various interventions by
which discussion could be promoted and
multiple international organizations required a
conclusions reached. Dinners and other social
coordinating body. The reality is that regional
events were also included in the program to
dialogues require considerable political and
further foster interaction among participants. The
financial investment, even in favorable
ultimate objective of the roundtables was, by
circumstances, to realize outcomes. Despite the
convening stakeholders from different basins
obvious political/financial benefits of having
facing comparable IWRM challenges, to
multiple actors with individual strengths involved
promote the exchange of practical experience
in such a process, strategic planning, stream-
and contribute to the building of their capacity. In
lined decision-making and joint action are
effect, the roundtables also helped to build more
needed in order to realize those benefits. In
bridges between participants in a region which
some cases, a lead actor is chosen to meet this
suffered active conflict in the recent past.
requirement, but in the case of the Athens-

Petersberg Process the Core Partners opted to
Capacity Building Materials. Part of a dialogue
form a Coordination Group (CG). The CG was
process includes informed discussion. GWP-
launched in 2005 and operated through regular
Med and expert partners prepared some eight
face-to-face meetings, as well as through
major documents over the course of the project
teleconference meetings sponsored by the
including, inter alia, assessments of shared
German government, occurring at least quarterly
water resources (groundwater, lakes), financial
and as necessary in preparation for events.
aspects of water supply and sanitation, and
Representatives of national institutions
managerial actions. These materials provided
competent for water resources management and
the background and framework for discussions
civil society, joint commissions for the
at Athens-Petersberg Process events, raised
management of shared water bodies as well as
awareness and facilitated the preparation of
international institutions and organizations,
follow on activities. They also formed the basis
donor countries and NGO's active in SEE were
of shorter technical notes circulated prior to
also invited to the face-to-face meetings to
meetings. The documents played a major role in
jointly plan events. In effect, they became the
defining issues and formulating common
actual designers, contributors and beneficiaries
awareness of key issues in the region. The
of the regional dialogue activities. Their
documents, as well as the reports of the different
participation in the coordination meetings
events constitute a pool of updated information
assisted in building ownership and achieving
and assembled knowledge, including policy
openness and transparency in the planning and
recommendations, and are freely accessible
management of the dialogue process.
through the website: http://www.watersee.net.


Roundtable Dialogues. These events
Targeted Workshops. In an example of
constituted the signature activities of the Athens-
adaptive management, the core group
Petersberg Process from 2004-2008. In total,
responded to stakeholder requests for small-
4

---

sized, focused workshops. Roundtable
Regional Environment Center, World Wildlife
participant evaluations were nearly unanimous
Foundation and others were also involved in
on the need for increased training on specific
order to fulfill the Process's objectives through
issues such as stakeholder engagement, lake
inclusion and deeper collective action, but
basin IWRM, water and climate change and
especially to develop the type of partnerships
other topics. The first two of these targeted
that would sustain such action.
workshops occurred in the first part of 2008, two

more in the latter part of 2008, and at least two
RESULTS AND LEARNING
more planned for 2009. The initial GEF

IW:LEARN funding leveraged four times this
The Athens-Petersberg Process leveraged
cofinancing in additional funding. The workshops
some key outcomes, especially in the period
represent a maturing of the Athens-Petersberg
2004 to 2008.
Process in the sense that stakeholders across

national boundaries are seeking joint training
The Process contributed concretely to building
exercises and that the Process itself is moving
capacity of a large range of SEE stakeholders at
beyond convening stakeholders to providing
the regional, national and local levels regarding
targeted services to them.
TWRM, through cross-fertilization of knowledge

and experiences and introduction of new
Information Management. Some activity needs
elements and lessons learned from outside the
to occur in the space between face-to-face
region. At Process Roundtables, stakeholders
meetings to support and maintain the
communicated their aspirations and views on
confidence-building and information sharing
challenges and necessary responses regarding
process. Moreover, a user-interactive and
TWRM in their countries and identified
content-rich electronic platform can provide a
cooperation opportunities.
useful service to foster a community of practice.

The Transboundary Waters and Information
The Athens-Petersberg Process achieved
Exchange Network for Southeastern Europe
communication of information about key TWRM
(TWIEN-SEE) aimed to strengthen networking
issues to the political leadership of national
and communication between decision makers
competent institutions, and hence contributed in
and experts and assist in information and
raising political will and commitment to action.
experience sharing on relevant issues
Signifying this, there were increasing numbers of
(http://www.watersee.net). The platform was
high level officials from competent authorities
primarily used to organize and disseminate
over the period 2004-2008. The actual
background and preparatory materials and to
participation and engagement in discussions of
communicate outcomes of the main Athens-
Ministers, Deputy Ministers and State
Petersberg activities. Three facilitated electronic
Secretaries of the riparian countries in the
dialogues were linked with related events and
Slovenian (2007) and Sofia (2008) Roundtables
aimed to enable continued exchange of views
is of particular note. The Process also facilitated
among the participants of the roundtables and
the acknowledgement of critical issues that
workshops.
traditionally were not high on the agenda, such

as shared groundwater management and the
Partnership Building. A less overt, but critical
integrated management of freshwater bodies
part of a regional dialogue process lies in the
and the coastal environment.
building of partnerships. In the case of Athens-

Petersberg, this was exemplified by Core
Hosting activities in a number of key shared
Partner outreach not just to other international
water bodies in SEE (Lake Ohrid, Sava River,
organizations, but also key institutions at the
Nestos River) provided opportunities to
national and local levels. As mentioned
participants for first-hand experiences and better
previously, the CG sought to ensure the
understanding of challenges and on-going
presence of all types of project stakeholders at
activities in the basins. As an example, the Ohrid
face-to-face meetings and trainings. Overtures
roundtable allowed local stakeholders from three
were successfully made to key regional actors
countries ­riparian to the extended Drin River
UNECE and UNESCO. Perhaps most
Basin that includes the Prespa, Ohrid, and
importantly, all face-to-face events were hosted
Shkoder Lakes and the Drin River- to
by the given country's relevant ministry with the
understand the implications of water resources
water portfolio. Key regional NGO's including the
management in this extended hydrological and
5

---

ecological system and the need for cooperation
importantly cooperation around this shared
and integration. The Ohrid Roundtable (October
water system.
2006) maybe considered as the first step in a

process towards the creation of a vision among
The Process has initiated a "bottom up"
stakeholders for the integrated management of
participatory approach for the management of
the extended Drin River Basin system. This
the Nestos River Basin (shared by Bulgaria and
constitutes a valid basis for future cooperation
Greece). This approach is complementary to the
that, in addition, further drew the attention of the
on-going "top down" approach initiated by
international community. Efforts for the planning
Bulgaria and Greece. The Sofia Roundtable
of TWRM activities in the Drin Basin have been
(April 2008) suggested the creation of a
initiated in cooperation with the competent
Transboundary Stakeholders Forum that will
authorities of the riparian countries, UNECE and
allow the communication and exchange of
donor countries such as Germany.
experience and information among stakeholders

from Bulgaria and Greece. It was also the first
At the Zagreb Roundtable (November 2006) the
time, that stakeholders from the two parts of the
Athens-Petersberg Process also greatly
Basin met to discuss issues of common concern
contributed in the initiation of the discussion
and express their aspirations regarding the
among the riparian countries which are parties
management of the shared Basin. The
to the Sava River Basin Agreement (Bosnia and
continuation of this approach needs the close
Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia) for
cooperation of and is subject to the will of the
the multi-purpose use of the Basin. That
riparian countries and available financial
roundtable also assisted in the better
resources.
management of the Sava River Basin mainly

through the infusion of experience from shared
The Athens-Petersberg Process also provided
basins outside SEE. It also provided the ground
the basis for networking and the establishment
for the initiation of a dialogue between the
of communication among TWRM practitioners in
Slovenian and Croatian Public Water
the SEE region. The website became a point for
Companies for the multipurpose use of Sava
information and knowledge sharing. While it
River Basin resources (e.g. hydropower
succeeded in setting the base for a community
generation, navigation, etc.).
of practice that could be further developed, the

inter-communication facilities provided through
During the Slovenia Roundtable (November
the website were never really used by the
2007), a special high-level segment was
regional and local stakeholders for the exchange
organized where government representatives
of information and knowledge despite the efforts
(ministers) of the Parties to the Framework
undertaken. This was attributed to reticence
Agreement on the Sava River Basin signed a
among regional stakeholders to embrace the
protocol to support "...further development of
internet as a communications tool, however,
cooperation in the field of shared groundwater in
increased hit counts indicated the website was
the SEE region and especially in the sustainable
increasingly utilized as an important
management of groundwater in the Sava River
dissemination and archiving tool. The idea of
Basin where the institutional mechanism of
sustaining a web-based Community of Practice
cooperation is already established...". This
in SEE that would communicate on a steady
represents a significant political outcome of the
basis on issues of TWRM will be has to be
Athens-Petersberg Process. Also in Slovenia,
revisited. Nevertheless, the TWIENSEE was
the proposed UNDP-GEF Dinaric Karst Aquifer
proven useful for the dissemination of the
Project was presented to the representatives of
Process's outcomes and the information
the countries of focus (Albania, Bosnia &
generated.
Herzegovina, Croatia and Montenegro);

discussions regarding its content, goals and
Further to the set objectives of the joint project,
possible impact in the region were facilitated,
a much broader impact was achieved by
opening the way for its endorsement by the
enhancing synergies among key regional
countries of focus. Some of the high-level
processes on TWRM in SEE. The Athens-
representatives of these countries used this
Petersberg Process facilitated the coordination
opportunity to state in public their intention to
and succeeded in the creation of synergies
support the project proposal and more
among the project and Regional and
International Initiatives (Petersberg Phase II /
6

---

Athens Declaration Process and UNECE Water
country leadership to pursue a more permanent
Convention) as well as international projects
outcome.
(GEF Strategic Partnership for the Large Marine

Ecosystems) towards the enhancement of
Shared Benefits and Joint Visions. The
TWRM in the SEE region.
fundamental prerequisite for shared benefits is

the agreement on a Vision for the joint
REPLICATION
management of shared water resources.

Examples from the Rhine, Danube and Sava
Financing. For all the political interventions and
River basins provide inspiration and valuable
in-kind support, there is a cash element to a
lessons. Replication is feasible. The elaboration
regional dialogue process. For example,
of commonly agreed strategies at the basin level
expenditures for the Slovenia roundtable,
and the commitment of governments to work
including travel support and meeting expenses,
together for their promotion are of utmost
were approximately US$25,000. The six initial
importance. Stakeholders, in particular water
roundtables under Athens-Petersberg cost about
managers and hydrologists often think in
US$71,000 in cash contributions (with significant
national terms. A joint vision embraces the
in-kind support from the Core Partners). These
basin-approach. The concept of shared benefits
figures don't demonstrate however, the
forms a critical foundation of transboundary
increasing local financing that supported the
water management, suggesting that cooperation
roundtables, i.e. host-country support. All told,
over shared water resource can leverage win-
the six roundtables, two consultation meetings,
win outcomes.
one side event, eight capacity building

documents, launch and maintenance of a
Maintaining Focus. One critical role for the
website, three electronic dialogues, four
Coordination Group involves maintaining partner
coordination meetings and eighteen coordination
and stakeholder focus on Process objectives
teleconferences involved an investment of about
and meeting agendas. Face-to-face meetings
US$785,000 in cash and in-kind support. The
can sometimes become fora for grandstanding
lesson being that similar efforts would require
and invective on issues that are not germane to
similar amounts of money over the given time
the integrated water resource management
period.
agenda. Meetings can become an opportunity to

fight other battles. In such situations, experience
Incremental Progress. One learns quickly that
from this case suggests that core
a dialogue process such as this evolves over
partners/meeting hosts acknowledge the
time and doesn't always leverage obvious
importance of issues raised. They must then
benefits in the short run. Improving
calmly offer alternative fora to address the
understanding and changing political behavior
concerns in a transparent manner and then
involves being patient but consistent during what
graciously request the intended issue be
is a slow evolution. The obvious cost then
addressed. Such conflict management applies
becomes the patience of donors as well as the
not just to actual meetings, but to the overall
stakeholders in the process. One has to
process, i.e. maintaining stakeholder energy on
maintain interest through proper sequencing of
stated (but adaptable) objectives.
events, as well as managing the space between

meetings with frequent networking. Behavior
Sustained Investment. The dialogue process
during the meetings must reinforce the fact that
must be sustained through solid financing. An
these events are not just events for the sake of
interruption of significant duration could dilute
events. The process drivers must gently but
focus and leave room for other actors, both
firmly cajole stakeholders into delivering real
international and national to steer local actors in
outcomes. All of this must be balanced against
other directions, perhaps not addressing TWRM.
the reality that is a regional dialogue process,
The Core Partners have been able, to date, to
and one must not press too hard before the ripe
leverage additional funds and achieve more for
moments. Expectations for the outcomes of
less with existing financing. The key is to
each event must not be set too high. A perfect
anticipate funding gaps and spread funds evenly
illustration of this would be the Ministerial
throughout extended time periods.
Declaration during the Slovenia roundtable. At

the outset, limited objectives were laid out but
SIGNIFICANCE
quietly the core partners pushed the host

7

---

The series of activities under the Athens-
regional and local key stakeholders in focus
Petersberg Process demonstrates that such
countries can result in concerted action at both
technical level dialogues and exchange of
the national and regional levels. The Athens-
experience improve understanding and
Petersberg Process is demonstrating that water
communication and offer the basis for the
can indeed be a catalyst for cooperation.
initiation of cooperation processes among

stakeholders; they may also offer real political
REFERENCES
outcomes. What began as a regional dialogue

process on a specific issue resulted in a
The Transboundary Water Information
ministerial declaration to cooperate on
Exchange Network has all reports and
groundwater management in a shared river
documents related to the Athens-
basin. And that is only one outcome of a process
Petersberg Process:
that is still growing and maturing, as exemplified
http://www.watersee.net
by developments in the Drin River Basin and

also, potentially, in the Mestos-Nesta River
KEYWORDS
Basin.


Transboundary
Cooperation
These activities under the Athens-Petersberg
Dialogue
Process
Process constituted the first time for SEE
Confidence
Building
stakeholders to engage in a systematic and

sustained process of dialogue and capacity
The Global Environment Facility (GEF)
building on TWRM in their region, in particular
International Waters Experience Notes series
since the emergence of new states, post-conflict
helps the transboundary water resources
reconstruction, transition to market economies
management (TWRM) community share its
and regional EU integration processes began.
practical experiences to promote better TWRM.
The themes addressed were of broad nature
Experiences include successful practices,
(management of rivers, lakes and groundwater,
approaches, strategies, lessons, methodologies,
adaptation to climate variability and change,
etc., that emerge in the context of TWRM.
balancing multi-purpose uses, stakeholders'

participation) and each addressed a variety of
To obtain current IW Experience Notes or to
TWRM aspects. This Process also provides an
contribute your own experience, please visit
example of how coordinated action among
http://www.iwlearn.net/experience or email
external actors (international organizations and
info@iwlearn.net.
bilateral donors), with the endorsement of

8

---