Managing water beyond IWRM – from paradigm to pragmatism Timothy Moss, IRS, Erkner Presentation at workshop “Water Governance – European and Chinese Perspectives”,

Managing water beyond IWRM – from paradigm to pragmatism

Timothy Moss, IRS, Erkner

Presentation at workshop “Water Governance – European and Chinese Perspectives”, University of Macau, 5 Sept. 2011

Slide 2 of 19 T. Moss: Managing water beyond IWRM: from paradigm to pragmatism

Structure

1. IWRM: development of a global paradigm

2. Behind the consensus: ambiguities and tensions of

IWRM

3. From theory to practice: the implementation gap

4. Ways forward: some research challenges


1. IWRM: development of a global paradigm

Between 1977 and late 1990s, “IWRM evolved from an expression of frustration on the

part of water planners and managers to become the dominant language in which the challenge of global water governance is framed.” (Conca 2006: 125)

Emergence of IWRM as global paradigm: International conferences (Mar del Plata, New Delhi, Dublin,

Johannesburg) Pressure from community of water professionals Institutionalisation: World Water Council, Global Water

Partnership, 1996


IWRM: general definitions

3 groups of definitions of IWRM (Huppert 2005): 1. Joint management of surface and groundwater, across multiple levels2. Inter-sectoral integration between water use and use of one other

resource3. Integrated approach to use of multiple resources

IWRM is a process that „promotes co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximise economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital systems“ (GWP, 2000: 22)

3 key features of IWRM (Conca 2006):1. Water management to address social, economic and ecological uses2. Water management as cross-sectoral task3. Water management as multi-level task

Cf. World Water Council’s World Water Vision (2000):1. Decisions on land also affect water, and vice versa2. Decisions on our economic and social future affect hydrology and

ecosystems3. Decisions at international, national and local level are interrelated


IWRM: the appeal

IWRM today the discursive framework of international water policy because of “intuitive reasonableness, an appeal to technical authority, and an all-encompassing character of […] great flexibility:” (Conca 2006: 126-7)

Broad remit of IWRM (Butterworth et al 2010: 69): to improve efficiency in water use (economic rationale), to promote equity in access to water (social or developmental

rationale) to achieve sustainability (environmental rationale)But what is IWRM?

A scientific concept? A complex construction of a problem? A discursive framework? A policy agenda? A set of management guidelines?


2. Behind the consensus: ambiguities and tensions of IWRM

Molle (2008): IWRM a “Nirvana concept” Valuable as a policy-framing discourse, but in practice ambiguous,

complex and contradictory (Conca 2006)

Conflicts at 2nd World Water Forum at The Hague, 2000, over dams, water privatisation, water rights & transnational cooperation revealed deeper fault-lines in IWRM community:

Public vs. private Market vs. non-market instruments Economic good vs. basic right River basin management vs. state agreements Local community engagement vs. global water politics Expert vs. lay knowledge

IWRM is marked by a “dialectic between two philosophical norms; one, the rational analytic model [...]; and two, the utilitarian or free market model [...]” (Priscoli 1996: 30)


Some criticisms of IWRM

1. Concept too vague2. Overplays win-win situations (“integration”), downplays

trade-offs3. Based on normative claims rather than sound science4. Process-oriented, but lacking measurable targets for goals5. Designed primarily for developed country contexts6. Tension between integrative approach around river basins

and participatory approach around local communities7. River basins not always most suitable units for water

management8. Parallel structures of decision-making: river basin and

political territories


Criticism of “depoliticised” IWRM

IWRM is about water control (Mollinga 2008): Technical/physical; organisational/managerial;

socio-economic/regulatory

Political nature of IWRM generally seen as problem: 2000-2002: Period of ‘discourse closure’ around depoliticised

notion of IWRM (Allan 2003; Mollinga 2008)

Recent shift in attitudes: May 2008: CSD-16 conceded that “water issues are not only

technical and institutional issues: they have also intrinsic political content which has to be explicitly considered in order to be able to solve effective difficulties linked to competition among stakeholders and interests” (cited in Chéné 2009: 3)

Creates opening for acknowledging politics as reality – and as an opportunity for change (Butterworth et al 2010)


3. From theory to practice: the implementation gap

Definitions of IWRM impressive, but is it really working? Biswas (2004): its “impact to improve water management

has at best been marginal” World Bank study (Blomquist et al 2005): “Despite

improvements, significant water resource management problems remain in all the cases we studied”

GWP 2005 survey (2006): only 20 out of 95 countries acknowledged implementing some IWRM principles (only applied to policies, laws and plans, not implementation in practice)


Implementation problems (generic)

1. Gap between policy-making at national/international levels and implementation on local level

2. IWRM applied often as standard ‘package’ of reforms regardless of context

3. Inadequate consideration given to building on existing structures

4. Little consideration of informal norms and customs of local water management

5. IWRM in developing countries can appear externally imposed

6. Stakeholder participation in IWRM often weak in practice


Implementation problems (specific to policy package) 1. Enabling environment (policies, legal frameworks,

funding) policies exploited by various stakeholders, policies not

always domain of government, legislative framework often inadequate, contradictions to concurrent decentralisation of water management, financing generally inadequate

2. Institutional roles (structures, capacity) stakeholders not readily identified und integrated;

institutions fail to manage power asymmetries and dynamic behaviour of stakeholders; corruption and fraudulent behaviour

3. Management instruments (GWP ‘toolbox’) notion of perfect spatial fit around river basins problematic;

accountability often superficial and poorly measured; lack of coordination in practice; results of IWRM not always equitable – esp. in developing countries


Beyond the polarised discourse (Saravanan et al 2009)1. Original IWRM approach: “how to integrate”

Based on trust in consensus-building, stakeholder participation

Founded on Habermas, building on collection action school (Ostrom), social learning approach (Pahl-Wostl), …

2. Critics of IWRM: “how integration cannot be achieved” Based on critical appraisal of power dynamics,

contestation, complexities and contextuality of water management

Generally fail to provide constructive alternatives

3. Context-sensitive IWRM: “how integration actually does take place” Based on learning from context-specific experiences of

continuous process of institutional adaptation Calls for “lighter, more pragmatic and context-adapted

approaches, strategies and entry points” (Butterworth et al 2010: 68)


4. Ways forward: some research challenges1. Prioritising practical, ‘real-world’ solutions

Studying forms of adapted, ‘interpreted’ IWRM rather than comprehensive, ‘idealised’ IWRM (Lankford et al 2005)

Analysing experiences (negative and positive) of institutional capacity development – with systematic, multi-case comparisons (Bernauer 2002)

Identifying effective ‘entry points’: e.g. issues close to needs of people (water services, irrigation etc.) (Butterworth et al 2010)

Orienting target-setting from linear models of cause and effect to “real-world systems” (UNESCO 2009)

NB: This ‘light’ version of IWRM – building on existing knowledge, structures and procedures, rather than creating new ‘ideal’ ones – is characteristic of German path of implementing EU Water Framework Directive


2. Offering guidance for adaptive management “Adaptive management can more generally be defined

as a systematic process for continually improving management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of implemented management strategies.” (Pahl-Wostl and Sendzimir 2005: 7)

Studying processes of adaptation of existing institutions and practices

Developing sound conceptual understanding of dynamics and uncertainties involved in IWRM – as conceptual counter-balance to overly practical approaches to IWRM

Learning from ongoing debate on transitions and transitions management in science and technology studies (Kemp, Geels)


3. Getting out of the ‘water box’ UN World Water Development Report 3 (UNESCO 2009):

Most decisions affecting water are made beyond the water sector, yet IWRM confined mostly to the water sector

Studying demographic, social and economic drivers of water resource management and ways of coping with them: E.g. climate change, urbanisation, demographic

change, globalised trade & commerce, deindustrialisation, liberalisation/privatisation

Analysing multiple functions of water, their value in specific time/space contexts & equitable means of allocating costs

Devising policy mixes and interconnected instruments from complementary policy fields

Developing partnerships between those responsible for the economy-wide benefits of water and those responsible for managing water (UNESCO 2009)


4. Embracing the politics of IWRM Issues of legitimacy, accountability, equity &

transparency increasingly addressed in research and practice of IWRM

Studying four domains of water politics (Mollinga 2008):1. Everyday politics2. Politics of state policy3. Hydropolitics4. Global water politics

Studying politics of scale / rescaling: actors working across these domains, across

administrative hierarchies and across hydrological scales to advance their interests (Swyngedouw 2010)

Forms and degrees of collaboration between operational, organisational and policy levels of IWRM (Margerum 2007)


5. Understanding and supporting actors in context Transcending stereotypical assumptions of actor group

perceptions and behaviour >>> differentiated analyses of actors in real-world situations

Analysing actor responses to political reform ‘from above’

Studying emergence of new roles and new actors in IWRM

Exploring different roles of men and women in specific contexts

Providing water managers of tomorrow with necessary education, training and skills for IWRM as an interactive, negotiated process


6. Improving institutions and governance for water-relevant public goods Going beyond descriptive representations of

organisational structures and policy frameworks Conducting in-depth institutional analyses,

covering policy styles, governance forms, funding streams, regulatory logics etc.

exploring ‘fit/misfit’ between water institutions and other, water-relevant institutions (e.g. instruments)

Conceptualising water institutions in terms of socio-ecological research on public goods (Ostrom 1990, 2007; SES): designing institutions to reflect (diverse) attributes

of specific public goods: groundwater, surface water, water infrastructures, etc

Refining knowledge on problems of fit, interplay & scale and suitable governance arrangements (Young 2005)


Further information: www.irs-net.de

[email protected]

Documents

Managing water beyond IWRM – from paradigm to pragmatism Timothy Moss, IRS, Erkner Presentation at workshop “Water Governance – European and Chinese Perspectives”,