Free Flow

[

] 139

ater

ducation

and

nstitutional

evelopment

working groups of stakeholders and interest groups

have been tasked to support and facilitate IWRM,

but they do not have the required training or guid-

ance. The working groups have an understanding of

their problems and needs, and of their current water

systems, but not of management options, impacts or

decision-making frameworks. By empowering local

technical people with tools and a structured collabo-

rative planning process, SVP can help interest groups

learn about their system and options and jointly move

towards sustainable solutions.

The need to adapt to a changing climate has

spurred additional interest in SVP as a way to engage

a broad set of stakeholders in the technical and value

discussions inherent in developing sustainable water

solutions in the face of climate change. SVP provides

a decision-scaling framework whereby water resources

managers can focus on all the climate states that their

system is vulnerable to and develop plans and likeli-

hood analyses around watershed objectives in respect

of these vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities need to

be defined in a stakeholder process and then linked

through technical analysis to potential alternatives.

The concept of starting with stakeholder-determined

vulnerability thresholds contrasts with more tradition

top-down climate adaptation analyses that start by

developing forecasts of future climate states.

The niche exists because, across the world, many

countries are promoting ambitious initiatives for

participatory IWRM planning with river basin coun-

cils. However, there exists little practical guidance

on how to make decisions and perform the trade-

offs that are needed to evaluate IWRM strategies.

The integration of social and engineering principles

is key to the success of SVP. Most social scientists

do not have experience in developing the simulation

models and technical analyses required to evalu-

ate the impact of alternatives and trade-offs. Most

engineers are not accustomed to being guided by

stakeholders who provide the multi-objective values

and interests that ultimately drive decision-making.

SVP integrates these different fields and provides a

structured framework for IWRM.

The common misconception about IWRM is that it

is about simply integrating stakeholders of all sectors.

We posit that IWRM is about planning under at least

four types of objective categories: financial sustain-

ability, economic growth, social well-being and

environmental quality. A diversity of water sector

stakeholders is important only because it allows the

adequate definition of the metrics and objectives under

each of these categories. SVP provides a forum that

will probably not provide an optimal solution, but it is

one that will facilitate decision-making under complex

and conflictive environments. This is one reason why

this work is being well received in Peru and Thailand.

At the end of the day, river basin councils have to

make trade-offs with limited budgets, diverse interests

and high uncertainty.

formulating alternatives to consider, evaluating how well each alterna-

tive meets the objectives and criteria and, finally, looking at trade-offs

to choose a preferred alternative. Generally, planning is an iterative

process with objectives, criteria and alternatives all being modified as

new information is gained.

SVP intimately melds the planning process with technical analysis

and structured collaboration using a collaboratively developed and

vetted technical model of the system. For example, the problem

statement and objectives provide information on the types of

models, analysis, visualization and complexity required. In Peru,

the planning process is designed to last 18 months, with three itera-

tion phases of six months each. Integrants of levels 2, 3 and 4 of

the circles of influence establish metrics for the evaluation catego-

rized into four IWRM ‘accounts’: economic growth, environmental

quality, financial sustainability and social equity. Different stake-

holders understand these IWRM accounts through various metrics

that are identified, agreed upon and modelled.

The planning group develops the technical analysis model with

direction and inputs from the many workshops and working meet-

ings. In order to build capacity and consistency within ANA and the

PMGRH project, a water evaluation and planning model is being

used to characterize the hydrology and hydraulic system. Excel and

STELLA are used to model the impact of different alternatives, the

trade-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 the

different sectors to be coordinated, such as environment, flood

management, energy, mining, municipal and industry. These sectors

not only have conflicting interests, but also differing public support

or understanding. SVP provides rules and techniques to structure

collaboration, and the means to communicate and simulate planning

alternatives that take into account the diverse planning objectives

and sectoral values.

Promotion of best practices

SVP was introduced to ANA in 2009 as an option to execute the

six IWRM pilots. After a week-long workshop with ANA’s tech-

nical staff, SVP would become the approach to develop IWRM

plans. Over a year, the International Center for Integrated

Water Resources Management (ICIWaRM), a United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization category II

centre, worked with ANA to adjust the methodology and provided

training to key staff who became counterparts to an implementing

consultant firm. ICIWaRM helped develop the terms of reference

for implementation by private consultant firms, and led capacity

building, initial inception and methodology adjustment workshops

with national and regional ANA staff and stakeholders. The incep-

tion workshops included representatives of municipal, irrigation,

hydropower and subsistence farming and husbandry sectors. The

goal of these workshops was to prepare and familiarize stakehold-

ers with an upcoming participatory planning effort for IWRM.

The future of SVP for water resources management

ICIWaRM has been replicating this US Corps of Engineers collabo-

rative modelling approach with river working groups in Thailand

and Mongolia. Upon request by the Thailand National Mekong

River Commission to explore this collaborative modelling and

negotiation framework, ICIWaRM has begun an SVP study in the

Nam Kam sub-basin of the Mekong River. In Thailand, sub-basin