Integrated Water Resources Management: What is it and why is it used?
June 10th, 2013
Chris White, URS, London
In order to deal with the complexity of water management issues, discussion over water resources is typically separated into distinct topics such as Economics, Water Quality, and the Environment. In reality, however, each of these issues are interconnected; subsidised water prices, for example, can lead to rising water demand which may reduce the quantity of water in the environment thereby leading to an increase in the concentration of pollutants and a decline in water quality.
Due to the interrelated nature of water issues, the use of particular economic or policy instruments can create trade-offs. Purchasing water access rights to secure environmental flows, for example, may be a cost-effective method of increasing the amount of water in the environment, but reduced water extractions may also negatively impact small towns and communities dependent on irrigated agriculture.
In order for water security to be managed effectively, the use of economic and policy instruments cannot be considered in isolation, but rather should be considered in terms of their wider impact on society and the environment. Effective water security management therefore requires planners to take into account the ‘triple bottom line’ and evaluate policies in terms of their economic, environmental, and social impacts. In order to deal with this complexity and coordinate policy effectively, it is often argued that economic and policy instruments should be used as part of a wider integrated water resource management (IWRM) framework.
IWRM is a framework designed to improve the management of water resources based on four key principles adopted at the 1992 Dublin Conference on Water and the Rio de Janeiro Summit on Sustainable Development. These principles hold that: (1) fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource essential to sustain life, development, and the environment; (2) water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners, and policy makers at all levels; (3) women play a central part in the provision, management, and safeguarding of water; and (4) water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good.1
IWRM is not, therefore, a prescriptive description of how water should be managed, but rather it is a broad framework in which decision makers can collaboratively decide the goals of water management and co-ordinate the use of different instruments to achieve them.2 Given that each country differs in terms of history, socio-economic conditions, cultural and political context, and environmental characteristics, there is no single blueprint for IWRM and it can be adapted to resolve the problems faced in each local context.3
As a result, the goals of IWRM vary across countries and different weights are placed on the importance of economic, environmental, and social impacts: Chile, for instance, typically emphasises the importance of economic efficiency, whereas South Africa and the Netherlands tend to place more emphasis on social and environmental goals respectively. It should not, however, be thought that there are always trade-offs between these goals, and a more integrated approach to water security management can help in achieving win-win outcomes which promote more than one goal. Implementing a well-designed scheme for pricing water resources, for example, can promote economic efficiency, create environmental benefits due to decreases in water demand, and generate social benefits if the funds are used to expand service provision or are combined with subsidy schemes for low-income households.
While the differences in implementation across countries can make IWRM difficult to define , it can be broadly characterised by a number of key trends. Firstly, there has tended to be a move away from command-and-control instruments which focus on supply-side water management, such as large-scale water infrastructure, towards incorporating demand side management though the use of economic instruments. This shift in focus has created a more flexible approach to water management and has encouraged the development of a variety of innovative instruments to resolve local water security problems.
Secondly, IWRM has led to an increased awareness of the importance of sustainable development and the incorporation of social and environmental considerations into water management.
Thirdly, IWRM has also tended to lead to a move away from top-down, centralised approaches to water security towards more flexible, decentralised approaches which involve a variety of diversified governance structures at a local, basin, national, and transnational level.2
Finally, under the IWRM framework there has been increasing emphasis on stakeholder collaboration and the involvement of local communities in decision-making. Some of the benefits of wider collaboration include: incorporating specialised knowledge; encouraging more innovative solutions to problems due to greater diversity of viewpoints; encouraging co-operation and reducing the risk of conflicts over water resources; and developing solutions which are more open, inclusive, and democratic, thereby generating wider support and leading to more sustainable outcomes.4
However, the lack of a clear definition of IWRM or a prescribed a list of instruments that can be adopted to resolve water issues has lead to criticism of the concept. Common criticisms include: the lack of a clear, prescriptive definition means that it is often difficult to implement and schemes can have very different results; collaboration is often time-consuming and resource intensive; the level of co-ordination required for large projects may make IWRM too complex to undertake, particularly for developing countries which lack the necessary institutions; and the flexibility of implementation means that it is difficult to evaluate the performance of IWRM itself compared to the particular choice of instruments.2,3,5
Despite these criticisms, the flexibility of IWRM is also an advantage in that it allows policies to be developed for the particular local challenges. Due to the complexity of water issues within and between countries, any policy framework with clearly defined and prescriptive solutions is likely to struggle to be applicable across all situations,2,3 and there is growing evidence that implementing IWRM can offer substantial, long-term benefits to water security and water management.2,3
An example of where IWRM has been successful is the Lerma-Chapala River Basin – one of world’s most water-stressed basins. Rapid population growth combined with industrial and agricultural development have lead to serious imbalances between water withdrawals and availability. Further, the increasing competition over water resources in the basin, combined with poor governance, has led to over-exploitation of surface and ground water resources, increasingly frequent conflicts over water allocations, and considerable levels of water pollution and soil degradation. As a result, during the period from 1981 to 2001, Lake Chapala lost 90% of its natural volume and the remaining water was left heavily contaminated.6
Recently, however, due to a move towards IWRM and subsequent improvements in water governance, the situation has begun to improve: the natural capacity of the lake has been restored; water quality is improving with around 60 per cent of discharges eliminated; irrigation efficiency has risen; and finance has been secured to invest in water sanitation and treatment programs.
The improvement in water governance is due to reforms beginning in the 1970s which started a move away from centralised governance in Mexico towards IWRM. By the early 1980s, six regional water resources offices were set up, including the newly created Lerma-Chapala River Basin Regional Management agency which was given the responsibility of gathering information and designing a Basin Plan. Further reforms in 1992 and 2004 strengthened the decentralisation process and set up Basin Councils with formal powers to implement the proposed water reallocation policies.
The Lerma-Chapala Basin Council carried out a hydrological study of the Basin and developed a model to evaluate the impact of various water reallocation policies according to economic, social, technical, political, and environmental criteria. This model was then used as a basis for water reform in the Basin. The Council also encouraged extensive collaboration with stakeholders in the Basin and took steps to communicate their work as transparently as possible which reduced the level of conflict over reallocations.
While the move towards IWRM in the Lerma-Chapala Basin has been a long and difficult process, after 30 years, the benefits are starting to be realised.
Such case studies highlight the fact that IWRM can lead to more economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable solutions to complex water issues, however, it is important to note that this will not always be the case. IWRM based schemes can be unsuccessful5 and critical evaluation of the successes and failures of such schemes is crucial to understanding how water management can be improved. As such, while people may want a set of prescriptive solutions to resolving water issues, in reality, complex issues require complex solutions and one of the main reasons for adopting IWRM may be that its flexibility embraces and accounts for the challenges of complexity.
1. International Conference of Water and the Environment (ICWE) (1992), The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development, http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/hwrp/documents/english/icwedece.html.
2. Lenton, R. and M. Muller (eds.) (2009), Integrated Water Resources Management in Practice: Better Water Management for Development, Earthscan Publications, London.
3. Pahl-Wostl, C., P. Jeffrey and J. Sendzimir (2011), “Adaptive and Integrated Management of Water Resources”, in R.Q. Grafton and K. Hussey (eds.), Water Resources Planning and Management, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
4. Loux, J, (2011), “Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement”, in R.Q. Grafton and K. Hussey (eds.), Water Resources Planning and Management, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
5. Biswas, A.K. (2008), “Integrated Water Resource Management: Is it Working?”, Water Resources Development, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 5-22.
6. Hidalgo, J. and H. Pena (2009), “Turning Water Stress into Water Management Success: Experiences in the Lerma-Chapala River Basin”, in Lenton, R. and M. Muller (eds.), Integrated Water Resources Management in Practice: Better Water Management for Development, Earthscan, London.
Chris White is the Editor of the Global Water Forum. Chris read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford University; completed a Masters degree in Environmental and Resource Economics at the Australian National University; and now works as an Environmental Economist at URS in London.
The views expressed in this article belong to the individual authors and do not represent the views of the Global Water Forum, the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance, UNESCO, the Australian National University, or any of the institutions to which the authors are associated. Please see the Global Water Forum terms and conditions here.