GWP in actionGWP in action

The Global Water Partnership (GWP), established in , is an interna-tional network open to all organizations involved in water resources man-agement: developed and developing country government institutions, agen-cies of the United Nations, bilateral and multilateral development banks,professional associations, research institutions, non-governmental organiza-tions, and the private sector. Its mission is to support countries in the sus-tainable management of their water resources.

Through its network, the GWP fosters integrated water resources man-agement (IWRM). IWRM aims to ensure the coordinated developmentand management of water, land, and related resources in order to maximizeeconomic and social welfare – without compromising the sustainability ofvital environmental systems.The GWP promotes IWRM by facilitating dia-logue at global, regional, area, national and local levels to support stakehold-ers in implementing IWRM.

The GWP network works in 12 regions: Southern Africa, Eastern Africa,West Africa, the Mediterranean, Central and Eastern Europe, CentralAmerica, South America, Central Asia and the Causasus, South Asia,Southeast Asia, China and Australia.The GWP Secretariat is located inStockholm, Sweden.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe GWP gratefully acknowledges the partners who kindly contributed tothe texts and interviews in the creation of this report, GWP in Action,. It is also grateful for the financial contributions to the Partnershipmade by the governments of Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, theNetherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UnitedKingdom.

ISSN: -

Published by the Global Water Partnership, GWP.Reproduction of the text of this publication is authorized without prior permission from the copyright holder.Texts by Green Ink Ltd. UK.Design and production by Greenwood Communications AB. www.greenwood.sePrinted by Elanders Novum AB.

Chair report

Overview

Strategy: From advocacy to action

Partnerships: Progress in the regions

Plans into practice: Changing national water policy

Capacity:The building blocks of development

Governance: Learning from the Dialogues

Financing: Water for all 33

Contacts

Contents

-

-

-

Seven years ago the Global WaterPartnership came into being. It was a dar-ing step: could a small group of people

working out of the Swedish InternationalDevelopment Cooperation Agency (Sida) inStockholm – with a mandate patterned looselyafter a group of Agricultural Research Centers –actually make an impact on how the world man-ages water? And, even with growing water crises,was there sufficient interest in water manage-ment reform around the world to justify such amove?

After seven years, the answers to these ques-tions reveal a variegated pattern.The partnershipconcept and the push for better water manage-ment have both spread quickly.The GWP isnow a network operating in twelve regions ofthe world with thirty-two Country WaterPartnerships and sixteen Area Water Partnerships,supported by an independent intergovernmentalorganization in Stockholm; IWRM has beenadopted as an element in official water manage-ment policy in many GWP countries;TechnicalCommittee documents of high quality continueto be produced and be translated into many lan-guages, while the IWRM ToolBox grows incontent and use.The GWP and World WaterCouncil-sponsored report, Financing Water for All,sparked follow up at the G-8 Evian Summit thisyear leading to the creation of new mechanismsand analyses within the international financialinstitutions on how their procedures serve waterinfrastructure and service financing. Networkson capacity building for IWRM have been setup in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin Americaand over 100 dialogues on elements of watergovernance have been held across the globe.

It was gratifying that the recent ExternalReview of the GWP undertaken this year byour donors acknowledged,“GWP has establisheda very large regional network with activitiesapparent at the regional and country level.Thebrand relating to both the GWP name and itsdefinition of Integrated Water ResourcesManagement (IWRM) has achieved a very highlevel of recognition across the global watersector.”

This is good achievement in this short a time,as this report shows. But there is another reality.

Funding for water infrastructure and services isnot increasing – in national budgets, in the lend-ing programs of financial institutions, or inPoverty Reduction Strategy Plans.The use ofthe IWRM phraseology increases a great dealfaster than the actual process of bringing sectoralgroups together – words are easier than actions,in this field as in others.

Also with the maturity of seven years, theGWP has movedinto renewal – withboth the benefits andpangs that suchchange brings. Long-serving RegionalDirectors havestepped down; andlong serving mem-bers have left theSteering Committee.Donors havechanged.We wel-comed the appoint-ment in January of

Emilio Gabbrielli as the new GWP ExecutiveSecretary, and said farewell and thanks to KhalidMohtadullah. Now we welcome RobertoLenton, who succeeded Torkil Jønch-Clausen inAugust as the Chair of the Technical Committee,and warmly thank Torkil for his inestimable con-tributions.

With the infusion of new people and theirskills, building on past experience, and with anew sense of confidence, GWP offices aroundthe world will try to channel all of these ele-ments into an intensified process to tackle theNational Water Resource Development planscalled for by the Johannesburg Summit onSustainable Development.As water crisesintensify for countries and people around theworld, we must take maximum advantage of theopportunity provided by the agreement of theworld’s leaders to move toward creation ofrobust, thoughtful national processes to tacklewater management for the benefit of each of us.So now, on to year eight!

Chair Report

Margaret Catley-CarlsonGWP Chair

Iarrived at the GWP in January, attracted bythe principles and ideals of the Global WaterPartnership. I did not know the GWP very

well, but it was an easy task to become quicklyaware that a vibrant GWP network was actuallyin place, that a remarkable basic body of knowl-edge on IWRM had been developed and pulledtogether and that advocacy for IWRM had beensuccessful.As a consequence, the challenge aheadbecame immediately clear: how to transform allof this into effective action on the ground, espe-cially after the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment in Johannesburg had put waterhigh on the agenda and set the target for pro-ducing national IWRM plans by 2005.We havetried to address this challenge in the revisedstrategy for 2004 to 2008, the key points ofwhich are highlighted in this report.

During the strategy revision process that weundertook this year, many people asked me whatmy personal vision was of where the GWPshould be at the end of the next five years of itswork program. My answer has been that I wouldlike to see, by 2008, that the process of develop-ing country water management strategies incor-porating IWRM is well under way in severalcountries thanks to the facilitating actions of theGWP’s global network of regional and localwater partnerships, supported by the GWP’sbody of knowledge and experience. I also wouldlike to see the network as truly global, facilitat-ing South–South, North–North andSouth–North dialogues. I would like to see thatthe Partnership has kept its characteristics ofbeing cost-effective, flexible and non-bureaucrat-ic – though with good governance and account-ability – and fully integrated with sister organi-zations committed to IWRM, together with allentities and stakeholders directly or indirectlyinvolved with the overall management of waterresources.

I also noted after my arrival that, as a result ofGWP’s good work, we have generated an expec-tation that the GWP and its partners can quicklyensure that IWRM is adopted and implementedto resolve the current water crises. Developmentprocesses in general however, are slow and socie-ty is often not inclusive and lacks awareness andcapacity.We are all aware that demands by socie-

ty are for fast action, even those for social causeslike the fight against poverty, but often produceunsustainable solutions.

However, for the sustainability of our waterresources, there is no alternative to IWRM. Itrust that the GWP network of IWRM believerswill contribute to maintain the necessary atten-tion and patience, while at the same time facili-tating and speeding up the process with appro-

priate mechanisms.As you will read in

this report, a keyGWP activity inpromoting IWRMremains with build-ing water partner-ships around theworld as the neutralground where allstakeholders inIWRM at global andlocal levels wish tomeet, and places thatreally represent all

sectors, not only those that are involved directly.IWRM is not a static concept, it needs to keepadapting to changing circumstances and evolvewith issues of the debate.Thus, the networkshould represent a credible, influential, informed,inclusive partnership of practitioners at globaland local levels that will continue collecting andcreating a body of knowledge and experience inIWRM and making it available throughout thenetwork. I believe this is what the GWP is andshould continue to be about.

In promoting IWRM, the GWP must remainaware that there is no room for complacency, asthe task is enormous, remain committed to pur-suing IWRM with the necessary humility anddetermination and always look for synergies withothers. By consolidating all these efforts, theGWP will be creating the opportunities forbringing together knowledge, experience andcommitment among all stakeholders in the inter-est of our ultimate goal – a better life for all.

Overview

Emilio GabbrielliExecutive Secretary

Strategy: Fromadvocacy to action

A vibrant GWP network is already in place,the basic body of knowledge on IWRMhas been developed and pulled together

and advocacy for IWRM has been successful.“This is an important time for GWP”, saysEmilio Gabbrielli, the new Executive Secretaryof GWP,“as 2004 marks the beginning of theimplementation of the revised strategy that willbe in place for the next five years.

“The challenge ahead is how to transform all ofthis into effective action on the ground, especiallyafter the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable

Development (WSSD)in Johannesburg putwater high on theagenda and set the tar-get for producingnational IWRM plansby 2005.”

The GWP is basi-cally a network ofpeople who believethat IWRM practiceswill help lead to moresustainable develop-ment and, ultimately, abetter world. By advo-cating IWRM princi-ples, the GWP net-work worldwide aimsto have all stakeholders– in particular govern-mental institutions –join in a commoneffort to implementIWRM practices.

“In moving forwardwith the revision ofthe strategy for theyears 2004 to 2008,”Gabbrielli continues,“The GWP needs topreserve, strengthenand extend its world-wide partnership of

experts and stakeholders and make sure that itsstrength results in the successful application ofIWRM practices, right down to the local level.”

This process was not designed to reinventGWP but to make sure that it realizes the fullpotential of its activities and meets the expecta-tions of the Partnership and its donors.There isalready widespread agreement within the GWPnetwork that the basis of the way forward forthe next five years needs to be a furtherstrengthening of the GWP focus on regional andcountry partnerships. Sufficient resources and theright procedures need to be put in place toensure the effectiveness and transparency of thenetwork so that the direct allocation of fundscan be obtained in a framework of proper assess-ment of priorities and accountabilities.

One key element towards achieving this will beto fully enforce the guidelines for establishment ofwater partnerships in the regions and in thecountries as quickly as possible.“Among otherthings,” Gabbrielli says,“this means that everyRegional Water Partnership should be able tocount at least on two full-time staff members.Andwith the increased focus on regional and countrywater partnerships, it is becoming more and moreimportant to have very clear accountability withregard to budgets, as well as systems to identifypriorities within the allocated funds to ensure thatthe money is expended in the best possible way.”

KEY ELEMENTS OF THE STRATEGYAt the core of the new strategy lies the develop-ment and strengthening of the GWP’s role infacilitating IWRM change processes at differentlevels and developing the knowledge base onIWRM – requiring the Partnership to improveunderstanding of IWRM and further developtools, such as the IWRM ToolBox, that will helpstakeholders turn principles into practice.

The new strategy is guided by a series of “out-puts.”These reflect the GWP’s enhanced focus onaction and implementation (outputs 1, 2 and 3)and the need to strengthen the partnerships andmanage the network effectively (outputs 4 and 5).

GWP STRATEGY 2004–2008The immediate objective is to ensure thatIWRM is applied in a growing number ofcountries and regions as a means to foster equi-table and efficient management and sustainableuse of water.This objective will be achieved bymeans of five consolidated outputs:n IWRM water policy and strategy develop-

ment facilitated at relevant levels;n IWRM programs and tools developed in

response to regional and country needs;n linkages between the GWP and other

frameworks, sectors and issues ensured;n GWP partnerships established and consoli-

dated at relevant levels; andn GWP network effectively developed and

managed.

IWRM MAKES AN IMPORTANT ADVANCEThe GWP has been promoting the principlesof IWRM since its establishment in 1996 andthe concept is becoming widely acceptedamong decision-makers and opinion leaders.An important advance in safeguarding theworld’s water resources was taken during theSeptember 2002 World Summit on SustainableDevelopment, when participating countriespledged to begin formulating national IWRMand water efficiency plans by the year 2005.

Output 1. IWRM water policy and strat-egy development facilitated at relevant lev-els. Here, the GWP will help facilitate the trans-formation of IWRM principles into mainstreamregional and national water policies.The GWPwill work with regions and countries in theprocess of their water reforms by facilitating thenecessary multi-stakeholder processes, whileencouraging policy development within theIWRM framework of equity, efficiency and sus-tainability. Helping countries prepare theirIWRM and water efficiency plans, as called forby the WSSD, lies at the heart of this output.

Output 2. IWRM programs and toolsdeveloped in response to regional andcountry needs. Building on its earlier work,the GWP will consolidate its position as aninternational network that supports the use ofIWRM programs and tools in the day-to-daypractice of water resources management. It willdo this by further developing its IWRM pro-grams and tools based on the policy decisionsand strategy needs of the regions and countriesin which it works.

At all levels, knowledge management, aware-ness-raising and capacity-building will constitutethe cornerstone of these tools and programs.TheIWRM ToolBox with its database of practicalcase studies and the GWP’s AssociatedProgrammes – on capacity-building, gender andwater, groundwater management, water basinmanagement, floods and others – are becomingincreasingly important integrating components.

Output 3. Linkages between the GWPand other frameworks, sectors and issuesensured. The management of water cannot beundertaken in isolation from demographicdevelopment, poverty, employment, trade,economic growth, health and other resource

A key GWP activity is tobuild partnerships around

the world where stake-holders at global andlocal levels can meet.

A START HAS BEEN MADEIn just seven years, the GWP has established aglobal network and made a significant contri-bution to political-level recognition of theneed for IWRM.The partnership has facilitatedpolicy reform and legislation change in thegovernance and management of water in several countries.There is broad recognition ofthe value of the neutral multi-stakeholder platform that the GWP provides both internationally and at a local level.An impor-tant beginning, but a long road lies ahead andthere is no room for complacency.

Cour

tesy

of N

ASA

The Partnership is furtherdeveloping the IWRM

ToolBox in order to helpstakeholders turn principles

into practice.

demands. It is important, therefore, that theGWP encourage dialogues among all thoseinvolved and that appropriate partnerships aredeveloped to ensure that IWRM principles aretaken into consideration in the programs fromother frameworks and sectors.

Output 4. GWP Partnerships establishedand consolidated at relevant levels. It is onlythrough strong partnerships with broad legitima-cy involving different stakeholders that waterpolicies and institutions can be successfullyreformed and IWRM implemented.Fundamental to the success of facilitating theseprocesses is the GWP’s worldwide network ofRegional and Country Water Partnerships –right down to the more local partnerships suchas the Area Water Partnerships in South Asia andthe Provincial Partnerships in China.Consequently, the GWP network will strengthenits capacity for facilitating participatory multi-stakeholder processes, especially at the local level.

Although these partnerships are designed asautonomous, representative, self-regulating andbasically self-financing bodies for development andimplementation of IWRM action programs, theyshould comply with the GWP’s basic principles ofengagement.To ensure inclusiveness, the networkwill continuously seek to broaden its stakeholderbase and actively look for a variety of approachesfor developing its partnerships for action.

Output 5. GWP network effectivelydeveloped and managed. To be effective, theGWP network must foster synergy and coher-ence across its diverse components. Effective net-work management is essential then, to protectthe GWP “brand” and its associated value as aneutral and inclusive platform. Building on theexperience of the last seven years, the GWP willendeavor to continue to build its organizationand management systems to support the net-work, in line with its basic founding principles asa lean and cost-effective structure, with a highdegree of independence and autonomy.Withinthe framework of these principles, the GWP willincrease the decentralization of responsibilitiesfor it operations while enhancing the robustnessand capacity of its partnerships at regional andcountry levels.

THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND IWRMChapter 18 of Agenda 21 adopted at theUnited Nations Conference on Environmentand Development in Rio in 1992 emphasizedthe need for an integrated approach to waterresources management and development thatrecognizes the conflicting multiple demands onfreshwater resources. In accordance with thisand the Dublin Principles, the GWP recog-nizes that:n fresh water is a finite and vulnerable

resource, essential to sustain life, develop-ment and the environment;

n water development and management shouldbe based on a participatory approach,involving users, planners and policy-makersat all levels;

n women play a central part in the provision,management and safeguarding of water; and

n water has an economic value in all its com-peting uses and should be recognized as aneconomic and social good.

The GWP, while founded on the DublinPrinciples, also endorses the fact that water, ascarce resource essential for life, has a funda-mental social value.Though IWRM can bedefined in many ways, the present GWP defini-tion reads:“A process that promotes the coordi-nated development and management of water,land and related resources in order to maximizethe resultant economic and social welfare in anequitable manner without compromising thesustainability of vital ecosystems.”

While recognizing the difficulty of ensuring asense of unity, shared understanding of responsi-bilities and quality control in such a diverse net-work, the GWP believes that its decentralizednetwork model is the most efficient way toaccess and share the rapidly evolving body ofknowledge and experience on IWRM and pro-mote effective communication among its stake-holders.The Technical Committee (TEC), theGWP’s “think tank,” will play a fundamental rolein this process by working closely with GWPpartnerships worldwide in strengthening the net-work’s knowledge management mechanisms.

THE LONGER-TERM GOALSThere are no blueprints for sustainable waterresources management. Countries are at differentstages of development and have different aspira-tions and different political frameworks. So eachsituation requires its own analysis, prioritizationand approach to IWRM implementationthrough specific policy and institutional reforms.“To facilitate these change processes,” Gabbriellisays,“The GWP will make continued and sus-tained efforts to further strengthen and empowerits regional and country networks.”

Implementation of IWRM rarely offers a“win-win” situation. Hard choices and difficultdecisions have to be made, some interests may benegatively affected and there are generally somestakeholders who lose out in the short term.Consequently, building capacity for conflict reso-lution is an essential component of the processand relies on having empowered and effectivepartnerships in place.And these partnerships willendeavor to reinforce efforts to ensure that themarginalized groups – such as women, the poorand non-governmental organizations (NGOs)and others – are included.

The initial stimulus for the formation of theGWP’s regional, country and area partnershipscomes from the Regional Technical AdvisoryCommittees (RTACs), a small multidisciplinaryteam of water professionals based in their respec-tive regions.“Today most of these have evolvedinto Regional Water Partnerships that have amuch larger, broad-based cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder group of organizations, governed byelected representatives,” says Gabbrielli.“Manyregions have already completed this conversionbut much more needs to be done to ensure thesepartnerships become fully representative, robustand effective, as well as financially self-sufficient.”

An ongoing challenge for the GWP is toencourage communication beyond the water

community. If IWRM is to be fully realized, it isessential to reach out to the wider world to stim-ulate more integrated and sustainable develop-ment. In trying to accomplish this, the GWPplans to put its work in the context of a broadersocioeconomic perspective and reach out to thoseresponsible for overseeing economic growth,trade, and other development issues, especiallythose relating to the poor. But adding these per-spectives will bring additional levels of complexitythat will require new approaches to address them.

The GWP’s progress so far has been rapid. Butwhat must be done to maintain this momentum?Gabbrielli concludes:“In promoting IWRM,GWP must remain aware that there is no roomfor complacency as the task is enormous.TheGWP must be committed to pursuing IWRMwith determination, though with the necessaryhumility and always looking for synergies whilelistening and learning from others. By consoli-dating all these efforts, the GWP will be creatingthe opportunities for bringing together knowl-edge, experience and commitment among allstakeholders in the interest of our ultimate goal– a better life for all.”

THE UNITED NATIONS MILLENNIUMDEVELOPMENT GOALS

n Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger n Achieve universal primary education n Promote gender equality and empower

women n Reduce child mortality n Improve maternal health n Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other

diseases n Ensure environmental sustainability n Develop a global partnership for

development

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)were agreed upon in 2000 when all UnitedNations member states pledged to reduce byhalf the proportion of people without access tosafe drinking water by 2015.At the WSSD in2002, it was further agreed to reduce by half theproportion of people without basic sanitation by2015. Sustainable water resources managementis closely linked to most, if not all, the MDGs.The GWP is a member of the MDGs TaskForce, where its representatives are highlightingthe role of IWRM in achieving these goals.

T he GWP aims to bring together all waterusers – governments, research and academicinstitutions, communities, agricultural and

business groups, NGOs and others, creating aplatform for dialogue at many different levels.Theaim is to encourage stakeholders to work togetherto solve their water management problems.

GWP networks have now been established inalmost all of the developing countries. In addi-tion, in the few areas where the GWP has noformal presence, regional organizations, NGOsand aid agencies are promoting IWRM policiesand planning within their own programs. Inaddition, through global meetings such as theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development(WSSD) and the Third World Water Forum,more and more governments are pledging theirsupport for IWRM implementation.

While raising awareness is an intangible activi-ty that is difficult to quantify, it is the first steptowards action and implementation.“It is thespontaneous growth of the GWP which makesit so special,” says GWP Executive SecretaryEmilio Gabbrielli.“Now that we have theworld’s attention, we can begin to implementour new strategy, which is all about transformingawareness into action.”

MEXICO: FORMAL PARTNERSHIPThe breadth of the network is, not surprisingly,putting extra pressure on resources. Countrypartnerships, therefore, will now have to adopt amore self-sustaining approach, which meanssecuring additional funding from local sources.This is one of the objectives of the Mexico net-work.Although Mexican water professionalshave participated in the GWP since its incep-tion, the country is only now moving towardsformalizing a country water partnership.

“The reasons are complex, but are based onthe fact that Mexico has little in common witheither South America or Central America,”reports Eduardo Mestre, a member of a group ofwater professionals promoting the establishmentof the Mexico Water Partnership.“The size of

the Mexican economy and perceived relatively‘developed’ status – everyone has to pay for theirwater, for example – mean that donors havelargely overlooked the country’s water resourceproblems.The main reason for creating thecountry water partnership is therefore to attractlocal finance, which has already been securedfrom the government and the private sector.”

Mestre believes that private sector involvementis vital and is actively encouraging water utilitycompanies and consultant firms to join the part-nership.Another important participant is thenational Water Consultative Council, a “watch-dog” body that oversees government-funded waterinitiatives.The first meeting of the Mexico part-nership is scheduled for October 2003 and there isalready a high level of interest in the network.

“Our initial task will be to help the govern-ment produce a national IWRM plan,” explainsMestre.“The GWP will play a facilitating andsupporting role and we already have a good net-work of contacts among key decision-makers.Forming the country water partnership shouldbe the catalyst that will lead to positive changesin the way our water is managed.”

THE SOUTH PACIFICThe lead organization for better water manage-ment in the Pacific islands is the South PacificApplied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC). Inthe past two years, SOPAC has successfully facili-tated the Pacific Regional Action Plan (RAP) onSustainable Water Management (endorsed by 18countries, 14 at the ministerial level), the Pacificcomponent of the Pacific-Caribbean Small IslandDialogues on Water and Climate consultationsand at the Third World Water Forum. SOPAC alsofacilitated the WSSD process which resulted inthe formation of the Pacific Type II PartnershipInitiative on Water, to implement the PacificRAP.

DEVELOPED COUNTRIES JOININGThe GWP’s activities have, until now, beenfocused on developing countries, where better

Partners: Progressin the regions

water management will play a vital role in globalefforts to alleviate poverty and create sustainablelivelihoods. But the GWP will become trulyglobal only when developed countries become amore integral part of the network. Developedcountries already participate through variouschannels, such as providing advisory centers. Butonly a handful – Australia, Denmark and the

Netherlands for example – have taken the initia-tive to form national water partnerships.

As a water-stressed country,Australia has awealth of expertise and experience to share withthe rest of the world.The country water part-nership was formally established in June 2003with funds provided by the AustralianGovernment.“We already have many water net-

Australia established acountry water partnershipin 2003. As a country thatis both developed and waterstressed, it has a wealth ofexperience and expertise toshare with the rest of theworld.

Phot

o:M

atto

n

works within the country,” explains ColinCreighton, President of the Australia WaterPartnership.“More importantly, we are startingto build links with our near neighbors so thatwe can exchange ideas and expertise in waterresources management. Becoming a member ofthe GWP will help us to share Australia’s experi-ence and learn from others.”

As a developed country, with substantialinvestment in science and a continuing policyagenda for improved water resources manage-ment,Australia is in a good position to supportothers in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.“Ofcourse, the emphasis is on sharing and jointlearning,” adds Creighton.“We need to ask ourneighbors what help they require and broker

COUNTRY WATER !PARTNERSHIPS

Malawi

Zimbabwe

Namibia

South Africa

Zambia

CENTRAL ASIA AND CAUCASUS SOUTH AMERICAEASTERN AFRICA SOUTHERN AFRICA CENTRAL AMERICA

Benin

Burkina Faso

Ghana

Mali

Nigeria

Senegal

WEST AFRICA

Eritrea

Uganda

GWP REGIONS

COMPLETING THE GLOBAL NETWORK

Illustr

atio

n:Bo

bby P

ette

rsson

Fujian Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Estonia

Hungary

Latvia

Lithuania

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

CENTRAL ASIA AND CAUCASUS CHINA CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

Indonesia

Lao PDR

Malaysia

Philippines

Thailand

Vietnam

SOUTHEAST ASIA MEDITERRANEAN AUSTRALIA

Bangladesh

Bhutan

India

Nepal

Pakistan

SOUTH ASIA

Sri Lanka

Hebei

Australia

networks between experts from all countries.”Sharing information through the GWP net-

work can benefit both developing and developedcountries.Australia is investing in science to bet-ter understand the role and management of envi-ronmental flows, such as the mix of water useswithin estuaries. Seeking a balance between con-sumptive uses such as irrigation and ecological

needs such as those of fisheries is a key challengefor Australia – and one the team is keen to share,particularly with other developed countries.

“Now that the practical application of IWRMprinciples has become our driving force, it iseven more important to have a truly global andinclusive network of IWRM practitioners andopinion leaders,” says Gabbrielli.“There is still a

long way to go – both in the North and in theSouth – before we will achieve widespreadadoption of IWRM, but the path towardsprogress is becoming clearer all the time.”

SOUTHEAST ASIA: TAKING ACTIONGWP Southeast Asia was one of the first region-al networks, established in 1997 with membersfrom Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines,Thailandand Vietnam. Cambodia and the Lao People’sDemocratic Republic joined in 2000.

At first, the partnership concentrated on raisingawareness among opinion leaders and decision-makers of the principles of IWRM. One of thekey targets was the Association of Southeast AsianNations (ASEAN), an organization that co-ordi-nates economic and political development withinthe region.An important breakthrough occurredthis year when ASEAN agreed to establish aworking group on water resources management.GWP Southeast Asia is now working closelywith this group to develop plans for regional co-operation in the areas of networking, informationexchange and capacity building in IWRM.

The GWP provided technical, logistical andfinancial support for the first meeting of thegroup, which was held in Bangkok,Thailand, inJanuary 2003.The main output was an officiallong-term plan for water resources managementin ASEAN countries. Participants also drafted awater information status report, which will becompleted by each country and will serve as thebasis for regional strategic planning for watermanagement.

One of the keys to gaining such high-level andinfluential support for IWRM is to have the rightpeople in the right place.As Dr Apichart, Chair ofthe Southeast Asia RTAC explains,“When select-

ing people to be involved with the GWP, we arecareful to ensure that we have a good balance ofmen and women from all disciplines.And we areespecially keen to attract people who have con-nections and influence at the political level.”

Indeed, Dr Apichart himself is a member of theNational Water Resources Committee of Thailand,a body that has the ear of the national govern-ment.Additional pressure for change has comefrom the country water partnerships, which,through their members, were able to influencenational governments to put more emphasis onwater issues within the ASEAN framework.

FACILITATING CHANGE IN MALAYSIAThe country water partnerships have also beenhighly successful in facilitating policy change ona national level. Malaysia, for example, has one ofthe longest-established country partnerships.“Increasing pressure on water resources due torapid economic development left the planningand construction of related water utilities andinfrastructures way behind,” explains Dr. SalmahZakaria, the partnership’s Secretary.“The GWP,through the Malaysia Water Partnership, hashelped to bring all the major stakeholderstogether and was instrumental in developing anew Malaysian water vision – a technologicalroad map that charts the development of thewater sector through to 2025.”

In July 2003, a national policy paper presentedby the Department of Irrigation and Drainage,which is one of the partners, was accepted bythe National Water Council.The paper conclud-ed that development initiatives dealing with thetwo basic natural resources, land and water, mustbe managed on an integrated river basin basis,with each river basin having a master plan.

In line with that finding, the various partners arecurrently involved in a number of pilot projects,including the development of a system of registra-tion for all river basin units that will capture allinformation of relevance to water management.They are also designing an accompanying decisionsupport system.This system will involve a widerange of stakeholders in decision making and,when completed, will provide an invaluable toolfor policy makers and implementers.

RESTRUCTURING IN THAILANDIn Thailand, a new national water resources policy(formalized in 2000) is leading to extensiveinstitutional restructuring.Water resources werepreviously under the jurisdiction of many differ-ent government departments, leading to both

FIRST SOUTHEAST ASIA WATER FORUM –CHIANG MAI, THAILAND, NOVEMBER 2003The forum aims to build regional capacityamong IWRM practitioners with an emphasison putting policy into practice. It will focus onthe following themes:n access to safe drinking water;n conflict resolution and basin organizations;n community and local management of water

resources;n water, environment and ecosystems;n integrated coastal area and river basin man-

agement; andn water and food.

GWP Southeast Asia wasone of the first regionalnetworks. It was establishedin 1997 with members fromIndonesia, Malaysia, thePhilippines, Thailand andVietnam. Cambodia and theLao People’s DemocraticRepublic joined in 2000.

fragmentation and duplication of effort.The newMinistry of Natural Resources and Environmentis now re-drafting the national water law, consoli-dating the current fragmented legislation andmaking water management much more efficient,as well as ensuring the principles of IWRM arebuilt into all new management plans.

The Thai Government has also committedfunds for capacity building in IWRM.Themoney will go directly to the river basin com-mittees, which involve water users at all levels.This approach takes account of the fact that,when water users become more involved in themanagement of their water resources, theybecome motivated to take a much more proac-tive role. River basin management plans aredefined at a local level and the decisions of thecommittees are respected, empowering andmotivating stakeholders to take responsibility fortheir own water resources.

DIALOGUES IN THE PHILIPPINESThe Philippines Water Partnership has been suc-cessful in promoting dialogue among differentwater stakeholders, which include national and

local government officials, water utility person-nel, representatives of non-governmental organi-zations and academics. Several dialogues wereheld during 2003, revealing the importance ofdiscussing issues at a neutral venue where stake-holders can express themselves freely.

Specifically, the dialogue on governance result-ed in adoption of a national policy on IWRM.This has been incorporated into the PhilippineGovernment’s Medium-Term DevelopmentPlan.The Philippines partnership has also gainedrecognition from the highest socio-economicplanning body of the government – throughbecoming a partner with the NationalEconomic Development Authority Board’s com-mittee on infrastructure.Through this commit-tee, the members provide advice at the presiden-tial level on water-related matters connected toinfrastructure policy and development.

REFORMS START IN VIETNAMIn Vietnam, the GWP has played a pioneeringrole in introducing the concept of IWRM tothe country.After several years of awareness rais-ing, the process of reform in water institutions is

starting to happen and GWP members areinvolved in discussions of water sector gover-nance and river basin organization issues as wellas assessing the water law.

Existing country partnerships in Southeast Asiaare providing information and support toCambodia and the Lao People’s DemocraticRepublic as they prepare to launch their owncountry partnerships in the near future. InNovember 2003,Thailand will host the firstSoutheast Asia Water Forum (see box).

“The purpose of the forum is to identify com-mon issues and formulate plans – and theASEAN Water Ministers will meet at the end ofthe forum,” says Dr.Apichart.“The stage is setfor them to make a firm commitment for actionthat will lead to a real improvement in the waywater is managed throughout the region.Animpressive result for the GWP!”

EASTERN AFRICA: ON THE FAST TRACKThe development of country water partnershipshas mostly been stimulated by high-profileregional activities, raising awareness among stake-holders of the need for dialogue and change inwater policy to take account of the principles ofIWRM. But the most recent regional waterpartnership, set up in eastern Africa inNovember 2002, is taking a different approachand is working hard to form country water part-nerships straight away.

“By starting regional and national activitiessimultaneously, we hope to develop a networkthat will be oriented towards implementingIWRM through the partners from the verybeginning,” says Simon Thuo, coordinator of theEastern Africa Regional Water Partnership.This“fast-track” approach is only possible nowbecause of the GWP’s seven years of raisingawareness.

Despite a previous lack of GWP presence, theregion is poised to benefit greatly from increasedglobal attention on water issues.“We are work-ing with the Nile Basin Initiative, the EastAfrican Community and other regional wateragencies towards the Millennium DevelopmentGoals, which have become the rallying focus formany different actors,” adds Thuo.“The GWP’snew strategy and the ToolBox are providing avaluable framework for discourse and action –even though few water professionals are familiarwith them at present.”

The Eastern Africa Water Partnership has iden-tified increased knowledge-sharing and commu-nication as the key factors needed to enhance

and accelerate implementation of better watermanagement programs.“We want to focus on thereal issues that affect local people and food secu-rity is one of the most important,” explains Thuo.

The partnership is also encouraging all waterusers and managers to work together to makethe most of the limited water resources in theregion. Increasing the voice of women in watermanagement decisions is another objective,although social sensitivities against women inpositions of authority will take some time toovercome. Obtaining political support amongdecision-makers is a central part of creating sus-tained and effective action.

The partnership, which involves members inDjibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia,Sudan and Uganda, builds on links alreadyformed through the Nile Basin Initiative, whichencompasses ten countries in central, eastern andnorthern Africa.

Despite poor communication infrastructure inthe region, country partnerships in Uganda andEritrea are already beginning to influence nation-al policy on water issues and the KenyaGovernment has pledged its support for imple-menting IWRM policies. In Somalia, the collapseof conventional government structures followingthe years of conflict has meant a differentapproach is needed, but plans to launch a CWPare moving ahead. Here, the members are work-ing at two levels – with Somali-based NGOs thatare linked to local authority structures (and effec-tively govern even if not officially recognized),and with Somalis living in other countries, whohave a strong desire to support reconciliationthrough development in their home country.

With global awareness of IWRM high, andchanges in national and regional policies takingplace, the task now is to ensure effective actionat all levels. Only then will the ultimate target ofalleviating poverty and hunger be achieved.

Fed by the nutrients ofhuman activities, the SouthAmerican water hyacinthvirtually encircled theshoreline of Lake Victoriaby the late 1990s, alteringthe lake’s ecology. Buttoday, it is being harvestedand used in fertilizer, feedsupplements and as asource of biogas.

THE AREA AROUND LAKE VICTORIA is one ofthe best places in Africa to grow crops and raisea healthy family. But if the water and other nat-ural resources of the area are not managed in amore sustainable way, the people who rely onthem may soon be facing widespread poverty.

Lake Victoria is the largest lake in Africa andthe second-largest freshwater lake in the world.The region around the lake is blessed with abun-dant rainfall, its soils are fertile and the climate iswarm. Nevertheless, the lake is one of the mostprofoundly disturbed ecosystems ever observed.

The changes began during the 1920s, whenvast areas of forest were cleared to grow tea,coffee and cotton.As a result, soil, fertilizer andpesticide residues were washed into the lake.The spread of human settlements added furtherpollution. Deforestation and intensification ofagriculture have increased surface runoff, lead-ing to soil erosion and declining soil fertility.During the 1950s, the predatory Nile perch wasintroduced and, although they thrived and pro-vided fishermen with a good catch, they steadi-ly munched their way through the lake’sindigenous fish stocks.

Many of the native cichlids wiped out by theperch were algae eaters.With them gone, algaeblooms have occurred on an unprecedented

scale, sucking oxygen from the water and leav-ing large areas devoid of life.Then the SouthAmerican water hyacinth found its way into thelake. By the late 1990s, it had virtually encircledthe entire shoreline, altering the lake’s ecology,hampering fishing activities and disruptingtransport links.

Fortunately, Lake Victoria and its basin contin-ue to provide many people with reasonable liveli-hoods. In addition to the Nile perch, fishermanare catching a small, surface-feeding fish, knownlocally as dagaa, in large numbers.And the cich-lids wiped out by the perch have been replacedby massive numbers of freshwater prawns.

Even the ubiquitous water hyacinth is beingharvested and put to use as a fertilizer for crops,a feed supplement for livestock and a source ofbiogas energy. However, with a growing popu-lation to support, the need for well thought outmanagement strategies that take account of theneeds of all water users, has never been greater.

Three countries (Kenya,Tanzania andUganda) share the lake basin, so developing aregional approach to water management is theonly feasible option. Programs like the NileBasin Initiative and the Lake VictoriaEnvironmental Management Project are begin-ning to address the issues.

A threatened paradise

Phot

o:He

ldur

Net

ochn

y / Ph

oeni

x

W ater issues, and IWRM in particular,have received high-level politicalattention during the past few years,

with several major international conferencesdedicated to water issues.At the World Summiton Sustainable Development (WSSD), watertopped the agenda for many countries and therewas an almost universal acknowledgement of theneed for IWRM.

In addition, the effectiveness of the GWP wasoften mentioned in ministerial and official state-ments on water management. Here we explorefurther how the GWP is helping countriesaround the world to ‘think IWRM’ and to makethe policy changes that are appropriate toIWRM implementation.

“There is an important message for the GWPhere,” suggests Torkil Jønch-Clausen, the outgo-ing Chair of the GWP Technical Committee.“Although our main focus is, quite rightly, onaction at the country level, we shouldn’t forgetthat national policy makers are greatly influ-enced by international trends and opinions.”

The key output of the WSSD for the GWPwas the goal to “develop IWRM and water effi-ciency plans by 2005, with support to develop-ing countries.” Such high-level global supportfor IWRM represents a huge achievement andwill stimulate action throughout the world.

However, the goal needs careful interpreta-tion, as Jønch-Clausen explains:“The wordingof the goal does not take into account the factthat IWRM is a long-term process, not a one-off activity. Formulating a national IWRM planwill take between two and five years, and it isimportant that countries do not rush into mak-ing ill-considered plans just to meet the dead-line of 2005.

“The GWP needs to define what the goalreally implies – which is to begin the process offormulating a national IWRM plan by 2005.”

LEADING THE PLANNING PROCESSOriginally started by Torkil Jønch-Clausen, theGWP Technical Committee, which is under the

new chairmanship of Roberto Lenton, is now inthe process of producing a guide to help coun-tries prepare their IWRM and water efficiencyplans. It will be an evolving document and pro-vides guidance for decision-makers and watermanagers by suggesting preparatory steps andtopics for inclusion.The process, structure andcontent of an IWRM plan will, of course, varyfrom country to country, but some features arecommon to all countries.

The IWRM ToolBox developed by the GWPcan be regarded as a checklist for those preparingtheir plans. It is a compendium of good IWRMpractices and focuses on policies, legal issues,financing, institutional roles and capacities as wellas on management instruments and mechanisms.

Burkina Faso has already used the ToolBox tohelp it draw up a national IWRM plan and les-sons learned from this planning exercise nowfeature in the ToolBox. Examples of how othercountries have approached the planning exercisewill be developed further to supply more casestudies and examples of good practice. Countrypartnerships will be given more control over thissection so that they can make it more relevant toindividual situations.

ROLE OF DEVELOPED COUNTRIESThe country water partnerships will play a keyrole in mobilizing their local networks toencourage multi-stakeholder consultation duringthe preparation of the IWRM plans, and it ishoped that developed countries will also play arole.The Canadian International DevelopmentAgency has already launched an initiative to sup-port African development and water manage-ment.A total of 50 million Canadian dollars hasbeen pledged over five years to promote betterwater management and improve access to waterand sanitation, and an additional 10 million todevelop financially viable water projects.

The GWP’s regional networks in Africa willplay an important role in channeling this supportand in feeding back learning and experience tothe GWP team involved in preparing the

Plans into practice:Changing water policy

IWRM plan guidelines.The GWP regional sec-retariats will provide a link between the coun-tries involved in the program and will providesupport where necessary, but the emphasis willbe on building capacity within the countries tomanage the process themselves.The program isalready attracting attention from other prospec-tive donors and may, in time, be extended toadditional countries.

“Preparing national IWRM plans provides agreat opportunity to address water resourcesissues at country level,” adds Jønch-Clausen.“And this includes how to reach the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, the so-called MDGs, mostof which depend on the wise management ofnational water resources.

“We must be aware that the 2005 IWRM tar-get is the only WSSD short-term goal. It istherefore vital for the credibility of the entireWSSD and MDG follow-up process that coun-tries deliver on this goal.”

The GWP network has already proven its valueas an established forum for international multi-stakeholder consultation on IWRM.At thebeginning of 2003, the French Governmentinvited the partnership to organise consultationsin ten sub-Saharan African countries as part ofthe African component of the European Union’swater initiative on IWRM and transboundary

issues.The results of the consultations were pre-sented at the Third World Water Forum in Kyoto.

IWRM IN CENTRAL AMERICAGWP in Action 2002 reported how countries inCentral America are looking to the GWP tohelp them organize discussions and acceleratethe process of water legislation reform.This year,the partnership provided support for theMinisters of Environment and Agriculture fromCosta Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,

In China, new policies willhelp expand agriculture byreplacing water-demandingcrops such as rice withdrought-tolerant wheat insome areas.

Phot

o:W

orld

Ban

k

Phot

o:Di

ck C

leves

tam

/ Na

turb

ild

Nicaragua and Panama to attend the Third WorldWater Forum in Kyoto.

“The meeting helped the ministers becomemore aware of the need for IWRM plans atnational and regional level,” says MaureenBallestero, Chair of GWP Central America.“They learned about global trends in waterresources management and they began workingtogether to gain a regional perspective on themost relevant issues.”

These ministers meet regularly under the aus-pices of the Council of Ministers of theEnvironment and Agriculture of CentralAmerica. During 2003, they laid the foundationsfor implementation of IWRM throughout theregion.The process began when the GWP andseveral regional organizations formed a workinggroup with the objective of converting IWRMrecommendations into actions.

The group conducted a diagnostic evaluationof water resources in the region. Based on this,they developed a proposal for a new waterresources strategy, which sets out the principles ofIWRM – adapted to the regional context – andmakes provision for specific but differentiatedplans of action to be developed for each country.

Many stakeholders, including governmentministers, public sector institutes, regional organ-izations, community and user groups, the privatesector, environmental groups and producers willbe involved.The proposal also suggests thatIWRM plans should make use of the operationaltools provided by the IWRM ToolBox.

“The strategy should be finalized within thenext two years,” adds Ballestero.“The ministershave agreed to support the regional IWRMstrategy and they have begun negotiations withvarious regional organizations to secure theresources required.”

CHINA’S NEW WATER LAWRecent water management reforms in Chinaprovide an excellent model for other countriesjust beginning the process of policy change.Although it is a relatively water-rich country,huge regional differences exist in the amount ofwater available. Rainfall is highest in the southbut most of the arable land is in the north,where agriculture depends on irrigation andconsumes 80 percent of the region’s water.

To support the growing population, irrigationwould have to expand by an estimated 50 per-cent by 2030 using current methods. But water-courses like the Yellow River are already beingexploited at dangerously high levels.Theimpending water crisis provides a strong motiva-tion for decision-makers to change theirapproach.

In October 2002, the National People’sCongress approved a new water law for Chinathat takes a much more holistic approach towater management to meet the demands of agri-culture, industry, urban populations and the nat-ural environment.The prior law dated from1988 and placed great emphasis on developmentand economic benefits, with little attention given

Hosted by GWP China,representatives from all

major sectors of water usersin China met for the first

time in February to addressintegrated approaches to

managing their waterresources.

to water-saving initiatives and environmentalprotection.

The new law adopts an IWRM approach andintroduces a river basin management structurefor the first time.Water resources managementthroughout the country will be unified, whiledecision making will be decentralized, especiallyin rural areas.The law also establishes a waterpricing management system, including calcula-tion and collection methods for water chargingand wastewater treatment fees.

MAJOR ROLE IN BREAKTHROUGHThe GWP played an important advisory andfacilitating role in the discussions leading up tothis major breakthrough. Once again, successcame down to having the right people involved.In this case, it was Yang Zhenhuai, the formerMinister of Water Resources and honorary Chairof GWP China since 2002, who was the catalystfor the inclusion of IWRM in the new law.

A fundamental shift took place among deci-sion-makers from managing water resources on aproject or engineering basis to being much moreresource-oriented.This change in focus wasencouraged by the current Water Minister whowas open to new ideas, especially following thesevere floods of 1998.

The GWP facilitated the process by organizinga series of conferences and workshops wherehigh-level policy makers and foreign experts dis-cussed the issues together.A roundtable meetingon water and governance in February 2003allowed stakeholders from different water sectorsand ministries to share their views, resulting innew insights into how to fine-tune, regulate andenforce the new water law, thereby workingtowards water security in China.

TOWARDS A MORE SUSTAINABLE FUTUREThe question facing many countries is how tochange the way they use water and how to re-establish a sustainable relationship with theirwater resources.The WSSD goals will be effec-tive in focusing attention on the need forchange.The GWP will help by sharing ongoingexperience from countries like China as newpolicies take effect.

In China, expansion of agriculture will beachieved by improving water use efficiency, forexample, by replacing water-demanding cropslike rice with drought-tolerant wheat in someareas. In the Yellow River basin, the newlyempowered river basin commission has alreadyrestricted access to water in upstream provinces

through variable pricing and use of reservoirs.Measures have also been taken to reduce

runoff and recharge aquifers through the returnof cultivated land to natural forest and grassland.The results have been dramatic and the YellowRiver once again flows into the sea.

Other countries like Namibia,Argentina andPeru – and many more – have already begun toaddress the need for policy change based on theprinciples of IWRM.The GWP’s role is toguide, facilitate and support, building on height-ened awareness. But successful implementation ofIWRM depends on countries putting in placeefficient and effective systems of governance andfinance and, as the following section illustrates,these depend on building capacity for change.

PREPARING AN IWRM PLAN:LESSONS FROM BURKINA FASO

The IWRM plan for Burkina Faso was for-mulated between 1999 and 2002 and becamea starting point for substantial improvements inwater resources management.Water policyreforms were initiated in 1995 and new poli-cies were adopted in 1998.A more compre-hensive IWRM process began in 1999 with afour-year time frame.The lessons learned fromthe process include the following:n political will should be established at the

highest level at an early stage;n the IWRM process should be firmly

anchored in the responsible ministry andinvolve all ministry staff;

n the planning process should be supportedby a communications strategy for involve-ment of stakeholders and technical andfinancial partners;

n institutional reform possibilities should beconsidered early in the process;

n IWRM principles need to be studied andadapted to the national context;

n stakeholder groups need to be formed todiscuss the plan and enough time should begiven to get their comments and endorse-ment;

n decision-makers at many levels should par-ticipate in the consultative process

n prioritization of issues needs to be based onrational methodologies; and

n proposals and approaches need pilot testingin a basin where economic, social and envi-ronmental stakes are high.

A newly empowered riverbasin commission for

China’s Yellow River hasalready restricted access to

water in upstream provincesthrough variable pricing and

the use of reservoirs. Theresult of these and other

measures has been dramatic:The Yellow River once again

flows to the sea.

“WHOEVER CONTROLS the Yellow River con-trols China,” claimed the legendary Emperor Yu,who is said to have founded the Xia dynastyand begun to tame the river for agriculture over4000 years ago.The Yellow River or Huangherises deep in China’s interior, looping and twist-ing through desert wastes, between mountainsand across the North China Plain before meet-ing the sea at the Gulf of Bohai.

From its huge basin sprang the earliestChinese civilization and generations of farmershave reaped good harvests, thanks to its siltdeposits and plentiful water supply.The YellowRiver also has a long association with humandisaster; it is well known as “China’s Sorrow”because of the dramatic floods that have devas-tated the region at frequent intervals over thecenturies.

During the past 40 years, engineering workhas strengthened the historic dykes that containthe river and many dams and channels have

been constructed, so it can be said that China’sSorrow has finally been tamed. Ironically, lackof water in the downstream region has nowbecome a major issue.

Excessive upstream withdrawals for agricul-tural, industrial and urban use have even causedthe river to dry up for prolonged periods. In1997, people in Shandong and Henan provinceswere able to walk across the dry riverbed forseven months of the year.Water users areincreasingly turning to groundwater resourcesand, in some areas, the water table is steadilydropping, land is beginning to subside and saltwater is intruding into freshwater aquifers.

Until a year ago, national water policies paidlittle attention to issues of sustainability and envi-ronmental protection.The focus was very muchon economic development and exploitation. ButChina’s new national water law, introduced inOctober 2002, represents a dramatic change ofattitude in which IWRM features highly.

“China’s Sorrow”

Inadequate technical, institutional and mana-gerial capacity has been identified as a recur-ring obstacle that prevents the achievement

of many development goals.Achieving targetssuch as alleviating poverty and providing safedrinking water and proper sanitation depends onthe capacity of countries, their institutions andtheir people.“The two main pillars of IWRMare governance and finance and these have to besupported by capacity building,” affirms EmilioGabbrielli, the GWP’s Executive Secretary.

Capacity-building networks have thereforebeen emerging in response to the water sectorreforms taking place around the world.Thesenetworks provide a valuable forum for theexchange of knowledge and experience, but thereal challenge is how to scale up the delivery ofcapacity-building.The International Network forCapacity Building in IWRM (Cap-Net) is link-ing the regional and country networks into aglobal network, and aims to build the locallyowned critical mass of expertise that is needed toaddress the demanding requirements of reformfor sustainable management of water resources.

BUILDING A GLOBAL NETWORKAfter 18 months of operation, Cap-Net is firmlyin place as an international network addressingcapacity-building for IWRM.“The rapid devel-opment of the network has far exceeded ourinitial expectations,” reports Paul Taylor, Cap-Net Director.“We thought we might be work-ing with three or four networks by this stage,but, in fact, we have links with more than 15!This reflects the importance attached to capacitybuilding and the interest of capacity-buildinginstitutions in working together and sharingknowledge of IWRM.”

Cap-Net focuses its efforts on the key institu-tions – universities, training centers, private com-panies and NGOs – that play pivotal roles inbuilding capacity for water sector reform.Promoting local ownership and control of thecapacity-building process and embedding the

required knowledge and expertise in local insti-tutions is the only way to ensure a sustainableprocess of capacity-building.

“Training of trainers” courses are an effectiveway to begin the process of knowledge dissemi-nation. During 2003 Cap-Net organized courseson IWRM principles and on gender and waterat the global level. However, the responsibilityfor disseminating the knowledge acquired duringthese courses falls very definitely on the regionalnetworks.“The intention is to get all the follow-on courses managed, adapted and funded local-ly,”Taylor says.“Our objective is not to run thecourses but to provide the means for the localnetworks to deliver.”At least ten regional train-ing activities are nowbeing planned bycapacity building net-works drawing on thefirst global courses.

The Cap-Net websitecontinues to be devel-oped as a focal point forinformation and com-munication and is agood source of trainingmaterials that can beadapted for local use.The site is now avail-able in English, Frenchand Spanish and advertises relevant courses provid-ed by institutions all over the world.

The network member institutions now needto be strengthened so that they can deliver therequired level of capacity-building.This meansgetting more involved in implementing IWRMthrough developing their own programs to meetlocal needs, particularly supporting the areas oflegal reform and improving institutional arrange-ments for IWRM implementation.

“We are now collecting and documentinginformation on what makes a network success-ful,”Taylor adds.“And this information will beof great benefit to both existing and new net-

Capacity: The buildingblocks of development

WHAT IS CAP-NET?Cap-Net is an international network forcapacity building in IWRM. Cap-Net’smission is to enhance human resources devel-opment for IWRM by means of establishingor strengthening regional capacity buildingnetworks.An Associated Programme of GWP,Cap-Net is also part of the United NationsDevelopment Programme and is funded bythe Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Cap-Net began its operations in 2002.

The members who initially

formed the Arab Integrated

Water Resources

Management Network

(AWARENET) quickly mobi-

lized local and international

financial support and within

12 months established a

framework for improved

collaboration in capacity-

building in the Middle East.

Members are drawn from

Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan,

Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman,

Palestine, Qatar, Saudi

Arabia, Syria, United Arab

Emirates and Yemen.

works.”WaterNet in South Africa is leading theprogram for improving institutional arrange-ments while LA-WETnet, based in LatinAmerica, is managing the legal reforms program.

Decentralization is a key future direction, asTaylor explains:“The Cap-Net Secretariat isthere to facilitate, not to dictate.And we want topromote more individual membership ratherthan having mainly institutions as members.Webelieve this will foster more motivation and helpdevelop more opinion leaders in IWRM.”

As the body of available knowledge grows,Cap-Net will improve its training materials andaims to promote more practical courses with amore region-specific focus.The regions them-selves will play a key role in developing materialsto be more relevant in the regional context.

PROMOTING REGIONAL COOPERATIONThe advances made by the Arab IntegratedWater Resources Management Network(AWARENET) reinforce Taylor’s belief thatcommitted individuals can make a difference.The few members who formed the initial net-work have been instrumental in building thenetwork quickly into an accepted regional pro-gram operating within the United NationsEconomic and Social Commission for WesternAsia.They have been able to mobilize local andinternational financial support and within 12months have established a framework forimproved cooperation and collaboration incapacity building in the Middle East.

Network members are drawn from Bahrain,Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman,Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United ArabEmirates and Yemen.All these countries face

major capacity building challenges.There is limit-ed awareness about IWRM due to a lack of ade-quate formal training and education and a gener-al lack of data on water resources.The water-related institutional framework is fragmented,there is a lack of comprehensive national waterpolicies, water-related legislation is outdated andpatterns of water consumption are unsustainable.

The long-term objective is to improve theimplementation of IWRM.This means raisingawareness among professionals working in thetarget institutions and building their technical,institutional and managerial capacity. One of themajor advantages of a regional network in theMiddle East is that it stimulates internationalcommunication and cooperation, a vital objec-tive for ensuring sustainable development in aregion prone to conflict.

The Middle East network has been highlysuccessful in getting local funding, a process thathas been helped by the endorsement of govern-ment ministers. Members are actively translatingand adapting the Cap-Net training materials andwill hold a regional training of trainers course inJanuary 2004.

BUILDING FLOOD MANAGEMENT CAPACITYThe Latin American Water Education andTraining Network (LA-WETnet) has 47 mem-bers in 18 countries and is still growing.Members attended the global level training oftrainers courses organized by Cap-Net and willhold their own training of trainers for LatinAmerica in Lima, Peru in November 2003.

They have already secured funding and aretranslating the relevant training materials.Courses on gender and water have been organ-ized in Costa Rica and Brazil and will be con-ducted in the local languages.The curriculumfor graduate students at the TechnologicalUniversity in Panama now includes modules onIWRM, so that water professionals of the futurewill be better prepared to manage waterresources in a sustainable way.

In South America, there is a pressing need forcapacity building in IWRM for flood control. Inmany areas, urban growth is rapid andunplanned, and problems such as excess runoffand wastewater disposal are simply transferreddownstream.

The GWP’s floods program is addressing theneed in three ways: through transboundary proj-ects, by producing educational materials liketextbooks, and by holding workshops for deci-sion-makers. For example, decision-makers from

The Latin American Water

Education and Training

Network (LA–WETnet) now

has 47 members from 18

countries and is still grow-

ing. It is building urgently

needed capacity in IWRM

for flood control.

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peruhave attended workshops based on flood man-agement case studies.

“Most countries do not have a national floodprogram,” says Carlos Tucci, Chair of GWPSouth America.“But the workshops have alreadyprompted the Government of Chile to adoptone.Attendance at such events has also spurredthe mayors of several prominent cities to adopturban master plans.”

As a follow-up activity, GWP South America isnow discussing how it can address the need forshort courses on integrated flood management.“The courses will be targeted at water profes-sionals, urban planners and other key decision-makers,”Tucci explains.“We also want them tobe self-financing, and this is a reasonable goal,given the current escalating costs of rebuildinginfrastructure following flood damage.”

The Central American Network ofEducational Institutions (REDICA) has beenfocusing on climate change. In spite of a lack offunds, the members are highly committed andthey have been conducting short courses andcommunity-based research on adaptation to cli-mate change.The network manager, LilianaArrieta, is a lawyer, but she is working mainlywith engineers.The progress being madedemonstrates the benefits of a multidisciplinaryapproach when dealing with water issues.

NEW SOUTHEAST ASIA REGIONAL NETWORKA new capacity-building network for SoutheastAsia (SEA-CapNet) was launched in December2002 during a regional forum.The first task ofthe members was to present a status review ofcapacity-building initiatives in IWRM in theirrespective countries.While some importantinformation was presented, it was agreed that amore detailed national and regional needs assess-ment should be undertaken.

Initial assessments indicate that different coun-tries are at different stages in adopting the prin-ciples of IWRM into their respective nationalpolicies, and that awareness among decision-makers and politicians still needs further devel-opment. In addition, the implementation ofIWRM requires new knowledge and skills.

Traditional water management training andeducation institutions therefore need to adjusttheir curricula.As a first step, the network ispreparing a regional training of trainers courseon IWRM and river basin management.

In addition to the status review, the forum cre-ated an opportunity for the capacity networks

from Indonesia and Malaysia to share their expe-riences in developing InaCapNet andMyCapNet, and a review of WaterNet, one ofthe longest-established networks, yielded someinteresting lessons.

A meeting of network managers provided agreat opportunity for representatives from 19different networks to exchange experiences,materials, tools and skills and they benefitedfrom sharing lessons on how to make networksmore effective (see box).Their challenge now isto turn intentions and agreements into action.

“The main purpose of the national level net-works is to co-ordinate the delivery of capacitybuilding services at country level,” says Dr PakHelmi, SEA-CapNet Manager.“Each countryneeds to tailor its capacity building services to itsneeds, to take account of local variations inpolitical and administrative systems, the level of

A new capacity-building

network for Southeast Asia

(SEA-CapNet) was launched

in December 2002 during a

regional forum. A capacity-

building network was also

formally launched in

Vietnam in June 2003.

advancement of policy reform and languageconstraints.”

The forum also provided an opportunity forcapacity building promoters and serviceproviders to present their programs and activi-ties.This served to highlight current capacitybuilding needs, available opportunities and gaps.A training workshop on the IWRM ToolBoxhelped to familiarize people with its conceptsand applications.The participants will form localfocal points and will pass their knowledge on toothers, translating information into local lan-guages where necessary.

A capacity building network was formallylaunched in Vietnam (VietCapNet) in June 2003during a national workshop on capacity buildingfor IWRM organized by the Vietnam NationalWater Partnership with Cap-Net support.Themain reason for forming VietCapNet is to sup-port improved water management in Vietnam.

The network will create a basis for co-opera-tion between volunteer organizations in IWRM,strengthen the internal capacity and co-ordinatethe actions of the members, base its activities ondemand and develop co-operation with regionaland international organisations.The first task ofVietCapNet is to complete a detailed study ofthe requirements of specific target groups, whichinclude government officers, water managers,

scientists, water service personnel and civil socie-ty groups.

SUSTAINING THE NILE DELTAEnsuring sustainable use of water resources inthe Nile Delta means addressing water issues andconflicts throughout the entire river basin, as farafield as Uganda and Rwanda.The Nile BasinInitiative is a multinational program designed toresolve water management problems by adoptingthe principles of IWRM, and thereby to alleviatepoverty and promote economic development inthe region.

In recognition of the importance of capacitybuilding, one of the major projects focuses onapplied training.“It is through collaborative pro-grams like this that capacity building can assist intranslating water policies into better manage-ment,”Taylor concludes.

MAKING NETWORKS MORE EFFECTIVECap-Net and WaterNet undertook a review oflessons learned from the southern African net-work to assist other newly established net-works. Experience shows that networks needclear management and operational guidelinesfor the sake of transparency and decision mak-ing. Membership should be open and inclusiveand members will benefit most when the net-work functions by decentralizing operationsand decision making to members as much aspossible.These and other lessons have beenincluded in the Network ManagementGuidelines available on the Cap-Net website:www.cap-net.org.

Network managers’ meetingThe first meeting of SEA-CapNet networkmanagers produced the following guidelinesfor making networks effective:n Network structure need to be open and

democratic to gain legitimacy and credibilityn Networks should have a proper legal statusn Networks should monitor changes in

capacity building demandn Members should be motivated to partici-

pate and effective communication is vital toachieve this

n Strategic planning is vitaln Networks need to secure financial support.

LIKE THE YELLOW RIVER in China, the RiverNile in Egypt spawned a great ancient civiliza-tion. Long before the pharaohs built the pyra-mids, Egypt was famed for its agriculturalwealth – the fertile soil and plentiful water sup-ply of the Nile and its delta providing a lush,green paradise in stark contrast to the sur-rounding desert.

The ancient Egyptians began constructingirrigation canals around 5000 years ago andwater wheels were a common sight by the firstcentury B.C.The lives of the delta inhabitantswere regulated by the annual floods, whichreplenished the soil and kept the delta alive.Today, dams and diversions upstream have stifledthe river’s natural rhythms, opening more landfor delta residents – but at a price.

For the past 30 years, the Aswan High Dam,900 km south of Cairo, has kept the Nile fromflooding and depositing renewing sediment atits mouth. Control of the river provides a readysupply of hydroelectric power and has permit-ted additional land to be put to agriculture to

feed the rapidly growing population.But demands on the life-giving water are rising

all the time.There are now more than 16,000 kmof irrigation canals and agriculture has to com-pete with the needs of an expanding urban pop-ulation.At the same time, water quality is deteri-orating as a result of pollution from urban andindustrial effluent and over-use of fertilizers.Without its yearly replenishment of silt, the deltamay not continue to withstand the combinedassault of coastal erosion and salt water intrusion.

Unprecedented demands on water resourceslike the Nile are forcing water professionals toadopt a new approach to water management.Traditional sectoral and “top-down” manage-ment is being increasingly challenged by otherstakeholders who are demanding more integra-tion – between sectors, between water usersand, equally importantly, across the differentcomponents of the water cycle.Water managersall over the world now need to acquire anddevelop new skills in management, institutionalreform, conflict resolution and communication.

Unprecedented demands

For thousands of years, the

plentiful water supply and

fertile soil of the Nile and

its delta were a source of

agricultural wealth. But

water quality is

deteriorating as a result of

urban and industrial

effluent and over-use of

fertilizers.

Phot

o:Ge

tty Im

ages

Phot

o:Ge

tty Im

ages

/ Ar

y Dies

endr

uck

Invaded many times over the centuries, by theGreeks, Romans, Libyans, Persians,Turks,French and British, the Nile Delta has sur-

vived many challenges. In the early 1800sNapoleon noted:“Under a good administrationthe Nile gains on the desert; under a bad onethe desert gains on the Nile.”This observation iswholly relevant to today’s global water crisis,which the Second World Water Forum attributedto “a crisis of governance.”

Water governance determines the roles andresponsibilities of differing interests – public, civiland private – in water resource management anddevelopment. It translates into political systems,laws, regulations, institutions, financial mecha-nisms, civil society development and consumerrights. Effective governance can overcome frag-mentation of effort and resolve conflict betweencompeting water users. Improving governanceusually means introducing reform.

“Governance has been a major issue in devel-opment for some time but only now are welooking at it from a water perspective,” saysGWP Chair Margaret Catley-Carlson.“Byaddressing governance, we are moving our focus

away from the purely physical aspects of water tothe crucial political, social, economic and admin-istrative systems under which we all live andwhich have such a profound impact on achiev-ing our vision of access to water for all.”

ESTABLISHING THE DIALOGUEWhile international recognition is important inraising political awareness, governance is mainlyan issue to be addressed at the national and locallevels.The GWP Dialogue on Effective WaterGovernance was established to move the debateto the regions and countries where specific actionmust take place and to raise the political will tochange water governance systems for the better.

More than 40 dialogues on water governancetook place in the GWP network during2002–2003, involving more than 30 countries.“The process was driven by the GWP regionsthemselves with support from the center,”explains Alan Hall, a member of the GWP taskforce on water governance.“This shows thematurity of the regional partnerships and it is thefirst time global action has been led by them.”

Care was taken to invite people from differentwater sectors and from a diversity of back-grounds – government (national and local), civilsociety and the private sector. Most dialoguestook place over three or four days.There wereseveral electronic dialogues, such as the virtualdialogue in Spanish, which attracted 154 LatinAmerican participants.The results of all thiswork were brought together into a report enti-tled, Effective Water Governance – Learning from theDialogues, which was presented at the GWPcoordinated ‘Theme on effective water gover-nance’ at the 3rd World Water Forum in Kyoto.

OUTCOMES OF THE DIALOGUESThis was the first year of the Dialogue and aconsiderable amount of work focused on raisingawareness and establishing links with govern-ments, media and cross-sectoral interest groupsto gain a wide understanding of the issue and itsimportance.“Efforts to improve understanding

Governance: Learningfrom the Dialogues

GROWING INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION ONWATER GOVERNANCE

n Second World Water Forum 2000: Makingwater governance effective became a priori-ty for action

n The Hague Ministerial Declaration 2000:Governing water wisely identified as one ofseven challenges for achieving the WorldWater Vision

n Bonn Conference on Freshwater 2001:Actions in the field of governance was oneof three key themes

n World Summit on Sustainable Development2002: Good governance within each coun-try and at the international level is essentialfor sustainable development (Article 4 ofIntroduction to Plan of Implementation).

amongst technical water professionals have beenparticularly valuable as this group often lacks anappreciation of the importance of governance,”Hall states.

The thrust of the dialogues differed accordingto local governance situations and often served toidentify priorities for improvement. For example,dialogue in the Mediterranean region identified amismatch between central government policiesand priorities on the one hand, and people’s con-cerns and aspirations on the other.

The conclusions were that more transparencyand accountability is needed with active publicparticipation and better social, environmentaland economic links. Follow up actions areplanned to take this forward at the country leveland a network of parliamentarians has beenestablished to coordinate activities and increasethe involvement of elected representatives inwater affairs.

The need for participation – bringing in morestakeholders, making their roles effective and get-

ting action through partnerships – underpinnedmost dialogues.As the Uruguay dialogue stated:“An effort must be made to coordinate the manyactors related to water resources, plan harmoniz-ing mechanisms between them and take intoconsideration that it is unreasonable to have justone organization deciding on water matters.”

UPDATING LEGISLATIONMost dialogues recognized that the trendtowards “distributed governance” brought with ita need for change. Decentralization commonlyresults in confusion over the demarcation ofresponsibilities between and among actors, inad-equate co-ordination mechanisms, jurisdictionalgaps or overlaps and the failure to match needs,responsibilities, authorities and capacities foraction. Updating out-of-date legislation featuredstrongly in Central America and a multi-stake-holder dialogue in Costa Rica has led to a deci-sion by government to reform its 60-year-oldwater law through a participatory process.

Water quality is just one of

many issues that can only

be addressed by effective

water governance.

Regulation needs to be complemented byincentives and capacities.Without this, effective,fair and transparent enforcement is in doubt andregulation becomes meaningless or, even worse,counterproductive and arbitrary.

Several dialogues made the point that the “peo-ple directly concerned” should be involved in the

formulation of newlaws – highlighting,once again, the value ofparticipation. However,confusion can arise ifthe implementing bodyis not clearly defined.

As one participantin Colombia stated:“We are currentlyevaluating the transferof water managementresponsibilities to thenational environmentalprotection agency.Thisis a challenge as theorganization has tradi-tionally been con-cerned only with pro-tecting national floraand fauna. People havenot been at the centerof their work.”

All Central andEastern Europeancountries stressed theimportance of adapt-ing to the EuropeanUnion’s (EU) WaterFramework Directive.This important pieceof environmental leg-islation has had a bigimpact in the region,with EU treaties anddirectives acting as animpetus for improvedwater governance.

Lack of funds fea-tured large in manydialogues but the focuswas on practical issues,especially on mecha-nisms for collectingfees and controllingfunds, rather than thetheories or issues ofthe need for water

charging.An unwillingness to pay for water wasoften based on a lack of confidence due to poortransparency and accountability in the system,and there was a feeling that better governancearrangements would motivate users to pay, thusincreasing revenues.

In Slovakia and Romania, for instance, new sys-tems were discussed that would allow charges tobe collected by water agencies rather than by cen-tral government.This would make the agenciesmore financially viable and more accountable totheir customers. In Thailand, it was recommendedthat the business and industrial sectors be involvedin discussions on setting pollution charges.

Capacity-building at local government levelwas seen as a critical aspect of any policy towardsdecentralization. For example, the Ecuador dia-logue recognized a lack of national capacity toresolve water-related conflicts. New approachesthat involve multiple stakeholders in water gov-ernance therefore bring with them the need todevelop new capacities for negotiation.

NEW MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSCapacity-building also includes creating newmanagement systems and cultures. Cap-Net andthe ToolBox were identified as useful supportingmechanisms and the Malaysia Water Partnership,for instance, has been particularly active in usingthese tools to build capacity for better watergovernance.

The so-called subsidiarity principle states thatwater should be managed at the lowest appropri-ate level.There are many good reasons for this,not least the fact that water management issuesat the local level are often different from waterand land management issues at the national orregional level.And in many countries, there is atrend towards increasing decentralisation.

However, all too often, responsibilities have beendevolved but power retained by the center.Thisdoes not promote good governance. For example,in several Eastern European countries, provision ofwater services has been decentralized to municipalgovernments but they do not always have thepower to raise funds or enforce regulations.

Weak capacity at the local level militatesagainst effective decentralization, and the devel-opment of local expertise and introduction ofIWRM at district and municipality level, togeth-er with mechanisms for local financing, emergedas priorities in many dialogues.

There is also a need to link local water man-agement with water resource planning at riverbasin or national level.At present, the link

DIALOGUE KEY ACHIEVEMENTS IN 2003n Raised global awareness of the need for

good water governance n Raised national awareness of the need for

reform of governance systems in 32 coun-tries

n Established new and strengthened existinglinks with political institutions and facilitat-ed discussion of sensitive issues in an infor-mal and non-confrontational way

n Improved understanding of issues of gover-nance amongst a wide group of stakeholders

n Developed a conceptual framework andprinciples for good water governance.

WHAT IS THE “DIALOGUE FOR EFFECTIVEWATER GOVERNANCE”?

Water governance refers to the range of politi-cal, social, economic and administrative systemsthat are put in place to regulate the develop-ment and management of water resources andthe provision of water services at different lev-els of society. Governance systems have impor-tant implications for the management of waterresources at all administrative levels and theirresolution is a prerequisite for the successfulimplementation of IWRM.

The Dialogue on Effective Water Governanceis supported by GWP, the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) and theInternational Council for Local EnvironmentalInitiatives (ICLEI). Its aims are to:n facilitate communication between politicians

and other decision-makers, water managersand users in an effort to address water gov-ernance issues;

n highlight good practices and lessons learnedin implementing IWRM and use case stud-ies to illustrate progress in improving watergovernance; and

n demonstrate IWRM as a practical processby using the IWRM ToolBox.

between water management at different levels isoften disjointed, conflicting or too “top-down.”

In response, the dialogue in Chile suggested:“IWRM assumes the river basin is the best man-agement level. However, this is not applied inreality. Often this is because sectoral interestsprevail against collective ones.” Many dialogueparticipants also emphasized the need for betterknowledge of IWRM at the local level.

River basin management provides a newopportunity for interaction between water stake-holders. In most cases, it is too soon to judgewhether it is effective or not and some dialoguesstated that systematic learning from experiencemust continue. Several dialogues made the pointthat if river basin management is to be effective,the basin organizations need teeth.The Dialoguein Thailand, for example, recommended thatbasin committees should be responsible for allplanning and budgeting and, indeed,Thai riverbasin organizations are being given greaterautonomy (see page 14).

Several dialogues exposed the practical difficul-ties associated with river basin management. Powerlies with sectoral and administrative authorities atcentral and local level and care is needed whenpromoting a basin focus.Although it may be tech-nically attractive, managing water on a river basinbasis may upset delicate political structures andcould weaken water governance systems.

Moreover, it may increase confusion betweenlevels of authority.“This finding needs to betaken seriously,” Hall stresses.“Water cannot beseen in isolation and does not have a strong voicein many countries so we should not expectadministrative systems to change to suit a techni-cal or hydrological bias.The basin approach canenhance coordination and cohesion but we mustalso be careful not to move too fast when pro-moting river basin management.”

LEARNING FROM THE PROCESSThe dialogues have been effective in moving theissue of governance from an abstract concept toa more functional level.They have shown thatimproved water governance has the potential tocreate better management and more balanceduse of water resources and better delivery ofwater services.They have made it possible toshare and explore best current thinking on effec-tive water governance, rank priority issues andidentify implementing mechanisms.

In the process, the dialogues fostered supportand commitment among stakeholders.Thenature of the dialogues differed; some had a

broad agenda and were exploratory, creatingawareness of the need for effective water gover-nance. Others were more specific and business-like, identifying practical improvements in watergovernance and launching new initiatives.

In general, the dialogues did not produce spe-cific recommendations. However, the outcomes

Although there are

significant practical

obstacles, river basin

management provides a

new opportunity for

interactions among

stakeholders.

Phot

o:Ge

tty Im

ages

/ Jo

hn La

mb

should lead to more clear-cut action during pro-posed follow-up activities during 2004–2005.For example, in Central and Eastern Europe,specific implications were identified for legisla-tion and institutional reforms arising from theEU Water Framework Directive.

In addition, several countries in Southeast Asiaput forward proposals for the reform of localinstitutional arrangements. In Costa Rica, consul-tations on a new water law have already begun.

“The role of the GWP is to raise awareness,facilitate and promote the process of governancereform. It cannot actually implement anychanges,” Hall explains.“But by following up onideas and suggestions that come out of the dia-logues we can help to get them applied byothers.”

WORKING WITH UNDPAt WSSD, the Dialogue on Effective WaterGovernance was accepted as a Type II partner-ship to help achieve the United Nations (UN)Plan of Implementation.The GWP is workingclosely with the UNDP, which has recentlystrengthened its water governance program inresponse to the Plan.

International experts, NGOs and academicsoften paint idealistic or politically correct imagesthat are just not practical in most countries andit is important to avoid promoting ideal orgeneric solutions. In many dialogues, people felt

that the complexity and the time and effortrequired to implement governance reform wasoverwhelming. Often reality means that the thirdor fourth best is all that can be achieved in prac-tice and an iterative approach is needed to bringabout change.

On the other hand, significant political orsocial changes in a country can create opportu-nities for dramatic improvements in water man-agement.As the Vietnam dialogue observed:“Changes in water governance, such as separa-tion of operational and regulatory functions, hadbeen on the table for a long time, but recentgeneral administrative reform provided theopportunity to turn ideas into reality.”

AN ONGOING PROCESSThe Dialogue on Effective Water Governance wasdesigned to be an ongoing process. More dia-logues are planned and these will adopt a similarprocess and style, but with a sharper focus intend-ed to build on the outcomes of this first round oftalks. Countries will be encouraged to look moreat specifics that will enable them to make recom-mendations that can then be implemented.

Indeed, this will form part of the process ofpreparing IWRM plans, in accordance with theWSSD goals.“Putting IWRM into practice is along-term process that will often require signifi-cant changes in the interactions between politics,laws, regulations, institutions, civil society andthe water user.The capacity to make thesechanges depends on establishing better gover-nance systems,” adds Catley-Carlson.

The dialogues were set up with a key objectiveto draw political decision-makers into the waterdebate beyond the short-term opportunism thatis often associated with politics.A large numberof political leaders were reached, but more workis required. Future dialogues will therefore con-tinue to brief and encourage politicians, deci-sion-makers and their advisers and confidantes,possibly through networks of parliamentarians, asalready established in the Mediterranean region.

“There is clear evidence that political opennessand stability and good governance are the mostsignificant factors for reducing poverty, improv-ing equity and attracting investment,” Hall con-cludes.“Just recently, goals and targets for waterhave been set and the political will to meet thesetargets is improving. But there is still too littleaction and too little investment.”

Indeed, the issues of governance and financeare closely interwoven, as demonstrated in thefollowing section.

A synthesis of the Dialogues

held throughout the GWP

regions was presented at

the Third World Water

Forum.

The Indian State of Gujarat has a very dryclimate, so visitors might be surprised to seegreen fields of wheat, mustard, watermelon,

cumin, anise and other crops stretching to thehorizon.The apparent anomaly is explained bylooking inside the small, brick sheds dottedaround the fields.They contain electric pumps,which, ten hours a day, pump a steady column ofwater from deep underground into concretetanks, from which it flows to the fields.

Mohan Patel is one of the farmers who bene-fit.“This pump is a lifeline for around 50 fami-lies,” he says proudly.“Rainfall here is scarce andvery unreliable.Without the pump, we would bepoor and hungry.”

Electric pumps such as these have poweredIndia’s green revolution. Over the past 40 or 50years, the country has only been able to feed itsrapidly growing population by utilizing ground-water resources.There are about 20 millionpumps in operation today and the number isgrowing by around half a million a year.

But unregulated use means that farmers areextracting water faster than nature can replenishit.Aquifers have been depleted to the point that25 percent of withdrawals are currently reckonedto be unsustainable, i.e., over and above the waterbeing replaced and almost half of India now facesover-pumping problems such as water shortagesor saltwater intrusion into coastal wells.

Many farmers have been forced to abandontheir wells and seek work in the cities, or theyhave to keep drilling deeper. Four years ago, thewater table under Patel’s fields was at 30 meters,now he must drill down to 150 meters before hehits water.“I am worried,” he says.“This waterhas been collecting for thousands of years. Unlessthe government introduces some major schemesto recharge the water, there will be none left formy sons and grandsons.”

One reason farmers in India have been pump-ing the quantities of water that they have pumpedis that they have paid so little for it.The wateritself is free and the government heavily subsidizesthe electricity that drives the pumps. Financial

systems like this, that encourage overuse of water,are common in many parts of the world.

Cherity Kityu swallows hard as she pays thewater vendor for the water her family needs –payments she is making once again, for the thirdtime this month. School fees are to be paid.Andthen there’s the roof to be fixed.

Cherity lives in a city where water is in theoryprovided by the municipality; and the water isfree. As a result the municipal system is bank-rupt. The city loses 50 percent of the water inthe pipes to leaks, and breakdowns are common.Everyone would pay less if everyone paid a littlebit, and regularly, and the municipality hadenough funds to run the utility well.

Financing:Water for all

No easy answers: In many

places, the water pump is a

crucial lifeline, yet over-

pumping can lead to

aquifer depletion or

saltwater intrusion in

coastal areas.

Phot

o:He

ldur

Net

ochn

y / Ph

oeni

x

One of the GWP’s key goals is to influence afundamental shift in the way people think aboutthe value of water. Perceptions are beginning tochange at global political level.The DublinPrinciples (see page 8) strengthened the views ofwater sector experts on the need for more costrecovery in water systems, sparked a contentiousdebate but did not move large parts of the worldin any substantial fashion towards introducingbetter pricing systems.

A continuing paradox exists in that opinionsamples reveal consistently that people are morewilling to pay than politicians are to chargethem.There is a long way to go before appropri-ate water pricing is widely implemented bypolitical systems

The Millennium and WSSD goals includereducing by half the proportion of people whoare hungry and malnourished as well as thosewithout access to safe drinking water and sanita-tion by 2015. In 2000 an estimated 1.1 billionpeople lacked access to safe water and 2.4 billionto adequate sanitation.Three-quarters of theworld’s poor and malnourished live in rural areasand only increasing rural income will movethem out of poverty.

Meeting the goals will therefore need a massiveinvestment. So where is the money to come from?

There are only three ways water infrastructurecan be paid for: by water users (through theirown outlays or through water bills), by govern-ments (via their taxpayers) or by aid donors or

private charitable donations. Ongoing costs –maintenance, upkeep, leak fixing and a good dealof system extension in reality comes from onlytwo sources: governments or users.

The situation is really serious: One-third ofthe world’s population lives in states with limitedtaxing authority, almost no tax base and minimaltax revenues. So government “funding for all” isunrealistic. The trend in public funding andinvestment is stationary, at best, and internationalaid and lending for water and sanitation hasactually fallen in the past few years.

Moreover, compared to other types of infra-structure, water has long been the least attractiveto private investors and banks. For those whowanted to explore the private sector option,there is little joy: and there is now even greatercaution and risk aversion amongst privateinvestors and lenders to this sector.

To answer these questions,The “World Panelon Financing Water Infrastructure” was jointlyinitiated between the GWP, the World WaterCouncil and the Third World Water Forum, andaimed to throw light on how new financialresources might be attracted to the water sector.Chaired by Michel Camdessus (formerExecutive Director of the IMF and an HonoraryGovernor of the Bank of France), the Panelincluded eminent and senior figures from theinternational financial community and NGOs.

The Panel’s report, Financing Water for All, whichfocuses on developing and transitional countries,

Nature supplies the water

but man installs the pipes:

Meeting the Millenium and

WSSD goals will require a

massive investment, yet

financing remains contro-

versial.

Phot

o:Ra

y Witl

in /

Wor

ld B

ank

was launched in Kyoto. It has been widely notedand discussed, and a number of its proposals arealready being considered and adopted.

FINANCING FOR ALLThe Panel devoted most of its efforts to drinkingwater and sanitation. It very quickly realized that95 percent of water is managed publicly and thatthat amount is unlikely to change radically inthe short term. Proposals and ideas for newfinancial viability must therefore in the firstinstance be valid for public sector utilities thatcurrently serve the major part of the world, andcurrently exclude about a billion people fromthe benefits of safe water.The panel made arange of proposals for increasing funding for thewater sector.

The proposals had two focus areas: governanceand sector reform.Without movement in theseareas, water entities, especially the huge majorityof these that are public will not create the rightenvironment for attracting finance – and morespecific financing proposals to increase financialflows into the water sector.

In fact, in meetings around the world, thePanel was told that many of the water sector’sproblems originate in its weak organizations andlack of managerial and technical capacity.ThePanel suggests that funding for capacity develop-ment in water-related institutions should be ahigh priority for donor aid.

Institutional reform, better administration,transparency and a reduction in corruptionshould follow.An adequate legal and regulatoryframework is a pre-condition for attracting morecommercial finance or private investment.

The Panel suggests that central governmentsgive a higher priority to water in their poverty-reduction policies.At the same time, decisionmaking regarding water issues should be moredecentralized, with more local participation.Thismeans placing more emphasis on the role of“sub-sovereign” entities – local governments orlocal water authorities.These are almost all inthe public sector.

Revenues in the water sector are almost alwaysin local currency, so funds raised and repayable inforeign currencies expose the borrower andinvestor to a foreign exchange risk. Capital shouldtherefore be sourced locally whenever possible.

Increasing the resources available to improvewater supply and sanitation means generating suf-ficient cash.Thus, costs must be decreased andrevenue increased. Full cost recovery from users isthe ideal in the long term, but there are many sit-

uations where this is not possible. The Paneltherefore proposed the concept of sustainable costrecovery, whereby service providers aim to recov-er their costs, but accept that not all users will paythe same price.A variable tariff system has alreadybeen used successfully in South Africa (see“Examples of successful water policies,” page 37).

Regarding methods of increasing externalfinancial flows into water, the Panel recommendsthat developed countries should increase theiraid to the water sector and, perhaps moreimportantly, should introduce measures toimprove the efficacy of this money.This can beachieved by better co-ordination of effort toavoid fragmentation and waste.These fundsshould be used to catalyze other flows andempower other players in the water sector.

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE?One of the most controversial issues regardingfinancing is whether the private sector shouldprovide water and sanitation services. Some crit-ics are against allforms of private sectorinvolvement, believingthat, because waterfalls from the sky, itshould be free. But, asthe saying goes,“nature supplies thewater but man installsthe pipes,” and there isa long history of pri-vate utilities providingwater services.

Most state-ownedwater utilities inAmerica and otherdeveloped countriesbegan life as privatecompanies. In theUK, all the publicutilities were priva-tized in 1989, and asis essential for success-ful private sector par-ticipation the industryis subject to rigorouspublic regulation.

After a decade ofconsiderable interest inwater sector invest-ments, privateinvestors are nowmuch less keen to

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS FROM THEWORLD PANEL ON FINANCING WATER

INFRASTRUCTUREn Annual investment in the water sector will

need to double if the MDGs and WSSD tar-gets are to be achieved.

n Currently, water revenues rarely contributeenough to funding investment – in thedeveloped or developing worlds.

n Central governments are generally notgiving a high enough priority to water.

n Reform of the water sector and managerialand technical capacity building are badlyneeded.

n Water tariffs will need to rise, but targetedsubsidies to the poor can make cost recoveryacceptable, affordable and sustainable.

n There is a need for new ways of mitigatingrisk for international commercial lending forwater.

n Private sector involvement will be possibleonly via new types of public-privatepartnership and new forms of risk mitigation.

n There is a need to develop local capital mar-kets and funding sources at grass-roots level(i.e., improved access to funds for small pro-ducers, community organizations andNGOs).

n There is a need for a “global control tower”to oversee the drive for improvement.

invest in developing countries due to politicaland regulatory risks, high front-end costs, poorrates of return and a significant foreign exchangerisk. In Buenos Aires, a private contractor wassuccessful in cutting the city’s water tariffs andextended 24-hour service to an additional 3 mil-lion poor, whose piped supplies cost less than 10percent of the price they had been paying to pri-vate water vendors. But Argentina’s catastrophicdevaluation in early 2002 destroyed the econom-ics of the operation, and led to acrimonious dis-putes between the various parties involved.

The Panel makes several suggestions forencouraging the private sector, both local andforeign, in developing countries. With someimprovements in governance and the right insti-tutional framework, notably effective regulation,private companies are likely to be more enthusi-astic about projects in developing countries. Inaddition, the Panel suggests that the prospect ofprivate sector participation can be a powerfulspur to the reform of public water agencies.

A major problem to be faced is that manywater tariffs have been too low for too long, soany new contracts, public or private, are likely tolead to unpalatable price rises.The Panel believesthat water projects can be financed bycombining public funds with private financing

in transparent and acceptable ways, and proposesseveral models of public-private partnership. Oneis to raise money from local investors throughbond issues.Another, aimed at situations such asthe Argentina’s is to set up a devaluation back-stopping facility to provide liquidity in the eventof a sudden collapse in exchange rates.

A necessary step to solving water availability isto make it easier for sub-sovereign entities, suchas municipalities and large utilities to get accessto financing. Again, most of these are publiclyowned.

Another possible approach is to develop newkinds of partnerships where the private sectorsupplies expertise and management skills in con-junction with other bodies such as NGOs. Aparallel step in the public sector would be forutilities to create new partnerships with commu-nity-based organizations.

THE IMPORTANCE OF GOOD GOVERNANCEThe outcomes of the GWP dialogues on effec-tive water governance make an interesting com-parison with the Panel’s conclusions.While thegovernance dialogues involved multiple stake-holders, the finance report was based on thefindings and recommendations of a group of fin-anciers.Although the two groups approached theproblems of water resource management from

In Buenos Aires, a private

contractor was able to cut

the city’s water tariffs and

extend 24-hour service to

an additional 3 million

people. But a catastrophic

devaluation destroyed the

economics of the

operation.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PANEL n All existing sources of finance for invest-

ment must expand if MDGs are to bereached.

n Reform of the water sector is urgentlyneeded, inter alia to attract and generatefunds. Improved cost recovery within thesector, and continuing subsidy are bothessential.

n No single ideal blueprint or model for thewater sector exists. Should private participa-tion be favored, various risk sharing mecha-nisms will be needed.

n More direct funding should be available tosub-sovereign levels responsible for delivery.

n Local currency generation mechanismsshould be developed to backstop localneeds and to offset devaluation risks.

n Increased ODA should be targeted, to theachievement of the MDGs, and should beused to leverage other financial contributions.

n All should be held accountable; improvedmonitoring mechanisms are needed.

Phot

o:Ch

ad Eh

lers /

Get

ty Im

ages

different directions, there was a lot of synergy intheir conclusions and recommendations.

Financing Water for All has 87 recommendations,half of which relate to governance.A principleconclusion of the Panel was that “serious defectsin the governance of the global water sectorhamper its ability to generate and attract finance.”

Both groups highlighted the trend towardsdecentralization of governance and pointed to aneed to reform existing legislation and buildcapacity to make this effective. Greater involve-ment and empowerment of stakeholders, such asriver basin organizations, was also mentioned.Institutional reform, including better regulationand enforcement of water-related legislation alsofeatured in both Panel and Dialogue discussions.

SUCCESSFUL WATER POLICIESDespite widespread problems related to waterpricing, there are many examples of success. InSouth Africa, when the African NationalCongress took power in 1994, a third of the pop-ulation had no access to clean water. Now, anadditional 9 million people have been connected

and the country is aiming for universal coverage(piped water in cities or a standpipe within 200meters of every village home) by 2008.

Strong government commitment and a newwater law, passed in 1998, brought about thechange. Previous riparian rights were abolished,water allocations are now temporary and trad-able and full costs are charged to all users exceptthe very poor.Water users can take the first 25liters per day free; if they use more, they pay. Inaddition, several municipalities have let privatecontracts.

REFORM IN AUSTRALIAAustralia too, has reformed its water policies dur-ing the past ten years. It is the driest inhabitedcontinent on earth and has a huge variation inrainfall.After years of building dams and subsidiz-ing water for farmers, it has now transformed itswater policies to put much greater emphasis onpricing, trading and use of the market.

Water rights are now separated from propertyrights, with users given access rights by the gov-ernment. Farmers can now trade water between

In Australia, a system of

water trading means that

water can easily be

reallocated to the most

efficient use, such as for

wine grapes, a high-value

crop.

Phot

o:Ge

offre

y Clif

ford

/ Ge

tty Im

ages

themselves, and they will soon be able to tradewith large cities.The Australian system of watertrading allows for use by the environment andmeans that water can easily be reallocated to themost efficient use.All this has been accomplishedwithin a framework of public sector management.

NEXT STEPSSince Kyoto, a small follow-up group has beenworking to stimulate action on the Panel’s pro-posals.The World Bank has committed to address

some of the specific recommendations and hasconvened a meeting of principal water donors.The G8 meeting in Evian, France in June 2003resulted in a “statement on water” that requestedthe World Bank to organize discussion amongthe international financing institutions to look atthe Panel’s recommendations.At the same time,links have been made with the EU WaterInitiative, which is working on ways of meetingthe Panel’s proposals.

The GWP regions are highly motivated toraise awareness and disseminate the findings ofFinancing Water for All. Regional partnershipshave offered support to organize regional work-shops on financing water. In Latin America, theregional partnerships have already establishedlinks with the Inter-American DevelopmentBank. GWP Central and Eastern Europe hasprepared estimates of financial needs and themembers are now looking to develop moredetailed activities.

SHARPENED FOCUS“The GWP work on financing should form partof the overall Dialogue on Effective WaterGovernance,” says Alan Hall, member of theDialogue task force.“Incorporating the findingsof the Panel will help to sharpen the focus ofthe next phase of the Dialogues.”

National governments will be heavily involvedin implementation and need to address questionsof decentralization, sub-sovereign-level powers,effective municipal government and other rele-vant proposals.The GWP Dialogues can help todetermine which institutions are best placed toimplement the Panel’s recommendations and willlead to proposals at country level. For example, arecent Governance Dialogue meeting inMalaysia concluded with proposals to reformexisting institutional systems and suggested a fol-low-up meeting on the Panel’s findings.

Water is vital: without it, life could not exist.Yet throughout history, especially over the pastcentury, it has been generally ill-governed andhugely under-priced. Its true cost has not beenappreciated, and little has been done to raise thefinance needed to cover the costs of collection,storage and distribution and of treating waste-water and sewage.

Yet, achieving the goals of universal access toclean water and basic sanitation is eminentlypossible; most countries have the technologyrequired. Incorporating financial reforms intothe governance agenda offers the best hope ofachieving “water for all.”

Including water finance in

the governance agenda is

one way towards increased

efficiency in the allocation

of a vital resource.

Phot

o:Try

gve B

ølsta

d / Ph

oeni

x

For more information, contact theGWP secretariat, your nearestregional office or resource center:

REGIONAL CONTACTSEastern Africagwpena@nilesec.org

Southern Africasecretariat@gwpsatac.org.zw

West Africawatac@fasonet.bf

Central Americagwpca@gwpcentroamerica.org

South Americagwpsamtac@eclac.cl

Central Asia and the Caucasusvadim@icwc-aral.uz

South Asiagwp-sas-rwp@cgscomm.net

Southeast Asiagwp-seatac@ait.ac.th

Chinashendj@iwhr.com

Central and Eastern Europegwpcee@shmu.sk

Mediterraneansecretariat@gwpmed.org

Australiaawp@awa.asn.au

Phot

o:Ge

tty Im

ages

/ He

rb Sc

hmitz

Global Water Partnership

Secretariat

Hantverkargatan 5, House 6

SE- Stockholm, Sweden

Phone + ⁽⁾

Fax + ⁽⁾

E-mail: gwp@gwpforum.org

Website: www.gwpforum.org