IWRM/ FINAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

* Content * Last Page *

MAKING INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IWRM ) WORK:

LESSONS FROM THE EVALUATION OF WATER SECTOR PROGRAMMES

7 FINAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This section draws together the main conclusions that emerged from the discussions
over the two days of the seminar and that were consolidated in the final discussion
on the second day. Although all of the evaluations presented identified a number of
structural problems with the ways in which support to the water sector has been
provided in the past, the tone of discussions and conclusions was essentially positive
and a series of possibilities for improving future support were identified. In many
cases, these changes have already begun to be introduced and the quality of future
support is anticipated to be markedly better than that provided in the past.

Having said this, a number of potential problems were also identified and the need to
ensure that future support is well-focused, efficiently provided and effective was
agreed. This is seen as particularly important given the acceptance of IWRM as the
dominant approach, the validated critique of traditional, sub-sectoral approaches and
the emphasis on issues of improving governance and institutional change (which are
both long-term processes) as setting the agenda for the future. The importance of
recognising and fitting solutions to the diversity of local circumstances, of creating
effective empowerment and secure rights through participatory approaches and of
recognising and valuing all aspects of water resources and their uses were also
identified as basic principles.

These issues were seen as vital and as creating an agenda in which the potential for
long-term sustainability of water resources can be achieved. However, the
discussion also recognised that the long-term nature and complexity of this approach
contained inherent dangers, specifically:

· That the focus on long-term structural change could mean that immediate and
urgent needs (such as for clean water or more effective irrigation) could be
neglected, or could be perceived to be neglected by key policy-makers and other
actors. There is a clear need to respond to immediate needs in an effective
manner and a failure to address these needs would mean that it is unlikely that
longer-term structural changes will take place.

· The IWRM approach is accepted in principle internationally but is often seen as
too complex, difficult to understand and poorly-focused. By its very nature, the
approach challenges existing orientations and institutional arrangements, but
changing these will not be possible unless people and organisations understand
and are persuaded by the need for change and the form that change will take.
The IWRM debate is too often failing to engage and convince these critical
actors. Indeed, there is a danger that both donors and recipient countries will be
scared off engaging in water sector activities at all if they are perceived to be
unimplementable.

To this end, the discussion throughout the seminar recognised the critical role that
donors can play in creating an approach that both addresses immediate needs and
understandings and also builds towards structural change. “Keep it simple” was a
comment that was often made in the discussions. One statement: “the best can be
the enemy of the good” captured the mood of the participants.

There was also a general sentiment that there is a need to stop discussing and start
doing. If IWRM is to be a reality then practical models of good practice need to be
identified and implemented. In moving the agenda forward, a number of key
conclusions were reached:

· The basis of IWRM should be a twin-track approach, in which activities are
developed that respond to urgent needs and priorities in a straightforward and
achievable manner, but are also structured and coordinated so that they
contribute to a wider, long-term process of structural reform.

· This longer-term process will need to be based on careful sequencing of
activities, recognising that not everything can be perfect or can be done at once
and that all parties will at times need to accept that a certain approach is the best
that can be achieved at that time.

· There is a need to be far clearer and more precise about the goals and targets
that one is trying to achieve, including the limitations on the achievable. Far
better planning, better indicators and better project and programme design are all
seen as essential.

· Knowledge and awareness-raising amongst key actors and the wider society
were seen as essential if many critical challenges were to be realised. The
discussion continually returned to the need for better information and better use
of the information that is available. It was agreed that donors can and should
play a key role in knowledge generation and dissemination.

· As part of improving knowledge, it was recognised that there are already many
good things happening around the world in all aspects of water resources
management. These good experiences need to be understood and the lessons
that they provide need to be more widely available.

· There will often be risks associated with innovative approaches. These can be
minimised if the principles identified above (good analysis, clear objectives,
effective sequencing) are followed but there will always be an element of risk and
donors can and should play a key role in absorbing the potential adverse effects
of these risks.

· The inherently political nature of many of the issues should not be avoided and
governance issues should be central to any water resources agenda. This in
turn depends upon the willingness to reform of governments and other key
actors. If this willingness does not exist then little can be done, though a process
of constructive engagement to create a better understanding of the need for and
a willingness to contemplate change should be undertaken.

· There is a need for better coordination at, and between, all levels, including
between donors. As part of this, a consistent and transparent dialogue on taking
the approach forward needs to be developed. It was agreed that the outcomes of
the seminar (both the evaluations of past and discussion of future approaches)
would be a contribution to this process, but that there would be a need for an
active programme to move it forward in the future.

* Content * Last Page *