Free Flow

[

] 138

ater

ducation

and

nstitutional

evelopment

formulation and technical analysis of alternatives, so that the

needs of participants in the planning process solutions are better

defined and understood, and solutions are developed to meet

them. The collaborative process is structured through ‘circles of

influence’ that define roles, commitments, communication chan-

nels, rules of engagement and, importantly, the two-way flow of

technical information between interest groups, model builders

and analysts. The circles of influence concept enforces a para-

digm shift by placing the model builders at the inner-lowest level,

to be directed by stakeholders and decision makers at the highest.

This is meant to ensure that a decision model is built starting

from the decision objectives that matter, and that complexity

is kept at a minimum to ensure that decisions of interest can be

made by stakeholders and those within the scope of the deci-

sion makers. Uncertain variables are examined first to determine

whether their further understanding would affect the outcome

of a decision. At an ongoing SVP process facilitated by USACE

in the Nam Gam sub-basin of the Mekong River in Thailand, all

modelling is done with Excel because all members of the river

working group have access to it.

The members of level 1 (the model builders), are typically

salaried and have the ability to develop sophisticated analyses

and models of the water resources system of interest. In Peru

the model builders consist of the technical coordinators of the

river basin council, a consultant firm, the president of the river

basin council and the autonomous water authority, which is

a regional office of ANA. In these pilots, leaders of the inter-

est groups represent themes of Peru’s national water strategy

(financing, water quality, risk and climate change, institutions

and culture of water, and water resources benefits)

in level 2 (model validation), to test and help define

the decision metrics, objectives and measures to be

evaluated with respect to the problem statements and

interests of their constituents. These first two groups

meet with high frequency in technical work sessions.

The broad interest groups (level 3) and decision

makers (level 4) meet at lower frequency during

structured workshops to further provide values and

interests, and decision scope (such as consideration

of national or regional strategies, politics and master

plans) respectively. In these Peru pilots, the deci-

sion makers are engaged three times to validate the

progress of the IWRM planning process and to mark

official completion of the state of the basin (‘what do

we have?’), identification of measures to undertake

(‘what do we want?’), and selection of measures to

implement (‘what is possible?’). Through these three

iterations the decision makers become familiar with

the IWRM decision model for the basin, and collabo-

rate to define and understand the trade-offs that will

have to be made.

Integrated water resources planning and

systems modelling

Planning is a structured approach to problem solving

that provides a rational framework for decision-making.

In general, planning starts by defining the problems and

opportunities for change, defining objectives and criteria,

A working session with ANA in 2011, illustrating a simulation model

with objectives and metrics identified in a mock workshop

Agricultural, municipal, industry and subsistence husbandry stakeholders at an

inception stage stakeholder workshop for the Chili-Quilca river basin in 2011

Image: Guillermo F. Mendoza

Image: Aelix Serrat Capdevila