Integrated Water Resources Management - Problematizing the concept

W e l c o m e  everybody!

I have created this blog as part of the undergraduate course 'Water and Develoment in Africa' at UCL.

I will try to focus on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and, particularly, on the principle of equity.

I absolutely have no experience in blogging (and, moreover, on such a complex issue with my limited competences of an undergraduate exchange student). 

Therefore, feel free to comment with suggestions, corrections or reflections; I would be really glad to hear from you and learn more.

I drew inspiration for the blog's title from a Swahili proverb reported in Taylor (2004): "maji ya kifufu ni bahari ya changu', translated as 'water in a coconut shell is like an ocean to an ant', which tells how our perception of resources can change in relation to the context. 

Anyway, here is my first post:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Everyone is for integrated water resources management: 

no matter what it means, no matter whether it can be implemented, 

or no matter whether it would actually improve water management processes”.

Biswas (2008) paraphrases Roosevelt's sentence “Everyone is for conservation: no matter what it means!” to reflect on the vagueness of the Integrated Water and Resources Management (IWRM) concept.

After definining IWRM, will try to introduce a brief problematization of this concept, mainly following Biswas' critiques.

Defining IWRM...

The most widespread and recognised -as it is also mentioned in the UNESCO Integrated Water Resources Management in Action: Dialogue Paper (Hassing, 2009)- definition of IWRM has been provided by the Global Water Partnership (GWP).

The GWP was established in 1996 by the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) to promote IWRM.

According to the GWP definition (GWP, 2000), 

"IWRM is a process which promotes the co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.

Although this definition might seem embreaceble by everyone for its holistic approach, it also lacks precision and entails internal contradictions.

...Problematizing IWRM

An historical overview: IWRM as a new and widely shared concept?

The GWP (2003) and Hassing sustain that the main concepts of IWRM have been inspired by the four Dublin Principles, contained in the Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development (1992), on the essentiality and vulnerability of water; the importance of a participatory approach in water management and development; the central role of women in provision, managing and safeguarding of water; the recognition of water as an economic good.

The document has been adopted at the closing session of  the International Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE) in Dublin in 1992, aimed to formulating "new approaches to the assessment, development and management of freshwater resources".

Conversely, Biswas argues that this concept builds on the decennal activity of the United Nations since the 1950s and it has been expressed in more significantly in the Report (1977) of the United Nations Water Conference held at Mar del Plata, Argentina, in which representatives of 116 states took part.

Moreover, he also sustains a wider and more representative participation in the above mentioned intergovernmental meeting, rather than in the Dublin Conference, which he defines as a "meeting of experts". However, his position could be reviewed taking into account that the 500 participants of the Dublin Conference came from 114 countries and included 28 United Nations agencies and organisations and 58 non governmental and intergovernmental organisations (Mitchell, 2005).

Therefore, despite the large range of countries represented in both meeting, the question whether the absence of government delegates in the 1992 conference might have obstructed the implementation of the undefined criteria of IWRM, which -as the GWP affirms- draw inspiration from the Dublin Principles.

No operational definition, no implementation nor assessment.

The quotation in the opening lines of the post clearly show Biswas' strong criticism against the vagueness of GWP's definition of IWRM.

He states that the definition is not operational, not translated into measurable parameters. 

Without a clear plan of actions which have to be taken, IWRM principles of efficiency, equity and sustainability can hardly be implemented by policy makers and even be unanimously interpreted.

According to Biswas, even the individuals and the institutions who more than others have endorsed IWRM, do not have a clear idea of what it actually means.

As IWRM criterias are not defined, it is difficult to assess the policies built on them.

Biswas does not hesitate to label these policies as "dismal" . 

He bases his judgement on the Third World Centre for Water Management (of whose he is the founder) 'extensive analyses and researches' which 'indicate that on a scale of 1 to 100 (1 being no integrated water resources management and 100 being full integration), one is hard pressed to find even a single macro- or meso-level water policy, programme or project anywhere in the world that can be given a score of 30, based on medium- to long-term performance.'

This data seem to come from a survey conducted among the participants of a conference organised by the Third World Centre for Water Management evaluate the "status and extent of implementation of IWRM in the Latin American countries" (Biswas, 2008).

It might be argued that the results of this result could be more considered a proof of the absence of a common interpretation, rather than a failure of IWRM.

Behind the "Nirvana concept" of IWRM: in whose interests?

After introducing some critiques against the innovative nature and the concreteness of IWRM, it might be interesting to understand what hides behind this concepts, according to its who is skeptikal about it.

Molle (2008), defines  "Nirvana concepts" as "concepts that embody an ideal image of what the world should tend to", based on the opposite of faulty reality and impossible to diasagree with.

IWRM is identified by Molle as one of the Nirvana concepts which "a) obscure the political nature of natural resources management; and b) are easily hijacked by groups seeking to legitimize their own agendas".

Supported by Biswas' opinion, Molle affirms many institutions have benefit from this appealing new (according to whose who defined it) concept to attract funds for updated policies. Consulting firms, development banks, cooperation agencies and governments are some of these institutions.

It seems worthwile to conclude by better explore the implementation of one of the three principles of IWRM.

Equity and participation in IWRM

Equity is one of the three fundamental purposes of IWRM.

According to GWP Integrated Water Resources Management Toolbox (2003), equity "in the allocation of scarce water resources and services across different economic and social groups is vital to reduce conflict and promote socially sustainable development."

It can be noticed, although it might be considered a detail of little importance that equity is presented as a criterion for the allocation of water, rather than for the participation in the decisional process about the management, provision and allocation itself. It also has to be considered that in its previous Integrated Water Resources Management. TAC Background Papers No 4 (2000), large attention is devoted to the participatory approach.

But how is the principle of equity in access and participation put into practice?

I will not analyse in detail the success of IWRM in securing equitability, but I will just mention one of the cases studied by Manzungu (2004).

In his paper, he deals with the reforms aimed at guaranteeing equity in access to and management of productive water which started in 1995 and continued in 1998 with the promulgation of the Water Act and the Zimbabwe National Water Authority Act.

The country was divided into seven catchment councils, each one in charge of an area of the Zambesi River Basin; while the daily administration is conducted by sub-councils.

Manzungu points out the problematic identification of the stakehders among which each sub-council has to elect its representatives. At first the government recognised as stakeholders only irrigators, deliberately excluding the large number of farmers. Then government regulations started to 'identify stakeholders as including Rural District Councils, communal farmers, resettlement farmers, small-scale farmers, large-scale commercial farmers, indigenous commercial farmers, urban authorities, large-scale and small-scale miners among others', but still marginalising smallholder irrigation schemes when lacking a legal status.

Therefore, ensuring an adequate participation to the water management processes seems a fundamental, still hardly achieved by IWRM, objective to ensure full equity.

 To sum up, far from being an easy and unproblematic concept, IWRM deserves more attention to formulate better operational decisions, in order to allow the implementation (and the subsequent assessment) of policies.