Evolving IWRM Mukhtar Hashemi

Evolving the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Paradigm:To reassess the underline policy assumptionsMukhtar Hashemi ❶ Associate Researcher, The Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research (CLUWRR), Newcastle University, UK; ❷ Scientific Advisor, The Office of Applied Researches, IWRMC, Ministry of Energy, Iran ❸ National IWRM Consultant, UNDP/GEF Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project, Department of Environment, Iran22-24 Feb 2011Amman- JordanKempinski Hotel

Part A

A. A regional outlook

WANA Geopolitical conditions:Semi arid and Arid

Driving Forces :

Population Growth

Urbanization -Mega Cities

Mecca

Amman

Cairo

Damascus

Riyadh Madina

Tehran

Regional disparity

The degree of the ability of WANA Countries to meet the 2025 urban water demand?

Results

7 countries with no difficulty to achieve the demand include: Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, UAE, Qatar,,

Kuwait and Bahrain

Persian Gulf states depend on desalination

9 countries with no difficulty but they conditionally can meet the demand

Yemen- no urban population driver due to poverty

Syria- depends on water from Turkey

Sudan- friction with Egypt? poverty, less demand

Morocco: short term problem with re allocation of water resources

Libya- Oil to water- desalination??

Iraq- water from Turkey

Eritrea/Ethiopia - Poverty- no demand increase

Egypt- if 60% share of the Nile UnchangedAlgeria- underdevelopedAfghanistan- Poverty and under-development

1 country with geopolitical problems rather than resource problems

Palestinian – a question of EquityIsrael takes a lion Shareno urban supply infrastructure

4 countries with sever problems in meeting the demand

Tunisia- rundown of its irrigated agriculture by 50% or desalination

KSA-Small renewable resources and huge urban populations and there might be a need for more desalination plants and use of groundwater

Oman-Extensive groundwater mining not viable long term option and require desalination in the future

Jordan- Small renewable resource; import of water from Lebanon via Israel is a non-starter; desalination from Aquaba port is a difficult task with over 1000 m pumping requirements and 250 km of water transport; reallocation from irrigation only buys time;

Overexploitation Zayandarud River Esfahan:

Sheep or fish?

Can you allocate any water

Where is Water?

Climate Change???? Droughts??

What happened to the rain? (Penman, 1961)

Basic definition: systems approach

Box1: basic definitions (Source: Hashemi and O'Connell, 2011)

Policy: a political (governmental) statement outlining the

vision. Goals and objectives of IWRM plans

Scenario: a futuristic outlook of development such as

assumptions under which development occurs; these are

exogenous to the water system such as population growth

or climate change that cannot be controlled or

determined by the water system

Management option: a measure or an action taken to

improve the performance of the water system, these

measures can be legal, institutional, technical, social,

economics, ecological.

Strategy: a collection of management options to be

considered under different anthropogenic and natural

climatic scenarios.

B. Moves towards implementing IWRM

Dominant paradigm- 40 years of historyThere has been a lack in implementing IWRM worldwide despite its adoption by national governments around the globe

Characterisation of efforts

Numerous researchers- variety of IWRM themesScattered and dispersed efforts Lack of communicationWorld Bank (2007):water scarcity in MENA (=WANA)Impact of non water policies are greater

INTEGRATION; IWRM AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Meeting the criteria for sustainability

UNDERLYING THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

(Source: Morrison et al 2004)

Strategic support

Structural

Procedural

Facilitative resources Functional

Methodological exchange

Participatory decision-making

How integration?

How to achieve holism?: sustainability criteria

1. integration, 2. spatial adequacy (basin level), 3. manageability, 4. systematic, 5. representation (participation), 6. comparability, 7. communication (precautionary), and8. forward looking (prediction).

Four Dimensions of integration

(Morrison et al, 2004))

Five Criteria for sustainability (sustainable development (Gasparatos et al, 2008)

Principles of IWRM

In terms of policymaking

1- a multi-jurisdictional spatial organization

1- integration of social, economic, environmental and institutional issues and their interactions and interdependencies;

Holistic approach An integrated and inter-sectoral policy-making Framework that can assess the impact of non-water policies on water policy and display their inter-linkage

2-participatory coordination of different stakeholders, civil societies and actors

2- creating a participatory environment; empowerment policies;

a participatory approach

Creating enabling environments for participatory decision-making

3- collaborative decision- making from the participatory approach

3- predictions of future trends and the impact of policies and development plans on sustainability; 4- dealing with uncertainties by taking conservative and precautionary measures

Using a systems analysis approach (policies, scenarios, management options (measures) and strategies). See Box 1.

Institutional design criteria to evaluate and monitor planning and implementation of the strategies adopted through the policy-making process

4- agreement based on rationality

5- to foster ecocentric ethics and equity (intergenerational and intergenerational);

supporting the socio-economic welfare of people i.e. eradicating poverty; empowering women; sustaining the environment

Policy appraisal mechanisms to indicate the performance and the impact of water policy

Table 1. Governing principles in water resources management and their policy implications (adopted form Hashemi and O'Connell (2011)

Policy integration useful

Recommendation 1: • There is a need for an integrated research policy• Sustainable research portfolio- appropriate funding

mechanism

The missing policy links

7 missing policy links which are neglected in IWRM plans

The omissions

1- Green water- soil moisture and water stored in plants2- Gray water and return water 3- Environmental services (functions) of water

3. Impact of land use change on blue water

Forest Policy based on Land and water myths (e.g. Calder 2005)

1 Forests increase rainfall.2 Forests increase runoff.3 Forests regulate flows.4 Forests reduce erosion.5 Forests reduce floods.6 Forests ‘sterilize’ water supplies – improve water quality.7 Agro forestry systems increase productivity.

More research needed…..

The negative/ positive impact due biophysical interactionsSite specificType of plants and canopies

How impact? Geological factors such as landslide and jungle management activities, roads etc liter cover

5- Virtual water in water balance Wheat imports in 2008 (6 million tons)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Swizerland

Canada

USA

Germany

Russia

France

others

co

ntr

ies

of

imp

ort

% of total import

(Iran)

Water Dependency vs. Water self sufficiency

More research: scarcity vs. Dependency

water scarcity water dependency Iran and Pakistan water scarcity but low dependency Iran 93 water self sufficiencyPakistan 100 water self sufficiency

Scarcity- dependency [source Delft, 2003)

water footprint ا

The total water footprint of 0.5 litre PET-bottle sugar-containing carbonated beverage according to thetype and origin of the sugar )SB=Sugar Beet, SC=Sugar Cane, HFMS= High Fructose Maize Syrup)

UNESCO-IHP )Ercin et al, 2009)

Iran Half liter of drink beverage from sugar beet-

UNESCO-IHP (Ercin et al, 2009)

More omissions …

6- fisheries sector in river basin management -neglected 7- role of belief systems - direct bearing on policy making decision

Recommendation 2

Redefinition of the scope or focus of IWRMequitable allocation strategy include whole water balance (Blue and Green Water or so called the ‘ever-green’ revolution: Falkenmark and Rockstörm, 2006).

Policy to acknowledge technical challenges – technology driven

to understand the physical processes affecting green water (e.g. vapour flow and green soil flow) and be able to include these concepts in the water balance components of the water resources models. Hence, there are many technical challenges to initiate the new green revolution. Technology will have an important role to play. It has to adjust to new paradigms and take an adaptive and innovative technical strategy.

Recommendation 3: Redefinition of the scale of IWRM

A depoliticized river basin concept approach- but most decisions are political Most use- Agricultural water use- smaller unit - smaller physical unit (at catchment or watershed level) can be used to reflect what happens at the farming level.

Management at farm level

Recommendation 4: ecohydological concept- interface among ecology,

land and water Redefining water science intersecting applied and socio-economic disciplines Restoration/ adaptive management as part of the policy

Recommendation 5: virtual water policy as a regional policy for

cooperation

Recommendation 6: Enhancement of the Role of belief systems and

culture in policymaking

Policy making- straggle over idea and [values] Interplay between policy and Legitimacy

Coastal ecosystems are vital60% of population90% of global fisheries25% global biological productivities Integrated Coastal Area and river basin management- ICARM – not new but focus on new gaps….

Recommendation 7: linking IWRM and ICZM- water –land-sea-interface

Science and Policy Interface:An integrated socio-technical and

Institutional Framework to deal with water scarcity in WANA regionMukhtar Hashemi ❶ Associate Researcher, The Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research (CLUWRR), Newcastle University, UK; ❷ Scientific Advisor, The Office of Applied Researches, IWRMC, Ministry of Energy, Iran ❸ National IWRM Consultant, UNDP/GEF Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project, Department of Environment, Iran22-24 Feb 2011Amman- JordanKempinski Hotel

Part B

Framework: Science and Water policy interface

Transforming Scientific evidence into policymaking

Half full or half empty?

Definitions

A Framework is a non-predictive representation of structures and provides interlinkges for the relevant components of a system that influence the policy in question.theory “makes specific assumptions on the linkages between variables and outcomes” (quoting Clement 2008)

Definitions cont.

a model “makes more precise predictions than a theory and often relies on mathematical tools" Interface: a mechanism or framework to link two systems; be able to exchange, use or process the informationPerspectives are mental models of actors involved in designing , implementing and affected by policy in question

A Science- water policy interface defines the points of interaction,

interplay and linkage between technical and social or non-technical

frameworks.

Multidimensional Water scarcity3 levels (World Bank, 2007)Governance level: lack of transparency in decision makingOrganisational capacity level: inability of organisations to effectively manage water resourcesPhysical resource level (water shortage, water stress conditions, temporal and seasonal variations

Avoiding pitfalls Poor definition of policy objectivesLack of Local knowledgeInadequate consideration of Ethics Lack of clear participation mechanismsUndermining learning during the processLack of economic assessment of policy

Science and water policy interface

Linking sociopolitical and technical assessment frameworksuse of different theories and frameworks to form the a single conceptual framework

Components

Conceptual frameworks: underlining policy assumption (IWRM) and dealing with cultural and ethical issues (perspectives) Analytical frameworks: to study change, predict future trends, assess impacts of policies on the water resources systems and provide alternative options- integrated socio-technical assessment frameworks- institutional assessments to evaluate policy implications

Components

DSSs to model the system - empirical evidences -consisting of coupled tools such as process, planning and evaluation models and tools statistical and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDA) tools.

stakeholder participation platform – clear policy on enabling environment - feedback mechanisms

Living with uncertainty

Recommendation 1

The scientific uncertainty of any analytical assessment -limit the authority of scientific knowledge in policy makingThe scientific ambiguity serves both policymakers and scientists: it can be used as an alibi in accounting for a lack of policy effectiveness. However this should not affect the importance of scientific knowledge in decision making as uncertainty is a byproduct of analyzing complex issues

uncertainty is a byproduct of analyzing complex issues

DSSs are not for policymaking

Recommendation 2

support the decision-making process

despite scepticisms and uncertainties, modelling systems have become indispensable tools in water resources managementPast research indicates that decision makers are becoming more dependent on scientific information (e.g. Matthies et al, 2007; Liu et al, 2008) and hence there is a quest for developing comprehensive DSSs;

a tool to facilitate an informed, transparent and participatory decision-

making processcertain end-users expect the so called ‘super’ software which can make decisions with a click of a button i.e. they require instantaneous answers to extremely intricate situations.DSSs are not off-the-shelf software packages but they are interactive multi-stakeholder decision-making platforms. A DSS is not a tool for making-policy but it is.

first, establishing the relationships between the dominant paradigms (e.g. IWRM) and different analytical frameworks (e.g. Institutional Analysis, DPSIR);

and second, linking social (policy) and scientific methodological approaches through an exchange mechanism among outputs of the frameworks used in the Decision Support tools.

integrated methodological framework

An evolving IWRM

An IWRM approach can use scenario analysis which is embedded in the DPSIR framework. This will interface with the IA framework. The interface between science and policy can be established by looking at integrating technical and social assessment methodologies on a dynamic, interactive multi-windowed stakeholder interface platform. The IWRM paradigm will itself need to evolve to embrace emerging issues such as the management of ‘green’ water and accounting for virtual water.

Perspectives and ethics

Polices to deal with water scarcity in WANA region are influenced by cultural and ethical aspects which represent a dimension of the community attributes which has to be considered in any policy analysis exercise. On the above basis, it is argued that it is vital to incorporate ethical perspectives into integrated institutional and technical frameworks for better water resources management under water scarcity

Science and water policy interface

an interface between scientific knowledge systems and policy-making decisions.

Conclusions

Given the complex nature of water scarcity in the WANA region, finding the science –policy interface is vital to enhance the policymaking process in the region.

In the WANA region in which water scarcity is a fact of life, water sector institutions need to be re-oriented to cater for the needs of changing supply-demand and quantity-quality relationships in the emerging realities

Thank you

Water Resources Group

School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University,

UK

Questions?