41160 Integrated Management From Concepts to Good Practice Briefing Note 11 Charging for Water Resources Management Integrated Management Developing efficient water pricing structures and tariffs for the management, monitoring, supply, and distribution of the water resources in a basin This note is one in a series explaining the attributes and practical application of integrated river basin management. The purpose of the Briefing Note series and the issues and aspects that are covered are outlined in the mini-guide. This note describes: · The aspects to which charges are typically applied · How charges should be set · What is the actual cost for water resources management · Who should set or oversee the charges 1 anagementM basin er riv ntegratedI Contents Acknowledgements 2 Introduction 2 Which IRBM Aspects Are Typically Charged? 4 How Should Charges Be Set? 5 What Is the Actual Cost for Managing the Water Resources in a Basin? 6 How Is Water Priced in the Murray-Darling Basin? 8 Who Should Set or Oversee the Final Charges? 11 How to Move Forward with the Development of a Comprehensive Water-Related Pricing Package: A Few Key Questions 13 Abbreviations and Acronyms 14 References 15 Acknowledgments 2 This Briefing Note series was prepared by Peter Millington, The authors thank the following specialists for reviewing consultant, previously Director-General of the New South the Notes: Bruce Hooper and Pieter Huisman (consultants); Wales Department of Water Resources and Commissioner Vahid Alavian, Inger Anderson, Rita Cestti Jean Foerster, on the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Australia; Doug- Nagaraja Harshadeep, Tracy Hart, Karin Kemper, Barbara las Olson, World Bank Principal Water Resources Engineer Miller, Salman Salman, Ashok Subramanian, and Mei Xie and Task Manager for this Briefing Note Series; and Shel- (World Bank staff). ley McMillan, World Bank Water Resources Specialist. The authors are also deeply grateful to the Bank-Nether- Guy Alaerts (Lead Water Resources Specialist) and Claudia lands Water Partnership Program (BNWPP) for supporting Sadoff (Lead Economist) of the World Bank provided valu- the production of this Series. able inputs. Introduction Note 1 identified five attributes or components for good or sustainable integrated river basin planning and manage- ment. The fifth component relates to the implementation of a detailed, ongoing monitoring and auditing process that assesses in an open and accountable way whether: >The basin-wide institutional arrangements are achieving the goals and objectives set by governments >The principal officers charged with these responsibilities are indeed achieving what is intended >The health or condition of the river basin is being main- tained at the agreed level, consistent with the existing and proposed levels of development. This note concentrates on one key aspect of the basin sustainability matrix: how to establish appropriate water resource user charges to cover the costs of managing the impacts of their actions and to encourage better utiliza- tion of the resource and promote conservation. Annual budget issues to support the ongoing IRBM programs are discussed in this note. Other aspects of the sustainability matrix, such as long-term strategic funding and indicators, are covered in Notes 12 and 14, respectively. 3 anagementM basin er riv ntegratedI Which IRBM Aspects are Typically Charged? 4 There are three areas where some form of charge is often The catchment management charge sometimes forms levied on users. A wide variety of components, methods, part of the water resource administration charge. This and approaches are applied within all three. was the more traditional means of charging. In recent >For the direct provision of a water-related service such times, as the levels of environmental degradation have as a potable water supply or flood mitigation benefits increased, a separate fee or levy has become necessary through a particular method of dam operation. A fee is to cover the very large rehabilitation programs to restore applied for the type and level of service provided. This is the health of the river basin. referred to as a water delivery, supply, or service charge. In this discussion, these direct charges cover services The water resource management charge applies not only provided directly to a customer, plus administrative and to individual users or irrigation companies that take water other indirect service costs such as service expansion. from a river, but also to towns or that have constructed >For the right to use the water resource, even when the dams to provide a continuous supply to a range of users, water is extracted without agency/government assis- including hydropower operators, commercial fish farms, tance. This is referred to as a water resource administra- and the like. These users may be private or government- tion or management charge. It may have several compo- owned organizations and are as equally liable as the nents, including a license administration charge. smaller users. >To cover the costs of the impacts of economic and social development on the basin's resources. This is referred to as a catchment (or sub-basin) management charge. How Should Charges be Set? 5 Whether the final charges to users are based on a com- instances where activities such as flood management may promise among stakeholders or a political decision, most have direct benefits to particular groups or farmers as well managers and decision makers will still want to know the as some general benefits for the overall community, costs true or "real" costs of supplying the service or managing could be apportioned between the direct beneficiaries and the resource before setting the charges to be levied on the government, the latter as the representative of the customers. It is important for a government minister to community. This is usually decided by the government, but anagementM be accountable and to show wisdom and fairness with preferably in consultation with the other beneficiaries. respect to how charges have been set. It is also more basin likely that charges will be accepted if cost reductions are When customers cannot afford to pay either the full er made through gains in efficiency, so officials must also water supply charge or the water resources/catchment riv be able to demonstrate this. Setting charges at precon- management fee (which worldwide is normally the case), ceived "ability to pay" levels can be risky. Moreover, this or where poverty is high and basic needs unmet, govern- approach does not provide any indicators upon which to ment subsides will be needed to ensure that the service seek efficiency improvements. is still provided. For example, it is common for flooding to ntegratedI be reduced as a result of the operation of a dam, simply The cost of service provision must first be defined. Based as part of its irrigation/water supply operation rules. The on this information, the level of charges to be levied on us- government may then choose to pay for the share of these ers would be decided. Cost definition can be done in-house, community benefits because it is not feasible to collect a with verification from external audits to ensure that the "fee" from all those who gain from such indirect benefits. process is not being manipulated. Normally, the results from the cost assessments then go to a separate entity Setting fair and reasonable resource use and management responsible for establishing the water charges. This rate charges does not equate with the selection of a low level of setting process would take into account the financial per- charges to keep the users happy. A thorough cost definition formance of the service provider, consumers' willingness exercise is required. This will benefit both the consumer and and abilities to pay, and stakeholders' concerns. The costs the government. Consumers can verify that they are not of all water resources and catchment management activi- being over-charged and the government can ensure that ties must be paid, either by customer/consumer charges or any subsidy is kept to a minimum. A river basin organization from the government budget. Normally, the government (RBO) can serve as an independent entity to analyze how covers the costs for overall resource assessments, while water is being used and managed across the whole river the costs for the control, allocation, and management basin. RBOs can also develop some pricing structure options of the resource are passed on to the customer. In the and collection methods to improve cost recovery. What is the Actual Cost for Managing the Water Resources in a Basin? 6 The first step to defining the total actual cost for managing>Costs of operation of major gates, diversion works, and the water resources in a basin would be to itemize and major channels, outside or upstream of WSCs dissect all the cost components under the various catego- >Costsofmainchannelandtributaryriverworks, or ries. Then discussion and debate regarding the following groundwater extraction works, to control water diversions should occur: >Costs of river improvement works, dredging, and river >Whether adequate provision has been made for each of bank stabilization: what proportion of these costs is for these components, how these provisions are made, and maintaining flow conditions for navigation, recreation/ with what resources tourism, irrigation, urban or industrial diversions; for >What percentage of the costs of each category should be general resource management; and to allow downstream passed on to, and collected from, the users flow for environmental purposes >How much should be paid by government, either as its >Costs of maintaining major headwork dams and on-route contribution to normal resource management or as a field reservoirs partial subsidy to users. >Costs of monitoring quantity, quality, and environmental parameters in both the rivers and the catchment: what The basin organization would not necessarily do all this percentage is for managing the basin's environment, investigative work. It is more likely that each agency, and for monitoring the impacts of activities and/or private company, or group of users with rights or alloca- regulating users. tions to utilize or manage the resources would be required to submit its costing information in accordance with some A price component for the long-term replacement of major previously agreed format. Usually a periodic audit or infrastructure such as dams should also be included in the inquiry process is undertaken to verify the integrity of the pricing package. However, since such replacement costs information and the cost breakdowns. Though uncommon, are exorbitant and the need is not immediate or short- there may be incentives to incorrectly report costs: that term, very few countries (even those with affluent water is, groups may under-report costs if they think their group users) attempt to collect the full amount of these replace- may incur higher charges, or over-report costs if they think ment costs. It is nevertheless recommended that they be they will be able to recoup more of the expenses. identified so that governments are aware of the long-term costs and obligations to keep the water infrastructure in Some of the costs to be separately identified include: reasonable operating condition. >Internal costs of each irrigation group or water user association (WUA) Once these costs are identified, various options for cost >Costs of any water supply corporations (WSCs) that recovery and areas where efficiency gains need to be made supply water or other services to urban, industrial, and can be determined. The farmers' and towns' abilities to pay irrigation/rural users and how these costs are appor- can be debated and any gaps in cost recovery above these tioned among the various groups levels determined. The question then for state, regional, >Costs of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of major and prefecture governments is how to recover these costs drainage networks (that is, the drainage systems from -- and if only a portion is to be covered by user charges, WUAs, urban areas, or industrial areas) how the shortfall will be made up. 7 In addition, if user charges are set on a volumetric basis, there is the associated issue of water conservation. The structure of the charge then becomes important so that the poor are not negatively impacted. It is recommended that a tiered structure be used such that charges are low for basic water consumption levels and then increase anagementM significantly beyond certain higher levels of consumption. In this way, the charges are appropriately targeted to the basin user groups and to the consumption levels. er riv There are many factors other than price that influence how much water a user diverts and consumes. In many cases, particularly in developed countries, improved water conservation has been influenced more by mandatory ntegratedI reductions in water allocations than reliance on a tiered pricing structure. In some developing countries, the farmers may be so poor such that any attempts to promote water conservation through price increases are pointless because farmers simply cannot afford to pay. It is perhaps better in these cases to develop ways of giving farmers greater control over the management of the irriga- tion systems. In this way, they are responsible for system efficiencies and water usage patterns so they will seek to minimize expenses, both in terms of system maintenance and water charges. For example, in some parts of China, Waterpricingasawaterconservation/demandman- farmers have formed water user associations (WUAs). agement measure is useful and effective, but should Water is priced by volume and delivered collectively to an form part of a package of initiatives and not be a off-take point for the WUA, which is then responsible for stand-alone remedy for poor water use practices. distribution to the farmers. The members have developed an internal roster system to ensure that the minimum vol- ume is diverted at all times, thus greatly reducing seepage and unnecessary drainage flows. How Is Water Priced in the Murray-Darling Basin? 8 The Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) comprises dams and extensive irrigation since 1900. Until the four states and one territory. According to the Australian 1980s, water was seen as a very cheap and plentiful Constitution, each state has the right to manage its natural resource. There were no pricing incentives to encourage resources based on its own policies. This includes the conservation. establishment of a water and natural resources pricing and tariff structure. The Current Pricing Principles The main role of the basin organization is to develop, After some 80 years of intensive water use and unsus- through the high-level Ministerial Council, a package of tainable land use practices, research undertaken by the basin-wide policies to which all states agree to embrace MDBC and the states showed a need to re-think how the alongside the development of their individual resource water and land resources were being used and managed. management policies. The MDBC then monitors and In 1995, all four states across the Murray- Darling Basin evaluates whether each state is in compliance with these -- and in fact, all the states in Australia -- agreed to change policies and whether overall sustainable management of water policy nationwide to redefine water management, the basin's resources is being achieved. allocation, and pricing in an attempt to greatly improve the efficiency of water usage. Specific rules were developed Effective and efficient water pricing structures and tariffs for charging users to reflect the real cost of services. The are key to promoting proper use of the basin's scarce main new initiatives were as follows: resources. An important role of the MDBC is therefore to >By 2001, water charges were to comply with the prin- check and evaluate whether each state is developing and ciple of full cost recovery. In cases where subsidies are implementing pricing packages that promote sustainability, considered necessary (for example, for the elderly and as well as achieve appropriate levels of cost recovery. disadvantaged groups), they will be clearly and publicly identified. The MDBC controls and operates some major dams and >The costs of all activities that relate to the assessment, works on the central stream of the large basin -- the River management, and supply of water are to be included in Murray -- as assigned to it by the Murray-Darling Basin the cost assessment, but only the portion of those costs Agreement to provide water ordered by each of the three that apply to users should be charged to and collected states along the river on a weekly or daily basis. However, from them. the MDBC cannot charge users directly. Thus it charges its >Pricing will include charges for the full and ongoing costs to each state that it supplies with water. The states maintenance of the major water assets, plus a charge to then decide how these costs will be passed on to the users, recover an agreed portion of the replacement costs of together with their internal costs for distribution and these assets. In the case of major dams, this relates only management of the resource. The states decide the level to what are called the moving parts, such as valves and of costs they want to recover and from which users, but spillway gates. are obligated to reimburse the full amount to the MDBC, even if the government treasury provides subsidies. Each state has been given a ten-year period to introduce all the reforms. The state of New South Wales (NSW) As in many other countries, the full or true cost of water provides an example. It is the largest state in Australia in was not being charged to users, even though have been terms of population and agricultural production. It has a figure 11.1 MODEL CATCHMENT FOR COST IDENTIFICATION large network of rivers that supply both urban and rural HEADWATERS needs. Over three-quarters of the state is watered by 9 rivers that flow westward and into the Murray or Darling 1 Rivers, which in turn are the major drainage arms of the 2 Murray-Darling Basin. A model catchment or sub-basin was developed to clearly identify which activities were to be 4 AND 5 included in the cost assessment, to determine the actual 3 6 cost of provision of each of these activities, and to ascer- TOWN AND INDUSTRY6 7 IRRIGATION anagementM tain which activities and corresponding costs were eligible 3 AREA for inclusion in the user charges. A similar approach was 8 basin followed by all four states. This is illustrated in figure 11.1. er TOWN AND INDUSTRY6 riv The MDBC was required to comment on whether this 5 4 6 model catchment approach matched the agreed new 8 IRRIGATION policies for water pricing, and then monitor the implemen- 7 tation of the actual pricing package. 4 ntegratedI 9 As noted, some of these costs should be borne by the 10 consumer and others by government agencies. In many categories, the costs should be shared between the two Category 1 ­ Activities that are undertaken upstream of the dam (No. 2), such as catchment management and measurement and groups since the activity involves a service provision (to assessment of water quantity and quality the customer) and conservation, allocation, and manage- Category 2 ­ Operation, maintenance, and management of dams and weirs. There may be several dams and weirs in the one sub-basin and ment aspects (for the agency/bureau). they may be used for a multitude of purposes, including flood mitigation, irrigation, domestic or town supply, industrial use, and navigation In New South Wales, an expert group made up of some Category 3 ­ Operation and maintenance of weirs and structurestodivert of the stakeholders was established to analyze all the water into irrigation or other consumption systems.These structuresare not for storage and regulation as in Category 2, activities, determine the magnitude of associated costs, but only for distribution. and assign the cost tags. A cost ratio was developed for Category 4 ­ River management along the full length of the river, including each activity. The next issue to be addressed was whether stream and bank stabilization, carrying capacity, navigation, and riverine vegetation maintenance the users could afford to pay their apportioned shares, Category 5 ­ Operation and maintenance of the bulk water supply distribu- whether government subsidies would be required, or tion system, whichrelates to the activities for delivering the bulk water supplies from the dams to the diversion points, as whether the activity needed to be cancelled because well as the monitoring of these activities, through permitting, neither the customer nor the government would cover measurement, and billing operations Category 6 ­ Operation and maintenance of distribution systems throughout the costs. The scale used to apportion the costs for New towns, specific irrigation areas, and the like South Wales is described below. Category 7 ­ Management and maintenance of drainage from irrigation areas or towns Category 8 ­ Effluent collection, treatment, and management Regulatory activities Category 9 ­ Activitiesto assessand overcome downstream impacts arising >Completely (100 percent) to be met by the water user from water diversions and use, such as nutrient load increases, pollution, increased salinity, habitat or vegetation loss for permitting and allocation, policing and monitoring Category10­ Administration and management of the overall river basin for water diversions, compliance with license conditions, the benefit of the community and so on. 10 Operational (supply and distribution) activities planning, water quality strategies, river stabilization >Completely (100 percent) to be met by water user for works. The government funds the remainder (30 to 50 the operation of major supply channels and diversion percent). gates and the maintenance of gates, regulators, chan- >Partly to not at all (30 percent to nothing) to be met nels, drainage systems by the water user for data collection for basin-wide >Mostly (70 percent) to be met by water user for dam op- resource assessments, floodplain and wetland manage- eration, infrastructure management, and flood control. ment, education and communication programs. The remainder (30 percent) of the costs is to be met by the government. The appropriateness of these percentages is constantly and openly reviewed by the water suppliers, the water Water resource management activities resource manager, and by the independent pricing >Mostly (70 to 50 percent) to be met by the water user regulator. This review process is discussed in the follow- for water resource data collection, water resource ing section. Who Should Set or Oversee the Final Charges? 11 Just who decides and announces the level of water-related transportation, and government cargo handling. This charges varies from country to country. Ultimately, the trend raises the question of whether there should be a government usually takes final responsibility. However, separate regulator for each of these sectors or one to in countries with a long history of participatory water cover all. This decision is largely a matter of size and resources management, a trend is developing in which government preference. governments set the policies for water pricing and then anagementM install an independent tribunal to hear submissions from Some specific options of varying complexity for achieving the water service providers and other agencies involved oversight/regulation of water utilities are listed below: basin in natural resource management for which a charge is er proposed. The tribunal also accepts comments on these 1. A review role by say, a Policy and Strategy Unit within riv submissions from the users and the community in general, the ministry responsible for water management, and then decides what level of charge should be imposed, to advise either the minister or the National Water consistent with government policies. Resources Council on the appropriateness of annual charges for water. With this arrangement, the minister ntegratedI Such a tribunal is often referred to as the economic regula- remains directly responsible, but there is also some tor. With improved efficiencies in service provision, there objective assessment. is an even greater need to ensure that national economic and social goals are not distorted by monopolies or other 2.An independent review team set up by the National entities not acting in the public interest. In addition, with Water Resources Council (or Cabinet Committee, or the lobby or special interest pressures increasingly applied Standing Committee), or possibly the government's trea- at the political levels, many governments are finding it sury department, to advise on water prices. The findings worthwhile and more accountable to remove government would then be sent to the Council/Committee for public ministers from such direct pricing roles and establish disclosure. Under this arrangement, the actual pricing is independent tribunals for this purpose. still left to government but provisions have been made for more transparent, independent advice. Public inquiry into the efficiency and effectiveness of any organizations involved in water-related pricing, as well 3. An independent and statutory water regulator (similar as the financial assessment of proposed tariffs, would to OFWAT, or the Office of Water in the United Kingdom) be essential responsibilities in the charter of the regula- to oversee all aspects of the cost, service, and quality of tor. Other factors to be taken into account when setting supply to users. It could have the power to set prices or the charges are local, regional, and national social and make recommendations on pricing levels, which it would economic effects, equity, and cross-subsidies. Efficiency is report to the Water Ministry. These proposals would also very important, as a poor service provider may seek a then be taken to cabinet for endorsement. Normally, the higher charge to support its inefficiencies. In such a case, price levels recommended by the regulator would serve the tribunal can refuse a request for a fee increase and as the upper fee limit. The government would have the demand that certain efficiency gains first be achieved. option to lower the charges. In this case, some compen- satory payment or subsidy from the government to the Increasingly, such regulation is also being applied to service provider would be normally required to offset other areas such as electricity, gas, telecommunications, the loss in revenue. 4.An independent and statutory regulator covering all Its determinations are tabled in parliament and cannot be 12 service industries: water, electricity, transport, and so changed, nor can it be asked to revise or revisit its reports on. The regulator would report to the relevant minister, unless a new government policy needs to be taken into as in Option 3 above, for each particular sector and have account. Nevertheless, the government can choose to set power to set upper limits for the various charges. a lower price than IPART has determined (but not a higher price). In that case, a subsidy must be paid to the corpora- Either of the two statutory approaches in Options 3 and 4 tion or service provider equal to the difference between (or a variation of these) will provide the greatest degree the determination and the set price. of independence. The selection of Option 3 or 4 depends on the scope of activities to be considered. Normally in A pricing submission is received from a monopoly at an countries where the water, electricity, and gas sectors are agreed time. This is placed on public display and dissemi- large, separate regulators have been created for each. nated online. All comments and corresponding responses In smaller countries or states, one regulator covering all by the monopoly are also made available for public sectors seems to be more efficient. scrutiny. Public hearings are held as necessary to ensure proper customer access to the Tribunal. In New South Wales, the government established the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) to During the consultation process, the basin organization monitor and control the pricing structures for all govern- makes its views known. With respect to inquiries relating ment monopoly services in New South Wales: electricity, to rural water throughout the Murray-Darling Basin, the water, gas, rail and transport, ports, taxis. IPART now also MDBC would attend meetings and make presentations on assesses compliance of these monopolies with their operat- how the pricing submission relates to the basin-wide poli- ing licenses and customer contracts in terms of environ- cies on resource sustainability and economic productivity. ment, health, and safety, as well as economics and finances. It would provide information regarding the successes and This task overlaps or conflicts with the responsibilities of shortcomings of recent pricing decisions and provide the the specific resource managers/regulators for each sector, Tribunal with a broader view on basin-wide impact. which also do similar compliance audits and seek perfor- mance improvements. The comments and recommendations An independent pricing tribunal working in close collabora- of IPART and the sector resource regulators respectively tion with an active basin organization has likely achieved could vary, so close collaboration and cooperation is needed. the best combination of commercial pricing structures and improved resource management in Australia, where each IPART was established under a separate Act and it has state is responsible for developing and managing its own a high level of independence from government. It is natural resources. still dependent on government to provide its budget. (Theoretically the organization could be removed or dismissed by the Premier.) However, in the execution of its work, its inquiries, and its determinations, it is totally inde- pendent. Apart from forceful criticism, there is no interfer- ence. The Tribunal consists of three persons appointed by the Premier of the state (although IPART is independent, this is necessary, as IPART is a public sector organization), as well as a range of technical staff. How to Move Forward with the Development of a Comprehensive Water-Related Pricing Package: A Few Key Questions 13 >Are there clear government or river basin organization >Who will decide what proportion of the costs of each cat- policies established that guide how water pricing should egory of activities should be paid by the user/customer? be structured? Have all relevant social, economic, envi- Should an independent expert group be set up for this ronmental and management issues been considered? purpose? Should there be customer representation? How should the range of stakeholders be best represented or anagementM >Has one agency been given the specific role to determine incorporated in this process? the components or categories of activities that make up basin integrated water (or natural resource) management? Are >How will public or community consultation be facilitated? er the real costs for each activity being analyzed? Has the What obligations and accountabilities will be put in place riv range of activities been endorsed by the government? to ensure that their views are taken into account? Are all policy or subsidy issues been spelled out clearly by government or the relevant minister? >Should the basin organization be an independent regula- ntegratedI tor? Or should it be removed from direct involvement in >Whowillgivetheultimateapprovaltoawaterpricing price setting since it is a direct stakeholder that has a package? Who will ensure that monopoly organizations vested interest in sustainable resource use? do not increase prices to inflate profits and hide ineffi- ciencies? What provisions are in place to audit or other- wise review the management decisions associated with single or monopoly suppliers, whether public or private? 14 Abbreviations and Acronyms BDP Basin Development Plan BET Beneficial Evapo-transpiration (ET) CU Consumptive Use DSF Decision Support Framework ERS Environmental Resources Study ET Evapo-transpiration GW Groundwater IRBM Integrated river basin management KRA Key Result Areas LWMP Land and Water Management Plans MDBC Murray-Darling Basin Commission MRC Mekong River Commission NBET Non-beneficial Evapo-transpiration (ET) O&M Operation and maintenance OMVS Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du Fleuve Senegal RBO River basin organization SMART goals Goal that are S (Specific), M (Measurable), A (Achievable), R (Realistic), and T (Time-based) SW Surface water SWOT analysis Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats TBWRC Tarim Basin Water Resources Commission TQM Total Quality Management WSC Water supply corporation WUA Water user association WUP Water Utilization Program References The Living Murray Initiative http:/www.thelivingmurray.mdbc.gov.au/ 15 WEB SITES Heartlands Initiative Water Resources Management http://www.ciw.csiro.au/heartlands/partners/index.html Sectors and themes including: Coastal and marine management Toolkits Dams and reservoirs Benchmarking, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation for Multi-Sector Groundwater Projects, Gender, Hygiene and Sanitation, Private Sector Participation, Irrigation and drainage Small Towns anagementM River basin management http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/water/toolkits.html Transboundary water management Water and environment Global Water Partnership IWRM Toolbox Water economics http://gwpforum.netmasters05.netmasters.nl/en/index.html basin Water supply and sanitation er Watershed management Water Demand Management riv Information and access to the respective Web sites can be found at: Building Awareness and Overcoming Obstacles to Water Demand http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/18ByDocName/Sector- Management, Guideline for River Basin and Catchment Management sandThemes Organizations, IUCN http://www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/River_basin_management_guide- Dams line_26Oct2004.pdf ntegratedI Benefit Sharing from Dam Projects, November 2002 http://www-esd.worldbank.org/documents/bnwpp/2/FinalReportBenefit- Water Resources and Environment Technical Notes Sharing.pdf The overall structure of the series is as follows: A. Environmental Issues and Lessons Good Dams and Bad Dams: Environmental Criteria for Site Selection of B. Institutional and Regulatory Issues Hydroelectric Projects C. Environmental Flow Assessment http://essd.worldbank.org/essdint.nsf/90ByDocName/WorldBankS D. Water Quality Management afeguardPolicies404NaturalHabitatsGoodDamsandBadDamsEnvi E. Irrigation and Drainage ronmentalCriteriaforSiteSelectionofHydroelectricProjects/$FILE/ F. Water Conservation and Demand Management Good+and+Bad+Dams+final.pdf G. Waterbody Management H. Selected Topics Groundwater http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/18ByDocName/Sector- GW-MATE: Groundwater Management Advisory Team Briefing Note sandThemesWaterandEnvironmentWaterResourcesandEnvironmentTech- Series. nicalNotes The overall structure of the series is as follows: Notes 1 and 2 ­ Broad introduction to the scope of groundwater manage- Water Supply and Sanitation ment and groundwater system characterization http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/water/index.html Notes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 ­ Essential components of management practice for major aquifers with large groundwater storage under stress from in- OTHER SOURCES tensive water-supply development for irrigated agriculture and/or urban water-supply Barrow, C. J. 1998. "River Basin Development Planning and Management: Note 8 ­ The protection of potable groundwater supplies A Critical Review." World Development 26 (1): 171­86. Notes 9, 10, and 15 ­ Planning national and regional action for groundwa- ter resource management Boisson de Chazournes, Laurence, and M. A. Salman Salman. 1999. "Inter- Notes 13 and 14 ­ Management of smaller-scale water supply development national Watercourses: Enhancing Cooperation and Managing Conflict." in the rural environment Technical Paper 414F, World Bank, Washington, DC. The remainder of the series (Notes 11,12,16, and 17) deals with a number of specific topics that pose a special challenge. Bruning, Stephen D., and John A. Ledingham. 2000. Public Relations as http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/18ByDocName/Sector- Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Prac- sandThemesGroundwaterBriefingNotesSeries tice of Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The Murray-Darling Basin Chenoweth, J. L. 1999. "Effective Multi-Jurisdictional River Basin Murray-Darling Basin Initiative Management: Data Collection and Exchange in the Murray-Darling and http://www.mdbc.gov.au/ Mekong River Basins." Water International 14 (4): 368­76. Chenoweth, J. L., H. M. Malano, and J. F. Bird. 2001. "Integrated River Miller, Barbara, and Richard Reidinger. 1998. "Comprehensive River Basin 16 Basin Management in the Multi-jurisdictional River Basins: The Case Development, The Tennessee Valley Authority." Technical Paper 416, of the Mekong River Basin." International Journal of Water Resources World Bank, Washington, DC. Development 17 (3): 365­77. Mitchell, B. 1986. "Integrated River Basin Management: Canadian Crano, William D., and Gary W. Silnow. 1987. Planning, Implementing and Experiences." Proceedings of Hydrology and Water Resources Evaluating Targeted Communication Programs, A Manual for Business Symposium, Brisbane, Australia. Communicators. New York: Quorum Books. Ruchay, D. 1995. "Living with Water ­ Rhine River Basin Management." Creech, Bill. 1995. The 5 Pillars of TQM: How to Make Total Quality Water Science and Technology 31 (8): 27­32. Management Work for You. New York: Plume Books. Sadoff, Claudia, Whittington Dale, and David Grey. 2003. Africa's Dinar, Ariel, and D. Marc Kiljour. 1995. "Are Stable Agreements for Sharing International Rivers: An Economic Perspective. Directions in Development International River Waters Now Possible?" Policy Research Working Series, Report 25396. Washington, DC: World Bank. Paper 1474, World Bank, Agriculture and Natural Resources Department, Agricultural Policies Division, Washington, DC. Salman, M.A. Salman. 1999. "Groundwater: Legal and Policy Perspectives, Proceedings from a World Bank Seminar." Technical Paper 456, World Dinar, Ariel, and Donna Lee. 1995. "Review of Integrated Approaches to Bank, Washington, DC. River Basin Planning, Development and Management." Policy Research Working Paper 1446, World Bank, Agriculture and Natural Resources Salman, M.A. Salman, and Kishor Uprety. 2003. "Conflict and Cooperation Department, Agricultural Policies Division, Washington, DC. on South Asia's International Rivers: A Legal Perspective." World Bank, Washington, DC. Downs, P., K. J. Gregory, and A. Brooks. 1991. "How Integrated is River Basin Management? Environmental Management 15 (3): 299­309. Schultz, G. A. 2001. "Integrated Water Resources Management: The Requirements of the European Union, the Problem of Environmental Grunig, James E. 1992. Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Impact Assessment, and Implementation of the Sustainable Development Management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Principle." IAHS Publication 272: 3­12. Hooper, B. P. 2003. "Integrated Water Resources Management and River Shah, T., D. Molden, and R. Sakthivadivel. Forthcoming. "Limits to Basin Governance." Water Resources Update. Issue 126 (November): Leapfrogging: Issues in Transposing Successful River Basin Management 12­20. Institutions in the Developing World." International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Jaspers, Frank G. W. 2003. Institutional arrangements for integrated river basin management Water Policy 5 (1): 77­90 (United Kingdom). World Bank. 2003. Stakeholder Involvement in Options Assessment: Promoting Dialogue in Meeting Water and Energy Needs, A Sourcebook. Makin, Ian W., Yvonne P. Parks, and Wouter Linklaen Arriens. 2004. Report 264/03. Washington, DC. "Supporting the Development of Effective and Efficient River Basin Organizations in Asia: A Discussion of the Application of Organizational Benchmarking Approaches." Prepared for a NARBO Consultation Workshop, Batu-Malang, Indonesia, NARBO Benchmarking Discussion Note ver 3 1 .02. 17 anagementM basin er riv ntegratedI Copyright © 2006 THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved First printing February 2006 Please check the upcoming WBI training events. www.worldbank.org/wbi/water Integrated Management W O R L D B A N K I N S T I T U T E Promoting knowledge and learning for a better world