222893e

WATER EDUCATION AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTformulating alternatives to consider, evaluating how well each alternativemeets the objectives and criteria and, finally, looking at trade-offsto choose a preferred alternative. Generally, planning is an iterativeprocess with objectives, criteria and alternatives all being modified asnew information is gained.SVP intimately melds the planning process with technical analysisand structured collaboration using a collaboratively developed andvetted technical model of the system. For example, the problemstatement and objectives provide information on the types ofmodels, analysis, visualization and complexity required. In Peru,the planning process is designed to last 18 months, with three iterationphases of six months each. Integrants of levels 2, 3 and 4 ofthe circles of influence establish metrics for the evaluation categorizedinto four IWRM ‘accounts’: economic growth, environmentalquality, financial sustainability and social equity. Different stakeholdersunderstand these IWRM accounts through various metricsthat are identified, agreed upon and modelled.The planning group develops the technical analysis model withdirection and inputs from the many workshops and working meetings.In order to build capacity and consistency within ANA and thePMGRH project, a water evaluation and planning model is beingused to characterize the hydrology and hydraulic system. Excel andSTELLA are used to model the impact of different alternatives, thetrade-offs and the evaluation metrics.The challenges to implement IWRM are often not technical issues.Rather, they are institutional drivers that are often unique to thedifferent sectors to be coordinated, such as environment, floodmanagement, energy, mining, municipal and industry. These sectorsnot only have conflicting interests, but also differing public supportor understanding. SVP provides rules and techniques to structurecollaboration, and the means to communicate and simulate planningalternatives that take into account the diverse planning objectivesand sectoral values.Promotion of best practicesSVP was introduced to ANA in 2009 as an option to execute thesix IWRM pilots. After a week-long workshop with ANA’s technicalstaff, SVP would become the approach to develop IWRMplans. Over a year, the International Center for IntegratedWater Resources Management (ICIWaRM), a United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization category IIcentre, worked with ANA to adjust the methodology and providedtraining to key staff who became counterparts to an implementingconsultant firm. ICIWaRM helped develop the terms of referencefor implementation by private consultant firms, and led capacitybuilding, initial inception and methodology adjustment workshopswith national and regional ANA staff and stakeholders. The inceptionworkshops included representatives of municipal, irrigation,hydropower and subsistence farming and husbandry sectors. Thegoal of these workshops was to prepare and familiarize stakeholderswith an upcoming participatory planning effort for IWRM.The future of SVP for water resources managementICIWaRM has been replicating this US Corps of Engineers collaborativemodelling approach with river working groups in Thailandand Mongolia. Upon request by the Thailand National MekongRiver Commission to explore this collaborative modelling andnegotiation framework, ICIWaRM has begun an SVP study in theNam Kam sub-basin of the Mekong River. In Thailand, sub-basinworking groups of stakeholders and interest groupshave been tasked to support and facilitate IWRM,but they do not have the required training or guidance.The working groups have an understanding oftheir problems and needs, and of their current watersystems, but not of management options, impacts ordecision-making frameworks. By empowering localtechnical people with tools and a structured collaborativeplanning process, SVP can help interest groupslearn about their system and options and jointly movetowards sustainable solutions.The need to adapt to a changing climate hasspurred additional interest in SVP as a way to engagea broad set of stakeholders in the technical and valuediscussions inherent in developing sustainable watersolutions in the face of climate change. SVP providesa decision-scaling framework whereby water resourcesmanagers can focus on all the climate states that theirsystem is vulnerable to and develop plans and likelihoodanalyses around watershed objectives in respectof these vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities need tobe defined in a stakeholder process and then linkedthrough technical analysis to potential alternatives.The concept of starting with stakeholder-determinedvulnerability thresholds contrasts with more traditiontop-down climate adaptation analyses that start bydeveloping forecasts of future climate states.The niche exists because, across the world, manycountries are promoting ambitious initiatives forparticipatory IWRM planning with river basin councils.However, there exists little practical guidanceon how to make decisions and perform the tradeoffsthat are needed to evaluate IWRM strategies.The integration of social and engineering principlesis key to the success of SVP. Most social scientistsdo not have experience in developing the simulationmodels and technical analyses required to evaluatethe impact of alternatives and trade-offs. Mostengineers are not accustomed to being guided bystakeholders who provide the multi-objective valuesand interests that ultimately drive decision-making.SVP integrates these different fields and provides astructured framework for IWRM.The common misconception about IWRM is that itis about simply integrating stakeholders of all sectors.We posit that IWRM is about planning under at leastfour types of objective categories: financial sustainability,economic growth, social well-being andenvironmental quality. A diversity of water sectorstakeholders is important only because it allows theadequate definition of the metrics and objectives undereach of these categories. SVP provides a forum thatwill probably not provide an optimal solution, but it isone that will facilitate decision-making under complexand conflictive environments. This is one reason whythis work is being well received in Peru and Thailand.At the end of the day, river basin councils have tomake trade-offs with limited budgets, diverse interestsand high uncertainty.[ 139 ]