IWRM – a model to be followed?

BLOG 9: IWRM – a model to be followed?

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) has garnered a lot of interest, and popularity, in recent history. The Global Water Partnership define it as:

'A process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems'. (Mehta, 2015).

Clearly, with such an entity endorsing its use, it has become subject and found involvement with a number of water policy strategies in countries such as Nigeria and Chad. As mentioned in my second blog, bhe global rise in population places a dire importance in water resource management. Freshwater, being a finite resource, requires an active approach to conservation and increase in efficiency.

 Success can be seen in Nigeria’s Komadugu-YobeRiver Basin, where the construction of dams and large-scale irrigation previously led to conflict. IWRM ensured that a water charter was put in place whereby farmers, fishermen and herders were all part of the plans to restore the river flow.

 Whilst many have championed it, this has been met with debate placing it as a source of contention. IWRM, owing to the fact it is a major reform, could take decades before acceptable adherence to its principles is observed. In addition, it is important to recognise water as an economic good and changing allocation of water resources can have an adverse impact on different countries or groups that will need to reduce usage of water. Developing countries pose an additional barrier in that the monitoring of progress can be difficult to measure – especially so in cases where the water sector is significantly more informal and built on a local infrastructure thereby making national goals harder to achieve.

There is certainly an argument to be made that people have become more concerned with the acronym itself and that IWRM has swayed from the objectives it primarily set out to achieve.

Here are some of the contentions:

Masks neoliberalism:

·      This views the paradigm as regulating water not for the sake of its conservation of equitable allocation, but to favour the TNCs and neoliberal model of governance (Mehta, 2015).

·      Does not take a participatory approach and as such allows elites to control its implementation – this is seen in the case of Mozambique

Being too idealistic:

·      It is difficult to find a quick-fix solution, and a solution that will please everybody.

·      Therefore its emphasis on including all players is argued to be unrealistic

I certainly see where some of these concerns are coming from, but I do believe that if the core principles that IWRM set out with are adhered to, then equitable solutions and good management can be had. These concerns largely come about due to a departure from these very principles, therefore does not necessarily reflect IWRM itself – rather what people purportedly perceive IWRM to be.

References:

UNESCO (2016) http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001818/181891E.pdf

Biswas, A.K., 2004. Integrated Water Resources Management: A Reassessment. Water International 29 (2), 248–256.

Mehta, L (2015) Politics of Integrated Water Resources Management in southern Africa, (WWW) Institute of Development Studies (ids.ac.uk; 12/11/16).

Van der Zaag, P. 2005. Integrated Water Resources Management: Relevant concept or irrelevant buzzword? A capacity building and research agenda for Southern Africa, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 30, 867-871.