ADDRESSING IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES RELATED TO INTEGRATED

WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Bruce Mitchell

Department of Geography and Environmental Management

Red River Basin Commission Annual Conference Winnipeg

January 20, 2015

INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

DEFINITION OF IWRM Global Water Partnership (2000: 22): “a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.”

RATIONALE FOR IWRM

• Water is a system which interacts with other natural and social ecosystems.

• Managers frequently have to deal with surface and

groundwater, plus quantity and quality, requiring expertise about and attention to all.

• Decisions and activities in upper parts of catchments have implications for downstream areas.

• Needs of humans and other species require

attention.

Falkenmark et. al., (2004, 305):

…, an integrated approach has to be taken to water, land use and ecosystems to secure an optimal use of both water and other water-dependent resources.

IWRM is essential for securing a proper overview of all the activities that depend on the same resource and which are internally linked by the mobility of water, from the water divide to the river mouth.

CRITICISMS OF IWRM

• No generally accepted definition for IWRM, making it difficult to assess.

• If an ecosystem or holistic approach is to be taken, how many other systems beyond water need to be considered (e.g., energy? health? poverty?)?

• Normally an uneven distribution of power among stakeholders exists in a catchment or watershed, meaning some interests are consistently under or not represented.

• Collaborative effort requires engagement by an active citizenry, but achieving genuine engagement often is challenging.

• With inadequate infrastructure and political will, or presence of corruption, attempts to achieve integration have little prospect of being successful.

OVERCOMING IMPLEMENTATION DEFICITS

1. Recognize Context, Develop Custom-designed Solutions, and Ensure Appropriate Scope

Successful implementation more likely if IWRM is designed with reference to the reality of a specific time and place.

Generic IWRM template less likely to lead to success.

Heathcote (1998, 391): “… a single framework for effective integrated water resources planning is not possible for all countries, or even for all regions within a single country….”.

“Planning programs may therefore fail if they are not successful in matching projects to watershed conditions,….”.

Distinction between ‘comprehensive’ and ‘integrated’ approaches important for determining scope.

Implications: requisite simplicity; ‘rule of hand’, or 3 to 5 key variables at any given scale (Walker and Scott,2012:23).

2. Maintain Long-term Perspective

A long-term perspective is necessary, given many problems addressed by IWRM normally have taken years if not decades to emerge, and are often complex.

A sustained and long-term commitment can be difficult to achieve, especially since the time frame for many elected decision makers usually is until the next election.

Hartig and Zarull (1992, 263):

“It took decades to manifest the degree and extent of toxic substance contamination in Areas of Concern, and it would be naïve to think that such problems could be resolved in a short period of time. Therefore, it must be recognized that RAPs are a long-term process in which numerous obstacles must be overcome to sustain progress.”

3. Identify a Vision

Vision: distinction between what

• might be (most probable),

• should be (most desirable), and

• could be (most feasible).

Krantzberg (2003, 641):

A clearly articulated and shared vision “is essential for implementation to succeed.”

Implications: Forecasting, Backcasting.

4. Create Legitimacy and Credibility

4.1 Legal Foundation

Calbick, Gunton and Day (2004, 48, 49):

“The agencies with a mandate are provided with clear and consistent directives from their empowering legislation.”

A statutory foundation does not guarantee implementation success because of:

“… interlaced, overlain, and sometimes contradictory legislation, which engenders conflict.”

4.2 Political Commitment

Gurnter-Zimmermann (1995, 240):

“Political support and funding have been particularly important for the advancement of RAP.”

4.3 Human and Financial Resources

Hartig and Zarull (1992, 266):

“The availability of adequate human and financial resources is a common concern …. Available resources with state, provincial and federal government environmental programs are stretched to the limit, and citizens have limited time and resources to bring to the planning process.”

Grand River Conservation Authority staff member:

“Insufficient funding leads to a piecemeal, issue-oriented approach to dealing with resources issues, with disproportional time and effort spent on soliciting funds for projects and programs, rather than implementation. A system of apportioning costs and benefits equitably across a watershed can help secure consistent municipal participation and funding.”

4.4 Governance

Hartig and Law (1994, 860):

“Once a clear road map … has been determined, … institutional frameworks need to compare the recommended actions with the existing authorities and regulatory and nonregulatory mechanisms to identify any gaps. If gaps exist, … institutional frameworks should be empowered to recommend or help create alternative means to implement … recommendations, monitor progress, and ensure responsible parties are held responsible.”

5. Ensure One or more Leaders or Champions

Leaders or champions are important for facilitating implementation of IWRM.

Sustained leadership needed to:

• help create a shared vision,

• convince stakeholders that the ‘common good’ must be a priority, and

• facilitate understanding and collaboration among many participants.

MacKenzie (1993, 142-143):

“Identify key individuals who can guide the … process through all its permutations. There are many pressure points at which the … process can break down: the data are complex, individuals may feel threatened, decisions may become conflict-laden and time consuming among others. At these times, key individuals may demonstrate leadership and use the strength of their personalities and professional positions to maintain forward momentum.”

6. Use a Multi-stakeholder Approach

Many interests and needs have to be considered during IWRM: environmental, economic and social dimensions.

Capacity has to be created to engage with stakeholders. If they believe they have ownership related to processes and outcomes, the more likely they are to be supportive and become engaged partners.

GRCA staff member:

“Successful plans - ones that do not collect dust - focus on a manageable scale, remain adaptable and flexible, link issues to local concerns, and build partnerships to motivate action. For this reason, the people and organizations … responsible for implementing actions need to be actively engaged in the IWM process. Collaboration builds trust and consensus, leverages effort and stretches capacity, and ensures on-going implementation and change will occur at the local level.”

7. Be Adaptable, Flexible and Learn

Jones and Taylor (1999, 251-253):

“… the problems we seek to solve today and into the future are more challenging and complex, primarily because they are more subtle, and involve many interacting ecosystem components. By reducing the overwhelming effects of a few, large problems … we have exposed a more complex array of more subtle problems, for which solutions are less easy to determine. ….”

8. Identify, Monitor and Assess Outputs and Outcomes

While a clear vision is needed to indicate a desirable future, capacity to monitor and assess outputs and outcomes relative to goals and objectives also is needed.

Too often, sufficient human and financial resources are not allocated to this task for IWRM projects.

McLaughlin and Krantzberg (2011, 393):

Pre-conditions for success should be objectives that are “… clearly defined, specific and preferably quantified, comprehensively agreed to and understood, mutually compatible and supportive, and provide a blueprint against which policy implementation can be monitored.”

If such characteristics are to be realized, objectives cannot be couched “… in vague and evasive terms, ….”

9. Facilitate Information Sharing and Develop Effective Communication with Stakeholders

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority staff:

“… information and education is not an end, but should be a means to achieve deeper engagement.”

Gurtner-Zimmermann (1995, 244):

“A key goal of education should to help participants develop new perspectives about issues, and also to broaden their outlook through gaining understanding and respect for other views.”

10. Utilize Demonstration Projects to highlight Tangible Progress, and Profile and Celebrate Achievements

Producing tangible outcomes, and celebrating them, is a powerful way to keep stakeholders engaged in IWRM.

With no or little evidence of progress, the probability increases that stakeholders withdraw, or continue with less commitment.

Krantzberg (2003, 649):

“…. benefit from a greater emphasis on measuring, celebrating, and marketing successes, and building the local capacity to sustain progress.”

Hartig and Zarull (1992, 272):

“A record of success must be built into the … process to keep the momentum going.”

SUMMARY

1. Custom-designed Solutions and Appropriate Scope

2. Long-Term Perspective

3. Vision

4. Legitimacy and Credibility

4.1 Legal Foundation 4.2 Political Commitment

4.3. Human and Financial Resources

4.4 Governance

5. Leaders/Champions

6. Multi-Stakeholder Approach

7. Adaptiveness, Flexibility and Learning

8. Monitor and Assess Outcomes

9. Information Sharing and Communication

10. Celebrate Achievements

After Mitchell (2014)

IMPLICATIONS

No ‘silver bullets’.

Challenges always should be expected in moving from concept to action.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority staff:

Difficult to identify the most significant factor(s) for implementation success:

“Perceptions, priorities and ‘critical’ implementation aspects change over time as progress is achieved and in response to IWM system feedback. In addition, these … aspects – and their weighted importance – constantly respond to the program and activity at hand; for example, some aspects are more critical for new strategic direction and policy, while others are more critical for on-the-ground stewardship. In other words, these … aspects can be somewhat cyclical in nature...”

REFERENCES

Biswas, A.K. 2008a. Integrated water resources management: Is it working? Water Resources Development, 24: 5-22. Biswas, A.K. 2008b. Current directions: integrated water resources management – a second look. Water International,33: 274-278. Calbick, K.S., T.I. Gunton and J.C. Day. 2004. Watershed resources planning and management: Lessons learned from comparative case studies. In D. Shrubsole (ed.). Canadian Perspectives on Integrated Water Resources Management, Canadian Water Resources Association, Cambridge, ON: 33-55. Conservation Ontario. 2012. Protecting the Great Lakes, Integrated Watershed Management Approach. News Byte, April 23rd, Conservation Ontario, Newmarket, ON., http://www.conservationontario.ca.

Falkenmark, M., L. Gottschalk, J. Lundqvist and P. Wouters. 2004. Towards integrated catchment management: Increasing the dialogue between scientists, policy-makers and stakeholders. Water Resources Development, 20: 297-309. Global Water Partnership. 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management, Technical Advisory Committee Background Paper No. 4, Global Water Partnership, Stockholm. Gurtner-Zimmermann, A. 1995. A mid-term review of Remedial Action Plans: Difficulties with translating comprehensive planning into comprehensive actions. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 21: 234-247. Hartig, H.H. and N.L. Law. 1994. Institutional frameworks to direct the development and implementation of Great Lakes remedial action plans. Environmental Management, 18: 855-864.

Hartig, H.H. and M.A. Zarull. 1992. Keystones for success. In H.H. Hartig and M.A. Zarull (eds.). Under RAPs: Toward Grassroots Ecological Democracy in the Great Lakes Basin. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor: 263-279. Heathcote, I.W. 1998. Integrated Watershed Management: Principles and Practice. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Jones, M.L., and W.W. Taylor, 2009, Challenges to the implementation of the ecosystem approach in the Great Lakes basin. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 2: 249-254.

Krantzberg, G., 2003. Keeping Remedial Action Plans on target: Lessons learned from Collingwood Harbour. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 29: 641-651.

MacKenzie, S.H., 1993. Ecosystem management in the Great Lakes: Some observations from Three RAP sites. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 19: 136-144.

McLaughlin, C. and G. Krantzberg. 2011. An appraisal of policy implementation deficits in the Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research,37: 390-396.

Mitchell, B. 2014. Addressing implementation deficits related to IWRM in Canada. In V.R. Squires, H.M. Milner and K.A. Daniell (eds.). River Basin Management in the Twenty-first Century: Understanding People and Place. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.: 42-59.

Walker, B. and D. Salt. 2012. Resilience Practice. Island Press, Washington, DC.