MARCO CONCEPTUAL

•Policies

•Legislation

•Fora and mechanisms for participation

•International cooperation

•…

Enabling environment

Managem

ent instrum

ents Institutional

roles

•Level of action

•Management boundaries

•Capacity building

•…

Ecological sustainability

Economic efficiency Social equity

Figure 2.1: General framework for IWRM according to the GWP (2000)

These change areas are general in terms and may be applied on different political levels. At the national level general guidelines, institutional roles and management instruments need to be defined and established. On the one hand, this process inevitably has some top-down characteristics when creating a favorable enabling environment. By setting overall national policy and development goals, building an adequate legislative framework and by installing financing and incentive structures, pathways towards IWRM on the lower policy levels and institutional roles may be defined as well as management tools proposed or even prescribed. On the other hand, the change areas in terms of basin-wide cross-sectoral cooperation and conflict resolution, stakeholder involvement, public participation and recognition of the river basin as the basic unit for planning primarily represent a complementary bottom-up process.

Since the international agreement on IWRM in 1992, numerous reaffirmations and attempts to foster its implementation by the international community have followed. There have been reaffirmations to the IWRM concept, for instance, at the Second World Water Forum in The Hague, in 2000, with the formulation of the World Water Vision “[...] not just to end up the implementation of the Dublin Principles, but also to propose a comprehensive set of practical principles for 10 2 Evolution and implementation of Integrated Water Resources Development and Management

implementation” (Cosgrove and Rijsberman, 2000). Furthermore, the GWP launched its IWRM ToolBox as an online-platform at the World Water Forum in The Hague (from 2001 on also available as a print version) intended as “[...] an information exchange platform where experiences are shared to help develop the body of knowledge which can enable all those engaged in water issues to work together to build water security and sustainable water for all” (GWP, 2012). The ToolBox builds on the above mentioned three IWRM implementation pillars enabling environment, institutional roles and management instruments. Within these three categories it offers 54 tools, i.e. guidelines, how to implement IWRM related to 193 cases of actual application of the tools in practice (GWP, 2013a). Moreover, the ToolBox contains 178 references in form of support documents, manuals, papers, and external IWRM knowledge databases. The tools part is the fixed part (revision possible, e.g. change from version 1 to version 2) and the case study and reference part is evolving dynamically with inputs from collaborators around the globe.

Jønch-Clausen and Fugl (2001) attempt to firm up the conceptual basis of IWRM as a reaction to the fact that “[...]

IWRM has degenerated into one of these buzz-words that everybody uses but that means many different things to different people”. Their paper is a summary of the GWP’s background paper on IWRM with additional comments in order to improve the conceptual understanding of the concept. Most importantly, Jønch-Clausen and Fugl stress that IWRM is essentially a process and not a goal in itself and focus on what should be integrated. For them the integration within the human system is especially challenging. In their conclusion, Jønch-Clausen and Fugl emphasize that IWRM must not be interpreted as a universal blueprint for water resources management worldwide and therefore practical implementation must reflect local conditions of the natural and human system. The authors argue further that one should not be overwhelmed by the complexity of the IWRM concept. In practice, prevailing challenges should be at the center of IWRM implementation.

However, getting the different actors to agree on an integrated approach and to act in a co-ordinated way may be much more difficult (Jønch-Clausen and Fugl, 2001).

In addition to the promotion of IWRM through the WWC and the GWP, the international community agreed on further measures to confront the difficulties in IWRM implementation. Based on the stated need for regular, global assessments on the status of freshwater resource at the Sixth Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) in 1998 the member organizations of UN-Water founded the World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP) in 2000 to coordinate the production of the triennial UN World Water Development Report (WWDR) in conjunction with the World Water Forum.

The WWAP’s objective is to report on the status of global freshwater resources, changing management challenges and the progress achieved in reaching the Millennium Development Goals related to water. The first World Water Development Report was released in 2003.

In 2000 at the Millennium Summit of the United Nations the concept of IWRM was strongly related to the achievement of the MDG. Finally, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, in 2002, the UN adopted the establishment of national IWRM plans as an instrument to achieve the MDG. As a follow-up to the MDG based on the Millennium Declaration adopted by the heads of State in 2000 it was further agreed at the Summit in Johannesburg in 2002, through the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPI), to ‘develop integrated water resources management and water efficiency plans by 2005, with support to developing countries, through actions at all levels“. The former deadline for IWRM implementation of IWRM plans was extended to 2005 at the 2002 Johannesburg conference (Article 18 of the summit’s declaration). This extension was relayed by numerous international institutions such as the UNDP, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the World Bank, the WWC and the GWP. UN-Water was founded in 2003 to foster greater co-operation and information sharing among UN entities and other relevant stakeholders.

The first phase of IWRM implementation revealed that IWRM implementation is a difficult and complex task. Besides first successful steps towards IWRM implementation, for instance in the EU, Canada, South Africa, and Australia, there has been little progress on implementation in other parts of the world. While important groundwork on the IWRM concept, of what it implies and how it may be implemented could be realized, the need for much more investigation on success factors and the overcoming of implementation obstacles became apparent. The need to know more about the global status of IWRM implementation and to foster the experience exchange process among practitioners is reflected in the establishment of the World Water Assessment Programme and the GWP IWRM ToolBox launch at the end of the first implementation phase.

2.1.2 Assessing the global status of IWRM implementation - Progress, obstacles and recommendations

During the period from 1992 to 2002 IWRM gained even more importance within the international community. At the Johannesburg Summit IWRM obtained the status of a means to achieve the MDGs and the international community agreed on the development of national IWRM plans by 2005. With the establishment of the GWP and the WWC, communication and experience exchange of the IWRM concept was fostered. Especially in developing countries the GWP has assisted, as in the case of South Africa, in IWRM implementation and the GWP ToolBox provided important guidance for practical steps towards IWRM.

The subsequent period of IWRM development from 2002 onward can be described as a second phase of implementation.

This period reveals a shift towards a stronger focus on the implementation progress of IWRM in practice. During this third period several actions to improve implementation, e.g. through capacity building and promotion of extensive experience exchanges, as well as to monitor and assess the IWRM implementation process were realized. The importance of capacity building can be seen in the formation of the Cap-Net, a nonprofit international capacity building network for Integrated Water Resource Management(IWRM) initiated by UNDP.

Since the Second World Water Forum in 2000 the topic of water governance has become increasingly prominent and is now regarded as one of the most important issues to achieve IWRM implementation (Rogers et al., 2003; Rogers and Hall, 2003; Kidd and Shaw, 2007). A dialogue on effective water governance was undertaken by GWP in partnership with the UNDP and the International Council for Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI) in 2002 in order to gain more experience on what makes water governance more effective (Rogers et al., 2003). A key conclusion from this dialogue was that water governance cannot be isolated from development in society at large. In conclusion, the dialogue report recommends that water governance should build on existing governance arrangements wherever possible, capitalize on opportunities to improve coordination and redefine roles and responsibilities, and develop capacity among individuals and institutions in order to govern water resources more wisely (Kidd and Shaw, 2007; Rogers et al., 2003). Additionally, a broad scientific dialog on IWRM has commenced, presenting critical views on the applicability of the concept and the struggles for its implementation.

As called for at the end of the first IWRM implementation phase, the development progress of national IWRM plans has been monitored using country surveys at repeating intervals. The first two surveys in 2003 and 2005 were carried out by the GWP and had mainly informal character. The surveys focused on the formulation process of national IWRM plans without regard to their respective implementation status.

The surveys carried out in 2007/2008 and 2011 by UN-Water became the basis of official status reports on the implementation of IWRM plans to the UN CSD whereas the 2012 “report [based on the survey realized in 2011] is more extensive, covering more countries and addressing the development, management and uses of water resources, as well as the possible outcomes and impacts of integrated approaches” (UN-Water, 2012b).

The survey results of 2003 documented - for the first time and on a broad analytical basis - that the IWRM implementation progress is slow and had to be monitored in order to identify its main obstacles. In order to carry out the survey, GWP regional contact persons were asked to provide a “[...] relative assessment of countries’ maturity relating to the adoption of an IWRM approach. This assessment was to identify countries as having reached three different maturity levels (good progress, some steps, and initial stage) and to be qualified by short summary statements based on the survey data” (GWP, 2004). This first snapshot survey of the GWP in 2003 revealed that only about 10 % of the 108 surveyed countries (45 in Africa; 42 in Asia and the Pacific; 22 in Latin America) had made good progress in developing their IWRM and Water Efficiency plans, 50 % had taken some steps toward developing their plans, while the remaining 40 % were only in initial stages of the process (GWP, 2004).

The first UN World Water Development Report (WWDR) of 2003 confirms the progress towards IWRM implementation as being quite slow. Nevertheless, the report highlights “[...] encouraging trends in the needed reforms, and in three areas in particular: 1. recognition of the need for sound water governance and of certain required reforms of policy and institution, plus enforcement of laws and regulation, that are essential to sustainable water development; 2. reform of water institutions and policies is now taking place in many countries, but progress is slow and limited; 3. the IWRM approach is accepted in principle, but implementation is partial in both developed and developing countries” (WWAP, 2003).

In 2005 the GWP again conducted an informal survey, similar to the one in 2003. It focused on policies, laws, plans/strategies and other planning documents prepared by the 95 surveyed countries. The purpose of the survey was to capture the status of IWRM policies, laws and plans, but not to assess what is actually being implemented (GWP, 2006).

The survey report summarizes the results as follows:

“The survey indicates that approximately 21 % of the countries have plans/strategies in place or well underway and a further 53 % have initiated a process for the formulation of an IWRM strategy/plan. Therefore, according to the definition provided by the MDG Task Force it can be concluded that about three-quarters of the countries surveyed have met the target of initiating a process for the development of national strategies/plans. In these countries the survey indicates that the IWRM approach appears to be well accepted as the way forward for better water resources management and use. The remaining 26 % have made only limited progress and in many cases have expressed a wish to move forward but need support in this process” (GWP, 2006).

Moreover, the survey identified that “constraints to planning and implementation of IWRM include a lack of political will to foster needed policy changes and to allocate needed financial and other resources, as well as inadequate awareness of water issues, and inadequate institutional capacity” (GWP, 2006).

12 2 Evolution and implementation of Integrated Water Resources Development and Management

The initial surveys by the GWP as well as the first WWDR of 2003 document the broad acceptance of the IWRM concept among national governments, however, both assessments already highlight that a formal reform process based on IWRM-oriented policies, laws and plans is not enough to implement IWRM. While the formulation of IWRM plans, strategies and laws is described as slow and sometimes partial, the next step of actual implementation of IWRM is still absent at large.

Additional findings presents UN-Water (2006) presents additional findings in a report from the 4^thWorld Water Forum on the subject of “Implementing Integrated Water Resources Management” from two global surveys, one being the GWP survey of 2005 and the other one a survey of the Japan Water Forum (JWF) (JWF, 2006), and six additional regional overviews that had collected and analyzed information on the progress of incorporating IWRM principles into national planning around the world. Despite “[...] that the basic principles of IWRM are being introduced into legislative and institutional reform, albeit in some cases slowly,” the report highlights that more attention needs to be paid to implementation: “Moving from planning to the follow-up phase of concrete action appears to be a stumbling block for many countries” (UN-Water, 2006). Moreover, it concludes “[...] that despite the admirable progress made in initiating IWRM planning and establishing an enabling institutional environment for IWRM in many countries, the slow progress made after success in the initial stages indicates that the realization of the IWRM target set in Johannesburg may in fact take many years to achieve. The type and level of change required, a shift in mindset as well as operational approaches, demands widespread institutional as well as social change, at all levels” (UN-Water, 2006). Thus, the UN-Water report reaffirms the findings of the former implementation assessments. As a conclusion, the report identifies key areas for improvement: capacity enhancement, civil society involvement, international support and coordination, monitoring and indicator development and environmental sustainability.

In 2006, the WWAP once again published a World Water Development Report. This second report mirrors the global survey results of 2005 by stating that there is a significant gap between policy-making (e.g. through establishing formal IWRM plans and the development of new water legislation) and its implementation in practice, especially in developing countries. The report identifies serious gaps in developing countries between land and water use policies and governance.

Furthermore, in spite of the need to localize water management, many governments “[...] fail to delegate adequate powers and resources to make it work. On the other hand local groups are often without access to information, are excluded from water decision-making, and thus lack a capacity to act” (WWAP, 2006). The report continues to highlight that “[...] there is, in reality, limited practical experience of how it [IWRM] can be implemented. In the overall context of IWRM, relevant challenges to and opportunities for an improved integration of land and water governance have, surprisingly, received little attention. It has proven difficult to integrate or coordinate land and water in a meaningful way, particularly for the rural and urban poor who have been socially and politically marginalized, and largely excluded from access to land, water resources management and related services” (WWAP, 2006). The report stresses further that recent achievements in the development of sophisticated water policies and plans (e.g. European Union Water Framework Directive or the IWRM process in South Africa) need to be balanced, however, by a recognition that policy changes at national levels have often been only imperfectly followed through to effective implementation (Zimbabwe is a recent example). The report sees

“[...] a tendency to separate policy-making processes from implementation” (WWAP, 2006). Taking these statements into account, the WWDR provides a much deeper and much more detailed analysis of practical implementation obstacles than former assessments. Effective decentralization, integration of land and water management, coordination and participation at the local level are revealed as having a central role for successful IWRM implementation. Furthermore, it seems to be unclear how, i.e. through which (management) instruments, implementation can be successfully achieved (limited practical experience). Hence, the report points out major questions that still need to be worked out to put effective IWRM into practice. The report summarizes the following points explicitly linked to governance issues:

• Who is in charge of integration? Who implements integration?

• Who decides what interests should be reflected in IWRM plans and policies? How should policy processes be governed to ensure that relevant stakeholder interests are duly reflected?

• How should conflicting interests and disputes be resolved? What are the appropriate formal and informal institutions and conflict resolution mechanisms for efficient and equitable water decisions?

• Is there really a need to integrate all water issues?

Aside from highlighting the implementation gap of IWRM, the second WWDR presents several recommendations on how to overcome this gap: “There is no blueprint for improved governance. This suggests that specific solutions - the ideal solution - may be less relevant and emphasizes the importance of enabling processes and frameworks that can be applied to resolve certain issues in situations of economic or other constraints and in contexts of change, that is, ‘second or third best’ solutions” (WWAP, 2006). Thus, the report highlights clearly that the local context matters for practical implementation. Moreover, implementation should occur while addressing the most felt ecological and social constraints, even if this may promote second best solutions: “New management approaches will be based on regional cooperation principles, focusing on river basins and aquifer systems, with an emphasis on social needs and environmental sustainability.

They will focus on interrelated natural resources problems, reduce potential points of friction and stress, and eliminate

conflicting demands through risk management and vulnerability assessment. Classical legal tools and more informal approaches both have important roles to play in defusing conflict and developing cooperation” (WWAP, 2006). The key recommendation that “IWRM has to be tailored to prevailing socio-economic conditions”, though, can encounter obstacles:

- lack of proper coordination of management activities and appropriate management tools - inability to integrate water resources policies institutional fragmentation insufficiently trained or qualified manpower shortfalls in funding -inadequate public awareness - limited involvement by communities, NGOs and the private sector (WWAP, 2006).

The second WWDR provides important findings on how to overcome the encountered implementation gap of IWRM.

There appears to be a general agreement that, apart from the establishment of a (national) enabling environment and the assignment of institutional roles, for practical implementation the local context and the specific problem-setting in both its socio-economic and ecological dimension matter. Accordingly, blueprint solutions or all integrating solutions are not useful. In order to achieve practical implementation the report’s recommendations make clear that more pragmatism seems more promising.

In 2008 UN-Water prepared a first official global status report on the implementation of IWRM for the 16^thsession of the Commission on Sustainable Development. According to UN-Water the report “[...] provides the best and most objective

In 2008 UN-Water prepared a first official global status report on the implementation of IWRM for the 16^thsession of the Commission on Sustainable Development. According to UN-Water the report “[...] provides the best and most objective