in Participatory

UNESCO

PROGRAMME HYDROLOGIQUE INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL HYDROLOGICAL PROGRAMME

Participatory processes in water management

(PPWM)

Proceedings of the Satellite Conference to the World Conference on Science (Budapest, Hungary 28-30 June 1999)

Edited by József Gayer

A ?

' IWRA J^ AIRE \

!

V AIREH

P H I - V I H P - V

Documents Techniques en Hydrologie Technical Documents in Hydrology

No. 30

No. 30

T h e designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of U N E S C O concerning the legal status

of any country, territory, city or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

CONTENTS

PREFACE v

Keynote papers

W H A T IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN WATER RESOURCES M A N A G E M E N T AND W H Y IS IT IMPORTANT?

Jerome Delli Priscoli 1

WATER AND PEACE: H O W CAN INTERNATIONAL WATER AGREEMENTS BE INFLUENCED BY THE PUBLIC?

Uri Shamir 13

H U N G A R I A N E X P E R I E N C E S W I T H PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T

Anna Vari 23

DECENTRALIZATION, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND TRANSBOUNDARY WATER MANAGEMENT IN HUNGARY AND MEXICO

Valerie J. Assetto, Stephen P. Mumme 41

THE M A N A G E M E N T OF INTERNATIONAL RIVER BASINS. H O W CAN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATE?

ErikMostert 61

POLICY ANALYSIS IN A PARTICIPATORY PROCESS OF REACHING A SOLUTION T O T H E CASE OF G A B C I K O V O - N A G Y M A R O S

Peter C. G. Glas, Jan Leentvaar 77

RIVER BASINS, WATER USERS PARTICIPATION AND THE F R A M E W O R K DIRECTIVE

Bernard Barraqué 87

PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES IN W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T . T H E SAJÓ CASE STUDY

Sándor Kisgyörgy 99

F R O M HAINBURG T O F R E U D E N A U : A N AUSTRIAN EXPERIENCE W I T H SEEKING SOLUTIONS W I T H PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Hans Peter Nachtnebel 105

S T R E N G T H E N I N G L O C A L CAPACITIES F O R W A T E R C O N S E R V A T I O N IN A SMALL CATCHMENT AREA: PP IN THE D Ö R Ö G D BASIN, BALATON UPPERLAND

Judit Vàsàrhelyi 119

CONDITIONS F O R M E A N I N G F U L PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

PRECURSORS O F PRAXIS

Stuart Langton 129

T O O L S A N D TECHNIQUES F O R EFFECTIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN W A T E R RESOURCES DECISION

James Creighton 147

W o r k i n g documents

PRIVATE SECTOR IN W A T E R RESOURCES DECISION M A K I N G

Vujica Yevjevich 167

K E Y E L E M E N T S IN T H E PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES O F T R A N S B O U N D A R Y RIVER BASIN M A N A G E M E N T BASED O N SELECTED ASIAN EXPERIENCES

Le Huu Ti 175

C A T C H M E N T - B A S E D S T O R M W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T IN AUSTRALIA CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING - W H A T C A N BE ACHIEVED?

Rebekah R. Brown, Roberta Ryan, James E. Ball 203

P U B L I C PARTICIPATION IN EIA P R O C E D U R E S O F W A S T E - W A T E R T R E A T M E N T PLANTS

Andrzej Kulig 223

CRITERIA A N D C O N C E R N S F O R SELECTING A N D EVALUATING T O O L S A N D M E T H O D S F O R PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

JerylL. Mumpower 237

T H E A A R H U S CONVENTION: APPLICATION OF T H E CONVENTION PRINCIPLES T O E U R O P E A N W A T E R REGIMES

Willem J. Kakebeeke, Nicolette W. M . Bouman 249

APPLICATION OF DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM F O R D E V E L O P M E N T O F ACCESSION STRATEGIES IN T H E W A T E R SECTOR IN C Z E C H REPUBLIC

Jan Krejcik, S. Vanecek 257

T H E P R O G R A M OF REGIONAL PLANNING IN T H E H U N G A R I A N W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T W I T H R E G A R D T O T H E WIDESPREAD PARTICIPATION OF T H E USERS A N D INTERESTED PARTIES

Miklós Németh 269

Declaration of the Conference 277

PREFACE

The water management related activity has been always driven b y the requirements of the society. People wanted protected agricultural fields in flood prone areas, stabilized navigation channel to safely transport products, farmers required irrigation facilities as well as drainage systems not to be exposed to hydrological extremes, already in the past. These and other demands led to the establishment of water associations or water boards in m a n y countries already centuries ago.

Flood defence and land drainage w a s the duty and responsibility of these voluntary associations. They worked very efficiently and important works have been carried out under the guidance of them. However, the demands of certain groups of the society have not been always recognized or acknowledged by others. Let m e mention just two cases from the host country of the conference. First is the famous Chain-bridge connecting B u d a and Pest as the first permanent bridge along the D a n u b e in modern times. Just a w e e k before the Conference w e celebrated the 150 year anniversary of this bridge, today the symbol of the capital. In the

1840s certain interest groups vehemently opposed to build it while others called for its construction arguing that it would give an impetus for the country's economical development.

That time the supporters of the project w o n , w e can enjoy not only the economical benefits but also the architectural beauty ofthat "river crossing structure". M o r e recently, 10 years ago the communist regime collapsed owing a m o n g others to the political underground m o v e m e n t which developed from the opposition of the Danube project k n o w n as Gabcikovo-Nagymaros barrage system. Several lectures of the conference dealt with the project, about the mistakes of the public involvement committed in the past and I hope that both sides of the "barricade"

learnt a lot from the case.

Considering such examples it is perhaps not b y accident that Hungary w a s chosen for the venue of this event. W e had during the conference interesting lectures and fruitful debates o n

• relationship between water and peace

• international agreements influenced b y the public

• public participation in transboundary river basin management as well as in minor watersheds

• suggestions to resolve international disputes

• case studies

• historical review of participatory processes

• conditions, tools and techniques for effective public participation

• the role of the private sector in water resources decision making

• experiences gained in Asia, America, Australia and Europe just to n a m e a few.

The general states of the development of the participatory processes in water management are varying according to geographical locations, level of democracy, traditions etc. E v e n within the European Union there are important differences in particular between North and South as w e heard. O n e of the main objective of the organization of this meeting w a s to initiate dialogue between experienced participation practitioners and beginners of the field. I believe this aim was reached, since 100 participants gathered here from 30 countries of 5 continents representing environmental groups, engineering and social sciences, poors and riches, young and senior scholars, East and West, North and South with a good gender balance.

Important achievement have been reported, techniques and tools of public participation and interesting case studies have been presented and finally the participants have accepted a declaration which w a s sent to the world science community convened for the World Conference o n Science in Budapest.

This declaration as well as the twelve keynote lectures and 8 selected working documents submitted by the participants are contained in this proceedings. T h e conference w a s accommodated in the premises of Water Resources Research Centre ( V I T U K I ) Budapest. A study tour w a s organized to visit the site of the project "Integrated land use planning and sustainable development in Szentendre Island". Thanks are due to the local host of the visit.

The support of the co-sponsors: U N E S C O Venice Office and the Hungarian National Committee for Technological Development as well as the assistance in organization of the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), International Water Resources Association ( I W R A ) and U N E S C O International Hydrological P r o g r a m m e (IHP) are highly appreciated.

I would like to thank the m e m b e r s of the Conference Committee for their kind co-operation, especially for János Bogárdi's encouragement.

József Gayer editor

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES IN WATER MANAGEMENT

28-30 June 1999, Budapest, Hungary Satellite Conference to the

WORLD CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE

VITUKI IAP2 IWRA UNESCO OMFB

W H A T IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN WATER RESOURCES M A N A G E M E N T A N D W H Y IS IT IMPORTANT?

keynote paper

Jerome Delli Priscoli Institute for Water Resources U S A r m y Corps of Engineers 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3868 U S A

E-mail: priscoli@erols.com (or) jerome.dellipriscoli@usace.army.mil

1. INTRODUCTION

Ladies and gentlemen and colleagues — good morning. A s w e all k n o w , the control of water is the control of life and livelihood. Thus, h o w w e exercise this control reveals what w e value, w h o w e are and what type of society w e seek to become. This conference — participatory Processes in Water Resources Management — goes to the heart of these issues. It is hard to find two more compelling concerns in our contemporary world then quenching the thirst of a rapidly growing humanity and doing it in a participatory way.

Several years ago I remember m y dissertation advisors response to m y initial proposal to define participation in water resources management. H e said, "Fascinating: N o w tell m e what you will do after you have spent ten years and 10 volumes to produce this opus?" I got the point.

Participation can m e a n m a n y things to m a n y people. This morning I do not intend to be dogmatic and I d o not intend to offer the definitive definition of participation. But I d o intend to convey what I think participation m e a n s to water resources management and w h y . I have picked 5 areas of growing concern to the water field within which to discuss what participation is and w h y it is important:

1. Ethical dimensions of water management;

2. Water m a n a g e m e n t and civic culture;

3. Tension between the technical and political;

4 . Reconciling the discontinuities between geographic and jurisdictional boundaries;

5. N e e d for better and more conflict management.

2. ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T

First — Let us look at ethics of water management. Since there is no life without water, those to w h o m it is denied are denied life. Water for all and meeting m i n i m u m h u m a n needs are vitally tied to the principle of h u m a n dignity shared by all contemporary faiths.

W e can see profound ethical implication in all aspects of the traditional water uses such as:

flood control and management; drought contingency planning and management; irrigation;

hydroelectric power and agriculture; water supply and sanitation; navigation; ecological maintenance and health; public health and disease control and others. Ethical consideration around these uses concern; the distribution of benefits and costs of the services; w h o gets h o w m u c h of the water and w h o pays; the distribution of risks, w h o is vulnerable and to what degree. Today, this includes service for the nature and ecology as well as people.

Ethical implications are also clear in all aspects of water m a n a g e m e n t decision making such as: planning, regulating, operating, financing and investing, designing and implementing, and, others. They concern; w h o participates; what are the decisions they participate in; do they have access to formulating options or only to reacting to options already formulated; h o w and what type of opportunity costs are considered; the valuing, implicit or explicit, in trade-off decisions; level and type of information open to the public; disclosure and characterization of impacts; the w a y professionals interact with non-professionals and the use, as well as misuse, of technical and professional information.

In the face of such ethical responsibilities h o w could w e continue to use the all too familiar model: decide, inform the client community, and, then justify our decision; or, decide, announce, and defend. This old model must — and is — being replaced by another model in which the participants jointly share information, diagnose the problem, reach an agreement about a solution, and implement it. The decide-inform-justify approach usually builds on a paternalistic (albeit often nobly motivated) professional ethic. The professional formulates alternatives or determines options, and then, for the good of society, informs the public and thereby justifies those decisions.

While often attached to the traditional engineer's mentality, this old model is even finding n e w life with m a n y contemporary environmental regulators! H o w e v e r , the ethical basis of such professionalism is changing. For example, few of us go to the doctor and say, "Heal m e " . Instead, w e participate in the diagnosis as well as in the healing process itself. So too w h e n w e turn to traditional, technical and governmental agencies. W e must find n e w w a y s to jointly diagnose problems, to decide on plans of actions, and to implement them. This notion of professionalism is driven b y a n e w ethic of "informed consent" as opposed to paternalism.

It is not that engineers, scientists and technical professionals have b e c o m e irrelevant. W e need them m o r e then ever. H o w e v e r , for their expertise to be put in service, n e w relationships must be built with those w h o m they serve.

This n e w model of "informed consent" demands broader understanding, b y all stakeholders, of the special ethical demands faced by decision-makers. For example, w h e n is the decision not to decide, a greater evil then to decide and to possibly incur unexpected negative effects? Meaningful participation often brings both decision-makers and participants into a n e w awareness of this ethical reality. Lack of participation or non-meaningful participation allows stakeholders the luxury of negative "nay-saying" without confronting the reality of decision making pressures; and that is dangerous. Admittedly getting the public in touch with such realities, which are often described in obscure and esoteric language, is difficult. But w e must. A n d participation is one of our main tools to do so.

N o w h e r e is this dilemma clearer then in water and ecological decision making. In the U S the days w h e n the shared experience of being negative w a s sufficient to establish legitimacy have passed. For a time society needed a shock; an instrument to m a k e us stop and take notice.

T h e EIS has been that blunt instrument. But n o w w e k n o w that w e must g o further: that there is not one, but m a n y possible ecological futures; that w e must actually design and choose our future. This is the challenge of environmental design; the co-creation of our ecology. W e

already see this practically in n e w programs that actually engage in Pro-active ecological design such as environmental restoration and wetland construction. S o m e call this the adoption of a Promethean Environmental Archetype and the rejection of an Arcadian Archetype to fuel our search for sustainability.

Ecology and water disputes must overcome the syndrome of advocacy science if w e are to preserve the legitimacy of the scientific enterprise, which is so necessary for water m a n a g e m e n t . W e must ask, what are the ethics of using science to persuade publics, especially under conditions where there is fundamental disagreement a m o n g scientists and where even the models and data themselves are w e a k .

Participatory processes force all of us to confront these questions.

3. W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T A N D CIVIC CULTURE

Turning to water, governance and civic culture: A s T h o m a s Jefferson once noted, the great engine of democracy is responsibility. Citizen responsibility is enhanced w h e n citizens meaningfully participate in making decisions that affect their lives. They take responsibility for trade-offs. Such experience becomes a powerful means to educate and to inform — both prerequisites for democratic political culture. Participatory processes build on a classical notion in democratic theory: that those w h o are affected by decision should have a say in these decisions which affect their lives because in doing so they will b e c o m e better citizens. A n d it is often the physical infrastructure and water infrastructure that citizens see directly affecting their lives.

Building that physical water infrastructure in a collaborative and participatory w a y is n o w an important m e a n s for building the civic infrastructure and the civil society or what m a n y call the governance environment. H o w e v e r , this is not n e w . Fountains of ancient R o m e , like standpipes in small villages today or in medieval cities of Europe, have played roles in building civic culture as well as quenching thirst. They were occasions for civic dialogue and meeting places central to creating a sense of civic belonging and responsibility. Indeed the fountain w a s truly a civic work. It w a s a gathering place of nations, believers and unbelievers.

W e should not forget that civil society, civic culture and civil engineering share c o m m o n s roots. Whether it be irrigation associations, community water and sewage and even large-scale multipurpose river operations, water m a n a g e m e n t forces us to connect and to balance rights to

water with responsibilities for managing water. M o s t democratic theorists see the experience 2

of such balancing as central to development of civic society.

In short, participation forces us to be m o r e then simply "water customers" or "water clients", w e b e c o m e "Water citizens".

Today participatory processes are doing m o r e then making our democratic institutions perform better. They are becoming catalysts for n e w civic partnerships and even n e w governance structures that transcend the old.

A s w e speak, the Republic of South Africa, based on participation, has written into its constitution a fundamental right to water. It has abolished old riparian systems and created a n e w system with two reserved rights and all other rights permitted for limited time.

Participatory processes in water management have b e c o m e a fundamental vector for creating a n e w distribution of civic rights and responsibilities.

A recent study, done by the Kettering Foundation, finds that t w o systems of participation, formal and informal, seems to be emerging in the United States. Participation in the formal system of voting is decreasing while participation in the informal is increasing. T h e informal system includes participation in activities such as community impact, regional projects and environmental and water projects. T h e study concludes that the problem is not to bring the informal to the formal, but h o w to get the formal to recognize the informal.

Over the last thirty years, an N G O , dedicated to restoring life of the Chesapeake B a y in the Eastern U S , has created enough widespread awareness that a n e w type of regional governance structure — a B a y Commission, has been formed. It crosses governmental, sectoral and jurisdictional lines.

O n the Everglades in Florida, N G O s , activists and others have created a n e w structure of intergovernmental and private — public partnerships. This has produced the largest restoration

— or ecological design project — in the world. A n d it has'transformed the behavior of traditional agencies.

N o t far from where w e are today, in two small towns on the Hungarian and Slovakian border, citizens on both sides of the river, Hungarians and Slovaks — on their o w n initiatives — in a region fraught with potential for violence, c a m e together to meet and discuss h o w to clean the pollution, to m a n a g e the water and reduce terrible health risks to themselves and their children. Water, which k n o w s no boundary, facilitated a dialogue which resulted in agreement on clean up and management, the first open border crossing in the current era, and a variety of

joint projects still being carried out. T h e sense of joint ownership and moral imperative from these actions, taken without and, indeed, contrary to the desires of the national governments, forced the governments to follow.

Participatory processes in water management can and do profoundly affect our civic cultures.

4. T E N S I O N S B E T W E E N T H E POLITICAL A N D T E C H N I C A L

Turning to m y third area: few issues intertwine the technical and political as water m a n a g e m e n t . Even a cursory look at history shows that the interaction between the political and technical is complex.

For example, in the modern West, there are few figures more symbolically important in the realm of politics, engineering and art, then Niccolo Machiavelli and Leonardo da Vinci. The story of their collaboration to divert the Arno River and their integrated water resources plan for the region illustrates h o w the technical and political are intertwined. That collaboration foreshadows the use of satellite imagery, open public debate a m o n g technical and political stakeholders, systems modeling and optimization and the triangle of technical administration, financing and political power. Leonardo's drawings, done from the perspectives of looking d o w n from above the project, are remarkably similar to today's satellite imagery. T h e drawings were also found with adhesives for wall hanging at briefings and public meetings around the countryside!

Traditionally w e have c o m e to view the separation between the political, usually seen as legislative voting, and the technical, usually seen as implementing the executive agencies.

W h e n confronted with complex water m a n a g e m e n t decisions, this distinction breaks d o w n .¹ Often it is with the implementation or administration of general laws that the distribution of impacts becomes clear. Politics is " W h o gets W h a t , W h e n and H o w " . Often the what and where b e c o m e apparent only in implementation. Thus, administrators of technical agencies begin to appear as the bestowers or deniers of political benefits. A n d this is becoming truer and truer as w e b e c o m e more complex.

T o m a n a g e this gray area, scholars and commentators from Habermas to Robert Reich, have been calling for a n e w paradigm of public dialogue, which leads to civic discovery. This call reflects the chief goals of participatory processes: to foster deliberation, to encourage

social learning, to create n e w alternatives, and to build or enhance through empowering experiences the civic infrastructure.

M u c h of the water legislation of the 1970s and 1980s, in the United States and n o w in m a n y lenders and donors policies, has included a litany of impact assessment requirements such as impact assessment, community impact assessment, risk assessment and environmental assessment. Each is essentially the recognition that traditional decision making processes s o m e h o w do not include significant and appropriate values.

Unfortunately m a n y have c o m e to see even these assessment techniques in purely technical, rational, analytical and value free terms. T h e truth is that decisions which w e are likely to discuss in this conference fall somewhat between the clearly technical and clearly political. Essentially w e are seeking the reasonable, not just the rational. While the rational m a y be a necessity, it is not a sufficient condition.

But behind this lurks a far m o r e profound principle or n o r m for water managers: w e must seek to put that which w e do — our technology — into service of that which w e believe — participatory democracy. O n c e again, water management is leading the w a y . Let m e share one example.

Today the Interstate Commission for the Potomac River has achieved what most would say is impossible. With little formal authority — two low flow agreements for the river — it n o w exercises m o r e influence then most River Basin Organizations in the world. H o w could this be?

B y using n e w participatory software it has allowed political and technical stakeholders to jointly create simulation models of the river. These models are on a real time basis. They have b e c o m e trusted monitoring tools of five sovereign entities. They have b e c o m e so trusted that as soon as potential problems emerge, these entities react individually for the collective good.

So where the engineers had previously thought that 6 d a m s necessary — 1 d a m with this operating trust has n o w seen the Capitol of the U S successfully through two major droughts.

A n d all of this has occurred because water professionals, politicians and stakeholders put the tools of technology in service of their beliefs in participatory processes and created n e w w a y s to manage the "gray" areas between technical and political.

Yes — participatory processes, at their best, help us m a n a g e this gray area and to provide representative participation in technical/administrative decisions.

5. DISCONTINUITIES B E T W E E N G E O G R A P H Y A N D JURISDICTIONS

All water resources managers eventually face the frustration of m y fourth area. Our water problems are integrated around watersheds and river basins. However, our administrative units to deal with them are fragmented. Participatory processes, are essentially tools to help us bridge the discontinuity between geographical and jurisdictional boundaries found in water resources management.

Neither effluent from waste facilities nor polluted groundwater can be contained within traditional jurisdictional entities, nor the problems they create solved by m e m b e r s of one jurisdiction and throughout the world, such resources issues will increasingly drive political

and international decisions. But these resources are spread across state, local, provincial, federal and international boundaries. Organizations and institutions built o n traditional jurisdictional boundaries seem deadlocked by the N I M B Y (not in m y backyard syndrome).

Ultimately, participation is a bottoms up phenomena. Participation becomes a driving force for the vertical (state, local and regional) as well as the horizontal (across agency) negotiations vital to decisions, which rarely fit traditional jurisdictional boundaries.

This is most clear in river basin management. Throughout history, the river basin has played a major role in unifying communities and stimulating trade and the emergence of large political-economic organizational units. Historical examples illustrate that communities were integrated through the management of water and land resources for agriculture, riverain navigation, and settlement networks based on agrarian productivity and transport nodes. River navigation also facilitated the integration of raw materials and manufactured goods from different parts of the basin and a m o n g basins - and spawned N G O advocacy groups such as boatsman associations along the Rhine and Danube during the R o m a n Empire.

Today, internationally, n e w publics are demanding n e w institutions and forums for negotiations which often cross traditional jurisdictional and/or national boundaries. T h e issues themselves are also spawning n e w affinity groups or N G O s such as environmental groups, which operate across those boundaries. T h e influence of such cross-jurisdictional groups could b e c o m e important in certain regions. W e do not have to look further then right here in Eastern and Central Europe. Y o u have s h o w n us h o w such grass roots N G O s and environmental groups can transform old institutions.

At the bottom line, I W R M , the centerpiece of world debate on water policy, cannot be achieved without participatory processes.

6. PARTICIPATION A N D C O N F L I C T M A N A G E M E N T

There is s o m e confusion over m y final area: participatory processes and conflict m a n a g e m e n t . M a n y participation successes were achieved during the 1970s and 1980s. But there were also m a n y lingering problems and discontent. Chief a m o n g these w a s the notion:

"Public participation got people talking and us listening to their needs, but w e d o not seem to c o m e to closure and reach agreement". In response to this sentiment and to the growing litigousness in the U S society, the field of alternative dispute resolution ( A D R ) emerged in the early 1980s. A D R used m u c h of the rhetoric and process skills found and developed in the participation experiences. For example, facilitation, mediation, neutral party assistance, and the early notions of interest based negotiation which is parallel to value based alternatives started to be used for solving disputes before going to court.

T h e participation experience w a s born of multi-party, multi-issue disputes usually precipitated by n e w ecological value challenges. A D R began by focusing on mediation and various forms of nonbinding arbitration born of the m o r e traditional m o d e l of labor-management disputes which involved limited numbers of parties and m o r e discernable interests. Practitioners in both of these traditions have c o m e together in a variety of professional forums and societies. T h e growth of environmental mediation is one major example.

But beyond these convergences, important differences between participation and A D R exist. Participation has been driven primarily by values of e m p o w e r m e n t , creativity and open access to government. A D R , while not ignoring such values, has been sold m o r e on the values of efficiency, timeliness, cost effectiveness of decision-making processes. These values of e m p o w e r m e n t , open system access, efficiency and timeliness can and d o often conflict. In the end, s o m e people m a y just not agree a m o n g themselves or with water managers or other decisions but w e will all have to learn to live together while w e disagree. In this sense, participation is far m o r e then conflict resolution. Participation seeks to help us discern public interest, community will and to articulate preferred futures. I think that political philosopher B e n Barber puts it best w h e n he says, "participation teaches us the arts of Democracy". "" 1 ^

7. CONCLUSION

In conclusion: the d e m a n d s for participation in water m a n a g e m e n t and ecological decision making are both indicators and s y m p t o m s of problems in water m a n a g e m e n t and democratic institutions. T h e values held by those w h o m administrators and executives serve are changing.

Older administrative organizations and institutions, which themselves, are the embodiment of values from previous times, have often lagged behind their publics. N e w publics bring n e w d e m a n d s . A t the same time, the complexity of decisions increasingly raises the question of h o w to achieve democratic accountability. O u r water resources demands do not conform to traditional jurisdictional boundaries. T h e ethical basis of professionalism is n o w moving from paternalistic to informed consent. Participation is a m e a n s to adapt and to m a k e our democratic institutions w o r k better in this context. But participation is also helping to reinvent our civic cultures.

Participation is a m e a n s to achieve important psychological transference within our publics: that is, from passive victims of, or reactors to, risk, toward active choosers of levels of risk.13

A t its best, participation can connect us and perhaps break d o w n stereotypes. It can help us walk in the other shoes. It can be a symbolic act of reconciliation and vehicle for forgiveness and healing which are prerequisites for m a n a g e m e n t of ethnic and distributive conflicts.

In the end, our increased environmental and water knowledge has brought us to a major point in the evolution of consciousness. W e h u m a n s are coming to understand that w e are co-creators of, and participants in, our o w n evolution. W e are "in and o f nature. In s o m e w a y w e are reflective consciousness in nature. B y forcing us to experience multiple viewpoints, each often coached in the certainty of pedigreed science, participation has been a vehicle to bring us to such realizations.

Caught between an apocalyptic pessimism for earth and an optimism in a savior technology, m a n y express fear of the future. Indeed, our fixation on the short term could be a collective avoidance strategy to deal with this fear. However, the fear of the future could stem from another source of anxiety deep in our collective subconscious. That source might be the a w e s o m e sense of responsibility stemming from realizing that w e are co-designing our ecology or playing G o d , whether by explicit choice, non-choice or avoidance. Built on a democratic faith, participation will not let us run from this collective responsibility. In classical

theory, democracy is defended because citizens participate in decision that affect their lives and this experience will educate and build responsibility a m o n g citizens — and better citizens. 14

W h a t issues could be m o r e important and affect us m o r e then the purposeful designing our ecological future? A n d our water resources life support system? O u r technology and experts tell us that w e have enough water — if w e cooperate!

T w o hundred years ago, in his notes of the State of Virginia, T h o m a s Jefferson — himself steeped deeply in both the technical and political worlds — once said about the making technical/administrative accountable:

I k n o w of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves and if w e think them not enlightened to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion ...

T w o hundred years later, reflecting o n the same problem, one of America's leading theorists — Robert Dahl — said;

..complexity threatens to cut the policy elites loose from effective control by the d e m o s . T h e result could be

a kind of quasi-guardianship of the policy elites...indeed specialization, which is the ..grounds for the influence of

policy elites, m a y itself impair their capacity for moral judgement If democratic process is not firmly anchored

to the judgements of the d e m o s , then the system will continue to drift over to quasi-guardianship.

Ladies and gentlemen and colleagues: This is w h y I think that participation m e a n s so m u c h to water management and w h y together they m e a n so m u c h to our civic cultures.

REFERENCES

Martin W . Lewis, Green Delusions: A n Environmentalist Critique of Radical Environmentalism, Introduction, D u k e University Press, D u r h a m , 1992.

"Jerome Delli Priscoli, "Water and Civilization: Conflict, Cooperation and the Roots of a N e w

Eco Realism", in Proceedings, Water — The Key to Socio-Economic Development and Quality of Life, The 81 Stockholm Water symposium, 10-13 august, 1998, Stockholm Sweden, Stockholm International Water Institute.

Citizens and politics: A View from Main Street, a report prepared by the Harwood Groups for the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, June, 1991.

Delli Priscoli, op. Cit.

Roger D . Masters, Fortune is a River, the Free Press, N e w York, 1998

For a review of the debate over representativeness of administration, see J. Delli Priscoli, Public Participation in Regional-Intergovernmental Water Resources Planning, Georgetown University, 1975, p. 549. And also: Carl J. Friedrich, "Public Policy and the Nature of Administration Responsibility" in Public Administration and Policy, (ed) Peter Wol, N e w York, Harper, 966 pp. 236-239 and Herman Finer, "Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government" in Public Administration and Policy, pp.

257-259.

7Harold Lasswell. Politics: W h o Gets What. W h e n and H o w . 1958

Robert Reich, "Policy making in a Democracy" in The Power of Public Ideas, (ed) Robert Reich, p. 125.

Ludwik A . Teclaff, The River Basin in History and Law. Martinus Nijhoff, the Hague, 1967 For a review see: D . Fisher and C . Davis, Civil Society and the Environment in Central and

Eastern Europe, the Ecological Studies Institute, London, May, 1992.

For more discussion on this, see: Susan Carpenter, "the Blurring of roles Between Public Participation and Conflict Resolution Practitioners," Interact, Fall, 1995 Vol. 1, #1, pp.37-53.

12 Keynote speech at IAP2 conference in Toronto in 1997.

J. Delli Priscoli, Public Involvement in Risk Assessment. Keynote speech at Workshop, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, December 10, 1984

Note: Pericles, "Funeral Oration" in Thucycdides, The Peloponnesian War.

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (ed.) William Peden, Norton Library, W . W . Norton & C o . , Inc., N e w York, 1954.

Robert A . Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics, p.340.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES IN WATER MANAGEMENT

28-30 June 1999, Budapest, Hungary Satellite Conference to the

WORLD CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE

VITUKI IAP2 IWRA UNESCO OMFB

WATER A N D PEACE: H O W CAN INTERNATIONAL WATER AGREEMENTS BE INFLUENCED BY THE PUBLIC?

keynote paper

Uri Shamir

Lawrence and Marie Feldman Chair in Engineering Faculty of Civil Engineering

Director — Water Research Institute Technion — Israel; Institute of Technology

Haifa 32000, Israel

ABSTRACT

Several publics have interest in a nation's negotiations over international waters and the resulting agreements: (a) those w h o are or think they m a y be directly impacted, since they reside adjacent to water sources or systems that are being discussed; (b) national consumer sectors that will be affected, and/or w h o take the opportunity of the international negotiations to promote their interests; (c) public organizations whose agenda relates to water, mostly "green" organizations; (d) segments of the national public w h o have a stand vis-a-vis the whole issue of negotiations with neighboring nations, and use the negotiations over water to further their position; (e) water experts not involved in the negotiations, w h o have an opinion on water resources management in their o w n nation and the region, and want to have that opinion recognized and acknowledged. The topic of this paper is h o w such publics can and do have an influence on international water negotiations, o n

the agreements, and o n the implementation of the agreements. W e use a "generic" arena of international negotiations over water for illustration, consider its characteristics, and discuss h o w the public influences the negotiations. T o conclude, w e bring a few anecdotal illustrations from the water negotiations in the Middle East.

1. T H E NEGOTIATION ARENA O N INTERNATIONAL WATERS

Every case of international negotiation over water is unique, and n o two cases are quite alike.

A n d yet, it will b e instructive to have in m i n d a "generic" or "synthetic" negotiation arena over international waters, structured to capture the salient features and serve to convey and discuss the m a i n ideas regarding the influence of the public on international water treaties.

In our case the negotiations are between two parties, i.e. a bi-lateral case. T h e negotiations are conducted over an extended period, at least several years, under political conditions that vary over time. T h e political atmosphere oscillates between relative calm bi-national relations, with good-will o n both sides being the dominant feature, and times during which, for reasons that m a y or m a y not have to d o with water, the political atmosphere is tense, sometimes hostile.

In parallel, there is a multi-lateral arena, in which the two parties and s o m e others participate.

T h e others m a y be nations from the region, neutrals that offer their good offices, or international agencies that wield s o m e influence on the parties. This parallel multi-lateral arena is m o r e open. It's goals are to create an atmosphere of good will between the two parties, to air issues which are m o r e general and less specific, to bring in "objective input" from outside expertise, in general —to build bridges. T h e bi-lateral arena, on the other hand, is where the difficult issues, in their specific form, are dealt with. In an ideal setup, the multi-laterals help the bi-laterals, but d o not interfere with them. Agreements on principles can be crafted in the multi-laterals, but the specifics of the binding agreements are negotiated in the bi-laterals.

This scenario does not contain the cases of multi-lateral negotiations, such as those on the D a n u b e , the Nile, or the Rhine. A n d still, s o m e of what will be said below, regarding the influence of the public o n international water negotiations and agreements, m a y be relevant.

There are t w o possible situations. In one, water is the only issue being negotiated between the parties. In the other, water is but one topic on a m u c h broader palette of matters. W e shall consider the former, for clarity. In the latter, tradeoffs between agreements in the various

topics are an important consideration, and the participation of the public m a y be considerably m o r e complex.

T h e governments of the two parties designate each a negotiating team. T h e team includes a leader, w h o is from the political echelon and has little or n o professional expertise o n water.

T h e team leader is connected directly to the government, and takes its orders from it. T h e rest of the team is from the water domain officials and experts. T h e team also leans o n additional expertise, called upon to provide specific information on particular issues.

Each team conducts negotiations in at least four directions: within itself, with its leader w h o is the link to the political level, with the political level, with the other side. T h e most difficult negotiations are not necessarily with the other side; often they are within the team and/or with the political level.

2. W H O IS T H E "PUBLIC" IN THIS CASE?

Consider the case of planning issues within a country, o n water, land development, transportation, nature preservation, or any other similar aspect that affects various constituencies and has an environmental impact. W e think of "public" in these cases as individuals and groups of people w h o are affected, or believe that they will be affected, b y the plan, as well as N G O s w h o s e agendas relate to the proposed plan. This w o u l d include

"neighbors" of a development project (road, treatment plant, garbage d u m p , industrial plant, etc.) and/or associations for protection of nature, for preservation of historical sites, etc.

M u c h has been said and written about participation of the public in intra-national cases, and w e do not find it necessary to belabor it here. H o w e v e r , the intra-national situation forms the basis for public participation in international matters as well. S o m e nations have well-developed laws, procedures, mechanisms, regulations and institutions that enable, even encourage, public participation. T h e public in these countries is accustomed to taking advantage of the opportunity to influence the outcome of decision making. This "educated public" will be inclined to influence international water treaties whenever they feel it necessary. O n the other hand, in countries where this democratic culture of public participation does not exits or is as yet poorly developed, one can expect that the public will not influence the international treaties at all, or only marginally.

S o , in our generic case, the t w o countries are democratic, a n d the public is sufficiently

"educated". There is organizational and individual "energy" that is mobilized w h e n the interested segments of the public feel they are affected and wish to exert influence.

W h o is the "public" in the case of international negotiations over water? S o m e are the s a m e as in the intra-national case: neighbors directly affected and "environmental" N G O s . But the spectrum here is often m u c h broader. National consumer sectors or even a whole segment of the population in the country can b e c o m e the relevant "public". A consumer sector, for example the farmers, m a y decide to take a position, sometimes a very strong position, with respect to negotiations o n international waters. This m a y be because s o m e of the them are directly affected, but no less if they have a long-standing battle to maintain their allocations or price subsidies in their o w n country. They use the international negotiations to m a k e their point: "if w e have water to give to our neighbors (often stated as "enemies"), w h y is the government cutting our share or raising the price w e have to pay for water?" Opposition to international concessions is thus used as a tool in the broader battle.

A n d then there are publics w h o oppose the improvement of relations with the neighboring country, and view the negotiations over water as betrayal of the national goals. Public campaigns are w a g e d against the general government's policy by criticizing the actual or apparent "water deals" being discussed.

Interestingly, the "public" in the case of international negotiations over water can even be m e m b e r s of the political establishment. This is clearly the case with opposition parties. They have to resort to m e a n s that are used by the public at large to influence the negotiations and treaties. H o w e v e r , even m e m b e r s of the parties that sit in the government but have not been able to swing the national policy in their direction m a y use tools of "public campaign" to influence the negotiations and their outcome.

In the case of water, there is yet another group of people w h o try to exert pressure on the water negotiations and the agreements. These are the water experts, w h o are not included in the formal negotiating team. S o m e of them feel frustrated for being left out; although they probably realize that not all experts can be part of the negotiating team. Being involved in international adds to a person's prestige, so those left out try to have an influence.

Those experts w h o have strong opinions will try to get their opinion recognized by the politicians and the negotiating team. Others, with less or n o such access, will go to the media, and try to spread their message. This segment of the public — the experts can have a significant influence, since its m e m b e r s are knowledgeable, to s o m e degree or another, in the specifics of the water sector. A wise negotiating team will provide these experts an opportunity to express their positions, listen to them carefully, and, where appropriate, take their advice.

3. H O W D O PUBLICS INFLUENCE T H E NEGOTIATIONS O V E R INTERNATIONAL WATERS?

T h e negotiating teams are instructed to keep the negotiations secret. Only the political echelon can issue statements. T h e media hover constantly around, trying to extract information,

" p u m p " the team m e m b e r s , "pull them by their tongues". Occasionally, one or another of the team says something inadvertently, and immediately the media are all over it. M o r e often, the media publishes stories based o n rumors or assumptions, sometimes o n a bit of real information, sometimes primed intentionally b y an interested party. This feeds the public appetite for drama, and provides ammunition to interested publics, w h o then react in favor or against something real or apparent, attempting to influence the politicians.

T h e political leaders tend to exclude elements of the public from international negotiations, for several reasons. First, the negotiations are supposed to be based o n broad national interests, not on parochial and narrow considerations. Also, interference of the public is perceived as disruptive to the overall process.

Public campaigns are important m e a n s to influence international negotiations over water and the resulting treaties. The path goes from the party w h o "planted" the story, to the public and its representative — the media which then influence the politicians, and back into the negotiations arena. These m e a n s can b e used for " g o o d " and "bad" purposes alike. H o w e v e r , the government itself can use these m e a n s equally well, sometimes even better than the public.

Another w a y is for an interested party to insert a representative into the negotiating team. This amounts to using the political route to enter directly into the corridors of power. This is a most effective w a y , but one reserved only for those w h o have that kind of clout. If this is not available, interested parties can go to the political leaders, and try to influence their position. This, again, is a legitimate use of the political mechanism, open to those w h o have that kind of power.

Interested parties can also try to influence the negotiating team directly. T h e y commission independent studies, and if the results support their stand they will then try to present them to the negotiating team directly or via the media. This m o d e of operation can exert substantial pressure o n the negotiating team, which prides itself o n being professional and knowledgeable. Results that contradict the position taken by the negotiating team, in reality or apparently, and which c o m e from reputable sources, can have a significant influence o n the negotiating team.

Negotiators have several "circles" within which they actually negotiate:

• Their o w n negotiating team. These are the water professionals and administrators w h o run the water negotiations. This can be one of the toughest circles to deal with. M e m b e r s of the team m a y tend to "play a role", to be the toughest, or the "most reasonable" (at least in their o w n eyes), and arguments within the team can b e c o m e heated. T h e culture of discussions set b y the team leader(s) is most important. It determines the effectiveness of the team with its national objectives. It also sets the tone for the negotiations with the other side. This is the circle in which external publics have a chance to exert their influence.

• Negotiating with the "Heads of the Delegation". W h e n negotiations over water are but one part of a broader negotiation arena, then there are superiors w h o have an agenda which includes areas besides than water, and they (the supervisors) have objectives which have to be balanced across domains. It m a y turn out that convincing the Head of the Delegations is a difficult and frustrating experience. It is frustrating because the water negotiator assumes that the w a y she/he sees the national interest will be appreciated and accepted b y the supervisor — and this, m a y not be the case at all.

• T h e water negotiator's o w n political leader is yet another counterpart in negotiations. The message m a y get to the top political level only via the H e a d of the Delegation, but often the water negotiators have at least s o m e degree of access to the political level. T h e politician is influenced, to one degree or another, b y the various publics w h o seek to influence the agreements, so it is often here that the water negotiators encounters opposing views, and sometimes extreme and poorly-founded ideas and suggestions. A n d yet they must address these, since the political boss poses them as requiring a serious response.

• A n d then there obviously is the counterpart o n the other side of the table. Oddly, this is sometimes the easiest negotiating task. T h e lines are drawn, interests and positions are assumed to be clearly defined, and so the agenda is set. Y o u do not need to guess what the other side is driving for. T h e agenda of the negotiations across the table is negotiated and agreed. While it is constantly attacked and modified, still there is s o m e sort of a fixed protocol what can be and cannot be tabled.

• Finally, there is the public arena within the team's o w n country. T h e "negotiations" have s o m e special features. First, there is n o fixed agenda, and the public can pick any point or angle, and raise it. There is also no fixed m o d e for reaching a conclusion of a point. There is n o verbal or written agreement, and the public can return to issues that seem to have been

put to rest earlier. T h e public does so not only during the negotiations and signing of the agreement, but even after it has been signed. There are no "rules of the g a m e " , and the public can write the rules as it goes along. The life of the negotiating team in this arena can be quite difficult indeed.

4. S O M E NOTES A B O U T T H E MIDDLE EAST W A T E R NEGOTIATIONS A N D A G R E E M E N T S

The Madrid Process in 1991 began the h o m e stretch of the Middle East Peace negotiations.

They are far from being concluded, and m u c h remains to be accomplished. A n d yet, the Jordan — Israel Peace Treaty, signed in October 1994, and the Oslo II Agreement between the Palestinians and Israel, signed in September 1995, are very significant landmarks on the road to comprehensive peace in the region.

Water played an important role in both cases. It was one of m a n y areas discussed, but still c o m m a n d e d a high-profile a m o n g these topics, in both cases. All parties in the region consider water a strategic issue. The scarcity of water resources, shared by all in the region, although more so by some than by others, has led to statements that wars of the future will be fought over water.

Historical evidence, and a personal belief that the water problem can be handled without becoming an obstacle to peace, leads m e to refute these statements. A n d still, negotiations over water in the two cases were tough, full of twists and turns, hindered at times for various reasons.

The full story has not been told yet. A n d it is not complete, since implementation is an important aspect. In the remainder of this paper w e mention some of the events which illustrate the influence of the publics on the agreements and their implementation. T h e stories are told mostly from the Israeli perspective, but some are from the other side as well.

4.1 T h e Israeli-Palestinian agreement

Oslo II is an Interim Agreement, and should therefore not be viewed as final. Still, it stands for several years, and must therefore m a k e sense in itself. Also, it m a y provide some indications with respect to the final settlement. Water w a s one of m a n y issues being negotiated. T h e water agreement w a s reached earlier than m a n y others, a sign of good will between the negotiators

of both sides, and the realization that the parties are closely "intertwined" geographically, and therefore joint or at least closely coordinated m a n a g e m e n t is necessary.

Article 4 0 in Oslo II deals with water. It is quite complex and detailed, and sets u p both a Joint Water Commission and Joint Supervision and Enforcement T e a m s . M a n y parts of the public o n both sides expressed great interest in the issue of water, in the negotiations, and in the agreement reached.

. Israelis w h o opposed the advance towards a settlement with the Palestinians, at least in the form it took during the Rabin Government, expressed " d o o m s d a y predictions" regarding what would happen to Israel's water. The Palestinians began b y stating that all of the water in the Mountain Aquifer belonged to them, s o m e 6 0 0 - 7 0 0 m c m / y e a r . This is about one-third of Israel's water resources. Another forecast w a s that giving the Palestinians control over land in the West B a n k , which is the recharge area for the Mountain Aquifer, will endanger the quality of its water, since the Palestinians would not prevent pollution, either through inability to control it, or, s o m e even said, by design.

This caused a considerable concern in the Israeli public, and for a long time the water negotiations were conducted under these two threats: the Palestinians would take the entire resource, and they would pollute it. N o matter that the two actions together m a k e n o sense;

they were still both argued strongly.

A s it turned out, Oslo II contains an agreement that the future needs of the Palestinians in the West B a n k amount to 7 0 - 8 0 m c m / y e a r , and that their supplies in the West B a n k and Gaza would be augmented immediately by 2 8 . 6 m c m / y e a r . S o m e of these have already been supplied. Other components not yet.

Another public influence w a s brought to bear by the Israeli residents in the West B a n k and the G a z a Strip, w h o are directly affected by the agreements. T h e Israeli negotiating team w a s under instruction to safeguard their water interests. A t the same time to consider the effect that precedents set in the interim agreement will influence the negotiations of the final status.

O n the Palestinian side, there w a s , and probably still is, considerable resentment to the preferential treatment which the Israeli settlers received. This is expressed primarily b y noting the difference in per capita consumption between the Palestinian and Israeli populations, and pointing to s w i m m i n g pools in Israeli settlements while their Palestinian neighbors had little or n o water supply. This brought very strong public pressure o n the Palestinian negotiators, which w a s expressed clearly in their negotiating stance.

W h e n the Oslo II agreement on water became k n o w n to the public, the fact that the Palestinians got m u c h less than their original claim helped the acceptance on the Israeli side.

O n the Palestinian side there is still frustration that even those items agreed have not been fully implemented. This causes public anger and frustration, which has been especially strong during the three years of the Netanyahu government.

4.2 T h e Jordan-Israel Treaty

Jordan and Israel have a long history regarding the water resources of the Jordan and Y a r m o u k Rivers, and more recently of groundwater in the Arava Valley between the Dead Sea and Eilat/Aqaba. Envoys from the U S — Johnston, Habib, and Armitage — suggested schemes for allocation of the Jordan and Yarmouk waters. N o n e led to an agreement.

In the early 1980's, a n e w mechanism emerged. "The Picnic Table Talks" on the bank of the Y a r m o u k River began discreetly. Israel met Jordan's requests for augmenting the diversion of water from the Y a r m o u k into Jordan's King Abdallah Canal ( K A C ) , which feeds agriculture in the Jordan Valley and from which water is raised to the City of A m m a n . T h e talks on the ground, conducted under direct control of the political leaders of both countries, set the tone for later negotiations and agreement. Information was exchanged, trust was built, and personal relations developed.

The Madrid process began in 1991, and talks proceeded from then to 1994, w h e n the Peace Treaty was signed. While the negotiations were conducted, first in Washington and then in the region, all the publics mentioned above were involved, to one degree or another, on the Israeli side. Five regional water associations had s o m e involvement, two to the south of Lake Kinneret (The Sea of Galilee) and three in the Arava Valley. The chief Israeli negotiator comes from the Jordan Valley Association. H e acted a national negotiator, but one cannot claim that the region had no foothold in the negotiating arena. T h e other four Associations went directly to the negotiating team, and also through the political echelon. In either case, they did have input to the process.

Israeli professionals also kept commenting and making proposals, directly and through the media. S o m e offered doomsday forecasts: what would happen to Israel if it conceded any of its water to Jordan, etc. Politicians w h o might have had a direct influence on the negotiations m a d e public statements instead, thereby trying to influence the political system from outside.

O n the Jordanian side, the professional associations of engineers tended to be in strong opposition to the entire peace process, and criticized their negotiator and his team. H e later became Minister of Water and Irrigation, and in s u m m e r 1998 w a s dismissed by the King after an event in which low water quality w a s supplied to A m m a n , water which w a s provided by Israel to Jordan from the Jordan River at the outlet from the Kinneret. Elements of the Jordanian public, including those professional engineering associations, w h o oppose the peace process, used the contamination event to raise claims against the arrangements between the two countries, and accuse Israel for the event, and put pressure o n the King to dismiss the Minister.

5. EPILOGUE

T h e political atmosphere in the Middle East in the last three years has not been conducive to progress towards conciliation and peace. A better atmosphere is expected n o w , after the Israeli elections. This is yet another w a y — the most powerful one in which the public affects the negotiations and their outcomes: through the ballot box.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES IN WATER MANAGEMENT

28-30 June 1999, Budapest, Hungary Satellite Conference to the

WORLD CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE

VITUKI IAP2 IWRA UNESCO OMFB

HUNGARIAN EXPERIENCES WITH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN WATER MANAGEMENT

keynote paper

A n n a Vari

Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute of Sociology

H - 1 0 1 4 Budapest, Úri u. 49., Hungary

1. INTRODUCTION

Before the political transition, water management w a s one of the most centralized sectors of Hungarian economy dominated by the party-state. After 1990, however, the state withdrew from several water-related services, including, for example, drinking water production and sewage treatment. Companies providing such services were privatized or became controlled by local governments. Former hierarchical approaches, which excluded the public from the decision making processes, became unsuitable for controlling the n e w situation.

T h e paper reviews experience of public participation in water managementdècisions since the political transition. First, changes in the social background to, and legal framework for public participation will be examined. Then, through the critical analysis of three cases, ongoing practices in this field will be evaluated. Finally, factors promoting and hindering effective public participation will be summarized and general conclusions will be drawn.

2. T H E R E B I R T H O F CIVIL SOCIETY

O n e of the most important conditions to citizen participation is the existence of a strong civil sector. In Hungary, like most of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the once flourishing civil society of the earlier half of this century w a s destroyed by the state socialist regime ruling after World W a r II. F r o m the mid-1980s, the crisis of state socialist structure w a s becoming visible, and the unwritten compromise between state and society started to fall apart. This crisis resulted in the emergence of a n u m b e r of civil initiatives, grassroot m o v e m e n t s and associations which discussed social, environmental, cultural and even political issues m o r e and m o r e openly and critically.

T h e political transition resulted in radical changes with regard to the legal background of the civil sphere. Basic democratic rights including the right to associate, the right of free expression, and the right of free access to media were quickly implemented. T h e n e w laws gave civil society organizations ( C S O s ) the right to exist as legal entities. This resulted in a rapid rise in the number of C S O s , particularly associations and foundations. In 1998, a total of approximately 50,000 registered civil society organizations existed in the country.

O n e of the strongest areas of civil activism has been environmental protection. Ecological m o v e m e n t s had played a significant role in promoting the radical changes which took place during the late 1980s. Although in the 1990s environmental protection is no longer such a significant priority, environmental C S O s are still a m o n g the most prominent and active groups of the civil sector.

3. N E W LEGISLATION O N PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Since the political transition several n e w laws and regulations have been passed which form the legal basis for public participation in decisions related to water management. The most important laws in this field include the Act on the Protection of Personal Data and Accessibility of Data of Public Interest, the Act on Local Governments, and the Act on Water Management.

O n e of the most significant laws regarding public participation is Act LXIII ( 1992) on the Protection of Personal Data and Accessibility of Data of Public Interest. According to this law, the activities of national and local governments — with exceptions for national security and criminal proceedings — should be open to public access (Caddy, 1999).

Act L X V (1990) o n Local Governments instructs that public hearings be held by the body of representatives at least once a year. T h e law also provides for public fora, "which serve the direct information of the population, of the social organizations, in the preparation of the most important decisions" (translation by: Caddy, 1999).

Act LVII. (1995) on Water Management prescribes that regional water management directorates establish respective regional water management councils which include representatives of organizations affected by the directorate's decisions. Councils are to be invited to review regional concepts and plans and are consulted with in cases of other important decisions.

Several areas of water management including, for example, those directly related to water quality issues are recognized as environmental ones. A s a consequence, public participation rules governing environmental decisions have been extended to these areas. This is particularly important because legal provisions for public participation in environmental policy making are far greater than in any other policy area. The most significant pieces of legislation in this field include the Act on Environmental Protection, the Government Decree on Environmental Impact Assessment (EI A ) , and the Act on Forming and Protection of the Built Environment.

Act LII (1995) on Environmental Protection stipulates that "Everyone shall have the right to call to the attention of the user of the environment and to the authorities the fact that a hazard is being posed to the environment or that the environment is being damaged or polluted. U p o n the notification m a d e in writing with respect to the above, the organ with powers shall, in addition to taking measures, provide an answer o n the merits before the deadline" (translation by: R E C 1998). Environmental C S O s are granted greater opportunities for involvement, since they are legally recognized as a party in environmental protection state administration procedures.

Government Decree o n E I A (1995) provides for a two-stage process of environmental impact assessment, consisting of a preliminary phase, which begins with the submission of a preliminary Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and a detailed phase, which begins with the submission of a detailed E I S . T h e Decree requires public notice and c o m m e n t in the preliminary phase and a public hearing in the detailed phase.

Act L X X V I I I (1997) on Forming and Protection of the Built Environment stipulates that

"During the preparation of local building regulations and regional planning it has to be ensured that the concerned citizens, N G O s and professional chambers can express their opinion. T o this end the aforementioned parties have to be notified about the plans"