ADDRESSING IMPLEMENTATION
CHALLENGES RELATED TO INTEGRATED
WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Bruce Mitchell
Department of Geography and Environmental
Management
Red River Basin Commission Annual
Conference
Winnipeg
January 20, 2015
INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
DEFINITION OF IWRM
Global Water Partnership (2000: 22):
“a process which promotes the coordinated
development and management of water, land and
related resources, in order to maximize the resultant
economic and social welfare in an equitable manner
without compromising the sustainability of vital
ecosystems.”
RATIONALE FOR IWRM
• Water is a system which interacts with other natural
and social ecosystems.
• Managers frequently have to deal with surface and
groundwater, plus quantity and quality, requiring
expertise about and attention to all.
• Decisions and activities in upper parts of catchments
have implications for downstream areas.
• Needs of humans and other species require
attention.
Falkenmark et. al., (2004, 305):
…, an integrated approach has to be taken to water,
land use and ecosystems to secure an optimal use of
both water and other water-dependent resources.
IWRM is essential for securing a proper overview of all
the activities that depend on the same resource and
which are internally linked by the mobility of water,
from the water divide to the river mouth.
CRITICISMS OF IWRM
• No generally accepted definition for IWRM, making it
difficult to assess.
• If an ecosystem or holistic approach is to be taken,
how many other systems beyond water need to be
considered (e.g., energy? health? poverty?)?
• Normally an uneven distribution of power among
stakeholders exists in a catchment or watershed,
meaning some interests are consistently under or not
represented.
• Collaborative effort requires engagement by an
active citizenry, but achieving genuine engagement
often is challenging.
• With inadequate infrastructure and political will, or
presence of corruption, attempts to achieve
integration have little prospect of being successful.
OVERCOMING IMPLEMENTATION
DEFICITS
1. Recognize Context, Develop Custom-designed
Solutions, and Ensure Appropriate Scope
Successful implementation more likely if IWRM is
designed with reference to the reality of a specific
time and place.
Generic IWRM template less likely to lead to success.
Heathcote (1998, 391): “… a single framework for
effective integrated water resources planning is not
possible for all countries, or even for all regions within
a single country….”.
“Planning programs may therefore fail if they are not
successful in matching projects to watershed
conditions,….”.
Distinction between ‘comprehensive’ and
‘integrated’ approaches important for
determining scope.
Implications: requisite simplicity; ‘rule of hand’,
or 3 to 5 key variables at any given scale (Walker
and Scott,2012:23).
2. Maintain Long-term Perspective
A long-term perspective is necessary, given many
problems addressed by IWRM normally have taken
years if not decades to emerge, and are often complex.
A sustained and long-term commitment can be difficult
to achieve, especially since the time frame for many
elected decision makers usually is until the next
election.
Hartig and Zarull (1992, 263):
“It took decades to manifest the degree and extent of
toxic substance contamination in Areas of Concern, and
it would be naïve to think that such problems could be
resolved in a short period of time. Therefore, it must
be recognized that RAPs are a long-term process in
which numerous obstacles must be overcome to
sustain progress.”
3. Identify a Vision
Vision: distinction between what
• might be (most probable),
• should be (most desirable), and
• could be (most feasible).
Krantzberg (2003, 641):
A clearly articulated and shared vision “is essential for
implementation to succeed.”
Implications: Forecasting, Backcasting.
4. Create Legitimacy and Credibility
4.1 Legal Foundation
Calbick, Gunton and Day (2004, 48, 49):
“The agencies with a mandate are provided with clear and
consistent directives from their empowering legislation.”
A statutory foundation does not guarantee implementation
success because of:
“… interlaced, overlain, and sometimes contradictory
legislation, which engenders conflict.”
4.2 Political Commitment
Gurnter-Zimmermann (1995, 240):
“Political support and funding have been
particularly important for the advancement of RAP.”
4.3 Human and Financial Resources
Hartig and Zarull (1992, 266):
“The availability of adequate human and financial
resources is a common concern …. Available resources
with state, provincial and federal government
environmental programs are stretched to the limit, and
citizens have limited time and resources to bring to the
planning process.”
Grand River Conservation Authority staff member:
“Insufficient funding leads to a piecemeal, issueoriented approach to dealing with resources issues,
with disproportional time and effort spent on soliciting
funds for projects and programs, rather than
implementation. A system of apportioning costs and
benefits equitably across a watershed can help secure
consistent municipal participation and funding.”
4.4 Governance
Hartig and Law (1994, 860):
“Once a clear road map … has been determined, …
institutional frameworks need to compare the
recommended actions with the existing authorities and
regulatory and nonregulatory mechanisms to identify
any gaps. If gaps exist, … institutional frameworks
should be empowered to recommend or help create
alternative means to implement … recommendations,
monitor progress, and ensure responsible parties are
held responsible.”
5. Ensure One or more Leaders or Champions
Leaders or champions are important for facilitating
implementation of IWRM.
Sustained leadership needed to:
• help create a shared vision,
• convince stakeholders that the ‘common good’ must
be a priority, and
• facilitate understanding and collaboration among
many participants.
MacKenzie (1993, 142-143):
“Identify key individuals who can guide the … process
through all its permutations. There are many pressure
points at which the … process can break down: the data
are complex, individuals may feel threatened, decisions
may become conflict-laden and time consuming among
others. At these times, key individuals may
demonstrate leadership and use the strength of their
personalities and professional positions to maintain
forward momentum.”
6. Use a Multi-stakeholder Approach
Many interests and needs have to be considered during
IWRM: environmental, economic and social
dimensions.
Capacity has to be created to engage with stakeholders.
If they believe they have ownership related to
processes and outcomes, the more likely they are to be
supportive and become engaged partners.
GRCA staff member:
“Successful plans - ones that do not collect dust - focus
on a manageable scale, remain adaptable and flexible,
link issues to local concerns, and build partnerships to
motivate action. For this reason, the people and
organizations … responsible for implementing actions
need to be actively engaged in the IWM process.
Collaboration builds trust and consensus, leverages
effort and stretches capacity, and ensures on-going
implementation and change will occur at the local
level.”
7. Be Adaptable, Flexible and Learn
Jones and Taylor (1999, 251-253):
“… the problems we seek to solve today and into the
future are more challenging and complex, primarily
because they are more subtle, and involve many
interacting ecosystem components. By reducing the
overwhelming effects of a few, large problems … we
have exposed a more complex array of more subtle
problems, for which solutions are less easy to
determine. ….”
8. Identify, Monitor and Assess Outputs
and Outcomes
While a clear vision is needed to indicate a desirable
future, capacity to monitor and assess outputs and
outcomes relative to goals and objectives also is
needed.
Too often, sufficient human and financial resources are
not allocated to this task for IWRM projects.
McLaughlin and Krantzberg (2011, 393):
Pre-conditions for success should be objectives that are
“… clearly defined, specific and preferably quantified,
comprehensively agreed to and understood, mutually
compatible and supportive, and provide a blueprint
against which policy implementation can be
monitored.”
If such characteristics are to be realized, objectives
cannot be couched “… in vague and evasive terms, ….”
9. Facilitate Information Sharing and Develop
Effective Communication with Stakeholders
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority staff:
“… information and education is not an end, but should
be a means to achieve deeper engagement.”
Gurtner-Zimmermann (1995, 244):
“A key goal of education should to help participants
develop new perspectives about issues, and also to
broaden their outlook through gaining understanding
and respect for other views.”
10. Utilize Demonstration Projects to highlight
Tangible Progress, and Profile and Celebrate
Achievements
Producing tangible outcomes, and celebrating them, is
a powerful way to keep stakeholders engaged in IWRM.
With no or little evidence of progress, the probability
increases that stakeholders withdraw, or continue with
less commitment.
Krantzberg (2003, 649):
“…. benefit from a greater emphasis on measuring,
celebrating, and marketing successes, and building the
local capacity to sustain progress.”
Hartig and Zarull (1992, 272):
“A record of success must be built into the … process to
keep the momentum going.”
SUMMARY
1.
Custom-designed Solutions and Appropriate
Scope
2.
Long-Term Perspective
3.
Vision
4.
Legitimacy and Credibility
4.1
4.2
4.3.
4.4
Legal Foundation
Political Commitment
Human and Financial Resources
Governance
5.
Leaders/Champions
6.
Multi-Stakeholder Approach
7.
Adaptiveness, Flexibility and Learning
8.
Monitor and Assess Outcomes
9.
Information Sharing and Communication
10.
Celebrate Achievements
After Mitchell (2014)
IMPLICATIONS
No ‘silver bullets’.
Challenges always should be expected in moving from
concept to action.
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority staff:
Difficult to identify the most significant factor(s) for
implementation success:
“Perceptions, priorities and ‘critical’ implementation
aspects change over time as progress is achieved and in
response to IWM system feedback. In addition, these
… aspects – and their weighted importance –
constantly respond to the program and activity at hand;
for example, some aspects are more critical for new
strategic direction and policy, while others are more
critical for on-the-ground stewardship. In other words,
these … aspects can be somewhat cyclical in nature...”
REFERENCES
Biswas, A.K. 2008a. Integrated water resources management: Is it working?
Water Resources Development, 24: 5-22.
Biswas, A.K. 2008b. Current directions: integrated water resources
management – a second look. Water International,33: 274-278.
Calbick, K.S., T.I. Gunton and J.C. Day. 2004. Watershed resources planning
and management: Lessons learned from comparative case studies. In D.
Shrubsole (ed.). Canadian Perspectives on Integrated Water Resources
Management, Canadian Water Resources Association, Cambridge, ON: 33-55.
Conservation Ontario. 2012. Protecting the Great Lakes, Integrated
Watershed Management Approach. News Byte, April 23rd, Conservation
Ontario, Newmarket, ON., http://www.conservationontario.ca.
Falkenmark, M., L. Gottschalk, J. Lundqvist and P. Wouters. 2004. Towards integrated
catchment management: Increasing the dialogue between scientists, policy-makers
and stakeholders. Water Resources Development, 20: 297-309.
Global Water Partnership. 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management, Technical
Advisory Committee Background Paper No. 4, Global Water Partnership, Stockholm.
Gurtner-Zimmermann, A. 1995. A mid-term review of Remedial Action Plans:
Difficulties with translating comprehensive planning into comprehensive actions.
Journal of Great Lakes Research, 21: 234-247.
Hartig, H.H. and N.L. Law. 1994. Institutional frameworks to direct the development
and implementation of Great Lakes remedial action plans. Environmental
Management, 18: 855-864.
Hartig, H.H. and M.A. Zarull. 1992. Keystones for success. In H.H. Hartig
and M.A. Zarull (eds.). Under RAPs: Toward Grassroots Ecological
Democracy in the Great Lakes Basin. University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor: 263-279.
Heathcote, I.W. 1998. Integrated Watershed Management: Principles
and Practice. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Jones, M.L., and W.W. Taylor, 2009, Challenges to the implementation
of the ecosystem approach in the Great Lakes basin. Aquatic
Ecosystem Health and Management, 2: 249-254.
Krantzberg, G., 2003. Keeping Remedial Action Plans on target:
Lessons learned from Collingwood Harbour. Journal of Great
Lakes Research, 29: 641-651.
MacKenzie, S.H., 1993. Ecosystem management in the Great
Lakes: Some observations from Three RAP sites. Journal of Great
Lakes Research, 19: 136-144.
McLaughlin, C. and G. Krantzberg. 2011. An appraisal of policy
implementation deficits in the Great Lakes. Journal of Great
Lakes Research,37: 390-396.
Mitchell, B. 2014. Addressing implementation deficits related to
IWRM in Canada. In V.R. Squires, H.M. Milner and K.A. Daniell
(eds.). River Basin Management in the Twenty-first Century:
Understanding People and Place. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.: 4259.
Walker, B. and D. Salt. 2012. Resilience Practice. Island Press,
Washington, DC.