Integrated Water Resources Management

Governance

There is a general consensus within the world water community that “the water crisis is a crisis of governance: a failure to integrate policies and practices related to the management of water resources.” (Global Water Partnership Forum Summit, 2004) To succeed in implementing an effective IWRM system it is important to develop an interactive process by which the system of values, policies and institutions by which a society manages its economic, political and social affairs through interactions within and among the state, civil society and the private sector, according to the UNDP(2003a, 1) In keeping with this, in 2004 the Integrated Water Resources Management Dialogue on Effective Water Governance, undertaken by the Global Water Partnership in conjunction with the United Nations Development Project and the International Council for Local Development Programs (ICLEI), called for the promotion of better “water governance” around the world, by focusing on country and local levels to develop active partnerships.” (Global Water Partnership Background Paper, 2004) The concluding recommendations of the 2^nd World Water Forum at the Hague included “making water governance effective” by aligning “political, social, economic and administrative systems to provide the enabling environment to manage water resources and the delivery of water must be a priority.( 2000) The 2000 Hague Ministerial Declaration reinforced this view and called for governing water wisely to ensure good governance so that the involvement of the public and the interests of all stakeholders are included in the management of water resources.

The Bonn 2001 Freshwater Conference resulted in a ministerial recommendation for “Actions in the field of Governance” as one of its three major themes.(Bonn Conference on Fresh Water, 2001) Further, the ministerial panel requested that “each country have in place applicable arrangements for the governance of water affairs at all levels and, where appropriate, accelerate water sector reforms.”

At the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 Heads of State declared in Article 4 of the Introduction to the Plan of Implementation that “good governance within each country and at the international level is essential for sustainable development.” It set out an agenda that included preparing “IWRM and water efficiency plans by 2005.”(Johannesburg, 2002)

The United Nations Development Program describes governance as “the exercise of economic, political, and administrative authority to manage country’s affairs at all levels. [Governance] comprises mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences”.(UNDP, 2001)

Most importantly, good governance provides for a system that supports accountability, transparency and participation. Accountability as it relates to water, depends almost entirely on the consumer’s ability to exert pressure on the agent to perform through the ability to exit and “to exercise voice”. Second, transparency, according to Sarvan “at the heart of the good governance paradigm.” Accordingly, this requires institutions and provisioning organizations to be transparent to counter corruption. Finally, Sarvan argues, direct participation is necessary to overcome the weaknesses implicit in traditional systems electoral politics.(Sarvan, 2003) Stakeholders accordingly, must “influence and share control over priority setting, policy-making, resource allocations and access to public goods and services.”(The World Bank, 2003, f:1, in Sarvan, 2003).

In 1976 Harland Cleveland pronounced “[w]hat the people want is less government and more governance”(Cleveland, 1976) Said to be the first to use the word “governance” as an alternative to the phrase public administration, Cleveland argued that “ organizations that get things done will no longer be hierarchical pyramids with most of the real control at the top. They will be systems-interlaced webs of tension in which control is loose, power diffused, and centers of decision plural. “Decision-making” will become an increasingly intricate process of multilateral brokerage both inside and outside the organization which thinks it has the responsibility for making, or at least announcing, the decision. Because organizations will be horizontal, the way they are governed is likely to be more collegial, consensual, and consultative. The bigger the problems to be tackled, the more real power is diffused and the larger the number of persons who can exercise it-if they work at it.”(Cleveland, Harland, 1976)

Governance is a cooperative system of interactive forces including social capital, civil society and high levels of citizen participation.(Hirst, 2000) As it pertains to water resources the “process to promote coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital eco-systems.”(Global Water Partnership, 2000) Water governance, however, includes “the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, a different levels of society” (Global Water Partnership, 2002)

As modern governance emphasizes the importance of including societal, political and private actors into a network system of governance this has resulted in a multitude of actors involved in decision making. This in contrast to water systems controlled by government bureaucracies that tend to be fragmented and competitive where decision-making is not consultative or holistic as agencies compete for control or influence.(Richards,2001) “Network governance,” suggests Bogason and Musso, “has the potential to promote deliberation and to improve flexibility and responsiveness in service provision, it also raises serious issues regarding equity, accountability, and democratic legitimacy.”

“Current changes in governing tasks that face the political systems...require governance to be performed in new ways. Governance can no longer take the form of sovereign rule, but must be performed through various forms of meta-governance, regulation or self-regulation. The consequence is a transformation of the role that politicians play in the governance of society that endangers representative democracy as we know it but does not necessarily endanger representative democracy as such.” (Bogason, et al, 2006)

A study of 4 Danish municipalities concludes Eva Sorenson, reveals that the new role of politicians in meta-governance may marginalize politicians and consequently weakens representative democracy. The weakening of democracy, she further notes, based on her investigation, can be avoided if politicians strengthen their roles. They may do this by broadening their leadership repertoire by taking an active role in institutional design, while supporting, facilitating, and participating in governance activities (Sorenson, 2006)

The necessarily coordinated process of various forms of formal and informal types of government, social, and private actors emphasizes a society-centered rather than state oriented systems to provide for a “power balance”. The government no longer exercises a monopoly over governance, rather, it is distributed.

“Modern governance by governments must focus on “steering” independent external and internal societal influences.”(Kooiman, 2002) The role of policy makers to effectively guide national legal regulations has becomes increasingly complex as society becomes full of informal institutions, often with their own set of rules. This leads to a proliferation of rules that can undermine the established national legal system as a result of the scale, complexity and cost of the legal system in enforcing laws. To be effective governance systems must “overcome the legitimacy and accountability problems of marketization. This can be achieved through the establishment of self-governing rules and networks so there are independent checks and balances.” (Rogers, Hall, 2003)

“Water policy and the process for its formulation must have as its goal the sustainable development of water resources, and to make its implementation effective, the key actors/stakeholders, must be involved in the process. Governance aspects overlap with technical and economic aspects of water, but governance points us to the political and administrative elements of solving a problem or exploiting an opportunity.” (Rogers, Hall, 2003:16) Major donors and development banks as well as private investors increasingly take account of governance when assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of their investments supporting the notion that good governance is part of the process of economic development.(Rogers, Hall, 2003:15)