IWRM/Small Group Discussion on the National Level

* Content * Last Page * Next Page *

MAKING INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IWRM ) WORK:

LESSONS FROM THE EVALUATION OF WATER SECTOR PROGRAMMES

6.3 Small Group Discussion on the National Level

The discussion of issues at the national level started by recognising the key role of
governments at this level as the key agents of change and, in many instances, the
main challenge in stimulating change. Governments have primary authority in setting
the legal, institutional and policy framework within which water resources are
managed in all countries and are also typically a, if not the, major investor in most
aspects of water resources management. The discussion focused on the findings of
the evaluations, which all identified the critical need for governments to change roles
and re-define the legal and institutional framework of water resources management
and went on to discuss the extent to which donors should consciously try to stimulate
these changes. It was recognised that there are often conservative elements in
government (and especially in many line agencies) that are resistant to change and
that reform of government approaches and institutions was one of the main obstacles
to the development of new approaches to water resources.

The tradition of over-technical approaches by many government agencies (often
supported by donors) was discussed, as was the need to create an open and
constructive dialogue that included all elements of society at the national level on
future directions to water resources management. That these issues are inherently
political was recognised and it was accepted that donors should not try to ignore or
avoid this political context. Value was placed on a coherent approach by a coalition
of different donors who engaged in national debates in a constructive and supportive
manner. To be effective, this engagement would need to be based on a clear
analysis of the situation and a coherent and effective approach based on IWRM
principles. This could influence thinking and provide a stimulus to the reform
process, but only where the national situation, and especially the political
environment, was open to reform. Where there was no such receptiveness then
donor efforts would be wasted regardless of the good intentions that lay behind them.
This general theme of the critical importance of the wider governance environment at
the national level was seen as the key issue at the national level, for it set the context
within which any engagement with specific sectoral actors would take place. The
discussion recognised that policy changes and institutional reforms are processes
that can be long-term and that are never perfect in their development. Based on this,
four key challenges at the national level were identified:

· The need to make international agreements work at the national level, including
and legal and policy changes that they may necessitate.
· The importance of putting existing policies (which are often good on paper) into
practice as a starting point: policy reforms are often seen as an end in
themselves, rather than as a means to improving water resources management,
which in turn depends on the policies being put into practice.
· The need to raise levels of awareness amongst governments and other parties
at the national level on the challenges facing them and the need for and direction
of reform.
· The need for carefully targeted and realistic new laws and policies and well-structured
institutional reforms that create the environment within which
changes to water resources management at sub-national levels can take place.

In stimulating these processes, it was recognised that donors can have a
comparative advantage in a number of ways:

· They can act as fair and neutral arbiters in national debates.
· They can provide scarce resources, financial, expertise and others, to facilitate
the process of change.
· They can provide ready access to international experiences and expertise that
demonstrate that changes are possible and that provide models of good practice
that can be adapted to national circumstances.

To realise these advantages, however, donors need to be engaged in a long-term
support and to be perceived as fair and neutral, rather than as supporting any one
particular group in any contentious debates. Where the national environment is
supportive of change then donors can and should engage in assisting this process.
Where the pre-conditions for reform are poor (either through resistance to change or
poor capabilities for change or a combination of the two) then donors should assess
whether they can engage in the sector at all and, if they can, through which means
can they catalyse a more supportive environment for reform.

Policy reforms are seen as critical but donors should focus on guiding the process,
not the content, of reform. There is a general trend towards sectoral or programmatic
approaches that are more able to support these changes than traditional project-based
approaches. This is seen as constructive, with effectively sequenced
programmes that create stages of change providing a context within which individual
projects can be identified and implemented. All projects should be seen as part of a
wider process, not as an end in themselves. To achieve this, donors need to go
beyond well-intentioned but often vague policy prescriptions and develop focused
strategies that reflect national circumstances and that define the trajectory and
sequencing of national-level support.

Overall, the discussion of issues at the national level recognised the critical
importance of this level, the need for changes to past policies and approaches and
the importance of the wider political and governance environment as defining the pre-conditions
within which any changes to approaches to water resources management
at both supra- and sub-national levels will take place.

* Content * Last Page * Next Page *