1. Water management planning and public participation
Water Framework Directive
Public participation among the requirements of the WFD relating to the river basin management planning
What is th epublic participation?
Advantages and diadvantages
An international project on the PP in the RBMP
A Hungarian project on the PP in the rural development

2. New Challenge for the European Countries: The Water Framework Directive
Agreed on the 23 October 2000
Assess the ecological status of water bodies & ensure that the appropriate environmental objectives are set
Overall objective: good ecological status by Dec 2015
Achieved by a River Basin Management Plan

3. Implementation of EU WFD in Europe
Started in June 2001
Common methodology of all surface waters
Four phases for implementation with deadlines:
Phase 1: Deadline. Dec 2003
Phase 2: Deadline. Dec 2004
Phase 3: Deadline. Dec 2006
Phase 4: Deadline. Dec 2009
2003 – Outlining and final version of the Framework for the implementation of the WFD
2004 – Characterization and analysis
Planning for establishing the programs of measures and outline of RBMPs
2009 – Final RBMPs published
Programmes of measures shall be established

4. Where are we now Preparing the guidance for the use of WFD
Classification, typology, and reference conditions Guidance
Guidance on the analysis on pressures and impacts
Guidance on Public Participation

5. RBM under WFD Designation of RBM units and competent authorities
Designation of protected areas
Analysis of pressures and impacts
Economic analyses
Preparation of monitoring programmes
Identification of status of water
Identification of environmental objectives
Identification of programmes of measures

6. Public Participation in the WFD
Preamble 14
(14) The success of this Directive relies on close cooperation and coherent action at Community, Member State and local level as well as on information, consultation and involvement of the public, including users.
The first preamble highlights the fact that public participation will contribute to the overall success of the Directive.

7. Preamble 46
(46) To ensure the participation of the general public including users of water in the establishment and updating of river basin management plans, it is necessary to provide proper information of planned measures and to report on progress with their implementation with a view to the involvement of the general public before final decisions on the necessary measures are adopted.
The second preamble tells us that it is important to infrom the general public well in order to ensure/facilitate their participation in the process.

8. The Article 14 of the Water Framework Directive
Member States shall encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of this Directive in particular in the production, review and updating of the river basin management plans.
In Article 14 the Directive mentions clearly three main forms of public participation:active involvement, consultation (i.e. make available for comments) and information supply. It might be clear that active involvement is more than consultation or information supply. Active involvement implies that stakeholders participate in the planning processes to give their views and opinions and perception of problems as well as ideas for generating possible solutions. Whereas consultation gives the opportunity to either use or ignore collected information/opinions and information supply is one-way communication.

9. RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS
Annex VII
RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT PLANS
A. River basin management plans shall cover the following elements:
9. a summary of the public information and consultation measures taken, their results and the changes to the plan made as a consequence;
11. the contact points and procedures for obtaining the background documentation and information referred to in Article 14(1), and in particular details of the control measures adopted in accordance with Article 11(3)(g) and 11(3)(i) and of the actual monitoring data gathered in accordance with Article 8 and Annex V.
This supply of information is made concrete in the river basin management plan, this plan should tell you where and how information can be obtained. Also the evaluation of the applied public participation should be reported there.

10. Public Participation in the different planning steps
STEP 1 (By end of 2003) Framework
Identification of River Basin
Districts Assignment of the Competent Authorities
Transposition of the Directive into national legislation
STEP 2 (By end of 2004) Characterization and Analysis (Art.4)
Characterization of the river basin district, review of the environmental impact of human activity and economic analysis of water use.
Assessment of the likelihood that surface water bodies within the river basin district will fail to meet the environmental quality objectives set for the bodies under Article 4 (‘gap analysis’ Annex II (1.5)).

11. STEP 3 (By end of 2006) Planning for establishing programs of measures and outline of river basin management plans
Further characterisation for those bodies identified by the gap analysis as being at risk, in order to optimise the monitoring programme and the programme of measures.
Monitoring programmes start
For Public information and consultation about the RBMP, MS make available for comments a timetable and work programme for the production of the RBMP (MS shall allow at least six months to comment on those documents).

12. STEP 4 (By end of 2007) STEP 5 (By the end of 2008)
For Public information and consultation about the RBMP, MS make available for comments an overview of the most important water management issues within the RBD (MS shall allow at least six months to comment on those documents).
STEP 5 (By the end of 2008)
For Public information and consultation about the RBMP, MS make available for comments a draft copy of River Basin Management Plan (MS shall allow at least six months to comment on those documents).
STEP 6 (By the end of 2009)
Final River Basin Management Plan published
Programmes of measures shall be established.

13. STEP 7 (By the end of 2012) STEP 8 (By the end of 2015)
Implementation
Programmes of measures implemented
STEP 8 (By the end of 2015)
Evaluation and updating, derogations
Good water status achieved?
Objectives for Protected Areas achieved?
Establishing and publishing the next plans and programs
Derogations
STEP 9 (By the end of 2027)
Final deadline for achieving objectives, following 2 6-year prolongations

14. Implementing the Directive
The EU’s document on public participation: Guidance on Public Participation in Relation to the WFD
Aim: to provide general principles to the experts and the stakeholders to accomplish the prescriptions of the WFD on public participation
Main parts of the document:
Implementing the Directive
Introduction to Public Participation in River Basin Management
Active involvement of all interested parties in the planning process of the Directive
Consultation
Access to information and background documents
Evaluation, reporting results of active involvement, public information and consultation measures
Success and obstacle factors

15. The basis of the modern RBM: the Integration
The Document gives an essential importance to the integration in the following fields:
environmental objectives
all water resources
all water uses
functions and values
disciplines
water legislation into a common and coherent framework
wide range of measures
economic and financial instruments
stakeholders and the civil society in decision-making
different decision-making levels that influence water resources and water status
water management from different Member States and Accession Countries

16. Success & Obstacle factors
Success factors
change in attitude of public authorities
organisational consequences
political commitment and resources
capacity building and representation of stakeholders
reaching beyond stakeholders to individual citizens and enterprises
demonstrations
Obstacle factors
political tumult
organisational or institutional changes
changes in budget due to saving/cut backs
a comparable project has a bad name

17. Problems during the implementation of the WFD
Complicated & wide-ranging exemption and derogation conditions
New implementation problems
legal harmonisation
standards harmonisation
The solution:
political will
full participation of all stakeholders
common implementation strategy
international cooperation

18. What is the Public Participation?
Public participation is a planned effort to involve citizens in the decision-making process and to present and resolve citizen conflict through mutual two-way communications.

19. The main steps of the public participation planning process
Identification of the objectives
Identification of the selected actors
Choice of the methods of the public participation
Preparation of the implementing plan

20. Who is “the public” ?
The SEIA Directive (2001/42/EC) defines in Article 2(d) “public” as “one or more natural or legal persons, and, in accordance with national legislation or practice, their associations, organisations or groups”.
This definition is the same as the definition in Article 2(4) of the Aarhus convention; it is likely to hold as well for the Directive. “Interested parties” can be defined as: “any person, group or organisation with an interest or “stake” in an issue either because they will be affected or may have some influence on its outcome.”
In one way or in another, we are all involved in the management of water by what we choose to do, or choose not to do. Water is everybody’s business but, unless human behaviour changes dramatically, the technologocal and management solutions that are being made today to vercome the present and future water problems will come to nothing.

21. Pyramid of the members of the public participation process
Decision-making bodies
Agencies responsible for the implementation of the pp plan
Competent professionals on the examined topic
NGOs
Stakeholders, layers

22. Orbits of involvement Unsurprised apathetics Observers Commenters
Technical reviewers
Active participants
Co-decisionmakers

23. Why public participation?
to comply with the Directive and to achieve environmental goals and other benefits
Key potential benefits:
increasing public awareness of environmental issues
making use of knowledge, experience and initiatives of the different stakeholders
public acceptance, commitment and support with regard to decision taking processes;

24. more transparent and more creative decision making;
less litigation, misunderstandings, fewer delays and more effective implementation;
social learning and experience–if participation results in constructive dialogue with all relevant parties involved then the various publics, government and experts can learn from each others “water awareness”.

25. Disadvantages of the Public Participation
Costs
include the potential for confusion of the issues many new perspectives may be introduced
it is possible to receive erroneous information
include uncertainty of the results of the process

26. The main objectives of the public participation
Establishing and maintain the legitimacy of the agency
Establish and maintain the legitimacy of the project
Establish and maintain the legitimacy of all major assumptions and earlier decisions
Get to know all the potentially affected interests
Identify problems
Generate solutions
Articulate and clarify the key issues
To develop informal acceptance of options

27. What is PP NOT about? (source: Public Participation Guidance)
Everybody joining: be selective with actors, they should reflect the right interest
everybody deciding: make clear what the responsibilities are for whom
losing control: do organise it well, clear and strategically
consensus at all expenses: be prepared that the outcome of public participation will be compromise between the wishes of several actors and that extend of the process is often limited.

28. Models of national PP processes
General requirements to the models
To allow active interaction between the proponent and participants
Are expected to be used in any number of stages of a participatory process
Need to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate a range of possibilities

29. Four models of Public Participation
Commentary
Social Learning
Joint Planning
Consent/ Consensus
Proponent-centred
Intermediary - centred
Participant - centred

30. Relationships in the Commentary model
Proponent
Stakeholder A B C D
The Commentary model is widely used as a standard public participation approach across Canada for all levels of government and in instances where privately held companies require public comments. Under this model, the proponent maintains the ultimate authority to make a decision. It is assumed that staff within the proponent’s organization possess high levels of expertise that to recommind acceptable solutions. Memberso f the general public and key stakeholders are provided an opportunity to comment on decisions that the proponent will make.
The public is encouraged to be involved by learning about the problems being addressed. Decisions at each stage must be left open before the public is asked to comment. Participants do not actively generate solutions, nor is there any attempt to build relationships among participants. As a result, participants require little familiarity with public participation techniques and other process skills.

31. Relationships in the Social Learning Model
Intermediary
Proponent
Individual A B C D
S.L. is a way for a proponent and citizens to interact when the objective is to hear from citizens about key issues. It is used to inform the policy and decision making process based on citizen perspectives and values. It reflects the very real complexities that organizationsface in policy decisions. Members of the public come to understand these complexities. There are no „right” and „worng” answers; instead the process respects all perspectives as it allows common ground to emerge.
Like the Commentary Model, those who participate i a Social Learning Model do so according to a pre-defined schedule that the proponent oversees. Participants receive technical information that has been translated into material for educated lay audiences, but htey are not active in generating solutions. A side benefit of participation in the S.L.M. is that participants frequently and up building relatonships with one another.

32. The Joint Planning Model
Intermediary
Proponent
Stakeholder A B C D
J.P. is the first model that expects the public to act at least as equal partners with the proponent. J.P. processes are based on a public participation philosophy that acknowledges the skills and experience which participants can bring to a process. It requires that participants enter the dialogue in good faith, be respectful of each other, and be open to finding solutions that previously may not have existed, but could result from the collective wisdom of all participants.
In this model, participants tend to be decisionmakers who represent an organization or particular interest group. To participate effectively, these parties require considerable knowledge of how to participate. A third party may convene this process. Information is widely and openly shared, and participants get involved as the problem is being defined.

33. Relationships in the Consent / Consensus Model
Mediator
Proponent
Stakeholder A B C D
The Consent Model is a participant – centred approach to public participation that grants the most decision-making responsibility to participants. It is used in circumstances where it is necessary not only to obtain and retain the involvement of key stakeholders, but also to obtain their approval of the terms of their participation.
The C.M. assumes that people being asked to be involved have the power to say no based on existing protocols, relationships, legislation, legal status, or moral authority. It acknowledges that some participants have authority to influence either decisions of the proponent or veto power.

34. Hungarian RBMPs
The former River Basin Management Planning units in Hungary,

35. Maros RBMP Main Characteristics:
Participative planning in the early stage of the project
„snowball” method – the participants nominated – based on their opinions – other stakeholders who could be significant in the area.
Stakeholder meetings:
Area divided in 3 parts
Hosting by the majors
With the participation of well-known personalities living or having property in the area
International cooperation: participation of external (RO) stakeholders (majors, experts, leaders of stakeholder-groups)
The preparation of the RBMP of the Maros lead channel in great rate met with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive too. All interested parties were involved from the first stage of the planning procedure, and in the public meetings realized a real two-way communication.
The planning unit was too big (1885 km2) and too divers to consult the public in the same time on the whole area, so 3 consultations were hold in different micro-regions. The location was appointed by the identified problems. This division was necessary because of the distances, the different water management problems and the different hydrological characteristics.
The process initiated with the preparation of the consultation plans. During this phase, the original plans were shortened and the technical expressions were replaced with comprehensive expressions for the public too. The stakeholders were identified with the “snowball method” (every addressed stakeholder could address another one) and were informed about the location and the date of the consultation meetings via invitation cards, newspaper advertisements and flyers.
The participants of the consultation meetings were:
Host of the meeting: usually the local mayor or well-known/famous person, but in all case somebody who could affect the opinion of the broad public. The organizers informed the hosts in details before the meetings.
Leader of the meetings: to lead and control the dialogue.
The representatives of the competent authorities: to support the leaders and to make their expertise and responsibility felt.
Other stakeholders, groups and individuals.
The organizers tried to connect the consultations with other events towards raising interest.
The process of the meetings had two main phases. In the first phase the hosts informed the public about the details, main aims and purposes of the RBMP, introduced the designers (engineers), representatives ensuring the legitimacy of the process and of the plan too. After this “information phase” took place the dialogue with the public, where the professionals, the decision-makers, the environmental groups and the public could exchange their ideas, proposals and opinions related to the river basin. To ensure the legitimacy of the Dialogue it was essential the elaboration of the minutes during the whole event.
After the completion of the planning process, the stakeholders received the brief version of the plans and were informed where to access the detailed plans and all of the planning documents. Thus the stakeholders were able to check if their opinion was considered or not.
As results of these public consultations and dialogues can be mentioned, that the relations (connections) among the interested parties – the state policy, the local competent authorities and the public - were enhanced and developed, and a two-way communication process was formed. In this way, a consensus between stakeholders was achieved and the RBMP was agreed by all parties.
The experiences and results reached during this procedure showed for all the professionals in the country, that the preparation of the consultations is very important, because inadequate preparation and dialogue could cause conflicts and set back the overall planning process, but a well-prepared public participation procedure can achieve a wild – broad consensus among the interested parties (Ijjas, Török 1998).

36. HARMONICOP
HARMONIzing COllaborative Planning

37. MAIN OBJECTIVE
The main objective of the HarmoniCOP project is to increase the understanding of participatory river basin management in Europe.
It aims to generate practically useful information about and improve the scientific base of social learning in river basin management and support the implementation of the public participation provisions of the Water Framework Directive

38. PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
Public and stakeholder participation refers to the active involvement of individual citizens, individual companies, public interest groups and economic interest groups in decision making.
Communication and information flows are important aspects of PP. Information and communication tools are of major importance.

39. ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL LEARNING 1
Processes of social learning should contain the following elements
Build up a shared problem perception in a group of actors, in particular when the problem is largely ill-defined (this does not imply consensus building).
Build trust as base for a critical self-reflection, which implies recognition of individual mental frames and images and how they pertain to decision making.

40. ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL LEARNING 2
Recognize mutual dependencies and interactions in the actor network.
Reflect on assumptions about the dynamics and cause-effect relationships in the system to be managed.
Reflect on subjective valuation schemes.
Engage in collective decision- and learning processes (this may include the development of new management strategies, and the introduction of new formal and informal rules).

41. INNOVATION 1
HarmoniCOP will give a comprehensive overview and analysis of the state of art in the participatory RBMP in Europe, using a social learning perspective.
HarmoniCOP will address the scale issue in PP and RBMP in a systematic way.

42. INNOVATION 2
HarmoniCOP will approach information and information tools as a means for social learning in participatory RBMP.
HarmoniCOP will do all this while considering the different national contexts – cultural, geographical, institutional an legal.
The proposed research will specifically deal with the challenges posed by the WFD
And…HarmoniCOP uses the „Social Learning” during its work too: the members of the project have strong connection with selected stakeholders, who are representatives of international and national NGOs, Public Institutions, economic chambers. These stakeholders are comenting continuously the work of the project, are perticipating in the events of the project, the „learning together hor to manage together” is using in the real-time.

43. RBMP AND SCALE
International negotiations
Scale
National imple-mentation
National pre-parations
International Basin
Local implementation
National
Local
Time
RBMP as a sequence of interactions at different scales (stylised, assuming a large international basin)

44. MAIN GOALS 1
Preparation of a “Handbook on PP methodologies“ for river basin management planning
Provide insight into social learning in a multi-phase multi-level context

45. MAIN GOALS 2
Increase our understanding of the role of information and information tools
Compare and assess national PP experiences and their background
Involvement of national and subnational governments and major stakeholder groups

46. Workpackage Structure
Framework of Analysis
Participation as a social learning process
Role of information and ICT tools
National approaches & backgrounds
Integration
Case Studies and Experiments
Co-ordination
Handbook & Dissemination

47. WP 1 Objectives WP1 – Framing
To spell out our approach to PP and explore the main issues.
To develop a glossary in the filed of PP, social learning and RBMP for use within the project
To consult the public and stakeholders on our approach and our plans for research
To validate and further improve our plans for research

48. WP 2 Objectives WP2 - Participation as social learning
To conceptualise river basin management as sets of social processes at different levels, characterised by different forms of interest representation, conflictivity and institutionalisation
To specify the concept “social learning” for RBMP and make it measurable
To identify critical issues for participation as a means to promote social learning
To identify possible ways to handle these issues

49. WP 3 Objectives WP3 - The role of ICT tools
To provide a methodology to analyse the use of ICT tools and to assess their real impact on PP improvement
ICT,al methods that could help the building of the common understanding among the partners, the professionals and non-professionals, like: powerpoint presentations, interactive maps, programs, social learning events, interviews, questionnaires, brochures, situation games, etc…

50. WP 4 Objectives WP4 - National approaches and backgrounds
To provide an overview of PP practices (aim, process, methods) in the different countries and, where possible, their effects
To explore the influence of institutional, legal, cultural, geographical/physical factors
To evaluate (national) learned lessons and develop practical criteria for evaluating participatory RBMP

51. WP 5 Objectives WP5 - Case studies and experiments
To gain first hand experience with PP in river basin management so as to examine how social processes and information tools and models are applied and used in practice at the river basin level
To study the issues identified in WP2-4 and test the ideas developed on effective PP so as to identify approaches that work and those that do not, highlighting those which can be put forward as ‘good European practices’

52. WP 6 Objectives WP6 – Integration
To integrate the results of WP1-WP5 and summarise state of the art on integrated RBMP. This will serve as a basis for the production of the handbook in WP7.

53. WP 7 Objectives WP7 - Handbook and dissemination
To promote effective dissemination of the (preliminary) results of the project
To produce a Handbook on PP methodologies to support the implementation of the PP provisions of the WFD at the EU, national and subnational level and promote social learning in RBMP
To develop an interactive communication and information platform on the internet and make the handbook a living document embedded into a community of practitioners.

54. Organizations involved
USF: University of Osnabrück, Institute for Environmental Systems Research, co-ordinator (with Aberdeen University as sub-contractors)
RBA: RBA Centre, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Ecologic, Germany
KULRD: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Organisational and Personnel Psychology (COPP), Belgium
RWS-RIZA, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Netherlands
ENPC, LATTS-ENPC, France
Cemagref, France
Delft Hydraulics: WL|Delft Hydraulics, The Netherlands
Colenco: Colenco Power Engineering Ltd, Switzerland
ICIS/ UM, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands
UAH: University of Alcala de Henares, Environmental Economics Group, Department of Economic Analysis, Spain
Uniud: University of Udine, Italy
BUTE: Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary
WRc, United Kingdom (with Middlesex University, FHRC, as sub-contractors)
UAB: Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain

55. The Hungarian Case - Study
Dialogue on the Implementation of the WFD in the Agricultural Sector Water – Food – Environment (WFE) Dialogue
The Hungarian Case - Study

56. The 10 participating countries – the 10 Accession Countries
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Hungary
Slovenia
Romania
Bulgaria

57. Members of the consortium for the organisation of the CEE WFE Dialogue
GWP CEE - Global Water Partnership, Central and Eastern Europe
ICID ERWG - International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, European Regional Working Group
Countries represented in ICID ERWG: Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Macedonia, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom
WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature, Danube-Carpathian Programme
Coordinator of the CEE and the Hungarian Dialogue process and the editor of the Final Reports – prof. István Ijjas, BUTE

58. Objectives of the Dialogue
General objective:
Ensure that all waters meet at least „good status” by 2015 and ensure the sustainable agriculture development
Specific objective:
The successful implementation of EU WFD in the field of agricultural water management by involving all stakeholders to the planning and execution process

59. KEY ISSUES Integrated River Basin Management Planning
WATER USE AND WATER SERVICES
RBMP - national guidelines
economic and social objectives
(sufficient/sustainable water use/water services)
target group: citizens
WATER PROTECTION
RBMP - EU WFD
environmental objectives
(good status of water)
target group: ecosystems

60. Levels of co-ordination
Danube basin level
Bilateral, multilateral level
National level - regional level

61. Members of the consortium for the organisation of the WFE Dialogue in Hungary
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Ministry for Environment and Water Management
WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature, Hungary
ICID Hungarian National Committee
National Union of Water Management Associations
72 Water Management Associations – organised River Basin oriented
The Dialogue was supported by the
Hungarian Hydrological Society and the
Budapest University of Technology and Economics.

62. Importance of water management in Hungary
the flood plains along the rivers occupy km2 (22.8 % of the country)
the flood plains comprise one-third of the arable lands in the country, 1.8 million hectares of valuable fields, where the value of the annual crop yield surpasses 200 thousand million Ft (800 million €)
in close to 700 communities 2.5 million people are at risk

63. The participating WMAs
Water Management Associations (WMAs) are independent organizations playing important role in solving rural water management tasks. Members are individuals or agricultural companies having land or other properties within the area of interest of a WMA, and therefore being locally interested in the protection against water induced damages including excess water as well. Presently there are 72 WMAs in Hungary covering almost the whole territory of the country. Members contribute financially according to the value of their property.

64. Main Characteristics of the Dialogue
The Dialogue is a two-way process, top down approach – initiated by the Ministry of Agriculture
The countryside events are organised in a form of a „road show”
General program of the meetings:
Plenary presentations – summarizing the background information sent formerly
Small group negotiations – members, forming a common accepted answers the question defined before
Final plenary session – the groups present their opinion and the other participants have the chance to reflect on it.
The program of the national meetings was organised with the aim of facilitating the formal and informal communication among the participants. The morning session starts with a brief report and summary of topicalities, where the requested representatives ( usually of FVM, KVVM, GWP, WWF) or other invited speakers report abput the important events of the last period or the ongoing processes in the agricultural water management domain. After the brief introduction of the ongoing activities, presentations are held on the selected topic, which form the frame of the themes of the small-group negotiations at the afternoon. These presentations serve as background information for the followings. The morning session is closed with the definition of the key-questions for the small-group negotiations, where the participants propose questions, in connection with the before given topics, which are interesting for them or they have stake in it introducing their motivations with the management of the keynote-speakers. From the list formed during this period are chosen the key-topics of the small-group negotiations held in the afternoon.
After a quick lunch break, which importance is that during the informal conversations can form and can know th eprevious opinion of each other the participants of small group, working together in the next session, start the small group negotiations. The direct objective of the small group negotiations is to give common and widely accepted answers the questions defined in the morning session. But probably th indirect aim is more important, to learn the social learning „to learn together how to manage together”. The groups work only with members, because according to international studies, over this number the small group can not work effectively and reach consensus. The role of the leader is to control the group, to initiate, manage and regulate the negotiation, to inspire tha participants to sound their different opinions and interest, to advance to produce the common answer. The role of the spokesman is to present the common summarized opinion in the frame of the final plenary meeting.

65. The 4 regions – the 4 main river basin units

66. Dialogue meetings in Hungary, 2003

67. Costs – financing tasks
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Development of Knowledge Base, logistics of the organisation of the 12 regional and 3 national Dialogue meetings, reporting, keynote speakers, facilitators, costs of travelling of the invited experts
Printing costs of the translated WFD documents
Coffee breaks during the National Dialogue meetings held in Budapest
GWP CEE
Direct costs of the participation in the international Dialogue. Cooperation with and reporting for the Global WFE Dialogue and the CEE WFE Dialogue
GWP, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and BUTE
Participation in international meetings on Global and CEE WFE Dialogue activities, tools and benefits

68. Water Management Associations:
Regional meetings (organised for the representatives of one of the four region of Hungary, 30 – 50 participants)
Costs of one meeting
Printing costs of the WFD documents
Costs of travelling to the National Dialogue meetings held in Budapest (organised for the representatives of the 76 Water Management Associations, the relevant institutions and the consortium partners in Budapest, participants)

69. Ongoing Activities, 2004 1st round: 2nd round: Tendering procedure
Establishment of a expertise network among and by the WMAs
2nd round:
Evaluation of the results of the 1st and 2nd Phases
Analyses of pressures and impacts of human activities
Characterisation of the River Basin districts (and Water Bodies)
Economic analyses of water uses
Identification of those water bodies, which can not meet the requirement of the WFD
unfeasible or unreasonably expensive to achieve good status
reasons of overriding public interest
unrealistic scientific or professional points of view

70. Results
The main result of the Dialogue was the Response of Hungary to the European Commission’s Working Document: „The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and tools within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to support its implementation” and also the new version of the EC Working Document on WFD/CAP.
The Hungarian and English version of the Working Document was also available on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and on the website of the Union of Water Management Associations.
It has to be mentioned, that the 80% of the Hungarian opinions were adopted by the Water Directors. This result shows the usefulness and effectiveness of the Dialogue processes and of the method applied during the process, the social learning.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development sent the Hungarian translation of the Working Document to over 150 interested organizations, including statutory partners, Non Government Organizations, Government Offices for the Regions, local authorities and Water Management Associations, requesting initial comments on the Commission’s proposal. The covering letter specifically stated that any further consultation rounds would be sent to those who either commented on the original consultation or who registered an interest in the proposals.
There were four written responses and five Dialogue meetings were held. Four regional meetings were organized in April and one national meeting on 10 July. The total number of the participants in this round was over 100. There were a number of issues raised, which were outside the scope of the Working Document. Relevant comments and suggestions were considered for the purpose of the Hungarian response.
The response-document summarizes the written and oral responses received by the Ministry and reviewed, discussed and edited together with the representatives of the consortium established by the GWP Hungary, WWF Hungary, ICID Hungarian National Committee and the Hungarian Hydrological Society for the “Hungarian National Dialogue on the Implementation of the WFD in Agricultural Water Management”.

71. Four Water Management Associations agreed with the WWF to start common pilot projects for the planning of measures to achieve the good status of wetlands and/or reactivate former flood plain areas in sub-basins covered by the Associations.

72. The key questions discussed by the Dialogue Process
Who was the Dialogue convener?
Which external agencies were supporting the Dialogue?
How the governmental agencies were involved in the process?
How the Dialogue was linked to the political process and institutions?
How was the dialogue linked to the other programs/actions for the implementation of the WFD?
What are the key issues being addressed?

73. What are the major obstacles/constraints that need to be overcome?
How was the dialogue process organized/planned?
Who were the key stakeholders in the dialogue process and what procedures have been applied to assure full stakeholder participation?
What Dialogue support tools have been used?
Is there sufficient research/knowledge backing to support the issue under discussion/consideration or there is a need for more background studies/research?
What outputs do you see emerging from this dialogue? How do you plan to document the learning, experiences and processes?
Do you require external support to conduct the future steps of the Dialogue? If so what type of support are you looking for?

74. Final Report on the first phase of the Dialogue 2001-2003, February 2003
Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment in Central and Eastern Europe Dialogue on the Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Agricultural Water Management in Central and Eastern European EU Candidate Countries First phase
From the Hague to Kyoto
CEE WFE Dialogue - Dialogue on Water, Food and Environment in Central and Eastern Europe - Dialogue on the Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Agricultural Water Management in Central and Eastern European EU Candidate Countries
Dialogue on the Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Agricultural Water Management in the Central and East European EU Candidate Countries - Second Phase of the Dialogue, Edited by Istvan Ijjas, coordinator of the CEE WFE Dialogue
The dialogues for this Final Report have been undertaken during the period September 2003 – February The Final Report was completed in February-March The views set out and analysis presented are those of the authors of the national report, the editor of this report and the participants of the national dialogues and do not necessarily represent the views of the GWP, ICID and WWF in general or of the national CWPs or of the Council of GWP CEE.