Free Flow

[

] 137

ater

ducation

and

nstitutional

evelopment

coast (15 mm average rainfall) with 30 per cent employ-

ment in the agricultural sector (13 per cent of GDP).

This wealth has enabled increases in public and private

investments. But it may have in turn triggered a record

189 social conflicts recorded in 2008 by the ombudsman’s

office of Peru, which are associated with infrastructure in

resource-rich areas of the Andean highlands.

Transparent

and participatory processes can actually hinder negotia-

tions related to natural resources, especially when interest

groups are inflexible. The challenge is to develop a mech-

anism that can structure transparency and participation,

involving a broad range of stakeholders while minimizing

rancour and needless delays in decision-making.

SVP in Peru

The challenges listed above are not unique to Peru, but

in fact routinely confront water planners and managers

in the United States and around the world. In response,

the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) developed

SVP as a collaborative planning process that integrates

systems modelling, structured public participation and

traditional water resources planning methods into a

practical approach to solve water resource problems.

SVP helps to facilitate agreement between diverse inter-

est groups on the facts, multiple objectives and values

related to a watershed or basin.

SVP has its origins in a response to severe droughts

in much of the US West, South-East and the Missouri-

Mississippi valley in the 1980s. The National Drought

Study developed a drought preparedness method that

was based on a systems analysis approach designed

by the Harvard Water Program of the early 1960s,

which shaped the basic principles and standards that

guide federal water resources investment. The drought

preparedness method, however, required planners to

cooperate with decision makers and stakeholders to

determine the criteria used to accept or reject a drought

plan and to develop metrics to evaluate alternatives; and

this collaborative technical analysis method eventually

evolved into SVP. SVP is part of a growing trend towards

collaborative modelling for decision support in water

resources, with an increasing number of water manag-

ers looking towards cooperation in technical analysis as

a solid and useful approach for water solutions.

In 2011, the Project for Modernization of Water

Resources Management (PMGRH), a section of ANA,

initiated six IWRM pilot basins to evaluate execution of

Peru’s 2009 Water Resources Law.

To do this, PMGRH

selected and adapted the USACE-SVP framework as the

process for transparent governance of natural resources

and participatory modelling. The framework would be

used in IWRM plan development by each of the six river

basin councils in the Chancay-Lambayeque, Chira-

Piura, Puyango-Tumbes, Chancay-Huaral, Chili-Quilca

and Locumba river basins.

Structured collaboration

SVP provides a framework to facilitate stakeholder

and decision maker collaboration in the iterative

Model builders (Level 1):

Technical Coordinators of

the basin, Consultant Firm,

President of RBC, AAA

Model Validators (Level 2):

Technical Working groups

Interest Groups (Level 3):

Water user associations,

municipalities, institutions,

universities, NGOs,

professional societies

Decision Maker (Level 4):

River Basin Council (RBC)

The circles of influence applied by SVP in Peru to develop IWRM

plans at the six pilot basins

Source: ANA

The six PMRGH pilot basins currently implementing SVP to

develop IWRM plans that are validated by river basin councils

Source: ANA