Water Issues and Institutions
Transboundary Basins
and
Global Water Initiatives
ARL 564
February 13-22, 2007
Robert Varady
Research Professor and Deputy Director
Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy
University of Arizona
Water Issues and Institutions
• Introductory comments
• Unit objectives
1. Recognize overarching importance of institutions in
environmental decisionmaking
2. Appreciate concept and significance of transboundary
effects
3. Understand & evaluate role of global water initiatives
(GWIs)
• Discuss example of cross-border water management in
U.S.-Mexico border region
• Review origins, evolution, and actions of GWIs, with
examples
The Concept of Transboundary Management
• Landscapes, physical processes natural resources,
vegetation & wildlife exist irrespective of political borders
• Often social systems, cultural practices, and human
traditions also disregard such borders
• As a result, when resources or environmental processes
do cross borders, they encounter sociopolitical & economic
obstacles to uniform management practices
• How have nation-states coped with such conditions when
dealing with shared watersheds & airsheds, ecosystems,
cross-border contamination, and other natural systems?
• What sorts of institutions have arisen and evolved to
respond to these particular challenges?
Transboundary Basins Are the Norm
Elements Common to Border Regions
Borders . . .
•
•
•
•
•
•
separate problems and solutions
create perverse economic opportunities
aggravate perceived inequalities
marginalize residents’ interests in policy
obstruct grassroots problem solving
complicate already difficult resource-management
problems
Newly-created Borders
1990-94
• 21 new countries
• 46 new borders
Aral Sea Basin
• Formerly sea was entirely
within USSR
• Now five new countries in
the region
Regional institutions should . . .
• be truly binational and broadly inclusive of state, local, &
nongovernmental interests
• have jurisdiction over spectrum of border environmental
issues, not only water resources
• be able to address needs & problems before they reach
crisis stage and without having to seek project-byproject authorization & funding from national
governments
• contribute to building capacity of local environmental
agencies, particularly municipal water agencies
• be responsive and accountable to the public
Regional institutions should . . .
• provide credible, balanced information on environmental
problems associated with proposed projects, as well as their
environmental, economic, & social impacts
• make this information equally available on both sides of the
border
• fit into the already crowded space of existing institutions by:
(a) helping existing institutions reach their goals, and
(b) working cooperatively
A Common Type of Regional Institution
The River-basin Commission or Authority
Some common paradigms . . .
. . . and their shortcomings
River-basin Management Paradigms
Technical
Ministries
t
f
t
t
2
e 1 e2 e 3
t
and
3
Environment, forestry,
public works, agriculture,
flood control, etc.
Legend
1, 2, 3 = Nations 1, 2, and 3
t = Representatives of Technical Ministries
f = Representatives of Foreign Affairs Ministries
f
1
2
Approval
Consider problem
(technically only)
Devise solutions
(engineering)
1
and
t
1
2
Implementation and cooperation
Foreign
Affairs
Ministries
Expert advisers
'Experts,'
scientists,
engineers
Instrument
Technical
Ministries
Recommendations
e.g., flooding, navigation,
pollution control,
resource allocation
Agents
(From governments of participating nations)
an
International
Commission
an
t tTools:
t
and
f
3
t
3
1
2
3
Technical standards;
dams, flood
channels,
barrages,
treatment
plants, etc.
Decisionmaking/Action
Situational
Context
?
Problem to be
solved
e = Experts, scientists, engineers
The Technical and Scientific Paradigm
Actions
Physical
structures
to be
built
e.g., flooding, navigation,
pollution control,
resource allocation
1
t
2
t
3
Agents
R
R
1
and
2
3
Regulations/standards
in use elsewhere
Environment,
internal affairs,
justice, military,
police, etc.
Legend
1, 2, 3 = Nations 1, 2, and 3
N = Nations
R = Regulatory Ministries
t = Representatives of Technical Ministries
r = Representatives of Regulatory Ministries
Harmonized
set of standards
and regulations
Implementation and cooperation
R
Body of existing
regulations in
participating nations
N1, N2, and N3
Recommendations
N3
N2
N1
Instrument
International
Commission
r r r
1
2
3
an
Tools:
Set of laws,
regulations,
and standards
Procedures of
enforcement
Monitoring of
enforcement
Actions
Comparably-regulated
and enforced:
Air-quality standards
Water-quality standards
Hazardous-waste
standards
etc.
Decisionmaking/Action
t
Situational
Contexts
?
Problem to be
solved
The regulatory or standard-driven paradigm
Agents
t
1
t
2
t
3
Instrument
m
Situational
Context
1
Treaty / Accord
Tool:
m
2
m
3
e.g., flooding, navigation,
pollution control,
resource allocation
International
Commission
Implementation and cooperation
Conference of
ministers
and
International
Commission
m m m
1
Exclusionary
procedural
rules
2
3
Tools:
Common standards,
regulations, monitoring,
sanctions, litigation,
funding approvals, etc.
Decisionmaking/Action
Foreign affairs;
technical, legal,
environmental,
regulatory
ministries, etc.
Legend
1, 2, 3 = Nations 1, 2, and 3
t = Representatives of Technical Ministries
m = Representatives from selected ministries
Actions
?
Problem to be
solved
The closed paradigm
Imposed
solution
?
Situational
Context
Problem to be
solved
e.g., flooding, navigation,
pollution control,
resource allocation
Multinational conference of diplomats from the
Ministries of Foreign Affairs
1
e
1
Consultation
t
f
1
f
2
f
3
Agents
and
t
t
2
3
e
e
International Commission
2
Treaty or Accord
Tools:
Common
standards,
regulations,
monitoring,
sanctions,
litigation,
funding approval
3
Imposed
solution
Regional, local government
Other 'official' agencies
NGOs
Legend
1, 2, 3
t =
f =
e =
= Nations 1, 2, and 3
Representatives of Technical Ministries
Representatives of Foreign Affairs Ministries
Experts, scientists, engineers
Instrument
Actions
The top-down
paradigm
By contrast, the BECC paradigm, 1995
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fully binational
Transparent
Promotes public participation
Open
Not diplomatic, technocratic, regulatory
Features sustainability
Certifies projects
But . . .
• Lacks authority to finance
• Is captive to purse of NADBank
• Has insufficient funding to provide technical
assistance to communities for proposal preparation
Example of Environmental Problems and
Institutional Responses
Water in the U.S.-Mexico
Border Region
A Look at Hotspots
Hotspots Overview
• Setting
• Challenges of binational environmental management
• Current environmental issues ̶ physical and human
• Driving forces
• Institutions
• Collective responses
• Water hotspots
• Conclusions
Setting: U.S.-Mexico Border
• Geography
• Socioeconomics
• Water hotspots (potential for conflict)
San Diego-Tijuana
Nogales
Colorado River
San Pedro River
El Paso-Juárez
Rio Grande River
Geography
U.S.-Mexico border region
Socioeconomic Features
• Highly disparate economies (ratio of GDP/capita = 4.2;
U.S./Canada = 1.3, Israel/Jordan = 4.6, S. Africa/Mozambique = 8.9)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Contrasting cultures, languages, legal systems
Different water ownership & rights regimes
Industrialization of border zone since 1960s
Rapidly growing populations in region
Free trade agreement (NAFTA) in 1993
Declining agricultural sector
Still important copper mining industry
Critical shortages of water throughout
Demographics
Urban population
Maquiladora growth
Water Hotspots
Challenges of
Binational Environmental Management
• Understanding political ecology of economic globalization
• What should be public responses to free trade?
• Determining impacts of decentralization & democratization on
environmental practices of local governments
• How to devise equitable policies?
• How to design effective institutions?
• Role & effectiveness of environmental
social movements
• Preventing and resolving conflicts
Environmental Issues
Physiographic Processes
• Extreme scarcity of surface water
• Competition over transboundary &
international rivers
• Groundwater depletion
• Water shortage and pollution in cities &
esp. in colonias
• Historical drought, climatic variability, &
global warming
• Impacts of seasonal flooding on
policymaking & water management
Environmental Issues
Human Impacts
• Toxic & hazardous
wastes: heavy metals, pesticides, fertilizers
Impacts on health & life expectancy
Illegal disposal, transborder shipment of waste
• Land-use change threats to natural ecosystems & habitat
• Urban water issues
Contemporary Driving Forces
• Growth in maquiladora
manufacturing
• Expanding population &
urbanization of border
region
• Increasing demand for
water
»» Resulting in need for more
infrastructure
Housing & healthcare facilities
New water supply & treatment
systems
New sanitation systems
Binational Institutions
• International Boundary Commission (1889); International
Boundary & Water Commission (since 1944)
• Colorado River Compact (1922)
• Mexican Water Treaty (1944)
• La Paz Agreement (1983)
• Integrated Border Envir. Plan (1991)
• NAFTA (1993): Border Envir. Coop. Commission, North
American Devel. Bank, Commission for Envir. Coop.
• U.S. Good Neighbor Environmental Board (1992)
• Border XXI Program (1997-2001)
• Border 2012 Program (2002-present)
Selected Institutional Changes
• Groundwater law in Arizona (1980)
• Mexican land reform (1992)
• Growth of civil society & emergence of NGOs
In Mexico: e.g., Pronatura, Grupo de los Cien, Movimiento
Ecológico Mexicano, consejos de cuenca
In U.S.: e.g., National Wildlife Fed., Audubon Soc., The
Nature Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, watershed
alliances
Binational: e.g., Border Ecology Project (AZ), Envir. Health
Coalition (CA), Interhemispheric Resource Center (NM)
Collective Responses
• Urban water issues
WaterWorks Program (NM, TX)
Acuaférico (Ambos Nogales)
El Paso-Juárez watershed alliance
• Ecosystem conservation
NGOs (e.g., Sonoran Inst., Pronatura)
Foundations (e.g., Hewlett, Mascareñas)
Coordinated efforts & litigation (e.g., Colorado R.)
• Toxics and hazardous wastes
Border Ecology Project
Arizona Toxics
La Red Fronteriza de Salud y Ambiente
Water Hotspots
Hotspots and Their Issues (1)
• San Diego-Tijuana (urban area)
Inadequacy of binational wastewater treatment
Shortage of clean drinking water
Pollution of beaches
• Ambos Nogales (urban area)
Inadequacy of binational wastewater treatment
Sustained drought
Insufficient drinking water supply
• Colorado River and Delta (see two handouts)
Disputes over equitable allocation
Building of All-American Canal
Impact on ecology of Delta
Disputes over quality of water reaching Mexico
Hotspots and
Their Issues (2)
• San Pedro River
Urban development vs. riparian conservation
Copper mining vs. potable water
Inadequate infrastructure
• El Paso-Juárez (urban area)
Inadequacy of binational wastewater treatment
Depletion of aquifer » shortage of drinking water
• Rio Grande River
Drought from 1995 to 2004
Inability of Mexico to meet treaty obligation
No water reaching Delta » impact on coastal ecology
Hot Spot Conclusions
•
NAFTA is yielding mixed results for Mexican
economy, but increasing migration to border
•
More cultural & commercial integration of Mexico &
U.S., but continuing economic and political disparity
•
New environmental institutions created
NGO involvement rising, especially in Mexico
•
Continuing shortage of environmental infrastructure &
available financing
•
Climate variability & change unaddressed
From Regional . . .
. . . to Global
A look at
Global Water Initiatives
What Are
Global Water Initiatives?
• What are they? A hierarchically elevated set of institutions that aim
to advance the knowledge base on the world’s water and enhance its
management. They have arisen in response to global watermanagement needs. Since 1980s, missions often include active social
& policy component.
• What are their origins? Numerous & divergent disciplinary,
ideological, sectoral, institutional. Sources
• Status? Mosaic of initiatives phenomenon poorly understood and
unstudied
• Utility? Innovative, useful, practical observations and
recommendations but obscured by # of voices, variety of approaches
Why Study
Global Water Initiatives?
Research Questions
• Why did GWIs arise?
• From what traditions did GWIs emanate and what needs have they
been responding to?
• What different types are there?
• What has been their trajectory over the past decades?
• How do these institutions attempt to induce change?
• Which are most influential? How and why? What are some potential
policy implications?
• A well-defined network with clear links, traceable influences, unified
purpose?
• Or independent, poorly-connected, competing institutions? Have
initiatives made a difference?
Roots of
Water Consciousness
and Its Internationalization
•
1945 . . . WW II ends . . . Multinatl. ways to avoid wars
~
~
Reduce conflict by improving human conditions
UN agencies for health, nutrition, educ./sci., human rights, . . .
• 1950-60s . . . UN prompts 1st global resources initiatives
~
~
~
~
Arid Zone Programme, from 1950
Intl. Geophysical Year, 1957-58
Intl. Hydrological Decade, 1965-74
Man & the Biosphere Programme, 1971-present
• 1945-late 1970s . . . Ambitious, large-scale waterworks
~ Dams, irrigation, drainage; hydro plants; interbasin transfers
~ Signals of 20th C progress, centrality of water to society
Evolution of Organized Efforts
Professional Societies
• Increased intl. signif. of water birth of numerous
institutions to advocate one or another of its aspects
• Prof. societies long in vanguard of this advocacy
• For professionals of various stripes to share intellectual
spaces & expertise, and promote basic & applied research
Evolution of Organized Efforts:
Professional Societies
Intl. Navigation Assoc. (PIANC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1885
Commission Internationale des Glaciers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1894
Intl. Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1919
Intl. Assoc. of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1922
Intl. Assoc. of Theoretical and Applied Limnology (SIL) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1922
Intl. Council for Science (ICSU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1931
Intl. Assoc. for Hydraulic Research (IAHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1935
World Irrigation and Drainage Congresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1951
Intl. Assoc. of Hydrogeologists (IAH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1964
Intl. Water Resources Assoc. (IWRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1973
Intl. Water Assoc. (IWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1995
Intl. Water History Assoc. (IWHA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001
Evolution of Organized Efforts
International Hydrological Decade &
Its Origins
• Effects of Postwar Polarization
Isolation of professionals from counterparts
Ideological differences in science & tech.
Gulf in content of science
• Responses: Call for global programs
Intl. Geophysical Year (IGY), 1957-1958
Intl. Hydrological Decade (IHD), 1965-74
IHD Objectives
Collect hydrological data
Research problems
Assess resources & budget balances
Facilitate info. exchange
Educate & train
Evolution of Organized Efforts
International Hydrological Programme (IHP)
• Last action of IHD: large scientific conf. in Paris in 1974
• Question: how to harness IHD energy, carry forward
unfulfilled ambitions
• IHD seen as 1st part of long-term program
• UNESCO’s 1974 Gen. Conf. took lead in transforming IHD
into periodically renewable International Hydrological
Programme (IHP)
The International Hydrological
Programme (IHP)
• Goal similar to IHD: strengthen connections between science
research, applic., & educ. on water
• From 30 member states & 19 observer nations to 164 natl.
committees
• Redefined every 6 yrs., admin. by UNESCO
• Phased approach to permit adaptation & redefinition
• Since 1981 emphasizes practical, rational mgt. of water resources,
since 1990, “sustainability”
• Sees itself as permanent forum to encourage multinational coop. &
innovation in water sci. & mgt.
Types of Institutions
and Processes
Designated Periods
Designated Period
Years
Intl. Hydrological Decade (IHD)
1965-74
Intl. Drinking Water Supply & Sanit. Decade (DWSSD)
1981-90
Intl. Year of Freshwater (IYF)
Intl. Water for Life Decade
2003
2005-15
Types of Institutions
and Processes
Organized Events
•
Types Forums, conferences, megaconferences
•
Topics All-inclusive environ. themes vs. water only
•
Size Last 2 World Water Forums, 10,000+
•
Participants More interdisciplinary, more NGOs
•
Agendas Problem-framing principles: sustainability, biodiversity, IWRM,
bottom-up, equity
•
Results
Well-intentioned declarations
But idealistic, largely unimplemented
Most common outcome: “networking”
Types of Institutions &
Processes
Events & Declarations
Organized Event:
Declaration
Year
UN Conf. on Human Envir.: Stockholm Declaration 1972
UN Conf. on Water: MDP Action Plan
1977
Intl. Conf. on Water & Envir.: Dublin Statement
1992
UN Conf. on Envir. & Devel.: Agenda 21
1992
First World Water Forum: Marrakech Declaration
1997
Intl. Conf. on Water & Sust. Devel.: Paris Declaration 1998
2nd World Water Forum: World Water Vision
2000
UN Millennium Assembly: Millennium Declaration
2000
Intl. Conference on Freshwater: Minist. Declaration 2001
World Summit on Sust. Devel.: Jo’burg Plan of Impl. 2002
Third World Water Forum: Kyoto Minist. Declaration 2003
Fourth World Water Forum: Ministerial Declaration 2006
Venue
Stockholm
Mar del Plata
Dublin
Rio
Marrakech
Paris
The Hague
New York
Bonn
Johannesburg
Kyoto
Mexico City
Types of Institutions & Processes
Independent, Multilateral Initiatives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AIDA (Intl. Association for Water Law)
•
AWRA (Amer. Water Resources Assoc.) •
CWS (IGU Comm. on Water Sustain.)
•
DWC/CPWC (Dialogue/Co-operative
•
Prog. on Water & Climate
DWFE (Dialogue on Water, Food & Envir.) •
GEWEX (Global Energy & Water Cycle
•
Exp.)
•
GIWA (Global Intl. Waters Assess.)
•
GWP (Global Water Partnership)
•
GWSP (Global Water System Project)
•
HELP (Hydrol. for Environ., Life & Policy)
IAH (Intl. Assoc. of Hydrogeologists)
•
IAHR (formerly Intl. Assoc. for Hydraulic •
Research)
•
IAHS (Intl. Assoc. for Hydrol. Sci.)
•
ICID (Intl. Comm. on Irrig. & Drain.)
•
ICOLD (Intl. Comm. on Large Dams)
•
ICSU (Intl. Council for Science)
•
IHDP (Intl. Human Dimensions Prog. on •
Global Envir. Change)
•
IHP (Intl. Hydrological Programme)
INPIM (Intl. Netw. on Particip. Irrig. Mgt.)
IPCC (Intergov. Panel on Climate Chg.)
IUCN (World Conservation Union)
IUGG (Intl. Union of Geodesy and
Geophysics)
IWA (Intl. Water Association)
IWALC (Intl. Water Assoc. Liaison Comm.)
IWMI (Intl. Water Mgt. Institute)
IWRA (Intl. Water Resources Assoc.)
MDGs (Millennium Development Goals)
PCCP (From Potential Conflict to Cooperation Potential)
PIANC (Intl. Navigation Association)
Ramsar (Ramsar Conv. on Wetlands)
UN Eco. Commission for Europe
WCWTC (World Comm. on Water for 21st C)
WHO (World Health Org.)
WMO (World Meteorological Org.)
WWAP (World Water Assessment Prog.)
WWC (World Water Council)
WSSCC (Water Supply & Sanit. Collab.
Council)
Years Active
20
05
20
00
19
95
19
90
19
85
19
80
19
75
19
70
19
65
19
60
19
55
19
50
19
45
19
40
19
35
19
30
19
25
19
20
19
15
19
10
19
05
19
00
18
95
18
90
18
85
Number of Initiatives
Advent of GWIs Over Time
60
50
40
30
IHP
20
10
0
Institutional Landscape
R&D / DSS
SCIENCE
GEMS
WWC
GWP
GIWA
IH
GEWEX
HS
A
I
Local
PUB
F
GE
HP
O
O
WM
WHO
FAO
D
N
E
I
FR
IAH
Pure / Single discipline
Broad / All
stakeholders
ICID
WWAP
H P
EL
P
Global
Operational / Policy
F
W
CP
ET
N
R
A
G
Water-resource
managers
PRACTICE
Applied / Multidiscipline
(Adapted from Wallace, 2004)
Water was not always “global”
Evolution of dominant paradigms in water governance
Paradigm
State-led
development
Centralization
Rational-actor
models
Retreat of the
state
Structural
adjustment
Neoliberalism
Sustainability
Decentralization
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
A Survey of Leading Figures in the
‘World of Water’
• How: Via written materials and use of two survey
instruments. In the process, the validity of the hypothesis
will be assessed.
• Working hypothesis: The numerous existing global water
initiatives (1) frequently have duplicative aims and (2)
have overproliferated.
• Expectation: Experts in the field
would tend to minimize salutary
influences of GWIs and advocate
their consolidation or selective
elimination.
• Purpose: To report on the survey.
Relative Influence of GWIs
2.13
Global Intl. Waters Assmnt. (GIWA)
2.21
IWA Liaison Committee
2.27
Intl. Conf. on Water & Sustain. Devel. (Paris)
2.38
Global Water System Project (GWSP)
2.52
Dialogue on Water, Food & the Envrnmnt.
2.57
GEWEX
Water Supply and Sanitation Collab. Council
2.60
Intl. Drinking Water Supply & Sanitation Decade
2.60
2.63
First World Water Forum (Marrakech)
2.78
IAHR
2.84
UN Conf. on the Human Envir. (Stockholm)
Intl. Water Resources Assoc. (IWRA)
2.85
Stockholm International Water Institute
2.86
2.87
Intl. Conf. on Freshwater (Bonn)
2.88
Intl. Year of Freshwater (IYF)
Hydrology for the Envirmnt., Life & Policy (HELP)
2.92
Intl. Water Association (IWA)
2.92
2.96
Intl. Assoc. of Hydrogeologists (IAH)
2.97
(MEAN SCORE, ALL GWIs)
2.98
Global Water Partnership (GWP)
3.10
World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP)
3.14
UN Conf. on Water (Mar Del Plata)
3.20
World Water Council (WWC)
3.31
Intl. Hydrological Decade (IHD)
3.44
Third World Water Forum (Kyoto)
3.47
UN Millennium Assembly (New York)
IHP
3.50
Second World Water Forum (The Hague)
3.61
UN Conf. on Environment & Devel. (Rio de Janeiro)
3.63
Intl. Hydrological Programme (IHP)
3.70
Intl. Assoc. of Hydro. Sci. (IAHS)
3.83
Intl. Conf. on Water & the Environment (Dublin)
1
(Least)
2
3
<== Influence ==>
4
5
(Most)
Professional Societies
IWA Liaison Committee
3.79
IAHR
3.22
Intl. Water Resources
Assoc. (IWRA)
3.15
All Associations
3.08
Intl. Water Association (IWA)
Intl. Assoc. of
Hydrogeologists (IAH)
3.08
3.04
Intl. Assoc. of Hydro. Sci.
(IAHS)
5
(Least)
2.30
4
3
<== Influence ==>
2
1
(Most)
Designated Periods
Intl. Drinking Water Supply
& Sanitation Decade
Intl. Year of Freshwater
(IYF)
3.40
3.12
All Designated Time
Periods
3.07
Intl. Hydrological Decade
(IHD)
5
2.69
4
(Least)
3
<== Influence ==>
2
1
(Most)
Organized Events
First World Water Forum (Marrakech) 3.73
UN Conf. on the Human Envir. (Stockholm)
3.37
Intl. Conf. on Freshwater (Bonn)
3.13
UN Conf. on Water (Mar Del Plata)
2.86
All Events
2.84
Third World Water Forum (Kyoto)
2.56
UN Millennium Assembly (New York)
2.53
Second World Water Forum (The Hague)
2.50
UN Conf. on Environment & Devel. (Rio de Janeiro)
2.39
Intl. Conf. on Water & the Environment (Dublin)
5
(Least)
4
2.17
3
<== Influence ==>
2
1
(Most)
Intergovernmental & Nongovernmental
Organizations
3.88
Global Intl. Waters Assmnt.
Global Water System Project (GWSP)
3.62
Dialogue on Water, Food & the Envrnmnt.
3.48
3.43
GEWEX
Water Supply and Sanitation Collab. Council
3.40
3.19
All Organizations
Stockholm International Water Institute
Hydrology for the Envirmnt., Life & Policy (HELP)
Global Water Partnership (GWP)
3.14
3.08
3.02
2.90
World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP)
2.80
World Water Council (WWC)
2.38
International Hydrological Programme (IHP)
5
4
(Least)
3
<== Influence ==>
2
1
(Most)
Survey results
Overlap & proliferation
• Of those who rated
impact, 58%
considered it negative
• 75% thought overlap
was prevalent – by
implication, too
prevalent
• Half of raters thought impact of overlap was significant
• 56% thought proliferation was significant
• Attitudes toward proliferation even more negative (64%)
than toward overlap (58%)
Observations and Interpretation
Views and Opinions
Role of Governments, NGOs, Stakeholders
• Overwhelming support for govt. involvement (96%)
• NGOs (88%), stakeholder groups (93%) also valued
• Leadership is greatest contribution of governments (34%)
• No expectation of funding from NGOs, stakeholder groups
• NGOs (27%), stakeholder groups (59%) enhance participation
Survey Results: Management
• Despite views that overlap &
proliferation are negative,
a startling contradiction:
82% chose guiding proliferation
instead of stopping or limiting it
• In other words, there may be too
many GWIs, but their
proliferation should not be limited
• Flexible management seen as most appropriate option
• Just as with ecology, institutional diversity provides richness
& variety of approaches, opinions, individuals.
Observations and Interpretation
Views and Opinions
“The instruments available to nation states
today are not adequate for dealing with global
and national institutional problems relating to
water, natural resources, and the
environment.”
John Rodda
Former President, IAHS
Observations and Interpretation
Views and Opinions
Significant Actions
• Advancing ideas & practices (49%)
• Publications most significant (11/36), projects &
programs next (10/36)
• Only 4% of respondents cited conferences & workshops
as significant
“Urgent problems demand quick responses,
and global water initiatives are usually not the
vehicle of choice to resolve these problems.”
Martin Reuss
Historian
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Observations and Interpretation
Views and Opinions
Program Results
• Meetings & conferences
poorly regarded
(just 3 of 77)
• Ideas & practices favored
by 49%; pubs. liked
• Trends parallel those for “actions”
• One difference: only 3% thought developing policies was a
feasible action, but 10% thought policies had actually resulted
• Indecision (25 of 77) likely a proxy for skepticism
• Just 1 respondent saw real difference on the ground
“Certainly [GWIs] have had very substantial
results in terms of scientific understanding and
some socioeconomic benefits.
The transition of this understanding into practical
benefit in individual catchments has been less
successful.”
W. J. Shuttleworth
Hydrology Professor
SAHRA, U. of Arizona
Observations and Interpretation
Views and Opinions
Institutional Overlap
• Three times as many sought to explain
impact (52) as tried to define causes (18)
• Of those who rated impact, 58%
considered it negative
• 75% thought overlap was prevalent, by
implication, too prevalent
• Half of raters thought impact was
significant
• 28% contended that new initiatives were
created for “personal” reasons
“There are too many overlaps and poor
coordination between the plethora of initiatives,
which so far have yielded little positive change.”
Peter Bridgewater
Secretary General
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
“Donors claim to be confused, but the situation is
no different than in other sectors.”
Margaret Catley-Carlson
Chair, Global Water Partnership
Observations and Interpretation
Views and Opinions
Proliferation
• Attitudes toward proliferation even more negative (64%)
than toward overlap (58%)
• 56% thought it significant
• 9 of 10 who cited intensified competition as effect, called
that a drawback
• Only 2 of 6 possible effects considered beneficial
“None of these bodies wishes to surrender
elements of its own program for the common
good.”
Johan Kuylenstierna
Policy Analyst
Swedish International Water Institute
Observations and Interpretation
Views and Opinions
Managing Diversity and Proliferation
• In spite of views that overlap, proliferation are negative, a startling
contradiction: 82% chose guiding proliferation instead of stopping
or limiting it
• In other words, there may be too many GWIs, but their
proliferation should not be limited
• Flexible management seen as most appropriate option
• To paraphrase Malin Falkenmark, just as with species, institutional
biodiversity provides richness & variety of approaches, opinions,
individuals
“Overlap will never be eliminated,
particularly [when] every issue can legitimately
be claimed by almost any sector or group. [But
without GWIs], more chaos would prevail. ”
Richard Meganck
Rector, Institute for Water Education (IHE)
[Although] further fragmentation takes place,
strengthening of existing initiatives is important.
C. D. Thatte
Former Commissioner, ICID
Observations and Interpretation
Views and Opinions
Assessing Overall Impact
• 79% said GWIs had positive
or partially positive influence
• 20% pointed to “real”
changes as most significant
• 20% found that GWIs have
exerted influence in “fuzzy”
ways such as increasing
awareness
• Similarly, strong support (6/7) for success in improving
communication, cooperation, and facilitation (7/8)
“There is a huge disconnect between the global
discourse and real-world water management on
the ground.”
Aaron Wolf
Water Policy Scholar
Oregon State University
“Few if any of the initiatives have been tested
against measures of success.”
John Rodda
“At least these institutions provide some
context to reorient the decision processes to
support the importance of water in economic
development.”
Richard Meganck
“The lesson learned most widely is that water
assistance should be directed to the
grassroots, where spending small amounts will
benefit most those in need.”
John Rodda
GWI Conclusions
• GWIS are of four types
• Survey 1 permits assessment of relative influence
• Survey 2 allows testing of hypothesis
First part (too many GWIs with duplicative aims) is
confirmed
Second part (reduce # of GWIs) is rejected; instead, strong
acceptance of existence, embrace of diversity, interest in
helping manage
What Does It All
Mean?
Need to assess actual accomplishments in
“world of water”
• Results of deliberate institutional processes or changes
caused by demography, development, globalization, . . . ?
• Are improvements in conditions due to specific initiatives?
• Can real changes in policy be attributed to initiatives?
What Does It All Mean?
Networks and Governance
• “Global” governance doesn’t happen on a global level in outer
space. It happens in particular venues, places, and networks –
including areas of overlap
• How do we sustain & strengthen networks in areas of great
water need, such as arid & semiarid regions?
To Be Done. . . .
• Develop instruments to measure progress
• Gauge effectiveness of activities on the ground
• Identify programs that have/have not achieved aims
• Determine ingredients of success and failure
Results should interest physical scientists,
social scientists, planners, managers,
diplomats, leaders of global water initiative
phenomenon,
and especially decisionmakers