My Outcome Number 1

For me, one of the biggest outcomes of our project was something that I learned about working in a group. I learned, that if one sticks too heavily to his own vision, and get’s irritated about everything and everyone that is trying to hinder the vision to become true, one doesn’t get anywhere in a group work. I had to give up with some of my ideas, and accept some of others' ideas that I wasn’t so excited about in the beginning, but that only enabled our group to proceed. It is important to see where the group can get, with its potential and limitations, and head there, not somewhere inside some individual member’s head.

I think we all learned to compromise and listen to each other better during the course. In our last meeting before the final critique I said: “our group work has improved little by little the whole spring.” I really feel so. And I think that is a real achievement for all of us three.

Metablogging

In the beginning of the course we were told that writing a blog will be one of the learning methods. I was very happy to hear that, because I like blogging very much and think that it's a good channel to share thoughts, links and other stuff, plus interact within the group as well as with people outside our group. So what happened? Our blog wasn't benefited as much as it could've been, because the main way of communication was email, in the end. More or less 5 writings were posted each month, of which I personally probably posted the least.

I still think it's a good idea to make the students create their own blog. We could've shared our memos from the meetings here! That way also the "outsiders" who are interested in our latest proceedings could've been informed. Oh well, it's needless to say "we should've..." now. I thinks the quality of our posts was pretty high: many times there was a lot of substance and own reflections. Sending the memos here, not via email, would've made our blog actually really active and high-quality!

For the course personnel, I advise to give this hint to the future SGT students: use the blog for every kind of information sharing: memos, links, photos, reflections, sharing emotions. Also, only in the end of the studio I discovered the blogs of other groups. The blogs should be promoted among the groups in the very beginning! It would be fun if other groups would follow the blogs, too.

Helsinki Centre's future?

The course group work has laid an important platform for the Helsinki centre.But I believe that the effort should not end as the course ends.There are significant tasks which could take the initiation process to an official and a better stage.
As it has been stated,Finlands early active participation in the water sector(as in the Helsinki rules) and its good profile of managing shared water resources with neighbouring countries are the major driving forces behind.So what can be done next...

1.The related Finnish ministries (Ministry of :- Agriculture and forestry,environment,Foreign affairs) should go through the course results(report: vision,mission,structure of the centre).Then there should be organised a meeting betweeen officials from the three ministries to discuss their views on the proposal for the Centre.

2.One task could be promoting  the idea and the plan for the Centre at least within the Aalto university.
Here other institutions which were not involved in the first phase(e.g Universities Partnership for Transboundary Waters,Tampere university) can comment on the results.In addition we have been lately informed that there are US institutions working on transboundary disputes;it would also be wise to find out more information and their current activities.

3.Moreover,one can provide minor public opportunities for further discussions and development of the ideas compiled by the group.This can help to assess the public stand towards the idea of establishing the center in Finland.

4.The other critical task would be to look for a first time financial support to test the centre's plan with a small pilot case.The proposed project coordinator,secretary and legal expert can at this first case be chosen by Aalto university professionals.

There may also be other simple tasks which can lend voice to the centre's establishment. Generally the effort can be taken further and further...until  Finlands knowledge and technical experience on the water sector  contribute to Global peace in transboundary water areas through the HCTW.

News on the pilot case area:Lake Turkana

The Helsinki centre's pilot case area is on the news this Tuesday.The news was not directly about the Gibe III dam which was the centre's pilot case.But it indicates that the proposed actions by the centre will solve lots of problems in the area in addition to the dam controversy.
According to the Kenyan broadcasting corporation , a Militia group from Ethiopia have controlled the fish rich Dogonyang belt displacing over 200 Turkana fishermen along lake Turkana.It is also stated that following the displacement, fish harvesting on the lake has gone down.A humanitarian worker Sam Akale says "There is rising insecurity at the border after local fishermen protested against the dam on river Omo, the main tributary to Lake Turkana,".

The resulting meeting scheduled to take place will among other issues discuss the rising insecurity along the Ethiopia- Kenya border where local pastoralists have engaged each other in conflicts.

The centre's proposed actions included facilitating a binding agreement and strengthening the regional monitoring unit using professionals from the two countries.I believe these and related actions of the centre provide a sustainable management system and legislation framework for the area.In the near future it is likely  that  the tension on trans boundary water areas and the demand for shared water resources grows.Helsinki Centre for Transboundary Waters works for preventing TW conflicts by sustainable management and legislation.There is really a need  for such a centre.

http://www.eastafricaforum.net/2010/05/04/ethiopian-militia-invade-turkana/

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90855/6879948.html [Disputed dam fuels Ethiopia-Kenya border attacks]

Finland for Peace Mediation

The Finnish Foreign Ministry published today a study entitled “Peace Mediation – Finland’s Guidelines”. (see http://formin.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=191825&nodeid=15145&culture=en-US )

 According to the study, Finland's role in peace mediation can and should be strengthend further. It states that peace mediation is increasingly important in international crisis prevention. I browsed through the study and looked for any mentions of water. I found something! The study says: "Tutkitaan mahdollisuuksia panostaa välitystoiminnan kehittämiseen osana luonnonvaroista johtuvien konfliktien ratkaisua.", which can be translated to "Possibilities to peace mediation as a part of solving conflicts related to natural resources will be studied." If I understand it right (it IS sort of ambigous...), it means that Finland could take a more active role in solving water conflicts, as water is a fundamental natural resource, as a part of it's attempt to become an active peace mediator.

So... was our thought of HCTW's cooperation with CMI that far-fetched? Why couldn't Finland in particular take an active role in water conflict prevention? Don't we have perfect resources, knowledge and international status for that?

Just wondering whether we should contact Alexander Stubb.

ps. I don't know what happended to the layout of our blog some weeks ago, but at least for me it looked suddenly very messy. I tried to repair it but I couldn't, so I changed the layout completely... It's never too late! :)

Poster

In the final critique we presented briefly a poster that describes HCTW's profile, mission, activities and organizational structure. It was a useful task to prepare the poster for two reasons: (1) I hadn't ever done a poster. I don't know if I made it right, but at least it got me a bit further in knowing how to make a poster. (2) It made me sum things up, make it simpler, clearer, more populistic. We were finishing with our report while making the poster, and we actually took sentences FROM the poster TO our report.

A good learning experience.

Experience from Group work and learning process

There was a great deal of experience in the group work and learning process of the whole course.
I, at the beginning of the course, was not positive about working in a case which is totally different from my background. But that was my first lesson since I did not prioritize and submit my choices properly. Then after deciding to go on with the case, we found out soon that one group member was not able to continue with the course. This was also discouraging, because it was like losing one opportunity of sharing different thoughts and experiences. Moreover the load on the 3 members left was predictable to be higher.
My first weeks of the course were then full of busy days finding background information about the case and familiarizing myself with the subject. I spent too much time not knowing which was relevant to our group’s case. Here the group discussions helped a lot. I brought all the information, in my understanding, to the discussion table and it was easier to sort out the relevant ones. I usually felt that my group mates have in one way or another come across water related topics; they were not total strangers. Fortunately, they were smart enough trying to find out everyone’s potential, information and way of contributing to the group work. I learnt how vast information from different sources can be brought to discussion to make it a sensible project plan.
Then the whole process was time taking with lots of meetings and discussions. I noticed finally that our mails and calendars were full of SGT meetings. Personally, even if I was giving the course all the energy I had, it often seemed a bit challenging to be satisfied with the result. Adjusting proper time for other course studies was also another challenge to overcome. It was really time demanding. Especially the last two weeks of the course were demanding for me. After all the group managed to do more than enough having the least number of members per group.It was wonderful to see the final results and visible outputs of the group work; wonderful enough to make me forget the exhausting days.

Presentation and critique:briefly

So, we had an interesting presentation time on monday.
The final structure of the Helsinki Centre for Transboundary Waters was presented from the poster.
We should have used slides as it seemed that the poster was not visible enough for the audience.but it was original and catchy,everyone was listening when the structure was explained.Then we presented the pilot case with the proposed actions of the Helsinki centre for the pilot case.The group's decision to use a pilot case was proved right here.People are eager to know how the Helsinki centre will deal with real transboundary water cases.It was also interesting to see that there were many questions from the audience.It emphasizes the potential of the centre's idea to gain public attention.It really can be established!
something else...
The questions,comments and critiques were mostly what the group have discussed in advance.But we had no time to answer all of them.
Later I thought that it would have been easier to catch the audience with a petition paper.A paper saying 'I support the establishment of the Helsinki Center...'.I bet everybody would have signed,to be the first one to officially support the idea.
Hoping to hear from HCTW soon!

WWF Promoting the UN Watercourses Convention

WWF promotes the ratification of the UN Watercourses Convention by year 2011. Check out the promotion postcards at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/postcard_final_16jun09_highres.pdf
and the main page of the promotion at http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/policy/conventions/water_conventions/un_watercourses_convention/ !

HELSINKI CENTRE FOR  TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS - PILOT CASE

The project group chose one pilot case to see how the center works in real cases.
The chosen case is a Hydropower dam by Ethiopia on the Omo river which empties to Lake Turkana of Kenya.The hydropower project is on progress and arguments on the project have also continued.

Transboundary countries: Ethiopia and Kenya
Case: Hydropower project
Name: GG-III DAM (Gilgel Gibe 3 dam)
Water resources considered: Omo River, Lake Turkana

Stakeholders:

• Ethiopian government, Kenyan government, Italian government
• Ethiopian electric power corporation (EEPCo), Salini construction, and Kenya Electricity Generating company (KenGen)
• African Development Bank, European Investment Bank, World Bank
• Friends of Lake Turkana (FoLT)
• Environmental groups (NGO’s), International rivers (based in California), Survival international and 
• Downstream settlers                                                                                                                    

What is the argument? 

The Omo River is a significant water resource of southern Ethiopia. Its course is entirely contained within the boundaries of Ethiopia, and empties into Lake Turkana on the border with neighboring country Kenya.NGO’s claim that proper impact assessment studies are not being carried out and the dam will threaten the livelihoods of tribal people and devastate fisheries in Kenya’s Lake Turkana. One of the active environmental groups, International Rivers, argues that the dam could be a development disaster for Ethiopia and the region and it sets preconditions for future international funds and further progress of the project. 

The Ethiopian Electric power corporation (EEPCo) by its official document of environmental and social impact assessments states that the effects on the natural and social environment of the project appear to be negligible due to its geographic location.

EEPCo accuses NGOs of ‘going against the spirit of Copenhagen’ by opposing the project and says they were ‘trying to deprive Africans of the right to electrification. And it says ‘Kenya is the major beneficiary of this project. We are going to supply them with power. They are working on the agreement to provide power right now.’

Though the arguments as well as the hydropower project have still continued, some efforts are being carried out to let all the parties consider each other’s concern and work for the best practical scenario.

 Helsinki Centre's proposal :

 A proposal suggesting how the Helsinki Centre for Transboundary Waters would work in this pilot case by legal facilitation, organizing platforms and by conducting researches and publishing journals.more details of the proposal will be provided on the group's final report.

1. Legal facilitation

Enhancing the initiation for the countries to ratify the UN watercourses convention will be a major task for the centre. If the countries ratify the conventions, since the procedures for dispute prevention and handling are included in the convention, it will provide an acceptable reference to follow. The reference helps to reduce the current stress and the potential of having future water disputes in the region. In addition ,there is no common treaty on the use of the Omo-Turkana water way.

HCTW, in contact and collaboration with the UN waters and African Union, can facilitate the ratifying process for the UN watercourses convention and alternatively support the countries to create a bilateral binding regional agreement. 

2.Platforms

 Organizing seminars, meetings and workshops is an additional alternative task for the HCTW.For instance, the centre can facilitate the process of  Organizing a workshop for Ethiopian Electric corporation to present for discussion the findings from their environmental impact assessment, progress of the project and current situation of the project area.

3. Strengthening the regional monitoring unit

It is mentioned in EEPCo's side that an Environmental and Social monitoring and Management Implementation Unit is established in the region by Ethiopia. HCTW can get itself informed of the current status of the unit and support the effort by proposing better strategies to strengthen the unit. One way to list a few actions can be:

• To find information from the Ethiopian ministry of water resources and identify institutions for consulting the unit with data services and research.
• To suggest and find the possibility of upgrading the unit to include officials or professionals from the two countries 

4.   Research + journal

After going through the background situation of the pilot case the HCTW will be able to choose a valuable research topic in the area. For instance, to study the environmental and social impact, the centre can contact and work with research groups in Arba Minch University (regional institution of Ethiopia), Kenyan professionals and experts from the Finnish water forum. Then results of the background study and conducted research can be published on the centre’s journal. The publication will include implications of the results and alternative actions, which may help to preserve the livelihood.

                                                                                                                                            

An interesting article on the UN Watercourses Convention!

I read the article "Renewed hope for the UN Watercourses Convention" by Jamie Pittock, published in the Water21 -magazine in August 2009. It gave me new information on the ratification process of the Convention. I found especially interesting the different perspectives that the countries who have/haven't ratified the Convention have. I thought I'd share with you the best bites of the article, freely written:

The 5th World Water Forum was held in 2009 in Istanbul. Surprisingly, in Forum's thematic and regional panels, the support for the ratification of the UN Watercourses Convention was stronger than ever. In September 2009 the eighteenth member country (Spain) ratified the Convention, which means, that 17 more countries need to ratify it in order to the Convention to come into force. In the Forum, however, more than ten countries committed to join the Convention. Among them were Spain and France, which are likely to influence the Francophone and Hispanic countries.

Despite the strong support for the ratification, the UN Convention was missing from the key international processes announced at the Forum. Also, the 3rd UN Water Development Report launched at the Forum didn't mention the ratification and implementation of the UN Convention, although it predicted increasing water conflicts between countries. The Ministerial Statement of the Forum didn't have a specific mention of the Convention either, although "existing agreements" in general were mentioned. The Article didn't explain WHY the Convention was avoided from mentioning - it would be very interesting to know.

Some examples of different countries' perspectives on the ratification of the Convention:

Turkey (hasn't ratified): "Opponents to the UN Framework Convention have argued that each transboundary basin and dispute has its own peculiarities and characteristics and should therefore be treated spearately. The States which abstained (27) or voted against (3 versus 103) the Convention drew attention to the lack of consensus on several of its key provisions, mainly on those governing dispute settlement and further to imbalance created between the lower and upper riparian States." (President Suleyman Demirel in a 2004 speech to the Turkish Foreign Policy Institute)

Iraq (has "accessed"): "With the increasing demand and competition on water resources (...) and the intensive pace of construction of dams and water diversion schemes in neighbouring countries, it became obvious that an internationally accepted framework was the only viable solution for potential differences between the riparian countries. Only in this way can we ensure a real partnership between all relevant countries on water sharing rather than upstream verses downstream approach that leaves the downstream partners vulnerable." (Ambassador Hassan Janabi, Iraq's permanent Representative)

France (ratification procedure initiated): Regarding the 1992 UNECE Water Convention, The 1997 UN Watercourses Convention and the EU's Water Framework Directive: "The three instruments are essentially complementary. There wouldn't be any contradiction for France to join the 1997 Instrument. (...) The essential for us is more related to the wider scope of the 1997 UN Convention, which would become the first international instrument related to international watercourses, whereas the existing frameworks have only regional force. That would be a step forward." (Laurent Stefanini, French Ambassador for the Environment)

I will end this post by giving you a link to WWF Water Conventions page. WWF has a role in promoting the UN Watercourses Convention and the UNECE Water Convention and in 2006 it launched a global initiative to accelerate its ratification process.

TWC ACTIONS AND POTENTIAL PARTNERS

TWC ACTIONS

Workshop outcome

Group one: conflict case studies. What transboundary water conflicts do you know? 

 

Group two:What could be TWC's actions?

 

Group three: Why would/wouldn't UN countries ratify the UN convention on the law of non-navigational uses of international watercourses?

Actions for TWC

Information & Consultation Services

• Offer useful information and consultation services for sustainable TW management for countries
• Engineering and technical advising
• Environmental consultation
• “Opening” information
• Encouraging the sharing of information
• Facilitating “informed” water management

1. COLLECTING INFORMATION

-       Scientific facts

-       Mutual facts

-       Rumours

-       Beliefs

-       Attitudes

-       Assumptions

2. ORGANIZING INFORMATION

-       Cultural & religious traditions

-       Area & boarders

-       Political ideologies

-       Conflicts & history

-       Media

-       Relationship between national & global

3. CONNECTING INFORMATION

-       Inter-linkages between different aspects

-       Understanding the whole picture

EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT: INFO & ASPECTS

-       Experiences on transboundary issues

-       Peoples’ needs

-       Reasons for opposition and resistance (not always environmental!)

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT: INFO & ASPECTS

-       Behavior

-       Political culture (getting support by joining people’s opinions)

-       Media: sensational or objective?

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL: INFO & ASPECTS

-       Synergy between industry & community

-       BAT and beyond that

-       Monitoring

-       Scenarios

-       Biological & geographical background

ECONOMICAL BACKGROUND: INFO & ASPECTS

-       Who uses water and for what?

-       Municipal

-       Industry

-       Agriculture & food production

-       Navigation

POLITICAL: INFO & ASPECTS

-       Institutions in transboundary area: weak or strong; i.e. courruption rate

-       Political culture

-       Geopolitics

-       Relations between different institutions in the riparian countries (both national and transboundary level) -> How well different stakeholders communicate? Is the lack of communication due to cultural behavior? Hierarchies? I.e. governmental officials & private sector do not communicate or cooperate in some cultures.

Promotion

-       Promoting fair TW usage

-       Publish a journal on TW matters

Education & Research

-       Scientific research

-       Assisting with education (in Universities): courses, seminars, theses (bachelor, master, doctoral)

-       Offering and education programme on TW issues: doctoral theses, post grad school?

Crisis Management

-       Suggesting dispute resolving strategy

-       Work with riparian countries to preserve culture & environment in TW areas

-       Offer conflict-solving services for countries: CMI provides?

Legislations & Governance

-       Promoting UN Water Convention as a framework for regional agreements?

-       Give advice to river basin organizations about TW agreements

-       Assist in creating sustainable water policies & technical policies

-       Legal advicing: How to update and implement the environmental laws? How to intergrate the UN Convention into local legislation?

-       Assist in institutional strengthening

-       Basin commissions?

-       “Water bodies”

Here, also an active part could be implemented:

-       Initiating states to ratify UN Water Convention

-       Organizing a governmental summit creating proceedings around TW issues; creating a TW protocol (compare with climate change issues and global activity there!)

Platform

All above-mentioned actions are necessary for a global platform. TWC would work as a connecting platform in different TW issues:

-       Helping the exchange of ideas and views: governmental level decision making (politics, science)

-       Organizing seminars, meetings, events for different TW actors (countries, industry…)

-       Facilitating participation on a local and regional level

-       Organizing negotiations between riparian states in TW areas (especially due to conflicts)

-       Meetings between (TW-) riparian countries’ governments (this could be the summit mentioned under Governance-topic)

Format for a 'A brief look at the institutions'

According to the group plan,understanding the main activities and network of international water institutions is vital to find the right place for the future center.For sure,despite having many water related institutions the efforts for a better world are not centralized and well organized.And trans-boundary water issues are potentially among the primary global concerns in the growing demand and competition for water.
The group has planned to prepare an organizational structure,after the group members have studied different institutions(almost completed).This structure would help while contacting the representatives of the stakeholders,the very next activity.

A format for observing the institutions,

1.Main activities of the institution
2.Members and key partners
3.Geographical coverage and network
4.Financial resources(funds)

Solesbury William: Sustainable Livelihoods: A Case Study of the Evolution of DFID Policy

This paper was given at the beginning of the course and it could work as a straight guideline to our project plan. There are lots of similarities.

- Interesting paper on how something (in sustainable development field) is turned into an everyday policy. Could this give us ideas, how transboundary water areas are already researched but not yet transferred into policy and practice?

- Need to find linkages between research, policy and practice, and to develop simple tools for (in our case) policy-makers to promote transboundary water areas’ development.

- Success needs certain attributes/factors:

o People’s needs? Cooperative atmosphere? People centered approaches? Industry centered approaches? Many angles must be covered.

o Different stakeholders should cooperate (also in planning a centre; researchers, politicians, implementers, experts…)

o Continuous communication, information

o Necessary and sufficient conditions: time, money… what else?

- For example: what is the influence of research in creating a policy and practice? Or are there already known changes in policy, which are driving towards setting up the transboundary water centre? How would the UN Convention fit into this: isn’t it already an initiation for such TW policy?

- Key interactions

Concluding from that above, we could still think about (for TWC of course):

1. Basic idea, “VISION”
2. Commitment, policy, “MISSION”
3. Then cover:
1. Background material
2. Key interactions
3. Analyze the interactions

Then, some additional questions to be answered:

- When did transboundary water issues become apparent?

- When were the first (political) definitions or actions? By who?

In the Solesbury's paper is mentioned for example The Brutland Commission report (1987), which stated the framework for sustainable development. These key factors could be taken for guidelines always, when working with transboundary water issues in those areas and with the local communities. I mean, that these could give a guideline for TWC, what kind of actions and services they have to have, at least on second hand if not right under their organization:

- a political system

- an economic system

- a social system

- a production system

- a technological system

- an international system

- a flexible administrative system

So, again a lot of theoretical stuff to think about. That kind of studies should be taken into considerations, once we have an development project in a way.

Ethiopia as one case for the future TWC

As we found out, Ethiopia is one of the main countries on focus in International Strategy for Finland's Water Sector. What a coincidence, since Ethiopia is one of our group member's home country! So, we have decided to choose Ethiopia as one of the cases to study for TWC as a "case-to-start-with".

Another coincidence after a while is that CMI (Crisis Management Initiative) has been active recently especially in Ethiopia. CMI has collaboration between the African Union's Conflict Management Devision (AU CMD) and the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD). I just found that out when I surfed in web.Why is this interesting? Well, CMI is a Finnish non-profit organization, which works for crisis management and solving disputes. It is funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Finland. We have thought of that as a possible co-operative organization for TWC, since they both would locate in Finland, and both are in interests of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

I think we have a case here!

(Strategy available: http://www.formin.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid=172150&nodeid=15453&contentlan=2&culture=en-US)

(CMI Home Page, available: http://www.cmi.fi/peace-mediationand-dialogue/au-mediation-support-capacity-project.html)