Free Flow

[

] 175

egal

ramework

the

ational

nternational

evel

EU member states, devolved governments take forward river basin

management planning under the WFD. But it is equally true in

developing countries, where a focus on IWRM and the role of

stakeholder engagement in water governance has taken centre

stage. The challenge is to retain the middle ground as ‘gatekeep-

ers’ of participative management, and to build and retain the trust

of both state and society.

By their very nature, water management issues and the role of

stakeholders encompass many policy sectors. Their effectiveness

is based on trust, and on the delivery of solutions for protecting

the environment, the local economy and local communities. This

requires careful consideration of a number of key issues in rela-

tion to policy development, including the governance framework

used; level of involvement and provision of support for stakehold-

ers; providing accessible and appropriate access to information and

communication platforms for stakeholders; alignment of policy

development; and implementation across all the different sectors

within a catchment. In poorer regions, however, end users may

find considerable difficulty in getting complaints heard. In formerly

centralized economies, experience suggests that water users may not

wish to make decisions regarding management that they believe the

government should make for them. Where information is not readily

available, enforcement of individual use rights will be compromised.

Regarding water use rights IWRM demands that upstream

management of a water body is compatible with downstream uses.

Those making decisions about the allocation of water use rights

should have a good understanding of the uses that are actually being

made of a water body (for example volumes abstracted and for what

purpose, seasonal variations and pollutants discharged) and what

its capacity might be at any particular point. While there may be a

difference between actual use and authorized rights, determining

the latter may be very difficult. This is especially true where use

rights are not registered or where there is no effective centralized

cadastre, at basin scale for instance, of permitted use rights. Setting

up and maintaining the kind of comprehensive intersectoral permit

system that would normally be needed – and that takes account of

the interactions between related surface and ground waters – is very

expensive and bureaucratically onerous.

Given the basin-wide scope of IWRM there are also institutional

aspects to consider. Balancing equity, economics and the environ-

ment through the issuing, variation and termination of water and

land use rights should ideally take place at the watershed level. This

is difficult for all countries irrespective of their economic status.

Balancing national and more local policy priorities is often prob-

lematic where enforcement is through local agencies. This can be

exacerbated by the barriers between sectoral authorities especially

where there are interdepartmental power disparities, for example

between agriculture, energy, water and environment.

There are also additional challenges for the very poorest countries

when it comes to having the necessary data and technology. These

countries may not only lack the comprehensive long-term data sets

that are needed for decision-making, but also may not have their

own data-generating institutions such as a meteorology bureau. This

may put them in the position where they must rely on neighbour-

ing or upstream states for data, which in itself may entail significant

costs. Where the institutions do exist, the research and technology

that IWRM needs for the overall management of water resources

may not. For example, access to academic literature or up-to-date

modelling tools may not be available.

Addressing the issues

The Dundee Centre for Water Law Policy and Science

has been involved in many projects involving member

states of the EU and partners from non-EU states.

These projects have examined interdisciplinary prob-

lems against the backdrop of water law, policy and

science in the context of both developed and developing

countries. A number of key observations and recom-

mendations can be made based on these experiences.

It is desirable to be pragmatic, to move progressively

and not to attempt to do everything at once. So a useful

starting point will always be a core set of parameters for

water quality which are relevant to that country context

and can be monitored and enforced. If desired, these can

be supplemented by a wider set of guideline parameters.

In addition, it is reasonable for states to have standards

for drinking water quality and waste water treatment,

and to recognize the linkages between water and other

aspects of environmental law.

Almost all countries are moving towards IWRM. Here,

the essential preliminary stage requires mapping and

monitoring of the resource and an assessment of current

water uses and status before there can be meaningful

future planning. The WFD sets out a clear framework

for these activities, while its integrative approach and

guidance on participative methodologies can also be

helpful to other countries even if the level of detail in

the WFD is not appropriate. IWRM has developed as a

dominant paradigm, especially for developing countries.

The key concepts of integration between sectors and

administrative levels, as well as stakeholder and public

participation, should be introduced when possible.

The EU’s attempts to achieve ‘good ecological quality’

may also be of interest to other countries, recognizing

the iterative nature of the relationship between emerg-

ing scientific knowledge, the subsequent development

of policy objectives and the establishment of these

policies into law.

Much can be gained by sharing knowledge and

understanding of water governance and management

experiences between stakeholders from a range of back-

grounds. This requires the development of research and

educational programmes that deepen our knowledge and

understanding of the social and physical factors that influ-

ence the effectiveness of water governance arrangements.

Particularly in the case of developing countries, atten-

tion needs to be given to how policies address the ongoing

activities and involvement of community-based manage-

ment in relation to land and water resources. Appropriate

platforms are vital for stakeholders to gain access to infor-

mation and be able to influence decision-making.

Regarding the effectiveness of any transboundary

water governance arrangement, ultimately this will be

contingent on there being a shared understanding over

who gets what water, when and why. There is a require-

ment not only for further capacity for research, but also

for the ability to share the experiences gained between

transboundary basins, and the ability to enhance the

capacity of stakeholders across borders.