54Mitchelltree preservation plans; revegetation <strong>and</strong>l<strong>and</strong>scaping plans; <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape featuresincluding trails <strong>and</strong> other recreation facilities.Recommendations from site plans normallyappear in engineering design drawings for draftplans for a subdivision or industrial estate.The progression from basin to site plans isideal. However, various constraints can lead tosubbasin or subwatershed plans being preparedbefore basin plans, which then later have to beintegrated into a basin or catchment IWRM plan.In a similar way, tributary plans may be completedbefore the subcatchment plans. Nevertheless,the differentiation among four spatial scales hashelped to avoid collecting inappropriate data for agiven scale.PartnershipsAs already noted above, IWRM is intended toensure a holistic or ecosystem approach, <strong>and</strong> t<strong>of</strong>acilitate the coordination <strong>of</strong> initiatives by differentstakeholders. With regard to the latter, a strongmotivation is to break down the “silo effect,” orthe tendency <strong>of</strong> agencies to take decisions withregard only to their own m<strong>and</strong>ates <strong>and</strong> authority.By using partnerships to overcome the silo effect,there is a reasonable expectation that IWRM willbe more effective <strong>and</strong> efficient relative to a nonintegratedapproach.However, in promoting a holistic approach,IWRM can experience tension with arrangementsfor including participatory mechanisms. Manyindividuals, communities, or stakeholder groupsdo not consider the entire system, but rather focusonly on the subpart related to their own needs<strong>and</strong> interests. Thus, individuals <strong>of</strong>ten concernthemselves with the impacts <strong>of</strong> catchmentmanagement on their own property, <strong>and</strong> municipalgovernments frequently worry only about the areaunder their jurisdiction. As a result, if participatorymethods are to be a key component <strong>of</strong> IWRM,care has to be taken to underst<strong>and</strong> not only thestrengths <strong>and</strong> limitations <strong>of</strong> IWRM, but also those<strong>of</strong> participatory approaches.Collaboration allows stakeholders to cometogether to share views regarding different aspects<strong>of</strong> a problem, <strong>and</strong> then explore differences <strong>and</strong>search constructively for solutions. This way, theycan share resources, enhance each other’s capacityfor mutual benefit <strong>and</strong> achieve a common vision bysharing risks, responsibilities, <strong>and</strong> rewards (Gray1989, Himmelman 1996).To achieve effective partnerships, Mitchell(2002) <strong>and</strong> Gunton <strong>and</strong> Day (2003) note that thefollowing attributes deserve attention: (1) sharedvision; (2) compatibility between participantsbased on integrity, mutual trust <strong>and</strong> respect, aswell as patience <strong>and</strong> perseverance by all partners;(3) adaptability <strong>and</strong> flexibility; (4) inclusiverepresentation; (5) benefits to all partners; (6)equitable power for partners (not the same asequal power); (7) clear ground rules; (8) processaccountability; (9) sound process management;(10) clear communication channels; (11) realistictime lines <strong>and</strong> (12) well articulated implementation<strong>and</strong> monitoring processes.In addition, Gunton <strong>and</strong> Day (2003) highlightthat it is essential to determine if a collaborativeapproach should be pursued in a specific situation.To determine when participatory approaches areappropriate, they identified five pre-conditions:(1) commitment <strong>of</strong> decision-making agenciesto a participatory approach; (2) commitment <strong>of</strong>all stakeholders; (3) urgency for resolution <strong>of</strong>an issue or issues; (4) absence <strong>of</strong> fundamentalvalue differences; <strong>and</strong> (5) existence <strong>of</strong> feasiblesolutions. In their view, the challenge is whetherpre-conditions are met sufficiently to allow aparticipatory process to begin.ConclusionCanada has accumulated significant experiencewith what is now called IWRM. Key lessonslearned, if IWRM is to be a useful tool to help facilitateeffective action, are the necessity to preparea shared vision for a desired future, to interpret anecosystem or holistic approach in a focused mannerto ensure planning <strong>and</strong> implementation occurin a timely manner, to recognize the importance <strong>of</strong>various spatial scales in determining the kind <strong>and</strong>amount <strong>of</strong> data to be collected, <strong>and</strong> to develop robustpartnerships among the many stakeholders ina catchment.Author Bio <strong>and</strong> Contact InformationBRUCE MITCHELL, Ph.D., is Pr<strong>of</strong>essor <strong>of</strong> Geography<strong>and</strong> Associate Provost, Academic <strong>and</strong> Student Affairs,at the University <strong>of</strong> <strong>Water</strong>loo. He has over 35 yearsUCOWRJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION
IWRM In Practice Canada55<strong>of</strong> experience conducting research in Canada <strong>and</strong>in developing countries related to integrated waterresources management. He is a Fellow <strong>of</strong> the RoyalSociety <strong>of</strong> Canada, a Fellow <strong>of</strong> the International <strong>Water</strong>Resources Association, <strong>and</strong> a Past President <strong>of</strong> theCanadian <strong>Water</strong> Resources Association. He can becontacted at: Needles Hall, University <strong>of</strong> <strong>Water</strong>loo, 200University Avenue West, <strong>Water</strong>loo, Ontario, Canada,N2L 3G1, or at mitchell@uwaterloo.ca.to 1970. University <strong>of</strong> Toronto Press: Toronto.ReferencesCredit Valley Conservation, Gr<strong>and</strong> River ConservationAuthority <strong>and</strong> Toronto Region ConservationAuthority. 2002. <strong>Water</strong>shed Management in Ontario:Lessons Learned <strong>and</strong> Best Practices in <strong>Water</strong>shedPlanning, Implementation <strong>and</strong> Monitoring in theCVA, GRCA <strong>and</strong> TRCA. Credit Valley Conservation:Mississauga, Ontario.Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding CommonGround for Multiparty Problems. Jossey-Bass: SanFrancisco.Gunton, T. I., <strong>and</strong> J. C. Day. 2003. The theory <strong>and</strong>practice <strong>of</strong> collaborative planning in resource <strong>and</strong>environmental management. Environments 31( 2):5-19.Himmelman, A. T. 1996. On the theory <strong>and</strong> practice<strong>of</strong> transformational collaboration: From socialservice to social justice, Pages 19-43 In: E. Huxham(Ed.). Creating Collaborative Advantage, SAGEPublications: Thous<strong>and</strong> Oaks, CA.Mitchell, B. 2002. Resource <strong>and</strong> EnvironmentalManagement. 2nd edition, Prentice Hall: Harlow,Engl<strong>and</strong>.Mitchell, B. in press. Guide to Hydrological Practices,Sixth Edition.Mitchell, B., <strong>and</strong> J. S. Gardner (Eds.). 1983. River BasinManagement: Canadian Experiences. Department <strong>of</strong>Geography Publication Series No. 20. University <strong>of</strong><strong>Water</strong>loo: <strong>Water</strong>loo, Ontario.Mitchell, B. <strong>and</strong> D. Shrubsole. 1992. OntarioConservation Authorities: Myth <strong>and</strong> Reality.Department <strong>of</strong> Geography Publication Series No. 35.University <strong>of</strong> <strong>Water</strong>loo: <strong>Water</strong>loo, Ontario.Ontario, 1967. Report <strong>of</strong> the Select Committee onConservation Authorities. Queen’s Printer: Toronto.Ontario, 1987. A Review <strong>of</strong> the Conservation AuthoritiesProgram. Ontario Ministry <strong>of</strong> Natural Resources:Toronto.Richardson, A. H., 1974. Conservation by the People:The History <strong>of</strong> the Conservation Movement in OntarioJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR
- Page 3:
Journal of ContemporaryWater Resear
- Page 6 and 7:
2Bruce Hooperinstitutional, and tem
- Page 11 and 12: IWRM: Governance, Best Practice, an
- Page 13 and 14: IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual M
- Page 15 and 16: IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual M
- Page 17 and 18: IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual M
- Page 19: IWRM: Defi nitions and Conceptual M
- Page 22 and 23: 18Cardwell. Cole, Cartwright, and M
- Page 24 and 25: 20Mostert26 water boards responsibl
- Page 26 and 27: 22MostertTable 1. Third National Wa
- Page 28 and 29: 24MostertImplementationThe ambitiou
- Page 30 and 31: 26MostertBiswas, A. K. 2004b. Respo
- Page 32 and 33: 28UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RES
- Page 34 and 35: 30Ashton, Turton, and Rouxresource
- Page 36 and 37: 32Ashton, Turton, and Rouxassumptio
- Page 38 and 39: 34Ashton, Turton, and RouxEffective
- Page 40 and 41: 36UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RES
- Page 42 and 43: 38Hussey and Doversin water policy
- Page 44 and 45: 40Hussey and Dovers1994 Council of
- Page 46 and 47: 42Hussey and Doversestablished Thes
- Page 48 and 49: 44Hussey and DoversTable 1. Typolog
- Page 50 and 51: 46Hussey and Doversassessment appro
- Page 52 and 53: 48Hussey and Doverspolicy goals.Bey
- Page 54 and 55: 50Hussey and DoversFrawley, K. 1994
- Page 56 and 57: 52Mitchelloften took three to four
- Page 60 and 61: 56UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RES
- Page 62 and 63: 58Genskow and Borna series of chall
- Page 64 and 65: 60Genskow and BornTable 1. Watershe
- Page 66 and 67: 62Genskow and Bornthe first Dungene
- Page 68 and 69: 64Genskow and BornWashington, DC.Ko
- Page 70 and 71: 66Green and Fernández-BilbaoWithin
- Page 72 and 73: 68Green and Fernández-Bilbaosubjec
- Page 74 and 75: 70Green and Fernández-Bilbaoinflue
- Page 76 and 77: 72Green and Fernández-BilbaoBerbel
- Page 78 and 79: 74UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RES
- Page 80 and 81: 76BallweberEstablish AdvisoryCommit
- Page 82 and 83: 78Ballweberattributes in others (Ch
- Page 84 and 85: 80UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RES
- Page 86 and 87: 82Barreiraand ground water. To this
- Page 88 and 89: 84Barreirawith other states for int
- Page 90 and 91: 86UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RES
- Page 92 and 93: 88Davis and ThrelfallResource Manag
- Page 94 and 95: 90Davis and ThrelfallTable 2. Thirt
- Page 96 and 97: 92Davis and Threlfallby regional an
- Page 98 and 99: 94Davis and Threlfallenforcement, a
- Page 100 and 101: 96Davis and Threlfallhusbandry prac
- Page 102 and 103: 98Davis and ThrelfallNew Zealand: T
- Page 104 and 105: 100UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RE
- Page 106 and 107: 102Lamoree and van SteenbergenIt is
- Page 108 and 109:
104Lamoree and van Steenbergenand n
- Page 110 and 111:
106Lamoree and van Steenbergeninter
- Page 112 and 113:
108BourgetWorks Planner Capability
- Page 114 and 115:
110Bourgetwith over 600 people resp
- Page 116 and 117:
112Bourgetgovernment’s intrusion
- Page 118 and 119:
114Bourget4.management, drought man
- Page 120 and 121:
116McKayFigure 1. The four paradigm
- Page 122 and 123:
118McKay4. Paradigm 4 (which commen
- Page 124 and 125:
120McKaythree main functions:1. ass
- Page 126 and 127:
122McKayState Implementation of the
- Page 128 and 129:
124McKayTable 2. Corporate governan
- Page 130 and 131:
126McKayFigure 4. Qu. 26 - The ESD
- Page 132 and 133:
128McKayFigure 7. Qu.93- This organ
- Page 134 and 135:
130McKayBrundtland Report. 1987. Ou
- Page 136 and 137:
132UCOWR BOARD OF DIRECTORS/COMMITT
- Page 138 and 139:
134BENEFITS OF UCOWR MEMBERSHIPThe
- Page 140 and 141:
136Past Issues of the Journal of Co
- Page 142 and 143:
138Academic Organizations Membershi
- Page 144 and 145:
140Individual Membership Applicatio
- Page 146 and 147:
Universities Council on Water Resou
- Page 148:
Integrated Water Resources Manageme