IWRM - getting it going

© Bruce Hooper & Associates, Australia http://www.brucehooper.com 2015-‐02

1

An introduction to best practice Integrated Water Resources Management and basin management Revised 20151

Why IWRM?

Increasing concerns, governance and the role of government

Water resources management in the twenty first century faces considerable challenges. Many countries, including BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and developing countries, are facing critical water shortages whereas the situation in others is not that serious. If effective, long lasting solutions to water resources management problems need to be found and new water governance and management paradigms are required. Water needs to be managed in ways that reach out to other sectors using coordinated and participatory methods.

The drive for integration (coordination, cross-‐sectoral and participatory) has come about because of an escalating crisis about the sustainability of freshwater resources. This is due to the impacts of population growth, improved living standards, industrial development and environmental awareness. As well, the need to ensure food security has put more and more pressure on the finite water resource flux provided by the hydrological cycle. The Stockholm Environment Institute’s 1997 Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of the World revealed per capita availability of water resources is predicted to decline rapidly. In Asia, annual renewable water resources were estimated to be 4,000 m3 per person in 1995, declining to 2,300 m3 by 2025. Africa shows an even more marked decline from 5,700 m3 per person in 1995 to 2,500 m3 in 2025. As a result, there is increasing competition for water.

Competition among different water user groups often leads to conflicts. It usually means that available water goes to the most powerful groups, leaving the poor further marginalised and little attention is paid to the impacts of one group’s water use on the availability for others downstream.

As water resources are essentially public goods, owned by all, governments play a key role in water resources assessment, management, development planning and monitoring. Much has been said and written about governance2 (including the role of government) in the water sector. One useful explanation of water governance is the specific roles of government:

• Governments can establish water policies, laws and regulatory frameworks, devolve decision-‐making, and encourage better service delivery by autonomous public sector agencies and private sector operators. Governments set policies and establish institutional structures for managing river basins and aquifers and processes to overcome conflict over water allocation.

• Governments can facilitate the realignment of economic and financial practices, including full cost pricing for water services—with appropriate mechanisms to protect the poor.

• Governments, with the help of international partners, can establish mechanisms for strengthening river basin management and establishing transboundary water agreements allowing for equitable utilization of shared waters.

Source: Global Water Partnership (GWP)

1 This document was originally published as Annex 4 of IWRM Roadmap for Orissa - Main Report. Working Draft for Stakeholder Discussion. January 2011 TA-7131 (IND) - Technical Assistance for Institutional Development of Integrated Water Resources Management in Orissa. An Input into the Orissa Integrated Irrigated Agriculture and Water Management Investment Program. Asian Development Bank.

2 Governance is defined as “the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place (or need to be in place) to develop and manage water resources and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society “ (source: GWP).


2

These practices illustrate the role of the public sector as providing the core elements of water policy, water laws, water pricing mechanisms, basin organisations and international and within-‐nation (cross-‐jurisdiction, cross-‐boundary) agreements. These elements do not exist in an institutional vacuum, rather they relate to the broader democratic functions of government and civil society. Indeed, good governance occurs when societies establish:

• democratic freedoms (free elections),

• robust economies,

• a lack of corruption,

• low unemployment,

• state-‐of-‐the-‐art technologies, coupled with

• financial and resource security and human rights.

Poverty, insurgence and national security work against good governance and the way to implement IWRM in struggling and emerging economies will require the simultaneous elimination of civil unrest and reduction in poverty. These form a foundation to effective water governance. This expansive mandate includes focusing beyond the water sector, requiring:

• transparency,

• accountability,

• anticorruption,

• citizen participation, and a

• working judiciary.

Changing approaches to water management

There have been substantial changes to approaches to water management in recent years. Traditional approaches were single sector (water) oriented in which the river basin or groundwater province was viewed as a complex physical system -‐ based on complex interrelationships between the hydrological and geomorphologic characteristics of the basin and its rivers and streams. This approach, common in the 1930s to 1960s and favoured by water engineers and water economists, viewed the basin as a water resources system whose water resources were to be exploited for economic development. The approach emphasised determination of the maximum possible yield and mechanisms for most effective water allocation between users. It was used for significant water resources development projects, such as the Hoover Dam project in the USA – an era characterised by dam building and irrigation expansion in very large water resources projects. The single sector approach was driven by highly scientific methods and technological innovation, with an overall purpose of maximising available yield from river basins and watersheds. Water was ‘wasted’ if it ran into the sea. More complex approaches promoted multi-‐objective development of water resources systems including recreation, hydropower, navigation and irrigation development, as evidence in the work of the Tennessee Valley Authority and the US Army Corps of Engineers in the USA, the Hirakud and Nagarjuna Sagar Dam projects in India and the Snowy Mountains Scheme in Australia.

The environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s questioned this approach. A new focus on ecosystems (the new science of ecology) and social impacts of large dams (relocation, inequitable distribution of benefits) questioned the single or multi-‐objective approach to water resources management, with its strong development emphasis. The reality was that the traditional paradigm ignored the more diverse range of resource use features of basins which interact to create the so-‐called “wicked” problems of environmental management and sustainable water resources management. A new paradigm was needed which recognized basins as large, complex, integrated ecological systems with diverse and often aggressive confrontations between different jurisdictions competing for available water resources.


3

The term ‘ecosystem approach’ was used as a corollary for the integrated approach. Here the watershed was seen as an integrated ecological system in which human impacts are one component of the comprehensive functioning of ecosystems within a watershed. The Canadian geographer, Bruce Mitchell3, recognised that the challenge of an integrated approach was in how it was interpreted. He maintained that advocates of an ecosystem approach had interpreted it to be synonymous with a comprehensive approach, in which attention was given to all components and linkages in a system. When a comprehensive approach is taken, the probability is very high that the period of time required to complete an analysis or a plan will be very long, resulting in the final plan often being no more than a historical document, because too many events or processes will have changed and they made the plan obsolete before it is even completed.

Mitchell’s interpretation of an integrated approach involves a more selective or focused perspective. Not all components and connections in a system are considered, but only those which, on the basis of knowledge from all stakeholders [through focus groups or other forums involving people ranging from technical analysts to long-‐term residents] are judged to be the key drivers of variability in the system4. There is an obvious need to ensure those in the decision process represent the key players. Both a comprehensive and an integrated interpretation are consistent with an ecosystem approach, but an integrated approach is a more focused approach and therefore increases the likelihood of a more practical output.

Integrated water resources management (IWRM) is practiced as a new method of water management. It is an approach to land and water resources planning and management that encourages participants to consider a wide array of social and environmental interconnections. It extends beyond traditional, multi-‐purpose natural resources management to address societal goals including poverty reduction, human well-‐being and ecosystem functioning.

Many natural resource managers in government agencies, NGOS and academics have supported planning and managing water and related land resources on a watershed (catchment, river basin) basis and the approach is now being widely adopted. IWRM extols the use of integrated, cross-‐sectoral and coordinated approaches to water resources management across time and space frequently, but not always, at the basin scale. IWRM uses co-‐management but is fraught with classic problems of commonly managed natural resources:

• differing interpretations of property rights, • conflicts over use, • spatial and temporal variations in access to water and its availability, • susceptibility to hazards of water surpluses or deficits, • lack of ongoing financing when other spending (military, health, education) consume public

service delivery budgets, • and others.

Despite these problems, IWRM provides mechanisms for meeting top down with bottom up management. These include, for example:

• high level coordinating bodies (Ministerial level coordinating committees), • reporting ‘up’ procedures between national and local governments to demonstrate planning

outcomes • political support and high level executive service commitment to coordination in governments

and between governments and with private sector, water user and civil society organisations • local level development projects including watershed development, poverty reduction, micro-‐

financing, sanitation and water and health awareness programmes • local level coordinated planning and management of water projects at watershed levels

3 Mitchell, B. 1991, Resource Management and Development. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.

4 Hooper, B.P., McDonald, G. and B. Mitchell. 1999. Facilitating Integrated Resource and Environmental Management. Journal of Environmental Management and Planning 42 (5), 747-766.


4

• regional collaborations through basin consultative committees.

‘Entry points’ for success in IWRM need to be crafted in any geographical setting primarily though:

• improved professional and personal skills • improved organisational capacity • dedicated and sustained funding using cost-‐sharing arrangements • water visioning, not just ownership of the ‘commons’ problem • covenants (agreements) of mutual responsibility and self responsibility (who does what, where

and when and who do they report to), and • strong leadership.

In practice, IWRM must bring together a diverse array of people and organisations who have a ‘stake’ (ownership of the issue) in a water management process. These stakeholders include government entities, community organisations, NGOs, business and industry organisations, and other organisations and individuals with a particular concern or interest in water resources management. IWRM must also involve ‘the public’ who also have a stake, albeit less well defined. This participatory approach can help produce strategies that are more co-‐ordinated, more cognisant of interconnections, and more inclusive of the diversity of goals. Furthermore, a collaborative approach produces greater support and commitment, and increases the likelihood of implementation.

Definition

IWRM is defined as,

a process that promotes the co-‐ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems (Global Water Partnership).

The ‘IWRM comb’ below illustrates this approach.

Source: Global Water Partnership

5

To summarise, IWRM is a not a new way of managing water resources – but it is an improved way. It is about:

• coordinating actions between government (the key public good stakeholder) and a wide range of other water stakeholders,

• coordinating ‘top-‐down’ actions with ‘bottom-‐up’ actions

5 Global Water Partnership Technical Advisory Committee (2000) Integrated Water Resources Management. TEC Paper #4. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm.


5

• managing land-‐based water cycle processes (precipitation, evapotranspiration, surface flow, soil water flow, groundwater flow) on a hydrological (whole of catchment/groundwater province) basis

• involving relevant stakeholders to achieve ‘win-‐win’ sustainable solutions • addressing rights and responsibilities in water management.

IWRM methods

Coordination and integration -‐ “top-‐down” meets “bottom-‐up”

There is a need for processes to link ‘top-‐down’ with ‘bottom-‐up’ actions, processes to link government agencies to a broad range of other water stakeholders and processes within government water agencies themselves. They can include:

• community advisory committees advises top level government water administration • flatter structures (fewer levels of management) in government administrations – where the

CEO connects directly to practitioners in the field • direct communications between water sector groups using field days and newsletters.

However, coordination processes vary and they should be selected to fit the situation. The following table lists some possible process tools for coordination.

Process tools for improving coordination in IWRM

Tools for joint planning and management Tools for resolving conflict Tools for communicating

• Joint forecasting or scenarios • Joint models or jointly used

geographic information systems • Co-‐location of personnel or creation of

common jurisdictional boundaries • Joint review of plans or environmental

impact statements • Formal review of clearance

procedures • Supervisory oversight • Joint budgeting process • Co-‐ordination committees • Joint staffing or joint staff work groups • Joint permit reviews or common

standards for review • Joint planning process (including

environmental impact assessments) • Cost-‐sharing arrangements for

financing river basin management works

• Joint plans of action (projects, programmes, policy, other)

• Additional research or analysis • Interpersonal or inter-‐group

communication • Appeal to higher authority • Special meetings of committees or

other groups • Negotiation/bargaining within the

group • Appeal to outside party or third party

(facilitation, mediation etc.) • Use of community advisory

committees • International water agreements • Village level meetings and use of tribal

customary law

• Information and data sharing procedures

• Common database or data gathering • Regular communication mechanisms

(e. g. newsletters, e-‐mail) • Scheduled meetings • Intranet for joint development of

plans, papers • Informal communication, social

occasions, word of mouth networks

Adapted from Margerum and Born6

Coordination is defined as the ‘bringing together’ of actions to produce a commonly desired outcome or fulfil a commonly desired goal. Integration is different and refers to the amalgamation of common activities to reach a common goal. However, many people use these words to mean the same thing. As with coordination, there are three broad methods to achieve integration (see following table) – voluntary, cooperative and coercive.

6 Margerum, R. D. & Born, S. M. 2000, A Coordination Diagnostic for improving Integrated Environmental Management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43[1], 5-21.


6

Alternative models for achieving integration

Features Voluntary Option Cooperative Option Coercive Option

Emphasis regarding integration

Encourage consideration of each other’s goals and processes. Do not specify performance goals or outcomes.

Prescribe goals and processes. Specify planning components and considerations, along with performance goals.

Prescribe regulatory actions and processes. Specify regulatory actions and conditions, along with required processes and plans

Assumptions about integration

Goodwill, trust, respect and willingness to work collaboratively.

Compliance is not a problem. Discretion should be encouraged regarding policy development and coordination.

Compliance is a potential problem. Willingness to work together is not apparent, and prescription is necessary.

Structures for integration Continue with existing agencies. A mutually acceptable coordinating mechanism is developed by participants.

No new integrating agency is created, but an existing agency is designated to have a lead role. Different agencies can have lead roles depending upon the issue or problem to be addressed.

A new agency is created, which is given some or all of the powers and responsibilities previously held by existing agencies.

Implementation considerations

Encourage consideration of benefits to be realized through integration, collaboration and coordination.

Build capacity for agencies to reach policy goals and outcomes.

Induce adherence to policy prescriptions and regulatory standards. Build “calculated” commitment as a primary means to achieve compliance.

Note: Two of the columns in Table 2 are modifications of Table 1 of May et al. (1996: 4), while the first column has been added by the authors7.

Changing the culture of management

The professional capacity of water sector agencies is critical to effective State level implementation of IWRM. The following table characterises water agencies which transform from being reactive, ‘traditional’ line management (working solely in their own ’silo’) to being agencies driven by excellence, team-‐based management and with the ability to adapt to new challenges such as increasing water demands, sectoral reallocation, and predicted hydrological changes related to climate change.

This new type of organisational management is driven by processes in which individuals within the organisation demonstrate a proactive and flexible approach to work. This new approach is not a ‘western construct’ but one practised by many countries today. For example, the water reforms of Brazil over the last decade include a national policy and a National Water Resources Management System, both based on strong, ongoing stakeholder consultation by government in which proactive, engaging behaviour occurred (see Annex 6). This transformation in water sector agencies is not instantaneous, but evolutionary, and requires strong leadership from the executive personnel and senior staff.

A paradigm shift for water agencies using IWRM

‘S’ FACTOR8 Old Paradigm -‐ single sector decisions

New Paradigm -‐ decisions use coordination and adaptive management (learning by doing)

The Hard S’s

STRATEGY Reactive

-‐ Meet regulations, focus on end-‐of-‐pipe

-‐ No specific environmental policy

-‐ Closed door to community

Proactive

-‐ Link between environmental excellence and competitiveness

-‐ Emphasis on continuous improvement

-‐ "Open Door" to community

STRUCTURE Rigid Flexible

-‐ Devolution of environmental responsibility to include ‘grass roots’

7 Hooper, B.P., McDonald, G. and B. Mitchell. 1999. Facilitating Integrated Resource and Environmental Management. Journal of Environmental Management and Planning 42 (5), 747-766.

8 From (Waterman, Peters, and Phillips 1980)


7

‘S’ FACTOR8 Old Paradigm -‐ single sector decisions

New Paradigm -‐ decisions use coordination and adaptive management (learning by doing)

-‐ Steeply hierarchical

-‐ Weak or no links between OH&S, environmental management and service delivery

stakeholders as key deliverers of programmes

-‐ Flatter structure of organisation, team oriented

-‐ Integration of OH&S, environmental management and service delivery

SYSTEMS Environmentally Exclusive

-‐ Minimum required to meet regulations

Environmentally Inclusive

-‐ Comprehensive Environmental Management Plan

-‐ Formalised communication links with community

The Soft S’s

STYLE Formal

-‐ Command and Control

-‐ Environment is a low priority of CEO

Committed

-‐ CEO vision, personal commitment and leadership

-‐ Demonstrated priority for senior management

STAFF Directed

-‐ Performance measured by cost

-‐ No sense of ownership

-‐ Pride in activities in IRBM

Empowered

-‐ Environmental criteria in performance appraisal

SKILLS Functional

-‐ Production and waste control

Problem-‐solving

-‐ Integrated approach to improvement

-‐ Innovation, problem solving skills highly regarded

SHARED VALUES/

SUPERORDINATE GOALS

Efficiency

-‐ maximise business output at least cost with minimum expenses

Excellence

-‐ Strive for optimal river basin management outcomes, using stepped approach

Adapted from: http://www.themanager.org/Models/7S Model.htm and Waterman, Peters and Phillips (1980). Waterman, R. J., Peters, T., & Phillips, J. R. 1980, Structure is not Organisation. Business Horizons 23[3 (June)], 14-‐26.

IWRM, basin management and the importance of scale The nature of hydrological linkages suggests a river, groundwater or lake basin forms a natural unit of management for conservation or other purposes, especially in sub-‐humid, temperate, tropical and equatorial hydrological regimes where there is runoff. Rivers are significant areas within watersheds, intimately linked to the land systems that surround them in a river valley. Rivers act as hydrological conduits receiving excess water from precipitation, infiltration and groundwater movement and transfer water across the landscape to watershed outlets, such as another river, lakes, estuaries or oceans. The ecological health of a river system reflects the ecological health of the land systems in the river basin, indicating the impacts of upstream land management practices on ecological processes.

Scale is important to IWRM. Different processes, actions, plans and documents are needed at different levels (see following table).

IWRM at the national level does not conflict with IWRM at the basin level and, in fact, they are complementary. A comprehensive national and state level framework for IWRM helps both national and state basin management enormously.

Many countries and states have adopted IWRM. The Global Water Partnership (GWP), UNEP, UNDP and the Japan Water Forum surveyed IWRM take-‐up by national governments in 2005. They reported at the 4th World Water Forum in 2006 that by the end of 2005, 25% of the 90 countries surveyed had made “good progress”, while 50% had made “some progress” and 25% had made limited or no progress towards the IWRM Target. Although the surveys recognized that considerable progress had been made, it was clear that many countries still had a long way to go, and most countries still faced considerable challenges in implementation. The situation in Orissa is similar -‐ some acceptance of IWRM approach -‐ but implementation remains a challenge.


8

Relationships between types of water sector organisations, scale and functions in IWRM

MACRO LEVEL:

Policy/National/International MESO LEVEL:

Implementation at national and sub-‐

national/sub-‐basin scales

MESO/MICRO LEVEL: Operational

Natural resource system

Part of a geographical zone, such as a river, lake or aquifer basin

Regional or local ecological system of a lake, river valley within a basin, or sub-‐aquifer within a aquifer province

Areas with relatively uniform ecological and hydrological conditions

Level of decision-‐making

Highest political decision-‐making level, transboundary agreements

Province, state, district, territory (or national in small states)

Village co-‐operative, farm, factory, forest, local government, water use district

Indian & Orissa examples

Central Government: National Water Resources Commission

State Government: Orissa Department of Water Resources

Gram Panchayats, District Collectors, Water User Associations

Water planning and management examples

National Water Policy Orissa Water Policy.

Orissa State Water Plan

District land and water management plan

Basin management strategies and plans

Transboundary basin management agreement or plan; transboundary compact; national basin management plan

Sub-‐basin management plan or strategy, large sub-‐watershed or sub-‐aquifer or lake management plan

Local land and water management plan, storm water management plan, local planning scheme (administered by local government)

Source: Hooper, B.P. 2005, Integrated River Basin Governance. Learning from International Experiences. IWA Publishing, London. p. 120, adapted from Newson, M. 1992. Land, Water and Development. River Basin Systems and their Sustainable Management. New York, USA, Routledge.

The IWRM framework Much of this section comes directly from Global Water Partnership’s IWRM Toolbox.

In short, IWRM is a process. It is an approach to water resources management rather than a project or a specific organisation. To establish a specific IWRM organisation (e.g. a ‘Department of IWRM’ ) is misleading, confusing and at worst, leads to marginalisation of an integrated approach. Implementing an IWRM process is a question of getting the “three pillars” right:

• moving towards an enabling environment;

• putting in place the institutional framework; and

• developing and providing the management instruments

(A) The enabling environment comprises policies, legislative framework, and financing and incentive structures.


9

• Policies set the national objectives for managing water resources and water service delivery within the framework of the overall development objectives

• Legislation establishes the rules that will be followed to achieve the policies and objectives including ownership of water, permits to use (and pollute), transferability of those permits, and regulatory norms such as conservation, protection, and priorities.

• Financing and incentive structures provide the means to achieve the objectives.

(B) The institutional framework comprises the organisational framework and the institutional capacity.

• The organisational framework for water governance may comprise a range of needed organisations that include planning organisations, centralized service delivery agencies, private sector organisations, trans-‐boundary institutions, basin organisations, local authorities, local authorities, civil society institutions and community based organisations, and procedures for partnership building.

• Institutional capacity building involves upgrading the skills and understanding of public decision-‐makers, water managers, and professionals for regulatory bodies, capacity building for participation by and empowerment of civil society groups and regulatory bodies and enforcement agencies.

(C) Water management instruments include water resources assessment, water resources management plans, water use efficiency, regulatory instruments, economic instruments, information management and exchange, social change instruments, and conflict resolution.

• Water resource assessment starts with the collection of hydrological, physiographic, demographic, and socio-‐economic data, supporting systems for routine data assembly and reporting, and includes water resources modelling and water management indicators.

• Plans for integrated water management combine development options, resource use, and human interaction and entails the comprehensive assembly and modelling of data from all relevant domains. The planning should recognize the need for parallel action plans for development of the management structures. Several types of integrated plans exist, including national and state integrated water resources management plans, basin management plans, groundwater management plans, coastal zone management plans, risk assessment and management, environmental impact assessments, social assessments and economic assessments of plan options.

• Efficiency in water use involves managing demand and supply through tools such as techniques for improved efficiency of use, recycling and reuse and improved efficiency of water supply.

• Regulatory instruments allocate water and establish water use limits. This includes regulations that cover water quality, service provision, land use and water resource protection.

• Economic instruments involve the use of price and other market-‐based measures to provide incentives to consumers and to all water users to use water efficiently and avoid pollution.

• Information management and exchange leads to improved knowledge and by extension better water management. Key here is to have in place data sharing methods and technologies that increase stakeholder access to information.

• Social change instruments include education curricula on water management, communication with stakeholders, information and transparency for raising awareness through various water campaigns.

• Conflict resolution involves managing disputes and ensures that water can be equitably shared using dispute management and resolution, shared vision planning, and consensus building.


10

Benefits of IWRM What are the benefits?

• Improved efficiencies (financial and time savings) of managing the water sector by reducing costs and time delays due to a fragmented, sectoral approach

• Clear understanding of the role of a strengthened enabling environment of the water sector by reforming / starting / implementing:

o water policy, o water laws and o financing and incentive structures

• Managing complex issues in the water sector -‐ addressing poverty, sanitation and agricultural water supply together; that is, using many sectors’ inputs together

• Use of the hydrological basin (river, aquifer, lake and their catchments) as the basis for management -‐ so coordinating water management naturally

• Overcoming lack of transparency and consultation in decision making by insisting on stakeholder involvement – they also bring some grass roots reality to problems being managed at a high level

• Ensuring all water stakeholders’ rights are recognised • Clear understanding of the role of institutional arrangements such as:

o organisational framework for: § organisational coordination § procedures for working with an informal water sector § stakeholder participation

o institutional capacity: § project management § professional skills in water resources management agencies – leadership,

improving management skills. • Clear understanding of the role of management instruments including:

o water resources assessment o water resources management plans o water use efficiency tools o regulatory instruments o economic instruments o information management and exchange tools o social change instruments (awareness raising), and o conflict resolution tools.

These and other benefits are discussed further in the table below.

Summary of international experiences in relation to IWRM and basin management and how IWRM offers solutions to these problems9

The problems The solutions IWRM offers

Institutions and legislation

Sector-‐based approaches

Historically governments and societies have failed to appreciate the intrinsic linkages between economic growth, societal wellbeing and environmental sustainability, and have established decision-‐making, legal and administrative systems that serve to isolate, rather than integrate these pillars of sustainable development.

IWRM fosters a change in the way governments operate; moving away from sector-‐based institutions, policies and laws, to more coordinated approaches.

9 Adapted from China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development [CCICED] Task Force on Integrated River Basin Management http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/dlam/04riverbasin%20rpt.htm Accessed 11/2005


11

The problems The solutions IWRM offers

Institutional weaknesses and lack of integration and coordination

Sector-‐based management and decision-‐making is a product of sector-‐based institutions, policies and laws. Without addressing these fundamentals, the implementation of IWRM cannot succeed. Weak coordination among Ministries is a strong signal of institutional failure. Allied to this are laws and policies that promote sector-‐based management.

IWRM is as much about social and economic policy reform as it is about moving to manage the environment for long-‐term sustainability. For this reason the implementation of IWRM must be mandated by the highest level of Government and be supported by appropriate legal and administrative coordination tools.

Inappropriate management scale and centralized management

River basins provide a convenient and appropriate management scale; yet historically management has been allowed to operate at small scale without due consideration for downstream and broader impacts.

The paradigm shift to IWRM needs to draw into river basin level planning and management ALL government Ministries and stakeholders, at all levels; national, provincial and local. Decentralisation of management responsibility to river basin commissions, provincial and local governments is the key to successful IWRM, providing strong coordination exists with line agencies.

Stakeholder and public participation

Unsustainable land and water uses fostered by ignorance

Unless the principles of IWRM and sustainability are understood by both the government sector and civil society, and then applied at the local, provincial and river basin levels, the capacity of ecosystems to support livelihoods will continue to decline.

Stakeholder and public participation can enhance the quality of IWRM decisions and help implementation by reducing costs and delays. In order to empower local stakeholders it is necessary to invest in education and public awareness programmes and activities that target all sectors of society.

Lack of transparency and consultation in decision making

The failure of governments to inform and consult local people about development and river/water resource management proposals that may impact on them is strongly counter-‐productive to the ethos of IWRM, breeding conflict and resentment among stakeholders.

Opportunities to participate in decision-‐making and providing access to management-‐related data are key aspects of gaining the support, involvement and commitment of stakeholders for implementing IWRM.

Economic measures and financial incentives

Failure to consider all costs (economic, environmental and social) of development activities

Where economic cost and benefits are the primary consideration of impact assessment processes, then unsustainable land and water use practices are promoted when external costs – both environmental and social – are excluded from resource allocation decisions.

The global trend in impact assessment is to consider the full range of environmental, social and economic cost and benefits, and this is now supported by robust methods for valuing the services provided by ecosystems within these assessment processes. The benefits of considering ecosystem values may not be attractive unless there is compensatory recovery from other sectors.

Failure to provide economic incentives and remove disincentives to sustainability

Not valuing the full range of services provided by ecosystems has contributed strongly to their widespread degradation. Unsustainable land and water management practices have unwittingly been encouraged and even subsidized by governments, both through their ignorance of the broader social and environmental costs , and through the promotion of an economic development agenda as a priority.

There is now a vast array of economic measures and financial incentive options being applied in China and elsewhere that are proving highly successful in transforming land and water management into sustainable development enterprises. Two of several keys to their successful application in a Chinese context are to tailor the measures to fit local situations and to combine measures together in creative ways.

Applying integrated technologies

Water management problems not being addressed through available technologies

Typical water management problems are flooding, pollution, drought, scarcity and loss of biodiversity. Associated with these are escalating human health costs, damage to urban, rural and industrial infrastructure, food and water shortages, and lost opportunities for economic development and poverty reduction.

An IWRM approach helps to mobilize technologies such as decision support systems, geographic information systems, social and environmental impact analysis, participatory planning, in a strategic and carefully planned way. This leads to a reduction in these impacts, while not compromising development and social betterment aspirations.

When to use IWRM IWRM is not always applicable to every situation. Some water issues can be solved with relatively simple solutions and do not require a major integration and coordination processes or reforming organisations. Local soil erosion problems on farms, for example, can be addressed with a mix of education, financial incentives for farmer adoption of appropriate farming practices and structural works (graded banks, grassed waterways) using the actions of land owner groups and one or two line agencies. Much can be achieved with relatively few management processes. This contrasts to macro-‐problems such as the restoration of water quality in large lakes, such as Chilika Lakes in Orissa, or Lake Victoria in Africa, while lifting peoples’ incomes and improving water sanitation of impoverished people. The first requires regional level coordination of State agencies, with local groups, international donors and NGOs; the


12

second needs international collaboration agreements combined with national water plans and local actions – a very complex management challenge.

Several pre-‐existing conditions favour an integrated approach:

• When there are water resources problems which include different sectors -‐ cooperation and consensus is needed and this normally requires respect, trust and goodwill, and a willingness to voluntarily participate in a process

• A serious problem exists which requires more than one agency to solve

• No one agency, line department or group has all the answers

• No one agency, line department or group has all the rights to water use; in fact some groups are excluded from the water management processes and need inclusion

• Upstream versus downstream benefits and disbenefits occur amongst water stakeholders.

Conclusion IWRM offers improvements over single and multi-‐purpose water resources management. The emphasis is based on coordinated activity backed up with legislation, ongoing financing and effective professional project management. A stepped, adaptive approach is required, learning from experience as it happens and to improve management.

Governments play the key role in IWRM and they need the right ‘tools’: leadership, evidence-‐based management, coordination mechanisms, dialogues amongst different sectors, on-‐going financing, water assessment and information, water allocation tools, water monitoring tools and useful indicators to show progress.

IWRM - getting it going

Documents

Transcript of IWRM - getting it going