Integrated Water Resources Management - Essay Example

? Integrated Water Resource Management Introduction Water is a universal need and its presence is felt everywhere but without this vital resource life would cease to exist. Given that water is usually in a continuous state of motion, either moving from one state to another or from one place to the other, it is for the most part difficult, resource-demanding and complex to plan and manage water resources at any level and under whatever circumstances. Although the presence of water is a universal occurrence, effective and proper utilization of water resources has previously been and continues to be subject to its availability and accessibility, quantity and quality. It is also imperative to note that the problems of water are neither homogeneous nor constant but rather vary from depending on the location, year and season. This inconsistency therefore renders the solutions to water problems dependent on its availability and several other factors including the processes of management, competence and capacities of authorities tasked with the management, prevailing socio-political factors that inform the planning, development and management processes. Other factors include the suitability and implementation status of the prevailing legal frameworks; accessibility of financial resources, regional climatic, social and environmental situations; the extent and availability of exploitable technologies; national, regional and international awareness and attitudes; the levels of education and developmental conditions; governance issues including political meddling, corruption and accountability; and the availability of quality, effective and relevant research aimed at solving the water problems1. The importance of water as a resource can be adequately explained by the widespread interest it is to the general society, and several public institutions that are linked to development issues at the state and local levels, the academic field, private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). It is this widespread interest in water that makes its management to command a greater level of social and political attention although the levels may vary from one country or region to another and over time. Globalization has brought about a higher level of interrelation and complexity in the world, a situation that has led to a pervasive interest in issues that ensure good quality of life to the people. Water, though not the only issue takes center stage and in the recent past, there has been a substantial amount of evidence that the water problems faced by a country cannot be singlehandedly solved by the water experts and water ministries. The interconnectivity and the new level of interlink between water problems and other issues related to development demands that water problems, and management and development should be multi-faceted with the participation of all stakeholders including users, planners and policy-makers at all levels (INBO and GWP, 2012).2 The prevailing and upcoming predictable trends show that water problems will continuously get more complex and the interlinking with other development sectors such as agriculture, energy, manufacturing, transport and communication and social aspects of life such as education, environmental issues, and health will keep on increasing3. An issue that is of vital importance and creates significant challenge to members of the water profession is the formulation of ways of successfully addressing the current and future water problems at all stages including local, national and international levels. It is with this in mind that during the early 1980s, a number of members of the water profession came to the realization that the overall world water situation was not at a desirable level. Therefore it is imperative that when formulating a solution, it is appreciated that the water problems are becoming more multi-dimensional, multi-sectoral and multi regional and could therefore only be solved through a multi-criterion decision making approach that incorporates a wide range of factors including economic, social and environmental issues.4 In the wake of such unique complexities of the water problems, many in the water profession decided to search for a new paradigm for management that would ensure that all the current and future global water problems would be resolved. The solution that was selected was a rediscovery of an old concept which the professional termed the integrated water resources management (IWRM). In spite of the fact that the concept of IWRM looks attractive at face value and quite a substantial amount of investment has been put into its promotion in recent years, most countries including Egypt are still grappling with many challenges such insufficient policy coordination, strong supply-driven legacies that contradict the concept of IWRM, and weak mechanisms to ensure stakeholder partcipation5. The concept of IWRM has major weaknesses that lead to the apparent failures, and some sceptics have even claimed that there is no evidence that integration does work.6 Moreover, successful transfer of positive IWRM experiences across basins and frontiers has been met with restrictions as a result of the deficiency in experiential knowledge on the subject of features of IWRM successes sine most criticisms have been focussed on its weaknesses.7 The definition of the concept itself remains amorphous and there is no consensus on fundamental issues such as what aspects should be integrated, the manner of integration, the people or institutions to be tasked with the integration, or even if such integration in a wider sense is achievable. In addition to the highlighted problems in concept and implementation, the principles of IWRM fail to offer an elaboration on water management under ambiguity or give an explicit articulation of adaptive capacity as an important aspect of water management strategies. This paper presents a critical analysis of the concept of IWRM, a description of different interpretations of the current IWRM developments, the key challenges and difficulties faced by its implementation in Egypt and internationally. The concept of Integrated Water Resources Management The sudden surge in the world population and the resultant economic activities led to a decline in the per capita share of the limited fresh water resources in many parts of the world to scarcity levels in addition to dilapidation of the water quality. The water problems were not adequately addressed by the supply augmentation based management approach, a failure that necessitated a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional and multi-stakeholder coordination hence a new paradigm in integrated water resources management (IWRM) arose8. Following the inception of IWRM approach as a new paradigm of solving the global water problems, there has been an array of individual and institutional interpretation of the definition of the concept itself, current IWRM developments, and the manner of implementation. However, the most quoted definition today is the one formulated by the Technical Advisory Committee of the Global Water Partnership (GWP) at the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) which defined IWRM as “a process, which promotes the coordinated 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”9. The team accentuated the fact that through IWRM, water management will be done in a basin-wide context under good governance standards and public involvement. The concept of IWRM is basically anchored on four principles including integration of every available resource to meet the water uses, management of water through a participatory approach which involves raising awareness, acknowledgement of the pivotal role played by women in management and safeguarding of water, and recognition of water as an economic good10. Interpretations of IWRM There has been uncertainty in understanding of IWRM concept which has led to the emergence of an array of different interpretations of its current development. The definition given by GWP might be seemingly all encompassing and impressive, however on a closer analysis, it offers very little guidance in terms of practicality under present and future water management practices. In his paper, the author considers various fundamental questions in regard to applying the given definition in solving real world water problems and comes to the conclusion that the definition is not only internally inconsistent but also difficult to implement. However, on a positive note, the definition for IWRM given by GWP recognizes that water management should be understood in a broader sense, giving emphasis to the fact that IWRM is indeed a process and not an isolated goal. The definition gives recognition to the fact that IWRM is a ceaseless process of balancing and making tradeoffs between various goals and views in an informed manner. Nonetheless, this definition has created a considerable amount of uncertainties and different interpretations have so far been offered by various authors and stakeholders. The definition given above is in contradiction with the views presented by Pahl-Wostl et al11 who state that IWRM is in itself a goal. They further state that in fact another concept known as adaptive management is in fact the necessary management style that is essential to realizing the goal of IWRM. There is a lot of emphasis put by the GWP definition that IWRM is all about coordination and integration which leads to a more holistic cross-sectoral water management approach12. Another different interpretation is offered by Jonker13 who suggests that IWRM should be conceptualized within the context of sustainable development despite the fact that the concept of IWRM initially put forward by GWP lays focus on larger scale issues. The suggestion offered by Jonker implies that integration of the concepts of sustainable development and IWRM will make it possible to look at practices at a micro-level under the context of IWRM (meso-level) and perceive the manner in which it impacts on sustainable development (macro-level). Jonker also questions the generally acknowledged definition of sustainable development and presents a description of various difficulties that come up with such general definitions. While offering a more appropriate definition for sustainable development, he suggests that such difficulties are also applicable to the definition of IWRM given by GWP. He states that the definition gives the suggestion of managing aspects of life that cannot be adequately managed such as natural processes. He however asserts that it is possible to manage human activities. Consequently, according to Jonker14, it is necessary to come up with a different definition for the concept and suggests that IWRM can be appropriately defined as a process that aims to manage human activities in such a way that sustainable development is promoted hence improved human lives without necessarily having to disrupt the water cycle. Adding to the different interpretation of the current concept of IWRM is Thomas and Durham15 who gives a divergent description of the concept by stating that IWRM is a sustainable approach to water management that recognizes its multidimensional nature in terms of time, space, multidiscipline and the various stakeholders involved and the necessity to tackle, embrace and relate these various dimensions in a more holistic manner that will ensure that sustainable solutions to water management problems can be successfully achieved. Social, economic, environmental and technical elements need to be considered in the integration of water resources management in order to aid in the instigation of the process and eventually ensure that involvement of a larger number of stakeholders in the decision-making process16. In respect to the above different interpretations of IWRM, a conclusion can be drawn that the concept has never had a clear definition, nor the question of the manner of implementation of the process been fully addressed, with some critics saying that it is too vague, too broad in scope, and too difficult for proper implementation17. IWRM has gained popularity in the recent past; Jonch-Clausen and Fugl18 state that the concept has degenerated into an exhortation that being put into use by a number of different people who, however, have diverse understanding and interpretations and give different meanings to it. The fact that there is a significant amount of uncertainty regarding the concept of IWRM definitely does no good to attempts at bringing together the diverse views and interests of the several groups of stakeholders. This immense set of issues and dimensions is once again a true manifestation of the fact that a plethora of divergent views and interpretations of the IWRM concept. It is therefore essential that a more holistic interpretation and comprehension of the concept of IWRM is reached so as to facilitate an effectual translation of IWRM into feasible applicability. Challenges and Conflicts of IWRM: Internationally and in Egypt The soft-systems nature of the concept of IWRM creates a considerable number of challenges which need to be adequately addressed including non well-defined boundaries and complex interrelation; problems with objectives, alternatives and consequences; pervasive ambiguity and inconsistency in the definition which has greatly hindered its implementation.19,20 The fact that IWRM takes into consideration several component parts and strives to describe several interactions between multiple dimensions, sectors, regions, interests, agendas, causes, disciplines, institutions and stakeholders demands that more information is needed to successfully implement IWRM. Moreover, the information made available to us is always subject to bias as a result of the numerous competing stakeholder interests. There are also numerous uncertainties which is brought about because of the differences between the amount of information needed by those involved to perform their tasks and the information the actual information available to them. Another key challenge for IWRM is the identification of essential elements for IWRM which would aid policymakers to have a clear comprehension of the issues that need their focus21. It is necessary to adjust the IWRM concept in a way that it will be relevant and suitable to different local contexts and not permitting general and broad descriptions of strategies and techniques. Practically, the IWRM concept is yet to demonstrate its benefits to increasing the sustainability of water resources management due to either missing or poorly recorded empirical evidence. Such broad and rigid guidelines should therefore be avoided to accommodate the differences that exist among countries and regions. Crisis of governance in water management is another challenge that is derailing effective implementation of IWRM plans. Countries that have a strong history of socialist-legacies such as Egypt are face great challenges with the consideration of water as an economic good, and therefore it is important to note that different institutional arrangements might call for different approaches to water management22. It is also important to note that in regard to IWRM, difficulties faced during management and governance are more than just technical challenges but rather include the need for institutional reforms. The reforms should mainly be focused on having in place appropriate policies, viable political institutions and practicable funding arrangements, self governing and supporting local-level systems among others. More often than not, institutions are founded on a centralized structure defined by disjointed sub-sectoral approaches to water management and local-level institutions tasked with overseeing implementation of IWRM lack the capacity to do so. It has been observed that in most countries, issues concerning water do not take precedence mainly due to lack of political awareness and the necessary information and data to enable effective and successful planning and management of water is not available. In Egypt in particular, the major negative factors that constrain the water resources management institutions have been contributed to majorly by inadequate equipment for monitoring and effective implementation, the mandates of institutions tasked with implementation of IWRM are poorly defined and in some cases the roles and responsibilities of departments and institutes overlap. The institutions in Egypt are not only faced with inadequate budget and office conditions but are also poorly governed with issues to do with transparency, accountability, communication, integrity and participation23. The water management of water resources is not well linked to country’s overall agro-economic, environmental and social management strategies in Egypt. Furthermore, the national plans have so far been dominated by water supply management strategies and it is only recently that the country has seen a shift to demand management strategies in order to deal with the escalating scarcity of water resources. Another major challenge to IWRM in Egypt is hindrance to enforcement of regulations governing development and preservation of freshwater resources, and efforts to boost the quality of water and resolve other environmental issues have not been sufficient in the country . Other critical challenges and difficulties that continue to face IWRM and its effective implementation are local governments lacking in capacity to manage pressures on water resources. Most countries also have unsuitable pricing structures and limited cost recovery resulting in inefficient management and safeguarding of water systems, as well as in misallocation and loss of water. Investments in the water sectors of most countries and Egypt in particular are low, and do not receive sufficient attention in the national budgets. In order to realize successful implementation of IWRM internationally and here in Egypt, it is imperative to make the above mentioned obstacles manageable. Conclusion and Recommendations In order to have a clear definition of IWRM and fully understand how the concept can be effectively implemented, there are various questions that need to be investigated further. There is a lack of serious consideration of the negative implications of the implementation of a vague concept to real world problems in order to achieve sustainable development in most regions in general and in Egypt in particular. Some of these questions include issues to do with the suitability of the GWP definition of IWRM for both developed and developing nations; possibility of reaching an unambiguous definition of IWRM given that IWRM is an evolving process; the elements that need to be integrated and how is it best done; and whether or not the broad principles of IWRM can be made operational for practice, and if so, a clear description of how this is possible. In Egypt, limited water resources is an overwhelming condition, however there is still considerable room for sustainable management of water resources as long as IWRM is adopted and undergoes effective implementation. However it is important to note that planning implementation of IWRM is at different stages in the country and further technical and financial support are required for the development of management plans, institutional reform, awareness raising and capacity building. Non-governmental organizations and end users need to be educated to crate the necessary awareness. In addition, coordinating assistance and efforts are highly required given that integrated management requires integration of efforts in the first place24. It is evident that the highly integrative nature of air, land and water resources calls for the need for a multi-purpose integrated water resource management scheme. So far, the traditional and IWRM approaches to water management aimed at achieving sustainable development has not proven successful in delivering the end results due to a missing link. This, the author states, could be as a result of failure in the institutional framework tasked with coordination, planning and management of water resources and activities at all levels of government. In addition the author points out that IWRM has failed to bring about sustainable water resources development particularly in developing nations such as Egypt where environmental conservation has not been well attended to, to communities who have to deal with the immediate realities of poverty. Involvement of all stakeholders which is the central element of IWRM is also not achievable in developing countries because of the fragmentation of the institutional structure. Other areas that will need to be reconsidered in order to realize effective implementation of IWRM are issues to do with institutional red tapes occurring in implementation; lack of adequate human resources; sectoral ministries being opposed to the concept; and, poor coordinated administrative bodies and/ or institutions in the water sector. In Egypt in specific, there is need to conduct further studies on ways of scaling up the Participatory Irrigation Management to higher levels. This would ensure its effective implementation and in determining the level of participation and the impacts on the hierarchical structure of the departments of the concerned ministry. In summary, there is a significant amount of challenges and difficulties in organizing integration in water. Therefore, considering the fact that assuming a leading role in organizing integration of water through IWRM is in many ways a voluntary decision, the question that so arises is the reasons a body or institution should accept or create such responsibility. It is imperative to realize that a lot of work still needs to be done in explaining and justifying the IWRM approach. The usage of seemingly impressive terms to academics and government technocrats yet meaningless to ordinary citizens and politicians does no good to the success of any concept. In order to bring public participation on board, the author suggests that plain language need to be used and the definition of IWRM should be rethought in order to avoid the ambiguity it has so far generated. Bibliography American Water Resources Association. AWRA Position Statement: Call for a National Water Vision and Strategy. January 2011. http://www.awra.org/policy/policy-statements--water-vision.html. Asian Development Bank. Asian Water Development Outlook 2007 (Manila: Asian Development Bank) 2007 Butterworth, John; Warner, Jeroen; Moriarty, Patrick; Smits, Stef and Batchelor, Charles. Finding Practical Approaches to Integrated Water Resources Management. Water Alternatives 3(1): 2010. 68-81 Choukr-Allah, Redouane, Ragab Ragab, and R Rodri?guez-Clemente. Integrated Water Resources Management in the Mediterranean Region: Dialogue Towards New Strategy. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012. Dent, Mark. Why do we need CMAs? CMA Leadership Letter 118. 2011 Gain, Animesh K. Josselin J. Rouillard, David Benson. Can Integrated Water Resources Management Increase Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change Adaptation? A Critical Review. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 2013, 5, 11-20 Foster, Stephen and Ait-Kadi, Mohamed Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM): How does groundwater fit in? Hydrogeology Journal. 20(3): 2012.pp 415-418 Geng, Guoting and Wardlaw, Robin. Application of Multi-Criterion Decision Making Analysis to Integrated Water Resources Management. Water Resources Management. 27 (8):2013. pp.3191-3207 Giang, Pham Q, Kosuke Toshiki, Shoichi Kunikane, and Masahiro Sakata. "Integrated Water Resources Management in Vietnam Under the Challenges of Climate Change." Environment and Natural Resources Journal. 10.1 (2012): 28-41 Global Water Partnership. Integrated Water Resources Management. TAC Background Papers No. 4, p. 22 2000. (Stockholm: GWP Secretariat). INBO & GWP. New Handbook for Integrated Water Resources Management in the Basins of Transboundary Rivers, Lakes and Aquifers. 2012 Jonker, Lewis. Integrated water resources management: theory, practice, cases. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 27.2002. pp. 719-720. Jonch-Clausen, Torkil. and Fugl, Jens., 2001. Firming up the conceptual basis of Integrated Water Resources Management. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 17(4), pp.501-511 Jusi, Sari. Integrated Water Resources Management (iwrm) Approach in Water Governance in Lao Pdr: Cases of Hydropower and Irrigation. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press, 2013.pp.n.d Mike Muller, Fit for Purpose: Taking Integrated Water Resource Management Back to Basics, IRRIGATION & DRAINAGE SYS. 161, 164–65 (2010). Pahl-Wostl, Claudia, Downing, Thomas., Kabat, Pavel, Magnuszewski, Piotr, Meigh, Jeremy, Schlueter, Maja, Sendzimir, Jan and Werners, Saskia. Transitions to Adaptive Water Management: The NeWater Project. Submitted for publication in Water Policy Journal.p.2 Thomas, Jean-Sebastien. and Durham, Bruce. Integrated Water Resource Management: looking at the whole picture. Desalination, 156(1-3).2003. pp. 21-28. Read More