Final draft – 6 February 2012

6th World Water Forum

Intercontinental Mediterranean Process

Theme “Governance”

Session Proposal Target and Solutions Group for Target 3.2

By 2020, every country has activated and implemented mechanisms for effective stakeholder participation throughout the different components of basin water resources management, and has in place a functioning articulation between central and decentralized levels

This TSG report will be the basis for a short publication by the Secretariat’s Communication team on the target and its identified solution. The publication will be made available at the 2012 6th World Water Forum.

Intercontinental Mediterranean Process	4 January 2012

Priority for Action : Governance

Target and Solutions Group 2

Session proposal on the target, its action plan, its identified solutions and commitments and the related Forum session

Table of Contents

I	INTRODUCTION	3

II	BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE OF THE TARGET	4

III	TARGET ACTION PLAN AND COMMITMENTS	10

IV	SOLUTIONS	13

V	RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP	21

VI	CONCLUSIONS	22

ANNEXES

Annex I.	Members Target and Solutions Group for Target MED3.2	23

Annex II	Definitions and methodologies for target MED3.2’s scope	24

Annex II.	Summaries of solutions for Target MED 3.2	27

I	INTRODUCTION:

This report is an input to the Cross-continental Mediterranean Process of the 6th World Water Forum to be organized in Marseilles (France) on 12-17 March 2012. It corresponds to target II of the main issue on governance, which is framed as follows:

By 2020, every country has activated and implemented mechanisms for effective stakeholder participation throughout the different components of basin water resources management, and has in place a functioning articulation between central and decentralized levels

This draft synthesis report is intended to frame and prepare the progress to be made on water governance in Mediterranean countries with better multilevel coordination and improved stakeholders’ involvement and participation. It draws extensively on the methodology and approach developed by target 1 of CS1 Good Governance Core group, framed as follows:

“By 20xxx, xx countries will have adopted consultation, participation and co-ordination mechanisms allowing stakeholders at (sub-)basin, local, regional, national and international levels to effectively contribute to decision-making in a coherent, holistic and integrated way”

Synergies between both groups and possibilities for joint sessions with CS1 Thematic Process at WWF are worth to be contemplated.

Seeking commitments and solutions, the 6th World Water Forum identified Target II as a SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic Time-bound) priority. This report is the product of a WISE (Wide-Involvement Stakeholders Exchanges) process. A Target and Solutions Group was put together to drive the development of the target and has produced this report. This group is coordinated by IME (Jacques PLANTEY) and ARLEM (Serge MIQUEL) with the support of OECD (Aziza AKHMOUCH)

As part of the process of preparing this report, several special sessions on water governance where organized throughout 2011:

Launching Meeting of the 1st Mediterranean Forum, Murcia, April 2011

Workshop on “Public Governance on Water in the Mediterranean: what new role for the local and regional authorities?”, Marseille, October 2011

Water Think Tank Mediterranean, Monaco, November 2011

2nd Arab Water Forum, Cairo, November 2011.

They were discussed during the 1st Mediterranean Water Forum in Marrakech (19/20 December 2011) and concluded that the findings should be presented in the 6th World Water Forum in Marseille, and followed-up afterwards.

II-	BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE OF THE TARGET

1 / Water governance: the Mediterranean exception

The Mediterranean communities have a strong historical tradition of water culture, the mark of the constraints linked to the extreme intensity of droughts, but also the fierceness of floods.

Since water is at the heart of the Mediterranean civilization, its management plays a strategic role in the social and economic organization of all riparian countries: all Mediterranean share the concern for its preservation, and its fair distribution; their culture and their understanding of water problems are generally very similar, whereas they are clearly distinguished from those of northern European countries. Whereas, in the latter countries, water is generally only perceived from the perspective of urban services (drinking water and sanitation) and water quality in natural environments, in Mediterranean countries, facing risks of water scarcity, it is more a question of finding the best possible compromise between all the different uses, both urban and rural, socio-economic and environmental, at different territorial levels, through the improved management of all available resources.

The deep evolutions expected in this region of the world (be they climatic, demographical, socio-economic, political or environmental, among others) make water issues there even more vital: especially in southern Mediterranean countries, the potential per capita freshwater resources face the risk of reaching the world’s lowest levels; and yet, in parallel, the demand for water has continually grown over the last half century, in significant proportions: considering all sectors of activity, demand for water in Mediterranean countries doubled to reach 280 km3 per year in 2007. In this way, it is expected that the so-called “water poor” population could increase from 180 to 250 million people by 2025.

The demand from local authorities should also continue to grow to meet the drinking water needs of an increasingly urban population. That of the Mediterranean countries should reach 535 million by 2025, with an unevenly distributed growth: 10 million in the north and 82 million in the south and east. In the same timeframe, with around 300 million tourists along the Mediterranean coastal areas, which remain among the world’s most popular tourist destinations, an increase in the demand for drinking water can also be expected.

However, this major risk should not overshadow the issue of the deterioration in water quality.

In the Mediterranean, more than elsewhere, the strategic sense of water takes on a new dimension. Over the course of time, the different communities have been able to develop a technical and social engineering in response to the water stress that characterizes the Mediterranean. It is through this know-how that conflicts linked directly and openly to water have been avoided up to now, even if political, health-related and economic tensions exist. Sharing the resources and in particular their appropriate management over large transboundary basins can be a factor of peace and stability, in particular in the south and east of the region.

2/Improving governance and fostering its evolution is thus an obvious necessity in the Mediterranean countries, as strongly expressed in the previous World Water Fora.

The concern for establishing “good governance” to guarantee citizens’ participation and transparency in decision making, implying not only water managers, but also all concerned bodies and stakeholders, from the highest decision-making institutions to the end users, is a recurring theme in terms of the “message” put forward at the previous World Water Fora.

Thus, for the most recent Fora, Kyoto (2003) and Mexico (2006), the Ministerial Declarations referred to governance in general terms and regarding its perceived usefulness. Considerable progress was made at the last Forum in Istanbul, which on that occasion recalled the evidence of stakeholders and local authorities in water management and their place in water governance, which must be efficient.

When dealing with water governance, certain important aspects should not be neglected, such as management models. Local and regional authorities have agreed that the management of the water sector may be defined in different ways (privatization, decentralized management, PPPs, etc.), but its overall control must remain in the hands of the public authority.

These general principles are moreover repeated and accompany different structural stages which mobilize all water stakeholders, and which should – in principle – provide guidance for action plans.

Below are the key milestones:

-	The Paris Summit Declaration, on July 13, 2008,

-	Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference on Water, held in Jordan on December 22, 2008,

-	Istanbul Water Consensus, adopted in March 2009,

-	Conference of the Mediterranean Commission of United Cities and Local Governments, in Lyons, on November 24, 2009,

-	Fourth Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference on Water, held in Barcelona on April 13, 2010,

-	ARLEM General Assembly, on January 29, 2011 in Agadir and Report on Local Water Management in the Mediterranean.

From official debates and decisions coming from events, an evolution can be noted, from the messages in Fora, to a more pragmatic approach and “willingness to success”.

The following can also be noted:

-	Mediterranean Water Strategy:

- Crosscutting objectives of the Strategy: “Improving and facilitating the participation of all stakeholders through different levels and sectors of society, insisting upon issues of gender equity and poverty alleviation, and setting up mechanisms to foster their broad generalization.

-Emphasizing the establishment of active user associations.”

- The identification of one of the four thematic priorities: “3.1 Improving the efficiency of governance for Integrated Water Resources Management” as well as formulating recommendations for action.

- The promotion of the operational objectives of the Mediterranean Water Strategy over the short term (2012-2015), medium term (2016-2020) and long term (2021-2025 and beyond).

-	UCLG’s Mediterranean Commission: “Promoting an effective participation of local and regional authorities in the thought process, definition and implementation of strategies is one of the best ways of ensuring good governance. For that purpose, the consultation processes should be consolidated, encouraging changes in practices and in habits. In order for local and regional authorities to be able to fully ensure their role in the framework of decentralisation, their responsibilities must be clarified. They must be granted powers and the necessary human and financial resources.”

-	ARLEM Report: Political recommendation: “… is convinced that it is the principle of multi-level governance that must govern actions related to water management, guaranteeing the participation of all stakeholders and different decision-making levels; also asks the member states of the UfM to see to it that this principle be applied, as well as the implementation of the Mediterranean water strategy, in their respective territories; in particular, asks that regional and local authorities be associated in national climate change mitigation and adaptation plans, thus promoting decentralized cooperation between local governments;”

The diagnosis that may be drawn up shows a certain evolution in the recognition of governance, from rhetoric, good intentions, conventions, to its current inclusion in actions plans.

However, this objective has not yet been reached, and in this sense, national, regional and local governance mechanisms are not fully-formed, are incomplete and do not facilitate the construction of truly informative and consultation bodies, apart from some isolated developed countries or some local efforts.

3/Rationale of the target

The ambition of the 6th World Water Forum is to propose solutions and roadmaps, fed through experiences (successful or otherwise), being careful nevertheless to preserve the particular conditions and context of each country, since governance, more than any other discipline, cannot simply be carried out through a “copy-and-paste” approach, but must rather be constructed within a framework of human and social maturity.

Thus, target 2 “By 2020, every country has activated and implemented mechanisms for effective stakeholders participation throughout the different components of basin water resources management, and has in place a functioning articulation between central and decentralized levels” aims to make this mobilisation a reality. It places particular emphasis on the importance of local governance and its multi-level relationship for development. It underlines the need to establish a more rational and integrated use of water resources, working simultaneously on the supply and demand sides and setting up decision-making processes in a participatory framework, bringing together all stakeholders.

In this sense, it becomes apparent that the appropriate recognition of the complexity (multi-level, multi-user) of water issues, and of their interdependence with other general concerns (land-use planning, food security, public health, energy, etc.) requires imperatively the mobilisation of all stakeholders.

While there is generally consensus on the objective of a greater involvement of all bodies and stakeholders in water governance, it is clear that the practical implementation of this objective is not always straightforward.

Certainly, at every territorial level, local actors are close to the concrete reality of issues that they perceive on the ground; however, the need to federate between different interests and to ensure the necessary coherency often pushes for a greater concentration of powers and decision-making.

It may be considered however, in the upper levels, that the most local scales do not have the ability or capacity to effectively take part, to validly assume decentralized responsibilities, etc. As a result, local actors, in particular those from civil society, do not always fully grasp the respective roles of central and local power, and do not find structures that allow them to by truly involved.

The measures established (decentralisation, devolution, consultation structures, etc.) to ensure the necessary articulation between water stakeholders, at different territorial levels, and between those levels, in decision-making processes on water policy, vary significantly according to the particularities of each country.

In the majority of regions on the northern banks of the Mediterranean, central power defines the legislative and regulatory framework regarding water resources management, and territorial bodies, often coordinated at the basin scale, define and assume operational actions plans. The European Union Water Framework Directive (2000) made a significant contribution to developing this coordination. On the other hand, as regards the organisation and management of services (drinking water and sanitation, collective irrigation, etc.), territorial authorities or local bodies have for some time been given a strong autonomy.

In the southern and eastern areas of the Mediterranean region, the situation is highly variable, and is evolving, from one country to the next; as regards water resources management, for example, Egypt has developed a highly structured regulatory framework; Morocco has instituted river basin agencies, promoting land-use and integrated water management schemes; Tunisia benefits from a long tradition of local water management, and so on. Some countries have entrusted local authorities with a great autonomy in service management, in particular in large towns; others have kept the lion’s share of decision-making central; others have organized the participation of local authorities, but without always sufficiently establishing the organizational framework that could guarantee this participation.

Globally, for water resources management, the role of central power has up to now remained predominant; local authorities tend to progressively acquire control of management services (water and sanitation), and the corresponding technical solutions are implemented, or at least well identified. But difficulties in making the right decisions sometimes come through due to a lack of effective adherence, from the local authorities, of projects or reforms in whose production process they have not been associated.

This diversity in size and economic development is of course accompanied by an equal diversity in concerns, objectives, capabilities and means. The authorities in charge of a single location are generally more focused on the functioning of their water and sanitation services, and the quality of their immediate environment (hence their interest in cleaning up efforts). The authorities in charge of more diverse or larger territories are closer to basin management issues or protection of natural aquatic areas.

The commonality between them is their place within a sometimes constrictive legislative framework, but their proximity to the entire population (users or not) allows them to ensure an essential function in transmitting information, consulting and guiding decision making to concretely improve the conditions for access to water, the protection of its quality and the preservation of the natural environment.

They are however resolute and aspire to apply some fundamental principles, such as:

- Subsidiarity, which helps them find their appropriate place in the different levels of power,

- Citizens’ participation, which corresponds to an incontrovertible aspiration,

- Responsibility sharing, leading them to take their responsibilities in consultation and in consideration for other stakeholders.

No doubt after this “Arab spring”, the democratisation process will lead, in the countries in question, to a greater involvement particularly in that direction. Hypothetically, the current Mediterranean context should create particular conditions for local and regional authorities and especially possibilities for the setting up of local autonomy and the reinforcement of decentralization. It will thus be the opportunity for them to:

-Re-affirm their role in important sectors such as public water governance and to share the assessment of a multi-level dialogue between the different stakeholders for an integrated approach towards water management, which allows the objectives of economy, sustainability and access to water for all to be reached.

- Encourage national governments to launch a prospective planning and water management exercise by hydro-geographical basin, in order to define preservation and resource management strategies and to actively take part in consultation.

- Develop and/or build operational tools and structural measures mainly related to the improvement of networks, changing habits and efforts to eradicate poor practices, fiscal measures through incentives or specific local taxes, technical tools and technological innovations, for example concerning the use of non-conventional resources, organizational, financial and other innovations, allowing the establishment of new strategic directions that will be defined in basin strategies.

- Reinforce existing cooperation.

- Contribute to inventing new inter-regional (or even trans boundary) development models, which place local water management as an essential link of the sustainable (co)development of territories.

Furthermore, these authorities feel an increasing need to register their actions within the broader policy framework at the Mediterranean basin scale, and thus to attempt to reap maximum benefit from a reinforced cooperation.

**

Bearing in mind the extreme diversity of contexts, local or regional, there is obviously no magic recipe or “one-size-fits-all” solution to define the tracks and means of an optimal articulation between different decision-making levels.

However, sharing experiences in different countries, on the setting up of diagnosis tools, the establishment of operational mechanisms, decentralisation, delegation of authorities, consultation, public consultation, etc., is likely to allow each of them to define the conditions of water governance adapted to the complexity and the scope of future challenges.

III	TARGET ACTION PLAN AND COMMITMENTS

The Target Action Plan hereafter intends to outline the key steps and milestones to be taken to achieve the target “By 2020, every country has activated and implemented mechanisms for effective stakeholder participation in governance process (“SPGP”) throughout the different components of basin water resources management, and has in place a functioning articulation between central and decentralized levels”.

It appears that the key milestones would be:

1	.	Until March 2012: Prepare the 1st Mediterranean Forum

2.	Until March 2012: Prepare the 6th World Water Forum

3.	Until March 2015: follow-up until the WWF7 through next Mediterranean Fora

4.	Until March 2021: develop all required actions to achieve the target

The Target Action Plan is bound to evolve according to the Forum’s conclusions and during the follow-up as far as new milestones are identified and commitments are secured from stakeholders.

Milestone 1: prepare 1st Mediterranean Forum

IMPLEMENTATION Expected results / Indicators	PRACTICAL STEPS Activities to be done	RESPONS. ACTORS
Leaders	partners
04 / 2011	Launching Meeting of the Mediterranean Forum, Murcia.	Governance = main theme	IME
09/ 2011	Med. Cross Continental Process 2nd Steering Committee Meeting	Nominate coordinators for each thematic priority / target	IME	Members
10 / 2011	Workshop on Public Governance on water in the Mediterranean: what new role for the local and regional authorities ?”, Marseille.	Sharing international experience on water Gouvernance	CGLU	IME
11 / 2011	Mediterranean Water Think Tank, Monaco	Sharing experience on territorial governance of water in Mediterranean countries	Pr.Albert foundation	OCDE IMEl
11 / 2011	2nd Arab Water Forum, Cairo.	Sharing international experience on water Governance	Ligue Arabe	OCDE GWPMed IME
24/11/12 To 1/ 12/ 11	Produce a first draft on: - Target background - Target rationale	J.Plantey & S. Miquel mandated by IME, with help from A. Akhmouch	Coordinators	OCDE
2/12/11	4th steering committee meeting	Comment and disseminate the target background & rationale	IME	Steering Ce Members
7/12/11	1st elements of the report on TSG2 (with improved note onTarget background &rationale)	Presented to IFC of WWF6 & disseminated to members	IME	coordinators
7/12 /11 To 14/12/11	Prepare a draft report /Target action plan, for debate in Marrakech	Enlarge TSG2 membership Collect solutions Improve the 1st drafts	Coordinators	Contributors

Actually, when the 1st Mediterranean Water Forum was decided in April 2011, governance was selected to be a priority for action, and the target 3.2 was defined ; several international meetings and workshops were held about local participation, territorial governance ; a first draft of the report on target 3.2 was prepared and discussed during the Mediterranean Forum in Marrakech

Milestone 2: prepare the 6th World Water Forum

IMPLEMENTATION Expected results / Indicators	PRACTICAL STEPS Activities to be done	RESPONSIBLE ACTORS
Leaders	partners
20/ 12/ 11	1st Mediterranean Water Forum, Marrakech	Discuss the report Collect more cases/ solutions identify key success factors	IME	TSG mbs + participants in Marrakech
30/ 1 / 11	Intermediate report to Water Forum organizers	Finalize the report, including the findings of the 1st Mediterranean Forum,	Coordinators	All TSG members
30/12/11	Coordinate with thematic process	Preparation of back-to-back joint session with TSG1 of CS1 Priority (Governance)	IME	OCDE
20/ 01/12	Forum last preparation	Submit Target’s session material for the Forum	Coordinators
03/2012	FORUM	Disseminate the findings Decide follow up by a Mediterranean Task Force	IFC	Med Steering Committee members

Actually, thanks to the 1st Mediterranean Water Forum, a good number (13) of solutions could be collected; no one came from the Platform of Solutions, everything was by exchanges between the membership of the TSG. It took a bit more time than forecasted, so the report and the proposal for the session during the Forum was finalized only in early February, and there was no time nor means available to duplicate the 13 solutions on the Platform.

The report was prepared in coordination with the Thematic Priority CS1 on Governance and particularly with its TSG1 about stakeholders’ participation, to avoid overlap and foster synergy: as a matter of fact, CS1.1 focused on the water services side, when MED 3.2, according with the Mediterranean specificity, is much involved in water resources.

It appears, as explained hereafter (cf V : recommendations for follow up) that the main practical commitment which can be taken at this stage in the Forum is to mandate a Task Force to follow-up the target on Stakeholder Participation in Governance Process (SPGP) until it is achieved.

Milestone 3: follow-up until WWF7 through next Mediterranean Fora

IMPLEMENTATION Expected results / Indicators	PRACTICAL STEPS Activities to be done	RESPONSIBLE ACTORS
Leaders	partners
03/2013	Med. Seminar on Stakeholder Participation in Governance Process	Set indicators on “SPGP” Promote & compare diagnosis in a panel of countries	Med Task Force on governance	Med Steering Committee members
03/2014	MED seminar on SPGP Follow-up	Promote & implement solutions to fill the gaps identified in these countries	Med Task Force on governance
03/2015	Report in WWF7	Enlarge the panel	Task Force + IFC

It is assumed indeed that the Task Force is actually mandated after the WWF6 according to the proposal. It must articulate bottom-up and top-down approaches : bottom-up, ie collect information about the progress made in the Mediterranean in order to report and discuss it yearly, during the Mediterranean and World Water Fora to come ; and top-down, ie setting and disseminating indicators and methodologies (tool box) on “SPGP” ; and fostering diagnosis and search for solutions using a bench learning (better than benchmarking) process.

Milestone 4: Until March 2021 : develop all required actions to achieve the target

IMPLEMENTATION Expected results / Indicators	PRACTICAL STEPS Activities to be done	RESPONSIBLE ACTORS
Leaders	partners
03/2018	Report in WWF8	Promote & implement solutions to fill the gaps in every country	Task Force + IFC	stakeholders
03/2021	Report in WWF9	every country has implemented mechanisms for “SPGP” and a functioning articulation between central and decentralized levels	Task Force + IFC	stakeholders

It is assumed that the progress made in the first panel of countries, progressively improved and extended to other countries, is sufficiently conclusive after milestone 3, in order to convince every one and achieve the target

IV	SOLUTIONS

N.B : The solutions hereafter have been considered according to the definitions, tools and methods reported by the thematic TSG1 report, coordinated by A. AKHMOUCH, on “stakeholders engagement for effective water policy and management” for the main issue “condition for success = governance” (cf annex II)

To activate the mechanisms of participation of the key community of stakeholders and turn them operational, and compensate the shortcomings diagnosed in the articulations between the levels of water governance, the “solutions” can draw on a variety of processes (legal framework,

decentralization, delegation, consultation, capacity building, information….), listed below.

The field of the application of this participation can concern particularly:

The distribution of resources and the usual rules

The articulation water-supplies-energy

The protection of resources and the environment

The economic regulation/control (the “3T”….)

Risk management:

Prevention by regulation tools - regulatory, physical, economic,

Crisis management (all the more recurrent that prevention was neglected)

The elaboration and achievement of projects

The sustainable management of services

**

Legal framework:

This is generally the first aspect looked at when analyzing the process of water governance :

The constitution sets out the common values and principles, which unite a nation, and give meaning to the general interest and public service for peace and welfare, such as equity, accountability, sustainability.. “The law sets out the rules , policies describe how they will be carried out, organizations actually do it .. Without organizations to administer laws and policies, nothing happens (but with organizations, something can happen even without formal laws and policies..)”

So, the organizations must be entitled and empowered to act ; and in return their feed-back is useful when designing the law : “broader-based, more participative decision-making leads to policy changes and improved rule of law, because understanding how water organizations perform is a key part of understanding how water governance performs”

A lot of examples of this process could be mentioned : the cases presented about the Water Code revision, or about the participatory water management, in Tunisia , appear meaningful, as summarized in Box 1 hereafter:

BOX 1 - The Waters Code in Tunisia was first promulgated in 1975, based on centralized management, priority for drinking water and maximum valuation of water resources ; it was amended in 2001 to take the needs for environment and resources protection in account, and to develop non-conventional resources. The on-going and pending challenges of the water sector, in order to conciliate food security, sustainable development and increased resources protection, facing the global changes, lead the Government to review again this key document. In this way, the draft new Code considers developing participation of stakeholders in water governance and management. The project will be soon submitted for a national consultation of all stakeholders, before approval by the Government. - Le legal framework for participative management of irrigation schemes in Tunisia has also much evolved since 1896 ( first settlement of an irrigation water users association, in1896) The number of WUAs increased, their status was improved (1936). After 1958, larger schemes were developed by State Offices of Development, which were dissolved in 1989, in order to let the users assume their management, with the advice of Regional Agricultural Development Advisors. The status of these WUAs, called “GDPA= Groupement de Développment dans le secteur de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche) was defined by law . But all the problems are not solved, and evolutions of the governance of these systems are again being considered, in order to make this participative management sustainable. This will need again a review of the legal and contractual framework of GDPAs, to clarify the share of means and responsibilities in management, operation and maintenance of the assets

Decentralization-Delegation : subsidiary principle

The organization of water governance at State level can take on different types of functioning –existing or under way- which can be centralized and/or decentralized at different levels. The attributions and skills of these levels have to be clearly defined by means of law and regulations.

According to the debates in Marrakech, and to the panel of solutions presented, the topic of decentralization appears to be a topic much addressed

About the subsidiary principle, the case presented by the Region of Murcia (Spain) rises the question of the possible gaps between national or supra-national visions and the local real concerns, as appears in box 2 :

BOX 2 The Region of Murcia, the most water-stressed in Europe, presents a solution of integrated management of all available resources in the context of national planning, governed by a single authority with participation of territories and stakeholders affected, respectful of state regulation that meets the objectives of European standards. This needs to include water transfer, (notwithstanding the conceptual reluctance a priori for this type of schemes expressed in Northern European regions) having optimized the use of water resources (surface and groundwater) for urban and agricultural uses, having efficiently reused wastewater and having shown the limitations of desalinated water. It contributes to economic success and territorial and social cohesion that has generated attention for its economic and environmental benefits

-About the process of decentralization, we can note in many countries an evolution from complete centralization to a more localization,, with strengthening of local authorities more or less achieved depending on countries.

The skills transferred towards regional levels are either compulsory, as one chooses, or co-decided. These various positions have a real political impact, particularly through the appropriation at local level, as experienced during and after the transfer of State skills on the Canal de Provence (France) to the Region Provence-Alpes Côte d’Azur (France), as related in box 3

BOX 3 The governance of the Canal de Provence, ensuring water for all regional uses, results from three decentralization acts : 1- The State, final owner of future assets, concedes (1963) construction & management of Canal de Provence to SCP, a public&private company, governed by the local authorities 2- The Decentralization Law (1982) enlarges the jurisdictions of Départements and Régions : the Région becomes a SCP’s shareholder, besides Départements and Ville de Marseille. 3-The 2nd Decentralization Law (2004) allowsthe transfer of asset ownership to the Région. After in-depth faisability analysis, in close concertation with all SCP’s shareholders, and constructive negotiation with the State, the transfer was found appropriate, and acted (2009) Hence, the Région is now the conceding authority, acting in consensus with the SCP’s shareholders, to decide the aims of SCP investments and water services ; it induced an improved dialogue with the territorial authorities and stakeholders, and valuated synergies in the management of every water resources, regional (inter-basin) or local, natural or artificial, and helped to develop and articulate the Regional water policy with the territorial planning

With decentralization, the vertical legibility of stakeholders is reinforced, the responsibilities are clarified and the capacities to promote good governance can be improved : for instance, Arc Latin illustrated the increased involvement of the Local Authorities (French “Régions”, “Départements” and “Communes”) and stakeholders, thanks to the tools created by the Water Laws in 1992 and 2006, with particularly the case of Vidourle Basin, as summarized hereafter (box 4) :

BOX 4 After the first Decentralization Law (1982), the “Département de l’Hérault” was entitled to constitue a joint union, altogether with “Communes”, in order to design and realize works and actions for flood protection of Vidourle river. Incidentally, they reorganized the local WUAs, formerly controlled by State administration. The new Water Law let them create, in 2007, a Basin Territorial Public Office (“EPTB”) with the ability to extend its scope and act consistently on the whole aspects of river management, at watershed scale. The EPTB is entitled to get the means necessary from the stakeholders to implement its locally concerted action plan, while it was formerly difficult to insure them as a priority in the national budget.

According to the subsidiary principle, it may be efficient to delegate the implementation of a water policy to operators devoted to this task, provided that the delegation is clearly defined and controlled by the delegating authority. This subject is well known and documented about public urban WSS, it may also be the case for water resources management, such as mentioned in box 3, and it doesn’t mean only delegating to private companies. Jordan Aqaba Water Company related for instance its evolution from an administrative structure to a private company activity, and successive improvement of its performances.

Co-construction (or contract, or coordination) / Consultation/ Dialogue/ Public enquiry

During a co-construction, the decision is the result of a combining work between stakeholders, who share the tasks, rights and duties. In a consultation process, the dialogue between all the authorities and stakeholders leads to decision taken after vote, if not consensual

A real dialogue implies that the Authority which has in fine the power of arbitration and decision uses it only after hearing, listening and analyzing objectively the opinions, proposals and criticisms of each stakeholder, who must have equal rights of expression during the whole dialogue. Ideally, a dialogue should lead to a consensus (or at least an approval) of all members.

During a public enquiry, the Authority submits a draft of decision to stakeholders; it is committed to consider these opinions, and to review its draft if necessary. Knowing that, very often, those who disagree are almost the only ones to express themselves.

A lot of examples cans be found in the numerous processes of consultation organized at basin-level, such as initiated in France with Basin Committees, in charge of the definition of water policy at basin level, in agreement between the representatives of the various stakeholders : State, Elected Representative, Civil Society (companies, associations…) with respects to national laws and regulations.

This process can work also at sub-basin level, as shown in the example of“SAGIE de l’Oued Arghane” in the Kingdom of Morocco, recalled hereafter in box 5

BOX 5 As water is the key factor for development in Souss Massa Draa region, an integrated water resources development and management plan (Schéma d’Aménagement et de Gestion Intégrée de l’Eau : “SAGIE”) has been initiated in the sub-basin Arghane (1000 km2, 14 000 inhabitants) by the Region and the Souss-Massa-Draa Water Agency, in cooperation with their French pairs, and involving the local stakeholders. The main partners and stakeholders act in a concerted way in a Water Committee, chaired by the Governor of Taroudannt, to elaborate and implement the SAGIE, and to approve the action plan which is then monitored by Thematic Commissions. A Consultation Workshop is organized with all the local stakeholders, in order to exchange informations and dialogue about this project. This process induced mechanisms of solidarity and dialogue, combining top-down and bottom-up, as well as in the transversal relationship between local users and stakeholders

A similar process of Water Management and Development Planning (Schéma d’Aménagement et de Gestion des Eaux, “SAGE”) has been realized in a great number of French sub-basins, according to the 1992 and 2006 Water Laws incentives. The Arc Latin provided two examples explaining the added value of this process, summarized in box 6

BOX 6 - The local authorities (Département and Communes jointly) initiated in 1994 a Water Development and Management Planning process (Schéma d’Aménagement et de Gestion des Eaux, “SAGE”) for the river Lez basin (750 km2, 420 000 inhabitants), which faces important issues (flood protection, resources protection) . It took ten years to define the relevant territory, to involve every Commune, to nominate the Local Water Commission, to prepare the SAGE and get it approved. In decision making, the elected representatives have 50% votes, the State representatives 25%, and the other stakeholder’ representatives (operators, users as well as ONGs), 25% too. The local authorities constituted a joint union in 2007 to implement the resulting action plan. - Conversely, the local authorities constituted first a joint union to protect deep Astien aquifer, as this strategic groundwater was compromised by competing intensive uses ; they promoted Contractual Action Plans(1997-2002 & 2004-2008) with financial help from Water Agency ; but they found this could not fully succeed without involvement of every stakeholders, and decided to launch a SAGE process, driven by a Local Water Commission, where the users will commit to stop any anarchic withdrawal, and improve the quality and the quantity of this resource.

All these consultation processes have been initiated by public authorities. It may also be asked, in a bottom-up approach, by stakeholders themselves, as illustrated by the example about conciliation of hydropower and environment in Grece, in box 7 hereafter

BOX 7 The Dinaric Arc Sustainable Hydropower Initiative (« DASHI ») promoted by WWF is aimed at ensuring the sustainability of aquatic ecosystems facing the rapid development of hydropower infrastructure, induced by the search for renewable energy in the framework of climate change. WWF analyses the sustainability of hydropower plants (existing or in project) and proposes improvements or alternate solutions. The DASHI initiative intends to mobilize the main stakeholders, federating different organizations from the civil society, fostering dialogue, lobbying and cooperation with governmental authorities in charge of water and energy, and with the private sector. It is hoped that this will lead to improved and accountable governance and sustainable decisions, integrating environmental, economic and social aspects.

This example rises incidentally the question of the role of lobbying, developed by users motivated to make their particular opinions or interests prevail, notwithstanding the others: it may be a clue of insufficient attention paid to potentially important aspects advocated by a minority of powerless stakeholders ; but it may also lead to uneven consideration of other aspects, biased decisions and lack of accountability.

Capacity building

The delegation of responsibility implies that the proxy must be capable to assume it, and is committed to it knowingly; the capacity building is therefore a condition of success in the involvement of stakeholders, not only in terms of theoretical knowledge, but also in terms of management, financial autonomy, etc.

An interesting example is related in the methodology of AWARE project, linking research, policy-making and the public about coastal waters in Europe, as explained in box 8 hereafter

BOX 8 AWARE project, conducted on three pilot case study areas (two from Northern European countries, one from Italy) aims at improving water governance by an integrated adaptive management approach, whereby it is possible to design, implement and learn from a closer interaction between science, policy, stakeholders and citizens. The first concern was to organize workshops in order to consider the three cases on an equal footing with respect to knowledge of the topic, and to make every participant, at the local and Europe Union level, able to understand and communicate with the others, particularly the randomly-selected citizens : this was necessary to bridge the gap between the citizen’s locally specific and experimental knowledge, perspective and understanding of the topic, that of the elcted representatives, and the more technical perspectives usually held by water managers and experts involved in the water policy formulation process

Another interesting example of coordination, dialogue and capacity building is also provided in the project INDH-INMAE “access to WSS in Casablanca”, a way for integration of inhabitants of substandard housing in the life of the city. This project is summarized in box 9 hereafter :

BOX 9 In the areas where integration of inhabitants of substandard housing in the normal life of the city is found reasonably possible to the Public Authorities, the project aims at fostering this integration, beginning with connecting them to the WSS networks. It needs a dynamic governance to deal with political, legal, social, technical and economical aspects of such an integration process, with innovative solutions. The connection costs and service fees are subsidized in such a way that they can be affordable for the household, who must remain empowered and involved in the integration process. A real change is now observed in these areas, thanks to this involvement : improvement of the housing, emergence of a neighbourhood life, Public Authorities incented to invest again in other public services, … in a virtuous circle

Knowledge- Information- Communication

Necessity to ensure symmetry, objectivity, relevance of information; and to avoid being biased by pre-conceived ideas, ideologies and lobbies.

A lot of examples of these distortions, and of their consequences, could be easily enumerated . The question is how to get objective and accountable information…

This is for instance particularly important about risk prevention and crisis management, as expressed by the case about flood risk management process in France (Box 10)

BOX 10 The flood risk management process is based on efficient collection and dissemination of reliable knowledge and information, about the hydrologic events, about risk evaluation, about preventive measures, and about crisis management, when it occurs. The State officials have the key role and authority indeed : they tell the risk, prescribe prevention and emergency measures, and assume the national solidarity; but locally, the mayors, public security officials in their Communes, control land use to limit exposure to risk, and contribute, in case of crisis, to alert people, organize their evacuation, provide them temporary accommodation ; and the individuals themselves are part of the risk management, as far as they are informed, aware and empowered about the risks, about the measures to prevent them, and about the way to escape if the crisis occurs

Awareness is the first step of a bottom-up process of citizens’ participation in water governance, as shown in the case about NGOs engagement on sustainable water management in Marocco, summarized in Box 11 hereafter :

BOX 11 In the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy, WWF works with a network of some twenty Moroccan ONGs. The first aim is to inform them about the tool box (including financial tolls) of this policy concerning water management and protection of freshwater ecosystems. Then, it helps to investigate the means to influence the environmental aspects of water policy in the national context, and to formulation funding priorities for their action plan. So, information of the civil society, capacity building, teaching advocacy and lobbying techniques, are developed in order to get its opinions taken in account by national and European politicians, and so to influence the water and natural resources policy

Innovation

Take up the challenge of the large ongoing global changes, with hydro stress threatening important regions of the world, and quite particularly around the Mediterranean, obliges to accept moves from acquired habits and look for evolution, in order to fit to future conditions, with more rational use of the resources. This requires a considerable effort of innovation, which implies to strengthen the links between the reality of ground, the knowledge of research, the means of companies and industries, within the framework of coherent public policies, involving all the levels.

V - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP

The Target and Solution Group recommends a strong and steady follow-up of the Stakeholder Participation in Governance Process (“SPGP”) in the Mediterranean countries until the target is reached, and even afterwards, to help for a continuous adaptation to evolving context.

If the need for a greater involvement of all bodies and stakeholders in water governance is more and more asserted everywhere as consensual, , it is clear that the practical implementation of this objective is not always looked at and fostered thoroughly. It must not be only an important topic in the international meetings, seminars and forums, it needs now a real commitment to act continuously, in depth.

A commitment to increase stakeholder’s participation in governance process implies both a top-down commitment, from the current authorities who accept this evolution (which means to share a part of their power), and a bottom up commitment, from every stakeholder, to assume new rights, but also new duties and responsibilities, in water governance process.

Every one of the solutions collected by the membership of the TSG gives some evidences that such commitments are already on-going, and promising, or applied, and successful. The question is to disseminate and multiply these evidences.

Indeed, the bottom-up individual engagements cannot appear to be significant at WWF level. On the other hand, the Mediterranean community at large, international bodies, countries, and local governments, could commit to foster “SPGP” after the WWF6: a large part of them have already developed themselves actions in this way. So, the TSG recommends that the Mediterranean Community commits to join hands to constitute altogether a Task Force, in charge of following and promoting the implementation of the Action Plan.

This Task Force should be mandated, after the WWF6, to articulate bottom-up and top-down approaches : bottom-up, ie collect information about the progress made in the Mediterranean in order to report and discuss it yearly, during the Mediterranean and World Water Fora to come ; and top-down, ie setting and disseminating indicators and methodologies (tool box) on “SPGP” ; and fostering diagnosis and search for solutions using a bench learning (better than benchmarking) process.

VI CONCLUSIONS

The TSG appreciated, and based its works on the framework of definitions, indicators, methods and experience provided by thematic TSG reports, coordinated by A. AKHMOUCH, on “stakeholders engagement for effective water policy and management” for the main issue “condition for success = governance”.

Even if the TSG started very late, it could gather the advice and the involvement of a very motivated membership: it is obvious that the Mediterranean are much concerned by this topic, as

they are hottest spot of water stress in the world, nowadays and even worse in the future.

they face very strong and rapid changes (climatical, altogether with demographic, political, social, economic, ..) which compels them to adapt

the issues are so critical, complex and cross-linked, (as water policy affects all the aspects of the life of the society) that everyone is concerned, and nobody is able to have a global understanding

so, , to avoid misfit between conceptual approach and the man in the field, to prevent conflicts between users, to enforce solidarity, equity and solidarity, the water governance must evolve, adding forces and dispatching roles in the best way, combining Bottom-Up and Top-Down, involving Public and private

This gives all its accuracy and relevance to the target “By 2020, every country has activated and implemented mechanisms for effective stakeholder participation throughout the different components of basin water resources management, and has in place a functioning articulation between central and decentralized levels”

So, the TSG recommends that the Mediterranean Community commits to join hands to constitute altogether a Task Force, sustainably in charge of following and promoting its implementation

This looks relevant to the global interest, as far as the on-going Mediterranean situation prefigures possible problems which other parts of the world might face in the decades to come.

**
ANNEX I. MEMBERS OF THE TS-GROUP FOR TARGET II

Name	e-mail
Coordinating Organization: IME	info@ime-eau.org
Coordinators: IME : Jacques PLANTEY ARLEM : Serge MIQUEL	aj.plantey@orange.fr sergemiquel@gmail.com
Members:
OECD: Aziza AKHMOUCH	aziza.AKHMOUCH@oecd.org
IBRD : Nathalie ABU-ATA (IBRD)	nabuata@worldbank.org
UpM : Fuad BATEH & François GUERBER	fuad.bateh@ufmsecretariat.org francois.guerber@ufmsecretariat.org
ARLEM : Alba AGUILERA RUBEN	Ruben.albaaguilera@cor.europa.eu
GWPMed : Anthi BROUMA	anthi@gwpmed.org
SEMIDE : Jauad EL-KHARRAZ & Eric MINO	jauad.el-kharraz@semide.org e.mino@semide.org
UCGL/CGLU : Mohamed BOUSSRAOUI & Laurence GRIETTE & Charles PATSIKA	m.boussraoui@cities-localgovernments.org l.griette@commed-cglu.org charlespastsika@yahoo.co.uk
Arc Latin : Ana De ALOS DE LLANZA	alosda@diba.cat
HYDRA(ALGERIE) : Karim BENNOUR	Oasis_2010@live.com
LIBAN : Béchir ODEIMI	Bechir.odeimi@bt-villes.org
IRG (Litani project LRBMS) : Eric VIALA	eviala@lrbms.com
MAE Tunis : Saad SEDDIK	saad.seddik@iresa.agrinet.tn
TUNISIE / IME : Abdelkader HAMDANE	Abdelkader.hamdane@gmail.co
Region Murcia Miguel Angel Rodenas Canada & Antonio Martinez NIETO	Miguela.rodenas@carm.es amnieto@um.es
Région PACA : Jacques BONNABEL	jbonnabel@regionpaca.fr
AE RMC : Laurent FAYEIN & Luc HERROUIN	laurent.fayein@eaurmc.fr luc.herrouin@eaurmc.fr
MAROC-Taroudant Gov : Fouad M’HAMDI	Fouad.mhamdi@gmail.com
MAROC/CRSMD : Abderrahmane AMMOR	abder_ammor@hotmail.com
AE Souss-Massa Mohamed EL-FASSKAOUI	abhsm@menara.ma
LYDEC Casablanca : Caroline MAIRESSE	caroline.MAIRESSE@suez-env.com
EDF : Patrick SAMBARINO	patrick.sambarino@edf.fr
VERSEAU : Claude LEFROU )	claude.lefrou@sfr.fr
HERAULT-Vidourle : Claude BARRAL & Jean-Charles AMAR	cbarral@cg34.fr jc.amar@vidourle.org
HERAULT-Lez : Géraldine VACQUIER	gvacquier@cg34.fr
HERAULT-Astien :Véronique DUBOIS	smeta@orange.fr
WATERLEX Geneva : Hélène BOUSSARD	h.boussard@waterlex.org
PNUD : Philippe BAYON	Philippe.bayon@undpaffiliates.org
MAROC Gouv : Abdelhamid BENABDELFADEL	benabdelfadel@water.gov.ma
MAROC-Rabat : Abderrahmane BOULOUD	abouloud2004@yahoo.fr
WWF Mediterranean : Angela KLAUSCHEN	aklauschen@wwf.panda.org
WETLANDS Internat. Laith El MOGHRABI	Laith.elmoghrabi@wetlands.org

ANNEX II -DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGIES FOR TARGET 3.2’S SCOPE

These definitions, tools and methods are taken from the thematic TSG1 report, coordinated by A. AKHMOUCH, on “stakeholders engagement for effective water policy and management” for the main issue “condition for success = governance” :

Multi-level Governance : it is the explicit or implicit sharing of policy-making authority, responsibility, development and implementation at different administrative and territorial levels: across different ministries and/or public agencies at central government level (upper horizontally); between different layers of government at local, regional, province/state, national and supranational levels (vertically); and across different actors at the sub-national level (lower horizontally) [OECD, 2011]. Traditionally, multi-level governance has been defined as the rules of the political system to solve conflicts between actors and adopt decision (legality). It has also been used to describe the proper functioning of institutions and their acceptance by the public (legitimacy). Finally, it has been used to evoke the efficacy of government and the achievement of consensus by democratic means (participation).

Stakeholders are persons or groups directly or indirectly affected by water policy, as well as those who may have interests in it and/or the ability to influence its outcome, positively or negatively. They may include locally affected communities or individuals and their formal and informal representatives, national or local government authorities, politicians, religious leaders, regulators, agencies, civil society organizations and groups with special interests, the academic community, or other businesses. The stakeholders have different interests and don’t have the same influence within the decision process: capacity building efforts therefore are needed to facilitate their engagement.

Water policy: water policies encompass “those actions governing the management, administration, and procedures used to implement and direct a formal Water Planning process by which water rights, water uses, and water diversions are evaluated, ranked, and allocated on the basis of specific public policy goals and objectives and designated, either by legislative mandate or regulation.

Regulations are defined as rules or orders issues by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law that aim to deliver efficiencies, empower customers and guarantee profitability to service providers.

We conceive participation as the condition which allows citizens to be actor at all levels of the project from its building to its follow-up. For decision makers (both authorities and operator), listening to stakeholders’ concerns and receiving their feedback can be a valuable source of information that can improve project design and outcomes and help to identify and limit external risks. For stakeholders, a consultation process is an opportunity to get information, as well as to educate operator staff about the local context in which a project will take place, and to shape the decisions.

We understand stakeholder’s consultation as initiating and sustaining constructive relationships over time. It is a two-way approach: the opportunity to create understanding to learn how each stakeholder views a situation (risks, impacts, opportunity, mitigation). Gathering stakeholders concerns and feedbacks can be a valuable source of information that can improve policy design and outcomes. For stakeholders, it is an opportunity to get information, to educate themselves, to raise issues and to help shape policies.

Co-ordination is an important tool for integration because the arena of water management sometimes involves conflicting objectives. Identifying stakeholders, gaining their support, harnessing participant collaboration and establishing the roles and responsibilities of the right set of people are the key steps to make successful water policies. Coordinating mechanisms can be formal (intergovernmental agreements) or informal (for example voluntary local watershed groups).

Existing tools and methodologies for stakeholder engagement

Dialogue requires the mobilization of resources and skills that responsible bodies’ organisms may not have available:

A review of existing tools and methodologies for stakeholder engagement will help authorities and operators to choose the most suitable/relevant approaches according to their own objectives, constraints and resources

OECD has already done work with inventorying existing tools and strategies used within OECD countries to address governance gaps:

1: Diagnose multi-level governance gaps in water policy making across ministries and public agencies, between levels of government and across sub-national actors

2: Involve sub-national governments in designing water policy, beyond their roles as implementers and allocate human and financial resources in line with responsibilities

3: Adopt horizontal governance tools to foster coherence across water-related policy areas and enhance inter-institutional co-operation across ministries and public agencies

4: Create, update and harmonize water information systems and databases for sharing water policy needs at basin, country and international levels

5: Encourage performance measurement to evaluate and monitor the outcomes of water policy at all levels of government

6: Respond to the fragmentation of water policy at the sub-national level by facilitating co-ordination across sub-national actors and between levels of government

7: Foster capacity-building at all levels of government

8: Encourage a more open and inclusive approach to water policy making through public participation in water policy design and implementation

9: Assess the effectiveness and adequacy of existing governance instruments for coordinating water policy at horizontal and vertical levels

Source: “Water governance in OECD countries: a multi-level approach”, OECD studies on water, OECD publishing,2011 http://www.oecd.org/document/13/0,3746,en_2649_34413_488962051111,00.html

Furthermore, OECD guideline on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making sets 10 principles to follow. They are not water-specific but can be very relevant to the sector:

1- Commitment: Leadership and strong commitment to information, consultation and active participation in policy-making is needed at all levels, from politicians, senior managers and public officials.

2-Rights: Citizens’ rights to access information, provide feedback, be consulted and actively participate in policy-making must be firmly grounded in law or policy. Government	obligations to respond to citizens when exercising their rights must also be clearly stated. Independent authorities for oversight, or their equivalent, are essential to enforcing these rights

3-Clarity: Objectives for, and limits to, information, consultation and active participation during policy-making should be well defined from the outset. The respective roles and responsibilities of citizens (in providing input) and government (in making decisions for which they are accountable) must be clear to all.

4- Time: Public consultation and active participation should be undertaken as early in the policy process as possible. This allows a greater range of policy solutions to emerge. It also raises the chances of successful implementation. Adequate time must be available for consultation and participation to be effective. Information is needed at all stages of the policy cycle.

5- Objectivity: Information provided by government during policy-making should be objective, complete and accessible. All citizens should have equal treatment when exercising their rights of access to information and participation.

6- Resources: Adequate financial, human and technical resources are needed if public information, consultation and active participation in policy-making are to be effective. Government officials must have access to appropriate skills, guidance and training. An organizational culture that supports their efforts is highly important.

7- Coordination: Initiatives to inform citizens, request feedback from and consult them should be coordinated across government. This enhances knowledge management, ensures policy coherence, and avoids duplication. It also reduces the risk of “consultation fatigue” – negative reactions because of too much overlapping or poorly done consultation – among citizens and civil society organizations. Co-ordination efforts should not reduce the capacity of government units to ensure innovation and flexibility.

8- Accountability: Governments have an obligation to account for the use they make of citizens’ inputs received – be it through feedback, public consultation or active participation. To increase this accountability, governments need to ensure an open and transparent policy-making process amenable to external scrutiny and review.

9- Evaluation: Evaluation is essential in order to adapt to new requirements and changing conditions for policy-making. Governments need tools, information and capacity to evaluate their performance in strengthening their relations with citizens.

10- Active citizenship: Governments benefit from active citizens and a dynamic civil society. They can take concrete actions to facilitate citizen’s access to information and participation, raise awareness, and strengthen civic education and skills. They can support capacity building among civil society organizations.

Source: OECD, 2001, http://publications.oecd.org/acrobatebook/4201141e.pdf

Other tools can be found in the UN-habitat Guidelines on decentralization for access to basic services which identify five key components that can be useful as a blueprint :

A. Transparent, participatory and effective government

B: Decentralization and the role of local authorities

C: Enabling institutional framework for partnerships

D: Sustainable financing and pro-poor policies

E: Environmental sustainability

Source : (UN-Habitat Guidelines on decentralization – 2009 - www.unhabitat.org)

Elinor Ostrom’s principles on common-pool resources management also give insights:

1.	Clearly defined boundaries;

2.	Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions;

3.	Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;

4.	Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;

5.	A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;

6.	Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access;

7.	Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities;

Source: “Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action”,1990, Cambridge University Press. http://elinorostrom.indiana.edu/

ANNEX III : ABSTRACTS OF SOLUTIONS

(Every one of the solutions has been summarized in a format of one single sheet. The full text of these solutions should be found on the WWF Platform of Solutions. It can be asked to the contacts recalled in every card hereafter, or to the Target and Solution Group coordinators : Jacques PLANTEY : aj.plantey@orange.fr Serge MIQUEL : sergemiquel@gmail.com

1 : Etude de révision du code des eaux en Tunisie) :

2 : Gestion participative de l’eau en Tunisie

3 : Governance & IWRM for the most water-stressed UE region

4 : Exemple de décentralisation aboutie :Transfert à la Région des compétences de l’Etat sur le Canal de Provence

5 : Fédérer les acteurs autout du Bassin du Vidourle

6 : Procédure de gestion concertée :le SAGIE de l’Oued Arghane (Maroc)

7 : Gestion globale et concertée sur le bassin du Lez

8 : Gestion de la nappe profonde des sables astiens

9 : Implication des parties prenantes pour une gestion durable de l'hydroélectricité et la protection des écosystèmes d'eau douce dans les Balkans Occidentaux

10 : The AWARE Project :Linking research, policy-making and the public about coastal waters in Europe

11 : accès à l’eau et l’assainissement à Casablanca

12 : Gouvernance de la gestion du risque inondations : exemple du processus Français

13 : Etablissement & animation d'une plateforme d'ONG marocaines sur la gestion durable de l'eau)

1	Etude de révision du code des eaux en Tunisie

Contribution: Ministère de l’Agriculture/ DG des ressources en eau- TUNISIE

Contact : Mohamed Lotfi NACEF, Directeur du BIRH

Trente cinq ans après la promulgation du Code des Eaux, un grand nombre de dispositions ne sont plus adaptées à l’état actuel de nos ressources en eau. Les premiers textes exhaustifs portant réglementation de l’utilisation et de la conservation des eaux du domaine public ont été publiés en 1933 (JO du 26 août 1933). Le Code des Eaux, promulgué en 1975 (loi n°75-16 du 31 mars 1975), avait comme principaux fondements : la centralisation de l’administration de l’eau, la priorité à l’eau potable et la valorisation maximale de la ressource.

Les évolutions récentes en matière de mobilisation des ressources en eaux ont été à l’origine de la modification du code des eaux en 2001 (loi n°2001-116 du 26 novembre 2001) qui a tenu compte de la dimension environnementale, de la sauvegarde des ressources en eau et du développement des ressources non conventionnelles.

Cette modification reste incomplète et mérite une mise à jour et une révision qui tiendront en compte des défis actuels et futurs du secteur de l’eau en vue de concilier l’objectif de sécurité alimentaire, les besoins de développement durable et la préservation des ressources déjà fortement exploitées.

En matière de gouvernance, il convient dans cette optique d’envisager le développement de l’aspect participatif dans la régulation et la gestion de l’eau

La révision du Code des Eaux a été engagée avec le lancement d’une démarche en trois étapes :

1.	diagnostic actualisé de la situation en Tunisie, des textes législatifs et réglementaires existants, et examen des codes des pays voisins

2.	analyse et propositions d’amendements, mise en forme du projet de nouveau code

3.	Ce projet, dans sa version pré-définitive, doit être prêt vers le premier semestre 2012, pour être soumis pour concertation nationale auprès de tous les acteurs de l’eau du pays. Cette concertation sera conclue par un séminaire d’information et de présentation des résultats de l’étude, au terme de laquelle le nouveau code sera proposé à l’approbation et la promulgation.

A l’issue des deux premières étapes de l’étude, le projet est effectivement en cours de finalisation. La nouvelle version du Code intègre les propositions d’amendements et modifications concernant les aspects et les points forts à consolider et les insuffisances à compléter et à y remédier. Les principales révisions concernent la redéfinition du DPH naturel et artificiel et de ses servitudes et la consolidation de la protection quantitative et qualitative de la ressource.

Concernant la gouvernance de l’eau, le nouveau code propose le développement de l’aspect participatif de la gestion de l’eau et la création d’une instance nationale de régulation de l’eau, la révision du régime de tarification et les procédés de recouvrement de redevances. Il propose aussi d’établir des plans d’aménagement et d’utilisation des eaux par nappe et des plans directeurs régionaux et nationaux. La mise en place d’un système d’information nationale sur l’eau et la création d’un organisme pour sa gestion. Concernant l’utilisation de l’eau, la concession qui intéressait seulement les nappes profondes sera généralisée aux nappes phréatiques.

Le projet prévoit et propose également les textes d’applications nécessaires en conséquence, notamment sur les pouvoirs régaliens de l’administration, ainsi que les moyens (informatiques notamment) de les exercer.

L’actualisation, en fonction des grandes évolutions, du cadre législatif et réglementaire, au terme d’une analyse critique objective et concertée, permet de structurer clairement l’articulation entre les divers niveaux de compétences, droits et obligations en matière de gouvernance de l’eau

2	Gestion participative de l’eau en Tunisie

Contribution: MINISTERE DE L’AGRICULTURE / DGGREE / TUNISIE

Contact courriel : saad.seddik@iresa.agrinet.tn

A la suite du décret du 24 septembre 1885 instaurant la domanialité publique des ressources en eau, la première association d’usagers de l’eau d’irrigation ou « syndicat d’arrosage » a été créée en 1896 dans la région Sud ( Zarzis. les Oasis du Djérid)

Le cadre juridique des associations s’est renforcé progressivement dans le temps, entre 1912 et 1919, les associations syndicales des propriétaires des oasis sont apparues. Ces dispositions se sont étendues ensuite à d’autres formes de gestion communautaire de l’eau comme les associations spéciales d’intérêt hydraulique à partir de 1923, puis aux les Associations d’Intérêt Collectif (AIC) (associations d’usagers de l’eau du domaine de l’Etat), dont les statuts ont été établis en 1936.

Après l’indépendance et avec l'expansion de la grande hydraulique notamment dans le nord du pays, un modèle étatique parfois centralisé a été mis en place avec la gestion des aménagements hydro agricoles par les offices de mise en valeur institués à partir de 1958. La dissolution des offices en 1989 visait en principe à inciter à la redynamisation progressive du mouvement associatif pour la prise en charge de la gestion des aménagements hydrauliques par les bénéficiaires, avec l’appui des Commissariats régionaux au Développement Agricole (CRDA).

En 1992, la stratégie adoptée pour la création et le suivi des AIC a défini les objectifs et les modalités d’appui aux Groupements de Développement Agricole (ex.AIC/GIC),

Trois lois (en 1999, 2001 et 2004) ont simplifié les procédures de création d'un Groupement d'intérêt collectif ou GIC (ex-AIC), les ont unifiés sous la dénomination de Groupements de développement agricole et de la pêche (GDAP), et fixé le statut-type auquel ils devaient se conformer .

Le taux de desserte en eau potable en milieu rural a ainsi atteint 93.5% fin 2010 et la superficie totale des périmètres publics irrigués a atteint 226000 Ha . Le nombre de GDA créés pour assurer l’exploitation et l’entretien des systèmes a atteint 2562 ( 1329 AEP ; 1133 irrigation ;102 GDA mixtes ).

Pour autant, ces textes n’ont pas réglé tous les problèmes. Les difficultés des GDA sont dues notamment à la rapidité du montage des systèmes, au manque d’application de la réglementation, de contrôle, de transparence ; au désengagement d’une partie de la population ciblée ; à la connivence d’une partie des bénéficiaires qui privilégient leur intérêt à court terme ; à la détérioration continue des performances des réseaux faute de mesures correctives.

De nouvelles évolutions dans la gouvernance de ces systèmes sont donc envisagées Le Ministère a établi en 2010, une stratégie dite de pérennisation qui se base sur les principes suivants :

•	Poursuite de l’approche participative suivant la stratégie nationale pour la création et la promotion des GDA ; professionnalisation progressive de ces GDA,

•	Gestion rationnelle des systèmes hydrauliques, visant l’application du principe de prix de revient,

•	Application rigoureuse de la réglementation et lutte contre le non-paiement

•	Clarification des rôles et amélioration des interventions des structures d’encadrement des GDA au niveau du Ministère de l'Agriculture,

•	Amélioration de la concertation entre les structures du MARH et les autorités locales,

•	Intégration du secteur privé local et régional

•	Préservation et gestion intégrée, économe et efficace des ressources en eau.

La mise en œuvre de ces orientations implique

•	La révision du cadre législatif et contractuel des GDA,

•	La révision du cadre institutionnel d’appui aux GDA pour clarifier les modes de gouvernance, le positionnement et le rôle des différents acteurs intervenant dans la gestion , l’exploitation et l’entretien des systèmes d’eau aux différents niveaux.

3	Governance and IWRM for the most water-stressed region in Europe

Organization: Region of Murcia. Department of Water.

Email Address: dgagua@carm.es; amnieto@carm.es URL for more information : www.carm.es

The solution of the Region of Murcia for Water governance shows the need to include water transfer from other basins to solve a structural water deficit, having efficiently reused all wastewater and having shown the limitations of desalinated water . It can be summarized in creating an institutional and legal system that has worked well and is based on the following practices:

(1) High efficiency in the use of water resources for urban and agricultural uses.

(2) High level of reuse of all wastewater for agricultural and environmental uses.

(3) Existence of experiences on the use of desalinated water, having shown its limitations, with facilities regional, state and private owned.

(4) Problems related to the use of groundwater to face periods of drought, with a current situation in which these water bodies are polluted and overexploited.

(5) Efficiency in water use for irrigation, resulting in high-tech agriculture, unsubsidized, competitive

(6) Viable model of transferring water between basins (Tajo-Segura water transfer) that has meant a case of economic success and territorial and social cohesion that has generated attention for its economic and environmental benefits, job creation and development of Southeast Spain.

(7) Model of good governance and administration, with the creation of a public entity for a single administration of the treatment system and water recycling at the regional level and establishing fees for the system to be self-sufficient from an economic point of view and by the users.

(8) High involvement of civil society and water users, especially irrigation associations.

(9) Ancient existence of an institutional system for conflict resolution (Court of Wise Men) classified as World Heritage and integrated into the Spanish judiciary as a traditional court.

(10) Existence of a single basin ( Segura River) under an administrative model that brings coherence to the management of extreme events and can integrate the region into the national water system.

The detailed study of these features allows for the conclusion that it is a suitable model to semiarid climates. The Region of Murcia has a physical environment strongly influenced by the semiarid climate, resulting in a structural deficit of water and the need for external inputs. The amount of the deficit can be estimated to exceed 1000 Hm3 in the current climate change scenarios, as the natural flow is less than 400 Hm3 compared to 1,500 necessary for the demands of the Segura basin, an amount of new water that is necessary to maintain the regional productive system.(This deficit is calculated from the maximum efficiency on the "demand management”, after having reused according to the highest standards all the waste water). Consequently, the contributions of desalination are needed only in some specific cases and, above all, transfers from other basins are necessary. Desalination is particularly suitable for coastal cities and the main advantage is a contribution to urban water supply, industrial and recreational. The transferred water allocation is particularly suitable for agriculture and urban water supply.

The water solution proposed for Murcia is very simple: integrated management, that is, efficient and sustainable management of all available water resources in the context of national planning, governed by a single authority with the participation of territories and stakeholders affected. And all this within the framework of state regulation that meets the objectives of European standards and international agreements that define water as a basic human right that should be available to all in quantity and quality needed for the basic needs of the economy and the environment. So Murcia model is valid, and serves as an example for proper water management in this kind of environment. It is also a case of water management closely linked to food production and with a capacity to certify, that the energy and environmental cost of desalination is a tough reality that strongly advices us to work in favour of new water transfers between basins.

The governance model of water in the Murcia region shows that the structural shortage leaves no alternative to the contributions of other basins, once the massive desalination has been lefted out to correct the over-exploitation of aquifers, which is necessary for the normal development and maintenance of a deficit basin. Not to forget that under this model of water governance, the main target is trying to avoid the biggest environmental problem resulting from salinization of land and water, and waterways.
4	Transfert à la Région des compétences de l’Etat sur le Canal de Provence :

une décentralisation aboutie

Organisation : Région Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur + SCP IME

Adresses courriel : aj.plantey@orange.fr ; jbonnabel@regionpaca.fr

Websites: http://www.canal-de-provence.com ; http://www.region.paca.fr

Décentralisation acte 1 : l’Etat ouvre en 1951 la possibilité de déléguer des missions d’aménagement d’intérêt général à des Sociétés d’Aménagement Régional, régies par un actionnariat majoritairement public, et agissant comme des sociétés de droit privé ; il concède en 1963 à la SCP (actionnaires principaux : Départements et Ville de Marseille) la réalisation et la gestion du Canal de Provence, pour assurer la satisfaction des besoins en eau urbains, agricoles et industriels de la région provençale.

Décentralisation acte 2 : L’Etat renforce en 1982 les compétences des Départements, et de la Région, qui devient également actionnaire de la SCP

Décentralisation acte 3 : la loi de décentralisation d’août 2004 permet le transfert de l’Etat à la Région du patrimoine concédé, avec tous ses droits et obligations ; la mission de la SCP reste alors inchangée, sauf accord contraire de sa part avec la Région, nouveau concédant .

Face à cette possibilité, la Région a lancé, en concertation avec les collectivités actionnaires, et en dialogue avec l’Etat, l’analyse d’opportunité et de faisabilité d’un tel transfert de compétences : inventaire, analyse et traitement des questions à régler, d’ordre politique, réglementaire, administratif, juridique, financier..

L’essentiel des grandes infrastructures du Canal de Provence étant réalisé, et financièrement autonome, il est apparu, aux termes de ce processus complet d’analyse concertée, que son intégration dans le patrimoine régional était effectivement opportune, dans la mesure où

•	Il constitue pour la Région un élément majeur pour l’aménagement et la vie du territoire régional, alors que ce n’est plus pour l’Etat une préoccupation prioritaire

•	Les modalités pratiques du transfert, apportant les garanties indispensables pour permettre à la Région d’exercer pleinement et durablement ses nouvelles compétences (transfert des moyens, pérennité d’accès aux ressources en eau, …) ont été dûment convenues avec l’Etat

•	Un consensus a été établi entre la Région et l’ensemble des collectivités actionnaires de la SCP, sur les principes de gouvernance de la société, sur ses objectifs et orientations à moyen et long terme, sur la programmation des investissements restants à réaliser

•	De fait, ce processus de décentralisation a permis de conforter l’articulation des rôles entre concédant et concessionnaire, de réaffirmer le sens des missions de ce dernier, et a débouché sur un effort accru de transparence, de communication.

•	Il a débouché sur un dialogue renforcé avec les acteurs de l’eau, plus proches des décisions ; et sur le développement des synergies entre les ressources en eau locales et régionales, naturelles et artificielles, dans une approche inter-bassins dans laquelle le Canal de Provence, trait d’union entre les territoires du Haut-Pays et les territoires côtiers, contribue à la solidarité et à l’identité régionale

•	la Région s’attache tout particulièrement à assurer la cohérence entre la politique de l’eau et celle d’aménagement de son territoire

Le principe de subsidiarité a pu dans ce cas pleinement trouver son application, et permettre d’assumer pleinement, par des acteurs responsables et impliqués, une politique de gestion de ressources en eau assurant la satisfaction de tous les usages, grâce à la complémentarité entre les divers niveaux de gestion où s’exercent des intérêts communs (bassins versants pour les ressources naturelles, bassins « déversants » avec les ressources artificielles), et des solidarités : communes, départements, région.

Ce processus de décentralisation, à caractère institutionnel, initié par la loi d’août 2004, a une portée politique importante, a impliqué la mise en œuvre de dispositions financières, et un effort accru de communication .

Cet exemple montre que le processus de décentralisation est complexe, et nécessite une analyse préalable approfondie, mûrement et objectivement concertée entre le délégant et le délégataire, pour qu’il puisse s’engager à assumer tous ses droits et surtout obligations.

5	“Fédérer autour du bassin du Vidourle » : cohérence et efficacité de l’action

décentralisée des collectivités territoriales et de leurs groupements

Contribution : Syndicat Interdépartemental du Vidourle –Départements de l’Hérault et du Gard.

Contacts courriel : Syndicat du Vidourle: M. Jean Charles AMAR : jc.amar@vidourle.org

Département de l’Hérault : M. Sébastien FOREST : sforestl@cg34.fr

Département du Gard : M. Xavier EUDES : xeudes@cg30.fr

Lien pour des informations complémentaires : http://www.vidourle.org

Pour répondre à l’exigence de protection des personnes et des biens face aux aléas des crues, et à la carence ancestrale de gestion et d’entretien des berges (propriétés publiques et privées), il a été fondé en 1989 par les Autorités Locales des Départements de l’Hérault et du Gard, le Syndicat Mixte Interdépartemental d’Aménagement et de mise en valeur du Vidourle et de ses affluents.

Dès 1990, une étude est commandée par le Syndicat afin d’élaborer et proposer, un Schéma Global d’Aménagement du Vidourle. Le Syndicat entend mettre en oeuvre ces propositions d’aménagement.

Les statuts du SIAV vont ensuite être modifiés en 1996.

En effet, l’espace naturel du bassin versant du Vidourle concerne les départements du Gard et de l’Hérault, mais aussi les communes du bassin versant. En se fondant sur cette idée le SIAV décide d’ouvrir le fonctionnement du syndicat aux communes souhaitant y adhérer, favorisant ainsi la parité de responsabilité entre les communes et les conseils généraux.

Le fonctionnement du fleuve et de son bassin versant, est désormais pris en compte dans son ensemble.

Depuis près de 20 ans, le SIAV est donc un acteur majeur de la gestion du cours d’eau et de ses affluents. Cette instance publique a évolué en 2007 pour devenir un Établissement Public Territorial de Bassin (EPTB) doté des compétences mentionnées par la Loi sur l’Eau de 2006. Il inscrit son action sur l’ensemble du bassin versant (soit environ 830 km2 pour une population globale de plus de 120 000 habitants). Fruit d’une coopération interdépartementale et intercommunale réussie, il regroupe aujourd’hui 95 communes, qui au niveau de la Gouvernance siègent à parité aux côtés des Conseillers Généraux.

L’EPTB est un groupement de collectivités, de dimensions interdépartementales, qui agit sur un territoire directement en relation avec la réalité géographique, hydrographique, historique, et politique, lui permettant d’être l’interprète de la problématique locale auprès des services déconcentrés des pouvoirs publics.

La gestion de l’eau dans le Bassin est instaurée à partir d’un mode de Gouvernance régi par une instance politique qui pilote la stratégie (26 Elus, représentants des Départements et des Communes) et une équipe technique (20 personnes) assurant la coordination et la gestion des travaux

La Gouvernance du Syndicat Interdépartemental du Vidourle, lui permet d’intervenir sur des opérations hiérarchisées et coordonnées : travaux de restauration et d’entretien des berges, lutte contre la pollution, mise en valeur du patrimoine, communication et sensibilisation, …

L’émergence de l’unité de Bassin crée un acte participatif et fédérateur, inscrit dans un objectif ambitieux de préservation des populations et les biens, signe le début d’une véritable prise de conscience des élus locaux sur les enjeux du Vidourle, et symbolise une première collaboration entre les deux départements éprouvés par les tribulations du Vidourle.

Les enjeux et les règles de la gestion de l’eau trouvent une meilleure application et aussi une meilleure appropriation, s’ils sont gérés et menés de concert au travers des politiques d’aménagement du territoire.

C’est la toute la place des Autorités Locales, qui par leurs prises de responsabilité, délibérations et au travers de leur organisation de Bassin, permettront d’aménager et de développer un territoire, confronté au risque inondation. Le mode de Gouvernance permanent ainsi instauré permettra d’associer tous les acteurs de l’eau et de les faire participer aux débats sur la gestion de l’eau.

6 -	Procédure de gestion concertée : le SAGIE de l’Oued Arghane (Maroc)

Contributeurs : Agence de Bassin Hydraulique du Souss Massa et Drâa - Maroc -

Contacts courriel :

Gouverneur de la Province de Taroudannt : fouad.mhamdi@gmail.com

Agence de Bassin Souss Massa et Drâa: elfasskaoui_mhamed@yahoo.fr –

Conseil Régional du Souss Massa Drâa : h.hdadou@regionsmd.com -

Website: http://www.abhsm.ma

La région du Souss Massa Drâa compte économiquement et à plusieurs titres, parmi les régions les plus importantes du Maroc. L'une des contraintes majeures, constituant un facteur limitant et même un frein à ce développement, est la disponibilité en eau. Si des efforts importants en matière de recherche et de mobilisation des ressources en eau ont été déployés depuis plusieurs décennies, il n'en demeure pas moins que certaines ressources, telle la nappe du Souss, sont surexploitées, du fait notamment de l’importance de la production agricole, et que l'équilibre ressources / demandes en eau, reste très précaire et très fragile.

Le Conseil Régional du Souss Massa Drâa (CRSMD) avec l’Agence du Bassin Hydraulique de Souss Massa et de Draâ (ABHSMD) a engagé une politique d’économies d’eau et de développement des ressources. Ses axes d'interventions prioritaires portent sur : économie et valorisation de l'eau, mobilisation des eaux souterraines et superficielles, développement et recherche scientifique.

De tels programmes ne peuvent se concevoir qu'à partir d'une approche globale des problèmes de la ressource en eau, de ses usages et de son partage. Dans cette optique, un Accord Cadre est intervenu (mai 2008) entre le Conseil Régional Souss Massa Drâa, le Conseil général de l’Hérault, l’Agence de Bassin du Souss Massa et l’Agence de Bassin Rhône Méditerranée et Corse, pour initier et développer une procédure de gestion concertée : le « Schéma d’Aménagement et de Gestion Intégrée de l’Eau du Bassin Hydraulique d’Arghane » (SAGIE du BH Arghane), inscrit dans le cadre de la coopération maroco-française, a pour objet d’organiser la gestion intégrée de l’eau à l’échelle du bassin de l’Oued Arghane, affluent de l’Oued Souss..

Le projet intéresse une zone d’intervention s’étalant essentiellement sur neuf (9) communes dans le cercle de Taroudant et sur la commune de Azaghar N'ris où l’oued Arghène prend sa source. La population de l’aire du projet est de 14 000 Hab. et la superficie concernée est de 1000 Km2.

Le SAGIE répond à l’objectif du Programme de Développement et d’Aménagement Intégré des Ressources en Eau de maintenir les populations en zones de montagne grâce à l’amélioration de leurs conditions de vie.

L’élaboration et la mise en œuvre du SAGIE est conduite, dans un processus de large concertation, par un Comité de l’Eau, présidé par le Gouverneur de Taroudannt, et composé des représentants des partenaires et principales parties concernées par le projet . De plus, un Comité élargi, dénommé Atelier de Concertation, et regroupant l’ensemble des parties prenantes a permis d’établir les échanges d’information et de concertation sur les actions du projet

Le Cadre structurel d’accompagnement du Comité de l’Eau est de niveau international. Il est composé des partenaires du SAGIE qui se sont impliqués dans le suivi des études, leur validation et demain dans leur réalisation

Des Commissions thématiques de suivi pilotent la mise en œuvre des différentes opérations du Plan d’Action résultant du SAGIE, approuvé par le Comité, et portant sur toutes les composantes de l’aménagement du territoire : AEP, assainissement, mobilisation des eaux de surface et souterraine, économie d'eau en irrigation, abreuvement du cheptel, protection des terres, réseau de mesures, mesures d’accompagnement.
Une telle Gouvernance permet d’introduire des mécanismes de solidarité et de dialogue, aussi bien dans le bottom-up / top-down, que dans les relations locales transversales avec les acteurs / usagers de proximité.

7 :	Gestion globale et concertée sur le bassin du Lez

Contribution: SYBLE, sYNDICAT DU BASSIN DU lEZ, et departement de l’hérault

Contact courriel : Géraldine VACQUIER, Directrice du SYBLE : gvacquier@gmail.com

Serge MIQUEL, Conseil général de l’Hérault : sergemiquel@cg34.fr

Lien pour des informations complémentaires: www.syble.fr

Sur le bassin versant du Lez, fortement urbanisé, (420 000 habitants sur 750 km²) où les enjeux de l’eau sont importants, un SAGE (Schéma d’Aménagement et de Gestion de l’Eau) a été lancé dans les années 1990. Ce SAGE, outil de planification de la gestion de l’eau a été élaboré par la CLE (Commission Locale de l’Eau), véritable Parlement local de l’eau, associant élus, usagers et représentants de l’Etat.

Le SAGE, dans l’optique d’une gestion équilibrée et collective de l’eau et des milieux, fixe les objectifs généraux d’utilisation, de mise en valeur et de protection qualitative et quantitative des ressources en eau superficielle et souterraine. Le bras armé du SAGE est une structure de gestion : le SYBLE (Syndicat du Bassin du Lez) dont les missions sont de coordonner et animer les actions stratégiques à l’échelle du bassin du Lez, assister la maîtrise d’ouvrage assumée au niveau des collectivités, et porter des études globales.

L’organisation territoriale de la gestion globale de l’eau dans le bassin a été initiée par les acteurs locaux que sont les collectivités territoriales. Ce principe a permis de mettre en place une Gouvernance locale et des mécanismes relationnels avec les partenaires, ainsi que des mécanismes, techniques, financiers et juridiques, qui sont les supports des plans d’actions concertés.

Au terme de l’élaboration du SAGE, le Syndicat du Bassin du Lez a été constitué en 2007. Il est le porteur du suivi du SAGE et du Programme d’Actions qui en résulte, comprenant notamment l’inventaire des zones humides, la restauration de la ripisylve des cours d’eau, des études de connaissance du risque inondation, la sensibilisation au risque inondation (scolaires, grand public, élus).

Il a bénéficié des financements des collectivités (CG, EPCI) et des partenaires : Europe, Etat, Agence de l’Eau, Conseil Régional, Conseil Général.

Vis-à-vis des enjeux du bassin qui guident l’action (préserver ou améliorer les ressources en eau, mieux gérer le risque inondation, préserver ou restaurer les milieux aquatiques, les zones humides et leurs écosystèmes, améliorer l’information et la formation, développer l’action concertée), le SAGE, initié sur les problèmes de qualité des eaux, bénéficie d’une forte mobilisation des élus sur la gestion du risque inondation.

Il permet une prise en charge globale des hydrosystèmes, l’approche systémique et transversale, incluant les rivières, les étangs, le milieu marin, les problèmes d’inondation, de pollution et de pression anthropique.

La dimension culturelle du SAGE, créateur et porteur d’un discours sur l’eau et d’une vision partagée, a constitué un élément essentiel des avancées obtenues pour une gestion globale et concertée de l’eau.

L’expérience du SYBLE peut être utile à d’autres structures de bassins versants impliquées dans la mise en œuvre d’une gestion globale et concertée de l’eau et des milieux aquatiques en particulier dans un contexte d’urbanisation importante, ou dans la gestion du risque inondation (sensibilisation, culture du risque, entretien des cours d’eau.

8 Gestion de la nappe profonde des sables astiens

Contribution: Syndicat Mixte d’Etudes et de Travaux de l’Astien (« SMETA ») à Béziers

Contact courriel : Véronique DUBOIS, Directrice : smeta@orange.fr

Lien pour des informations complémentaires: http://www.astien.com

La nappe astienne, nappe profonde littorale située à l’ouest du département de l’Hérault, est d’intérêt stratégique pour de nombreux usages sur ce territoire (eau potable de communes, campings sur le littoral, agriculteurs, particuliers…). Les sollicitations croissantes et non coordonnées, allant jusqu’à sa surexploitation dans les années 80, l’ont rendue particulièrement vulnérable, tant au plan quantitatif que qualitatif.

Les collectivités publiques(communes, communautés d’agglomération, conseil général) et chambres consulaires locales ont alors constitué un syndicat mixte, le SMETA, pour l’étude, la gestion et les travaux nécessaires à la protection de cette nappe

A son initiative, et avec l’appui de l’Etat et de l’Agence de l’Eau, des actions à caractère innovant ont été engagées : premier « contrat de nappe » (1997-2002) mis en œuvre en France, pour prendre les mesures d’urgence en matière de protection de la nappe, mieux maîtriser les prélèvements et instaurer une gestion intégrée ; deuxième contrat de nappe (2004-2008) visant à arrêter une politique de gestion durable de l’aquifère. Les programmes opérationnels résultant de ces contrats se sont concrétisés par de nombreuses actions, dont le bilan est certes très positif, mais reste insuffisant au regard des enjeux et des objectifs fixés par le Schéma Directeur d'Aménagement et de Gestion de l'Eau (SDAGE) en application de la DCE .

Il apparaît que ces objectifs ne peuvent être atteints sans l’implication de l’ensemble des acteurs concernés. Pour ce faire, une démarche de SAGE (Schéma d’Aménagement et de Gestion des Eaux) sur le territoire concerné par la nappe de l’Astien, a été engagée et est portée par le SMETA.

Le SAGE est une démarche collective de planification, fixant des objectifs et principes généraux d'utilisation, de mise en valeur, de protection quantitative et qualitative de la ressource en eau. Il implique et engage in fine tous les acteurs du territoire dans la diversité de leurs intérêts et de leurs besoins. Il est en effet élaboré sous la responsabilité d’une Commission Locale de l’Eau (« CLE »), instance de concertation composée de 3 collèges : élus locaux (50%°), représentants de l’Etat (25%), usagers (25%) document.

Compte tenu de l’existence d’échanges par transfert d’eau avec les bassins voisins, une procédure d’inter-SAGE est en outre en cours d’engagement pour assurer la nécessaire coordination

Aujourd’hui, les contrats de nappe sont soldés ; le SMETA poursuit un programme d’actions visant à assurer la continuité des actions conduites depuis 10 ans, améliorer les connaissances sur la nappe et développer les outils de gestion. Le SAGE, initié en 2007 est encore en cours d’élaboration, avec en 2011 la finalisation de l’état initial et la formulation des enjeux de gestion de l’eau à travers le diagnostic. Il reste à élaborer les scénarios et arrêter la stratégie.

D’ores et déjà, l’ensemble des acteurs réunis au sein de la Commission Locale de l’Eau se sont engagés à assurer durablement, de manière concertée, la gestion patrimoniale de la ressource et l’atteinte des objectifs quantitatifs et qualitatifs de la DCE. Forts de cette implication ils se sont mobilisés pour éviter tout prélèvement anarchique et pour améliorer sensiblement l’état quantitatif et qualitatif de la ressource. Concrètement, des dispositifs de délestage ont été mis en place, les communes ont réalisé des économies d’eau significatives, en limitant les pertes sur réseau, en incitant les usagers à réduire leur consommation ; le SMETA a bouché les forages défectueux menaçant de polluer la nappe, ..

Les actions menées sur la nappe d’eau souterraine des sables astiens, par leur caractère exemplaire, font école. Le SMETA a accueilli à plusieurs reprises des délégations étrangères pour présenter les opérations mises en place, ainsi que des gestionnaires d’autres ressources souterraines en France.

9	Dinaric Arc Sustainable Hydropower Initiative (DASHI) –

Implication des parties prenantes pour une gestion durable de l'hydroélectricité

et la protection des écosystèmes d'eau douce dans les Balkans Occidentaux

Organisation :WWF Mediterranean Programme Office (MedPO)

Adresse courriel : aklauschen@wwf.panda.org

LienURL :http://mediterranean.panda.org/about/med_freshwater/the_dinaric_arc_sustainable_hydropower_initiative2/

Le programme DASHI vise à assurer la viabilité à long-terme des écosystèmes aquatiques dans les Balkan Occidentaux (Dinaric Arc) vis-à-vis du développement rapide des infrastructures hydroélectriques.

Le «boom» de l'hydroélectricité dans la région étant dû à une multiplicité de facteurs - le potentiel hydroélectrique des rivières de la région, la demande énergétique accrue au niveau local, la recherche de revenus supplémentaires pour la région à travers l'exportation d'énergie et l'intérêt croissant des investisseurs étrangers encouragés par la promotion des énergies renouvelables dans le cadre de la lutte contre le changement climatique – DASHI a pour but de mobiliser les parties prenantes clés par la création d'alliances entre des organisations diverses de la société civile régionale (venant du secteur environnemental, gouvernance/transparence, social) et en facilitant des activités de dialogue/lobbying/ coopération/etc. qui ciblent à la fois les autorités gouvernementales compétentes (gestionnaires de l'eau, administration énergétique) et le secteur hydroélectrique privé international.

Dans ce but, le WWF analyse la durabilité des projets d'infrastructure planifiés ou existants, propose des solutions pour leur amélioration ou des alternatives appropriées en se fondant sur un argumentaire technique et scientifique de qualité.

Ce projet vise donc à renforcer la participation des acteurs à la gouvernance de l’eau, et à améliorer les articulations entre les niveaux, par la prise en compte des parties prenantes, notamment de la société civile, dans les processus décisionnels relatifs à la planification et l'opération des infrastructures hydrauliques par les autorités publiques, au niveau national et local.

Cette implication de la société civile nécessite de l’assistance technique, un renforcement des capacités, et fait appel à des techniques et démarches de communication, de lobbying auprès des décideurs politiques, dans un souci d’amélioration du dialogue entre les parties prenantes, à l’aide d'un arsenal d'arguments intégrant les aspects environnementaux, économiques, sociaux et relatifs à la bonne gouvernance (transparence) pour conduire à des choix durables en matière de développement.

The AWARE Project : a method to link

research, policy-making and the public about coastal waters in Europe

Organisation : ISIS & al (contact : Carlo SESSA)

Email address : info@aware.eu

For additional information : www.aware-eu.net

An effective citizens and stakeholders participation mechanisms has been recently designed and tested in three pilot coastal areas in Europe ( the Gulf of Riga in Latvia and Estonia, the Southern North Sea in France and Belgium, and one Méditerranean : the Goro lagoon in Italy) by the project AWARE, funded by the EC in the frame of the FP7 program, which shows how to connect different science and policy governance levels – EU and local – in the water sector.

In a nutshell, the objectives of the AWARE project have been to: a) enhance connectivity between research, policy-making and the public by b) linking research to policy development in the field of sustainable water management in order to c) achieve a good ecological status of coastal waters in Europe. The AWARE approach recognises that there two ways to improve water governance, beyond the conventional way of democratic societies based on established formal procedures (e.g. public inquiries as prescribed by law):

a “participation-limited management” approach, supporting the close interaction between scientists and policy, but less with citizens or stakeholders. This approach characterises, for instance, the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive, which sets up several thematic working groups engaging scientists and water managers to develop a better Science-Policy Interface (SPI).

an “integrated adaptive management” approach, whereby it is possible to design, implement and learn from a closer interaction between science, policy, stakeholders, and citizens (i.e. a better Science-Citizens-Policy Interface – SCPI) : AWARE has implemented this last management approach

The project AWARE developed therefore a new way of connecting scientists, citizens and policy makers to enhance the effectiveness of their participation and cooperation in the water policy formulation, evaluation and decision-making process. The project is a best practice of knowledge brokerage activities, which have taken place at the local and at the EU level, involving similar sets of actors.

To begin with, a European level workshop gathered all project partners including the scientists, a panel of randomly selected citizens from three pilot case study areas, and various stakeholders and decision-makers, to start the three different case studies on an equal footing with respect to knowledge of the topic and of the relevant EU legislation. This initial workshop was then followed by a set of workshops and a public conference in each of the case study regions, to enable each group of citizens to produce a local declaration on the management of specific environmental and societal challenges – coastal water quality in the case of AWARE. The local citizen declarations were then combined into one set of common recommendations during a final European workshop. The result in the form of a European Citizen Declaration on better management of the environmental and societal challenges discussed at the European level have been presented at a final European conference attended by stakeholders and decision-makers. The workshops and the conferences aimed to create a “public sphere” for transparent dialogue among scientists, citizens, stakeholders, and decision-makers. The overall process is outlined in the figure overleaf.

Nowadays the dialogue between scientists, policy makers and the end users targeted by water policies works – to say the least – unevenly across different countries and different levels of governance. There is a need to bridge the gap between the citizens’ locally specific and experiential knowledge, perspective and understanding of the topic, that of the elected representatives, and the more technical perspectives usually hold by the water managers and the experts involved in the water policy formulation process

Results and lessons learned from the project are summarized in the AWARE brochure available at www.aware-eu.net. One key lesson is that, by mainstreaming the AWARE approach, a better multi-level governance of water policy issues can be achieved linking central and decentralized levels across Europe, and ensuring a constant interface and brokerage of scientific and local knowledge at all levels.

AWARE method could be used to engender a continuous informal process of consultation on key sustainability issues, enabling a more productive public-policy interaction and raising awareness .

11 Mise en oeuvre du projet INDH-INMAE d’accès aux services d’eau potable et d’assainissement à Casablanca : une solution multi-dimensionnelle institutionnelle, sociale, technico-financière

Organisation: Lyonnaise Des Eaux de Casablanca, LYDEC (filiale de SUEZ Environnement)

Contact :Jean Pierre Ermenault Directeur Général Lydec:

Le projet INDH-INMAE de Lydec vise la généralisation de l’accès aux services d’eau potable et d’assainissement aux quartiers d’habitat non réglementaire de la Région du Grand Casablanca. Les Autorités publiques décident en amont du maintien sur place des populations de ces quartiers ou de leur déplacement vers des sites de logements ou de lotissements sociaux. En cas de maintien sur place, les services d’eau et d’assainissement sont ensuite apportés à domicile : ils constituent la première étape d’un processus d’intégration urbaine des quartiers défavorisés.

Cette solution repose sur la mise en place par les autorités et Lydec de mécanismes de financement spécifiques, avec notamment l’octroi de subventions, qui a permis la réalisation de 45% du programme sur la période 2005-2012. Au démarrage du projet en 2005, l’Autorité Délégante (le conseil de la Ville) et Lydec ont défini un cadre financier propre au projet ; l’Autorité Délégante accorde une exonération des participations prévues dans le contrat de gestion déléguée ; Lydec prend à sa charge les coûts de gestion du projet ; les ménages bénéficiaires contribuent à hauteur de 10% du coût de leur raccordement sur la base d’un tarif social : 360 € pour l’eau et l’assainissement (avec un étalement possible sur 7 ans).

Le projet INDH-INMAE en association avec tous ses bailleurs de fond a contribué à de nombreux changements pour ces quartiers jusqu’à alors privés d’infrastructures. Les principaux impacts observés suite au raccordement de 36.000 ménages sur 104 quartiers (soit 45% de l’objectif final) sont :

-une reconnaissance des Autorités publiques qui permettra des investissements pour la remise à niveau du quartier (école, centre de santé, transports …)

-un investissement quasi immédiat dans les constructions : construction d’un premier étage ; embellissement de la façade, investissement dans des équipements sanitaires ..

-émergence d’une vie de quartier avec une occupation plus importante des espaces publics par les femmes (broderies, etc) par les enfants, et également avec l’ouverture de nouveaux magasins (épiceries ou téléboutiques), ou petits ateliers (tôlerie, ou menuiserie)

-l’image du quartier se normalise progressivement : de quartier informel il passe à celui de populaire

-la santé et l’hygiène sont également des indicateurs quant à l’amélioration générale des conditions de vie.

L’accès aux services a un impact immédiat sur le terrain et sur le champ politique territorial. La proximité avec les acteurs locaux a renforcé leur rôle et fait évoluer le traitement de la question des quartiers non réglementaires d’une approche sécuritaire à une approche globale et concertée avec les populations. Des transformations sociales et morphologiques des quartiers raccordés sont observées. L’arrivée des services sécurise la trajectoire résidentielle des habitants au travers de la reconnaissance de leur statut d’occupation : ils accèdent à une forme de citoyenneté. Les populations investissent aussi dans l’amélioration de leurs habitations (travaux sanitaires, extensions …).

Un tel projet, pour aboutir, implique

-la connaissance préalable de la réalité sociopolitique des quartiers ciblés par ce type de programme et de la gouvernance informelle qui les régit (alliances et conflits entre autorité locale, élus, associations et habitants) ;

-des pratiques d’échanges basées sur la proximité avec ces acteurs, tenant compte des véritables motifs d’acceptation sociale du projet, dépolitisant les sujets abordés et construisant un réseau d’acteurs ressources,

- une méthodologie de projet tirée du terrain distinguant les niveaux d’intervention, opérationnel et stratégique, qui doivent rester cohérents et proches pour permettre une réactivité et une prise de décision rapide et transparente ;

-enfin, une clarification des rôles respectifs des acteurs du projet : la décision politique et les choix sociaux relèvent des autorités nationales et locales, l’opérateur assume les dispositifs techniques et la mise en œuvre du projet.

12- Gouvernance de la gestion du risque inondations : exemple du processus Français

Organisation : Association VERSEAU DEVELOPPEMENT

Adresse courriel :Verseau Développement – Claude LEFROU : claude.lefrou@sfr.fr

Lien URL Websites: http://www.verseaudeveloppement.com

http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/sections/a_l_interieur/defense_et_securite_civiles/gestion-risques

http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/-Risques-naturels-et-ouvrages-.html

Dans les Pays Méditerranéens des pluies soudaines et de forte intensité peuvent être à l’origine d’inondations catastrophiques, notamment sur de petits bassins versants. Ces crues brutales peuvent entraîner des dégâts matériels importants et même entraîner des victimes humaines. La gestion de la crise nécessite la mobilisation rapide de moyens adaptés, ce qui nécessite une organisation appropriée à différents niveaux et la participation de nombreux acteurs. En France l’organisation mise en place est le fruit du retour d’expérience sur les crues catastrophiques des dernières décennies.

Vouloir mettre en place une Gouvernance appropriée pour gérer au mieux le risque inondation, nécessite une intervention coordonnée et permanente sur les composantes majeures qui constituent la chaîne logistique d’un plan d’action à différentes étapes : Prévention / Gestion de la crise / Gestion de la post-crise / Retour d’expérience

La responsabilisation des acteurs compétents et leur coordination, sont structurées dans un cadre national et local, lisible, qui constitue l’ossature de la solution et de son efficacité permanente.

En matière de prévention, L’Etat définit le cadre juridique de la gestion des risques naturels, et en particulier des risques de crues.. Il évalue le risque, précise les modalités de son porter à connaissance et définit les responsabilités des acteurs concernés.

Dans le domaine de l’urbanisme, il est établi pour chaque commune concernée par un risque d’inondation un Plan de Prévention du Risque d’Inondation (PPRI). La protection des personnes ou des biens peut justifier des travaux visant à réduire l’aléa. Ils font l’objet de Plans d’Action pour la Protection contre les Inondations (PAPI).

En cas de crue grave, les moyens d’information et de secours sont coordonnés à deux niveaux :

La cellule de crise départementale, placée sous l’autorité du Préfet, fonctionne en permanence pendant toute la durée de la crise. Elle doit être en liaison avec les municipalités, le ministère de l’Intérieur et les médias.

La cellule de crise communale, dans les communes dotées de Plans Communaux de Sauvegarde (PCS), est placée sous l’autorité du Maire responsable de la sécurité publique dans sa commune. Elle joue un rôle essentiel d’alerte de la population notamment en zone inondable

Lorsque la situation météorologique et hydrologique est redevenue normale, il faut réparer et organiser le retour le plus rapide possible à une vie normale de la cité .

Le retour d’expérience sur l’événement naturel, ses conséquences et la gestion de la crise sont indispensables pour mieux caler les modèles de prévision et améliorer la prévention dans la zone concernée.

Ainsi, la mise en place d’une Gouvernance de prévention et de gestion de la crise peut permettre d’en réduire les conséquences dommageables. La prévention peut réduire les aléas, mais surtout agir sur la vulnérabilité.

L’organisation de la gestion de la crise doit associer tous les acteurs qui interviennent dans l’urgence afin d’assurer la cohérence de leurs interventions, dans un double souci :

La rapidité de transmission de l’information à tous les niveaux et sa fiabilité.

Le comportement de la population et des agents économiques qui doivent avoir été associés à la prévention et disposer pendant la crise d’une information leur permettant d’avoir les bons réflexes.

13 Etablissement et animation d'une plateforme d'ONG marocaines travaillant sur les aspects de la Politique Européenne de Voisinage (PEV) liés à la gestion durable de l'eau

Organisation:

WWF Mediterranean Programme Office (MedPO)

Adresse courriel:

aklauschen@wwf.panda.org

Lien URL pour informations complémentaires :

http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/factsheet_maroc_enp_fr_low_res.pdf

mots-clé : Autorités Locales, Décentralisation, Gouvernance multi-niveaux, Régulation, Coordination, Consultation.

Description synthétique:

Au Maroc, le WWF travaille notamment sur les aspects de la PEV relatifs aux écosystèmes d’eau douce, le pays connaissant un nombre croissant de difficultés quant à l’accès et à la gestion de cette ressource naturelle cruciale.

Dans le cadre de la PEV, qui finance des activités ayant un impact sur l’état et l’utilisation des ressources en eau, le WWF travaille avec une vingtaine d’ONG, présentes sur l’ensemble du territoire marocain et représentatives d’un très large éventail de la société civile dans le domaine de la protection de l’environnement et du développement durable.

Avec celles-ci, il a mis en place un Groupe de Travail sur la PEV (GdT) afin :

• d’informer les ONG sur les divers instruments de la PEV au Maroc, ainsi que sur l‘instrument fi nancier relatif ・cette politique, l’instrument européen de voisinage et de partenariat (IEVP) ;

• de les aider à explorer les moyens disponibles pour influencer les aspects environnementaux de la PEV dans le contexte national ;

• de les aider àformuler des priorités de financement de l’IEVP pour le Maroc pour la période 2011-2013 (en particulier dans le cadre de la révision ・mi-parcours du Document de Stratégie Pays 2007-2013 et de la préparation du Programme Indicatif National 2011-2013).

Cette solution permettra d’atteindre l’objectif-cible, grâce au renforcement des connaissances de la société civile dans la gestion durable des gestion en eau et les techniques de plaidoyer /lobbying, afin de permettre/faciliter la prise en compte de ses positions par les acteurs politiques nationaux et la Commission Européenne, et ainsi influencer la politique extérieure de l'UE en matière de gestion de l'eau et des ressources naturelles dans les pays du voisinage.

On peut ainsi attendre une meilleure prise en considération de l'avis de la société civile dans la politique nationale de l'eau, dialogue accru entre société civile et institutions supra-nationales (p.ex. Européennes) et nationales.

Even if, initially, it did not adequately take into account the issue of climate change and the Mediterranean specificities, which do however foreshadow predicted evolutions in northern European countries

Mark Giordano’s presentations in the Regional Workshops ( Ain Sukhna, March 2009 ; Amman, June 2010) on Water Governance Benchmarking in the MENA Region : see <www.rewab.net>

See also, in the Arab Process, the Iraki proposal of establishment of "National Water Council" as a platform for policy and programs in the water sector after the dramatic changes in the political setting (having in mind a transition towards more federalism and broad decentralization of authority replacing the tightly centralized system of governance).

Cf presentation at the Governance session of the 2nd Arab Water Forum, Cairo November 2011

This topic has been much documented : cf for instance www.riob.org, ou www.eaufrance.fr>Agir et participer>Participer>Concertation