222893e

LEGAL FRAMEWORK AT THE NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL LEVELEU member states, devolved governments take forward river basinmanagement planning under the WFD. But it is equally true indeveloping countries, where a focus on IWRM and the role ofstakeholder engagement in water governance has taken centrestage. The challenge is to retain the middle ground as ‘gatekeepers’of participative management, and to build and retain the trustof both state and society.By their very nature, water management issues and the role ofstakeholders encompass many policy sectors. Their effectivenessis based on trust, and on the delivery of solutions for protectingthe environment, the local economy and local communities. Thisrequires careful consideration of a number of key issues in relationto policy development, including the governance frameworkused; level of involvement and provision of support for stakeholders;providing accessible and appropriate access to information andcommunication platforms for stakeholders; alignment of policydevelopment; and implementation across all the different sectorswithin a catchment. In poorer regions, however, end users mayfind considerable difficulty in getting complaints heard. In formerlycentralized economies, experience suggests that water users may notwish to make decisions regarding management that they believe thegovernment should make for them. Where information is not readilyavailable, enforcement of individual use rights will be compromised.Regarding water use rights IWRM demands that upstreammanagement of a water body is compatible with downstream uses.Those making decisions about the allocation of water use rightsshould have a good understanding of the uses that are actually beingmade of a water body (for example volumes abstracted and for whatpurpose, seasonal variations and pollutants discharged) and whatits capacity might be at any particular point. While there may be adifference between actual use and authorized rights, determiningthe latter may be very difficult. This is especially true where userights are not registered or where there is no effective centralizedcadastre, at basin scale for instance, of permitted use rights. Settingup and maintaining the kind of comprehensive intersectoral permitsystem that would normally be needed – and that takes account ofthe interactions between related surface and ground waters – is veryexpensive and bureaucratically onerous.Given the basin-wide scope of IWRM there are also institutionalaspects to consider. Balancing equity, economics and the environmentthrough the issuing, variation and termination of water andland use rights should ideally take place at the watershed level. Thisis difficult for all countries irrespective of their economic status.Balancing national and more local policy priorities is often problematicwhere enforcement is through local agencies. This can beexacerbated by the barriers between sectoral authorities especiallywhere there are interdepartmental power disparities, for examplebetween agriculture, energy, water and environment.There are also additional challenges for the very poorest countrieswhen it comes to having the necessary data and technology. Thesecountries may not only lack the comprehensive long-term data setsthat are needed for decision-making, but also may not have theirown data-generating institutions such as a meteorology bureau. Thismay put them in the position where they must rely on neighbouringor upstream states for data, which in itself may entail significantcosts. Where the institutions do exist, the research and technologythat IWRM needs for the overall management of water resourcesmay not. For example, access to academic literature or up-to-datemodelling tools may not be available.Addressing the issuesThe Dundee Centre for Water Law Policy and Sciencehas been involved in many projects involving memberstates of the EU and partners from non-EU states.These projects have examined interdisciplinary problemsagainst the backdrop of water law, policy andscience in the context of both developed and developingcountries. A number of key observations and recommendationscan be made based on these experiences.It is desirable to be pragmatic, to move progressivelyand not to attempt to do everything at once. So a usefulstarting point will always be a core set of parameters forwater quality which are relevant to that country contextand can be monitored and enforced. If desired, these canbe supplemented by a wider set of guideline parameters.In addition, it is reasonable for states to have standardsfor drinking water quality and waste water treatment,and to recognize the linkages between water and otheraspects of environmental law.Almost all countries are moving towards IWRM. Here,the essential preliminary stage requires mapping andmonitoring of the resource and an assessment of currentwater uses and status before there can be meaningfulfuture planning. The WFD sets out a clear frameworkfor these activities, while its integrative approach andguidance on participative methodologies can also behelpful to other countries even if the level of detail inthe WFD is not appropriate. IWRM has developed as adominant paradigm, especially for developing countries.The key concepts of integration between sectors andadministrative levels, as well as stakeholder and publicparticipation, should be introduced when possible.The EU’s attempts to achieve ‘good ecological quality’may also be of interest to other countries, recognizingthe iterative nature of the relationship between emergingscientific knowledge, the subsequent developmentof policy objectives and the establishment of thesepolicies into law.Much can be gained by sharing knowledge andunderstanding of water governance and managementexperiences between stakeholders from a range of backgrounds.This requires the development of research andeducational programmes that deepen our knowledge andunderstanding of the social and physical factors that influencethe effectiveness of water governance arrangements.Particularly in the case of developing countries, attentionneeds to be given to how policies address the ongoingactivities and involvement of community-based managementin relation to land and water resources. Appropriateplatforms are vital for stakeholders to gain access to informationand be able to influence decision-making.Regarding the effectiveness of any transboundarywater governance arrangement, ultimately this will becontingent on there being a shared understanding overwho gets what water, when and why. There is a requirementnot only for further capacity for research, but alsofor the ability to share the experiences gained betweentransboundary basins, and the ability to enhance thecapacity of stakeholders across borders.[ 175 ]