Download the final report - Groundwater Governance

Global Environmental Facility Project“Groundwater Governance: A Global Framework for Action”(FAO, GEF, IAH, UNESCO‐IHP, World Bank)FIFTH REGIONAL CONSULTATION:UNECE REGIONThe Hague Institute for Global JusticeThe Hague, The Netherlands19‐21 March 2013FINAL REPORTJac van der GunGeneral Rapporteur

Participants of the 5 th Regional Consultation Meeting in The Hague, 19‐21 March 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTSpageList of Acronymsiv1 INTRODUCTION 12 OPENING CEREMONY 33 PLENARY SESSIONS 43.1 Plenary Session 1: Setting the Scene 43.2 Plenary Session 2: Regional and International Instruments 53.3 Plenary Session 3: Legal and Institutional Aspects 63.4 Plenary Session 4: Groundwater Governance: Regional and NationalExperiences in Europe and Central Asia 83.5 Plenary Session 5a: Groundwater Governance: Focus on Canada and USA 83.6 Plenary Session 6 and 8: Groundwater Governance: Regional and NationalExperiences (continued) 93.7 Plenary Session 5b: Groundwater Governance: How to Overcome Competitionin Water Scarce Regions and in International River Basins 113.8 Plenary Session 7: Groundwater Data and Information: A Crucial Tool forGroundwater Governance 133.9 Plenary Session 9: Closing Session: Synthesis of Questionnaires,Recommendations on Setting up the Framework for Action, and ClosingMessages 164 WORKING GROUPS 184.1 WG1: Analysis and Assessment of the Major Legislative Instruments in theRegion 184.2 WG2: Rural Groundwater: How to Address the Tensions 184.3 WG3: River Basins Management and Groundwater Governance 194.4 WG4: Private and Public Sectors Interaction: How to Act Together forGroundwater Governance? 194.5 WG5: Capacity on Monitoring and Management of Groundwater Data: A KeyTarget for Institutions 194.6 WG6: Groundwater Governance: Public Participation and Conflicts Prevention 205 ROUNDTABLE ON PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS COOPERATION: “WORKINGHAND IN HAND FOR GROUNDWATER GOVERNANCE” 215.1 Background and objectives 215.2 Participants 215.3 Items for the debate 215.4 Structure of the Roundtable 215.5 Summary of outcomes 22APPENDICES 23Appendix 1: Agenda of the Meeting 24Appendix 2: List of Participants 32Appendix 3: Synthesis of the Replies to the Groundwater Governance Questionnaire 38Appendix 4: Report on the Roundtable on Private and Public Sectors Cooperation 57iii

List of AcronymsAZEBGRBGSBIHCANCERCLACHECZEDEUDNKECESPEUFAOGBRGEFGRCGWBGWPHUNHVRIAHICPDRIGRACIHMEINBOINWEBISARMISLISRIWRMMARNLDOECDPCMPPPRBMPRCRAR&DROUSRBTBATSCATURUKUNGAUNECEAzerbaijanBundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (German Federal Institutefor Geosciences and Natural Resources)British Geological SurveyBosnia and HerzegovinaCanadaComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (USA)SwitzerlandCzech RepublicGermanyDenmarkEuropean CommissionSpainEuropean UnionFood and Agricultural Organization of the United NationsUnited KingdomGlobal Environmental FacilityGreeceGroundwater bodyGlobal Water PartnershipHungaryCroatiaInternational Association of HydrogeologistsInternational Commission for the Protection of the Danube RiverInternational Groundwater Resources Assessment CentreInternational Hydrogeological Map of EuropeInternational Network of Basin OrganizationsInternational Network of Water‐Environment Centres for the BalkansInternationally Shared Aquifer Resources ManagementIcelandIsraelIntegrated Water Resources ManagementManaged Aquifer RechargeThe NetherlandsOrganisation for Economic Co‐operation and DevelopmentPermanent Consultation MechanismPublic‐Private PartnershipRiver Basin Management PlanResource Conservation Recovery Act (USA)Research and DevelopmentRomaniaSerbiaTransboundary AquiferToxic Substance Control Act (USA)TurkeyUnited KingdomUnited Nations General AssemblyUnited Nations Economic Commission for Europeiv

UNESCOUNESCO‐IHEUNESCO‐IHPUNWCUSAUZBWASHWFDWHYMAPWHYMISWIPOWMOWWFUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUNESCO’s Institute for Water EducationUNESCO’s International Hydrological ProgrammeUN Watercourse ConventionUnited States of AmericaUzbekistanWater, Sanitation and HygieneWater Framework DirectiveWorld‐wide Hydrogeological Mapping and Assessment ProgrammeWorld‐wide Hydrogeological Map Information SystemWorld Intellectual Property OrganizationWorld Water Assessment ProgrammeWorld Wildlife Fundv

1. INTRODUCTION“Groundwater Governance: A Global Framework for Action” is a Global Environment Facility (GEF) project,implemented during the period 2011‐2014 by the international organisations FAO, IAH, UNESCO‐IHP andthe World Bank, in close co‐operation with relevant regional and national organisations. The mainobjective of the project is to raise awareness of the importance of groundwater resources for many regionsof the world, and to identify and promote best practices in groundwater governance as a way to achievethe sustainable management of groundwater resources.The project is carried out in two phases. The first phase reviews the global situation of groundwatergovernance and aims to develop a Global Groundwater Diagnostic that integrates regional and countryexperiences with prospects for the future. This phase builds on a series of case studies, thematic papers, asynthesis report and five regional consultations. The second phase is expected to produce a GlobalFramework for Action. This will consist of a set of policy and institutional guidelines, recommendations andbest practices designed to improve groundwater management at country/ local level, and groundwatergovernance at local, national and transboundary levels. Written project outputs can be found on theproject’s website: www.groundwatergovernance.org.The five regional consultations conducted as part of the first phase of the project are the following:No Region covered Period Location1 Latin America and the Caribbean 18‐20 April 2012 Montevideo, Uruguay2 Sub‐Saharan Africa 29‐31 May 2012 Nairobi, Kenya3 Arab states 8‐10 October 2012 Amman, Jordan4 Asia and Pacific Region 3‐5 December 2012 Shijiazhuang, China5 UNECE Region 19‐21 March 2013 The Hague, The NetherlandsThe results of the regional consultations will contribute to the preparation of the previously mentionedGlobal Groundwater Diagnostic and Global Framework for Action. The direct objectives of the regionalconsultations are: Compiling first‐hand knowledge about the main features of the region, provided by direct localsources – groundwater experts, resource managers and actors in different areas Discussing the different issues that arise from the specific characteristics, challenges and prioritiesof the region, based on case studies elaborated by national experts Building partnerships amongst cross‐sectorial collaborating project agencies, stakeholders,decision‐makers and specialists.The Fifth Regional Consultation in The Hague (19‐21 March 2013) was organised by UNESCO‐IHP, incooperation with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and with the support ofUNESCO‐WMO International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC). It was held under thepatronage of the National Commission of The Netherlands for UNESCO, the National Committee of TheNetherlands for the UNESCO‐IHP and the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment of The Netherlands.The venue if the meeting was at The Hague Institute for Global Justice, Sophialaan 10, The Hague.The region in focus during this meeting was the territory of the so‐called UNECE region. This region coversthe territories of the UNECE member states and includes Europe, Canada and the USA, Israel, Turkey andthe countries of Central Asia (see http://www.unece.org/oes/nutshell/member_states_representatives.html).1

freshwater is groundwater and 46% of drinking water comes from groundwater. There is no single federallaw governing groundwater resources. Groundwater quality is a federal issue; quantity is a state issue. Thefederal government regulates drinking water quality through the Safe Drinking Water Act and the qualityof discharges through the Clean Water Act. The states rely on five different groundwater governancemechanisms, with a table in his presentation explaining the five. Regarding pollution, there is the ResourceConservation Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). The ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) imposes strict liability for cleanup ofhazardous sites. However, the Superfund Trust Fund ran out of money ten years ago. Funding nowdepends on annual federal budgeting. CERCLA involves prioritizing sites, but it does not specifically focuson groundwater resources. It is broad in scope, however, in how it may apply to aquifers. The presentationconcluded with some comments on transboundary groundwater governance, noting that the U.S. has nogroundwater policies either between the states or with other countries.Stefani Burchi (AIDA) spoke about groundwater legislation in selected UNECE countries. He noted anumber of themes that emerge from comparative analysis: ownership of groundwater; groundwaterextraction and use, including groundwater ‘mining’; conjunctive use; groundwater pollution control;protection of natural recharge; artificial recharge of aquifers; groundwater planning; and participation ofgroundwater users. The matter of public or private ownership is important, noting that groundwater is stillperceived as intensely private even where publicly controlled through permitting. In some cases, theecosystem support function of groundwater is acknowledged in appraising requests for groundwaterpermits or licenses. Conjunctive use, prior appropriation and correlation as a single source were discussed.Irrigators using groundwater may actually move return flows to streams, and special boards exist for thejoint development and use of surface water and groundwater. Groundwater pollution control from diffusesources, such as fertilizers, is pursued through adoption of standards for good agricultural practices as wellas land use controls. Regarding groundwater quantity management, there are several mechanisms toprotect natural groundwater recharge and to permit artificial recharge and well drilling. Groundwaterusers’ participation through representation in planning groups and advisory committees was also noted.Concluding comments highlighted the rich and diversified nature of groundwater‐relevant regulation, theimportance of urban development, the connection between groundwater management and land usecontrols, and the need for better coordination among the different administrative institutions. In addition,constraints should not be placed on conjunctive use; the ‘use it or lose it’ principle is a potentialimpediment.The final speaker, Attila Tanzi (University of Bologna), spoke about governance in the context oftransboundary waters. Addressing transboundary groundwater governance has many challenges forlawyers. The law does not dictate governance but rather may enhance governance. Nevertheless, there is alack of enforcement of existing laws. Law‐making and interpreting the laws includes site visits withhydrogeologists and, in some instances, the parties may get to negotiated settlement. The differentgeological settings make addressing transboundary governance difficult. In the UNECE region there are nospecific groundwater treaties except for the Franco‐Swiss agreement, there is limited reference togroundwater in existing transboundary water agreements, and little cooperation in practice. Problemsinclude lack of administrative coordination, limited availability of information, and poor groundwatermonitoring. Coordination is hampered by lack of exchange of information and methodologies and limitedinvolvement of groundwater experts in the work of existing joint bodies. Associated with transboundarygroundwater are obligations, such as the obligation not to cause significant harm. The nine provisions ofthe ILC (International Law Commission) 2008 Draft Articles that were discussed provide non‐bindingguidance. They include: reducing transboundary impacts and making sure use is equitable and reasonable;sustainable use; coordinated or joint aquifer characterization and monitoring; integrated management ofsurface water and groundwater; prevention, control and reduction of pollution; exchange of informationand data; joint or coordinated planning; environmental impact assessment and availability of informationto the public; and establishment of a joint body. The UN General Assembly draft resolution ontransboundary aquifers has helped draw attention to these articles and the importance of addressingtransboundary groundwater.7

There was no debate during this session due to time constraints.3.4 Plenary Session 4: Groundwater Governance: Regional and National Experiences in Europeand Central AsiaThis session comprised five presentations, geographically ranging from the Aral Sea in Central Asia (byAkmal Karimov of IWMI) to the Caucasus (Alishidin Alakbarov of Azerbaijan) to central‐eastern Europe(Hana Prchalova of the Czech Republic; Ruxandra Balaet of Romania; and Teodora Szöcs of Hungary). Ineach case, the speaker summarized the main characteristics of the area’s water resources, highlightingsalient issues. As requested, each presenter also addressed groundwater characteristics and identifiedinteresting governance problems, challenges, and lessons. The water‐use characteristics varied broadly—from a primarily agricultural setting in Central Asia and the Caucasus (where as much as 86‐88% of water isused for irrigation), to much more mixed and even urban economies in the 14‐country Danube Basin,within which the other three countries lie (where in some places, as much as 90% of groundwater is usedby households as drinking water).All speakers offered details about the various institutions—central, provincial and local governmentministries and agencies, legislative bodies, user associations, NGOs, and instruments such as treaties thatplay some role in governing groundwater resources in the respective areas. And while surface watercontinues to draw most attention in each place, groundwater is increasingly relied on for all sectors. In theAral Sea region and in the Caucasus, irrigation causes serious pollution, which remains highly localizedrather than regional. In the European areas, compromise of quality is much more likely to arise because ofindustrial activity. The speakers also confirmed that infrastructure—physical, institutional, andinformational—is strikingly poorer in the eastern regions than in Europe, where Hungary and the CzechRepublic are the best endowed.In addition, all five areas that were reported on have major transboundary aquifers and as a result,confront transnational groundwater governance issues—both in regard to supply and quality. The DanubeBasin has 11 transboundary aquifers, and some, such as the ones between Hungary and its neighbours, areespecially contentious. In each case, the level of response to transboundary challenges varies, even withina country. Ms. Szöcs of the Hungarian Geological and Geophysical Institute provided examples of someespecially innovative transboundary accords, including one on geothermal resources.Pieter van der Zaag (Chair of the session), in his summary, pointed to the following take‐away messages:(1) In the Aral Sea region, the effects of climate change and the efforts to save energy are especiallynoteworthy. (2) In Azerbaijan, the audience heard of multiple efforts underway—in spite of the absence ofIWRM, the lack of control of groundwater use, the lack of a legal base for groundwater management, andthe poor availability of information. (3) The Czech Republic, by contrast, benefits from all of the above andeven boasts a surfeit of expertise. (4) Romania, a large country, was shown to be extremely complex, withgreat regional variation and five neighbours with which it shares aquifers. (5) Hungary, which has anelaborate set of laws and acts, has pioneered some innovative transboundary pacts.Selected comments from the debate: Hungary possesses groundwater legislation that is actually being enforced Hungary is a rare example of a where geothermal and groundwater resources crossed by internationalboundaries are jointly managed.3.5 Plenary Session 5a: Groundwater Governance: Focus on Canada and USAIn the first presentation of this session, Sharon Megdal (University of Arizona) summarised the results of agroundwater governance survey in the USA. A simple survey has been conducted: one person per statewas questioned. One of the main conclusions is that groundwater governance is highly decentralised in theUSA and as a result there are many differences between the states. There is a lot of diversity in terms of8

the users of groundwater subject to state groundwater regulations. Most respondents report that thereare formal groundwater policies, rules, or regulations in their state. There is a lot of diversity in tools andstrategies to manage groundwater use and quantity; priorities vary between states; the role of the courtsin groundwater issues in the states varies; and significant variation exists in recognizing the connectionbetween surface and groundwater and in considering the water needs of groundwater dependentecosystems. Survey respondents report differences in terms of agency capacity to carry out policies andresponsibilities, and of public access to groundwater information. A phase II survey will follow to get ‐among others ‐ also information on what is working and what not, and to get information on variationswithin the states.In the second presentation, Alfonso Rivera (Geological Survey of Canada) emphasised the enormous sizeof Canada and the special challenge posed by huge variations (geology, geography and climate) within thecountry. Canada should be seen as thirteen countries in one. Canada’s water governance is highlydecentralised, which has resulted in fragmented (ground)water governance with sometimes negativeimpacts on the ability to manage water resources. Water is primarily regulated at the provincial orterritorial level (13 jurisdictions, subdivided in 4 levels!), though the federal government (20departments!), aboriginal governments and municipalities also exercise control over different aspects ofwater. Water policies and legislation across the Canadian provinces and territories are remarkable for theirdegree of diversity. Vertically, there is inter‐jurisdictional fragmentation between the federal andprovincial governments. Horizontally, there is fragmentation across the provinces and territories and bothcross‐ and inter‐departmentally within provincial and territorial governments. There is a serious lack ofdata on groundwater in Canada, which hinders good groundwater management and governance. This isnow recognised by all governments as a gap to be filled. The last decade institutions and organisationshave been including groundwater in their plans, which helps to improve national cooperation, vision andconsensus on groundwater. Strong science‐based regulations are the preferred choice of most provincesfor water management and governance. Public consultation, collaboration, shared management andgovernance are Canadian features of applying a code of values and ethics in all aspects related togovernance.Selected comments, questions and answers from the debate: C: Courts in Europe are rarely used as a last resort in water issues, while in the USA they seem to beused upfront C: From the USA presentation is seems apparent that some areas within a state have ‘high governancelevels’ and others ‘low’. It was stated that this should be based on groundwater priorities and thatthese priorities should be regularly updated. Q: How are tensions between the federal and the State/Provincial levels addressed? A: Canadianexample of oil sands in Alberta: Federal responsibilities lie in development (of oil sands in this case) onone hand. But on the other hand social pressure have lead to fully independent federal panel toevaluate environmental impacts. In USA, federal versus state tensions are not the most relevant issue,even though they exist. Political will to connect land use planning to water resources management ismore relevant.3.6 Plenary session 5b: Groundwater Governance: How to Overcome Competition in WaterScarce Regions and in International River BasinsIn his presentation on building groundwater governance in a changing environment, Müfit Şefik Doğdu(State Hydraulic Works, Turkey) mentioned as main groundwater problems in Turkey: groundwateroverexploitation and unregistered wells resulting in water shortages, falling groundwater levels and landsubsidence and collapsing. Locally there are groundwater quality problems: excess nitrate contents causedby fertilisers and salt water intrusion coastal aquifers.Governance action has triggered the implementation of a large number of measures. Four critical riverbasins (out of 25) have been closed to groundwater exploitation (=no new wells or increased abstraction)9

y cabinet decision. Based on the Groundwater Law, wells in critical (4) and semi‐critical (10) basins haveto be equipped with flow meters and control cards which prevent abstraction beyond allocation.Groundwater action plans have been prepared to define realistic groundwater allocation schemes.Additional measures are taken to transfer surface water to drought‐prone areas. Irrigation systems arerenewed to decrease water losses and measures are enforced by linking measures to abstraction licenses.Capacity building projects have been implemented, including awareness campaigns (TV and posters),education, information meetings for local governments and stakeholders, groundwater‐related database,meetings to increase transparency. There are several laws related to groundwater management.Agriculture is the largest groundwater user; so to improve the situation, agricultural policies should beconsidered to reduce water use.The presentation of Emilio Custodio (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain) focused on lessons learntabout Groundwater Governance in Spain and the role of the Water Users Associations.Typical groundwater problems in Spain are: groundwater head drawdown, ‘mining’ in some areas,interference of abstractions with spring and river flow, saline intrusion into aquifers, groundwater qualityimpairment, desiccation of important wetlands, excessive litigation in civil and administrative courts,proliferation of wells that pump more than 7000 m 3 /year.Groundwater is considered a public good (subject to licensing) only since 1985, while before this date iswas considered a private commodity. The corresponding 1985 Law has not been very successful, as mostwells in existence before 1985 continue to be in the private domain. Furthermore, there are complianceand enforcement problems. Top‐down government actions have been ineffective (lack of trust andtransparency), but ‘bottom‐up’ measures work better: there are good experiences with groundwater userassociations based on surface water user associations which have been existing for 7 to 10 centuries! Asuccessful example is the Lower LLobregat Groundwater Users Community. Groundwater usersassociations are important for governance but progress is slow and they need to develop further and theirrole needs to be accepted by the government.In his presentation “The Reason for Unreasonableness in Groundwater Quality Governance” Daniel Ronen(Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel) gave several examples of ‘bad groundwater management/governance’:(1) Trying to restore contaminated aquifers to pristine conditions: unrealistic goal resulted in extremecosts( $5 billion in USA) with very limited results. This was followed by an over‐reaction:(2) Natural attenuation to resolve contamination (do nothing). Time frame is unrealistic and someprocesses of natural attenuation actually result in more hazardous decay products and risks withvolatile substances. Through continued research more risks are exposed: e.g. hormones ingroundwater, antibiotics, etc.(3) Managed Aquifer Recharge can result in new groundwater quality risks: e.g. infiltrating run‐off inurban areas.(4) Ignoring processes like climate change and population growth (increased demand) and puttinglong‐term policies in place. E.g.: responding to drought as a calamity instead of by long‐termplanning.Possible explanations for such poor groundwater management: (a) Period of time involved in groundwaterprocesses and measures exceeds the residence time of decision makers in their managerial positions(short‐term versus long‐term); (b) Lack of qualified professionals in groundwater management; (c) Lack ofan academic curriculum in water management, resulting in: (d) Lack of integrated management of waterresources (quantity and quality).Andreas Scheidleder (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River – ICPDR) focusedon groundwater governance in the context of International Danube River Basin. He gave anoverview of the organisational structure in the Danube Basin, with special attention for the groundwatertask group: ICPDR coordinates the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive & EU FloodsDirective throughout the entire Danube basin. The ICPDR operates under the Danube River Protection10

Convention, in regard of (1) protection of water & ecology; (2) sustainable use; (3) reduction of nutrientsand hazardous substances; (4) managing floods and ice hazards. There are many parties to the convention:15 contracting parties, 5 countries linked, and bilateral and interbasin links. Under the ICPDR secretariatthere are 8 expert groups and task groups, among which there is a Groundwater Task Group. About 73% ofthe drinking water in the Danube Basin is derived from groundwater and this serves about 56 millionpeople (out of 83 million). The Groundwater Task Group meets twice a year since 2004.Tasks:transboundary harmonisation (coordination, Water Framework Directive implementation, criteria,procedures, templates), dealing with groundwater related issues of the Danube basin‐wide concern, beinga platform to exchange experience, best practice, data & information. It prepared a GroundwaterGuidance Document. The task group operates both in the EU‐part of the Danube basin and outside the EUpartof the basin. Reporting is done on the level of the sub‐basins. Public participation is an important partof the ICPDR work: 22 observing parties, public participation, quarterly magazines, etc (see:www.icpdr.org) The presentation ends with a diagram of the structure in place which should lead to “GoodGroundwater Status”. Some of the challenges of ICPDR: large amount of member states in the DanubeBasin (10 EU member states and 9 Non EU countries), 16 languages and 20 legislations. But all in all, theorganisational structure to achieve the ‘good groundwater status’ is in place.Selected comments, questions and answers from the debate: Q: For Spain, the need for a cultural change has been described to change from water as a private to apublic good. What does this change involve? An example is given of WASH: This is often managed in acombined way even though the drivers and dynamics for water supply differ greatly from those insanitation. Question is if the cultural change needed for sound groundwater management is differentfrom the changes needed in surface water management? A: There are cultural changes. In water scarceareas these changes have started years ago: they had to work together. Question is how to transfer theexperience from surface water to the groundwater arena. In groundwater there is no commoninfrastructure unlike in surface water. The aquifer is the common infrastructure, but this is notsufficiently realised. This realisation is starting to develop. But it will take generations to fully developthis notion. To create cooperation takes a long time and it works best at the lower level of people whohave the problem and who can solve the problem (technicians and not politicians or administration).People tend to be very suspicious of the administration. There is a need for champions who can makethings work, while the developments have to come from bottom‐up. Q: ICPDR is a good example of how to resolve problems and maybe even how to avoid conflicts in theDonau basin. Are there transboundary problems between countries in terms of quantity or quality? A:There are problems between the countries, but thanks to the organisational structure there iscooperation on the technical level and a structure in place to take decisions on the political level. Q: Are Turkey and Israel trying to use elements of the EU WFD? A1: Even though Turkey is no EUmember, we use ideas from the WFD and its daughter directive: water bodies and characterisationmethodology even though some elements are very difficult to apply (like the 10m 3 /d threshold andchemical background). A2: Israel is very much centralised, also in its groundwater management. Watersbelong to the state there is no such thing as privately owned water resources. Permits are needed foreach well and each abstraction.3.7 Plenary Sessions 6 and 8: Groundwater Governance: Regional and National Experiences(continued)In his presentation on groundwater governance in the urban context, Ken Howard (IAH andUniversity of Toronto) highlighted that half of the world’s population lives in urban areas. Thispercentage is increasing, in particular in poor, underserved peri‐urban areas in low‐incomecountries. Many of these areas are seriously neglected when it comes to urban planning and water andsanitation services, while groundwater resource management and IWRM often are lacking,which requires good urban groundwater governance. While science is rather strong, urban groundwatergovernance has to be greatly developed and strengthened and IWRM should now recognize the unique11

and special attributes of groundwater and systematically integrate groundwater with full participation ofall stakeholders.Rob Ward (BGS) and John Chilton (IAH) gave an impression of groundwater governance in the UnitedKingdom. Groundwater governance there has been developed for the last 50 years, emphasizing theimportance of devolution and privatization and enhancing society’s involvement. Priority has been given towater supplies intended for human consumption and for dependent eco‐systems. A risk‐based approachhas been adopted and, when uncertainty is high, the ‘precautionary principle’ is applied. There is anincreased awareness of the social and economic value of groundwater. The ‘polluter pays principle’ isapplied and through various means, stakeholders’ participation is stimulated.The last presentation of Session 6, by Albert Tuinhof (Acacia, The Netherlands) was about experiences inmanaged aquifer recharge, conjunctive use and groundwater buffering. Among others, he made thefollowing statements:‐ Conjunctive use is to combine the use of groundwater and surface water in a way that optimizes thebenefits of each‐ Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) increases groundwater recharge over what would have occurrednaturally, as a result of interventions designed to enhance groundwater storage and quality‐ There is a lack of harmonized and adequate regulation.Selected comments, questions and answers from the debate: Q: Concerning groundwater, has IWRM actually failed or could it be that it is not applied correctly? A:No, it is a fact that IWRM does not properly account for groundwater: for instance, the word‘groundwater’ hardly appears in documents concerning IWRM C: When elaborating on the contrast ‘strong science’ and ‘weak governance’, we have to be careful: in anumber of countries, mostly developing, the capacities needed for correctly using the scientific methodsand instruments are not available. It is a major problem of capacity‐building. Besides, in many countries,developed or nor not, there is a problem of lack of data, which adds to the difficulty of benefiting from‘strong science’. Q: Is the word ‘urban’ well defined, i.e. when is a set of dwellings considered as ‘urban’? A: It seems tobe a European preoccupation because, outside of Europe, there are rather clear differences betweenurban and rural. Q: To achieve good groundwater governance, what can be proposed? A: It is a slow process, needing aroadmap, and that has to be adapted to the scale of its object i.e. cities, regions, countries. Q: When is artificial recharge most efficient? A: It will depend on the aquifer depth i.e. it will work betterwith shallow aquifers. Research is still needed. C: Within IWRM, groundwater and surface water are managed as conjunctive resources, but what abouta needed agreement between the local actors to finance, allocate and protect the water resource?In the first presentation of Session 8, Miodrag Milanovic (Institute Jaroslav Cerni, Serbia)) provided somebackground to the water resources in Serbia, outlining the importance of alluvial and karstic aquifers. Helisted the main governance issues confronting a country in transition – mainly economic and financialconstraints and lack of adequate monitoring. The country has a new water law from 2010, and isimplementing the WFD through the ICPDR, which is important for relations with its EU neighbours. Thereare 153 groundwater bodies in the country. He briefly described research that his institute is doing on wellaging.Didier Pennequin (BRGM, France) presented the groundwater governance experience of France. He listedthe general concepts and gave a timeframe of recent laws since 1964, much as Rob Ward had done for theUK. As for many countries, the coming of the WFD required some adjustment to national legislation. Heprovided long lists of the main stakeholders at national and basin level, and summarised the tasks and12

esponsibilities of each of them, and showed a rather complicated diagram of the linkages. Didier overran,and the last slides were omitted or rushed through.Experiences with groundwater governance in Denmark were described by Lisbeth Jørgensen (DanishWater Forum, i.e. this is not a view from the government regulator). The physical and geological settingwas described by way of background, emphasising the east‐ west trends, and greater population density inthe east. Public supply is totally from groundwater, and she showed a map of the value of groundwater.There are 400 groundwater bodies at three levels. She showed a map of water supplies, and said there are75,000 private wells. The water supply companies are private but not for profit, in contrast to the UK.Groundwater is state owned. She summarised the governance structure in Denmark, and described theimplementation of the WFD and the public hearings that went with it. There has been a substantialreduction in per capita water consumption since the 1980s. Lisbeth described the quantity and qualitychallenges facing Denmark.David Zetland (Wageningen University) made a very different presentation from an academic point ofview. He listed the causes of governance failure ‐ theft, myopia, subsidies and rescue, and providedexamples and how examples of each of these might be tackled by good governance. He wondered whethertradition or complexity are the problem, and said that monopolies (e.g. utilities) can become lazy whenthey take your money.Selected comments, questions and answers from the debate: Q: What about the firmness of ‘no’ with respect to subsidies: is this always appropriate? A: In general,there should be a firm ‘no’ for subsidies related to private goods. If users are getting large benefits, thiscreates an expectation of continuity, and invites corruption. However, subsidies could sometimes bemore strongly defended for public goods, for example the dissemination of data. Q: Does the intergovernmental committee in France meet, what does it do and how, and are itsdiscussions made public? A: The committee was imposed by government, and now is starting to work. Itseems as if it does meet, but its operations are not well formalised, and it is not clear whether it has amajor coordinating effect. There is also a ‘commission national de l’eau’. Q: What about public‐private partnerships in France and Denmark and what are the incentives for a notfor‐profitprivate water operator? A: Sometimes these partnerships work well, for example for drinkingwater supply. The incentive for the companies in Denmark is that they are small and locally anchoredand locally answerable; most of the consumers are very local and are the people who live in theprotected areas from which the drinking water is drawn. Q: It was said that the ‘Agences de Bassins’ in France were replicable elsewhere, but is this true? A:Probably true, in terms of the success of INBO.3.8 Plenary session 7: Groundwater Data and Information: A Crucial Tool for GroundwaterGovernanceIn the first presentation of the session, Neno Kukuric (IGRAC) talked about groundwater informationavailability and reliability in the context of international cooperation. This was preceded by a briefintroduction to IGRAC, the UNESCO/WMO global groundwater centre, financed by Netherlands, thatfacilitates global sharing of groundwater related information. IGRAC maintains a webportal with a GlobalGroundwater Information System and has many other activities e.g. on the TBA’s of the world (map),ISARM regional assessments, monitoring guidelines and protocols. The importance of terrestrialgroundwater monitoring (hard data) needs to be stressed as remote sensing and modelling cannot fill thedata gap. IGRAC maintains a Global Groundwater Monitoring Network with aggregated data. Participationof regional experts is a key element, order to obtain not only data but to convert this also into informationand knowledge. A few closing remarks: (1)The state of groundwater monitoring varies substantially fromnon‐existing to automated, telemetric and optimised networks; (2) Worldwide only few countries providegroundwater data on‐line; (3) Very little international cooperation exists on groundwater monitoring; (4)13

Hardly any global data sets exist that show changes over time in groundwater resources (quality and/orquantity); (5) Contemporary ICT improves information flow and facilitates international cooperation.The next speaker, Willi Struckmeier (German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources),discussed hydrogeological maps as tools for groundwater governance. He did so by taking the InternationalHydrogeological Map of Europe and WHYMAP as examples.Hydrogeological maps provide easily accessible information on the hydrogeological situation, to be used byHydrogeologists, planners, executives, scientists and the public at large. Harmonized internationalhydrogeological mapping started in Europe some fifty years ago: the International Hydrogeological Map ofEurope (IHME) scale of 1:1.5 million (UNESCO, IAHS and IAH). IHME covers Europe on 25 sheets and will becompleted in 2013. Based on the IHME, new digital data sets on the hydrogeological type and lithologicalcomposition of rock bodies as well as areas of sea water intrusion and springs are being derived and will beavailable for further applications at European scale, e.g. transboundary aquifers in Europe, hydrogeologicalclassification or modelling purposes. Maps are used by policy makers e.g. WFD‐Groundwater bodies,catchment modelling etc. At the global level, the Worldwide Hydrogeological Mapping and AssessmentProgramme (WHYMAP) is successfully providing groundwater related input into the international waterdiscussion (www.whymap.org). Products include: WHYMAP web applications, the hydrogeological mapinformation system WHYMIS, world maps on Groundwater Resources (2004), Transboundary Aquifers(2006) and River and Groundwater Basins (2012). The latter map is thought to help water managersidentify how river and lake basins are linked up with the underlying groundwater basins.The role of area‐specific information in the groundwater governance process and the importance of theform in which it is supplied were highlighted in the presentation by Jac van der Gun (consultant to UNESCOand IGRAC). Area‐specific information is an essential input into the groundwater governance process:without it, it is unknown what issues groundwater resources management should address and whatbenefits it may produce or what problems it may solve. Area‐specific information comes in many differentforms, ranging from mass media messages intended to inform the general public to dedicated databasesand modelling studies that are mainly consulted by groundwater specialists. All types of informationsources have their own purpose and intended users, in principle including all categories of actors in thegroundwater governance process. However, effective communication between the different actors –which is a cornerstone of the governance process – requires that all these actors have a certain commonunderstanding of the basic facts about groundwater in the area considered. In this context, ‘non‐technicalcompilations and digests’, understandable by nearly all but providing more balanced information thansimple mass media messages, may contribute significantly to developing shared views on the realities onthe ground. Such compilations or digests can be prepared for different spatial scale levels. The book‘Groundwater around the World’ by Margat & Van der Gun (2013) may serve as an example of a globallevel compilation and compendium on groundwater. An impression of the many messages in this book wasprovided in the form of seven selected ‘windows’: (1) Global patterns of natural groundwater conditions;(2) Compiled global data help correcting erroneous views (e.g., unlike what is suggested by mostconventional hydrological cycle pictures, 80‐90% of the global groundwater flow ends up in streams or islost by terrestrial evapo(transpi)ration, while less than 20% discharges directly into a sea or ocean); (3)Delineation and role of the world’s mega aquifer systems: these are very important in terms of reserves(buffers), but they rate far below average in terms of groundwater flux; (4) Global distribution ofgroundwater abstraction and its break‐down over the three main water use sectors; (5) Depletion ofgroundwater reserves around the world; (6) What is likely to become more rare for future generations:wetlands, springs, operational qanats/aflaj, artesian wells; ( 7) Selected success stories related togroundwater resources management.Jacques Ganoulis (UNESCO Chair INWEB, University of Thessaloniki, Greece) demonstrated how newinformation and communication technologies (ICTs) can enhance collaboration in sharing groundwater,with examples from the Balkans and the Mediterranean Region. After mentioning that there are manydefinitions of governance, he suggested that governance is an art and that the best way to characterise it14

in one word is ‘collaboration’. Collaboration is the key to crossing ‘boundaries’ between countries orbetween different administrations, institutions and groups of stakeholders within the same country. Themain difficulties arising in integrated transboundary groundwater resources management are the followingtwo: (1) Lack of political willingness to cooperate (accompanied by limited or non‐effective exchange ofdata and information); and (2) The gap in communication and understanding between scientists, waterprofessionals, decision makers, stakeholders and the general public.Modern Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) can facilitate the dialogue between parties,by providing interactively on the Internet spatially distributed data and distance‐based collaborative tools.Developments involve Extensible Markup Language (XML) for managing and publishing geographic data onthe internet, and Mapserver CGI for interactive mapping on the web (dynamic maps). Smart combinationof open source concepts (Google Map, Google API and Google fusion tables, JavaScript, etc) provide toolsto combine databases, GIS and collaborative tools to create interactive web‐based mapping applications.An example is INWEB’s spatial database in SE Europe and an application for coastal aquifers in theMediterranean where users can view information but also add geo‐tagged comments and information.Finally, Irene Kitsara (WIPO‐ World Intellectual Property Organization) addressed the question howpatents can help in groundwater governance. WIPO is a specialised UN agency dedicated to the use ofintellectual property (trademarks, patents, copyrights, etc) for the promotion of creativity and innovation.In the presentation it was shown how patents may be used in an unexpected way to create or track downinnovation. It is unknown to most scientists that patents (1) are not just for concrete products, but thatalso concepts or techniques can be patented (e.g. patents for desalination or soil remediation); and (2) thatpatents have to be published, which means that publicly accessible patent databases can be a source ofinformation unknown to most scientists and policymakers. In fact the patent database is easily accessible;it provides full articles (as opposed to expensive access to scientific publications). Patent publications canbe complementary to scientific publications. An example is given of a ‘patent map’ which indicatesgeographic hotspots for certain types of developments or research: it shows you where the researchgroups working on certain topics are based. By providing geographic and other analyses of the patentlandscape, WIPO gives access to complementary and sometimes new information. The patent landscapereports provide an assessed global picture of related technologies by grouping and presenting relevantinformation in a structured, non‐expert friendly way. It enables: (1) Identification of emerging technologies;(2) Identification of existing synergies and potential cooperation partners (other research institutes,private actors in an area) for joint research, technology/know‐how transfer, R&D investment, PPPs, jointventures; (3) Public‐domain technologies to be discovered (lapsed patents, patents not protected in therelevant area, etc.); (4) A better negotiating position. ‘Patent landscape reports’ can be very helpful seealso http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/programs/patent landscapes/index.html) and collaborationwith WIPO is likely to benefit the groundwater governance group.Selected comments, questions and answers from the debate: C: How can you manage groundwater without data? The importance of data and turning data intoinformation is beyond doubt. C: It might not always be strategic to say ‘no data – no management’, as the lack of data can be used bywealthy or powerful (private) parties as an argument to stop management initiatives. C: Mapping and data are crucial, but we need to go one step further as groundwater is spatially 3D. Weneed to find ways to represent that in a simple way – several efforts are being launched. Maybe also theprivate sector can help us with this as they have a lot of data on the deep subsurface. C: Efforts should be continued to use mapping as a tool to communicate to the wider public. C: In addition to the final maps produced, the process of creating hydrogeological maps is in itself alsoimportant, because it establishes cooperation and creates a network of people who develop mutualtrust, start talking and are prepared to share information and data. C: Geothermal techniques have been mentioned. This is one of the often overlooked potentials ofgroundwater. We should consider mapping this potential.15

C: By analogy of the example of the ‘Year of Chemistry’ it is suggested to think of a global experiment foryouths of the world which relates to groundwater management. The network of UNESCO schools couldbe used. This could be a very good way to get the global community interested in groundwater issues. Q: Global data are unmistakably important and we have seen examples of some great efforts. But howto control the data quality for global systems? A: Rigorous control of global data quality is not feasible,but even with some level of uncertainty, global information is still very useful to show trends andpatterns. Data aggregated at the global level will never be 100% accurate and reliable, but there arebasic methods to validate data, e.g. (1) Using plausibility criteria such as by relating variables to othervariables (e.g. comparing drinking water use to population to check whether the data sets make sense);(2) Convergence of evidence: if different assessments or studies that use different data sources ormethods produce similar results than this creates confidence. C: Open access of data is crucial. Scientific data are difficult to access: articles are expensive and dataare not shared sufficiently. Let us keep on working on open access to data. WIPO can help in this. C: We should not forget that data is not all. We need information and data to talk once people are readyto listen. But we need key messages first for people to open their ears to groundwater issues. What arethe three key messages that make the community listen to you? How to stress why groundwater isimportant? E.g. groundwater is a great buffer for climate change; but what can be the other twomessages?3.9 Plenary session 9: Closing Session: Synthesis of Questionnaires, Recommendations onSetting up the Framework for Action, and Closing MessagesThe first speaker of this session, Jac van der Gun, presented a synthesis of the replies to the questionnaireon groundwater governance. The questionnaire contained thirteen questions and 33 responses werereceived: 7 from North America (2 countries), 19 from Europe (14 countries), 4 from Asia (4 countries) and3 unrelated to a single country. A full report of this synthesis is attached as Appendix 3.Main conclusions drawn from the replies received are the following: In almost all countries, a large number of institutions are involved in groundwater governance:government agencies and non‐governmental institutions; at national, sub‐national and local levels;sometimes dedicated water sector institutions, but often part of institutions with a wider mandate. Inalmost all countries the mandate for groundwater management is at the highest sub‐national level. Most respondents believe in their country these institutions are adequate to address groundwater andperform well (surprisingly the lowest ratings come from North America) Most frequently mentioned groundwater governance priorities are: groundwater protection;monitoring groundwater state and use, and compliance with regulations; and sustainable and equitablemanagement of the groundwater resources (quantity, quality and use). Groundwater policies and groundwater legislation are considered to be adequate and satisfactorilyenforced in almost all countries. Barriers to groundwater governance are predominantly related to institutional flaws, insufficient dataand information, poor perceptions and methodologies, and lack of motivation and commitment. Mostof the mentioned challenges are addressing these barriers. Main reported problems regarding groundwater quality are pollution and natural quality problems,whereas those regarding groundwater quality include overdraft and depletion, water scarcity and watersupply shortages. Many respondents indicate that for increasing the level of investment in groundwater governance it isnot enough to rely on governments and donors. There is also need to recover costs from groundwaterusers and from polluters, and to look for other mechanisms of financial involvement of stakeholders. Numerous suggestions were made for establishing and sustaining a multi‐partite interdisciplinarydialogue on groundwater governance. They come under: preparing the mind‐set; organising partnersand networks; adopting catalysing elements and ideas; and concrete dialogue actions and events.16

Similarly, many suggestions were received for establishing a shared regional vision on groundwatergovernance. Some of these relate to preparation, others to instruments and approaches, and to steps tobe taken. Regarding the main local problems encountered, the replies are predominantly related to humanbehaviour , including respect, trust, participation and cooperation. The set of proposed steps is notperfectly matching all identified problems. Finally, the respondents specified groundwater governance case studies in which they have beeninvolved, formulated key messages (e.g. “Care for groundwater today means healthy citizens andecosystems tomorrow”) and gave a judgment on groundwater governance in their country. Amongthose, the West‐ and Central European countries gave the most optimistic ratings.Although the groundwater governance conditions vary considerably within the region, it is difficult to drawfirm conclusions on these variations, because the replies to the ‘open’ questions do not only reflect thedifferences between countries, but perhaps even more the differences in perceptions and views of theindividual respondents. The latter is demonstrated by comparison of the alternative replies for one singlecountry (CAN, USA, GBR, NLD, DEU, CZE, HRV). Nevertheless, some differences within the region wereevident, e.g. improving technical infrastructure (water supply, sanitation, water treatment provisions) as apriority issue in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, and strong reliance on market forces in the USA andsome European countries. Furthermore, the EU Framework directory has a very prominent impact ongroundwater governance in the EU member states.Under the heading “Recommendations: Setting up the Framework for Action”, the outcomes of each of thesix Working Groups were presented in this plenary session. These reports are briefly summarised in thenext chapter.Finally, this ninth plenary session was concluded by a number of closing messages, respectively byMohamed Bazza (FAO), Ivan Zavadsky (GEF), Shammy Puri (IAH), Greetje van den Bergh (NetherlandsNational Commission for UNESCO) and Alice Aureli (UNESCO‐IHP).17

4. WORKING GROUPS4.1 WG1: Analysis and Assessment of the Major Legislative Instruments in the RegionFrancesco Sindico (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow) presented the report of this working group.The discussion in this group focused on the role of legislation for improving groundwater governance.First, the fact that the UNECE region includes Central Asia and North America was discussed and explainedhistorically. Then, the science‐policy interaction was analysed and difficulties for enforcing/implementingthe law were investigated.In general, major legislation in the region is based on three principles: (i) integration, (ii) inclusion, and (iii)the rule of law. More specifically, it is building on (i) good knowledge, (ii) stakeholders participation and (iii)public consultation.Existing legislation is both flexible by applying the subsidiarity principle and integrative as it is based on theIntegrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) framework. A good example of implementation is theDanube River Basin Treaty (ICPDR).4.2 WG2: Rural Groundwater: How to Address the TensionsThe discussion by this working group was summarised by Ken Howard (IAH and University of Toronto,Canada).First of all, he presented a long list of issues that were considered:‐ Stakeholder participation/mobilisation?‐ Bottom up versus top‐down / horizontal integration?‐ Centralisation? Decentralisation?‐ IWRM? IUWM? Education?‐ Operational capacity?‐ Capacity Building?‐ Technologies?‐ Legal provisions?‐ Institutional frameworks?‐ Data?‐ Financial instruments?‐ Water as a service versus water as a resource?‐ Cross‐sector drivers?‐ Corruption? Surface waters? Plans and adaptive management?Furthermore, the group focused on lessons and opportunities. Experiences in Denmark, United States, TheNetherlands and Canada were mentioned which could be useful models for other regionsBased on the discussion, the working group derived a number of recommendations on priority issues to beaddressed:1. Knowledge and research.2. Framework for governance: rules of engagement, transparency.3. Permitting can provide control over allocation, development and management.4. Solutions should implementable.5. Conflicts are often about rights. Conflict resolution modalities: groundwater mediationcentres and making room for local knowledge and experiences.6. Integrate urban planners in decision‐making.18

4.3 WG3: River Basins Management and Groundwater GovernanceThe report on this working group, presented by Ruxandra Balaet (Ministry of Environment and ClimateChange, Romania) stated that the present situation is not very good, but that there is hope forimprovementTwelve recommendations were given in this context:1) Coordination2) Stakeholders participation3) Integration4) Efficiency5) EU‐WFD6) Institutional capacity7) Groundwater‐Ecosystems8) Economic benefits9) Protection and land use10) Monitoring pollution11) Compensate farmers12) Agreements on groundwater4.4 WG4: Private and Public Sectors Interaction: How to Act Together for GroundwaterGovernance?Anthony Turton (Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa) reported on the findings of this workinggroup.The two sectors have different objectives and views: The public sector: regulate and provide incentives The private sector: technology and capital Time scales: governance (short term)/real problems (long term)Principles for cooperation are: (1) Fairness (2) Transparency and (3) Trust.Other comments: Cooperation instruments exist through regulation and compliance. However there are many risks Examples from different case studies on mines in Australia We need: big carrots and small sticks and develop a common language The role of science/education and knowledge is very important. Generally: the private sector is willing to cooperate and share data and experience withthe public sector. The main question remains: under which conditions/regulations and under which financialframework.4.5 WG5: Capacity on Monitoring and Management of Groundwater Data: A Key Target forInstitutionsThe report, presented by Ebel Smidt (Water Governance Centre, The Netherlands) and Neno Kukuric(IGRAC) included the following main points: A distinction should be made between data and information. Data and monitoring arenecessary for increasing information. Data concerning groundwater should be public. Monitoring and data collection is in Europeprescribed by the EU‐WFD. In the USA and Canada groundwater is in general considered a private property related toland ownership.19

More attention should be given to defining appropriate goals of data collection andmonitoring.The impact of the public opinion in changing non‐sustainable behaviour of private (andpublic) organizations is growing.Models that include full recovery of the costs of monitoring need to be collected,compared and improved.International agencies and funding organizations can be instrumental in developingpractical tools and in disseminating good practices.The Water Information System for Europe (WISE) should be extended to groundwaterdata.4.6 WG6: Groundwater Governance: Public Participation and Conflicts PreventionMain outcomes of the discussion of this working group were presented by Todd Jarvis (Oregon StateUniversity):The current situation concerning groundwater governance is complicated and the role of publicparticipation is not clear. Politics and politicians should be taken into account. Time scales present a specialproblem: discrepancy between decades for groundwater recovery and short‐lived political mandates.Some conclusions and recommendations: Identify constraints on groundwater use. Education and awareness about groundwater is key. Public persuasion is every bit as important as public participation. Collective action must start at the local level, be structured and also be cognizant of theother levels. Build trust and mutual respect, and acknowledge local knowledge. Acknowledgement and respecting diversity Be smart about transaction costs ‐ public participation is not Cooperate or die.Selected comments, questions and answers from the debate (final debate of the meeting – thereforeaddressing more than only the reports of the working groups) : Q: Is any ‘groundwater governor’ present in this meeting? A: In groundwater governance there aremanagers, engineers, hydrogeologists and other professionals who can take decisions andinfluence the governance process. In a proper sense there is no single ‘groundwater governor’ whocan decide about everything. C: In formal education there are not adequate curricula to address the issue of education andtraining of groundwater managers. C: The discussion and the questionnaires show that it is interesting to analyse the specificcharacteristics of groundwater governance in the region. C: It is very optimistic to conclude from the roundtable on private‐public cooperation that privatemanagers are willing to cooperate, exchange data and experience and contribute to improvegroundwater governance.20

5. ROUNDTABLE ON PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS COOPERATION: “WORKINGHAND IN HAND FOR GROUNDWATER GOVERNANCE”5.1 Background and objectivesThis panel session was designed as a contribution to the 2013 United Nations International Year of WaterCooperation. It was organized within the framework of the project on “Groundwater Governance: a GlobalFramework for Action”, and took place in The Hague on 21 March 2013, prior to the official celebration ofthe World Water Day on Water Cooperation. Its aims were: (1) to capture the views and interests of theprivate sector; and (2) to explore opportunities for partnerships and information sharing. A full report onthis Roundtable is presented in Appendix 4. Here, only some excerpts and a summary follow.5.2 ParticipantsChair: András Szöllösi Nagy (Rector, UNESCO Institute for Water Education ‐ UNESCO‐IHE)Rapporteur: Alfonso Rivera (Geological Survey of Canada)Facilitator and Wrap‐up: Alfred Duda (UNESCO‐IHP)Presentation “Groundwater Governance: The Socio‐economic Benefit of Cooperation”: Anthony Turton(Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa)Panellists from the private sector:• Roelof Stuurman (Deltares)• Ron Bohlmeijer (Heineken)• Mark Brune (Mintails Ltd.)• Ronan Le Fanic (Nestlé Waters)• Peter Newborne (Overseas Development Institute)• Svetlana Obradovic (Schlumberger)• Andrew Cameron (Shell Global Solutions)• Rian Kloosterman (Vitens)• Anthony Turton (Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa)• Joppe Cramwinckel (World Business Council for Sustainable Development ‐ WBCSD)5.3 Items for the debateThe main items for the debate were:(1) Evaluating the importance of improved cooperation with the private sector to enhance thegroundwater governance(2) Thinking out of the ‘water box’: thoughts and ideas from non‐water experts on the essentialingredients for effective groundwater governance(3) The burning issue of data: how might the issue of data, a key element in terms of the stewardshipof groundwater governance, become an opportunity for cooperation? How might we find abalance between the need to share data and data protection?(4)Key messages from the private sector in support of, or as a challenge to, the United Nations Year ofWater Cooperation (2013).5.4 Structure of the RoundtableThe discussions followed a four‐steps procedure:(1) a formal presentation was used to open the debate;(2) the chair asked six strategic questions to the panellists;(3) a dialogue was opened with the audience in the room; and(4) as conclusion, each panellist was invited to provide her/his key message.21

5.5 Summary of the outcomesThe synthesis below is neither intended as an exhaustive analysis of the discussion, nor as the officialconclusions of the Roundtable. It is intended as a short executive summary based on factual statementsheard during the panel discussions.The issues of trust and mistrust between public and private sectors were raised many times both by theprivate sector as well as by the audience in the room. It would seem that in many cases it is a matter ofinterpretations and misunderstandings. The panellists told a few positive stories of trusting mechanisms inplace between the private and public sectors.It would appear that the private sector would be willing to cooperate but more often than not, they do notfind clear mechanisms for building relationships. They suggest that a clear mechanism for engagement beestablished.The issue of the data was extensively discussed and the question of sharing or not sharing was clarified.The private sector is ready to share its data but it doesn’t seem to know how. In some cases, theownership of the data was challenged: does data belong to industry?The private sector extensively invests in innovation; it is part of their business; that is not always the caseof the public sector. It was agreed that innovation would go a long way in solving many water‐relatedissues. Remote‐sensing technologies, for instance, were cited as an example and a way to go in the future.In terms of education, the private sector repeatedly mentioned that groundwater continued to be amystery for most. The private sector perceives groundwater scientists as a community living in a ghetto.Thus, water education was recommended and more meetings of this type strongly suggested.All in all cooperation between private and public sectors should be based in mutual trust. This will notcome automatically, it is something that needs to be built. However, companies in the Roundtablesuggested that other important stakeholders (industries or not) should be also involved: water users,agriculture, water companies.It was generally agreed that scientific knowledge and understanding groundwater is a prerequisiteto any groundwater governance plan. UNESCO was cited as the main international leader to carry onworking hand in hand for groundwater governance. They asked that there is some way of water accountingand that there is more efficiency. The incentives for businesses to participate are strongly linked toopportunities in investments, clearly defined problems to solve, and a strategy and mechanisms to engage.22

APPENDICES23

Appendix 1: Agenda of the MeetingFifth Regional Consultation:UNECE Region *The Hague Institute for Global JusticeThe Hague, Netherlands19–21 March 2013Organized by the UNESCOInternational Hydrological Programme (IHP)in cooperation withthe United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)under the patronage of theNational Commission of Netherlands for UNESCONational Committee of Netherlands for the UNESCO‐IHPMinistry of Infrastructure and Environment of the Netherlandswith the support ofUNESCO‐WMO International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC)TUESDAY 19 MARCH09:00–10:00 Opening CeremonyAGENDAMaster of Ceremony:Michael van der Valk, Netherlands UNESCO‐IHP National Committeeand Netherlands International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH) ChapterOpening address• H.E. Mr Rob Zeldenrust, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of theKingdom of the Netherlands, Permanent Delegate to UNESCOWelcome addresses• Elaine Alwayn –Chair IGRAC Board (Ministry of Infrastructure andEnvironment of the Netherlands)• Abiodun Williams – The Hague Institute for Global Justice• Mohamed Bazza – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,(FAO, Project Implementing Agency)• Francesca Bernardini – United Nations Economic Commission for Europe(UNECE)• Robert Quarles van Ufford – Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO• Pieter van der Zaag – Netherlands IHP National CommitteeVideo message: “From Shijiazhuang to The Hague”* List of UNECE countries: http://www.unece.org/oes/nutshell/member states representatives.html24

10:00–10:30 Coffee Break10:30–12:30 Plenary Session 1 – Setting the Scene10:30–11:35 1A. Presentation of the Groundwater Governance ProjectChair: Shammy Puri (IAH)Rapporteurs: Vanessa Vaessen (German Federal Institute for Geosciences and NaturalResources ‐ BGR)• Introduction to the GEF Project on Groundwater Governance: Presentation ofthe Objectives of the Project /Presentation of the Objectives of the RegionalConsultations – Mohammed Bazza (FAO) and Alice Aureli (UNESCO‐IHP) 30’• Permanent Consultation Mechanism, Communication and Project Visibility –Stéfanie Neno (FAO) 10’• GEF IW:LEARN Project: Groundwater Community of Practice (CoP),'Groundwater Talks’ Initiative – Lucilla Minelli (UNESCO­IHP) 10’Debate 15’11:35–12:35 1B. Groundwater Governance: Definition, Concept, Methodology• OECD Water Governance Programme – Short Overview – Alice Aureli (UNESCO‐IHP) 5’• Groundwater Policy and Governance (Project Thematic Paper No. 5) – RobertVarady (University of Arizona, USA) 15’• Strengthening Groundwater Governance – A Pragmatic and Proactive Framework forAction – Stephen Foster (Global Water Partnership ‐ GWP) 15’• Groundwater Governance: New Instruments and Niche‐Diplomacy – Todd Jarvis(Oregon State University) 15’• Groundwater Governance and Societal Change: Experiences and Initiatives fromthe Netherlands – Ebel Smidt (Water Governance Centre, Netherlands) 15’12:35–13:00 Debate 25’13:00–14:00 Lunch Break14:00–15:15 Plenary Session 2 – Regional and International InstrumentsChair: Sharon Megdal (University of Arizona)Rapporteur: Jacques Ganoulis (University of Thessaloniki, Greece)• UNECE Water Convention: On the Way of Improving Groundwater Governance –Francesca Bernardini (UNECE) 15’25

• The European Water Framework Directive (EU WFD): Contribution to theGroundwater Governance in the Region – Johannes Grath ((EU WaterFramework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Working Group C onGroundwater, Austrian Environment Agency) 15’• “Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water”: Groundwater‐Related Findings– BalázsHorváth (European Commission DG Environment) 15’• The 97 Convention and the UNGA Draft Articles on the Law of TransboundaryAquifers – Flavia Loures (World Wildlife Fund ‐WWF) 10’14:55–15:15 Debate 20’15:15–16:30 Plenary Session 3 –Legal and Institutional AspectsChair: Marcus Wijnen (World Bank)Rapporteur: Sharon Megdal (University of Arizona, USA)• Legal and Institutional Frameworks (Project Thematic Paper No. 6) – KerstinMechlem (University of Ulster, United Kingdom) 15’• Groundwater Resources Governance within a Federal System (including theexample of US’s EPA Superfund) – Gabriel Eckstein (Texas Wesleyan UniversitySchool of Law, USA) 15’• Groundwater Legislation in the UNECE region – Stefano Burchi (InternationalAssociation for Water Law ‐ AIDA) 15’• Governance in the Context of Transboundary Waters – Attila Tanzi (University ofBologna, Italy) 15’16:15 –16:30 Debate 15’16:30–16:45 Coffee Break16:45–18:30 Plenary Session 4 – Groundwater Governance: Regional and NationalExperiences in Europe and Central AsiaChair: Pieter van der Zaag (Netherlands’ IHP National Committee )Rapporteur: Robert Varady (University of Arizona, USA)• Groundwater Governance in the Aral Sea Basin of Central Asia – Akmal Karimov(International Water Management Institute ‐IWMI) 15’• Status of Groundwater Governance in the Caucasus Region – Adishirin Alakbarov(AZERSU Joint Stock Company, Azerbaijan) 15’• Issues on the Adoption and Implementation of the EU WFD: Fostering BetterGovernance – Hana Prchalova (T.G. Masaryk Water Research Institute, CzeckRepublic) 15’26

• Governance of Groundwater in Romania and the Context of the Danube BasinIWRM – Ruxandra Balaet (Ministry of Environment and Forests, Romania) 15’• Groundwater Governance in Hungary and Regional Overview – Teodora Szocs (IAHVice President for Europe, Hungary/Geological and Geophysical Institute ofHungary ‐ MFGI) 15’18:00–18:30 Debate 15’18:30 Welcome Cocktail (Participants are invited by the Netherlands NationalCommission for UNESCO to a welcome reception in the Museum Panorama Mesdag)WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH09:00–11:00 Plenary Session 5 – Groundwater Governance: Regional and NationalExperiencesChair: Ivan Zavadsky (GEF)Rapporteur: Geert‐Jan Nijsten (IGRAC)09:00–09:30 5A. Focus on Canada and USA09:30– 09:45 Debate 15’• Groundwater Governance in a Federal Framework: Results of a Survey of the 50States of the USA – Sharon Megdal (University of Arizona, USA) 15’• Groundwater Governance in Canada considering the North‐American Context –Alfonso Rivera (Geological Survey of Canada) 15’09:45–11:00 5B. Groundwater Governance: How to Overcome Competition in Water ScarceRegions and in International River Basins• Building Groundwater Governance in a Changing Environment: What Approachesto Adopt – Müfit Şefik Doğdu (State Hydraulic Works, Turkey) 15’• Groundwater Governance in Spain and the Role of the Water Users Associations:Lessons Learnt – Emilio Custodio (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain) 15’• The Reason for Unreasonableness in Groundwater Quality Governance – DanielRonen (Ben‐Gurion University of the Negev, Israel) 15’• Fostering Groundwater Governance in the Context of International Danube RiverBasin – Andreas Scheidleder (International Commission for the Protection of theDanube River – ICPDR) 15’Questions and Answers 15’11:00‐11:15 Coffee Break27

11:15–12:15 Plenary Session 6 – Groundwater Governance: Regional and NationalExperiences (contd.)Chair: Marc Bierkens (Utrecht University and Netherlands Hydrologic Society)Rapporteur: Jean Fried (University of California, Irvine, USA)• Groundwater Governance in the Urban Context – Ken Howard (IAH andUniversity of Toronto, Canada) 15’• Groundwater Governance in the United Kingdom – Rob Ward (BritishGeological Survey) and John Chilton (IAH) 15’• Management of Aquifer Recharge for Water Buffering: Experiences and theRole in Groundwater Governance – Albert Tuinhof (Acacia Water, Netherlands)15’Debate 15’12:15–13:15 Lunch Break13:15–15:30 Break‐out SessionsTwo successive rounds of Break Out sessions are foreseen; they have a duration of 2hours each.The working group reports will be presented during the Closing Session.PPT presentations and written reports should be provided to the UNESCOSecretariat by Thursday 21, 16:00.13:15–15:30 First Round of Working Groups• Working Group 1Analysis and Assessment of the Major Legislative Instrumentsin the RegionFacilitators: Stefano Burchi (International Association for Water Law– AIDA) and Johannes Grath (Working Group C on Groundwater,Austrian Environment Agency)Rapporteur: Francesco Sindico (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow)Setting the scene: Stefano Burchi• Working Group 2Urban –Rural Groundwater: How to Address the TensionsFacilitator: Ken Howard (IAH and University of Toronto, Canada)Rapporteur: Albert Tuinhof (Acacia Water, Netherlands)Setting the scene: Ken Howard• Working Group 3River Basins Management and Groundwater GovernanceFacilitator: Teodora Szocs (IAH Vice President for Europe, Hungary)28

15:30–16:00 Coffee BreakRapporteur: Ruxandra Balaet (Ministry of Environment and ClimateChanges, Romania)Setting the scene: Teodora SzocsSpecial presentation: UNECE Summary of TransboundaryGroundwaters in the EECCA region – Francesca Bernardini (UnitedNations Economic Commission for Europe ­ UNECE) 10’16:00‐17:30 Plenary Session 7 – Groundwater Data and Information:A Crucial Tool for Groundwater GovernanceChair: Blanca Jiménez‐Cisneros (UNESCO Dir. Division of Water Sciences andSecretary of IHP) and Alfred Duda (International Expert)Rapporteurs: Geert‐Jan Nijsten (IGRAC) and Jean Fried (University of California,Irvine, USA)• Groundwater Information Availability and Reliability in the Context ofInternational Cooperation – Neno Kukuric (IGRAC) 15’• Hydrogeological Maps as Tools for Groundwater Governance. Examples fromEurope and WHYMAP – Willi Struckmeier (German Federal Institute forGeosciences and Natural Resources ‐ BGR) 15’• Feeding Area‐Specific Information into the Governance Process: 'Groundwateraround the World' as an Example – Jac van der Gun (International Expert) 15’• How New Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Can EnhanceCollaboration in Sharing Groundwaters. Examples from the Balkans and theMediterranean Region – Jacques Ganoulis (UNESCO Chair INWEB, University ofThessaloniki, Greece) 15’• Groundwater Governance: How Patents Can Help – Irene Kitsara (WorldIntellectual Property Organization ‐ WIPO) 10’Debate 15'17:30–18:30 All participants are invited at the meeting of the International Association ofHydrogeologists (IAH)18:45–20:15 Escher Museum (Refreshment and guided visit offered to allparticipants by the Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO)THURSDAY 21 MARCH09:00–10:15 Plenary Session 8 – Groundwater Governance: Regional and NationalExperiences (contd.)Chair: Josee van Eijndhoven (Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO)29

Rapporteur: John Chilton (IAH)• Experiences with Groundwater Governance in Denmark – Lisbeth Jørgensen(Danish Water Forum) 15’• Groundwater Governance and River Basins Institutions: the French Experience– Didier Pennequin (French Geological Survey ‐ BRGM) 15’• Groundwater Governance in Serbia – Miodrag Milovanovic (Institute JaroslavCerni, Serbia) 15’• Groundwater Governance: The Road from Theory to Failure – David Zetland(University of Wageningen, Netherlands) 15’Debate 15’10:15–10:30 Coffee Break10:30‐12:30 II. Second Round of Working Groups• Working Group 4Private and Public Sectors Interaction: How to Act Together forGroundwater Governance?12:30–13:30 Lunch BreakFacilitators: Andrea Merla (International Expert) and Alfred Duda(International Expert)Rapporteur: Anthony Turton (Water Stewardship Council of SouthernAfrica)Setting the scene: Andrea Merla• Working Group 5Capacity on Monitoring and Management of Groundwater Data: AKey Target for InstitutionsFacilitator: Neno Kukuric (IGRAC)Rapporteurs: Zelimir Pekas (Croatian Waters) and Ebel Smidt(Water Governance Centre, Netherlands)Setting the scene: Neno Kukuric• Working Group 6Groundwater Governance: Public Participation and ConflictsPreventionFacilitator: Erik Mostert (Delft University of Technology)Rapporteur: Todd Jarvis (Oregon State University)Setting the scene: Erik Mostert13:30–16:00 Roundtable“Working Hand in Hand for Groundwater Governance”30

Private and Public Sectors CooperationThe panel is a contribution to the “2013 ‐ United Nations International Year ofWater Cooperation”. The consultation is organized back to back with the 22 ndMarch official celebration of the World Water Day on Water Cooperation in TheHague.Chair: András Szöllösi‐Nagy (Rector, UNESCO Institute of Water Education ‐ IHE)Rapporteur: Alfonso Rivera (Geological Survey of Canada)Facilitator and Wrap‐up: Alfred Duda (UNESCO‐IHP)Presentation• Groundwater Governance: The Socio‐economic Benefit of CooperationAnthony Turton (Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa) 10’• Panel(More details in the annexed document “Working Hand in Hand for GroundwaterGovernance”)16:00–16:30 Coffee Break16:30–18:00 Plenary Session 9 – Closing SessionChair: Mohamed Bazza (FAO)Facilitator: Shammy Puri (IAH)Rapporteur: Jacques Ganoulis (INWEB)16:30–16:45 Synthesis of the Questionnaires – Jac van der Gun (General Rapporteur) 15’16:45–17:25 Recommendations: Setting up the Framework for Action (FA)Reports of the Breakout Sessions: Presentation on the Outcomesof the Working Groups Sessions (10’ each)General Debate and Recommendations 30’18:00–18:15 Closing MessagesChair: Al Duda (International Expert)Rapporteurs: Marcus Wijnen (World Bank) and Andrea Merla (InternationalExpert)Messages from:• Mohamed Bazza (FAO)• Ivan Zavadsky (GEF)• Shammy Puri (IAH)• Greetje van den Bergh (Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO)• Alice Aureli (UNESCO‐IHP)31

Appendix 2: List of ParticipantsOpening Ceremony (Netherlands)Family name Given name Country Institution PositionZeldenrust Robert NetherlandsAlwayn Elaine NetherlandsWilliams Abiodun NetherlandsQuarles van Ufford Robert Netherlandsvan der Zaag Pieter NetherlandsPermanent Delegation toUNESCOUNESCO‐WMO IGRACCentre / Ministry ofInfrastructure andEnvironmentThe Hague Institute forGlobal JusticeNational Commission ofthe Netherlands toUNESCONetherlands' IHP NationalCommitteeAmbassador Extraordinary andPlenipotentiary of the Kingdom ofthe Netherlands, PermanentDelegate to UNESCOChair / Director of the Water andSoil Directorate‐General SpatialPlanning and Water DivisionPresidentSecretary‐GeneralChairLocal OrganizersFamily name Given name Country Institution PositionPrimot Sophie NetherlandsNational Commission ofthe Netherlands to Policy Officer ScienceUNESCOVan der Valk Michael NetherlandsNetherlands' IHP NationalCommitteeScientific SecretaryKukuricNenoNetherlands UNESCO‐WMO IGRAC(INTNL)CentreDirectorvan der GunJacNetherlands UNESCO‐WMO IGRAC(INTNL)CentreInternational Expert / AdvisorNijsten Geert‐Jan NetherlandsUNESCO‐WMO IGRACCentreProject PartnersFamily name Given name Country Institution PositionBazza Mohamed FAO Water Unit, Senior OfficerWhiting Louise FAO Water Management OfficerAureli Alice UNESCO IHP Chief Groundwater SectionPuri Shammy IAH Secretary GeneralChilton John IAH Executive ManagerWijnen Marcus WBZavadsky Ivan GEFSenior Water ResourcesManagement SpecialistSenior Water ResourcesManagement SpecialistHillers Astrid GEF Senior Environmental SpecialistMinelli Lucilla UNESCO IHP Programme OfficerNeno Stefanie FAOCommunication and InformationSpecialistJiménez­Cisneros Blanca UNESCO IHP Director Water DivisionMerla Andrea UNESCO Senior ConsultantRubio Marina UNESCO IHP Consultant32

Invited expertsFamily name Given name Country Institution PositionAlakbarov Adishirin AzerbaijanAzerbaijan State WaterCompanyAndreo Bartolomé Spain University of Malaga ProfessorHead of Science, Technology andStrategic Research DivisionBalaet Ruxandra RomaniaBernardiniFrancescaSwitzerland(INTNL)Bierkens Marc NetherlandsMinistry of Environmentand Climate ChangesUnited Nations EconomicCommission for Europe(UNECE)Utrecht University andNetherlands HydrologicSocietySenior AdvisorSecretary of the UNECE WaterConventionProfessor / ChairBohlmeijer Ron Netherlands Heineken Hydrogeological SpecialistBrune Mark UK (INTL) Mintails Ltd Executive ChairmanBurchi Stefano Italy (INTL)International Associationfor Water Law (AIDA)Burke Jake USA (INTL) World BankClosas Alvar USA (INTL) World Bank ConsultantContiKirstinCramwinckel Joppe NetherlandsCustodio Emilio SpainUNESCO‐WMO IGRACCentreWorld Business Councilfor SustainableDevelopment (WBCSD)Universitat Politècnica deCatalunya (UPC)Director, Water ProgramEmeritus Prof. GroundwaterHydrologyDinca Cornelia Netherlands Climate Focus ConsultantDoğdu Müfit Şefik TurkeyGeneral Directorate of theState Hydraulic WorksHydrogeological engineer (MSc)Geotechnical Affairs andGroundwater DepartmentDuda Alfred USA (INTL) International ExpertEckstein Gabriel USA (INTL)Einarsson Kristinn IcelandFedotova Tatiana NetherlandsFerguson Grant A. CanadaFoster Stephen UK (INTL)Fried Jean USA (INTL)Gadet Aymeric France (INTNL)Texas Wesleyan UniversityIcelandic National EnergyAuthorityWorld Business Councilfor SustainableDevelopment (WBCSD)University ofSaskatchewanGlobal Water Partnership(GWP)University of California,IrvineEDF – Direction duDéveloppement DurableSchool of LawSenior Manager, Energy andMineral Resources ExploitationProgram Manager, WaterProgramAssociate ProfessorCollege of EngineeringSenior AdviserProject ScientistPôle EnvironnementChargé de mission EauGanoulis Jacques Greece University of Thessaloniki33

Grath Johannes Austria (INTL) European CommissionGupta Joyeeta NetherlandsHahn Mirela CroatiaHorváth Balázs Belgium (INTL)Howard Ken CanadaHurley Adèle CanadaIsmailov Rashail AzerbaijanJelinek Gabriella HungaryUNESCO‐IHE Institute forWater EducationMinistry of Agriculture/Direction of WaterManagementEuropean Commission DGEnvironmentInternational Associationof Hydrogeologists (IAH )/ University of TorontoMunk School of Global AffairsAzerbaijan State WaterCompanyMinistry of RuralDevelopmentJones Michael UK Thames WaterJørgensen Lisbeth Flindt DenmarkDanish Water Forum /Geological Survey ofDenmark and GreenlandJarvis Todd USA (INTL) Oregon State UniversityChair Working Group C onGroundwaterProfessorExpert AdviserUnit D1 Protection of the WaterEnvironmentPresident / Professor ofHydrogeologyDirector, Program on WaterIssuesDeputy Head, Department ofRiver Basin Management andWater ProtectionGroundwater Resources Manager,Asset Management, WaterPlanning & OptimisationNetwork Coordinator / SeniorGeologistInterim Director, Institute forWater & Watersheds and Collegeof Earth, Ocean and AtmosphericSciencesJiang Yu Netherlands Wageningen University Master studentKarimov Akmal UzbekistanKazmiKitsaraSyedMuhammadNishat UlHassanIreneInternational WaterManagement Institute(IWMI)Netherlands Maastricht University Associate ProfessorWorld IntellectualProperty Organization(WIPO)Kloosterman Rian Netherlands Vitens Policy AdvisorLe Fanic Ronan France Nestlé WatersLeten James SwedenWater GovernanceFacility at StockholmInternational WaterInstitute (SIWI)Corporate Water ResourcesManagerProgramme Manager, WaterIntegrity Capacity BuildingLoures Flavia WWFMechlem Kerstin UK (INTL) University of UlsterMegdal Sharon USA (INTL) University of ArizonaDirector, Water ResourcesResearch CenterMilovanovic Miodrag Serbia Institute Jaroslav Cerni Assistant DirectorMostert Erik NetherlandsDelft University ofTechnologyResearcher34

Newborne Peter UKObradovic Svetlana NetherlandsOverseas DevelopmentInstitute (ODI)Schlumberger WaterServicesResearch AssociateHydrogeologistOliver Jean‐Louis France Académie de l'eau Secrétaire GénéralÖskaya Simla TurkeyPekas Zelimir CroatiaPennequin Didier FrancePrchalovaRajicHanaBiljanaCzeck Republic(INTL)Bosnia andHerzegovinaRivera Alfonso CanadaPermanent Delegation ofTurkey to UNESCOCroatian Waters,DepartmentBRGM (French GeologicalSurvey)T.G. Masaryk WaterResearch InstituteMinistry of Foreign Tradeand Economic RelationsInternational Associationof Hydrogeologists (IAH )/ Geological Survey ofCanadaCounselor (Scientific Affairs)Chief EngineerRegional Director for NormandyProject ManagerSenior Advisor on WaterResourcesDepartment for Water ResourcesIAH Canadian Chapter / ChiefHydrogeologistRomijn Reinier Netherlands Unie van WaterschappenRonen Daniel IsraelBen Gurion University ofthe Negev / Israel IHPNational CommitteeRossato Fabíola Netherlands Shell Global SolutionsDepartment of EnvironmentalHydrology & Microbiology /ChairpersonHSSE Consultant Soil andGroundwaterSalles Antoine France Nestlé Waters Director of Public AffairsScheidleder Andreas Austria (INTL)Sindico Francesco UKInternational Commissionfor the Protection of theDanube River (ICPDR)Groundwater Task GroupUniversity of Strathclyde,GlasgowChairpersonReader in InternationalEnvironmental Law at School ofLawSmidt Ebel Netherlands Water Governance CenterStruckmeier Willy Germany (INTL)German Federal Institutefor Geosciences andNatural Resources ‐ BGRStuurman Roelof Netherlands Deltares Water SpecialistSzocs Teodora HungarySzöllösi­NagyAndrásNetherlands(INTL)International Associationof Hydrogeologists (IAH)/ Geological andGeophysical Institute ofHungary (MFGI)UNESCO‐IHE Institute forWater EducationVice President For Europe /Head of DepartmentRectorTanzi Attila Italy (INTL) University of Bologna Full ProfessorTer Haar Bas NetherlandsTuinhofAlbertNetherlands(INTL)Netherlands Institute forInternational RelationsClingendael.Acacia InstituteSenior Research Fellow35

TurtonAnthonySouth Africa(INTL)Vaessen Vanessa Germanyvan Dam Rietje Netherlandsvan den Bergh Greetje NetherlandsWater StewardshipCouncil of Southern AfricaGerman Federal Institutefor Geosciences andNatural Resources ‐BGRNetherlands NationalCommission for UNESCONetherlands NationalCommission for UNESCOTrusteeChairpersonvan der Linden Wim Netherlands Deltaresvan Eijndhoven Josee Netherlandsvan Oosteren Stein NetherlandsNetherlands National Commission for UNESCOMinistry of ForeignAffairsAttaché, Permanent Delegation ofThe Netherlands to UNESCOvan Schaik Henk Netherlands Water Partnervan Tuijn Jac Netherlands NWP Journalistvan Weert Franck Netherlands Wetlands InternationalTechnical Officer Water andClimatevan Steenbergen Frank Netherlands MetaMetaVanclooster Marnik BelgiumIHP National Committee /Université Catholique deLouvainVarady Robert USA (INTL) University of ArizonaVermooten Sophie Netherlands Deltares / IAHVerweij Wilko NetherlandsVlaanderen Niels NetherlandsNational Institute forPublic Health and theEnvironmentDutch Ministry ofInfrastructure and theEnvironmentChair / Professor, Earth and LifeInstitute ‐ EnvironmentalSciencesDeputy Director and ResearchProfessor, Udall Center forStudies in Public PolicyHydrogeologist / SecretarytreasurerIAH NetherlandsChapterCentre for Sustainability,Environment and HealthZetland David Netherlands Wageningen University Senior water economistZiganshinaDinaraUzbekistan(INTNL)Interstate Commission forWaterCoordination in CentralAsia (ICWC)Deputy Director, ScientificInformation Center (ICWC)Zwick Steve USA Ecosystem Marketplace Managing editorWard Rob UK British Geological Survey Head of Groundwater ScienceContributing Experts (Not attending)Family name Given name Country Institution PositionAkmouch Aziza France (INTL) OECDde los Cobos Gabriel Switzerland Canton of GenevaWater Governance Programme,AdministratorHead of Geology/HydrogeologyBranch / GESDEC (Geology, Soil &Waste) / DIME36

Jekel Heide GermanyFederal Ministry for theEnvironment, NatureConservation and NuclearSafetyQuevauviller Philippe Belgium European CommissionHead of Division WA I 4 /Cooperation in InternationalRiver Basins, FreshwaterManagement Conventions,International FreshwaterProtection LawDG Environment, ECEnvironmental Policy Officer37

Appendix 3Summary of the Replies to the Groundwater Governance Questionnaire(by Jac van der Gun)1. IntroductionDuring the period preceding the meeting, UNESCO‐IHP circulated among the participants aquestionnaire intended to collect information on groundwater governance conditions in the differentcountries of the region. The questionnaire contained thirteen questions for this purpose. Altogether,33 replies were received, distributed as follows:Table A3‐1: Breakdown of the replies received to the questionnairesRegionNumberof repliesNumber ofcountriesWhich countries (ISO‐3 alpha codes)North America 2 2 CAN, USAEurope 14 14 BIH, CHE, CZE, DEU, DNK, ESP, GBR, GRC, HRV,HUN, ISL, NLD, ROU, SRBAsia 4 4 AZE, ISR, TUR, UZBEU region 1UNECE region 1Unrelated to a region 1The questions and a summary of the replies received are presented below.2. The questions and the replies receivedQuestion 1: To your knowledge, which institutions are involved in groundwater governance in yourarea/country? Should additional ones be involved?The replies are summarised in Table A3‐2. The replies received allowed to make a reasonabledifferentiation in terms of numbers of different types of institutions, of the government level withthe main mandate for groundwater, and the sector affiliation of the mentioned institutions.Conclusions: Nearly all responding countries have reported a large number of institutions to be involved ingovernance – except Israel (1 only) These institutions include government institutions at several levels: national, sub‐national andlocal, except in the case of England, Serbia and Israel (only at the national level) Non‐governmental actors like NGOs, water user associations or the privates sector have beenmentioned for the USA, by six (Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany, Romania, Spain andCroatia) of the 14 responding countries in Europe and by none from Asia. The mandate for decision‐making in groundwater management is in most cases at the highestsub‐national level: states in the USA, ’Länder’ in Germany, provinces in Canada and TheNetherlands, and autonomous regions in Spain. Only in Israel and probably also in Azerbaijan thismandate is at the national level. The institutions involved in groundwater governance come under a wide range of ministries orsectors, in particular those responsible for agriculture, environment, natural Resources or health. In Europe, the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC and its daughter Directive 2006/118/EChave a strong influence on groundwater governance, but the responsibility for groundwatergovernance remains with the Member States.38

Table A3‐2. Institutions involved in groundwater governanceN‐America Europe AsiaCanada 1Canada 2United States 1United States 2United States 3United States 4US 5 ‐ CaliforniaIcelandDenmarkUK1: EnglandUnited Kingdom 2The Netherlands 1The Netherlands 2Germany 1Germany 2Czech Republic 1Czech Republic 2S/F Geneva aquiferHungaryRomaniaSpainCroatia 1Croatia 2Bosnia‐HerzegovinaSerbiaGreeceTurkeyIsraelAzerbaijanUzbekistanR F E V J M F E J F W G K S J V P C S B C T P R G D R ANUMBERS (M= many; x = not specified)# of institutions (undifferentiated) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M# of supra‐national institutions x X# of institutions at national level 3 4 3 3 x X 3 2 2 4 M x X X 4 5 x 4 X X X X x 4 6 1 4 x# of institutions at highest sub‐national level 1 3 M M X M 5 4 M x X X M 3 4 M M X X X M M ?# of institutions at lower levels M M X M M M M M x X M 3 M X X X X M x# of NGOs or WUAs M x M X x X X X X xLEVEL OF MAIN MANDATENational ? x XSub‐national x x x ? x x xWHICH SECTORSDedicated water institutions(resources/supply)Other sectors mentioned with broadermandate(Agriculture; Defense; Environment; economy;Fisheries & Oceans; Geology and Mineral Res,Health; Interior; Meteo; Natural Res and Energy;Rural Development; Transport; Urbanism)EFHNHAEFNEIx X X X X X X X X XE ENMENAEENEeE ADHTAEMERNE A AEHMTA AEUeAENAEHNHGNH39

Question 2: Do adequate groundwater institutions exist at different government levels(national/sub‐national 1 /local) acting in your area/country? In what aspects should then besupported?The replies to this question are very subjective (no criterion for adequacy was provided) and so is therating shown in Table A3‐3, because the latter is based on an interpretation of usually brief texts bythe respondents. The main deficiencies as indicated by the respondents are also indicated in thesame table, but it is unlikely that this yields a balanced picture. Fragmentation, insufficient specialiststaff and inadequate funding are the most frequently mentioned deficiencies.Question 3: What are the groundwater governance priorities at the different government levels(national/sub‐national/local) in your area/country?Table A3‐4 summarises the replies. This question triggered a list of priorities, but it is not clearwhether these are formal priorities defined by government of the country considered or simply whateach respondent believes to be a priority issue (the questionnaire did not explicitly instruct on this).Differentiation according to spatial level was not made. An additional complication is that part of therespondents interpreted the question in terms of ‘main groundwater management issues’, whilesome even returned very generic answers like ‘groundwater protection’ ‘sustainable/equitablemanagement or use of the groundwater resources’ and ‘good groundwater status’. Consequently,many of the replies are not significantly different for those to Question 6 (several respondentsindicated that they considered both questions duplicating each other).An attempt to interpret the answers in terms of generalised governance aspects is shown inTable A3‐4. Due to the complicating factors described above, these outcomes are of very limitedvalue.Question 4: Do formal groundwater policies and legislation exist in your area/country? If so, arethey applied and enforced?A summary of the replies is presented in Table A3‐5 (the ratings seem perhaps too positive?)Main conclusions can be formulated as follows: Existing policies are considered adequate by 21 and not adequate by 4 of the nationalrespondents. The latter include Canada (policies missing in part of the national territory),Bosnia‐Herzegovina (complex administrative structure), Turkey (out‐dated) and Uzbekistan(immature policy development). Related to legislation on groundwater there were 29 national responses, of which 25consider the legislation in their country to be adequate. Exceptions are Canada (part ofnational territory not covered), Bosnia‐Herzegovina (complex administrative structure),Serbia (water quantity missing) and Turkey (laws outdated). According to UNECE, the principle of integrated management of surface and ground waters ismissing in water‐related legislation in a number of EECCA countries. EU member states are subject to EU legislation and directives. The EU may impose sanctionsto countries that do not comply. The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) and itsdaughter directive on groundwater have very significantly contributed to upgradinggroundwater monitoring, management and governance in its members states. Implementation is reported to have some flaws in the USA, England, The Netherlands, CzechRepublic, Spain and Bosnia‐Herzegovina. This is mostly by limitations in implementationcapacity, lack of monitoring compliance with policy/law or administrative complexity.1 Sub-national: at state, province or departmental level40

Table A3‐3: Adequacy of groundwater institutionsN‐America Europe AsiaCanada 1Canada 2United States 1United States 2United States 3United States 4US 5 ‐ CaliforniaIcelandDenmarkUK1: EnglandUnited Kingdom 2The Netherlands 1The Netherlands 2Germany 1Germany 2Czech Republic 1Czech Republic 2S/F Geneva aquiferHungaryRomaniaSpainCroatia 1Croatia 2Bosnia‐HerzegovinaSerbiaGreeceTurkeyIsraelAzerbaijanUzbekistanRating categories:Rating:From very good to very poorWHAT IS INADEQUATE OR MISSING?Groundwater recently being included in WRM XGroundwater not in RBM planning X XInconsistencies in groundwater governance XPoorly absorbing international experience X XInsufficient/inadequate monitoring X X XNo or inadequate inventories XNo or inadequate regulatory framework X XFragmentation – need for more coordination X X XInsufficient specialist staff and critical mass X X X XMore financing desired X X XWeak resources smaller municipalities XCapacity building local administrations XRole of institutions at municipal level? X X41

Table A3‐4 Groundwater governance prioritiesN‐America Europe AsiaCanada 1Canada 2United States 1United States 2United States 3United States 4US 5 ‐ CaliforniaIcelandDenmarkUnited Kingdom 1United Kingdom 2The Netherlands 1The Netherlands 2Germany 1Germany 2Czech Republic 1Czech Republic 2S/F Geneva aquiferHungaryRomaniaSpainCroatia 1Croatia 2Bosnia‐HerzegovinaSerbiaGreeceTurkeyIsraelAzerbaijanUzbekistanInfrastructural works xScientific‐technical support x x x xPolicy development X x x x x XLegislation/regulations x x x x XOperational management/implementation x x X xInstitutions xParticipation and communication xOther x x x42

Table A3‐5 Groundwater policy and legislationN‐America Europe AsiaCanada 1Canada 2United States 1United States 2United States 3United States 4US 5 ‐ CaliforniaIcelandDenmarkUnited Kingdom 1United Kingdom 2The Netherlands 1The Netherlands 2Germany 1Germany 2Czech Republic 1Czech Republic 2S/F Geneva aquiferHungaryRomaniaSpainCroatia 1Croatia 2Bosnia‐HerzegovinaSerbiaGreeceTurkeyIsraelAzerbaijanUzbekistanPOLICIESIn existence and comprehensive 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 x 3Implemented 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 4 1LEGISLATIONIn existence and comprehensive 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 1 1 1Implemented 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 x 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1GAPS AND FLAWSNo policies/legislation in some areas XInsufficient manpower xMonitoring compliance with policy and law x xRBMP measures (partly?) not implemented xLaw to be renewed xPolicy development immature XKEYRating: from very good (1) to poor (4)‘x’ indicates existence without rating43

In Europe, it is expected or hoped that the EU legislation will be effectively enforced. Otherwise, theEU might take actions against the Member States in cases of infringement.At the national level, the principle of integrated management of surface and ground waters is missingin water‐related legislation in a number of countries in Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. At thetransboundary level, groundwater has been missing in international water law until recently, but theDraft Articles of the Law on Transboundary Aquifers (December 2008) and the UNECE ModelProvisions on Transboundary Groundwater (November 2012) now have filled the gap.Question 5: What are the challenges and barriers to groundwater governance in your area/country?Why?The replies included a large number of challenges and barriers (but hardly any reply to ‘why?’).The Tables A3‐6 and A3‐7 list the mentioned challenges and barriers, respectively.The two tables do not show a perfect correspondence. For instance, there are quite a number ofcountry respondents who consider flaws in information, knowledge and monitoring, versus only onewho considers it to be a challenge to improve in this category. Nevertheless, it can be observed thata very significant part of the perceived challenges is related to institutional; aspects.Table A3‐6 Challenges to groundwater governanceInstitutional and legal challenges:Coordination between national and state levels on priorities and efforts (USA1)Cooperation in an interstate transboundary context (USA1)Optimize number of concerned actors and better coordinate them (USA5)Intersectoral coordination and public participation are main challenges (UZB)More transparency (NLD1)Developing governance principles for regulating groundwater use, based on social value of water use, peerreviewed predictions of impacts, critical point and adequate monitoring (NLD2)Informing and involving general public better in order to sustain agency budgets (GBR1)Improving public participation (CZE1)Challenges related to Information, knowledge and monitoring:Monitoring and mapping (CAN2)Challenges in terms of issues, approaches and methodologiesGood quantitative governance (ISR)Maintenance of good groundwater status (HRV1)Groundwater only source of water supply (DNK)Conflicts of interests (DNK)Occasional conflicts between local and national interests (ISL)Addressing surface water/groundwater interface of quality and quantity (USA1)Improved planning and goal setting between surface water and groundwater (USA5)Dealing with agricultural pollution (USA5)Balancing groundwater use and protection sustainably (ISL)Fulfilment of ever‐growing needs for different water uses vis‐a‐vis insufficiently investigated resources andinadequate monitoring (HRV2)Integrating water issues into other policy areas, e.g. agriculture (DEU2)44

Table A3‐7 Barriers to groundwater governanceLack of motivation and commitment:Relatively low interest in groundwater (CAN1)Lack of political will (USA3)Too much politics in decision‐making (water use as a political weapon) (ESP)Poor awareness of real importance of GG (ESP)Limited stakeholder involvement in governance (ESP)Stakeholders may follow competing concepts for land use and environmental protection (DEU1)Institutional and legal flaws:Fragmentation of mandates related to water management (5 ministries) (CZE1)Multitude levels of government (CAN1)Institutional fragmentation (BIH)Devolved administrations (GBR2)Lack of coordination (SRB)Absence of effective coordinating institution at the top (ESP)Budget reduction of governmental agencies (NLD1)Cuts in public budgets (GRC)Government budget limitations (USA3)Lack of funds for implementation of groundwater rehabilitation and protection measures ‐ this contradictsreplies to question no 4 (HRV2)Financial problems – weak economic status impedes grw management (SRB)Insufficient cost recovery and funding for GG (ESP)Partly due to economic crisis: lack of funding for sewerage systems and waste water treatment (HRV1)Economic downturn and the environmental opportunities it opens (GBR2)Lack of personnel at regional and local levels (GRC)Short‐time changes in political priorities vs effective grw management and protection (GBR2)Part of groundwater use is under private property rules – pre‐85 abstractions (ESP)Private drinking water companies are more expensive than water services of towns and villages (CZE1)Lack of ability to adjust governance framework to changing conditions (USA4) ‐ inertiaInadequate rules for groundwater use (AZE)Absence of legal base and effective mechanisms for controlling groundwater use and well drilling (AZE)Flaws in information, knowledge and monitoringLack of info on groundwater (USA4)Lack of knowledge (BIH)Gaps in knowledge (CAN1)Unavailable info on groundwater conditions in zones occupied by Armenia (AZE)Poor access to information (UZB)Modelling results of some institutes do not come available soon enough (CZE1)Whereas groundwater is very important, monitoring is very scarce and there is much illegal use – lack ofknowledge and control (HUN)Cost of groundwater monitoring (GRC)Inadequate monitoring – especially deep aquifers (SRB)Flaws in perception, approaches and methodologiesLack of recognition groundwater‐surface water connection (USA4)Lack of IWRM (AZE)Holistic approaches often not applied (CZE1)Lack of considering water needs of nature and the environment (USA4)Managing upstream land use planning and construction – only at the Swiss side (CHE)Reconciling heat storage and shale gas exploitation with groundwater protection in absence of regulations(ROU)Minds are still focused on supply management rather than demand management (ESP)Groundwater seen as endless source + lack of control of overexploitation and wasting water (TUR)45

Question 6: What are the main problems related to groundwater quality/quantity in yourarea/country? What are the scales (national/sub‐national/ local) of the main problems?Replies to the first question (the second one was hardly addressed) are summarised in Table A3‐8.Regarding groundwater quality, the problems are related to both natural quality problems (such assalinity, high As, Fe and Mn) and pollution (in particular nitrates, chlorides, salinity, volatile organiccompounds, emerging pollutants). Pollution finds its origin most prominently in agriculture, followedby mining, industry and energy production. Some countries have a legacy of polluted military areasand industrially contaminated land and mines.Groundwater quantity problems are predominantly groundwater overdraft, aquifer depletion, waterscarcity and water supply deficiencies.Climate change, abstraction pressures and waste water inflows were considered as important driversof change, while water scarcity, damage to agriculture and ecosystems, water‐logging and soilsalinisation were mentioned as main impacts.Table A3‐8 Perceived main problems to groundwater quality/qualityGroundwater quality:Local groundwater quality problems due to mining, agriculture or energy production activities (CAN1)Groundwater quality (CAN2)Groundwater contamination (USA1)Nutrient pollution (USA3)Natural arsenic (USA3)Natural arsenic (ISL)Agricultural pollution (DNK)Diffuse agricultural pollution (GBR1)Localised legacy of industrially contaminated land and mines (GBR1)Nitrate (GBR2)Legacy pollution from industrial past (GBR2)Emerging pollutants (GBR2)Diffuse pollution (NLD1)Saline/brackish water upconing (NLD1)Quality problems due to agriculture (DEU1)Point pollution (previous state industries, military areas) and diffuse pollution (agriculture) (CZE1)Groundwater pollution (CZE2)Pollution of the Genovese aquifer (CHE)Poor quality status in 38 out of 185 groundwater bodies (HUN)Nitrate pollution (ROU)Water quality – pollution and excess salinity (ESP)Locally excessive contents of As, Fe, Mn, etc. (HRV1)Groundwater contamination (nitrates, chlorides, volatile organic compounds) (ISR)Groundwater quantity:Aquifer depletion (USA1)Depletion in fractured rock aquifers (USA3)Overdraft (USA4)Overdraft (USA5)Overpumping and associated nitrification and salinisation (GRC)Overexploitation and resulting drawdown (TUR)Poor quantity status (overexploitation) in 27 out of 185 groundwater bodies (HUN)Insufficient coverage of public water supply (BIH)46

Limited water resources, need for sea water desalination (ISR)Drivers of change and pressures:Climate change impacts (USA1)Abstraction pressures (GBR2)Impacts of drought (GBR2)Pollution emissions from industry, agriculture and wastewater (no collection and treatment systems) (HRV1)Insufficient waste water collection and treatment facilities + numerous uncontrolled waste disposal sites +pollution sources from the period of transition (HRV2)Inadequate, intransparent, not integrated groundwater resources management (BIH)Wastewater treatment and regulated disposal (SRB)Nitrate pollution from agriculture (TUR)Salt water intrusions (TUR)Wastewater carried by recharging rivers and pollution by agriculture/irrigation + livestock (AZE)Impacts:Exploitation impact on stygoregions (USA3)Groundwater level declines affecting agriculture and ecosystems (NLD1)Short‐term economic groundwater uses without good knowledge of effects and impacts (NLD2)Local stress from groundwater use for irrigation (DEU1)Subsidence (USA5)Occasional water scarcity during droughts (ROU)Quantity mostly stressed due to intensive exploitation (ESP)Waterlogging and salinisation of irrigated land, due to shallow water tables. (UZB)Miscellaneous:Protection and property rights nexus (USA3)Urban‐rural divide (USA3)Deficient water quality monitoring – usually only applied to municipal water systems (USA4)Occasional sparse resources (ISL)Spatial variation of groundwater resources – local scarcity (DNK)Conservation of groundwater‐dependent aquatic ecosystems under threat of abstraction and pollution (GBR1)Mine water discharge (GBR2)Groundwater flooding (GBR2)Legislation, cooperation and coordination (DEU2)Overall coordination of groundwater governance (CZE2)Lack of control at the French side of the Genovese aquifer (CHE)Flaws in financial viability and water pricing (BIH)Lack of laboratory facilities, alert systems, etc. (BIH)Protecting surface water that recharges groundwater (SRB)Lack of protection zones (SRB)Limited water resources, need for sea water desalination, groundwater contamination (nitrates, chlorides,volatile organic compounds) (ISR)Question 7: What is the best way to increase the level of investment in groundwater governance atlocal, national and regional levels, and what are the main investment needs?The replies received on these two questions are summarised in the Tables A3‐9 and A3‐10.Regarding how to increase the level of investment, many respondents suggested that relying only ongovernments and donors is not sufficient. In particular in the USA and Europe, cost recovery fromgroundwater users and polluters is also seen as an important and necessary source of financing. It isalso clear that much still should be done (e.g. awareness raising) in order to create among public andprivate entities the preparedness to invest sufficiently in groundwater governance.47

The main investment needs are related to: (1) data acquisition, studies and monitoring; (2) properfunctioning of institutions; and (3) the implementation of measures.48

Table A3‐9 Groundwater governance: how to increase the level of investment?Relying on governments and donors :Government budgets + private sector investment (CAN1)Incorporate private investments (USA3)Financing from EU funds, loans or grants (HRV1)More funding from public and private sector (SRB)Funding from WG, ADB, IDB, KfW bank and various donors and international cooperation programmes (AZE)Cost recovery from groundwater users and polluters:Fees for water rights maintenance (USA3)Well abandonment trust fund (USA3)Permit‐exempt well task force related to ‘de minimis’ wells (USA3)Groundwater extraction fees/taxes for reducing overdraft (USA4)Taxes included in water price (DNK)Groundwater abstraction fees (GBR1)Permits for wastewater discharge (fees?) (GBR1)Permit and license fees (GBR2)Larger penalties for non‐compliance or illegal activities (GBR2)Income from selling clean water to customers (DEU1)Resources should come via the user – earmarked for GG + correcting externalities (ESP)Raising the water tariffs (SRB)Preparing for larger flow of public/private funding:Public awareness, education and promotion of groundwater (USA5)Multidisciplinary books and curricula on groundwater (USA5)Public awareness building (ISL)Strategic planning (ISL)Public awareness raising (GBR1)Awareness raising (GBR2)Reallocate funds to governance (NLD1)Identifying shared interests (NLD2)Associate public and private stakeholders in potential risks and benefits (GRC)Awareness raising + good information on the value of water and planning (TUR)Increase participation of groundwater specialists in structures and institutional arrangements for waterresources management at large (UNECE).Table A3‐10 Groundwater governance: what are the main investment needs?Information, studies and monitoring:S&T exploration (CAN1 ‐fed)Science & resource development (CAN1 ‐ prov)Studies for energy development (CAN1‐priv)Nation‐wide info on groundwater (USA1)Studies, monitoring (CZE1)Priority is rehabilitating national hydrogeological network (ROU)Investments in assessment, monitoring (ESP)Groundwater monitoring networks , data bases and modelling (TUR)Institutional needs:Investing in human resources (USA4)Sustaining agency budgets (GB1)Financing groundwater governance (GBR2)Compensate impact of government budget cuts (NLD1)Transsectoral co‐operation, public involvement, etc. (CZE1)49

More community involvement at the French side of the Genovese aquifer (CHE)Payment of governance cost and correcting externalities (ESP)Implementing measures:Protecting aquifers from contamination (USA1)Artificial recharge (USA1)Groundwater protection zones (ISL)Protecting resources and ensuring good quality (DNK)Control of competing groundwater uses that produce stress (NLD2)Compensating farmers for reducing use if fertilizers and agrochemicals (DEU1)Investment funds no problem (EU money), but operational money is (CZE2)Investment funds no problem (EU money) but maintenance money is (ROU)Correcting externalities (ESP)Investments in control, user efforts, infrastructure and compensations (ESP)Strict compliance with groundwater protection measures (HRV2)More intensive stakeholder involvement in groundwater governance (HRV2)Seawater desalination (ISR)Funds needed for water resources protection and for infrastructural works for reservoirs, irrigation, domesticwater supply and sewerage (AZE)Question 8: How could an interdisciplinary dialogue on groundwater governance among public,private, academia, and civil society partners, and between rural and urban partners, be establishedand sustained?Table A3‐11 shows the replies received.Broadly, a distinction can be made between the following categories of elements: (1) preparing themind‐set, (2) organising partners and networks, (3) adopting catalysing elements and ideas, and (4)actions and events. A breakdown of the categories into key elements is given below:Preparing the mind‐set• Awareness raising• Education• Removing fear for changeOrganising partners and networks• Professional organisations, foundations, universities• Government institutions, private sector• Stakeholder identificationAdopting catalysing elements and ideas• GWRM planning with public involvement• River Basin Management Plans• National Water Conferences• Transparency and building trustAction and events• Public hearings and public consultations• Round tables, workshops, seminars, etc...Some of the respondents indicated that such an interdisciplinary dialogue is not yet a reality in theircountry.50

Table A3‐11 Establishing and maintaining an interdisciplinary dialogue on groundwater governancePreparing the mind‐set:Public education on groundwater (USA1)Individual partners in the dialogue need to be better educated about groundwater and groundwatergovernance (HRV2)Fear for change in governance (acquired during the transition) has to be removed (HRV2)Organising partners and networks:Through IAH and Council of Ministries (CAN2)Building a platform for interdisciplinary dialogue (USA1)Universities can sponsor and moderate dialogues (USA2)Roundtables, workshops and public participation in policy making, scenario development and modelling (DNK)CAMS – Catchment and aquifer management system of the EA (GBR1)UK‐Groundwater Forum meetings (GBR1)Transparent and open procedures, information and round tables (DEU1)Participation of all categories of actors in the governance process, from beginning to final decisions (CZE1)Inventory of stakeholders and their role/level (BIH)Participatory approach in RBMP (SRB)Adequate planning, careful preparation of the consultation process and providing incentives for participation(GRC)Involvement of public and NGOs on governance, public discussions, enlightment of people (economical use ofwater, protection of water resources, etc. ) and input of experts (AZE)Round tables, workshops and seminars may produce conditions for increasing the level of investment ingroundwater governance. (UZB)TBA joint bodies, providing a forum for civil society involvement in water management.Catalysing elements and ideas:River basin management process (RBMP) under the EU water framework directive (ISL)Coordination of regulatory approaches by UK Technical Advisory Group (GBR2)RBMP (GBR2)UK‐Groundwater Forum (GBR2)Professional groups such as UK Chapter of IAH and Geological Society (GBR2)Stating policy and scientific problems related to more intensive uses for economic and energy purposes(NLD2)Various means of publicity and communication (CHE)Launching GWRM plans with public involvement (HUN)In framework of WB project and RBM Plans (ROU)Transparency and building trust (ESP)Effective participation in decision making, setting standards, monitoring, studies, etc. (ESP)National Water Conference (SRB)WFD Common Implementation StrategyDialogue actions and events:Public hearings in provinces (CAN1)Organise transdisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary dialogues (USA3)Providing dialogue with clearly articulated purpose and value associated with that purpose (USA4)Interdisciplinary dialogues facilitated by the districts (USA5)Public consultations by agencies (GBR2)Expanding existing dialogue intensity maybe unfeasible and probably not needed (NLD1)Question 9: What are the important steps or actions needed to establish a shared regional visionon groundwater governance? How do you see the role of your institution in achieving such anoutcome?51

A summary of proposed steps and actions are shown in Table A3‐12.Table A3‐12 Establishing a shared regional vision on groundwater governancePreparation and supportNational framework for collaboration (CAN1)Development shared vision among ministries (CAN1)Coordination of priorities (CAN2)High level political support for dialogue and cooperation (GBR2)BGS research (GBR2)BGR’s coordination of hydrogeological mapping at national, European and global level (DEU1)University of Catalonia can provide support by studies (ESP)Thessaloniki University may contribute to capacity building (GRC)StepsInterdisciplinary dialogue (USA1)Develop first a state‐wide IWR Strategy (USA3)Cooperation between districts and university (USA5)Maintaining good working relations between actors (ISL)Roundtables and informative meetings (DNK)EC‐WFD and GWPD have strengthened existing vision (GBR1)Periodic updating of (ground)water resources management plans (NLD1)Central standards or regulations, emphasizing the role of interdisciplinary dialogue (NLD2)Prepare maps of physic‐geographic setting as a basis for sound GW governance (DEU1)Input of sharing countries (in TBA setting) of their national policies, and transboundary co‐operation (CZE1)National groundwater management proposal as a starting point (CZE2)Information on the aquifer and its state (HUN)Production of guidance documents through the CIS Groundwater Working Group (EU)Developing bi‐/multilateral cooperation (UNECE)Joint delineation and status assessment TBAs (UNECE)Analyse cooperation agreements and encourage existing joint bodies for TBAs (UNECE)Involve international organisations as facilitators (UNECE).Research, hosting conferences, public outreach (USA1)University may participate in such actions (USA2)Starting dialogue for IWRS, videos on groundwater issues, White Papers, education and training (USA3)Facilitating development of dialogues to establish a shared vision (USA4)University: training in groundwater and groundwater governance (USA5)GEUS can supply info and facilitate dialogues (DNK)Instruments and approachesUsing FWD and river basin planning process or enhancing consistency (GBR2)Enhanced stakeholder engagement accompanied by education and awareness raising (GBR2)Based in interdisciplinary dialogue and knowledge/respect of laws, rules and actions (ROU)Participation, joint action, fair discussions, analysis (ESP)Multilateral cooperation activities (HRV1)Awareness of the importance and vulnerability of the resource (HRV2)Cooperation with neighbouring countries and the wider international environment (BIH)Engage in international cooperation , e.g. Danube River basin (SRB)Information – Dialogue – Involvement (GRC)Groundwater management in IWRM + stakeholder participation (TUR)Cooperation between IWA and universities/experts (ISR)Give state institutions the lead and they should cooperate with the public and NGOs (AZE)Priority for water resources – command of hydrogeological aspects – overall regional view – coordination(CHE)Signing UN convention on transboundary water courses could be a first step to harmonizing betweenupstream countries (favouring national water law) and downstream countries (international law) in CentralAsia – to be followed by IWRM and MAR principles (UZB)52

Question 10: What are the main local problems and required steps needed to establish an effectiveaction to solve them and to improve local groundwater governance? How do you see the role ofyour institution on supporting local actions?TheTables A3‐13, A3‐14 and A3‐15 present a summary of the replies to these questions. Althoughsome respondents mentioned several groundwater management issues, most of the replies arerelated to governance. Attention for human behaviour , including respect, trust, participation andcooperation is dominant. Note that the set of suggested required steps is not perfectly matching allidentified problems.Table A3‐13 Main local problems on groundwater and groundwater governanceRelated to information and knowledge:Lack of knowledge about state of groundwater (CAN1)Lack of data/monitoring (GRC)Related to perceptions, methodologies and approaches:Differences between surface water and groundwater planning (USA5)Differences between quantity and quality management (USA5)Setting common goals across jurisdictions (USA5)Appropriate time and space scales in planning (USA5)Related to (conditions for) cooperation and actionReluctance to submit to federal authority (USA2)Mistrust of regulation (USA2)Sharing groundwater between municipalities (DNK)Rural‐urban interface – large degree of urbanisation in Catalonia (ESP)National level: pending priorities for effective water rights register, for technical and financial support tobuilding administration‐users partnerships (ESP)Lack of financial resources (HRV1)Limitations of local communities in conducting groundwater protection measures (HRV1)Large number of municipal water service providers ‐ lacking capability (HRV1)Shortage of funds (HRV2)Insufficient qualified staff (HRV2)Limited scientific understanding, political consensus, coordination, public awareness, etc. (BIH)Poor cooperation and coordination between authorities of different levels (SRB)Limited human and financial resources (GRC)No participation (GRC)State neglects groundwater governance, while farmers initiate groundwater development. (UZB)Miscellaneous:Flooding (USA3)Depleting fractured‐rock aquifers (USA3)Pollution from military/Cold War legacy sites (USA3)Localized drawdown of aquifers (USA4)Limited capabilities of small municipalities (ISL)Brackish water (NLD2)Groundwater pollution (CZE2)Groundwater pollution – nitrate (ROU)Overexploitation (TUR)53

Table A3‐14 Steps to solve the main local problems on groundwater and improve groundwatergovernanceRelated to information and knowledge:Multidisciplinary studies (CAN1)Invest in applied research by universities (USA3)Exchange of info; monitoring (UNECE)Related to perceptions, methodologies and approaches:Figuring out how to address issues (USA4)Awareness campaigns to motivate farmers for better storage and use of manure (ROU)Explaining the problem to stakeholders/awareness raising (TUR)Introduction IWRM in capacity building of farmer unions/ local authorities in groundwater governance (UZB).Effective action at regional/local level, which is in line with the subsidiarity principle. This is the remit of theRiver Basin Districts / Member States (EU).Awareness raising; training of experts; groundwater experts involved in developing policies and legislation(UNECE)Related to (conditions for) cooperation and actionGetting resource extraction industries to buy into groundwater (CAN2)Cooperation between municipalities and with local institutions (ISL)Dialogue and political will to solve problems (DNK)Effective implementation of UK’s Groundwater Protection Policies (GBR2)Transferring results between hierarchical levels, more room for local levels as it comes to finding solutions(DEU2)Groundwater use, equitable distribution, control of intakes, monitoring network, preventing water leveldeclines and pollution, construct sewerage networks (AZE)UNECE: coordination/communication; training of experts; material and methodological support; groundwaterexperts involved in developing policies and legislationMiscellaneous:Desalinate brackish groundwater and infiltrate salt residue in deep aquifers (NLD2)Consolidation of water utility sector (HRV)Table A3‐15 Role or potential role of the respondents’ institutions in this contextCarrying out studies (CAN1)Identifying key protection measures (CAN2)Getting students into research (USA3)Independent analysis and venue for dialogue (USA4)Un. of California: training courses in planning and design (USA5)GEUS can provide estimates of sustainable resources at local and sub‐national scale (DNK)BGS provides decision support (GBR2)MoA plays a role in plans for municipal water supply (HRV)Improve links between authorities of different levels ‐ in data sharing and planning activities (SRB)Capacity building (GRC)Azersu is key player (AZE)The EU has limited capacities to support local actions (except perhaps through Structural Funds) (EU).Question 11: If you work in or have knowledge of a particular case study related to groundwatergovernance in your area, please provide a very brief description of it—including characteristics ofthe groundwater (i.e.: aquifer), area, scale, use, stakeholders, institutional setting, actualgroundwater issue/s.54

The projects mentioned are listed below (a brief description as provided in several cases is omittedhere): Milk river TBA project (CAN1) Alberta Oil sands assessment (CAN2) Transboundary GWRM along Mexico‐US border (USA1) Community based approaches to conflict management: Umatilla case, Oregon (USA3) Long‐term water supply security programme in Arizona (USA4) Greater Copenhagen are planning, postponing correcting measures because of uncertainties(DNK) Data collection and studies to give guidance to groundwater use for drinking water supply (NLD2) AGRUM Weser pilot project ‐ river basin management with emphasis on control of nutrients(DEU2) Groundwater for Emergency Situations (CZE1) Franco‐Swiss cooperation on the Genevese aquifer (CHE) Transboundary Thermal Groundwater body Mura‐Zala – Hung/Slovenia (HUN) Eastern Romanian Plain aquifer activities – highly stressed (ROU) Lower Llobregat aquifer system, Barcelona. Stakeholder incpvolvement in aquifer management(ESP) The Strategic Environmental Assessment of the River Basin Management Plan in the Republic ofCroatia (HRV). DIKTAS – sustainable use and protection of transboundary aquifers of the Dinaric karst region –from Slovenia to Albania (HRV2) Groundwater salinisation in the Nestos River delta (GRC) Overpumping for agricultural irrigation in Thessalia (GRC) Rationales behind irrationality of decision‐making in groundwater management (ISR) One of the main authors of “Hydrogeology of Azerbaijan”(AZE) Syrdarya River midstream case: land allocation based on the source of water . State controlsenergy for pumping and permits (UZB)Question 12: What is your key message on groundwater governance and to whom would you liketo address it?Selected key messages (in most cases it was not indicated to whom):Care for groundwater today means healthy citizens and ecosystems tomorrow (ROU)Sustainable management and protection of groundwater should be a prime concern of civilsociety and its leaders (DEU1)Changes in governance are generally less expensive and easier than improvements ininfrastructure (USA2)Governance needs a shared vision to be developed rooted in reality, thus well‐informed (NLD1)Groundwater is the part of united water resources and should be managed like that (UZB).Include as many stakeholders as possible, but these should have a basic knowledge on thethemes of the dialogue (HRV2)Integrate existing rights‐and‐regulation approach with incentive based approach with economicinstruments and with tradable property rights approach (USA3)Water pricing should consider the scarcity value of water (USA4)Industrial development that does not adequately protect water resources is short‐sighted (CAN2)Grw governance requires attention and participation of all water users and should take intoaccount groundwater‐surface water connections and the water needs of nature (USA4)55

Improving education on groundwater in general – for all actor groups (USA5)Stimulate public participation (USA5)Groundwater is extremely important for producing drinking water (NLD2)Priority to management where government conditions are favourable (ESP)Lack of sufficient investigation and monitoring may have incalculable consequences (HRV2)Question 13: How you define the Groundwater Governance in your region?This question was interpreted in different ways. Some respondents gave a definition, but most ofthose who replied produced either a kind of judgement on adequacy (rating) or highlighted a typicalfeature. Table A3‐16 attempts to summarise these ratings and the additionally mentioned features.Evidently, all this is very subjective.3. Some conclusions• This inquiry shows that all responding countries make significant efforts and progress ongroundwater governance or groundwater resources management• The EU WFD has a very prominent impact on GW governance in Europe• For most of the respondents the difference between groundwater governance and groundwaterresources management seems vague or unclear• Part of the replies is somewhat inconsistent: for instance, in general rather positive replies to thepolicies and legislation question are in several cases contradicted by replies to later questions• In many cases the replies are likely to reflect more the knowledge or perception of therespondent than the situation in the country considered• The questionnaire has ‘open’ questions and the replies are not necessarily comparable. For anext enquiry, more rigidity and more uniformity will be useful. This can be achieved by makinguse of multiple‐choice questions and well‐defined indicators.56

Table A3‐16 Overall rating of the adequacy of groundwater governance (with some additional comments)N‐America Europe AsiaCanada 1Canada 2United States 1United States 2United States 3United States 4US 5 ‐ CaliforniaIcelandDenmarkUK1: EnglandUnited Kingdom 2The Netherlands 1The Netherlands 2Germany 1Germany 2Czech Republic 1Czech Republic 2S/F Geneva aquiferHungaryRomaniaSpainCroatia 1Croatia 2Bosnia‐HerzegovinaSerbiaGreeceTurkeyIsraelAzerbaijanUzbekistanRating categories:RATING:From very good to very poorTRENDS (positive to negative change):ADDITIONAL COMMENTSLittle awareness XLimited development of policies XLimitations in scope X XBetter integration needed XMore attention for TBAs needed X XLimited transparency in WFD and WMPs XLimited stakeholder involvement XInsufficient coordination X XFinancial constraints XLimited monitoring X XRights and regulations approach X XHighly variable governance status X57

Appendix 4: Report on the Roundtable on Private and Public SectorsCooperation(by Alfonso Rivera)1 BackgroundThis panel session was designed as a contribution to the 2013 United Nations International Year ofWater Cooperation. The session was organized within the framework of the project on“Groundwater Governance: a Global Framework for Action”, which took place in The Hague on 21March 2013, prior to the official celebration of the World Water Day on Water Cooperation.An ever‐expanding global population coupled with a diminishing water supply, has resulted ingroundwater becoming increasingly significant as a strategic natural resource. Multi‐sectorialcooperation is vital if we are to establish effective groundwater governance at global as well as atregional and local levels. The aim of the roundtable was on one hand to capture the views andinterests of the private sector; and on the other hand, to explore opportunities for partnerships andinformation sharing. The roundtable sought for collaboration to define key messages to beincorporated within the project’s Framework for Action.This chapter summarizes the discussions and main conclusions of the panel.2 ParticipantsChair: András Szöllösi Nagy (Rector, UNESCO Institute for Water Education ‐ UNESCO‐IHE)Rapporteur: Alfonso Rivera (Geological Survey of Canada)Facilitator and Wrap‐up: Alfred Duda (UNESCO‐IHP)Presentation “Groundwater Governance: The Socio‐economic Benefit of Cooperation”: AnthonyTurton (Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa)Panellists from the private sector:• Roelof Stuurman (Deltares)• Ron Bohlmeijer (Heineken)• Mark Brune (Mintails Ltd.)• Ronan Le Fanic (Nestlé Waters)• Peter Newborne (Overseas Development Institute)• Svetlana Obradovic (Schlumberger)• Andrew Cameron (Shell Global Solutions)• Rian Kloosterman (Vitens)• Anthony Turton (Water Stewardship Council of Southern Africa)• Joppe Cramwinckel (World Business Council for Sustainable Development ‐ WBCSD)3 Objectives and items for the debateThe aims of the Roundtable:1. To capture the views and interests of the private sector; and2. To explore opportunities for partnerships and information sharing.The main items for the debate:1. Evaluating the importance of improved cooperation with the private sector to enhance thegroundwater governance2. Thinking out of the ‘water box’: thoughts and ideas from non‐water experts on the essentialingredients for effective groundwater governance3. The burning issue of data: how might the issue of data, a key element in terms of thestewardship of groundwater governance, become an opportunity for cooperation? How mightwe find a balance between the need to share data and data protection?58

Cameron:“We have a role to play. But there is the issue of trust; we require transparency”“Recognize that our studies take time”“Regulators sometimes can’t wait”“Clarity of message. Need to have a crystal‐clear definition of the problem we try to solve”“Require multi‐disciplinary efforts”“Agreed with groundwater being part of the water resources”“We need to make them understand (regulators) all those dimensions for governance”Newborne:“Multinational companies are concerned with water issues/governance”“In Europe, regulations are tough and it’s uncomfortable for us”“Every situation would be different”“There are many possible technical solutions”Obradovic:“Cooperation is needed”“Data exchange between public and private sectors is not bad”“The good/bad situation depends on the country”“Our main focus is: data management to deliver our business”“For instance, in Saudi Arabia we manage all of data for them”“For us (Schlumberger), it is not only equipment, we support students all over the world”“My personal opinion is that the situation is not as bad (as it seems)”Le Fanic:“Our process is such that we turn any water into good freshwater”“We are already collaborating with many stakeholders, farmers, etc.”“For us, this has been a long learning process of 50+ years, no sure short cuts”Brune:“We are a small company with a small region”“We design our business case with government in mind”“Essentially managing AMD; we try to find local solutions”Bohlmeijer:“We manage a resource we don’t own”“We are increasing our exposure to emerging markets: African, Latin‐American...”“We need good quality water for our product”“To produce 200 M hectolitres of beer, we require 19 M m3 of water”“We want to grow our business, but we are aware of the issues: industry, population, droughts,climate change... these are big challenges for us”“We try to be efficient with a limited resource”“Our goal is to reduce 25% of water in our beers by 2020”“We use source‐water protection plans in water‐scarce areas”“We compensate for water in communities”“We stimulate biodiversity”“Water scarcity needs to be addressed with all sectors”“We are aware that we cannot do it alone”Stuurman:“We cannot manage what we don’t know”“We involve locals to understand groundwater flows”“It depends on different issues: for example, subsidence in New Orleans, etc.”“Then we look for solutions together” “But there is controlling and we don’t want to spendmoney there”“I believe in strong government for strong governance”Turton:“Understand risk to mitigate risk”60

“The roles of each party’s responsibility must be clearly defined”“At the beginning of a business, many times it comes to discussing the different uses and users”“And what about (the responsibility) of water companies (Viola, Lyonnaise des Eaux...)?“Some of those companies are starting to get involved in water basin management”Le Fanic:“In Saudi Arabia there is no renewable water. Thus, we’re turning brackish water to freshwater”“Cooperation is bases on mutual trust”“We drill down to 2‐km wells”“We are ready to help support access to water to local people”Aureli:“We are confronted with misconceptions in UNESCO. Sometimes (most) we are confined in oursilos → 20 years with UNESCO and do not know much about companies; or how they operate.”“We have to make more efforts to talk to each other”Puri:“We need to cooperate for instance in innovation. We are frustrated because governmentdoesn’t invest in innovation, so we need you!”Cameron:“Most companies have innovation plans”Burchi:“A fascinating debate”“Partnership with the private sector promises for the future”“Some functions must be with government: data and priorities with respect to wherewater should go”Szöllösi Nagy:“What are your most important challenges? (In five seconds)”Panellists:1‐ Biggest challenge: Legal, social, licence to operate Trust, confidence, transparency Speak the same language Minimum requirements wrt water Balanced partners, public data, public sector speed up Understanding the problem – setting strategies Long‐term objectives, they’re not the same on each sector2‐ Most important issues in knowledge: Put it together Physical, chemical, biological Relations – trust Groundwater community lives “in a ghetto” Science goes too fast versus social development Ability to move knowledge to action Common language to demystify groundwater3‐ Knowledge‐information‐data: challenge on groundwater data management: Capacity of developing countries One open source for the whole World (Microsoft) Open source Common understanding of why data is needed Collection – interpretation Available for all Trust Acquire, quality, sharing, meaning of risk62

“Question of the data we want“Open sources, data talking.Duda:“UN system: how can they cooperate with you?”Cramwinckel:“Issue of data: its is a wrong conception that data belongs to the company”“Data collection from space”“Let’s start to move in that direction”“But something bottom‐up”“We have talked about it for about 3 years, but haven’t found a mechanism”“To go global? Well, the hurdles are huge”Kloosterman:“We would like to share data, but we don’t know how”Cameron:“Expect the carrot”“Bring certainty for businesses. This implies that if we have that carrot, then yes data sharing willcome”Newborne:“Difficult case stories. But use them as cases for cooperating”Obradovic:“Meet more often and be ready to listen”“Involve us more often”“Inform about your needs”“Tell us that you wish to collaborate with us”Le Fanic:“Water education”Brune:“UNESCO to provide leadership”“Ask us for review – it is better for us to review than to create from scratch”Bohlmeijer:“Willing to share, but how?”Stuurman:“Data – Microsoft?”Turton:“Process of engagement”“Do more as you did today!”5 Key Messages• Demystify groundwater: shallow–deep.• We are open and want to communicate; make clear what you expect from us.• This is a process; a mechanism for building relationships, collective objectives – dialogue andbuilding trust.• Define appropriate boundaries.• Knowledge and information are power; try to share.• Try to trust: negotiate and communicate; they lead to powerful results.• People involved in climate change; do you want to listen to us?• Climate variability has always been there. What is the role of groundwater?• Demystify groundwater: technical –non‐technical. Freshwater availability, food‐water nexus, that’swhy we’re involved in this debate.• Avoid silos.• Water accounting.63

• Water companies should be involved.• Groundwater use for other purposes: e.g., energy.• Businesses cannot play all games.• Integrate as much a possible on what is already ongoing.• Engage many other sectors.• Be efficient as much as possible.The four key messages below were directly written by four of the panellists; these were sent to therapporteur after the Roundtable.Mintails Ltd., Mark BruneMintails embraces the International Year of Water Cooperation. It is the principles of awareness andcooperation that is being successfully applied to the private‐public engagement addressing theunfolding environmental catastrophe affecting our area of operation – Acid Mine Drainage intrusioninto the region’s surface and groundwater resources. We believe that it is through collaborativeaction addressing immediate solutions to halt and reverse this intrusion that will lead to theformation and articulation of a broader‐based inclusive groundwater governance framework.”Shell Global Solutions, Andrew Cameron:Fresh water availability is emerging as a prominent issue for the energy industry as we seek to meetgrowing global demand. The food – energy – water nexus creates the possibility for unintendedconsequences and uncertainty from policy decisions. Greater scientific understanding is requiredparticularly toward water accounting and strengthened regulations, that allow harmonising anduseful trade‐offs that support sustainable use of groundwater. Integration of private sectorinvolvement can be improved if we can bring real clarity to the Problem we are trying to solve, theStrategy and how to engage. The incentive is for business to participate is clearly connected toopportunities around investment certainty, fairness and sustainability in water use.Nestlé Waters, Ronan Le Fanic:Water governance is a strategic activity for the coming years. Everything starts by defining a properboundary to the water system. Engaging proactively with local stakeholders and know their realexpectations is absolute key. Support this process with water education will help to increaseawareness about this invisible groundwater world. Doing so, keep an open approach and transformthreats on water into social and environmental opportunities.Vitens (drinking water company), Rian KloostermanWater companies, like Vitens, have very much knowledge of the groundwater system in our supplyarea, but also in the developing countries (Mozambique, Kenya etc) where we are working. Vitens ‐as public owned company‐ wants to share our knowledge and data for improving sustainability(people, planet and profit).Groundwater is a slow and vulnerable system, with improving economic(energy) potentials. To solve this upcoming struggle between planet and profit a long termgroundwater complex system approach is necessary. Outcomes should be defined in terms ofunderstanding the complexity added with physical and chemical equilibriums.6 SummaryThe synthesis below is neither intended as an exhaustive analysis of the discussion, nor as the officialconclusions of the Roundtable. It is intended as a short executive summary based on factualstatements heard during the panel discussions.The issues of trust and mistrust between public and private sectors were raised many times both bythe private sector as well as by the audience in the room. It would seem that in many cases it is a64

matter of interpretations and misunderstandings. The panellists told a few positive stories of trustingmechanisms in place between the private and public sectors.It would appear that the private sector would be willing to cooperate but more often than not, theydo not find clear mechanisms for building relationships. They suggest that a clear mechanism forengagement be established.The issue of the data was extensively discussed and the question of sharing or not sharing wasclarified. The private sector is ready to share its data but it doesn’t seem to know how. In some cases,the ownership of the data was challenged: does data belong to industry?The private sector extensively invests in innovation; it is part of their business; that is not always thecase of the public sector. It was agreed that innovation would go a long way in solving many waterrelatedissues. Remote‐sensing technologies, for instance, were cited as an example and a way to goin the future.In terms of education, the private sector repeatedly mentioned that groundwater continued to be amystery for most. The private sector perceives groundwater scientists as a community living in aghetto. Thus, water education was recommended and more meetings of this type stronglysuggested.All in all cooperation between private and public sectors should be based in mutual trust. This willnot come automatically, it is something that needs to be built. However, companies in theRoundtable suggested that other important stakeholders (industries or not) should be also involved:water users, agriculture, water companies.It was generally agreed that scientific knowledge and understanding groundwater is a prerequisiteto any groundwater governance plan. UNESCO was cited as the main international leader to carry onworking hand in hand for groundwater governance. They asked that there is some way of wateraccounting and that there is more efficiency. The incentives for businesses to participate are stronglylinked to opportunities in investments, clearly defined problems to solve, and a strategy andmechanisms to engage.65