Multicriterion Decision Analysis for Conflict Resolution in Transboundary River Basins

Home , Keramoti, Nikiforos, Regional units of Greece, Topeiros

MULTICRITERION DECISION ANALYSIS FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN TRANSBOUNDARY RIVER BASINS

by J. GANOULIS, El. Kolokytha and Y. Mylopoulos

Division of Hydraulics and Environmental Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Sharing international waters in transboundary river basins may lead to potential conflict, political tensions and even, in some extreme cases, as the media often predicts, to armed confrontations. The reasons behind these situations may be of an internal nature, or caused by external or international forces. Internal issues include temporal fluctuations of available water resources, conflicts in water use between different sectors (drinking water, agriculture, industry), mismatch between water supply and water needs and other institutional, legal and economic factors. External or international issues include socio-economic, cultural or political differences, and historical and geopolitical issues. All these reasons may result in countries setting different objectives and having different management plans for their shared national water resources. Integrated water resources management in transboundary regions involves alternative options for water storage and use (reservoirs, river diversion and irrigation systems), for wastewater treatment and disposal (biological oxidation, nitrification-denitrification, use of pipe outfalls in different locations and use of lagoons or aquifer recharge), different states of nature (climatic conditions, type of soils, irrigated crops, irrigation systems and socio-economic environments) and various preferences or objectives (economic, social, environmental, aesthetics, etc.). Alternative options may carry environmental consequences and risks to ecosystems and human health, such as microbiological and toxic contamination or eutrophication. The impacts on the environment and their prevention should be weighted against the economic benefits and social consequences. Multicriterion Decision Analysis (MCDA) is proposed in this paper as a decision support methodology for managing transboundary risks related to different criteria and objectives set by different countries. For this purpose, three alternative methods are proposed in order to facilitate negotiations and the final decisions. All are based on the combined use of modelling and a decision support method called Composite Programming (CP). In the first method, each country proceeds separately and evaluates alternatives according to its own objectives. In the second approach the different objectives used by the two countries are first traded-off and then alternatives are ranked according to the composite objectives. The third method is based on the aggregation of the countries' different alternatives in order to obtain a consensus between the two partners. The case of the international river Nestos/Mesta, flowing between Greece and Bulgaria, provides an illustration of this methodology in practice.

KEYWORDS: Transboundary Water Management, Multicriterion Decision Analysis, The Nestos/Mesta River 2

INTRODUCTION

On a global scale, the importance of transboundary water resources is far from negligible: according to reports submitted to the UN, about 50% of the land on Earth (excluding Antarctica) is located in internationally shared water catchments. About 40% of the world's population lives in this area, which extends over more than 200 international river basins. Historically, rivers and lakes have been used to determine frontiers between countries and because of this have been the scene of numerous conflicts throughout history (e.g. the Rhine between France and Germany, the Rio Grande between the USA and Mexico, the Odder and Neisse between Germany and Poland, and the Amur and Ussuri between Russia and China). In many cases river basin boundaries do not match national political borders. Issues and problems of transboundary water management emerge, especially when countries occupy parts of the upstream or downstream area of the river catchment. Water resource sharing then increases in complexity (e.g. the Nile between Egypt and Sudan, the Middle East conflict over the Jordan River, the Danube between many European countries, and the Elbe between the Czech Republic and Germany). A basic question is how and through what kind of processes water in transborder regions may unify rather than divide sharing nations, and how stakeholders in international water catchments may increase their benefits without causing losses to others. The issue is complex because political issues of domestic and external policy are involved and affect all considerations from technical to ecological This paper first reviews the complexity of transboundary water resources management and different strategies for regional negotiations. Then, the technical and institutional approaches, which may lead to agreements on sharing waters, are analysed. Effective implementation of such treaties may be realized following a bottom-up approach, based on “regional partnerships”. There is a need for such regional exchanges and partnerships to be coordinated, and this makes the creation of the UNESCO Chair/INWEB (International Network of Water – Environment Centres for the Balkans) extremely important.

TYPOLOGY OF TRANSBOUNDARY RIVER BASINS AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS

Types of Transboundary River Basins Different types of borders dividing states that have some territory in a river basin are shown in Figure 1: (1) Borders cross the river at a point and divide the river catchment in two parts, the upstream and the downstream. In this case, there is no joint sharing of one river section by the two states. This is the case of the border between Hungary and Yugoslavia at points crossed by the Danube and Tisza Rivers or the border between Greece and FYR of Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) crossed by the Vardar /Axios) River near the city of Gevgelia (Figure1,a). (2) Rivers serve as borders between states, like the lower course of the Danube River, which serves as the border between Bulgaria and Rumania (Figure 1,b); and (3) Borders that follow and also cross international rivers.

(3)

(2)

(1)

RIVER A RIVER A R i v e r Del ta R i v e r Del ta

LAND LAND

SEA SEA

(a) (b)

Figure 1 Schematic presentation of two types of interstate borders crossing or following a river.

How the interstate borders follow or cross, or both, the international rivers and how they divide rivers and river basins, will determine what type of water resources problems are or will likely be posed for bilateral or multilateral interstate solutions. A large number of international agreements for solving various types of interstate water resources problems are available for reference and act as precedents. Different water interdependencies from the South Balkans can be used as an illustrative example, (Figure 2). In the case of the Evros/Maritza River (between Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey) there are no major water supply problems as there are no other water uses besides irrigation. However, there are complex issues of cooperation in order to protect riparian areas from floods and inundations, such as occurred recently during February and May 1998. Ecological considerations of the Evros River delta have also become very important in recent years. In the case of the Aoos River (between Greece and Albania) there have been protests from Albania regarding the construction of a large dam on the Greek side. In the case of the Axios/Vardar River (between Greece and FYR of Macedonia) the number of conflicts on water resources management issues has increased since 1965, due to intensive irrigation, plans for constructing new dams in FYR of Macedonia, and the accelerating pollution of the river. The greatest challenge in the region is the Nestos/Mesta River between Greece and Bulgaria. Despite earlier agreements, Bulgaria has in the past withheld water for increased agricultural and industrial needs. Since 1975 the Nestos flow has declined from 1500 million m3 to 600 million m3 resulting in repeated Greek protests. A series of negotiations did not resulted in agreement; and failure to resolve the situation resulted in conflicts between the two countries. Recently an agreement has been reached, but noticeable pollution from the Bulgarian part has raised the level of tension in a region of Greece highly dependent on irrigated agriculture and hydropower. There is a major need for cooperation and application of European Union (EU) guidelines for Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in these transboundary river basins. 4

Figure 2: International river basins in South Balkans.

Potential Conflicts of Riparian States in Water Resources Development

Disputes over shared water resources among nations have a long history. According to Gleick (1991, 1992), four classes of water-related disputes may be distinguished, i.e. water resources as 1) strategic goals 2) targets during war 3) tools or weapons of conflict, and 4) roots of conflict. Conflict situations in transboundary water resources management occur on at least two levels: 1) conflict among goals, objectives and attributes, in particular economic, environmental and social criteria and 2) conflicts of interest between countries and among groups of actors involved. Goals: Broadly speaking, every state has social, economic and political goals linked to water resources development, conservation, and control and protection of the river basin. Economic goals may be to obtain new water resources in order to increase food production, conservation goals may 5 be to control water pollution, and control and protection goals may concern defence from floods or drought control. These goals may be achievable by jointly building water reservoirs. This would entail the states involved cooperating together and solving possible areas of conflict.

Purposes in accomplishing goals:

Goals are accomplished by various water resources developments, transfers of water from the water-surplus adjacent river basins, water conservation, control and protection. Each particular goal means satisfying some particular purpose, which may have to do with irrigation, drainage, hydropower production, navigation, water supply, water pollution control, flood defence, drought control, or other.

Objectives and attributes in accomplishing purposes and goals:

Finally, to satisfy the purposes of state goals in water resources development one must define, and then maximize or minimize the objectives of economical, social, monetary, and political or fairness characters. The particular goals, purposes, objectives and interests in water resources development of the river basin should be strictly taken into consideration in any future cooperation for resolution of conflicts between the states.

COMPLEXITY OF TRANSBOUNDARY WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Management of transboundary water resources involves addressing not only physical and technical issues but also social actors, institutions and administrative procedures (Figure 3).

TRANSBOUNDARY WATER RESOURCES SYSTEM

PHYSICAL WATER INPUTS SUBSYSTEM OUTPUTS

- Negotiations MAN-MADE ADMINISTRA- - Agreement - Politics WATER TIVE - Water sharing - Investment SUBSYSTEM SUBSYSTEM - Water uses - Science - Environment - Technology

CONSTRAINTS International Law Political, Social, Economic Factors

Figure 3 Definition of a transboundary water resources system. 6

According to LeMarquant (1990), five different foreign-policy factors influence international water resources development: (1) international position of each country (2) international law (3) linkage between water and other issues (4) mutual commitment (reciprocity), and (5) national sovereignty. As shown in Figure 4, the main objective of the effective joint management of internationally shared water resources is to satisfy all partners’ demand for water, given the possibilities and limitations of water supply.

JOINT MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Distribution between Riparian Countries SUPPLY DEMAND TRANSBOUNDARY PROBLEM WATER WATER FORMULATION SYSTEM USE Wastewater Collection

TRABSBOUNDARY WATER RESOURCES SYSTEM

Figure 4 Transboundary water resources management.

The balance between supply and demand should take into consideration both water both water quantity and quality aspects and environmental protection issues. Water quantity and quality problems are very much inter-related and should be studied in an integrated framework. According to Frey (1984), in order to understand the origin of serious conflicts over international water systems, three main factors should be considered:

(1) the importance of water (both in quantity and quality) (2) the relative power of the actors, and (3) the respective riparian position of the countries. 7

Within national borders, management of water as a resource involves a number of internal issues. These are independent of transboundary issues and are the result of physical and institutional characteristics of water resources. The most important of these may be listed as follows

• Disparities between regions • Fluctuations in seasonal and longer time scales • Inequality between needs and supply • Conflicts in use between different sectors (water supply, agriculture, industry) • Institutional, legal, economic and social factors.

When riparian countries share transboundary water resources, a number of external issues should be added to the above, such as

• Differences in political, social, and institutional structures • Different objectives, benefits, and economic instruments • International relations, regulation, and conflicts.

Water management becomes even more complex because of extreme water events, i.e. floods and droughts. Floods can have devastating economic consequences and even result in the loss of human life, such as recently in China, Central America and various parts of Europe. Droughts may result in diachronic water crises due to insufficient water for irrigation, water supply and other water uses. These situations are frequent in semi-arid climates, for example in the Mediterranean region and may cause substantial socio-economic crises. Floods and droughts are even more difficult to handle in transboundary regions, mainly because of institutional issues.

TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL APPROACHES

In order to analyse and resolve water-related conflicts and provide the "optimal," "acceptable" or "most beneficial" solution for all involved parties, various approaches have been developed by different scientific and other communities, such as engineering, law, economic, political and social sciences, local communities, administrators and policy makers. The different approaches for managing transboundary water resources may be categorized in three groups

1. Engineering/Technical (Quantitative or outcome theories and models). 2. Economic/Market (Water as an economic instrument) 3. Political/Institutional (Descriptive or process theories and models).

Engineering/Technical Approach

This approach has been developed mainly by engineers and management experts. Depending on the number of objectives and decision-makers and the combination of the two, models may be formulated as optimisation, multi-objective trade-off computerized codes or on the basis of the team and game theories. Most of these models are based on the fundamental notion of Pareto optimality and are predictive in the sense that they suggest a quantitative "optimal" situation, which should be to terminate a conflict by an equitable resolution between the interested countries. Recent advances and related theoretical developments in this area can be found in the literature, including the application of the fuzzy set theory. However, the success in practice of this kind of engineering or rational modelling is mainly dependent upon the acceptance between interested actors and countries of the model assumptions, which rely on a set of prescribed objectives and the relative weights or preferences between conflicting goals. In the real world this is not usually the case, and therefore, there is a need to develop better, easier-to-use, interactive and reliable predictive models for transboundary water resources management.

Environmental Risk Assessment and Management

This is a general and very useful approach for studying risks related to over-use or pollution in water sensitive areas. As shown in Figure 5, application of environmental risk analysis consists of two main phases (1) the assessment of risk, and (2) risk management.

The assessment of risk is mainly based on modelling of the physical system, including forecasting of its evolution under risk. Although the main objective of risk analysis is the management of the system, it is not possible to do that if risk has not been quantified beforehand. The phase of risk assessment involves the following steps Step 1: Risk or hazard identification Step 2: Assessment of loads and resistances Step 3: Uncertainty analysis Step 4: Risk quantification When it is possible to assess the risk under a given set of assumptions, then, the process of risk management may begin. The various steps in risk management are Step 1: Identification of alternatives and associated risks Step 2: Assessment of costs in various risk levels Step 3: Technical feasibility of alternative solutions Step 4: Selection of acceptable options according to the public perception of risk, government policy and social factors Step 5: Implementation of the optimal choice.

Economic/Market Approach

It is widely accepted today that protection of the environment and economic development are not separate challenges. Development cannot subsist on a deteriorating environmental resource base and the environment cannot be protected and enhanced when growth plans consistently fail to consider the costs of environmental destruction. Nowadays it is clear that most environmental problems arise as ‘negative externalities’ of an economic system that takes for granted - and thus undervalues - many aspects of the environment. The integration of environmental and economic issues is a key requirement in the concept of sustainability, not only for the protection of the environment, but also for the promotion of long-term economic development, especially in water sensitive areas. Sustainable development should be considered in terms of progress and enhancement of the economy, with emphasis on increased productivity, and in harmony with the environment. To achieve sustainable development, economy and progress should be based more soundly on the natural resources available. Water as an economic resource This approach aims to identify those factors that should be taken into account so as to consider water as an economic resource. It should also define a water pricing policy that should be implemented in order to achieve a more competitive, but at the same time sustainable, use of water in different water sectors. Most policy makers and economists agree that the best way to deal with increasing water scarcity is to consider it as an economic good. Treating water as an economic resource means taking into consideration its full cost price. This consists of: • Direct costs (labour cost, operating and maintenance (O&M) cost, administrative cost) • Opportunity costs reflecting the most “valuable” alternative water use. • Environmental costs, such as benefits foregone by polluting or depleting the water. • Risk costs (cost of a probable failure of project work or investment due to conditions of risk and uncertainty) Water is under priced in most countries because is considered as a public good and as such cannot possibly satisfy all users. Also it is not market-oriented, which means that its price is not obtained through the usual market mechanisms, and as such (and unlike other goods) its price does not reflect its true value. Water under pricing has led to unreliable service, overexploitation and degradation. Full cost pricing In the Mediterranean basin and EU countries, the transition process from water being an under priced public good to a free market-priced good will be a lengthy one, and perhaps never even fully completed. Let us take the example of agriculture in the Mediterranean. The policy decision-maker is confronted with two extreme actions producing opposed effects. 1. Institute a small increase in water price, resulting in agricultural products considerably cheaper than those in more developed countries. This will lead to conflicts with those countries if no protectionist measures are taken. 2. Let water prices increase close to their market values. Due to resource scarcity this will be prohibitively expensive for farmers and lead to uncompetitively priced agricultural products. A pricing policy is needed that will balance the various conflicting factors involved. 10

Political/Institutional Approach

This approach is used mainly by law experts and political analysts, who focus on describing the anatomy of a given situation of conflict or cooperation. They determine the function of different parameters and factors influencing the behaviour of each country, such as the political perception of the importance of water, the international image and status of the country and also social and institutional issues. Such models, including the behaviour of institutional structures, international negotiation strategies, alternative dispute resolutions and political models are very useful. They are mainly prescriptive and not predictive. They do not necessarily give a quantitative output (such as costs and benefits), but are extremely important for understanding the processes and analysing the origin and evolution of conflicts or cooperation. Many alternate negotiation strategies are available to modify a complex framework of transboundary water management issues. Decision makers and those who may negotiate on their behalf have a choice of six universal negotiations strategies: 1. "Win-Win" solutions or Positive sum benefits 2. "Lose-Lose" solutions or Negative sum benefits 3. "Win-Lose" negotiations or Zero-sum benefits 4. Unilateral creation of new facts 5. Conflict and threats of violence 6. No action, causing opportunity costs from neglect and/or delayed decisions. The choice of a particular negotiation technique is always subject to political considerations and controversy. Preferences depend on the balance of power among transboundary stakeholders and the cost of concessions. The more powerful and wealthy stakeholders can resort to the creation of facts with minimal risks of counteraction by weaker and impoverished neighbours. They also can afford to make gestures of friendship through "Win-Lose" agreements in the interest of enhancing regional stability (Eaton J. and D. Eaton, 1996). It may be mathematically proven that “Win-Win” agreements result in positive benefits for both parties and consist of the best trade-off between alternative solutions. The so-called Prisoner’s Dilemma, well known in the literature, gives insight on the fact that failure to reach an agreement between interested parties may increase benefits to each party alone but tend to decrease the total benefits. This is because when each party acts independently it will tend to over-use the resource. Cooperation schemes may provide better net benefits to both parties. However, "Win-Win" solutions may not always be sufficient when limited natural water resources are under consideration. In these cases regional networks of water stakeholders can play a very important role. By combining the expertise and state-of-the-art knowledge of different scientific communities and disciplines, such as engineering, economics, environmental and social sciences, regional partnerships may contribute to the development of new methods and models in order to more efficiently resolve conflicts and controversial issues in the management of transboundary water resources.

MULTICRITERION DECISION ANALYSIS (MCDA)

MCDA techniques are gaining importance as potential tools for solving complex real world problems, because of their inherent ability to consider different alternative scenarios, the best of which may then be analysed in depth before being finally implemented. (Goicoechea et al., 1982; Szidarovszky et al., 1986; Pomerol and Romero, 2000). In order to apply MCDA techniques, it is important to specify the following:

• The objectives, which indicate the directions of state change of the system under examination and need to be maximized, minimized or maintained in the same position. • The attributes, which refer to the characteristics, factors and indices of the alternative management scenarios. An attribute should provide the means for evaluating the attainment level of an objective. • The constraints, which are restrictions on attributes and decision variables that can or cannot be expressed mathematically. • The criteria, which can be expressed either as attributes or objectives. As shown in Figure 5, the three pillars of sustainability, i.e. the economic, social and environmental criteria can be defined hierarchically, starting from some basic indicators, which are then aggregated into second and three level indicators.

ATTRIBUTES OBJECTIVES GOALS

EconomicSustainability ECONOMIC Revenue Generation

Increase in Farmer Income SOCIO-ECONOMIC Increase in Non Farmer Income Project Output SOCIAL SYSTEM Increase in Jobs Change in Water Quantity NATURAL RESOURCE Change in Land Quantity UTILIZATION PERFORMANCE Change in Water Quality ECOLOGY Change in Land Quality ENVIRONMENTAL Effects on Wildlife and Vegetation Second-level Third-level

Basic Indicators Composite Indicators

Figure 5 Social, economic and environmental attributes, objectives and goals.

In MCDA the aim is not to obtain an optimal solution, as would be the case with only one objective, but a "non-inferior" or "non-dominated" solution. This is a solution that improves all objective functions. Other solutions cannot improve a single objective without causing a degradation of at least one other objective. 12

MCDA is adapted in this paper as a decision support methodology for managing transboundary risks related to different criteria and objectives set by different countries. For this purpose, three alternative methods are proposed in order to facilitate negotiations and reach final decisions. All are based on the combined use of modelling, expert opinion and a decision support method called Composite Programming (CP). This is a distance-based technique, which defines the 'best' solution as the one in the set of efficient solutions, whose point is at the least distance from an ideal point (Zeleny, 1982). The aim is to obtain a solution that is as 'close' as possible to some ideal. The distance measure used in CP is the family of Lp - metrics and given as 1  * p  p J f − (a)  j f j  Lp (a) = ∑ w j  j=1 M − m   j j  where Lp (a)= Lp - metric for alternative a,

fj(a) = Value of criterion j for alternative a, Mj = Maximum (ideal) value of criterion j in set A, mj = Minimum (anti ideal) value of criterion j in set A, fj* = Ideal value of criterion j , wj = Weight of the criterion j, p = Parameter reflecting the attitude of the decision maker with respect to compensation between deviations.

* For p=1, all deviations from f j are taken into account in direct proportion to their magnitudes, meaning that there is full (weighted) compensation between deviations. For 2 ≤ p ≤ ∞ the largest deviation has the greatest influence so that compensation is only partial (large deviations are penalized). For p=∞, the largest deviation is the only one taken into account (min-max criterion) corresponding to zero compensation between deviations (perfect equity). The methodology we propose addresses two fundamental issues in transboundary water management, which are conflict situations at two levels (a) conflict among, objectives and criteria, in particular, economic, environmental and social criteria (b) conflict among strategic goals between countries As an extension of the present methodology, two different types of uncertainties will be taken into consideration, i.e. uncertainties (a) in criterion values (b) in the preference functions of the actors or interest groups. Three different approaches are used for conflict resolution. In the first approach, each country proceeds separately and evaluates alternatives according to its own objectives. In the second approach the different objectives used by the two countries are first traded-off and then alternatives are ranked according to the composite objectives. The third approach is based on the aggregation of the countries' different alternatives in order to obtain a consensus between them. The case of the international Nestos/Mesta River, flowing between Greece and Bulgaria, provides an illustration of this methodology in practice. 13

THE AREA UNDER STUDY

The Nestos/Mesta River originates from the Rila Mountains in southern Bulgaria, flows for a distance of 230 km and discharges into the North Aegean Sea (Figure 6). The total catchment area of the river is about 6.200 km2.

Figure 6 Geographical location of the Nestos/Mesta River.

The Greek Nestos River Basin

The Greek Nestos river basin is shared by three prefectures (Drama, Kavala and Xanthi) in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace (Figure 7). The biggest area belongs to Drama (~58%) but almost the same percentage of the population (55%) lives in the prefecture of Kavala. According to the 2001 census data the total population of the basin is 42164. There are 119 settlements in the basin. Only the city of Xrisoupoli has a population higher than 5000 (8004), while almost 47% have a population of less than 100 inhabitants. Most settlements are sited in the southern part of the basin. In the Nestos River basin there are eleven municipalities. Three (Keramoti, Xrisoupoli, Oreinos and Kavala) belong to Kavala, two (Stauroupoli and Topeiros) to Xanthi and five (Sidironero, Paranesti, k.Neurokopi, Nikiforos and Drama) to Drama. Only the municipalities of Keramoti, Xrisoupoli, Paranesti and Sidironero are 100% in the basin while the others have a share of their area in the catchment. The area can be clearly identified as an agricultural one. The Nestos delta has been recognized as one of the five most important wetlands in Europe. It is protected under the Ramsar Treaty, and according to Greek legislation is characterized as national park. It belongs also to the Natura 2000 network. 14

Figure 7 The Greek Nestos/Mesta River Basin.

Identification of Problems The main problems in the region can be identified as: Water quality problems: the delta area is mainly covered with agricultural fields and settlements. The intensive use of pesticides and fertilizers by farmers, the lack of landfills and wastewater treatment facilities, the unsystematic breeding of cattle and the use of groundwater recourses for drinking water may cause salinization of coastal areas, health problems from unsuitable potable water and negative impacts to the ecosystem in the delta.

Water availability problems: The river flow in the area is controlled by 3 dam constructions for energy production, which are under the jurisdiction of the Public Power Corporation. Downstream of the dams there is significant agricultural activity and the delta, which is protected under the Ramsar Treaty. Intensive use of fertilizers, ooverexploitation of groundwater and the intensive use of drills have created water quality and quantity problems. As irrigation is the main source of development in the region, it is important to maintain a level of evolvement through a long-term programme and a row of interference. The water from the river also covers urban needs and provides for recreational activities.

Environmental problems: Impact on fauna and flora. In compliance with the Ramsar Treaty in the delta area, many different authorities are responsible for different aspects of water resources management, which makes following an integrated approach in management difficult. (GS,SWOT).

Development problems: Poor infrastructure and a lack of facilities lead to low levels of tourism in the area, despite its unique environmental beauty

The Bulgarian Mesta River Basin

In the Bulgarian part of the basin (Figure 8) there are 93 populated areas in the catchment and around 135000 inhabitants. The average multi-year natural flow for the period of 1935/36 – 1974/75 of the Mesta River at the border with Greece is 1248,35 x 106 m3. Agriculture, forestry and industry are the most important economic activities in the area. Water needs for all the above activities together with the maintenance of the river’s ecosystem are on a year basis around 250 x 106 m3, which is far too small from the average multi-year natural flow of the river at the border.

Figure 8 The Nestos/Mesta River Basin.

Identification of Problems

Water quality problems: these include the direct outflow of wastewater from populated areas' living needs; industrial waters mouthing at the river (either directly or via the populated areas' sewer systems), hard waste materials from living needs; waste materials from the wood industry and wood treatment; waste materials from cattle breeding; and pollution sources from the uranium mine in the region of the village of Eleshnitsa.

Development problems: A lack of waste water treatment plants (WWTP) together with significant problems in infrastructure have led to pollution of the river water and unfavourable conditions for water use. Tourism and agriculture have also been negatively affected by shortages in infrastructure: the road network is underdeveloped and there is only a limited availability of agricultural land for the development of intensive farming.

Different socio-economic conditions: The rate of development in the area is very slow for political reasons. Bulgaria is in a transition period, and the conditions for adopting a free market economy remain unclear.

Formulation of Alternative Scenarios: In order to achieve the goal of sustainable economic and environmental development in the area an integrated approach is needed. Emphasis should be given to the protection of the delta, to the enhancement of tourism and to the reorientation of agriculture in order to comply with the New Agricultural Policy of the EU. The Mesta River catchment area lends itself to the development of ecological agriculture. The development of this kind of agriculture would also help the development of tourism. There is an urgent need for WWTP construction in order to prevent further water quality pollution.

The quality and quantity of water entering the country from Bulgaria affects important activities in the region, such as energy production from the hydropower stations, agriculture, tourism and the ecosystem of the delta. The economic development of the area depends on the river’s status. The District of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace as a rural area, is poor in infrastructure and mainly economically dependent on the primary sector. The level of development in the Greek and Bulgarian part of the catchment is different. Bulgaria’s development programmes concerning the use of the river’s water have a direct impact on water management schemes in Greece. The construction of the dams for energy production alongside the river pose a threat to the biodiversity of the protected delta of the river. The control of water discharge may cause future problems in agriculture and ecosystems, which depend highly on water flow. The agricultural development in the river's catchment area depends directly on the existence of a joint integrated framework for the management of the river by both countries. European principles and priorities concerning sustainable development and joint water management have not yet been adopted by the Bulgarian government.

Four alternative project scenarios have been formulated for the socio-economic sustainable development of the Greek part of the basin (projects 1-4) and four others for the Bulgarian part (projects 5-8). We should stress that the above scenarios have been formulated with scientific criteria only, taking into account the available data and with the principal aim of testing the MCDA methodology. There is no connection between these project scenarios and the potential needs of and proposals from national authorities and stakeholders in the river basin. Any resemblance to future proposals from public authorities or other interested parties is purely coincidental, and should not be considered as forming a precedent for cooperation between the two countries concerned. The main characteristics of these projects are as follows:

Project 1 (GR)

Project Name: Strengthening Agricultural Practices and Crop Redistribution Location: Basin wide Objectives: Increase agricultural production and productivity Purpose of Project: To provide effective, credible and farmer oriented support services, such as linking research to farmers and demonstrating and providing information on new crops/varieties and farming systems, thus improving farming practices. Project Description: (i) A study is to be undertaken to identify defects in current support systems and propose an organisational method of implementation. This should have a view to low cost, and use of specialists such as Technical Assistants (TAs). It should also be autonomous. (ii) Use of Training and Visit (T&V) system to deliver new crops and farming systems to farmers. Proposed Financing: Government, through external aid Anticipated Project Benefits/Output (Direct and Indirect) Improved soil conservation and increased crop yield with accompanying increase in livestock feed can be expected to lead to the following benefits: (i) Increased income for farmers (ii) Increased national income (iii) Improved nutrition (iv) Reduced soil erosion and sedimentation Anticipated Impacts: Social: Possible loss of jobs from likely streamlining of existing extension service. Economic: Increased recurrent expenditure by the government in carrying out full implementation. Environmental: Pollution of groundwater and lakes from application of fertilizers and pesticides

Project 2 (GR)

Project Name: Review and Reappraisal of Irrigation Development Projects. Location: Downstream part of the Basin Objectives: To improve agricultural production and productivity of high value crops Purpose of Project: Irrigation of 15,000ha of land so as to grow crops all year round. 18

Project Description: (i) A study of the maximum potential development of irrigation + environmental constraints (ii) Reappraisal of present irrigation projects to determine future viability (iii) Evaluation of the potential for mechanised overhead irrigation to improve water use efficiency Proposed Financing: Private and public sector Anticipated Project Benefits: (i) Increased crop yield (ii) Increased earnings from exporting high value crops (iii) Reduced expenditure on imported substitute crops (iv) Increased number of jobs (v) Increased food production Anticipated Project Impacts: Socio-economic (i) Possible loss of economic options: fisheries and livestock (ii) Possible social problems Ecological (i) Impact on lake levels, lake ecology and wildlife is possible (ii) Soil salivation risk

Project 3 (GR)

Project Name: Medium/Long Term international Wildlife Tourism Development

Location: Delta region, reservoirs and other wildlife areas. Objectives: To improve economic gains from wildlife tourism Purpose of Project Medium and long-term investment in tourism Project Description: (i) Appraise the prospects for improving existing facilities and services (e.g. visitor handling facilities, small-scale local accommodation, toilets and showers on campsites (ii) Perform feasibility studies for longer-term development (tours combining cultural/ coastal/wildlife elements, promotion of new tourism image. Proposed Financing: Private sector Anticipated Project Benefits: (i) Increased foreign exchange earnings (ii) Increased local revenue (iii) Increased funding for wildlife conservation (iv) Improved education of communities on conservation Anticipated Project Impacts: Ecological: This should relate to the enhancement or conservation of wildlife and the environment.

Project 4 (GR) Project Name: Inland Fisheries Resource Development Project Location: Delta region Objectives: To increase fish production

Purpose of Project To establish the controlled and profitable exploitation of fisheries in the basin. Project Description: (i) Establish a research station at the delta (ii) Develop fishermen's associations (iii) Provide inputs to registered fishermen through fishermen's associations, and to other registered processors and traders (iv) Improve boat building techniques ( (v) Provide technical assistance to support fisheries' bodies Proposed Financing: EU Anticipated Anticipated Project Benefits: (i) Increased fish yield (ii) Improved nutrition (iii) Increased income for fishermen Anticipated Project Impacts: Ecological

Project 5 (BG)

Project name: Water Supply Distribution Project Location: The whole of the Bulgarian part of the basin Objectives: Exploitation of the remaining river flow (after the 29% flowing to Greece) Purpose of Project: To ameliorate unfavorable conditions for water use Proposed financing: Private and public sector Anticipated project benefits: (i) Urban needs (ii) Tourism (iii) Agriculture (iv) Project 6 (BG)

Project name: Construction of new Reservoirs for multiple Water Uses Location: The whole of the Bulgarian part of the basin Objectives: Exploitation of the remaining river flow Purpose of Project: To enhance the development of the area Proposed financing: Private and Public sector Anticipated project benefits: (i) To service urban and agricultural needs (ii) Provide water for eco-agriculture (iii) Provide water for ecotourism (iv) Energy production Anticipated project impact: (i) Problems in the ecosystem (ii) Less water for the downstream users- development problems in the Greek part 20

Project 7 (BG)

Project name: Construction of WWTP Location: The whole of the Bulgarian part of the basin Objectives: Water pollution management Purpose of Project: To enhance the development of the area by improving internal infrastructure Proposed financing: Private and public sector Anticipated project benefits: (i) Treat urban, industrial and all other untreated wastewaters (ii) Improve the water quality of the river (iii) Protect the ecosystem (iv) Improve living conditions (v) Employ highly skilled personnel

Project 8 (BG)

Project name: Tourism Development in the Area based on the Municipality's endogenous Resources (natural beauty, thermal spas, local crafts and historical heritage). Location: Upper reaches of the Bulgarian part of the basin Objectives: Economic gain, integrated planning approach Purpose of the project: To attract visitors, to promote the natural beauty of the area, to maximise economic benefits by developing accommodation facilities, to build new infrastructure (construction of roads), to adopt a master plan for the whole basin (Greek & Bulgarian), to improve transboundary cooperation Proposed financing: EU funding Anticipated project benefits: (i) Improve living conditions (ii) Increase foreign exchange earnings (iii) Increase funding from EU (iv) Reduce unemployment Anticipated project impacts: (i) Possible environmental problems

EVALUATION

In order to evaluate the performances of the above projects, attributes, objectives and goals set by the two countries, the economic, social and environmental indicators described previously (Figure 5) should be followed. The evaluation of indicator values is the main problem in negotiations between countries, and usually appreciation of these indicators is different, according to experts’ opinions or results of modelling. Scales and units of measurement of different indicators can be set as follows:

INDICATORS

1. Economic Sustainability 0 1 2 Units of Measurement: Bad Not Sure Good These indicators measure the chance of a project being sustained economically and how profitable or non-profitable a project is. The likelihood of private sector participation in conjunction with available public funding could also be measured. For most projects a calculation of internal rate of return translated into 0-2 units will suffice. 2. Revenue Generation 1 2 3 4 5 Units: insignificant low moderate major high This can be measured by estimating the expected output and its price and converting this into units from 1-5 in order to make a comparison with the ideal situation.

3. Increase in Farmers' Income 0 1 2 3 4 5 Units: decrease no change low moderate major high 4. Increase in Non Farmers' Income 0 1 2 3 4 Units: decrease no change low moderate high 5. Increase in Number of Jobs 0 1 2 3 4 5 Units: Losses insignificant low moderate major high

6. Change in Water Quantity 0 1 2 3 Units: negative (high) negative (low) no change positive For example, where lake levels are already adversely affected by abstraction, further abstraction would be regarded as a negative impact. 7. Change in Land Quantity 0 1 2 3 Units: negative (high) negative (low) no change positive This could also be measured as % of change in land use (e.g. a reduction due to erosion) and could be interrelated with loss of economic options. 8. Change in Water Quality 0 1 2 3 Units: negative (high) negative (low) no change positive Relevant physico-chemical parameters can be used to estimate changes. 9. Change in Land Quality 0 1 2 3 Units: negative (high) negative (low) no change positive Land erosion, salinity and pH changes envisaged can be used to estimate this. 10. Effects on Wildlife and Vegetation 0 1 2 3 Units: negative (high) negative (low) no change positive Changes in endangered or other species can be used as estimates. 22

FOR THE GREEK PART

Table 1: Country 1: Greece (GR). Assessment of the impact matrix for projects 1-4.

PROJECTS

INDICATORS PR1 PR2 PR3 PR4

Economic 2 2 2 2 ECONOMIC sustainability Revenue generation 3 5 5 4 Increase in farmers' 4 4 2 3 income SOCIAL Increase in non 1 2 4 3 farmers' income Increase in jobs 3 4 5 4 Change in water 2 3 3 2 quantity Change in land 3 2 2 2 ENVIRON= quantity MENTAL Change in water 1 2 3 2 quality Change in land 2 2 3 2 quality Effect on the 2 2 2 3 ecosystem

FOR THE BULGARIAN PART

Table 2: Country 2: Bulgaria (BG). Assessment of the impact matrix for projects 5-8.

PROJECTS

INDICATORS PR5 PR6 PR7 PR8

Economic 2 2 2 2 ECONOMIC sustainability Revenue generation 4 5 2 5 Increase in farmers' 4 4 1 1 income SOCIAL Increase in non 3 3 1 4 farmer's' income Increase in jobs 2 3 5 5 Change in water 3 3 3 1 quantity Change in land 3 3 2 1 ENVIRON- quantity MENTAL Change in water 1 2 3 2 quality Change in land 1 2 3 2 quality Effect on the 2 2 2 2 ecosystem 23

Ideal 1 7 3 0.8 4 1 2 0.6 5 6

0.4 8

0.2 Ecological Index Ecological

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Socio-economic Index

Figure 9 Ranking of alternatives for country’s 1 (GR) assessment.

Ideal 1 7 0.8 5 6 0.6 4 1 3 8

0.4 2 0.2 Ecological Index Ecological

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Socio-economic Index

Figure 10 Ranking of alternatives for country’s 2 (BG) assessment.

Ideal 1 7 0.8 3 4 6 0.6 1 5 2 8

0.4

0.2 Ecological Index

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Socio-economic Index

Figure 11 Conflict resolution (1) by trading off countries different assessment of indicators.

Ideal 1 6 0.8 5 8 7 0.6 4 3 1 y 2 (BUL) y 2 r 0.4 2 0.2 Count

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Country 1 (GR)

Figure 12 Conflict resolution (2) by trading off countries different assessment of goals.

RESULTS

Results of simulation are shown in Figures 9-12. When different assessments of indicators are applied for the two countries, the following rankings are obtained:

For Country 1 (GR): 1 Pr 3 Wildlife Tourism Development (GR) 2 Pr 2 Irrigation Development (GR) 3 Pr 4 Inland Fisheries Resource Development (GR) 4 Pr 8 Tourism Development ((BG)

For Country 2 (BUL): 1 Pr 6 Construction of new Reservoirs (BG) 2 Pr 8 Tourism Development (BG) 3 Pr 5 Water Supply Distribution (BG) 4 Pr 7 Construction of WWTP (BG)

Conflict Resolution 1: 1 Pr 3 Wildlife Tourism Development (GR) 2 Pr 6 Construction of new Reservoirs (BG) 3 Pr 8 Tourism Development (BG) 4 Pr 4 Inland Fisheries Resource Development (GR)

Conflict Resolution 2: 1 Pr 3 Wildlife Tourism Development (GR) 2 Pr 6 Construction of new Reservoirs (BG) 3 Pr 8,7 Tourism Development / Construction of WWTP (BG) 4 Pr 4 Inland Fisheries Resource Development (GR)

From the results shown above, national preferences are obvious. It is worth noticing that the proposed conflict resolution rankings are consistent for the two different methodologies and also fair and well equilibrated between the two countries. Such proposals may help the responsible national decision makers to attain a sustainable agreement between the two countries. 26

CONCLUSIONS

Although several hundred international conventions on sharing transboundary waters are theoretically operational around the world, their effectiveness in achieving the goals they have established is in question. The main reasons for this unfortunate state are: 1. Centralized institutional decision making structures fail to reflect the interests of local water stakeholders 2. The technocratic character of water resources management encourages structural solutions. More often the decisions to build engineering water supply works prevail over other water demand management practices. 3. Absence of an integrated approach in water resources management, which should reflect not only technical but also environmental, economic and social needs. The methodology we propose is based on a combination of MCDA and CP techniques adapted to conflict resolution. Trade-offs are made either at the level of countries' different appreciation of individual criteria, or at the level of countries different goals. The methodology is easy to use and the results obtained are fair, transparent and simple to communicate to decision makers. For long-term application and effective implementation of agreements for transboundary water resources management, “regional partnerships” are essential. In this bottom-up approach for decision making, increasing public awareness and public participation are the main components for supporting human networks to deal with water related issues. Education in primary and secondary schools and continuing education are the main tools for changing cultural attitudes on water use, introducing new practices for sustainable water management and increasing citizens' responsibility for the resolution of environmental and water related issues. The role that UNESCO Chair/ÍNWEB (International Centre of Water- Environment Centres for the Balkans may play in these matters is significant.

REFERENCES

Eaton J. and D. Eaton, (1996) Negotiations Strategies in Transboundary Water Disputes, In: Ganoulis et al. (eds.) Transboundary Water Resources Management: Institutional and Engineering Approaches. NATO ASI SERIES, Partnership Sub-Series 2. Environment, Vol.7, 37-45, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany Frey, F.W. (1984) Middle East water: the potential for conflict or cooperation. In Naff T. and Matson, R.C. (eds.) Water in the Middle East, pp. 180-198, Westview Press, Boulder, Co Gleick PH (1991) The vulnerability of runoff in the Nile Basin to climatic changes. The Environment Professional, 13, 66-73 Gleick PH and Irving M., Mintzer (eds) (1992) Effects of climate change on shared fresh water resources. Confronting Climate Change: Risk, Implications and Responses, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 9 Goicoechea, A., D. Hansen and L.Duckstein, 1982. “Introduction to multi-objective analysis with engineering and business applications”, John Wiley, New York. LeMarquant, D.G. (1990) International Development of the Senegal River. Water International, 15 (4): 223-230 Pomerol, J.Ch. and S.B. Romero, 2000.“Multicriterion decision in management: principles and practice”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. 27

Szidarovszky, F., M. Gershon, and L.Duckstein, 1986. “Techniques for mutli-objective decision making in systems management”, Elsevier, Amsterdam. Zeleny, M. 1982. “Multiple criteria decision making”, McGraw-Hill, New York.