Performance and
Capacity of River Basin
Organizations
Cross-case Comparison of Four RBOs
February, 2008
FOREWORD
Sustainable management of water resources is an important goal being adopted at international
level and by many countries around the world in a bid to address water shortages, inequity,
pollution and many other water problems. The recognition that upstream/ downstream effects
require management using a basin approach has resulted in many countries introducing new
institutional arrangements to manage water at the basin level.
Creating new structures and changing roles and responsibilities to meet the goals of integrated
water resources management is not easy and there is evidence that the introduction of new river
basin organizations does not run smoothly in many countries. In addition there is widespread
uncertainty about the role and functions of river basin organisations when it comes to the
implementation of the IWRM approach to water resources management.
During 2007 Cap-Net has undertaken a number of case studies with partner networks on the
implementation of IWRM through River Basin Organisations (RBOs). These studies have been
completed for Mexico, Kenya, Sri Lanka and Malaysia and the results summarised in this report
prepared for Cap-Net by UNESCO-IHE. We would like to thank the following individuals Wim
Douven, Klaas Schwartz, UNESCO-IHE; Wangai Ndirangu, Nile IWRM-net; Lee Jin,
AguaJaring; M.I.M. Mowjood, Lanka CapNet; and Carlos Diaz Delgardo, LA-WETnet.
The case studies are now being followed with the development of performance indicators and
capacity development activities to support the strengthening of River Basin Organizations.
Paul Taylor
Director
Cap-Net
ACRONYMS
IWRM
IRBM
LUAS
MASL
NARBO
RBO
WRMA
Integrated Water Resources Management
Integrated River Basin Management
Sungai Langat River Basin Organization
Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka
Network of Asian River Basin Organizations
River Basin Organization
Water Resources Management Authority
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
2
PERFORMANCE AND CAPACITY OF RIVER BASIN
ORGANIZATIONS - SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Since the International Conference on Water and the Environment in Dublin in 1992,
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) has emerged as driving concept
behind the management of water resources. The Global Water Partnership (2000) has
defined IWRM as “a process, which promotes the coordinated development and
management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant
economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the
sustainability of vital ecosystems”.
Although the concept of IWRM has been generally accepted, the actual implementation
of IWRM has proven more difficult. Evidence suggests that the performance of recently
established river basin organizations, with the aim of implementing IWRM, has been
disappointing. Moreover, there appears to be widespread uncertainty about the role and
functions of river basin organizations when it comes to the implementation of IWRM.
The objective of the ‘Study on the performance and capacity of national river basin
organisations’ is to address these issues and to identify priority capacity building actions
and strategies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of RBOs. For this purpose, four
RBO case studies were conducted, and major strengths, weaknesses, problems and
successes in the implementation of the RBO’s roles and responsibilities towards
sustainable management of water resources, were recorded and analysed.
RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATIONS AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
This performance framework was applied to the following four case studies by local
consultants:



Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka (MASL) - The Mahaweli Authority of Sri
Lanka was established by Act no. 23 of Parliament in 1979. The main task of the
MASL is the planning and implementation of the Mahaweli Development
Programme, which include construction, operation and maintenance of reservoirs,
dams, canals, and drainage systems and other infrastructure.
Tana Basin Water Resources Management Authority (Tana-WRMA) in Kenya The Tana Basin Water Resources Management Authority is one of six catchment
organizations responsible for management allocation and protection of water
resources in Kenya. The Tana WRMA became operational in July 2006 and
operates under the national Water Resources Management Authority, which
became operational in 2005.
The RBO for the Lerma-Chapla-Santiago in Mexico is the Water National
Commission (CONAGUA a Federal Government Agency) and there are also Two
basin Councils in the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago Basin in Mexico – The two basin
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
3

councils in the Lerma-Chapal-Santiago basin are the Lerma Basin Council and the
Santiago Basin Council.
Sungai Langat River Basin Organization (LUAS) in Malaysia - The Selangor
Waters Management Authority, or LUAS as it is locally known, manages water
resources in the Selangor part of the Sungai Langat river basin. It was enacted in
1999 and has the responsibility of protecting, regulating and managing water
resources in the Selangor part of the Sungai Langat River Basin.
PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT
To study the performance of these RBOs the following dimensions1 were assessed:





Legal framework under which the RBO operates
Level of autonomy of the RBO
Effectiveness of the RBO (comparing the objectives/performance targets with the
actual functioning)
Involvement of stakeholders
Financing of RBO activities
Legal Framework
In three of the four cases the legal framework as it currently exists appears to be
sufficient for the RBO to undertake its tasks and to implement IWRM. In this sense the
legal framework under which the organizations are operating do not appear to be a
constricting factor for their performance or for the implementation of IWRM. The only
exception was LUAS, which operates under a framework that provides only limited
opportunities to involve stakeholders in the decision-making process regarding water
management. Apart from this limitation, however, the legal framework is considered a
sufficiently comprehensive enactment to support river basin and water resources
management in the country.
Level of Autonomy
With the exception of MASL, the RBOs all have limited autonomy. The two RBOs,
which operate on a hydrological basis both operate under national organizations for the
management of water resources. In both cases the level of autonomy enjoyed by the
RBOs are limited by the fact that approval for some decisions needs to be obtained from
the national agencies as well as on the fact that much of the RBOs funding goes through
the national agency. The third RBO,LUAS, is a statutory agency governed by a Board of
Directors, which is chaired by the Chief Minister of Selangor. In the governance structure
of this organization, various government officials and government representatives play
prominent roles. As a result the influence and control of the (State) government over the
functioning of LUAS is considerable.
Each of the cases mentions political influence at some point as being detrimental to the
functioning of the RBO. The Board of the Tana-WRMA, for example, is appointed by the
political leadership. As mentioned, in LUAS, the Board of Directors is dominated by
representatives of government.
1
Important to note is that some of these dimensions of performance overlap.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
4
Effectiveness of the RBO
Although the objectives of the organizations appear to steer the organization towards a
holistic approach to water management, few of the studied RBOs are actually able to
achieve these ambitious objectives and adhere to a holistic approach to the planning and
management of water resources. The difference in objectives and actual activities of the
RBOs appear to be related to the limited human, financial and institutional capacity of the
organization. The organization does not have the required resources to address all the
water management tasks that it would ideally undertake and which have been attributed
to the organization. As the organization cannot address all water management tasks it
must necessarily select priorities on which it focuses. Given the limited capacity that
many of these RBOs have, the RBO will eventually decide to focus on the problems that
are most acute or are given the highest priority. Because the acute problems differ from
one location to the next the different RBOs also have different water management
priorities.
Stakeholder Participation
The level of stakeholder participation differs markedly amongst the four cases. In two
cases (MASL and TANA-WRMA) either mechanisms for participatory governance existed
or the establishment of the RBO improved the level of stakeholder participation.
In general, no special mechanisms seem to exist to involve women in the provision and
management of water in the various basins. The only exception appears to be in Kenya,
where the Kenyan government has recently directed that at least 30% of all public
appointments be reserved for women.
Financing of RBO Activities
Most of the organizations also appear to have limited financial autonomy in the sense that
they have limited financial resources and are strongly dependent on transfers from the
central government and the donor community in order to finance their activities.
The Tana-WRMA, which has an annual budget of about US$ 1 million, is currently
financed by the central government (32%) and donors (68%). In the Tana river basin a
revenue collection system based on water charges was developed. However, gazettement
of the water rules and regulations that will allow the Tana-WRMA to levy fees on the full
range of users is pending.
For LUAS in Malaysia, on paper possibilities exist to finance management of the river
basin from licensing fees. Currently, however, no fund for LUAS has been established
(despite the possibility to do so) and the revenue generated by LUAS flows to the State
Treasury. LUAS receives its complete annual budget from the state government.
In Sri Lanka, the MASL, which had a budget of about US$ 40 million in 2005, is
financed primarily through government and donor agencies. The only contribution from
users (excluding water supply projects) concerns rehabilitation of irrigation works of
which between 10% and 20% is financed by farmers.
For the two basins in the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago basin the lack of financial resources
has been a constant element that has hampered the design of effective mechanisms, especially for environmental protection.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
5
Conclusion
The assessment of the performance of the basin organizations shows considerable
variation between them. This is in itself not such a striking conclusion as the
organizations face different conditions and challenges whilst operating under limited
capacity and are in different stages of development. Moreover, it is difficult to compare
an organization such as LUAS, which has an annual budget of about US$430,000 with an
organization such as MASL with an annual budget, which is almost a hundred times
larger.
Noteworthy is that for most of the categories of performance, the MASL appears to score
better than the other RBOs. A number of possible explanations can be forwarded for this
observation. First of all, the MASL has by far the largest annual budget. It is also the
oldest of the RBOs and, as such, has had more time to mature. Moreover, the
organization is a part of a project/development programme, which may ensure a degree of
(political) commitment and financial support, which the other RBOs seem to be lacking
at this time.
CAPACITY BUILDING IN THE WATER SECTOR
Capacities can be seen as the knowledge, skills and other faculties, in individuals or
embedded in procedures and rules, inside and around sector organizations and
institutions. These main capacity building components are:



The creation of an enabling environment with appropriate policy and legal
frameworks;
Institutional development, including community participation (and of women in
particular); and
Human resources development and the strengthening of managerial systems.
Enabling environment
The main capacity gaps relating to the enabling environment of the RBOs were found to
be as follows:
 General awareness and knowledge – General knowledge and awareness about
IWRM is limited.
 Governance structures, which limit autonomy of the RBO - In some of the cases
studied RBOs were attributed a broad range of goals and objectives to be
achieved (often incorporating or reflecting IWRM principles) whilst at the same
time the governance structure provided the RBO with very limited means to
address these goals and objectives.
 Inter-agency coordination and cooperation - capacity building will have to focus
on acquiring a good understanding among the different agencies and
organizations on their fragmented and shared responsibilities for effective water
resources management.
First of all, increasing general awareness about IWRM in the enabling environment
requires short capacity building activities, in which the importance of IWRM and the
requirements for its implementation are pressed upon key decision-makers within
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
6
different levels of government and in a range of organizations. Secondly, increased
awareness and knowledge about IWRM and the requirements for its implementation need
to be translated in changes in the governance structure under which the RBO operates.
Most illustrative are the financing arrangements of some of the RBOs in the case studies.
Money raised by the RBOs were transferred to general government budgets rather than
being available to the RBO for financing its activities, creating a strong dependency of
the RBOs on government funding. Thirdly, in the enabling environment, fora at various
levels need to be established in which different agencies and organizations, representing a
variety of stakeholders, are able to negotiate and decide upon issues of water
management.
Institutional Development
The cases brought to the forefront several capacity gaps related the institutional level:
 Organizational Autonomy – The issue of organizational autonomy has been
discussed briefly above as it is strongly linked to the governance structure under
which the RBO operates.
 Financial autonomy – Apart from the MASL, each RBO suffers from limited
financial autonomy.
 Community participation – In most cases community involvement was very
limited. Specifically, the role of women in decision-making and management of
water resources was not addressed by any of the RBOs.
The issues of organizational autonomy and financial autonomy are likely most effectively
addressed by addressing the ‘enabling environment’. The issue of community
participation and specifically the involvement of women in water management, however,
requires the establishment of institutional mechanisms through which stakeholders are
involved in decision-making processes in the organization.
Human Resources
The capacity gaps concerning human resources can subdivided in, on the one hand, the
quantity of staff available for the RBO to undertake its tasks and, on the other hand, the
expertise and skills that the available staff possess.
 The number of staff - Some of the RBOs studied had only a small number of staff
with which they could not possibly undertake the tasks and responsibilities
attributed to them.
 The expertise and skills of staff – The principles of IWRM require staff with
backgrounds in variety of disciplines as the paradigm of water management
moves from a development-oriented paradigm to more holistic management
paradigm. In this context, there appeared to be a shortage of staff who are
specialized in:
o Social issues including participatory governance, gender and community
involvement;
o Governance and legal aspects of water management including monitoring
and enforcement of relevant legislation and licenses, demand
management, etc.; and
o Economic aspects of IWRM (water pricing, economic incentives for water
conservation, etc.).
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
7
The capacity gaps in human resources are for the quantity part largely dependent on
available funds and as such are strongly linked to the level of financial autonomy. For the
quality part, first of all, the criteria and procedure for recruitment of staff is important as
many RBOs still favor hiring engineers instead of staff with a background in social and
administrative sciences or economics. Secondly, it requires adjusting existing training
and development possibilities to ensure that they not only cover matters of technical
water management. Thirdly, it requires ‘new’ capacity building activities to be developed
to address the growing need for capacity building on topics such participatory
governance, stakeholder involvement, water governance, and economic aspects of
IWRM.
Principles for Capacity Building
Although the development of a detailed capacity building plan to address these capacity
gaps is beyond the scope of this report, some principles on the basis of which such a
capacity building plan (and the ensuing capacity building activities) can be highlighted.
The principles are based on the idea that capacity building activities should reach a large
number of organizations world-wide as well as lead to sustainable capacity building
initiatives (which are flexible enough to address the needs of a specific time and location)
The proposed principles are:




Cost-effectiveness – Capacity building activities should adhere to the principle of
cost-effectiveness in that expensive training courses and programmes which serve
only a limited number of organizations or people are to be avoided.
Locally-driven and ‘owned’ – The comparative study of the RBOs has shown that
the actual organizations for river basin management are very diverse. Successfully
addressing these needs requires capacity building activities to be mainly ‘carried’
by local organizations.
Use of existing capacity building infrastructure – As much as possible existing
capacity building networks and organizations should be used, rather than
duplicating existing networks and organizations.
The principle of openness and accessibility – Capacity building activities should
be based on a principle of openness and accessibility, meaning that as much as
possible capacity building materials are to be made available in the public
domain.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
8
Table of Contents
I. SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................3
Main Report
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................10
1.1
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY..................................................................................................10
2
RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATIONS ................................................................................................11
2.1
TYPES OF RBOs .......................................................................................................................11
2.2
PROBLEMS IN THE RIVER BASIN AND INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES .......................11
2.3
PERFORMANCE OF RBOs ......................................................................................................13
3
CASES AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................21
3.1
CASE STUDIES ........................................................................................................................22
3.2
STANDARDIZED FRAMEWORK ..........................................................................................23
4
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................24
4.1
LEGAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................24
4.2
LEVEL OF AUTONOMY .........................................................................................................24
4.3
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RBOs ............................................................................................26
4.4
INVOLVEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................31
4.5
FINANCING RBO ACTIVITIES ..............................................................................................32
4.6
CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................32
5
CAPACITY BUILDING IN THE WATER SECTOR ...................................................................34
5.1
ENHANCING LOCAL CAPACITIES ......................................................................................34
5.2
ENHANCING THE KNOWLEDGE BASE ..............................................................................34
5.3
THE PROCESS OF CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE .......................................35
5.4
WHERE DO THE CAPACITY GAPS FOR THE FOUR CASE STUDIES LIE? ....................36
5.5
PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPACITY BUILDING ACTIVITIES ........39
6
ANNEX 1: MAHAWELI GANGA RIVER BASIN, SRI LANKA ................................................42
6.1
RIVER BASIN OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................42
6.2
RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................43
6.3
PERFORMANCE ......................................................................................................................45
6.4
CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................46
7
ANNEX 2: SUNGAI LANGAT RIVER BASIN, MALAYSIA ......................................................47
7.1
RIVER BASIN OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................47
7.2
RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................48
7.3
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................50
7.4
CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................51
8
ANNEX 3: TANA RIVER BASIN, KENYA ...................................................................................53
8.1
RIVER BASIN OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................53
8.2
RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................54
8.3
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................57
8.4
CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................59
9
ANNEX 4: LERMA-CHAPALA-SANTIAGO RIVER BASIN, MEXICO ..................................60
9.1
RIVER BASIN OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................60
9.2
RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................62
9.3
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................63
9.4
CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................64
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
9
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the International Conference on Water and the Environment in Dublin in 1992,
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) has emerged as driving concept
behind the management of water resources. The Global Water Partnership (2000) has
defined IWRM as “a process, which promotes the coordinated development and
management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant
economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the
sustainability of vital ecosystems”. When looking at the actual implementation of water
policies and strategies to implement IWRM, it is unavoidable to consider river basins as
logical units for water resources management (Jaspers 2003). This implies viewing Integrated
River Basin Management as a means of implementing IWRM. Hooper (2006) similarly finds
that IRBM is now “recognized as a tool, perhaps the most appropriate tool, to deliver
IWRM in the basin scale”. If IRBM is the most appropriate ‘tool’ to deliver IWRM at a basin
scale, then River Basin Organizations (RBOs) are increasingly being promoted as key
organizations in the implementation of this tool. In the past decades, river basin
organizations have become “a central component of the most recent evolution of the
framework that defines how water is managed at the river basin or strategic level” (Makin
et al., 2004; Radosevich and Olson 1999).
Cap-Net (www.cap-net.org) initiated this study to assist in defining appropriate capacity
building actions to further the implementation of IWRM.
1.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The objective of the ‘Study on the performance and capacity of national river basin
organisations’ is to analyse the major strengths, weaknesses, problems and successes of
selected river basin organizations in the implementation of their roles and responsibilities
towards sustainable management of water resources and to identify priority capacity
building actions and strategies to improve their efficiency and effectiveness. This report
is based on desk-top study of literature and experiences of sector professionals and on
four case studies that were undertaken specifically for this project. In chapter two, the
role of river basin organizations is discussed in greater detail. Specifically, the
performance of RBOs is elaborated upon. Chapter three describes the methodology used
for the four case studies. Chapter four concerns a discussion the performance of the
RBOs in the four case studies. Chapter five focuses on capacity and capacity building for
integrated river basin management and links capacity to the functioning and performance
of RBOs in particular.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
10
1.
INT
RO
DU
CTI
ON
2
2 RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATIONS
As the RBO has grown to become a central component in the institutional framework for
water management, RBOs, their characteristics and their functioning have increasingly
been the topic of discussion. The discussions broadly revolve around three main themes.
These are the types of river basin organizations, the problems they face and their
performance.
2.1 TYPES OF RBOs
It is possible to select different criteria to distinguish between different types of RBOs.
Mostert (1999) identifies three types of RBOs by distinguishing the basis on which these
organizations operate: hydrological, administrative and coordinated. The hydrological
model implies that water management is done on the bases of hydrological boundaries
and there is extensive river basin planning. In the administrative model water
management becomes part of environmental management and is conducted by entities
operating on administrative boundaries (such as municipalities and provinces). The
coordinated model can be placed in between the hydrological and administrative models.
River basin commissions exist, which have a coordinating task but extensive river basin
planning as under the hydrological model does not exist.
Millington et al (2004) distinguished the task of the RBOs rather than the basis on which
they were operating. As a result they came up with three categories of RBOs: the river
basin coordinating committee/council, the river basin commission and the river basin
authority.
2.2
PROBLEMS IN THE RIVER BASIN AND INSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSES
Relevant to the institutional frameworks managing water resources in the basin are the
problems faced in a particular basin. Problems that can be found in river basins include:
water pollution, sediment build-up, degradation of wetlands and water scarcity issues
(leading to water allocation problems). In different basins, however, different problems
are considered a priority. In highlighting the different ‘realities’ under which river basin
organizations operate in developed and developing countries, Shah et al (2001) provide
two contrasting pictures of organizations in developed countries and those operating in
developing countries.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
11
2
Table 2.1: A Comparison of Basin Realities
Developed Countries
Developing Countries
Temperate climates, humid, higher riverstream density
Rainfall low, climate extreme, higher mean temperatures,
lower stream density, water scarcity an emerging
constraint
Population concentrated in the valleys,
downstream
Densely populated in both valleys and catchment areas;
population high both upstream and downstream of dams
Water rights based on riparian doctrine
and prior appropriation
Water rights based on rights to rainfall or ground-water;
people's notions of ownership relate more easily to rain
than to large-scale public diversions
Focus on blue surface water: water found
in rivers, and lakes
Focus on green water: water stored in the soil profile or
blue water stored in aquifers
Most water users get water from 'service
providers'; most water provision is in the
formal sector-making water resources
governance feasible
Most water users get their water directly from rain and
from private or community storage without any significant
mediation from public agencies or organized service
providers. Because the bulk of water provision takes place
in the informal sector, it is difficult to pass enforceable
water legislation
Small numbers of large-scale
stakeholders
Vast numbers of small-scale stakeholders
Low transaction costs for monitoring
water use and collecting water charges
High transaction costs for monitoring water use and
collecting water charges
Source: Shah et al 2001.
It leads Shah et al (2001) to conclude that “the problems that river basin institutions in the
developed world successfully address – such as pollution, sediment buildup in rivers and
the degradation in wetlands – are not the top priorities for [developing country] policy
makers and people.
The roles and functions of basin organizations are usually indicative of the way the
organization was formed and with what purpose. Millington et al (2004) and Hooper
(2006) divide the stage of RBOs development into five groups as shown on Table 2.2.
The functions of group 1 are critical to any RBO. The organization cannot effectively
manage water allocations and usage, and resource protection with inadequate data,
systems and models. Group 2 activities are perhaps the more traditional responsibilities
of RBOs in developing countries. These reflect the direct connection between regional
planning and new water infrastructure.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
12
2
Table 2.2: Functional stages in the evolution of an adaptive river basin
organization
Functions
Group 1: Water (and natural resource) data collection and
processing, systems modeling, water and natural resources
planning, stakeholder consultation & issue clarification
Group 2: Project feasibility, design, implementation, operation
and maintenance, raising funds, ongoing community
consultation and awareness raising
Group 3: Allocating and monitoring water shares (quality and
quantity and possible natural resources sharing), cost sharing
principles
Group 4: Policy and strategy development for economic,
social and environmental issues, community awareness and
participation
Group 5: Monitoring water use and shares, monitoring
pollution and environmental conditions, oversight and review
role for projects promoted by RBO partners, monitoring and
assessing the health of the basin’s natural resources,
monitoring the sustainability of resource management, review
of strategic planning and implementation of modified plans
Initial
RBO
Adult
(auto
Mature
adaptive) RBO
RBO
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
Source: Based on Hooper (2006) and Millington et al (2004)
Adaptable RBOs are more dynamic than initial RBOs and are able to respond to changing
conditions. The idea is that such RBOs are likely to be considered as “high achievers in
integrated water resources management” (Hooper 2006).
2.3 PERFORMANCE OF RBOs
With RBOs becoming increasingly prominent in the management of river basins. At the
same time concerns regarding the performance of RBOs are increasing. Illustrative is a
recent workshop held between staff of the World Bank and selected external experts. The
main question posed by the World Bank staff and discussed with the experts was: “How
come that RBOs to date have not met expectations”? The question itself is not surprising
as relatively little is known about how to measure performance and functioning of RBO’s
and their ability to implement IWRM. The research that has been done on the topic of
performance of RBOs seems to be primarily focused on issues of transposing river basin
management institutions (Shah et al. 2001) or takes a more process-oriented approach to
performance (Hooper 2006).
2.3.1 Different Approaches to Measuring RBO Performance
Performance assessment often has three distinct foci, performance of policies and
programmes (which often incorporate efforts of multiple organizations), organizational
performance and individual performance (Talbot 1999). These three levels are
intertwined, meaning that one level of performance can influence the next level (and
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
13
vice-versa). In this paper the focus is mainly on organizational performance and to a
limited extent on the performance of policies and programmes.
Although acknowledging the diverse landscape of RBOs and the problems that they face,
existing approaches to performance management from public and business administration
literature and approaches developed by academics and professionals in the water
resources sector may be of value when trying to evaluate the performance of RBOs. In
the section below a number of different approaches are presented and discussed. Though
the list of approaches is not exhaustive, they do provide a broad overview of the different
ways of approaching the issue of performance of RBOs. The first of the approaches
relates to the ‘traditional’ focus on efficiency and effectiveness of organizations. The
second approach looks at performance from the perspective of the user/stakeholder. The
third approach concerns key performance indicators for river basin organizations
developed by Hooper (2006). The fourth approach concerns a benchmarking exercise
developed by the Network of Asian River Basin Organizations (NARBO). NARBO’s
approach is based on Kaplan’s and Norton’s (1992) Balanced Scorecard approach, which
was originally designed for commercial businesses. The fifth approach adheres to using
the Dublin principles as a benchmark for performance.
However in all cases the lack of specific indicators of sustainable management of water
resources or IWRM makes assessment of the performance of RBOs problematic.
2.3.1.1 Efficiency and Effectiveness of Organizations
Frequently, the performance of an organization is assessed by determining the efficiency
and effectiveness of the organization. The actual effectiveness of a specific organization
is determined by the degree to which it realizes its goals or objectives. The efficiency of
an organization is measured by the amount of resources used to produce an output (Lane
2000). Figure 2.1 provides a (simplified) overview of how effectiveness and efficiency
relate to the organizations objectives and the resources, activities, outputs, and the effects
of the organization.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
14
2
2
Figure 2.1: Efficiency and Effectiveness
Source: Based on Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004
Although effectiveness and efficiency remains an important framework for determining
the performance of an organization, this approach does have some difficulties. First of all
the ‘problem of attribution’ exists. The main question here is to what extent the
achievement of a certain effect can really be attributed to the delivery of certain outputs
by the organization and to what extent other factors played a role in achieving this effect.
Secondly, a major difficulty relates to the official objectives that have been attributed to
organizations on paper and the objectives as managers of the organization interpret them
in reality. Objectives that an organization must achieve, especially when they are
published, are often overly ambitious and beyond the actual capacity of the organization.
This means that using this framework thus requires identification of realistic objectives
for the organization. The realistic objectives will likely be influenced by the nature of the
RBO and the main problems facing the basin.
It is also important to note that this form of performance measurement incorporates an
accountability relationship to the organizations, which sets the objectives. Often this will
be the government.
2.3.1.2 A Stakeholder Perspective on Performance
With the increasing importance being given to stakeholder participation and
accountability to users/stakeholders, an alternative approach is to use stakeholders’
perceptions as the basis for performance measurement. The idea is that by considering
what stakeholders want, need, or prefer and what they are willing to support financially,
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
15
the RBO would be best able to match its services with the stakeholders preferences,
aspirations and circumstances. This has the added benefit that the RBO becomes
accountable to the stakeholders for its performance. Folz (2004), in looking at the
provision of municipal services, has suggested using service-quality indicators (level of
delivery, frequency, coverage, quality of service as perceived by the user) as a measure of
performance. Essentially three reasons can be forwarded for involving stakeholders in the
assessment of performance (Talbot 1999). The first of the reasons is a ‘rights’ based
justification, which follows the argument that stakeholders, being subject to the actions of
the RBO, should know what levels of service they can expect and are entitled to. They
are then also in a position to determine to what extent the RBO has managed to deliver
these ‘entitlements’. The second reason relates to the level of support for the RBO. Only
if the RBO is able to provide the services that stakeholders demand will it receive the
support of these stakeholders. Support (including possible financial contributions) will
decline if the RBO is not able to meet the expectations and demands of the stakeholders.
Using stakeholder assessment of performance is thus a way of improving the likelihood
of support from those stakeholders. The third reason both highlights the need for
stakeholder involvement in the assessment of performance as well as pinpoint one of the
main difficulties of stakeholder approaches to performance measurement. The reasoning
is based on the fact that a river basin encompasses a multiplicity of stakeholders, who
hold divergent interests and views on how the water resources should be managed. This
implies that ‘one-size fits all’ solutions may not be acceptable. Using stakeholder
assessment of performance is then a mechanism to increase the RBOs sensitivity to these
divergent interests and needs.
At the same time the wide array of stakeholders in the basin and their diverging interests
also make performance measurement through stakeholders very difficult. Often
stakeholders will not only have divergent interests but even competing interests. This
complexity will only increase when the basin in questions is a transboundary basin. How
can the performance of an RBO then be measured when stakeholders have opposite
views of what good performance entails?
2.3.1.3 Hooper’s Key Performance Indicators
What is particularly interesting about Hooper’s approach is that it stretches performance
beyond the traditional criteria of effectiveness and efficiency and incorporates
dimensions of ‘good governance’ indicators (such as accountability and transparency)
and activities often viewed as being critical for achieving good performance (such as
training and research) as indicators for performance in their own right. In other words,
performance is not only measured by how effectively and efficiently the organization
operates, but also by the degree to which is accountable to citizens in achieving that
efficiency and effectiveness or by the degree to which the organization provides capacity
building opportunities for its staff.
In Hooper’s framework key performance indicators have been identified for RBOs on the
basis of an extensive literature review and on inputs from sector experts. On the basis of
these inputs, Hooper identifies ten categories of performance indicators, which he uses to
assess the performance of an RBO. The ten categories of indicators are (Hooper 2006):
 Coordinated decision-making - the use of coordination mechanisms between and
within agencies and basin organizations; links between local water institutions
and a basin organization; how relevant sectoral interests are engaged;
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
16
2
2









Responsive decision-making – decision processes which adapt to new knowledge
and new conditions; promote efficiency; value cross-sectoral dialogue; promote
best practices;
Goals, goal shift and goal completion – achievement of goals using an integrated
approach;
Financial sustainability – evidence of ongoing financial support, cost-sharing,
transparency, innovative water pricing and demand management;
Organizational design – the use of democratic processes; evidence of stable
international agreements and evidence of national water policy conducive to the
river basin management; use of organizational structures which fit basin needs
and avoid fragmentation;
Role of law – the existence of laws which support river basin management; laws
characterized by strong and flexible arrangements;
Training and capacity building – the use of ongoing training and capacity building
of staff relevant to basin needs;
Information and research – the existence of a knowledge system to aid decisionmaking, protocols to share information, and a culture of research-knowledge
links;
Accountability and monitoring – evidence that basin organizations are
accountable to constituent governments and citizens; use of transparent reporting
mechanisms;
Private and public sector roles – evidence of stakeholder participation; clear
specification of roles of private and public sector.
Hooper’s framework of ten categories aims to be a comprehensive assessment of
performance. At the same time, the influence of the ‘suite of good governance factors’ is
also clearly visible, in the sense that the framework has a strong process-oriented
approach. Many of the indicators seek to establish if an event or activity has occurred,
assuming that if such an activity/event occurred than it also had an impact. In other
words, if evidence is found that a certain procedure has been followed, then an actual
impact is assumed.
2.3.1.4 The NARBO Benchmarking Exercise
Benchmarking within the water sector is not new. In the past decade, the water supply
and sanitation sector has witnessed a number of such exercises. The VEWIN in the
Netherlands, for example, annually compares the performance of Dutch water supply
companies. The Dutch Union of Water Board benchmarks wastewater treatment by the
water boards. In Indonesia, PERPAMSI holds benchmarking exercises involving 80
Indonesian water utilities. Other benchmarking exercises took place in Peru, Vietnam and
in Africa through the African Water Utility Partnership. The benchmarking of RBOs,
however, is a relatively recent phenomenon. One such recent exercise is the
benchmarking exercise started by NARBO in 2005.
Similar to Hooper’s framework the NARBO benchmarking exercise focuses on key
performance indicators, or as the NARBO terms it ‘critical success indicators’ (Makin et
al 2004). The critical success indicators cover different dimensions of performance. As
the NARBO benchmarking exercise is based on the Balance Scorecard Approach, the
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
17
main categories used are that of stakeholders, internal processes learning and growth and
financial. In figure 2.2 the categories and corresponding indicators are presented.
Figure 2.2: Categories and Indicators in the NARBO Benchmarking Exercise
The balanced scorecard approach can be viewed as a reaction to dissatisfaction with
purely financially based models of corporate performance, which dominated the 1980s. It
presents a more holistic approach to the performance of an organization (Talbot 1999).
On the one hand the scorecard includes financial measures of performance (which reflect
decisions already taken), on the other hand it incorporates operational measures
(stakeholders, internal processes and learning and growth) which drive future
performance (Kaplan and Norton 1992). In the NARBO exercise the category of
‘mission’ has been added to scorecard. The two indicators, the status of the organization
and RBO governance are strongly oriented towards the decision making process of the
RBO rather than related to actual effectiveness of the organization. Indeed indicators
related to the actual effectiveness of the organization (outputs and outcomes) appear to be
absent. To a large part this can be explained by the origin of the balanced scorecard (as a
private sector management tool). It also highlights that the balanced scorecard has a
strong focus on the internal management of the organization. As such, the scorecard
provides a mechanism for internal accountability of various departments and sections
within the RBO for their performance.
2.3.1.5 IWRM principles as a Benchmark for Performance
Another way of measuring the performance of an RBO, is by examining the performance
of the ultimate goal, namely integrated water resources management. As mentioned
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
18
2
2
earlier, performance can be measured at different levels, which are intertwined. In this
case the performance of the organization is determined by the degree to which the goal of
IWRM is achieved. For example, the Dublin principles can be used as an ideal-situation
benchmark against which to score performance. Assessing performance using this
approach thus entails analyzing the ability of the RBOs to implement IWRM in terms of:




The degree to which management of water resources follows a holistic approach;
The level of stakeholder participation in management of water resources;
The level of involvement of women in the provision, management and
safeguarding of water;
The degree to which water is recognized and treated as an economic good.
Using this approach is not without difficulties, however. IWRM will involve a multitude
of organizations undertaking a wide array of functions and responsibilities at various
levels, which together manage water resources. Two problems, which have been raised
earlier, also apply here. First of all there is the problem of attribution. With the wide array
of organizations participating in the management of resources, how can the achievement
of the policy (IWRM) be attributed to only one organization? Secondly, the question is
how realistic it is to expect river basin organizations to live up to these benchmarks (i.e.
how realistic are these objectives)?
2.3.2 The Mix of Approaches and the Reason for Measuring Performance
The various approaches to measuring performance described above each have their
advantages and disadvantages. Some approaches, such as Hooper’s key performance
indicators, appear quite comprehensive. The down side of such a comprehensive
framework is that the effort required to apply the framework can be considerable and the
costs of implementing the framework may outweigh the reason why the assessment is
being undertaken.
In the end, the method of evaluating the performance of RBOs will depend on the reasons
for measuring performance and the available resources for measuring performance. In
this study, the reason for assessing performance is to establish a link to the capacities of
RBOs. Also the time and resource availability did not allow all of the different
approaches to be fully applied. As a result, we have opted for a framework for assessing
performance, using elements of the various approaches discussed above.
The approach used in this study examines the following dimensions:
-
Legal framework
Level of autonomy of the RBO
Effectiveness of the RBO (comparing the objectives/performance targets with the
actual functioning)
Involvement of stakeholders
Financing of RBO activities
Important to note is that some of these dimensions of performance overlap. For example,
the level of autonomy is likely to be influenced by the legal framework under which the
RBO operates and the financing of RBO activities. Similarly, the effectiveness of RBOs
is influenced by the level of autonomy of the RBO.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
19
Before assessing the performance of the four cases, however, the next chapter explains
the methodology used in developing the case studies.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
20
2
3
3 CASES AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research underlying this report followed a case study approach in which four case
studies of RBOs were researched. At the start of the research project research objectives
were formulated. The second step in the project was to select the case studies and to
develop a standardized framework for analyzing the RBOs in each of the selected case
studies was developed. The third phase revolved around undertaking the actual case
studies. The final phase concerned a cross-case comparison of the cases and on the basis
of this comparison to draw conclusions concerning the research objectives.
Figure 3.1: Methodology
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
21
3.1 CASE STUDIES
Each case study concerned an organization, which had been attributed the responsibility
of managing water resources in a specified area. The selection of the cases was based on
the fact that each case is a national organization. Furthermore, the organizations were
selected on the geographical distribution of the case studies (one in Africa, one in Latin
America, one in South Asia and one in Eastern Asia).
The researched RBOs are:




Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka (MASL) - The Mahaweli Authority of Sri
Lanka was established by Act no. 23 of Parliament in 1979. The main task of the
MASL is the planning and implementation of the Mahaweli Development
Programme, which include construction, operation and maintenance of reservoirs,
dams, canals, and drainage systems and other infrastructure.
Tana Basin Water Resources Management Authority (Tana-WRMA) in Kenya The Tana Basin Water Resources Management Authority is one of six catchment
organizations responsible for management allocation and protection of water
resources in Kenya. The Tana WRMA became operational in July 2006 and
operates under the national Water Resources Management Authority, which
became operational in 2005.
The RBO for the Lerma-Chapla-Santiago in Mexico is the Water National
Commission (CONAGUA a Federal Government Agency) and there are also Two
basin Councils in the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago Basin in Mexico – The two basin
councils in the Lerma-Chapal-Santiago basin are the Lerma Basin Council and the
Santiago Basin Council.
Sungai Langat River Basin Organization (LUAS) in Malaysia - The Selangor
Waters Management Authority, or LUAS as it is locally known, manages water
resources in the Selangor part of the Sungai Langat river basin. It was enacted in
1999 and has the responsibility of protecting, regulating and managing water
resources in the Selangor part of the Sungai Langat River Basin.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
22
3
3
Table 3.1: Indicators for the selected River Basins and RBOs
MASL
LUAS
Lerma-ChapalaSantiago
Size of basin 10448
2350
133000
2
(km )
Population
2800000
951,800
17760000
residing
Average
1250-2000
1800-3000
696-720
rainfall in basin
(mm per year)
Major
water Irrigation
Water supply Irrigation (81%)
uses
Hydropower
(Primary Use) Water
Supply
Aquaculture
(12.6%)
Navigation
Livestock
and
(Secondary
Industry (6.5%)
Uses)
Type
of An
authority Statutory
“Collegial
organization
under
the Agency at the bodies” operating
Ministry
of State Level
under National
Mahaweli
Water
Commission
(CONAGUA)
Mandate
of Multiple
organization
basins
Tana-WRMA
126026
6100800
6792
Irrigation
Hydropower
Water supply
Regional office
of
national
corporate body
(Water
Resources
Management
Authority)
1 river basin
river Administrative 2 river basins
boundary (part
of a basin)
Annual budget US$ 40 million US$ 430,000
US$148 million
US$ 1 million
Funding
Mainly
State
Federal
Government
sources of the Government
Government
Government
and Donors
organization
and Donors
Number
of 4,791
35
535
82
employees
Sources: Mowjood et al. 2007, Ndirangu 2007, Díaz-Delgado et al., 2007, Lee 2007
3.2 STANDARDIZED FRAMEWORK
Prior to undertaking the case studies a standardized framework was developed, which
was to be used for each of the individual case studies. Such a standardized framework
allows for the findings from the different cases to be compared and analyzed. A draft
version of the framework was circulated to and discussed with the various persons
involved in this research project (individual consultants, Cap-Net and UNESCO-IHE).
2
The average figure of 679 mm per year obscures the fact that in more than 50% of the catchment area less
than 300 mm per year is received.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
23
4 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
In this chapter the performance of the four RBO case studies is assessed. This
performance assessment focuses on the legal framework, the level of autonomy of the
RBO, eeffectiveness of the RBO, involvement of stakeholders and the financing of RBO
activities.
4.1 LEGAL FRAMEWORK
In three of the four cases the legal framework as it currently exists appears to be
sufficient for the RBO to undertake its tasks and to implement IWRM. In this sense the
legal framework under which the organizations are operating do not appear to be a
constricting factor for their performance or for the implementation of IWRM.
In the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago basin the legal framework provided by the National
Water Law, allows for the implementation of IWRM. In practice, however, actual
implementation happens only partially. The legal framework has stipulated a large
number of tasks but actual implementation of the tasks has been lacking either because of
lack of interest of the agency responsible or because of lack of resources to undertake a
particular task.
In Kenya, the Water Act of 2002 forms the primary legislative basis for water resources
management. The Water Act envisages the formation of drainage basin organizations and
requires preparation of a catchment management strategy, developed on a consultative
basis. In a few instances the provisions in the Water Act conflict with other relevant
legislation (such as the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act and the Land
Act). However, despite these conflicts users and stakeholders are agreed that the reforms,
which lead to the new Water Act, represent a considerable improvement.
In Sri Lanka, successive governments have tried to introduce national water policy with
the aim of achieving efficient and equitable allocation of water resources. Despite
approval of the Cabinet of Ministers in 2001, the policy was subsequently rejected by the
media and civil society as it lacked environmental and resource conservation focus,
provided inadequate safety nets for the low-income segments of the population and
because it contained a more market-oriented approach. As a result in 2005 two draft
water policies existed which were promoted by two ministries of the same government.
Recently, a new draft was published in newspapers for public comments. MASL
therefore lacks a clear legal framework supporting the implementation of IWRM.
The main limitation in the legal framework under which LUAS operates is that it
provides only limited opportunities to involve stakeholders in the decision making
process regarding water management. Apart from this limitation, however, the legal
framework is considered a sufficiently comprehensive enactment to support river basin
and water resources management in the country.
4.2 LEVEL OF AUTONOMY
Much more problematic than the legal framework under which the RBOs are operating
appears to be the level of autonomy that the organizations enjoy. With the exception of
MASL, the RBOs all have limited autonomy. Important is to note that autonomy has both
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
24
4
4
a positive dimension (the authority to make decisions) and a negative dimension (to be
free from outside interventions). This means that the level of autonomy is determined by
(Verhoest et al. 2004):
1) The level of decision-making competencies of the agency (concerning management on
the one hand and concerning agency policy on the other hand); and
2) The exemption of constraints on the actual use of decision-making competencies of the
agency (referring to structural, financial, and legal constraints on the agency’s decisionmaking competencies).
4.2.1 Central Control
The two RBOs, which operate on a hydrological basis both operate under national
organizations for the management of water resources. In both cases the level of autonomy
enjoyed by the RBOs are limited by the fact that for some decisions approval needs to be
obtained from the national agencies as well as on the fact that much of the RBOs funding
goes through the national agency. In this sense the level of autonomy is limited both in
terms of the official decision-making competencies as well as the constraints posed by
access to (financial) resources (which is described in the next section). The TanaWRMA, for example, must request approval from the national agency when authorizing a
water use activity which is of a large scale or is complex and which is deemed by virtue
of its scale to have a measurable impact on the water resource. Also the basin councils in
the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago basin lack an adequate legal status and the autonomy to
carry out their decisions.
LUAS is a statutory agency governed by a Board of Directors, which is chaired by the
Chief Minister of Selangor. Other government members of the Board include the State
Secretary, the State Legal Advisor, the State Financial Officer, the Director-General of
the national Department of Irrigation and Drainage, and two members from the State
Executive Committee appointed by the Chief Minister. In addition to these government
members not more than five other expert members can be appointed to the Board. Also
the overwhelming majority of members of the three Ad-hoc committees, which assist
LUAS in the management of the Sungai Langat river basin, are government officers
representing relevant government agencies. As a result the influence and control of the
(State) government over the functioning of LUAS is considerable.
The MASL seems to be the organization with the largest degree of autonomy. The MASL
is headed by a Director General and the organization has powers of direction and control
of all agencies and institutions involved in the Mahaweli Ganga Development
Programme. The high level of autonomy that MASL enjoys was considered essential for
the ability to implement the development programme on time and successfully.
4.2.2 Financial resources
Most of the organizations also appear to have limited autonomy in the sense that they
have limited financial resources and are strongly dependent on transfers from the central
government and the donor community in order to finance their activities. In most cases
the organizations receive funding from the government or the national water management
agencies under which they operate rather than from water users.
In the state of Selangor in Malaysia, the legal framework provides the opportunity for a
separate Fund to be established. The various sources of income that LUAS has (fees,
charges, government transfers, loans, etc.) could then be paid into this Fund. The Fund
can then be used by LUAS to pay for its expenditures. Even though LUAS has set-up
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
25
such a fund but actual use of the Fund for LUAS’s operations has not been implemented
yet. LUAS is currently still being financed by the State Treasury through an annual
budget approved by the State Government. All revenue collected by LUAS from the
licensing of water abstractions from ground and surface water sources are paid directly
into the State Treasury. As such, the opportunities to allow LUAS to collect and operate
its own revenue stream using its own fund have not been utilized.
Also, the Tana-WRMA is still limited in the levies it can charge as gazzeting water rules
and regulation that will allow the authority to levy fees on the full range of users and
practitioners is still pending. Moreover, the Tana-WRMA is not able to retain the revenue
it collects as these flow to the national government, meaning that the Tana-WRMA is
dependent on the central government (and on donors) for financing its budget.
For the two basins in the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago basin the lack of financial resources
has been a constant element that has hampered the design of effective mechanisms, especially for environmental protection. The exception, again, appears to be the MASL,
which, in the past, did not appear to have any major financial constraints.
4.2.3 Political Influence
Each of the cases mentions political influence at some point as being detrimental to the
functioning of the RBO. The Board of the Tana-WRMA is appointed by the political
leadership. In LUAS, the Board of Directors is dominated by representatives of
government.
Another similarity of all cases is that in each case general understanding and awareness
of IWRM in the policy environment remains low and a big constraint to better
implementation of IWRM. Specifically politicians and government officials are found to
lack understanding of IWRM and the requirements that are needed for implementing it.
4.2.4 Use of Performance Indicators
In two of the basins, the RBOs use performance indicators to measure their performance.
In Mexico the CONAGUA uses a set of 10 indicators to measure the efficiency of its
functioning. The indicators are used at a national level and as such are not applied at the
level of the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago basin.
In Kenya, the WRMA has a set of performance indicators called the ‘Golden indicators’.
These ‘golden’ indicators relate to effectiveness of water resources management
regulation, water quantity, water quality and water resources monitoring.
4.3 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RBOs
Assessing the effectiveness of the organizations is done in two steps. First the official
objectives of the RBOs are presented (Table 4.1 below). With the exception of MASL,
however, the organizations are not able to achieve these objectives (which reflect an
IWRM approach). In the second section, therefore, the roles and responsibilities of the
RBOs are linked to the most acute problems facing that basin.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
26
4
4
Table 4.1: Objectives of the RBOs
RBO
LUAS
MASL
Tana-WRMA
Lerma-Chapala
Santiago Basin
Objectives
To ensure that the water resources and natural environment in the state of Selangor are
protected and conserved so as to support the sustainable socio-economic development
of the state.
To fulfill the functions of integrated planning, streamlining, co-ordinating,
implementing and regulating the development and management of the state’s water
resources and natural environment.
To create an environment that will encourage the active participation of the civil service
and private sector in the development, use and management of water resources and the
natural environment, taking into account the interest of the public and the state
Government.
To create awareness among the public and encourage their participation on the
importance of water resources and the need to collectively protect, conserve and
enhance its quality.
Plan and Implementation of the Mahaweli Development Programme - Construction,
operation and maintenance multi-purpose reservoirs, canals headwork and other
structures, and management of immediate environment of Dam such as reservations for
Dam safety.
Development of water resources in Mahaweli and adjacent basins
Integrated development – Optimize agriculture productivity and employment potential,
maintained physical environment in any special area, watershed management and soil
erosion control, welfare and cultural progress of the community in special area,
settlement of persons on lands, farms, manage farms and engage in farming, agricultural
and horticultural activities – provide advisory and farmer training, implementation of
agriculture plans, manage and operate credit to farmers, provide agricultural inputs,
promote agro-based industries, marketing services, women development.
Water allocation for irrigation, hydropower and drinking
Follow participatory approaches for decision making and real time management of
water resources in Mahaweli areas.
Monitor sedimentation levels in the reservoirs.
Planning, management, protection and conservation of water resources.
Planning, allocation, apportionment, assessment and monitoring of water resources.
Issuance of water permits.
Water rights and enforcement of permit conditions.
Regulation of conservation and abstraction structures.
Catchment and water quality management.
Regulation and control of water use
Coordination of the IWRM Plan.
To promote the efficient use of water for agricultural production
To promote a widening coverage and improvement in the quality of services for water
supply, sewerage, and basic sanitation
To achieve integrated and sustainable management of water in basins and aquifers
To promote the technical, administrative, and financial development of the water sector
To consolidate the participation of users and organized society in water management
and to promote a culture for a proper use of this resource
To diminish risks and attend to the effects of floods and droughts
Although the objectives of the organizations appear to steer the organization towards an
holistic approach to water management, few of the studied RBOs are actually able to
achieve these ambitious objectives and adhere to a holistic approach to the planning and
management of water resources. Two explanations can be forwarded to explain this
divergence between the objectives and the actual functioning of the RBOs. in roles and
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
27
responsibilities of the RBOs. First of all, the difference in objectives and the activities of
the RBOs are related to the limited human, financial and institutional capacity of the
organization. The limited capacity simply means that the organization does not have the
required resources to address all the water management tasks that it would ideally
undertake and which have been attributed to the organization. As the organization cannot
address all water management tasks it must necessarily select priorities on which it
focuses.
The second explanation is linked to the capacity of the organization and is related to the
main water uses in the basin and the main problems experienced in the basin. These water
uses and the main problems experienced in the basins result in different priorities for the
RBOs. Given the limited capacity that many of these RBOs have, the RBO will
eventually decide to focus on the problems that are most acute or are given the highest
priority. Because the acute problems differ from one location to the next the different
RBOs also have different water management priorities.
In the case of LUAS, the main focus is on managing water quality in the river basin (and
particularly controlling pollution). The main reason for this focus on managing water
quality seems to be the fact that the major water use of the Sungai Langat is for potable
water supply.
The MASL, having been enacted to implement a large-scale development project,
appears to operate more like a development agency in which the main focus appears to be
on the integrated management of water quantity and allocation of that water for socioeconomic development. The nature of the MASL as development agency is also visible in
activities, which it undertakes which seem quite far removed from river basin
management (such as the construction of roads, schools, post offices and hospitals).
Having been established in 2006, the Tana-WRMA is still a relatively young
organization. As such, it is difficult to determine the degree to which the organization is
able to implement a holistic approach. Recent reforms in the Kenyan water sector,
however, do seem to represent a step forward with respect to the ability of the TanaWRMA to develop a holistic approach.
In Mexico, The Water National Commission (CONAGUA) and the two Basin Councils
for the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago basin are mainly concerned with allocation and
distribution of water resources, reflecting the critical problem of water availability in this
basin as well as the historical perspective of viewing water resources management as a
way of developing productive activities, particularly those related to agriculture.
Although these councils could undertake activities related to environmental protection
(such as addressing water pollution and soil erosion) the available resources (and
autonomy, particularly for the Basin Councils) appear to be insufficient to undertake
these activities.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
28
4
4
Table 4.2: Challenges, Water Uses and Roles of the RBOs
River Basin
Main problems and Main water uses
challenges
Mahaweli
Water availability
Irrigation
Water pollution
Hydropower
Deforestation
Land degradation
Tana
Water availability
Irrigation
Water quality
Hydropower
Catchment degradation Water supply
Lerma-Chapala- Water availability
Irrigation
Santiago
Environmental
Water Supply
deterioration
Livestock
and
Water pollution
Industry
Deforestation
Water transfer to
Land degradation
Mexico city
Sungai Langat
Water pollution
Water supply
Water availability
Aquaculture
Deforestation
Navigation
Main role of the
RBO
Water allocation
Water allocation
Water allocation
Water quality
In relation to the main problems facing the basin, the RBOs seem to be performing better.
Although Tana WRMA has been in existence for only one year, the organisation has
achieved significantly by introducing an inclusive water resources management
framework within the basin, establishing basic actions to regulate abstraction, enhancing
public participation, restore water resources monitoring system, collection of water use
charge and more importantly in development of the Catchment Management Strategy.
In the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago basin councils promote and enable participation of users
and stakeholders and Cooperation between government agencies is enabled and leads to
results (such as the Surface Water Good Use Plan).
MASL has served as a management and development agency providing water services to
the majority of the water users located in major irrigation systems, while following
integrated approaches for socioeconomic development of the population. The MASL
provides irrigation water, allocates water for hydro-power generation, meets needs of
townships, provides shelter for large section of population, increases agricultural
production, generates employment opportunities, controls flood and operates and
maintains of large dams and reservoirs.
Despite the limited capacity LUAS was able to put in place a management framework
that gets all the relevant government agencies to work together with Puncak Niaga Sdn
Bhd, to address the water pollution threat due to increased urbanization of the basin.
LUAS has also been identified as being an efficient organization since it is able to collect
enough money from its licensing activities to pay for its annual operational overheads.
4.3.1 Remaining Challenges
Although the above section notes the effectiveness of the RBOs to address the main
challenges facing the basins, some issues remain. These issues include weaknesses of
monitoring and enforcement, an engineering-focused staff, which have more capacity in
development of infrastructure rather than management,
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
29
In the Tana basin, for example, the more serious challenges facing Tana WRMA lie in
the human and technology capacity to apply the management instruments for IWRM.
The organisation has a small number of staff compared to the coverage area, and even
these few lack set of skills required to fully implement IWRM. This in turn complicates
the process of reviving the water resources monitoring and assessment network. Up until
now, the availability of accurate water resources data is very limited. The awareness for
IWRM remain low among water users, and although WRUAs have been established to
mobilises water users living, there is little deliberate action for awareness generally
targeting communities in living in the catchment. This is viewed in the light of the fact
that poverty has been identified as key driver for catchment degradation, yet Tana
WRMA is still to establish a coordinated approach with other government agencies to
create alternative ways of earning livelihood than those causing destruction.
The list of aspects that require improvement in the Lerm-Chapala-Santiago basin include
aspects such as improving implementation of the water law (enforcement, application),
developing organizational and participation aspects of IWRM, incorporating perspectives
of environmental management, increasing available financial resources and solving interinstitutional conflicts derived from the unspecified functions of various governmental
levels.
In the case of LUAS, there seems to be a consensus that there is a need to increase the
individual competencies of LUAS staff on the legal and enforcement aspects. The senior
officers of LUAS also mentioned the need for the other government agencies to
recognize LUAS role in implementing integrated river basin and water resources
management.
The biggest remaining challenge for MASL is the lack of a national water policy for an
effective functioning of the RBO. Structural reforms are needed to change from
development agency into fully fledged RBO in the present context. Although MASL has
higher number of staff, they are not equipped with the tools for implementing IWRM
effectively. There is also uncertainty about available financial resources as the State is
trying to reduce expenditure in the sector. The dependency on donors for projects for
improvement is not a good sign for sustainability.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
30
4
4
4.4 INVOLVEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS
The level of stakeholder participation differs markedly amongst the four cases. In two
cases either mechanisms exist for participatory governance existed or the establishment
of the RBO improved the level of stakeholder participation.
In the case of the MASL, mechanisms exist for participatory governance. Specifically
participation of farmers for management of irrigation water is well-established and takes
place at three levels. Stakeholder participation takes place through a pre-cultivation
meeting attended by the Residential Project Manager, the Deputy Residential Project
Managers, Irrigation Engineers and Farmer Organization representatives. In this meeting
water availability, crop types, estimations on water requirements and repair and
maintenance of irrigation canals are discussed. Decisions about water allocation are made
at the Water Panel Meeting. This meeting is attended by a large number of stakeholders
from government and farmer representatives. However, water users from domestic and
other sectors are not proportionately represented to influence the decisions in these
meetings. The third meeting concerns the cultivation-meeting during which farmers are
informed about water allocation decisions made during the Water Panel Meeting. During
this final meeting decisions about crop types, crop periods and crop extents are finalized.
Also in the Tana basin, the enactment of the Tana-WRMA has lead to significant
improvement in public participation in water management. In the Tana-WRMA
stakeholder participation is mainly achieved through participatory water management
through Water Resources User Associations (WRUAs) at the sub-catchment level. The
WRUAs are viewed as an important mechanism to prevent conflicts over water. The
Tana-WRMA has played a proactive and facilitative role in the establishment of
WRUAs. In addition Catchment Advisory Committees (CAAC) have been formed to
advise the Tana-WRMA on matters of apportionment and conservation of water
resources. The members of the CAAC come from government ministries, the Tana and
Athi River Development Authority, farmers and pastoralist communities, business people
and NGOs. The mandate of the CAAC is only to advise the Tana-WRMA. Membership
of the CAAC is determined by the political leadership and as a result some appointments
may be politically motivated.
As mentioned, the legal framework under which LUAS operates provides few
opportunities for the participation of stakeholders in the decision making of LUAS. The
only way in which stakeholders can participate is by participating in ad-hoc Committees.
Currently, three ad-hoc committees have been set up. These are the Sungai Langat River
Basin Management Committee, Working Group Committee for Pollution Control in the
Sungai Langat River Basin, and the Emergency Committee for Pollution of Water
Resources and Monitoring of Treated Water. The three committees set up so far appear to
be heavily dominated by government representatives, although representatives such as
water utilities, sewerage treatment plant operators and solid waste disposal companies
have been invited to participate in the meetings of the Ad-hoc Committees. Organizations
and stakeholders from civil society have no direct voice in influencing proposed
developments and use of the water resources in the basin.
Also in the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago basin, stakeholder participation should take place
through the basin councils as stipulated by law. In practice, however, this participation is
limited. This limitation is not so much the result of the legal framework but rather
because of personal or community interests on the one hand, and because of lack of
information and training of various stakeholders which make it difficult for these
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
31
stakeholders to participate in decision-making. Moreover, the legitimacy of the user’s
representatives in the basin councils can be questioned as these representatives are
appointed by the authorities themselves.
4.4.1 Role of Women
In general no special mechanisms seem to exist to involve women in the provision and
management of water in the various basins. The only exception appears to be in Kenya,
where the Kenyan government has recently directed that at least 30% of all public
appointments be reserved for women. Although this measure, which not only applies to
the water sector but covers all public appointments, will likely to lead to greater
involvement of women in decision-making with respect to water management, it is not
clear what the impact will be on the involvement of female stakeholders (nongovernment) in such decisions.
4.5 FINANCING RBO ACTIVITIES
The Tana-WRMA, which has an annual budget of about US$ 1 million, is currently
financed by the central government (32%) and donors (68%). In the Tana river basin a
revenue collection system based on water charges was developed. However, gazettement
of the water rules and regulations that will allow the Tana-WRMA to levy fees on the full
range of users is pending. This means that a policy decision will be required that will
allow Tana WRMA to retain revenue collected from water charges within the region (or
at least a portion of it). The charges in the Tana basin are limited to users abstracting
above a certain threshold. In other words, vulnerable sections of the society which do not
abstract sufficient water to achieve the threshold will not be charged for the water they
use. Currently, charges collected at the basin are not retained there but rather flow to the
central government.
For LUAS in Malaysia, on paper possibilities exist to finance management of the river
basin from licensing fees. The LUAS Enactment allows LUAS to set up a fund to collect
fees from its regulatory activities. These fees could then be used for financing its
operations. Also the fees collected by LUAS appear to be sufficient to finance its current
activities. Through its licensing of water abstraction by industrial consumers from ground
and surface water LUAS generates a revenue stream of about US$ 570,000, whilst the
annual operational cost of LUAS are limited to US$430,000. Currently, however, no fund
for LUAS has been established (despite the possibility to do so) and the revenue
generated by LUAS flows to the State Treasury. LUAS receives its complete annual
budget from the state government.
In Sri Lanka, the MASL, which had a budget of about US$ 40 million in 2005, is
financed primarily through government and donor agencies. The only contribution from
users (excluding water supply projects) concerns rehabilitation of irrigation works of
which between 10% and 20% is financed by farmers (depending on the nature of the
work involved). Often water users contribute in kind (labor) in rehabilitation, operation
and maintenance of irrigation canals at the tertiary level. The MASL does not charge for
water from farmers.
4.6 CONCLUSION
The assessment of the various basin organizations of their performance shows
considerable variation between the organizations. This is in itself not such a striking
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
32
4
4
conclusion as the organizations face different conditions and challenges whilst operating
under limited capacity and are in different stages of development. Moreover, it is difficult
to compare an organization such as LUAS, which has an annual budget of about
US$430,000 with an organization such as MASL with an annual budget, which is almost
a hundred times larger.
Noteworthy is that for most of the categories of performance, the MASL appears to score
better than the other RBOs. A number of possible explanations can be forwarded for this
observation. First of all, the MASL has by far the largest annual budget. It is also the
oldest of the RBOs and, as such, has had more time to mature. Moreover, the
organization is a part of a project/development programme, which may ensure a degree of
(political) commitment and financial support, which the other RBOs seem to be lacking
at this time.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
33
5
5 CAPACITY BUILDING IN THE WATER SECTOR
In the overview on performance of four RBOs in the previous section, the impact of
capacity on the performance of the RBOs came to the forefront. Apart from revealing
itself in the case studies the importance of capacity (and thus capacity building) has been
identified before by various sector experts in the water sector. This chapter will present
some of these perspectives based on UNESCO-WWAP (2006)3 and Jaspers (2001)4. The
first section of this chapter focuses on enhancing local capacities. Secondly, the
importance of an enhanced knowledge base is elaborated upon. The third section of this
chapter focuses on the process of capacity development in practice. The final part of this
chapter returns to the four cases and assesses what the capacity gaps for the four case
studies are.
5.1 ENHANCING LOCAL CAPACITIES
Institutional arrangements are needed and being developed to enable decision makers and
communities to depart from sectoral and isolated water management in order to reach a
higher level of integration. Key-aspect in this process is the notion of the need to manage
river basins as a whole and in an integrated way. To achieve a higher level of sustainable
water development and management far-going capacities are needed which are more
often than not initially weak or even absent. Capacity building closely supports and helps
to guide the required institutional strengthening as well as the development of reform
programmes that are needed to make effective integrated water resources management
operational.
Capacities can be seen as the knowledge, skills and other faculties, in individuals or
embedded in procedures and rules, inside and around sector organizations and
institutions. These main capacity building components are:



The creation of an enabling environment with appropriate policy and legal
frameworks;
Institutional development, including community participation (and of women in
particular); and
Human resources development and the strengthening of managerial systems.
5.2 ENHANCING THE KNOWLEDGE BASE
An adequate knowledge base must be available to the water sector worldwide. This
knowledge base can be utilized to better analyze and understand current changes in water
management. Better understanding of these changes and the challenges that result from
them allows for better-targeted and more appropriate intervention strategies. Generating
3
UNESCO-WWAP (2006), Water a shared responsibility: The united Nations World Water Development
Report 2, UNESCO and Berghahn Books, 2006.
4
Jaspers (2001), Capacity Building for Integrated River Basin Management.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
34
5
this knowledge base requires accurate data describing the state of water resources and
their management.
Access to and sharing of knowledge by individuals and groups are critical to addressing
water-related problems. In many countries, however, the accessibility of water resources
and services knowledge base has often been limited due to budget constraints (the
emphasis often being on developing new infrastructure), a lack of professional education
and language barriers, and viewing such knowledge as strategic information, which is
better not shared with other stakeholders. This results in decreased capacity to translate
available data into usable knowledge for water management in an integrated manner. The
willingness to share information and the importance of building trust between parties is,
in this context, critical in the development of a shared vision for water management (UN,
2003).
Networks of all kinds, representing all sectors, such as professional associations, are
powerful tools for knowledge sharing and distribution. The advantages of networking for
scaling up capacity building to reach the MDGs are gaining recognition in the
international water community. The advantages are predominantly in providing a more
coherent and coordinated approach to capacity-building, increased impact, relevance and
sustainability from working with local institutions (which are better placed to express
local demands), improved sharing of knowledge and expertise and a platform for crossdisciplinary and cross-regional discussions.
5.3 THE PROCESS OF CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE
Capacity development is the process by which individuals, organizations, institutions and
societies develop abilities (individually and collectively) to perform functions, solve
problems and set and achieve objectives (UNDP, 1997; Lopes and Theisohn, 2003). A
country’s capacity to address water-related issues is not just the sum total of individual
capacities, but rather a broad holistic view of the central concerns of management,
namely how to resolve conflict, manage change and institutional pluralism, enhance
coordination, foster communication, and ensure that data and information are collected,
analyzed and shared. This involves not only individual capacities (human resources), but
also the effectiveness, flexibility and adaptability of organizational processes
(institutional capacity) and an enabling and stimulating management framework (the
enabling environment). Sustainable development increasingly requires countries to have
the capacity to put in place effective knowledge generation and learning mechanisms.
This capacity-to learn or ‘adaptive capacity’ is the potential or capability of a system to
adjust or change its characteristics or behavior, so as to better cope with existing and
future stresses (UNESCO-WWAP, 2006).
The development of institutional capacity is a very complex process. At a certain moment
of time a sufficient (threshold) level of relevant technical, organizational, administrative,
social and financial capacity has to be available to kick-start and sustain the process of
integrated water resources management (cf. Abrams 1996). The capacity to implement
the necessary institutional arrangements in developing countries is highly variable and
hence the level of implementation may differ substantially from one country to the next.
For developing countries it is further important to have access to initial funds to kick-start
the process of implementation. Systems of cost recovery, crucial tools in integrated water
resources management, can only be successfully implemented when acceptable service
levels are established and effective administrative arrangements are in place. Investments
have to be done and not all countries can afford that. Above all, a major requirement for
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
35
implementation is the presence of sufficient human and institutional capacity at the right
time and at the right place. The development of human capacity is a long-term effort,
complex in nature and very resources demanding. It is not enough to train experts in the
relevant technical disciplines only. There is, increasingly, a need to train and foster
experts in integration.
5.4
WHERE DO THE CAPACITY GAPS FOR THE FOUR CASE STUDIES
LIE?
As mentioned it is difficult to draw conclusions, which apply to all cases. This, as
explained above, is due to the fact that each case has its own particular characteristics as
a result of the particular circumstances in which it was set up, the mandate and
characteristics of the RBO and the main problems that the basin faces. Despite these
differences, however, the section below tries to elaborate on the capacity gaps, which
have been identified in the four cases. Another reason why it is difficult to draw general
conclusions is that apart from the MASL, the RBOs have not been in existence for a very
long time. Many have been founded only recently and are still in the process of starting
up. Below, the capacity gaps elaborated upon are distinguished to the extent that relate to
the enabling environment, institutional development and human resources. It is also clear,
however, that these dimensions of capacity are interrelated and, as such, cannot really be
seen in isolation. This means that some overlap between the capacity gaps in the various
dimensions is unavoidable.
5.4.1 The Enabling Environment
In addition to the capacity gaps, additional gaps were identified, which go beyond the
RBO itself. In particular the need for creating broad awareness of IWRM and the need for
inter-agency coordination and cooperation were identified as capacity gaps.
 General awareness and knowledge – General knowledge and awareness about
IWRM in the ‘enabling environment’ (government institutions) appears to be
limited. To some extent this ‘capacity gap’ is linked to the limited financial
resources mentioned above. The idea being that with heightened awareness of
politicians and government officers more funds will become available.
 Governance structures, which limit autonomy of the RBO – RBOs operate within
the existing governance structure of the country or basin. This governance
structure greatly shapes the level of autonomy that the RBO has. In some of the
case studied RBOs were on the one attributed a broad range of goals and
objectives to be achieved (often incorporating or reflecting IWRM principles)
whilst at the same time the governance structure provided the RBO with very
limited means to address these goals and objectives.
 Inter-agency coordination and cooperation - Although RBOs can have a mandate
covering an entire basin, the management of water resources will continue to
involve numerous different agencies and organizations operating at various levels
in the basin. For these organizations to function effectively these organizations
need to coordinate their various contributions to water management in the basin.
Currently, this level of coordination appears to be insufficient in most basins. This
means that capacity building will have to focus on acquiring a good understanding
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
36
5
5
among the different agencies and organizations on their fragmented and shared
responsibilities for effective water resources management.
Addressing the gaps can involve capacity building modalities targeted at different groups.
First of all, increasing general awareness about IWRM in the enabling environment
requires short capacity building activities, in which the importance of IWRM and the
requirements for its implementation are pressed upon key decision-makers within
different levels of government and in a range of organizations. Most likely the
commitment of the highest government officials needs to be secured for such activities to
be effective. Secondly, increased awareness and knowledge about IWRM and the
requirements for its implementation need to be translated in changes in the governance
structure under which the RBO operates. As mentioned, this governance structure greatly
impacts that level of autonomy that RBO has, and sufficient levels of organizational and
financial autonomy are a pre-requisite for the RBO to perform effectively and efficiently.
Most illustrative are the financing arrangements of some of the RBOs in the case studies.
Money raised by the RBOs were transferred to general government budgets rather than
being available to the RBO for financing its activities, creating a strong dependency of
the RBOs on government funding. Thirdly, the interagency coordination and cooperation
requires both capacity building in the enabling environment as well as with respect to
human resources. In the enabling environment, fora at various levels need to be
established in which different agencies and organizations, representing a variety of
stakeholders, are able to negotiate and decide upon issues of water management. The
nature of the issue to be decided upon is likely to determine nature of the forum, the level
at which the forum is to located and the organizations that are involved in that specific
forum. The requirements for human resources for coordination and cooperation are
elaborated upon in section 5.4.3.
5.4.2 Institutional Development
The cases brought to the forefront several capacity gaps related the institutional level.
These gaps include the lack of organizational autonomy for the RBO, the lack of
financial autonomy, the limited community involvement (and specifically involvement of
women) and limited institutional capacity to address tasks such as monitoring and
enforcement.
 Organizational Autonomy – The issue of organizational autonomy has been
discussed briefly above as it is strongly linked to the governance structure under
which the RBO operates. Each of the cases mentions political influence at some
point as being detrimental to the functioning of the RBO. Moreover, two cases
mentioned a strong central control over the organization.
 Financial autonomy – Apart from the MASL, each RBO suffers from limited
financial autonomy. If the challenges of water resources management are to be
addressed in these basin intensive capital investment flows are required and funds
must be available for operation and maintenance. As long as these financial
resources do not materialize each RBO will set its own priorities. This in turn
means that most likely environmental management will be lacking as water for
the environment is often given less priority than other water uses. Again, the
increase in financial autonomy will depend strongly on the enabling environment
(and the opportunities that it provides and the limits that it imposes).
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
37

Community participation – In most cases community involvement was very
limited. Specifically, the role of women in decision-making and management of
water resources was not addressed by any of the RBOs. Although the legal
frameworks under which the RBOs operate frequently mention the requirement of
community involvement, few RBOs have actually implemented structures and
mechanisms to involve stakeholders.
As mentioned in the discussion above, the issue of organizational autonomy and financial
autonomy are likely most effectively addressed by addressing the ‘enabling
environment’. The issue of community participation and specifically the involvement of
women in water management, however, is something that can be addressed at the
organizational level. Specifically, this involves the establishment of institutional
mechanisms through which stakeholders are involved in decision-making processes in the
organization.
5.4.3 Human resources
The capacity gaps concerning human resources can subdivided in, on the one hand, the
quantity of staff available for the RBO to undertake its tasks and, on the other hand, the
expertise and skills that the available staff possess.
1. The number of staff - Some of the RBOs studied had only a small number of staff
with which they could not possibly undertake the tasks and responsibilities
attributed to them. Much in this sense depends on the type of RBO and what
activities are expected of it. In case the RBO’s activities are limited to policy
development and coordination of activities, whilst leaving actual implementation
to other organizations, s small number of staff would seem reasonable. However,
in these cases the RBOs also had to undertake operational activities, for which
they were not equipped. The result is that the RBO simply did not have sufficient
staff to manage water resources in a holistic manner, resulting in the need to focus
on particular pressing problems.
2. The expertise and skills of staff – The field of water management has traditionally
been the field of (water) engineers, in which the organization had a strong focus
on developing water infrastructure. The principles of IWRM (with its emphasis on
an holistic approach to water management, stakeholder involvement,
decentralization and water as an economic good) require staff with backgrounds
in variety of disciplines as the paradigm of water management moves from a
development-oriented paradigm to more holistic management paradigm. In other
words, the build up of these organizations needs to shift from a predominantly
engineering organization to a multi-disciplinary one representing the various
disciplines that are required for the implementation of IWRM. In this context,
there appeared to be a shortage of staff who are specialized in:
a. Social issues including participatory governance, gender and community
involvement;
b. Governance and legal aspects of water management including monitoring
and enforcement of relevant legislation and licenses, demand
management, etc.; and
c. Economic aspects of IWRM (water pricing, economic incentives for water
conservation, etc.).
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
38
5
5
The capacity gaps in human resources are for the quantity part largely dependent on
available funds and as such are strongly linked to the level of financial autonomy. As for
the quality part, capacity building activities will require a variety of approaches. First of
all, the criteria and procedure for recruitment of staff is important as many RBOs still
favor hiring engineers instead of staff with a background in social and administrative
sciences or economics. This means sensitizing staff of the organization to the importance
of having staff with a multi-disciplinary background as well possibly reviewing
recruitment policies (and possibly advancement/promotion policies, which may also
favor staff with a traditional engineering background). Secondly, it requires adjusting
existing training and development possibilities to ensure that they not only cover matters
of technical water management (which, of course, does remain an important component
of water management), but also include capacity building activities focused on the topics
mentioned above. Thirdly, it requires ‘new’ capacity building activities to be developed
to address the growing need for capacity building on topics such participatory
governance, stakeholder involvement, water governance, and economic aspects of
IWRM.
5.5
PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPACITY BUILDING
ACTIVITIES
Although the development of a detailed capacity building plan to address these capacity
gaps is beyond the scope of this report, some principles on the basis of which such a
capacity building plan (and the ensuing capacity building activities) can be highlighted.
The principles are based on the idea that capacity building activities should reach a large
number of organizations world-wide as well as lead to sustainable capacity building
initiatives (which are flexible enough to address the needs of a specific time and location)
The proposed principles are:
 Cost-effectiveness – Capacity building activities should adhere to the principle of
cost-effectiveness in that expensive training courses and programmes which serve
only a limited number of organizations or people are to be avoided. This means,
for example, that increasingly use of web-based capacity building activities is
suggested (rather than relying solely on relatively expensive face-to-face
activities). International travel is expensive, and as such, should be minimized to
key capacity building activities.
 Locally-driven and ‘owned’ – The comparative study of the RBOs has shown that
the actual organizations for river basin management are very diverse. Similarly
the specific capacity needs for these organizations, the environment in which they
operate and the staff that work there, are also going to be different. Successfully
addressing these needs requires capacity building activities to be mainly ‘carried’
by local organizations. This is both likely to improve the match between supply of
capacity building services with the demand for capacity building activities as well
as create local ownership of these activities. This also means that involvement of
‘international’ capacity building organizations should strongly focus on
transferring capacity building skills and knowledge to local organizations and
networks.
 Use of existing capacity building infrastructure – As much as possible existing
capacity building networks and organizations should be used, rather than
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
39

duplicating existing networks and organizations. The idea is to build on what
exists rather than start from scratch.
The principle of openness and accessibility – As mentioned in the section 5.2,
access to and sharing of knowledge by individuals and groups are critical to
addressing water-related problems. This means that capacity building activities
should be based on a principle of openness and accessibility, meaning that as
much as possible capacity building materials are to be made available in the
public domain. This, for example, means making accessible video-taped lectures,
key-notes, etc. as well as make freely available text-books, lecture notes, training
manuals, etc. Also the capacity building activities should be open to ‘new’
partners wishing to participate in these activities.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
40
5
REFERENCES
Diaz-Delgado, C., Velasco-Chilpa, A., Manzano, S.R., Vilchis, F.Y. and Esteller, M.V. (2007),
Study on the Performance and Capacity of National River Basin Organizations: Case Study
Lerma-Chapala-Santiago River Basin, Unpublished Report.
Folz, D. (2004), ‘Service Quality and Benchmarking the Performance of Municipal Services’,
Public Administration Review, 64(2): 209-220.
Hooper, B.P. (2006), Key Performance Indicators of River Basin Organizations,
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/inside/products/pub/iwrreports/2006-VSP-01.pdf.
Jaspers F.G.W., (2003), ‘Institutional Arrangements for Integrated River Basin Management’,
Water Policy, 5 (2003), 77-90.
Lane, J. (2000), New Public Management, London: Routledge.
Lee, J. (2007), Study on Performance and Capacity of Sungai Langat River Basin Organization,
Malaysia, Unpublished Report.
Makin, Ian W., Yvonne P. Parks and Wouter Linklaen Arriens, (2004), Supporting the
Development and Efficient River Basin Organizations in Asia. A Discussion of the
Application of Organizational Benchmarking approaches. Prepared for a NARBO
Consultation Workshop Batu-Malang, Indonesia, International Water Management
Institute.
Mowjood, M.I.M., Najim, M.M.M., Jayasinghe, J.A.S.A. and Premakumara, H.H.P (2007), Study
on the Performance and Capacity of National River Basin Organizations: Mahaweli
Authority of Sri Lanka, Unpublished Report.
Molle, F. (2003), Development Trajectories of River Basins: A Conceptual Framework, Research
Report 72, Colombo: International Water Management Institute.
Ndirangu, W. (2007), Study on the Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations:
Case Study of Tana River Basin, Kenya, Unpublished Report.
Radosevich, G.E. and Olson, D. (1999), Existing and Emerging Basin Arrangements in Asia:
Mekong River Commission Case Study, Third Workshop on River Basin Institution
Development June 24, 1999, Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Shah, T., Makin, I. and Sakthivadivel, R. (2001), ‘Limits to Leapfrogging: Issues in Transposing
Successful River Basin Management Institutions in the Developing World’, In: Abernethy,
C. (ed.), Intersectoral Management of River Basins, Colombo: International Water
Management Institute.
Svendsen, M., Wester, P. and Molle, F. (2005), ‘Managing River Basins: an Institutional
Perspective’, In: Svendsen, M. (ed.), Irrigation and River Basin Management: Options for
Governance and Institutions, Colombo: CABI Publishing.
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2004), Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
41
6
6 ANNEX 1: MAHAWELI GANGA RIVER BASIN,
SRI LANKA
Catchment Area: 10,448 km²
Population: 2,800,000
Population growth: Mean annual rainfall: 1250–2000 mm
RBO: MASL – Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka
Main water use:
Irrigation, Hydro-power generation, Potable
water supply
6.1 RIVER BASIN OVERVIEW
The Mahaweli Ganga (River) is the longest and largest River basin with the catchment
area of 10,448 km2 (15% of the land area of the country) and a total length of 335 km.
The annual flow of the Mahaweli Ganga is 17,717 MCM. Therefore, Mahaweli is
considered as the focal point for the development of the country. The Mahaweli basin
covers land area across five provinces, nine districts and fifty-seven divisional secretary
divisions with an average population of 2.8 million that represents 15% of the country’s
population. It is noted that any of the administrative boundaries are do not coincide with
the river basin or sub basin boundaries. The Mahaweli also fed adjacent river basins
through tunnels and canals that have resolved major water scarcity issues relating to
irrigation while addressing domestic water supply demands to a limited extent. Diverted
water is temporarily stored in existing ancient reservoirs before distributed among
farmlands
The Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka was established by Act no. 23 of Parliament in
1979. The main task of the MASL is the planning and implementation of the Mahaweli
Development Scheme, which include construction, operation and maintenance of
reservoirs, dams, canals, and drainage systems and other infrastructure.
Water use in the basin is focussed strongly around irrigation and hydropower generation.
The main water user group can therefore be found in farmers. As the main user group
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
42
6
farmers have united in so called Farmer Organizations (FOs), which can be considered a
main stakeholder in decisions made regarding the management of water resources.
6.1.1 Problems experienced in the basin
Below an overview of the general problems in the basin regions can be found.
In the upper watershed areas:
 Improper deforestation and reforestation
 Landslides
 Water pollution due to eutrophication resulting from agricultural practices
 Encroachment of river reservation.
In the lower watershed areas:
 Water shortages
 Inequity of water supply
 Salinization
 Deforestation
 Poor on farm and groundwater water management practices.
 Land degradation and decrease in soil fertility.
 Extraction of water from irrigation diversions for other purposes such as
domestic water supplies.
 Cultivation of excessive extents of lands than permitted: Lands encroachment
and cultivation leading to shortages of water for tail end farmers.
 Political intervention on decision making, implementation as well as on
farmer organization activities.
 User specific and institution specific Acts, Ordinances and By Laws lead to
confusion between rules and regulations of different institutions dealing with
water recourse development and management
6.2 RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATION
The Mahaweli Ganga Development Programme (MGDP), originally planned for the
implementation over a 30-year period and a part of the plan was brought to acceleration
in 1979. It comprised five major reservoirs for irrigation and hydropower, about 50,000
ha of new land and about 250,000 ha of existing paddy land under irrigated agriculture in
both Maha and Yala seasons as a major political decision of the government which came
to power in 1977, and completed the project within 12 years. This was prompted to:
 increase in agricultural production providing irrigation facilities to dry zone,
 increase in hydro-power generation,
 flood control,
 generation of employment opportunities and
 settlement of displaced and landless families
 physical and social infrastructure for human habitation, marketing facilities
for agricultural produce and social facilities for educational, recreational,
health, cultural and religious purposes.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
43
To carry out these tasks the Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka (MASL) was established.
6.2.1 MASL
The Mahaweli Auhority of Sri Lanka was established by Act no. 23 of Parliament in
1979, henceforth known as the Mahaweli Act. The main task of the MASL is the
planning and implementation of the Mahaweli Development Scheme, which include
construction, operation and maintenance of reservoirs, dams, canals, and drainage
systems and other infrastructure.
The MASL act has wide range of powers to ensure that the MGDP is implemented
without any hindrance. The functions of the MASL/ Ministry of Mahaweli Development
include:






Formulation of policy framework
Formulation of a macro-organizational framework,
Ratification of policies at higher levels,
Evaluation of project proposals
Evaluation and obtaining the approval of planning bodies and inter ministerial
bodies with regard to foreign funds or expertise
Accountability to the parliament with regard to financial matters.
Development of water and land resources in several special areas in the Mahaweli basin
and adjacent basins has been undertaken by MASL. It has served as a management and
development agency catering to water delivery services to majority of the water users
located in major irrigation systems, while following integrated approaches for
socioeconomic development of the settler population.
Major responsibilities of the MASL are:
 Plan and Implementation of the Mahaweli Development Scheme:
 Development of water resources in Mahaweli and adjacent basins
 Integrated development of amongst others the agricultural sector
 Water allocation for irrigation, hydropower and drinking
 Follow participatory approaches for decision-making and real time
management of water resources in Mahaweli areas.
 Monitor sedimentation levels in the reservoirs.
6.2.2 Stakeholders
The farmer participation in irrigation water management is carried out at three levels,
field canal, D canal and block level. Pre-cultivation meeting is attended by Residential
Project Manager (RPM), Deputy Residential Project Managers (DRPM), Irrigation
Engineers, Agriculture Officers and Farmer Organization representatives from each
block. In this meeting, water availability, crop types and extents to be cultivated,
estimate on water requirement and repair and maintenance works of canals are discussed.
The water panel meeting is attended by many stakeholders. Out of 111 participants
attended 2006/2007 meeting, 24 were farmer representatives (22%). However, the water
users from domestic and other sectors are not represented in these meetings. The second
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
44
6
6
highest participation is RPMs (17%) who are very closely dealing with farmers. Thirteen
institutions were participated in this meeting.
The third level of stakeholder participation is at the cultivation meeting where the
decisions from water panel meeting are informed to farmers prior to cultivation. This
meeting is attended by Residential Project Manager, Deputy Residential Project
Managers (DRPM), Irrigation Engineers, Agriculture Officers and Farmer Organization
representatives from each block. In this meeting, crop types, crop periods and crop
extents are finalized.
Current FO members are only a portion of the actual water users. Although some water
users cannot formally become members of the FO since they are not landowners, they do
attend FO meetings because information from these meetings is needed for farming.
6.2.3 Financing
The finances for water resources development is mobilized mainly through government
and donor agencies while operation and maintenance costs are borne by government as
well as the water users.
In rehabilitation of irrigation programmes, a part of the costs up to 10% to 20% is borne
by the farmers, depending on the nature of the work involved. In many instances water
users contribute in kind (labour contribution) in rehabilitation, operation and maintenance
of irrigation canals at tertiary level.
The annual budget and expenditures of the MASL from 1990 to 2005, show that annual
budgets have always fully covered annual expenses. Capital expenditure has increased
from 1998 to 2001 while the recurrent expenditure is stable during the period.
6.3 PERFORMANCE
The MASL is mandated to develop water resources in Mahaweli or any other river for
development of special areas with adequate legal framework. The MASL can take over
all the responsibilities on water and land in any areas through gazette notification.
Coordinating mechanism of MASL is super-imposed on the administrative mechanisms
(local authorities) to achieve the MGDP goals. However, at present context, it is difficult
to implement the power vested on MASL due to amendments of the various acts that
made confusion, duplication and inaction in enabling environment for water resource
management in Sri Lanka.
6.3.1 Performance of MASL
The MASL does not charge for water from farmers under MASL systems. The MASL
receives budgetary allocations for its project implementations, operations and
managements from the government. Therefore, the direct economic efficiency of the
MASL cannot be evaluated. The over all cost-benefit of the Mahaweli system up to 2005
is given in Table 6.1 below. Considering the indirect benefits to the country as power
generation and yields from paddy and other field crops from the Mahaweli project areas
the total benefit is about 3 times higher than the capital investment. The non-valued
benefits are not included in the table.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
45
6
Table 6.1: Cost and benefits up to end of 2005
Category
Cost or Benefit
(Rs. Billion)
Investments
Capital (including Walawe project)
Benefits
Total
Power
Paddy
OFC
86
282
131
105
46
6.4 CONCLUSION
Based on the above the most urgent capacity needs for IWRM across the Mahaweli
Ganga river basin can be summarized as follows:






Human resources and funding for facilitating and coordinating for the
formulation of a national water policy
Human resources and funding for improved cooperation between agencies and
stakeholders
Human resources to strengthen and implement the institutional framework
Greater awareness and training on different aspects of IWRM amongst the
MASL staff
Greater awareness and training on different aspects of IWRM amongst
politicians and government officials
Training and greater awareness amongst water users (in particular farmers and
the public)
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
46
7
7 ANNEX 2: SUNGAI LANGAT RIVER BASIN,
MALAYSIA
Catchment Area: 2350 km²
Population: 951800 (est.)
Population growth: 7.65%
Mean annual rainfall: 18003000 mm
RBO: LUAS - Lembaga Urus Air
Selangor / The Selangor Waters
Management Authority
Main water use: potable water
supply (primary),
transport/navigation &
aquaculture (secondary)
7.1 RIVER BASIN OVERVIEW
The Sungai Langat River Basin, located in the state of Selangor, Malaysia has a
catchment area of about 2350 sq.km and is about 200 km long. About 1854 sq. km of the
basin occupies the southern parts of Selangor and about 450 sq. km of the basin lies in the
western parts of Negeri Sembilan, with 41 sq.km covering Putrajaya and 5 sq. km
covering Kuala Lumpur.
It is the primary source of water supply for the residents in the basin. As a result of
serious drought in 1998 the state recognised the importance of IWRM and thus enacted
the Selangor Water Management Authority Enactment in 1999. This authority locally
known as LUAS (Lembaga Urus Air Selangor) has wide ranging powers to protect,
regulate and manage the water resources in a river basin and ensure its efficient
utilisation.
The Sungai Langat River Basin covers three important administrative units. They are the
State of Selangor, the State of Negeri Sembilan and the Federal Territory of Putrajaya. It
is one of the four major river systems in Selangor. Due to the location of both the
commercial capital (Kuala Lumpur) and the federal administrative capital (Putrajaya)
within the catchment area, the experiences and problems related to water management in
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
47
the basin area in particular, and Selangor in general, can be considered a harbinger of
what the other river basins in the country will experience as the country develops.
Water use of the Sungai Langat consists primarily of the provision of drinking water for
the population of the basin area, Kuala Lumpur and the adjacent river basins. Drinking
water is primarily abstracted from surface water; however a small amount of water from
aquifers is supplemented to support supply for drinking water and industry. Demand for
drinking water amounts to approximately 17% of the daily available amount of river
water available for abstraction. Eight water treatment plants in the region owned by 2
drinking water companies provide the required services. Puncak Niaga Sdn Bhd owns 7
of the 8 drinking water treatment plants and can be considered the main water user in the
basin. Other forms of water use can be found in navigation, aquaculture activities at the
river mouth, and industry.
7.1.1 Problems experienced in the basin
A 2004 study conducted by the Malaysian Department of Irrigation and Drainage
identified the following major river basin management issues in the Sungai Langat river
basin.










Rapid increase in basin population
Intensive land development
Rapid loss of forests
Threat to biodiversity
Increased pollution and deterioration of river water quality
Increased frequency of floods
Limited water resources
Increased catchment erosion
Threats to riparian lands
Inadequate environmental flows
7.2 RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATION
About 78% of the Sungai Langat river basin lies in the state of Selangor with about 19%
in the state of Negri Sembilan. The Federal Constitution has given each state the right to
manage their land and water resources within it. This makes the Sungai Langat river
basin a transboundary river basin and there is a need for the 2 states and the federal
government to work together to manage the river basin and its water resources.
Because of this there is a need for policies and laws that cover both states at the basin
level. These are not present at the moment. However, within the state of Selangor, the
Selangor Waters Management Authority (SWMA) Enactment (1999) has been
established to support IWRM and river basin management. The SWMA Enactment is the
main legal vehicle that governs the implementation of IWRM for the basin. The
Enactment has been enforced and the Authority, locally known as LUAS, has been
created. Its jurisdiction only covers the major part of the basin that lies within the state of
Selangor.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
48
7
7
7.2.1 LUAS
Formally created in 1999, LUAS (Lembaga Urus Air Selangor) became operational on
August 1st 2000 as the result of severe drought problems in 1998. LUAS currently
employs a total staff of 35; only 18% percent of the projected 200 required to be fully
operational. The agency is a state statutory body, governed by a board of directors
chaired by the Chief Minister of Selangor who supervise a director and deputy director.
The director supervises the 5 main divisions and the deputy director supervises the 4
regional offices. LUAS supports -and is supported by- various government agencies in
carrying out its responsibilities.
7.2.2 Supporting organizations
The present administration of the areas within the Sungai Langat river basin is
undertaken by various agencies along the lines of administrative boundaries and these
boundaries do not coincide with the boundaries of the river basin. A quick overview can
be found below.





Allocation of water and monitoring of use - LUAS
River management – responsibility by State Department of Irrigation and
Drainage, enforcement by LUAS
Control of river pollution – responsibility by state Department of
Environment (DOE), enforcement by LUAS and DOE, advised by Working
Group Committee for Controlling Pollution
Groundwater management – LUAS, supported by State Department of
Minerals and Geoscience (DMG)
Landuse planning – State Department of Town and Country Planning
(DTCP)
Additionally three Ad-Hoc committees have been set-up to assist LUAS in basin
management particularly regarding the pollution problems the basin faces due to
increased urbanization in the basin.



Sungai Langat River Basin Management committee
Working group committee for pollution control in the Sungai Langat river
basin
Emergency committee for pollution of water resources and monitoring of
treated water
Due to the management structure presented above the political environment has a very
strong influence on the organizations responsible for the management of the river basin.
The appointments to the top management of all the state-level organizations are made by
the state executive authorities, and in the case of the state branches of the federal
departments the endorsement of the state executive authorities is required. Due to the
strong state presence in water policy and planning, stakeholder participation in decisionmaking is limited.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
49
7.2.3 Stakeholders
Stakeholder involvement in the management of the river basin is limited. The two main
water users: Puncak Niaga Sdn Bhd and Konsortium ABASS, the two water treatment
companies in the area have representative functions within the three supporting
committees. Additionally the following regulations are in place. Their effectiveness in
allowing stakeholders to participate in decision-making procedures can however be
disputed.

The DOE requires Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be carried
out for prescribed projects. As part of its EIA Study Guidelines the DOE
requires project proponents to conduct “some form” of public participation
as part of the EIA study. However, because the Guidelines do not specify
the appropriate mechanism for the stakeholder participation the Guidelines
are ineffective in ensuring their participation.

The Department of Town and Country Planning develops state structure and
district local landuse plans. As part of the development process public
participation is required in the form of public viewing and written comments
on the plans. The planning agency and other related government agencies
may invite and hear the persons giving such comments but they have no
obligations to act beyond that.
7.2.4 Financing
Currently, each of the sectoral organizations responsible for the management of the river
basin gets its annual budget from their respective state and federal governments. For state
departments that are branches of federal departments it is possible for federal funds to be
allocated for specific projects in the state. The LUAS Enactment allows LUAS to set-up a
fund to collect fees from its regulatory activities to finance its operations. LUAS has setup such a fund but actual use of the Fund for LUAS’s operations has not been
implemented yet.
7.3 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
Regarding the performance of river basin management at the Sungai Langat basin level
the following can be said:
Positive aspects
 The management structure effectively brings together all relevant sectoral
government agencies and the main water user in the basin (drinking water
provider) to coordinate river basin planning and policy implementation
Aspects to be improved:

The current management structure is strongly formed around government
agencies (“government-centric”) and thus does not fully reflect the
principles of IWRM

Participation of stakeholders is not institutionalized (not embedded in the
current committee structure)
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
50
7
7

The current management structure does not allow for direct stakeholder
participation at the river basin co-ordination level
7.3.1 Priority Water Management Capacity Needs
Based on the above the most urgent capacity needs for IWRM across the Sungai Langat
river basin can be summarized as follows:



Greater awareness of the importance of the principles of IWRM among
politicians and government officials to:
o Enhance their understanding of LUAS’ role in achieving the
objectives of IWRM and thus increase the effectiveness of their
collaborations with LUAS in achieving the objectives of IWRM.
o Enhance their understanding regarding stakeholder consultation in
decision-making processes and the overall need for stakeholder
participation.
Recruitment of enough Legal and Enforcement officers for LUAS
Legal and enforcement training for LUAS technical officers so that they
can assist in carrying out the enforcement duties more effectively.
7.3.2 Performance of LUAS
The following factors constrain LUAS to perform to the desired level:
Enabling Environment
Due to budget constraints LUAS is not yet fully operational. Additional funding is
required to hire consultants to develop monitoring guidelines and enforcement rules as
required by the LUAS Enactment. Within the limited financial and human resources
available, the LUAS tries to address the problems in order of priority along the major
water issue in the basin, i.e. water pollution.
Institutional Problem
LUAS’ finances are currently not regulated as intended by the LUAS enactment. The
LUAS enactment allows for the set-up and operation of an independent fund for LUAS,
with a budget that is to be annually approved by the State Government. However at this
point, even though LUAS has set-up the fund, it is not allowed to operate it. Instead, it is
required to operate with a state controlled annual budget and does not have access to
finances acquired from its licensing activities. Nonetheless, currently the total revenue
collected from its annual licensing activities exceeds its annual operational budget.
Staff competency
The average staff experience is less than 10 years in the professional field. Expertise
depends largely on a few highly trained senior professionals on loan from other
government agencies. Even though on-the-job training and training courses are offered
the relatively young work force affects staff competency.
7.4 CONCLUSION
From the analysis of LUAS’ performance it can be concluded that LUAS is partially
effective due to the constraints of limited financial and human resources. However,
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
51
despite its limitations it was able to put in place a management framework that gets all
the relevant government agencies to work together with Puncak Niaga Sdn Bhd, to
address the water pollution threat due to increased urbanisation of the basin. LUAS has
also been identified to be quite an efficient organisation since it is able to collect enough
money from its licensing activities to pay for its annual operational overheads.
To further enhance IRBM practices in the Sungai Langat river basin the following policy
recommendations have been made:
(a) Policy – The State Government should address the financial and human resources
constraints that LUAS is currently facing by allowing LUAS to operate
independently with its own fund. It should allow LUAS to collect the revenues
from the licensing of water abstractions by the 3 water treatment concessionaires
in the state and require LUAS to plan and operate an annual budget based on the
revenues that it collects in its Fund.
(b) Institutional – LUAS should address the major weakness in its institutional
framework: the lack of explicit participation from non-government and civil
stakeholders in its management of the basin. This can be initiated, by inviting
representatives from the environmental NGOs and resident associations to be
members of its River Basin Management and Working Group Committees.
(c) Legal – If after initiation the public participation in decision-making proves to be
effective and improve overall basin management, the LUAS Enactment should be
amended in the future to make the participation of the non-government and civil
society sector explicit.
(d) Capacity Building Needs – The most urgent capacity building needs have been
identified to be as follows:

Greater awareness of the importance of the principles of IWRM among
politicians and government officers. This will enhance their understanding
of LUAS' role in achieving the objectives of IWRM and thus increase the
effectiveness of their collaborations with LUAS in achieving the
objectives of IWRM.

Legal and enforcement training for LUAS technical officers so that they
can assist in carrying out the enforcement duties that is now very lacking.
(e) Training – The following training activities have been proposed to increase the
performance capacity of LUAS existing staff, the politicians and officers from the
related government agencies working with LUAS:




General IWRM Awareness Seminars and Courses
Workshops on Implementation of IWRM in Sungai Langat River Basin
Seminars on the Legal provisions in the LUAS Enactment (1999)
Workshops on Implementation of LUAS Enactment (1999)
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
52
7
8
8 ANNEX 3: TANA RIVER BASIN, KENYA
Catchment Area: 126,000 km²
Population: 6,100,000 (est.)
Population growth: 1.9%
(est.)
Mean annual rainfall: 679mm
(average) but minima of
300mm
RBO: Tana-WRMA
Main water use: Hydropower
generation, Irrigation, Drinking
water and sanitation
8.1 RIVER BASIN OVERVIEW
The Tana River drain from the Central Kenya highlands through a diverse environment
ranging alpine vegetation in the mountainous upper catchment to semi-arid climate at
middle course and finally the mangrove and plains of the Kenyan coast before draining to
Indian Ocean. In total, Tana River, the main river in Kenya, is 800 km long in a drainage
area of 126,000 km2 and a population 6.1 million people and projected to 7.1 million in
2012. The Catchment Area key activity designation include agriculturalist living on the
upper parts of the region and the pastoralists living on the lower parts of the region, but
the basin is host to several hydro-electric power generating plants and irrigation projects
and includes protected and gazetted areas which include four National Parks and eight
Game Reserves. The major ones being the Aberdares Forest, Mt. Kenya Forest, Meru
National Park, Tsavo East National Park. Tana river and its tributaries supplies domestic
and industrial water to several urban centres including the 3 million residents of Nairobi,
Kenya’s administrative and commercial capital.
The Tana Basin Water Resources Management Authority is one of six catchment
organizations responsible for management allocation and protection of water resources in
Kenya. The Tana WRMA became operational in July 2006 and operates under the
national Water Resources Management Authority, which became operational in 2005.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
53
8
Water availability in the Tana catchment area has been on the decline over the years. This
has been caused primarily by unmatched population growth to the water available. In
1962 the population in Tana was about 1.5 million; in 2006 the estimated population is
about 6.1 millions. The water availability per capita today in Tana is estimated at 611
m3/capita. And if the trend continues, this will further decline to 520 m3/capita by 2010,
far below the recommended value of over 1000 m3 per capita per annum. Locally, within
the Tana catchment there are wide disparities in time and space from the highlands to the
lowlands.
Key water users in this area include Tana and Athi Rivers Development Authority
(TARDA), Kenya Electricity Generating Company (KenGen), Nairobi water and
Sanitation Company, National Irrigation Board, Nairobi water and Sanitation Company,
Del Monte (private irrigation) and various other water service providers. The leading four
users account for approximately 75% of the abstraction in the basin.
8.1.1 Problems experienced in the basin
Problems experienced in the Tana River Basin can be roughly broken down to three
sections of the Tana River. The main issues may be summarised as below.
Upper Tana;
 Water quality (fluoride too high) – health issue.
 Potential over-abstraction
 Catchment degradation from land use changes that may affect recharge,
stream flow and water quality deterioration.
 Soil erosion
Middle Tana;
 Water scarcity.
 Seasonal variation
 Water quality including salinity
 Water resources conflict
Lower Tana
 Water scarcity.
 Water quality in particular salinity.
 Flooding.
 Limited groundwater storage.
 Pollution from sewerage and pit latrines
 Risk of over-abstraction
 Environmental conservation
8.2 RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATION
The water sector management in Kenya is divided into two; the water resources
management and water services management. The water service provision in regulated by
the Water Services Regulatory Board (WSRB) at the national level, while at the
catchments level the responsibilities are delegated to the Water Service Boards, are
mandated by law to development of water services infrastructure and provide water
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
54
8
services through the direct services provider or Water Services Providers (WSPs) as the
are legally known.
The Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) is an autonomous body destined
to manage, protect and conserve the water resources. The organization operations are
decentralised to the catchments to enhance resolution of water resources management
issues and public participation. WRMA is charged with ensuring rational and equitable
allocation of water resources to reduce conflicts over access to resources. Unlike the case
for water service provision, the catchment organisations for water resources management
are not autonomous from the national office, but only exercise delegated mandate by the
management direction of the national office.
The versatility of managing water along water drainages was realised early and in 1974
the Tana River Basin Development Authority was established as a regional development
authority with a mandate to regulate, allocate water resources but also to develop and
exploit land and water resources. Later on the statutes creating this organisation was
amended to allow it to manage the adjacent Athi river basin and subsequently it became
known as Tana and Athi Rivers Development Authority (TARDA). By the mid 80’s the
regional development authorities based on river or lake drainage areas had been
established to cover the whole country. These organisations continue to operate to-date
albeit on revised mandate for water resources use and management.
8.2.1 Tana-WRMA
The Tana Basin Water Resources Management Authority (Tana WRMA) is one of the six
catchment organisations responsible for management, allocation and protection of water
resources in Kenya, each of them with a jurisdiction based on the drainage pattern. The
Tana Basin Water Resources Management Authority like all other regional offices of
WRMA has an advisory body called Catchment Areas Advisory Committees (CAACs),
constituted of representative of users, government and other major water users, civil
society and professional advisors. It must be clarified that the CAAC is not a decisionmaking organ but an advisory body. The users of water in the basin are encouraged to
form Water Resources Users Associations (WRUAs) as a platform for participation and
dialogue between users and regulator. Indeed, WRMA has actively facilitated the
formation of WRUAs. By mid 2007, there were 45 registered WRUAs in the Tana basin
mainly at the sub-catchment level or lesser coverage areas
The Tana and Athi River development Authority (TARDA) the most important and
significant water user within the basin is established by an act of parliament to undertake
development and conservation the water resources and the river catchment in general.
Initially TARDA was responsible for a wide scope including water resources planning
and advising on allocation. At least the concept of integrating sector needs in water
resources planning and development had been appreciated from a much earlier date. It
may be considered that TARDA laid the conceptual basis of IWRM was laid although the
understanding of the level of play, with clarity of issues and requisite capacity to deal
with the planning and management remained elusive.
The national Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA) office was established as
a corporate body in November 2003 pursuant to the Water Act 2002 and became
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
55
operational in July 2005 under the direction of an independent board. However, the board
comprising of eleven members is appointed by the political leadership. The mandates of
WRMA include:
 Planning, management, protection and conservation of water resources.
 Planning, allocation, apportionment, assessment and monitoring of water
resources.
 Issuance of water permits.
 Water rights and enforcement of permit conditions.
 Regulation of conservation and abstraction structures.
 Catchment and water quality management.
 Regulation and control of water use
 Coordination of the IWRM Plan.
At the basin level the exercise of this mandate delegated the regional offices at respective
basins. The regional office for the Tana River basin become operational in July 2006 and
headquartered at Embu town in the Upper Tana Basin. The Fig 5 shows the coverage of
the Tana basin area vis-à-vis the other regional areas for water resources management.
Generally speaking, Tana-WRMA is still at the infancy of their establishment and a lot
therefore will be learnt also from examining the operations of TARDA, which to some
extent can be describe as predecessor of Tana-WRMA.
8.2.2 Stakeholders
The participation of stakeholder and the large public is provided for in the law. In this
regard, Catchment Advisory Committees (CAAC) has been formed to advise the Tana
WRMA on mater of apportionment and conservation of water resources. The CAAC
draws representation from the line ministries, TARDA, Coast Development Authority
(CDA), farmers and pastoralist communities, business people and NGOs. Although the
CAAC serve as a good point for negotiating the interest of the various group and
mapping a common approach, their mandate is purely has is purely advisory. Evidently,
the CAACs members would rather their mandate extended beyond the advisory role. This
latter view has been a cause of discomfort between the Tana WRMA and CAAC. The
other shortcoming of CAAC arising from the fact that the membership to the committee
is determined by political leadership, as a result there are instances when some, members
though with some roots to the basin, live in a different locality, possibly limiting their
ability to decipher most pressing problems affecting the basin users.
At the local level Water Resources User Associations (WRUAs) have been established to
ensure that water users participate in decision-making concerning management of water
resources in sub-catchment areas. The WRUAs are viewed as important avenue for
prevention of conflicts over water. Tana WRMA has played a proactive and facilitative
role in the establishment of WRUAs. Though there are other WRUAs that have come up
by themselves or even in existence even before the formation of Tana WRMA.
The Water Resources Management Authority operates on performance contract with
central government. The performance contract is informed by the so-called ‘Golden
Indicators’, which is a set of quantifiable outputs in relation to water resources
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
56
8
8
management. In a nutshell, the Tana WRMA is accountable to the government through
the national WRMA offices and to the stakeholders through the CAAC.
8.2.3 Staff
The Tana WRMA has a total of 82 members of staff. Clearly the number is much less
than required to cover the operations of the entire basin. 32 of them based at the regional
office and 10 each for the Sub-regional office. Majority of the staff members are in the
traditional disciplines mainly engineering and hydrogeology. First, the existing staff has
limited knowledge on IWRM approaches to WRM, and although significant efforts have
been made to improve the knowledge, much more remain to be done especially for the
middle and lower level of organization structure. Secondly, there is an urgent need to
bring on board other skills that will deal with social mobilisation, water rights, cost
recovery, etc. in the technical areas. Finally, in the technical areas, there is a shortage of
requisite tools for assessment and measurement, it follows that even if the equipment is
made available in the future, staff capacity for their use will be necessary and particularly
in emergent knowledge such as GIS, modelling, economic instruments etc
8.2.4 Financing
Until now the main sources of financing have been the government and donor funds. In
the year the organisation has been in existence, the government contributed 32% of the
financing and the balance (68%) come from donor funding. As part of the reform
process, the Water Service Trust Fund (WSTF) has been established with a singular
mandate to mobilisation of funds towards the poorly served areas to the reform,
Hopefully WSTF will play a more central roles in financing WRM in Kenya in the future.
In the last one year several water storage facilities with low to lower-middle capacity
been improved or constructed with funding from WSTF. Generally speaking the water
resources management sector in emerging from many years of chronic under investment
.The proposed Catchment Management strategy projects to improve flow of funds
through:
 Revenue raised from the organisation operations
 Government funding
 External donor funding, and
 Private sector participation
Tana WRMA is targeting compliance for water use charges and going by the records of
abstraction permits, the top 50 abstractors account for 90% of all the uses. The focus of
the therefore is to achieve compliance with key abstractors. Unfortunately, the revenue
collected at the basin is not presently retained but rather collected at the national office
for common planning.
8.3 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
Regarding the performance of river basin management at the Tana River basin level the
following can be said:
Positive aspects of the management structure:
 The basin organisation manages the entire length of the river course and enables
incorporation of the upstream and downstream factors.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
57




The Management Units are considered along tributary rivers, hence bring
together areas and people affected similarly
The regional office and sub-regional has eased interaction with the stakeholders
and public allowing increased efficiency and close monitoring. This has been
exemplified by the reduced in the time for issuance of abstraction permit.
The organisation in not encumbered with responsibilities requiring water use as
the case with TARDA before them. This allows the organisation to execute their
mandate of equitable sharing of water resources impartially.
There is strong public participation in the water resources management.
Aspects of the management structure requiring improvement:
 The basin organisation lack administrative and financial autonomy to manage the
basin affairs. At least revenue generated should be retained for utilisation within
the basin.
 The CAAC has no real authority to direct decisions since their rile is advisory to
be incorporated at the Tana WRMA discretion
 Representation to CAAC should be derived from the WRUAs to allow true
stakeholder ownership
 There is danger Larger users dominating WRUAs and exert their influences
unduly.
 WRMA is planning to financially facilitate WRUAs to implement projects in the
catchment, this may compromise the WRUAs ability to take an independent stand
from that of WRMA
Progress of the management of water resources in the Tana River basin before and after
the creation of the Tana WRMA can be seen in Table 8.1 below
Table 8.1: Progress in management of water resources in the Tana River basin
Water Resources Problems Before creation of RBO
After creation of RBO
in the Basin
Over abstraction
Water scarcity
Floods
Environmental Quality
Land degradation
Pollution
Water Conflicts
Financing
Participatory governance
Revenue collection
Water assessment and
monitoring
Moderate
Critical in middle and
lower basin
Critical in lower Tana
Moderate
Critical in upper
catchment and costal zone
Moderate
Moderate
Severe
Severe
Severe
Severe
Some improvement
No change
No change
No change
Significant improvement
No change
Some improvement
Some improvement
Significant improvement
Some improvement
Some improvement
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
58
8
8
8.3.1 Priority Water management capacity needs
A set of priority capacity needs to improve the performance of RBO has been identified
and is presented below for both the enabling environment and the institutional setting:
Enabling environment
 financial means for long term financial sustainability for Tana WRMA
 political interference at the basin level is a nagging problem
 limited autonomy of Tana WRMA
 limited CAAC authority
Institutional and situational setting
 lack of data due to limited monitoring capacity (equipment and
expertise) and lack of sharing amongst organisations
 shortage of staff in the non-traditional skills (enhancement for IWRM
for practitioner)
8.4 CONCLUSION
The Tana WRMA is still an infant institution and critical gaps exist for combined skills
that would enable the organisation make rational, informed and advantageous choices
depending on the priority development needs. Evidently the deterioration of water
resources in the Tana River basin is linked to poverty; capacity initiatives for Tana
WRMA will explore ways of expanding water for productive uses as a way of combating
extreme poverty, develop tradeoffs in sustaining health ecosystem and reduce water
pollution.
Capacity building of human resources is required to enhance skills and understanding for
planning, water resources assessment, demand management, economics instruments,
information management and sharing, social change and conflict resolution, and because
the organisation is expected to outsource services for delivery of its projects, the
upgrading of IWRM skills, should incorporate associated private practitioners.
The key skills and technological challenges in need of urgent address include:
 Managing flood risks in the lower Tana
 Protecting water quality and monitoring pollution
 Addressing water scarcity and competition for water particularly with special
regard to the more arid part of the basin by promoting demand driven
management, improving water use efficiency and tapping non-convectional
water resources
 Inducting social change and public education including local political
leadership particularly on cost recovery and conservation, and enhancing
participation ensuring deepened involvement of women in decision-making
structures.
 Gathering water resources data, comprehensive and conjunctive basin wide
planning of water resources and modelling of future scenario depending on
future allocations.
 Water pricing Economic incentives for water conservation
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
59
9 ANNEX 4: LERMA-CHAPALA-SANTIAGO RIVER
BASIN, MEXICO
Catchment Area: 133,136 km²
Population: 17,760,000 (2002)
Population growth: Mean annual rainfall: 696mm
to 720mm
RBOs: National Water
Commission (CONAGUA) and
Lerma Basin Council and
Santiago Basin Council
Main water use: Irrigation,
Potable water supply, Livestock
and Industry
9.1
RIVER BASIN OVERVIEW
The Lerma-Chapala-Santiago Basin (L-CH-S) is located in the west part of Central
Mexico, it is the second greatest basin of Mexico 5, and it has some “features that allow
some of its regions to have an extraordinary potential for human life. Once its affluences
were extolled, but now its condition is considered critical and some people predict an
ecological disaster of great extent” (Bohem et al., 1999.)
The Lerma-Chapala-Santiago Basin is one of the most important basins of the country, in
terms of economy, society, and environment. Its water resources cover not only the 17.76
million inhabitants of the basin, but also 9% of Mexico City’s demand through a water
transfer. During the last 52 years, the population has increased by 6 times –hence, some
resources, like water and soil, have undergone a constant, growing pressure (this increase
occurred without the appropriate planning, distribution and protection of the basin
resources), which has arisen severe irreversible changes to its natural ecosystem.
The region meets 9% of the demand of Mexico City through the Alto Lerma well system.
The basin has been witness of a strong urban, agricultural and industrial growth (some
5
“surpassed just by that of the Bravo River”(Boehm et al, 1999)
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
60
9
9
records mention that there are an approximate of 3,500 different industries within the
basin) (Bertrab, et al 20056)
The L-CH-S Basin represents nearly 7% of the national territory with an approximate
area of 133,000 square kilometers, covering 10 states in the country. Its basic
hydrography includes 31 sub-basins and 14 sub-streams, being the Lerma River, and the
Santiago River the main inflows.
According to CONAGUA, in 1997, 37% of the basin surface was used for agricultural
purposes (28% of seasonal crops and 9% of irrigated crops). The surface of forest was
equivalent to 25% of the
By 2000, in the basin, there were 17 million people, of which 76% were located in urban
towns, and the remaining 24% in rural villages. The population density that year was 128
inhab/km2. By 2002, the population of the basin was 17.76 million inhabitants, keeping
the proportion between the urban and the rural population (CONAGUA, 2005a)
CONAGUA is the Water National Commission of Mexico, the federal organization with
the power to make decisions about the water in Mexico and has adopted as a unit of
management the form of the hydrologic administrative region to facilitate the planning
and control of the water resource through the Regional Management, now called Basin
Agencies, which, in accordance with the reforms to the LAN in April 2004, are the
technical, legal and administrative units being the authorities in terms of autonomous
water, although their resources and budget still depend on CONAGUA.
The two basin councils in the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago basin are the Lerma Basin
Council and the Santiago Basin Council.
They are collegiate organizations of
stakeholders that have powers to perform the functions of monitoring the achievement of
the goals planned for the river basin.
In 2003, CONAGUA reported an exploited volume of 6,956 hm3/year of the surface
water in the L-CH-S Basin (82.5% of it was used in agriculture, 6.5% in livestock, 10.7%
in public-urban services, and 0.3% in the industry). Regarding underground water, the
exploited volume was of 6,935 hm3/year, from which the 75.2% was used in agriculture,
19.9% in public services, and 4.9% in the industry.
9.1.1 Problems experienced in the basin
The problems experienced in the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago basin can be summarized as
follows:
 Population growth
 Availability of the water resources (shortages)
 Deterioration of the Environment
 Vulnerability when facing hydro-meteorological phenomena (drought)
 Lack of Information and Knowledge
6
Bertrab E. V. y Wester P. (2005) Gobernabilidad del Agua en México. La crisis de agua de Guadalajara y
el destino del lago de Chapala.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
61
9.2 RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATION
Water Management in Mexico has a clear management structure in which various
agencies at different administrative levels cooperate in a joint effort to manage the
various Mexican river basins. Below an overview of the most important actors in the
Lerma-Chapala-Santiago basin will be given.
CONAGUA – National Water Commission
The federal organization with the power to make decisions about the water in Mexico has
a total staff of 4231 and facilitates the planning and control of water resources through
the regional management in the form of Basin Agencies. CONAGUA has the purpose of
acting as a regulatory body and an authority with technical capabilities, as well as a
promoter of social participation and enforcer of the government measures regarding
water management.
The Lerma- Santiago- Pacífico Basin Agency (CONAGUA).
The Basin Agency manage the technical, legal and administrative units. Budget and
resources are still dependent on CONAGUA but they have the powers of application and
observation of the policies, procedures, methodology, systems, regulations, norms, rules,
manuals and handbooks, working schedules, indicators of management and goals; to act
as specialized technical, operating, administrative and legal authorities in the hydrologicadministrative region of its district; to be the authority regarding the management of
water resources and the management and custody of national water and its inherent
public goods in the region.
Water consultative council
This council concerns a body of citizens that supports the Water National Commission in
its work of creating a new water culture for the Mexican society. There is just one
Consultative Council at a national level.
State citizen’s Council for water
There is a Citizen’s Council for each state of the country. In the Basin of Lerma-ChapalaSantiago, there are 6 of them
9.2.1 Stakeholders (The Lerma Basin Council and the Santiago Basin Council)
Public participation in decision-making regarding water management is ensured through
the basin councils. However, due to the lack of autonomy of these councils, the decision
making of these councils is limited. Ultimately the selection and implementation of
projects are always determined by CONAGUA. Additionally, the election of stakeholderrepresentatives in the councils is fuzzy and sometimes questionable.
9.2.2 Financing
CONAGUA’s main source of funds is the budget assigned by the Executive, which is
annually authorized by the Congress in the Federation’s Law of Expenses.
In 2005, the budget assigned to CONAGUA was of $1,725 million USD (may-07), from
which the 83% was allocated to material, supplies, services, facilities, compensations,
public works and related services; the remainder was assigned to personal services.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
62
9
9
CONAGUA also acts as a collector in respect of various items, related to the national
water and its currents. Near the 80% of this collection corresponds to the exploitation and
use of the national water. The table below indicates the collection corresponding to the
Hydrological Administrative Region VIII Lerma Santiago Pacific of CONAGUA and the
national amounts.
Table 9.1: Data in thousands of Mexican pesos to constant prices of 2005,
1U$=10 Mexican pesos
Concept
National water use or advantage
Use of receiving bodies
Extraction of materials
Provision of water in block to urban and industrial
centers
Services of irrigation
Use of federal zones
Diverse (services of proceeding, regularización and fines
among others)
Total
Region VIII
1,446,357
8,389
3,423
0
National
6,552,342
51,495
34,085
1,370,577
12,398
424
13,531
154,510
27,234
75,354
1,484,522
8,265,598
Nowadays, most of the investment on water has a mixed nature, including shares of the
States, made through the State Commissions and/or operative agencies. Operating
organizations finance themselves mostly with own resources obtained through the
collection of charges for sewer system and other water services.
9.3
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
To measure performance 10 indicators are in place in the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago basin.
These are:










irrigation efficiency
percentage of population access to drinking water
percentage of population access to sewage system
percentage of rural population access to drinking water
percentage water treatment (recycled waste water to total waste water)
percentage water within accepted limits (water quality)
amount of collection by concept of rights, advantages, contribution of
improvements and taxes (million constant weights of 2005)
advice of river basin working with autonomy of technical and administrative
management
technical ground water committees working with autonomy of technical and
administrative management
number of inhabitants protected against floods by means of the construction of
infrastructure
On each of these points progression has been booked over the last years. Nonetheless not
all initial projected goals have been achieved. Particularly the on percentage water
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
63
treatment (recycled waste water to total waste water) proved to score lower than initially
projected. Based on these scores the organization can be assessed as relatively effective
in reaching set goals.
9.3.1 Performance at the basin level
Regarding the performance of river basin management at the basin level the following
can be said:
Positive aspects:
 basin councils promote and enable participation of users and stakeholders
 institutional framework in form of the National Water Law is in place, which
considers the IWRM principles.
 there is a coordinated agreement aimed to the basin sanitation
 cooperation between government agencies is enabled and leads to results (i.e. The
Surface Water Good Use Plan)
Aspects to be improved:
 flawed implementation of the water law (enforcement, application)
 organizational and participation aspects of IWRM are still underdeveloped
 water management does not fully incorporate perspectives of environmental
management
 water management is not decentralized in the political and administrative context
 legal, political and information limits impose barriers to the development of
alternatives and the creation of proposals. There are contradictory interests among
the stakeholders, which are worsen by a lack of public resources and the existence
of bureaucracies full of passivity and interests.
 public environmental policy is not considered a priority. As a result it is still
incipient and does not determine the duties of the different sectors in the federal
government.
 limited financial resources represent a significant obstacle for the implementation
of a full IWRM approach
 existence of inter-institutional conflicts derived from the unspecified functions of
various governmental levels, which implies a redistribution of authority and
resources
9.4
CONCLUSION
The current status of the basin is showed as the result of a dynamic and complex
interaction between its natural and human system, which grew disproportionately in the
area supported by the resources of the natural system, under an economic model that did
not provide a proper planning and with environmental policies that were not aimed to
sustainability. This, with the time, has provoked a critical situation characterized by: a
growing demand of the resources and the related services; an intense competition, full of
conflicts, for water availability (which sometimes have represented a danger for the basin
governability); a high environmental deterioration derived from the pollution of water
bodies in some parts of the basin; an increasing vulnerability towards meteorological
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
64
9
9
phenomena; and a systematized lack of information to face the need of a better
(integrated) knowledge of the basin problems.
Under the conditions imposed by this context, which combines the shortage with the
uncertainty, and a lack of participation and social commitment with a inter-institutional
disconnection, the capability and scope of the system (federal, state, and local
institutions) are surpassed, as well as the organizations created for the participation and
consensus of the users (Basin Councils, Technical Committees on Ground Water, Basin
Commissions). In the recent amendments to the National Water Law, it is recognized the
need to implement an IWRM; however, its application implies a long and complex
process that needs the transformation of all the current institutional and organizational
levels.
To accomplish this complex task is not acceptable to assign just one institution or “superagency”, on the opposite, it is necessary to economize and optimize the institutional
system, as well as to extend and to emphasize the social participation, generating a
common knowledge which allows the connection and coordination of the stakeholders in
a recovery and welfare plan with medium and large-term benefits. The improvements
made to the legal frame, as well as the agreements and consensus that have been reached
regarding the distribution of the surface water within the Lerma-Chapala Basin, represent
a significant breakthrough for the region. This can generate a boost for the sustainable
development of the basin, by means of the implementation of a strategic planning aimed
to a IWRM of the region.
9.4.1 Recommended policy
From the analysis of the performance of IWRM in the Lerma-Chapala-Santiago Basin the
following recommendations can be made in regard to improving IWRM principles and
practices.


There is an urgent need of contributing to the development of capabilities
involving and integrated management of the water resources, including the issues
about gender equity on decision making, not only within the institutional system,
but also in the user’s organizations of the basin.
It is necessary to create a process of diffusion and analysis with regard to the
situation and perspectives of the basin problems, involving all the stakeholders,
which is to consider not only specialists or authorities, but also the different types
of users.
- Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations -
65