Sustainable water management requires promoting framework conditions on all levels - regional, national, sub-national and local. The multi-level and multi-stakeholder process needs to balance and harmonise different interests to bring about sustainable and balanced economic, ecological and social benefits. Bottom-up and top-down approaches are important in order to elaborate and implement common cross-level strategies and policies.
Experiences from the watershed management project that was implemented under the former Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) in the lower Mekong basin provide an example of linking the concept of integrated watershed management with a multilevel approach.
Introduction
Today’s farming households find themselves under a multidimensional set of pressures, amongst which we count food insecurities and climate change. To keep up with these trends, today is the time to rethink policies, encourage multi-stakeholder dialogues and investments in smart irrigated agriculture. Watershed management is one way to support agriculture water management as it brings together stakeholders from different levels and sectors to discuss solutions to social and environmental issues.
A sustainable management of water resources in rural areas cannot develop unless promoting framework conditions are put in place at local, sub-national, national and regional level. Involvement of all levels is the guarantee for success. A prerequisite for water management therefore includes an enabling environment in line with development oriented policy.
Experiences from water management have shown that the key to success lies in a multilevel approach. This can be explained by the necessity to withstand and balance diverse interests: the logic of economics, the law of nature, political and institutional power as well as norms and guidelines of social wellbeing[1]. In the case of transboundary water management and required consolidation of national interests, the necessity for a multilevel approach is even leveraged.
7 steps of watershed management[2]
Watersheds are considered as decisive unit for planning and management of water resources. By giving watersheds the attention they deserve, it is expected to overcome fragmentations created by natural and administrative borders and the complementary incompatibility of administrative guidelines and institutions[3]. The process of watershed management will start with an assessment of the policy frameworks and laws existing at regional, national, sub-national and local levels to evaluate the context in which watershed management is to occur.
Regional level
Water does not respect national borders. Worldwide, there are 263 transboundary lake and river basins that account for around 60 percent of global freshwater flow. As a result, transboundary water resources create social and economic interdependencies between different societies. On the one hand, this can bring about discourses and conflicts but on the other hand, there is a potential to promote regional cooperation, peace and security[4].
What is needed at regional level is cooperation, an adequate legal and institutional framework supported by all countries, a joint approach towards planning and sharing of benefits and related costs[5]. All of which can only be assured through regular meetings to stimulate exchange and foster mutual trust.
Lessons learnt from GTZ’s watershed management project
The GTZ development measure on Sustainable watershed management in the Lower Mekong Basin started in 2002 and ran over three phases until 2011. The project was anchored at the Mekong River Commission (MRC), an intergovernmental organisation of the four riparian states of the Lower Mekong Basin: Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Viet Nam. The organisation’s objective is to support the member states in the protection and development of their water-related resources. Within the project approach, the Commission served as a platform for regional dialogue.
When working at regional level, a first vital step is to create a common understanding about water related concepts and definitions. In the case of South East Asia, the term ‘watershed management’ did not exist in all local languages. In the Khmer language of Cambodia for example, until today there is no term. Instead, the English expression is used.
The four riparian states are very different in their socio-economic development, infrastructure and legal frameworks, with Thailand being far more advanced in watershed management. Against this background, the GTZ approach to spent one year on discussing terms and concepts was laudable.
To create a common understanding, the GTZ organized different kinds of regional forums as follows:
- High level policy dialogue and regional consultation meetings were organised to collect and discuss ideas, views and experiences. They aimed at increasing mutual understanding of the actual situation of watersheds and their management in the four countries of the lower Mekong region.
- After having set up working groups at national level, the project organized joint meetings at regional level which allowed for exchange on experiences around mandates, coordination as well as future roles of the working groups. Furthermore, these meetings aimed at identifying options for deeper cooperation between the four national groups.
- Study site visits aimed at creating mutual learning effects. As Thailand was the most advanced country, representatives from the other countries were invited to visit a model watershed in Huay Sam Moer to gain a better impression of practical management and to receive first-hand information.
National level
To create ownership, the responsibility of watershed management projects should be transferred to the appropriate institutions. Mandates for watershed management are often not clearly divided as they include matters of relevance for multiple sectors like agriculture, infrastructure, forestry or natural resources. Also at national level it should be ensured that all stakeholders speak the same language and have a common understanding of what watershed management really is.
A way to institutionalise continuous dialogue betweenrelevant stakeholders is by setting up national working groups that should ensure harmonised sector policies. When reviewing roles, responsibilities and assigning relevant tasks to sectors, it might appear necessary to create a brand new ministry that is entrusted with the governance of water resources.
It is necessary to build up capacities of officials and relevant stakeholders not only to raise understanding of the complexity of the issue but also to derive benefits and synergies from cooperation between different entities. Next to technical skills, negotiation, diplomacy and conflict resolution are relevant skills. Capacity Building can take the form of individual or international long-term trainings as well as workshops to create dialogue and mutual understandings of the concept of integrated watershed management.
Lessons learnt from the GTZ watershed management project
GTZ installed national working groups for watershed management in all project countries. These were comprised of high level representatives from all relevant line agencies as well as national Mekong Committees which are the national coordination bodies of the Mekong River Commission.
In some countries, these working groups were supplemented by technical working groups. This happened as technical staff, instead of high level staff, was able to invest more time on the issue and negotiate technical details.
Good practice of the national working groups was the integration of a holistic watershed management approach in different laws and guidelines. In Laos, for example, the approach was integrated into the five year plan of a newly established Department for Natural Resources and Environment. Cambodia used the concept to develop a Code of Conduct for Watershed Management. Although not legally binding, it was an important step towards creating a common understanding of integrated watershed management across sectors. In Vietnam, exchange on watershed management influenced the national water resources strategy of the Ministry of Natural Resources that includes a component on river basin management and watershed management.
Sub-national level
The sub-national level is the next smaller administrative unit to manage watersheds. It is responsible to transfer and translate national guidelines into the provincial context. At this level, not only are sub-national policies developed and implemented but it is the closest to governing actual local experiences. Furthermore, it is also the smallest unit where water related services and other management functions are situated.
On province and district level it is equally important to bring together all relevant subnational agencies to work together on water related challenges, opportunities and priorities. This includes governmental agencies, but also important non-state actors like civil society groups or the private sector.
The sub-national level usually is responsible to undertake relevant water management tasks consistent with national and provincial policies and guidelines. The sub-national level has the responsibility to[6]
- Identify main challenges and opportunities through investigations and assessments
- Facilitate mainstreaming of watershed management issues
- Submit recommendations and proposals to higher policy levels
- Comment on water management related proposals in the respective area
- Disseminate information, knowledge and experiences
Lessons learnt from the GTZ watershed management project
GTZ installed watershed committees to coordinate all watershed related activities at provincial and district level. These were comprised of province and district agencies, usually mirroring the national working groups' members at national level, as well as commune agencies within the respective pilot watersheds. Other non-governmental stakeholders could be formally added on the approval of the province government.
Showcase of a watershed management committee[7]
In the case of Laos, the pilot region stretched over three districts, which led to the establishment of three district committees. A result of the project, a memorandum of understanding for harmonized watershed management was signed. Additionally, a working system was set up through which appointed district coordinators could communicate and coordinate in short ways. For example, once water was polluted upstream, the source was identified and communicated to district officials downstream who could quickly treat through adequate measures.
In all countries, the project organized trainings for committee members at district level. On the one hand, participants learned about methods and tools for sustainable watershed management, e.g. methods to measure water quality. On the other hand, the trainings enhanced their skills in writing proposals and drafting manuals.
Local level
At local level, all efforts made at regional down to sub-national level should ultimately materialise and unfold their potentials and effects. Often, the multilevel approach leads to very long results chains and decisions made at regional or national level take up much energy and time to reach the rural population.
Against this background and in the sense of an active civil society, high expectations lie in the opportunities for participation of different stakeholders in rural areas[8]. Here the most important actors include those whose livelihoods depend on the resources in the watersheds which include inter alia male and female farmers, fishermen, old and young people, ethnic minorities and the poorest of the poor. Especially when it comes to developing sustainable solutions for environmental problems all stakeholders are asked to give their voice to achieve high social wellbeing. Therefore, participation is of utmost importance at local level and implies an advanced level of decentralisation and an active civil society.
This is where the difficulty lies in watershed management: Only when people experience need because of scarcity, quality deterioration or extreme weather variation, they ask for participation in watershed management. The local level also implies changing patterns in the use of natural resources. Therefore, the rural population should be made aware of environmental damages and environmental friendly practices. This capacity building program should be building capacities of the rural population on avoiding environmental damages should be accompanied by a thorough attention raising campaign.
Lessons learnt from the GTZ watershed management project
In the watersheds, the GTZ project brought together different stakeholders from districts and villages. Through regular meetings, the communes and villages in the pilot watersheds became more aware about tourism and business activities and their influence on water quality. In this regard new regulations and guidelines were established on the protection and conservation of the environment in the pilot watersheds. In the formulation of water regulations and decrees the integrated watershed management concept made the core idea of the legislative procedure. Because of new water regulations on the protection and conservation of the environment, there are today relatively less conflicts between stakeholders in the watersheds.
The current potential conflicts can be easily resolved by means of existing water regulations that were developed in a participatory manner or through one of the institutionalized stakeholder meetings. As a result, in Vietnam the conflict between hydropower and irrigation stations was addressed and solved by developing an operation regulation that was signed by all affected stakeholders. The agreement in Thailand has resulted in awareness-raising for farmers on the effects of pesticides on water quality. The Cambodian government has started to implement its policy of decentralization with the establishment of village and commune development councils.
Cross level
The national governments respond to water problems at the local or national level, without the need for regional support. Vice versa, the regional institutions work out principles and policies without taking into account the needs and opportunities at local level. Many regional institutions tend to mismanage the water resources and fail to solve the water crisis because mismatches occur between the instances and the levels to be governed. Therefore bottom-up and top-down approaches are important in order to elaborate and implement common cross-level strategies and policies for the sustainable water management.
Lessons learnt from the GTZ watershed management project
The members of watershed committees at sub-national level are comprised of the same authorities as the national working group members at national level. The national working groups initiate and supervise the replication of the same approaches in other watersheds in order to institutionalize watershed management. By institutionalization of the watershed management approach and the provision of tailored training for stakeholders at all levels, the GTZ enabled an environment for multi-level coherence of policies and processes.
At the same time, the GTZ provided the capacity development for individual, organizational and societal levels thus strengthening the local (village, and community authorities), sub-national (administrative staff at district and provincial level, watershed committees) and national levels (national working groups, line ministries and relevant institutions) in the four countries. The decision makers who got the training courses were enabled to apply the received knowledge to support their governments in developing and implementing policies. The close cooperation between the levels provided decision makers with up to date information and experiences from the watersheds which supported the analysis of decrees and regulations. Furthermore, cooperation and capacity building activities improved communication and fostered mutual understanding to the extent that decisions made at regional and national level were easily understood at provincial and local level, thereby contributing to better and sustainable watershed management across levels.
Cross-level strategies in watershed management[9]
References
- ↑ Rauch, T. (2009): Entwicklungspolitik. Theorien, Strategien, Instrumente.
- ↑ Minah, M. modified after GIZ, 2013
- ↑ DIE (2004): Viertes Werkstattgespräch-Integriertes Wasserressourcenmanagement (IWRM): Ein Konzept in die Praxis überführen.
- ↑ UNWater (2008): Thematic Paper. Transboundary Waters: Sharing Benefits, Sharing Responsibilities. http://www.unwater.org/downloads/UNW_TRANSBOUNDARY.pdf [Access 2012-11-10]
- ↑ UNWater (2008): Thematic Paper. Transboundary Waters: Sharing Benefits, Sharing Responsibilities. http://www.unwater.org/downloads/UNW_TRANSBOUNDARY.pdf [Access 2012-11-10]
- ↑ GIZ/Bunnara, M. (2008): Siem Reap Watershed Management Committee Plan of Action – 2008. Unpublished document.
- ↑ Richter, D. modified after GIZ, 2013
- ↑ Grambow, M. (2013): Nachhaltige Wasserbewirtschaftung – Konzept und Umsetzung eines vernünftigen Umgangs mit dem Gemeingut Wasser.
- ↑ Kayumov, A., 2013
Further reading
Ferguson, J., Kuerschner, E., Buehlmeier, D., Cramer, N., Flevotomas, A., Kayumov, A., Minah, M., Niesing, A., and Richter, D. (2014) “What has remained? - An ex post Evaluation of Watershed Management in the Mekong Region” SLE Publication Series, 2014, forthcoming
Mekonginfo: Regional Information Sharing
