Water for people.pdf - WHO Thailand Digital Repository

S H A R I N G W A T E R : D E F I N I N G A C O M M O N I N T E R E S T / 2 9 9Such practical mechanisms are usually adopted by most, if not allcountries, for intersectoral sharing. They represent a significantoperational interface at a level below IWRM. The absence ofassessment of the uptake of one or more of this suite ofmechanisms precludes any authoritative conclusion on intersectoralsharing in practice. An example of a sharing mechanism used underdrought conditions in Japan is described in box 12.2.Not only are there institutional methods for facilitating thesharing of water resources, but some countries have implementednew technologies, such as desalination and vast pipelines, whichenable the resource to be shared amongst regions and sectors alike.Box 12.3 provides details on how Saudi Arabia is attenuating itswater scarcity problems, and denotes a commonly overlooked issueof sharing between sectors, as opposed to between countries.Integrated Water ResourcesManagement (IWRM)Equitable and sustainable management of the world’s shared watersystems requires flexible, holistic institutions capable of responding tohydrological variation and changes in socio-economic needs, politicalregimes and societal values. Unfortunately, these and other keymanagement components are noticeably absent from many nationaland international water institutions. Figure 12.1 provides a schema ofthe power and authority of different kinds of institutional mechanisms.At the operational level, the challenge is to translate agreedprinciples into concrete action, while at a basic level themechanisms discussed in the previous section provide a means ofachieving this. The higher-level strategic response is often referredto as IWRM in contrast to ‘traditional’, fragmented water resourcesmanagement. The concept of IWRM is widely debated and hence,regional or national institutions must develop their own IWRMpractices using the collaborative framework that is emerging globallyand regionally. The Global Water Partnership (GWP) has definedIWRM as ‘a process which promotes the coordinated developmentand management of water, land and related resources to maximizethe resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable mannerwithout compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems’.The concept of IWRM at its most fundamental level is asconcerned with the management of water demand as with itssupply. Thus, integration can be considered in two basic categories,and must occur both within and between these, taking into accountvariability in time and space based on:■ the natural system, with its critical importance for resourceavailability and quality, and the wide range of environmentalservices that it provides; and■ the human system, which fundamentally determines resourceuse, waste production and pollution, and which must also set thedevelopment priorities.While river basin organizations go some way towards meeting this goal,alone they are inadequate to deliver the full range of economic and socialbenefits associated with IWRM, which in reality has to be addressed bynational or international laws. There is competition between demands fordifferent uses of water, and geographic competition between upstreamand downstream users in both of the above categories. Historically, watermanagers have tended to see themselves in a neutral role, managing thenatural system to provide supplies to meet externally determined needs.IWRM approaches should assist them in recognizing that their behaviourFigure 12.1: Power and authority of different institutional mechanismsLow allocationof authorityHigh allocationof authorityTechnicalfield assistanceRegionalstudy centresRiver basinauthoritiesComprehensiveregional authoritiesIndividualstudiesInter governmentalpanelsConventionsand treatiesComprehensiveregional waterframeworksSource: Prepared for the World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP) by J. Delli Priscoli, 2001.