The keen interest of our organisations for the issue of water in the Mediterranean is known already before the Rio Conference. In our Athens Declaration (1991) we proposed the establishment of a “Mediterranean Water Community” and a Mediterranean Commission for Sustainable Management of Water and Natural Resources.

In the place of the first proposal we have today the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership with Water as one of the priority areas, the Mediterranean Free Trade Zone and today the creation of the “EuroMed Forum on Water” which we welcome whole heartily and in which we would like to contribute as much as we can.

The second proposal gave rise to what later reduced in scope became the Mediterranean Commission of Sustainable Development (MCSD). There, the Work Group on Water was frequented by several NGOs. This reference to the past, as well as to our formal positions presented to the previous Water Conferences from Rome (1992) to Turin (1999) is made in order to emphasize the continuity and consistency of our positions. Comparing them to those included in the vision or discussed today one could realise that many of the points raised some years ago by NGOs are adopted or otherwise reflected in the documents in front of us several years later. This indicates a healthy dialogue and a positive exchange of ideas in our region.

1. The aforementioned references explain why the NGO committee is pleased and welcomes the present Vision on water, but is also anxious that after so many years this vision is still “a vision on paper” which means that at the moment in concrete terms is still nothing but “ink on paper”. So we hope that the creation of the Euro Med Water Forum and the call for proposals will mark an important new step at the end of 2001.

2. The references of the vision on demand –side strategies, river basin management, water for the environment and its emphasis to integrated water management approach are particularly important.  

3. NGOs put particular emphasis on the need to apply sustainability principles and tackle the water problems of different time horizons simultaneously. While dealing with the pressing issues of today (reducing, for instance, loses in transport and water distribution of irrigation) we should prepare seriously for the future by making the necessary investments, securing the quality of water (particularly of ground waters), increasing of the ability of the soil to retain more rain water by increasing plant cover, recharging the underground aquifers, reducing floods and facilitating the functioning of the various vital biogeochemical parts of the natural water cycle, which should be in the center of our water policies for the future.

4. NGOs strongly support the idea expressed in the vision that water policies need to integrate environmental objectives equal to economic and social objectives. Similarly, we support the need to preserve ecological functions of all water resources. Furthermore, the environmental request should be one of the priorities.

The action plan should reflect these priorities and support measures to solve the existing conflicts between water uses and the water required for the proper functioning of nature. Here we should clarify a major misconception about the so-called competition between “water for nature” and water for other uses.

Normally, there is no part of water which is not for nature. Nature produces the water necessary for all other uses but there is a limit of what we can take out of nature. Not because we are kind to it, but because otherwise the natural mechanisms are unable to function and provide us with the required quantity and quality of water needed.

5. We emphasise again the paramount importance of participatory mechanisms in dealing with water management. We advocate, therefore, for the establishment of River Basin Consultative Committees with the participation not only of users, including NGOs, but also private sector and, of course, the official appropriated institutions.

6. NGOs express some concern about the use in the vision of some concepts that may lead to misunderstanding and mismanagement, such as

a) “compensations”, related to irrigated agriculture, 

b) “water transfers”, which should only be authorized (mostly for human consumption) when water efficiency/demand management measures in the receiving basin have been “tried and failed”.

7. We stress that concerning the water privatisation, water pricing and valuation we recall all other international declarations about the needs to secure the minimum safe water conditions for the poor. The growing demands for a privatisation and liberalisation of water services do not have per se a positive effect for a better sustainable water management and have to be considered in each specific case. We further stress the point that privatisation and liberalisation should under no circumstances lead to a decline of democratic and participatory mechanisms dealing with water management.

8. We repeat that particular attention should be paid to the use of water (quality and quantity) related to agricultural development schemes due to the up-coming trade liberalisation.

9. We propose to implement Strategic Environmental Assessment, SIAs, of any proposal for water engineering works in particular those supported by MEDA, the EIB and bilateral agencies. This civil society should be fully associated to the implementation of SIAs and to the definition of integrated policies.

10. NGOs would like to see coherence between the vision discussed in Brussels, the Turin Action Plan, the Water Programme, the approaches and objectives of the forthcoming Water Framework Directive (for EU-Southern Member States), and the call for tenders to be adopted. Criteria of the Water Programme should be harmonized with those of the SMAP priority on integrated water management. Moreover, additionally to these two possibilities of support, the sustainable management of water resources should be and integral part of all MEDA funded projects.

The NGO finally consider that clear and effective mechanisms for the implementation of the Water programme (sufficient staff, clear guidelines) should be defined from the beginning to avoid problems similar to the SMAP Programme.

Arab Network for Environment and Development (RAED)
European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
Friends of the Earth (FoE Mednet)
Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture and Sustainable Development (MIO-ECSDE)
WWF Mediterranean Programme (WWF/MEDPO)