Skip to main content

Published on: 28/08/2014

Integrated water resources management (IWRM) has been a dominant water management paradigm in rich and poor countries for more than two decades. This is despite the fact that, from the outset IWRM has attracted considerable controversy and criticism [1]. This has been directed at the underlying concept, the implementation process and the outcomes (or lack of outcomes):

IWRM concept

Some critics have argued that as a concept IWRM is naïve and idealistic [2]. Others have argued that IWRM takes insufficient account of the politics that are at the core of most (if not all) important water-related decisions [3,4]. Rather confusingly, the IWRM concept has also been criticized for being: 1) Too broad to have any real meaning and 2) So narrow that it focuses mainly on water and ignores important linkages between land and water management [5].

IWRM implementation process

The IWRM implementation process has been criticised for being formulaic, prescriptive, top down and, all too often, based on a standard package of measures that typically includes (but is not limited to): development of a national water policy; legislation to support IWRM; establishment of an independent water regulatory authority; and, creation of river basin agencies typically with some element of stakeholder engagement. There has also been criticism of the fact that IWRM tries to be holistic but is often seen as an end in itself rather than as a means of achieving important goals [6], e.g. secure water service delivery, environmental sustainability and/or effective operation and maintenance of water supply, storage and treatment infrastructure.

IWRM outcomes

Whilst there is no doubt that IWRM programmes have had positive impacts in some countries or regions [7], some critics have drawn attention to the fact there is limited evidence that IWRM has been successful in addressing wicked problems [8] such as: environmental sustainability and biodiversity protection [9]. For example, Australia's National Water Initiative [10], which is structured around an integrated approach to managing water resources, has yet to fully deliver its intended benefits, including the primary goals of sustainable and efficient water management [11]. Others have argued and that using funds and other resources to promote and implement IWRM has diverted resources away from more practical bottom-up approaches to tackling water management problems [12].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Concerns relating to the way the IWRM concept has been interpreted and implemented led us to invest in development of the concept of light IWRM [13]. In contrast to prescriptive top-down IWRM [14], light IWRM aims to be problem-focused, opportunistic and adaptive/iterative when applying core IWRM principles especially at the water-users level. The intended outcome of applying light IWRM is a system of managing water resources and water services delivery that has developed incrementally over many years and, as a result, is better adapted or tailored to the political economy of a given area. It is argued also that light IWRM has fewer problems with buy-in because even quite limited initial successes can help convince sceptics that light IWRM is an approach that is worth serious consideration.

The light IWRM concept was piloted with some success in the Near East and North Africa [15]. However the concept of light IWRM has not been adopted widely or picked up by organisations that promote IWRM. This said, it is encouraging that the central elements of light IWRM are gaining traction under other headings. For example, there is overlap between the principles of light IWRM and those underpinning the increasingly popular Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) framework [16,17]. Both approaches aim: to engage with a broad set of actors and not just specialists; to identify and solve specific problems rather than deliver generic best-practice solutions; and to move forward via short iterative cycles of learning and adaptation. It is worth noting that light IWRM and PDIA also adopt principles of good enough governance [18], getting the basics right [19] and reform processes that aim to build on existing institutions [20].

There is no doubt that implementing holistic integrated approaches to managing water, land and other natural resources management is politically challenging and not necessarily desirable in all contexts (e.g. in areas that are well endowed with water resources). It is also important to recognise that there are different types or levels of integration. Some types of integration are uni-sectoral and can be handled very well within the water sector or within individual water-sector line departments (e.g. integrated management of surface and groundwater or integrated delivery of water services to different users and uses). Others types of integration are inter-sectoral and necessitate the water sector working cohesively with other sectors (e.g. with the agriculture, local government, power sectors). A problem here is that, from an institutional perspective, it is rare for the water sector to work cohesively. In most countries, responsibilities for managing water resources and for delivering water services are split across different line departments (e.g. water resources, rural development, public heath engineering, irrigation, planning, local government and so on). In contrast, the power and agriculture sectors tend to each be the remit of only one line department.

Box 2. Different types or levels of integration include:
  •  Vertical inter-sectoral integration: e.g. nested planning across institutional levels and biophysical scales involving different line departments and other stakeholders.
  • Horizontal inter-sectoral integration: e.g. stakeholder dialogue and concerted action at one institutional level that involves, say, the water, energy and agriculture sectors.
  • Uni-sectoral integration: e.g. integrated planning management of water services delivery systems for a range of different water uses and users.
  • Integration along value or supply chains: e.g. mapping and managing water use and productivity from the "field to the fork".
  • Trans-boundary integration: e.g. river basin organisations or initiatives involving riparian countries.
  • Integrated assessments or monitoring systems: e.g. use of water accounting and auditing to monitor biophysical and societal trends in water supply, demand and services delivery
  • Multi-stakeholder learning processes: e.g. communities of practice, learning alliances, quality improvement collaboratives

Although it is not the only factor, level of water scarcity in a region can have a strong influence on the need for and potential benefits of adopting integrated approaches to managing water, land and other natural resources. In areas that are well endowed with water resources and where sustainable water supply exceeds demand even during periods of prolonged drought, integrated approaches may not be needed as much as is the case in areas of increasing water scarcity (see Box 3). This said, even in areas of limited water scarcity, there may still be arguments for some level of integration of processes based on, for example, joint lesson learning, alignment of planning processes; sharing of monitoring information amongst key stakeholders; and the alignment of long-term strategies.  

Box 3. Some key differences between integrated approaches to water management under different water scarcity conditions 
Relatively low water scarcityRelatively high water scarcity
Bias towards using uni-sectoral approaches to solving problemsBias towards using multi-sectoral approaches to solving problems
Multi-sectoral integration needed to tackle challenges that include: pollution, flooding, environmental sustainability, climate change, biodiversity protection and cost efficiency of services deliveryMulti-sectoral integration needed to tackle additional challenges that include: Managing competing demands for water, equitable services delivery, conflict resolution, maintaining water security during droughts
Relatively easy to achieve consensus via multi-stakeholder processesRelatively difficult, if not impossible, to achieve consensus via multi-stakeholder processes
Possibility of win-win solutions to some challengesFew win-wins available. Most solutions have significant negative trade-offs or externalities
Politics and political economy factors relatively less importantPolitics and political economy factors are often of crucial importance
Not so important to get the water accounting and auditing rightVery important to get the water accounting and auditing right

During the last 3-4 years, the Water/Energy/Power nexus approach has gained traction as an alternative or complementary approach to IWRM [21]. A key difference between the two approaches is that IWRM always starts with water resources when considering inter-relationships between water, land, food and energy whereas the nexus approach can start from different perspectives (e.g. water, food or energy) [22]. Whilst the nexus approach has significant merit, it has also attracted criticism for being unnecessarily limiting and prescriptive, for example, by not explicitly highlighting inter-linkages with climate change, poverty and pro-poor development.

In conclusion, we believe that there is considerable merit in shifting emphasis from formulaic top-down IWRM to lighter IWRM that is problem-driven, adaptive, opportunistic and pragmatic. The aim being to ensure that the level and type of integration is determined by and matched to the local socio-political and biophysical context. However, a particular challenge is that, in some countries at least, failed attempts to implement IWRM have left a significant legacy of disappointment and disillusionment with IWRM specifically and integrated approaches in general. In such cases, promotion of IWRM or even light IWRM may be met with stern resistance.

Box 4. "IWRM" principles that could be considered (in addition to the original Dublin principles) include:
  • Selection of the levels and type of integration (see Box 3) should be flexible: Rather than being a prescriptive, selection of levels or type of integration should be based on the specific political and biophysical context.
  • To be effective, integrated approaches should be informed by reliable evidence: Monitoring systems are needed that are well aligned, involve sharing of information; andrigorous quality control of information (and evidence).
  • Integrated approaches should build on existing institutions and practices: The aim being, if possible, to improve the capacity and functionality of existing institutions and practices rather than create new institutions or attempt to adopt and adapt entirely new practices.

So what to do?

The approach we are choosing at IRC is to continue to promote IWRM's original IWRM "Dublin principles" [23] but as part of a longer but less prescriptive list of principles (see Box 4). IRC is also continuing to promote approaches to managing water resource, water-related infrastructure and water that are based on light forms of IWRM [24] but increasingly under different banners. The logic being that there is plenty of mileage left in IWRM principles - arguably they are more important now than ever, but it is probably time to move on from using IWRM as a "brand" name. Additional more concrete arguments for switching to PDIA (or similar approaches with more catchy names or acronyms) as the overall framework include: 1) In many contexts PDIA is a better starting point for more integrated management of water, land and other natural resources given that in general, water-sector institutions are not inter-connected nor do they have the capacity, ambition or sufficient power to lead processes of inter-sectoral inter-departmental integration; and 2) Using a sector-neutral framework (i.e. a framework that is not affiliated to any particular sector) such as PDIA recognises that the best institutional structures and arrangements for leading integrative processes may, in some contexts, be located outside the water sector [25].

Notes

  1. Pedro Martinez-Santos, Maite M. Aldaya and M. Ramón Llamas (Eds). 2014. Integrated Water Resources Management in the 21st Century: Revisiting the paradigm. CRC Press.
  2. e.g.Biswas, A. K. 2004. Integrated water resources management: A reassessment. Water International, 29, 248–256.
  3. e.g. Jensen, K. M. 2013. Viewpoint–swimming against the Current: Questioning development policy and practice. Water Alternatives, 6, 276–283.
  4. Molle, F. 2008. Nirvana concepts, narratives and policy models: Insight from the water sector. Water Alternatives 1(1): 131‐156. 
  5. see Merrey,D.J, Drechsel,P., Penning de Vries F.W.T. and Sally,H. 2005. Integrating ''livelihoods'' into integrated water resources management: taking the integration paradigm to its logical next step for developing countries. Regional Environmental Change  5: 197–204. 
  6. van Koppen,B. and Schreiner,B. 2014. Moving beyond integrated water resource management: developmental water management in South Africa. Int. J. of Water Resources Development http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2014.912111
  7. e.g see the case studies in http://www.gwp.org/en/ToolBox/
  8. e.g. see http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0623-ghazoul-wicked-problems.html
  9. e.g. Jeffrey, P., & Gearey, M. 2006. Integrated water resources management: Lost on the road from ambition to realisation? Water Science Technology, 53(1), 1–8. e.g. also FAO. 2011. The state of the world's land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW) – Managing systems at risk. FAO, Rome and Earthscan, London.
  10. Australia's National Water Initiative started in 2004. In addition, Australia is often referred to as an IWRM success story e.g. http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/pdf/un_water_status_report_2012.pdf
  11. see the last NWI biennial assessment: http://nwc.gov.au/publications/topic/assessments/ba-2011.
  12. e.g. Mark Giordano & Tushaar Shah. 2014. From IWRM back to integrated water resources management. Int. J. of Water Resources Development http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2013.851521
  13. see Moriarty, P.; Butterworth, J. and Batchelor, C. 2004. Integrated water resources management and the domestic water and sanitation sub-sector. Thematic Overview Paper. Delft, the Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.
  14. see Shah, T. and van Koppen, B. 2006. Is India ripe for integrated water resources management IWRM: Fitting water policy to national development context. Economic and Political Weekly XLI(31): 3413-3421.
  15. Moriarty, P.B.; Batchelor, C.H.; Laban, P. and Fahmy, H. 2010.
 Developing a practical approach to 'light IWRM' in the Middle East.
Water Alternatives 3(1): 122-136
  16. see Matt Andrews, Lant Pritchett and Michael Woolcock. 2013. 'Escaping capability traps through Problem- Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA)' World Development 51(11): 234-244
  17. see Rao,S. 2014. Problem-driven iterative approaches and wider governance reform. GSDRC. http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/HDQ1099.pdf
  18. see Grindle,M. 2007. Good Enough Governance Revisited. Development Policy Review, 2007, 25 (5): 553-574 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2007.00385.x/abstract
  19. see e.g EU. 2008. Analysing and Addressing Governance in Sector Operations. Tools and Methods Series. Reference Document No. 4. http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/infopoint/publications/europeaid/documents/149a_governance_layout_090306_en.pdf
  20. Merrey, D and S. Cook. 2012. Fostering institutional creativity at multiple levels: towards facilitated institutional bricolage. Water Alternatives 5(1): 1-19 and Andrews, Matt. 2013. The limits of institution reform in development. Cambridge Press.
  21. see e.g. http://www.water-energy-food.org/en/news/view__1612/the-nexus-approach-vs-iwrm-gaining-conceptual-clarity.html
  22. see e.g. Hoff, H. 2011. Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for the Bonn2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm.
  23. see http://www.gwp.org/en/The-Challenge/What-is-IWRM/IWRM-Principles/
  24. see e.g. http://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/allabs/77-a3-1-4/file
  25. see Rao, Op. cit. [17]

Disclaimer

At IRC we have strong opinions and we value honest and frank discussion, so you won't be surprised to hear that not all the opinions on this site represent our official policy.

Back to
the top