41161 Integrated Management From Concepts to Good Practice Briefing Note 12 Stakeholder Partnerships, Participation, and Funding Integrated Management b Stakeholder Partnerships, Participation, and Funding 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 discusses: · The importance of developing strong stakeholder participation and partnerships · How such participation can be achieved at various organizational levels · Funding mechanisms for participation 1 anagementM basin er riv ntegratedI Contents Acknowledgments 2 Introduction 2 When is Stakeholder Input Needed? 4 How to Fund a Participative Planning and Management Process? 13 How to Move Stakeholder Partnerships, Participation, and Funding Forward: A Few Key Questions 15 Acronyms and Abbreviations 16 References 16 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 (consul- Wales Department of Water Resources and Commissioner tants); Vahid Alavian, Inger Anderson, Rita Cestti Jean on the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Australia; Doug- Foerster, Nagaraja Harshadeep, Tracy Hart, Karin Kemper, las Olson, World Bank Principal Water Resources Engineer Barbara Miller, Salman Salman, Ashok Subramanian, and and Task Manager for this Briefing Note Series; and Shel- Mei Xie (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 the production of this Series. valuable inputs. Introduction Developing and implementing a form of stakeholder and bureaucrats find it difficult to develop appropriate involvement and participation appropriate to the social approaches and processes and to manage such non- and political characteristics of a country (or number of technical procedures, since they have no experience with countries) is an aspect of integrated river basin manage- such tasks. In addition, it is still largely perceived that the ment that should be given high prominence. technical people know best and time spent consulting with groups that lack professional/technical knowledge The views of the direct stakeholders and the community simply delays good planning and may create pressures to in general can no longer be ignored. This probably should alter plans. never have been the case, but traditionally, river basin planning professionals -- the engineers, planners, econo- Compounding the problem is the fact that most local mists, geographers, and others -- undertook multi-objec- communities and farmer groups in developing countries tive planning and developed basin master water plans in -- and some in the developed countries -- have not had the accordance with strict or specific government guidelines. chance to acquire knowledge and understand the broad This approach did not benefit from the rich and diverse issues and problems affecting the natural resources of a knowledge in terms of local community know-how regard- basin. There may be good understanding of the issues at ing usage and reliance on the natural resources, emerging the local village level, but when the debate is expanded at trends apparent at the local level, and local aspirations for the catchment or sub-basin level, it becomes very difficult future resource development and use. for stakeholder groups to contribute meaningfully. Most river basin organizations are therefore now seek- Other interest or lobby groups are also stakeholders, and ing ways to involve communities better. This is often the basin planners and managers must also develop ap- proving difficult. First, many of the technicians, planners, propriate forms of interaction for all these various groups. 3 anagementM basin er riv ntegratedI These circumstances highlight a number of issues: facing a river basin has been raised, ownership, empow- > River basin planners and managers need to develop erment, and participation then become relevant. new approaches and become better trained in the aspects of community involvement and participation Subsidiarity and decentralization are important aspects in -- not just token versions for improving community the promotion of participation and in ensuring its suc- awareness. cess. The subsidiarity principle is intended to ensure that > The stakeholder involvement processes must then be decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen carefully followed. There must be open and transparent and that constant checks are made as to whether action auditing and reporting on the implementation process. at the community level is optimal and justified in the light > In time, the basin community should also be involved of the possibilities available at the national, regional, or in the debate on how the financial resources are raised local level. The river basin organization (RBO) should for the program of integrated river basin planning and therefore play a facilitative, coordinating role but leave management since the community will likely be charged many actions to other lower and more appropriate levels. fees to support these programs. For example, regional offices and centers should be as- > The community at all levels -- direct stakeholder and signed tasks and empowered with the resources to carry user groups, special interest or lobby groups, cities, them out and community participation should occur at the towns, villages, schools, and all other groups with a per- sub-basin level -- or perhaps even lower levels. ceived interest -- need to be made more aware of the natural resource issues affecting the river basin. This The first three points regarding ensuring proper stakehold- process should occur through a carefully structured er participation are dealt with in this Briefing Note. Note 13 community awareness and education program. addresses the last point: raising the awareness of the basin > Once the awareness of the natural resource problems community with regard to natural resource issues. When Is Stakeholder Input Needed? 4 Partnerships between the basin managers and the commu- Broad national water policy and planning is undertaken by nity need to be developed at various levels. Stakeholder input central government, while operations and management at the executive level of a basin organization should occur, has been decentralized to a series of autonomous regions. or at the top level of the water resources agency (in some Because most river basins in Spain cover more than one cases, both may be appropriate). This input may be through region, planning and management at the river basin level is a formal agreement where the stakeholders form part of carried out by the Hydrographic Confederations or River Basin the executive decision-making process, or of an informal Authorities, as mandated by the National Water Act. These high-level advisory nature, which is openly processed and bodies act like "water parliaments" with a senior-level Board managed by the organization. of Management or basin committee. Under them, the technical groups develop the project plans to implement the policy and Input can be obtained from the community as low as the strategy decisions of the Board of Management. sub-catchment level. This is arguably one of the reasons why some RBOs are more successful than others. Close watch is kept through a very strong stakeholder partici- patory framework. Stakeholders have significant input into the Top-level Stakeholder Participation work of the basin authorities. It is not easy to change long-established administrative The basin authorities basically have two arms: an executive and political processes to incorporate a greater level of or operating arm, and an advisory or participating arm. One stakeholder participation in the decision-making process chairman presides over both (see figure 12.1). for integrated river basin planning and management. This is figure 12.1 even more difficult in developing countries, where traditional figure 12.1 RIVER BASIN AUTHORITIES IN SPAIN RIVER BASIN AUTHORITIES IN SPAIN processes have tended to follow the command and control model of management. It is therefore not surprising to find Chairman that the cases where the community has a major role in river basin management are in the developed countries and River Basin Authority Governing Board in those countries that have a long history in river basin (operating organization) (participating or collegiate body) management. This note describes the scenarios in Spain, France, and Australia. Canada, the United Kingdom, the Waters Commission Users Assembly (water quality, water United States, some members of the European Union such licensing/permitting, liaison with water user as the Netherlands, and more recently, Mexico all provide associations) Operations Board relevant examples. Technical Directorate Reservoir Committee Spain (dams and works operation, construction special projects) Works Boards Spain has alonghistoryofintegratedwaterresources and river basinmanagementduetoitsstrongsystem of central/re- Secretariat (legal, finance, gional government,whichhasexistedforhundreds of years. public services) This is reflectedinaverymaturewatermanagement structure attuned toEuropeanclimaticconditions. Water Resources Basin Water Planning Office Advisory Board (investigations, planning, preparation of water resources plans) The governing board operates like a management board (or charges and for setting the level of capital funds that may commissioners of the Authority) and sets policy, formulates be provided by the central and provincial governments to 5 budgets, and oversees plans. Although the Chairman is the match local funds. The ratio of the various funds depends on head of both the executive and advisory arms, the Board the type of the project. For example, if it is more significant does not get involved in the affairs of the executive arm. The regionally and/or nationally, the central government would Board membership comprises state and regional representa- likely provide a higher proportion of funds. tives, members from the executive arm, and water user and community representatives. Stakeholder participation is strongly mandated by the anagementM provisions within the Hydrographic Confederations Act The Operations Board, the Works Board, and the Reservoir and later, by changes provided in the Water Act. A Users basin Committee are appointed by the Users Assembly. They Assembly must be established. The composition of the er directly assist the Technical Agency, but in an advisory capac- membership is defined by the legal provisions. Some riv ity, in the day-to-day operations and decisions within their of the assembly members form part of the upper-level charter. The Basin Water Advisory Board is more involved in Governing Board, together with selected technical experts the long-term planning and introduces critical stakeholder and other appointments that may be made by the regional perspectives into the water planning studies. or national governments. Other advisory groups may be ntegratedI established by the stakeholder participation arm (the Any disputes are first raised through the appropriate board. Assembly) or by the technical arm (the Basin Authority). If not resolved, the matter would then go to the governing These must be ratified by the Governing Board to take board for consideration. In the event that there are disputes account of program priorities and budget commitments between basin authorities that cannot be resolved by debate and limitations. Overall, the basin arrangements and the and consensus, the matter is referred to the National Water degree and nature of stakeholder participation are very Council. The Minister in charge makes the final decision. strongly supported and empowered by the provisions in Such an occurrence is however rare, as the participative the two Acts. mechanisms at the various levels have been very effective for dispute resolution. Four fundamental aspects form the basis for integrated river basin management in Spain. These are typical for the The first formal Water Act was adopted in 1879 and re- industrialized countries where good integrated river basin mained the fundamental water law of the land for the next management (IRBM) occurs. 106 years. The current legislative framework for water quan- >Thefunctionalunityofwatermanagement--thatis,the tity and quality management is the Water Act (1985), with need for integration across all aspects of water resources numerous subsequent amendments. It allows for integrated management management of the quantity and quality aspects. This Act >Treatingtheriverbasinastheunitforwaterplanningand also makes provisions for the establishment of river basin management to achieve the best regional economic and authorities and assigns power and functions to them; these social development provisions previously existed in a specific Hydrographic >Theincorporationofwaterusersinwaterplanning, Confederations Act (1926). A series of government decrees, development, management, investment, and administra- regulations, or policy statements either give greater mean- tion through representation in the governing board of the ing to parts of the Act or provide the policy framework upon basin organization which the Act can be interpreted and implemented. The Act >Thedecentralizationofauthoritytothebasinandlocal also includes the provisions for raising funds through user water organizations, according to their competency. In this way, water users have been involved in the planning, ated costs) by all stakeholders such that there must be an 6 construction, and management of water projects and natural appropriate charging or tariff structure for water use and resource protection. This occurrence has improved sustain- water discharge able river basin management throughout the country. >Recognitionofwaterresources(groundwaterandsurface water) as a single resource. Long-term planning for France both water quantity and quality must be done taking all basin-wide uses into account, not just those at the local The French example presents a very strong model of stake- administrative level. holder participation and effective funding mechanisms. It allows for participation at the highest levels as well as at the Most importantly, the Act introduced a process whereby sub-basin level; however, it does not intrude into the lower charges can be set and collected to cover the costs of any operational levels, which rest with the city and town mayors. investments for improved basin management, such as the cre- ation of the Basin Committees and the related water agencies. The administrative systems of France have been in existence This aspect is discussed later in this Briefing Note. for over 100 years. The country is divided into approxi- mately 36,500 towns or communes, 95 Departments, and The general structure for river basin management in France is 22 regions. Each town, irrespective of size -- ranging from shown in figure 12.2. Paris to villages of about 20 people -- elects a council and figure 12.2 a mayor, who are jointly responsible for civil administration figure 12.2 RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE IN FRANCE of the area. In the past, they decided what drinking water RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE IN FRANCE supply and sewerage projects were to be implemented and National GovernmentMinistry of Environment collected the taxes necessary to finance them. With such (National Water Council, which includes Water Directorate) a localized system of management, basin-wide issues were seldom taken into account. Consequently, water pollution, Administrative Framework River Basin Framework misallocation of increasingly scarce water resources, and resource degradation problems began to occur. In the 1960s, a new Water Act was passed. A comple- Regions Basin Committee mentary system of river basin management was set up. A series of river basin committees and basin agencies provide planning guidelines and a strong water resources Departments Basin Agency policy and financial management framework, with which the various administrations must comply. Communes -- Sub-basin towns, cities (5) Committee/Commission The new Act was based on three principles, fundamental to good integrated river basin management: >Recognitionoftheincreasinginterdependenceamong Local Water Board water users and the need for participation to encourage stakeholders to minimize pollutants, follow efficient water The discussion in this Briefing Note concentrates on theRiver use methods, and collectively plan for the future BasinFrameworkarm of this diagram and in particular, the >Recognitionofwaterasaneconomicgood(withassoci- Basin Committee (often referred to as a Water Parliament for 7 anagementM basin er riv ntegratedI thebasin) and the BasinAgency(thedeveloping/implementing >Consultsonandfinallyapproves,thetechnicalprogram agency that reports to theCommittee). of the Basin Agency >Debatesandapprovesthefeesandchargestopayforthe TheBasinCommitteeis comprisedofelectedandappointed development program persons from the full spectrumofwaterinterestswithinthe >ConsidersanydisputesreferredtoitbyaMinisterora basin,including governmentofficials,industrialists,regional Prefect in a Department developers, agriculturists, water distribution companies, >ConsidersanddebatesanyissuesrelatingtotheWater water users, fisherman, and environmental groups. This wide Act and any related legislation. representation is necessary to ensure that the concerns of all stakeholders are voiced and considered and that the resulting The Basin Agency is a public body with a legal identity and integrated water-related policy has been agreed to by all. financial independence. It is administratively under the Ministry of Environment (Water Directorate) but reports to The overall aim of the Basin Committee is to support the river the Basin Committee for endorsement of its yearly work basin development program, including new water develop- program, the budget, and the financial strategy in support of ment and pollution abatement measures for both point it. The Agency is directly controlled by a Board of Directors and non-point source pollution. The Committee also gives consisting of elected officials, users, and state representatives advice/approval on the water agency's multi-year programs appointed by the Basin Committee. and on the related financial measures to fund the programs. Specifically, the Committee: It can levy charges on water users, public or private, to finance projects toimproveresourcesandcontrolpollution. For proj- a federation in which certain powers and rights were ceded 8 ects consideredtobeofmajorimportance,grants are provided to federal control (defense, financial policy, international by the State.Inadditiontothedevelopmentand planning conventions, foreign policy) while other activities or sec- function, theBasinAgencyundertakesorsupports technical tors remained the sovereign rights of each state, such as research fortheadvancementofbestpractices and for raising transport, education, health, and water and natural resource public awarenessonwaterresourcesmanagement issues. management. To this day, the federal government is not very involved in the natural resource sector except in regard to The Water Law requires two sets of planning to be done international agreements and in terms of setting general at the basin level. The Water Resources Development and policy for the betterment of the nation. Management Master Plan details the objectives and the policy for water resources development and pollution control Each state therefore has its own water legislation and has within the basin. The technical resources of the regional developed its own approaches to water resources manage- central agency departments undertake the necessary ment and stakeholder participation. investigations and planning. The Master Plan is then prepared and endorsed by the Basin Committee. When the federation was formed in 1901, the three states through which the Murray River flows realized that some Since there are numerous sub-basins within the overall basin, form of coordination was necessary; it simply would not sub-basin committees also prepare sub-basin policies and suffice for each state to manage its Murray River resources strategy plans. This will be discussed in more detail later in without some recognition of the rights and needs of the oth- the section on lower-level participation approaches. ers. For example, the most downstream state used the river for extensive navigation while the two upper states were in- Australia creasing irrigation and wanted to build large dams to regulate the variable flow regime. More dams and greater river flow The Australian Constitution is based on a federation of six regulation meant less water for navigation. To avoid severe states. All states were independent before 1901 and controlled conflict, it was agreed to establish what was then known directly as colonies from England. They then agreed to form as the River Murray Commission to regulate and share the figure 12.3 figure 12.3 MURRAY-DARLING BASIN COMMISSION IN AUSTRALIA MURRAY-DARLING BASIN COMMISSION IN AUSTRALIA Ministerial Council Comprising ministers from each member-state and the national government Board of Commissioners Community Advisory Committee Comprising Vice Ministers/Directors Comprising regional and rural General from member-states community representatives Coordinating Group in each Sub-Committees of Commission Technical Office of Commission Member-state, , comprised of vice minister- level Director-level representatives from each state (about 50 staff) persons (not part of the Agreement) Water Supply Water Policy Basin SustainabilityPolicy waters of the main river in the basin, and to meet both water directed to priority areas. This committee has about 25 conservation and navigation goals. Its responsibilities did not, members representative of all the major non-government 9 at that stage, extend to the entire river basin -- only to the stakeholders in the basin. This closely approximates a smaller main stem (the River Murray). This was changed in the 1980s version of the stakeholder models in Spain and France. The to embrace natural resource planning and coordination issues Committee deals with a similar range of issues but has only for the entire river basin. The River Murray Commission was an advisory role, whereas the counterparts in Spain and absorbed into the Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC), France have governing roles. Nevertheless, it is quite influ- which is the only major basin organization in Australia. From ential. It is independent from the Board of Commissioners anagementM inception, a high-level stakeholder participation mechanism and the Commission's technical office and reports directly was included in the legal agreement. The institutional struc- to the Ministers. As such, it is not seen as having any undue basin ture is shown in figure 12.3. bureaucratic input, which has strengthened community er riv The sub-committees oversee the technical work done in each participation and awareness. It has a small budget, mainly to of the three areas -- water supply, water policy, and basin sus- conduct its consultation activities throughout the basin. It tainability -- to ensure that the views of each member-state receives most of its technical help from the technical office are properly considered. They also help prioritize problems or the state water and natural resources agencies, but is not ntegratedI and assist with strategic planning. Each of these committees obliged to accept the views provided. has a consultation/participation process that links it directly with the community. Each state within the basin operates a very strong stake- holder participation model that complements and fits with A key feature of this model of basin management is the high- similar work of the MDBC. Within the four states, there level stakeholder committee called the Community Advisory are about 15 major sub-basins that collectively make up Committee, which independently advises the Ministerial the Murray-Darling Basin. Community-driven committees, Council on the development of policies and strategies and called catchment or sub-basin management boards or total their impacts, and on how funding should be sourced and catchment management committees prepare (with technical figure 12.4 figure 12.4 help from the agencies) detailed strategic natural resource plans and corresponding action plans. These plans are the mechanisms used to address non-point source pollution New South Wales (Australia) Government Water-related Ministries and are similar to the activities of the Basin Committees/ Agencies in France and to those of the Spanish Basin Authorities. The plans are widely distributed throughout Cabinet Committee Murray-Darling Basin Commission each sub-basin and are finally endorsed by the relevant state minister, after the MDBC has ensured that they comply Water Advisory Council with basin-wide policies. The annual business or action plans of the various resource-related state agencies must comply with the strategic natural resource plans. The Committee/ Land, Water, State Catchment and Forests Committee Board audits and reports on compliance to the Minister. Environment The stakeholder participation model for the state of New South Wales (NSW) has been continually evolving over the Sub-basin management boards Agriculture (8 sub-basin boards within this last decade and is again under review. Generally, it is as part of the MD basin) shown in figure 12.4. National Parks/Wildlife Stakeholder participation occurs at the points shown in bold government policy, strategy, and legal issues and sets the 10 in figure 12.4. framework for the individual sub-basin planning. The State Catchment Committee also distributes the government The Cabinet Committee on Natural Resources is the ministe- rial committee that coordinates natural resources policy grants amongst the sub-basins according to priority of and strategy for the state. It is supported by a high-level issues and liaises closely with the MDBC's Community group of department/agency heads. In this way, integrated Advisory Committee on basin-wide policy issues that may responses to resource problems made by the Ministers are impact the sub-basin plans. supposed to permeate into departmental activities. The Australian model for stakeholder participation is quite The Water Advisory Council is the highest level advisory detailed. This is largely because the Constitution is such that group on water issues and comprises top-level representa- each state manages its own natural resource management tives (some elected, some appointed by the Minister), affairs and hence has a separate but similar set of participa- including water user groups, industry, tourism, environ- tion arrangements. In addition, the Murray-Darling Basin mental groups, indigenous people, local government, and is a single, relatively large river basin that covers parts of professional experts. It is similar in concept to the MDBC's four states. This requires a separate set of coordination and Community Advisory Committee; some members are participation arrangements for basin-wide issues. common to both. However, this Council advises only the NSW Ministers and has no direct input to the Murray Darling Despite what appears to be duplication, the arrangements Basin Ministerial Council. It considers policy and legal issues work well, in large part because of the high level of commu- referred to it by the Minister, can comment on disputes, and nity awareness throughout the basin. Over the last 30 years, subject to the Minister's endorsement, can initiate reviews the MDBC and the agencies have put significant effort and and assessments. resources into awareness building in regard to the existing and emerging natural resources problems -- to such an extent Each State Catchment Committee and the various that the complex level of stakeholder participation that has Sub-Basin Boards/Committees are made up of landholders evolved is currently demanded by community. Anything less and water users, environmental groups, local government, would be seen as attempts by the politicians to reduce com- and indigenous people. The landholders/water users hold munity involvement. majority membership. The key government agencies assist the Sub-basin Management Boards in planning TheSpanish,French,andAustralianmodelsforhigh- and monitoring. They do not vote on the water resource level stakeholder participation all relate to countries issues to be tabled or implement any plans. However, they with a long history of integrated river basin man- provide the planning framework and financial assistance agement and to scenarios in which the communities to groups of landholders/industry to undertake projects have had inputs, in one form or another, to how or schools and community groups to increase the aware- water is being used and allocated. The organizing ness of natural resource issues. Funds are obtained from power of water users in Spain and the influence of national government grants, fees collected from residents, the special interest groups (particularly the irrigation and local government contributions. sector and later the environmental groups) is unique to the political and social customs there. The French The chairperson of each Sub-Basin Board sits on the basin management structure inclusive of all stake- State Catchment Committee. This group discusses state holder groups works well because of the enabling institutional, legal, and regulatory frameworks al- management that the community wishes to make are first ready in place. These arrangements cannot be read- raised through the appropriate participation board (for ex- 11 ily replicated in most other (developing) countries. ample, at the Basin Water Advisory Board for planning and The challenge therefore is to use these successful strategy). If the matter were not resolved, the Governing examples as best practice guidelines, compare and Board of the Confederation would then consider the issue. contrast them with the local customs and practices, and then decide the best package of participation In France, where there are numerous sub-basins within arrangements that could be followed. an overall basin, Sub-basin Committees prepare sub-basin anagementM policy and strategy plans that provide more details for the Local-level Stakeholder Participation smaller sub-basins and the regions and towns/cities within basin them. These sub-basin plans are very important for local er Stakeholder participation should not occur only at the high policy guidance as they most closely reflect the require- riv organizational levels. It should be included wherever relevant ments of local water user groups. throughout the organizational structure for water resources management, as far down as the local user groups. The ar- The Sub-basin Committees have a similar spectrum of rangements for lower-level stakeholder participation in Spain, membership to the over-arching Basin Committee -- local ntegratedI France, and Australia are discussed below. government, users, and state/regional representatives -- but the former are not as large and the development of In Spain at the local level, relatively simple hierarchies of sub-basin plans are not as formal. Such a cross-section of autonomous water user entities exist. Lower-level participa- basin stakeholders at each sub-basin level is indicative of tion takes place within a well-defined structure: at the first the commitment of the main players in water management level, through local community groups that have common to have the stakeholders actively involved, rather than interests; at the level of the community, units that deal with have the decision-making done by central government. the whole sub-basin; and at the level of the basin, the basin- wide entities mentioned above. The sub-basin plans are submitted to the Basin Agency for inclusion into the overall Water Resources Development and Thishas allowed local groupstocontributetotheaffairsof the Management Master Plan. As in the Spanish example, this basin-wideHydrographicConfederations. Thecommunities provides the lower-level community groups with a well- maybeorganized voluntarilyorunderdirectionofthegovern- structured and accountable process to contribute to the ment.As a legal entity, theseassociationsacquirelicensesto river basin planning. As previously mentioned, stakeholder usepublic water, which isdeliveredtotheirtake-offpointby participation does not extend to construction, operation, thestate agencies or theHydrographicConfederations. and management of infrastructure because the French approach to integrated river basin management is confined These community groups are included in the stakeholder to planning, budget provision, and financial management. participation structure shown in figure 12.1. There are stakeholder advisory boards /committees for water Australia arguably has the most detailed and compre- operations, reservoir issues, engineering works, and hensive form of lower-level stakeholder and community most importantly, for water planning and management. participation of the three countries reviewed in this note. Feedback from these advisory boards flows upward to the Within each sub-basin, there are many small drainage Users Assembly and then to the Governing Board of the units or catchments. Within these, there are as many as Confederation. Any disputes or any inputs to planning or 50 or so large farms and a number of towns and villages. 12 These small drainage units have established local-level It is important for women and other minority or disadvan- "Landcare" or "Rivercare" Committees, which undertake taged groups to be included in the lower-level planning planning at the farm level. In this manner, each small drain- process. It is often more effective to use the skills and age unit contributes to the sustainability of the sub-basin, experiences of the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) which in turn, contributes to the overall sustainability of already operating in the basin, as the activities of these the Murray-Darling Basin. In Australia, this type of plan- groups tend to be concentrated at the community level. ning is known as Land and Water Management Planning. Often this resource is overlooked as the NGOs are perceived All parties agreed that this planning and the subsequent as opposition. For this collaboration to be effective, funds implementation should be undertaken in partnership since must be provided so that the NGOs can facilitate the lower- the benefits would be shared by all. The basic objectives level stakeholder interaction and some formal reporting/ agreed for these plans were to: participation procedures can be developed. >Improveregionalproductivitythroughincreasedfarm productivity, improved management efficiencies, and Compensation for the community should also be considered, improved farmer education and awareness since it will be otherwise difficult for poor communities that >Atleastmaintain,andwherepossibleenhance,thesustain- cannotaffordthetimeandtravelcoststoparticipate. ability of the soil, land, and water resources by addressing problems in an integrated and holistic manner >Achieveanacceptableoutcomethatisabalanceofeco- The provision of knowledge, information, infrastruc- nomic, social, and environmental concerns within the range ture, and finance are important for local people to suc- of the values and expectations held by the community. ceedinmanagingtheirwaterresourcesmoreeffectively. The arrangements to get water users such as farmers Note 7 provides more details on this type of lower-level involved should take account of all these aspects. stakeholder participation, or bottom-up planning. How to Fund a Participative Planning and Management Process? 13 Around the world, it has proven very difficult to obtain suffi- of water they use and the pollution they introduce in the cient budgetary resources to maintain annual work programs watercourses. Grants can also be obtained from the state (the ongoing operations and maintenance needs of a river or the regions for important projects. Aside from the basin organization or a national water resources agency). development and planning functions, funds can be used to Government funds are always scarce and the natural support research for technical and best practice advance- resource management sector competes with the consumer ment and for raising public awareness of water resources anagementM sectors (education, transport, health) for these monies. management issues. Therefore, it is not uncommon for basin organizations to basin have difficulties in obtaining an acceptable level of funding The French basin management financial model is very er to support work programs. In addition to the annual pro- effective in countries where water users and polluters riv grams, there are many other new resource utilization and are willing and able to pay the relatively high charges protection programs to either improve water use efficiencies tofundtheextensiveworkprogramsforimprovements or to overcome the heavy pollution affecting rivers, particu- in water use efficiencies and pollution abatement. larly those in developing countries. These programs are usu- ntegratedI ally funded from government or donor grants, user charges (water consumption and pollution discharge fees), a basin The arrangement in Spain is somewhat similar to France. environmental fund, or a combination of all of the above. The operating arm of the Hydrographic Confederation undertakes the planning, develops annual work plans, and France has the most well-known and well-established ap- suggests the charging regime necessary to fund the work proach for funding basin-wide activities. In fact, the primary program. Funds can be obtained from rates collected by the reason for establishing the Basin Committees and Basin Basin Authority (water use or wastewater discharge fees Agencies was the need to create some means of funding for and charges) or be provided by the state. the various water quantity and quality programs that the city mayors wished to undertake. The Governing Board of the basin organization approves the charging structure. At this point, stakeholders can influence The overall aim of the Basin Committee is to support the riv- the nature and magnitude of the charges. In both the French er basin development and rehabilitation program--new water and Spanish cases, the stakeholders have an input to the development and pollution abatement measures covering planning and management decisions but they now also must both point and non-point source pollution--by approving the approve charges that will impact their constituents. basin agency's multi-year programs and the related fees and charges. Specifically, the Basin Committee approves: In Australia, user charges cover the annual running costs >The five-year investment program for the basin, including of basin organizations and the water resource agencies. the grants and loans that the Agency intends to allocate However, funds for the repair of the Murray-Darling Basin's to the cities, towns, and others resources as a result of almost a century of intensive devel- >The taxes that the Agency will be allowed to levy during opment must be obtained by other means. In this regard, these five years. (The global income from the taxes must government-stakeholder partnerships become important. equal, on the five-year basis, the global expenses.) As mentioned, charges can be levied on public and The national government has decided to fund the rehabili- private water users as taxes, according to the quantity tation of the resources and the efficiency improvements pertaining to resource utilization, since both issues impact sharing arrangements. Monies can be obtained from this 14 the competitiveness of Australia's overseas agricultural Trust for various natural resource improvement initiatives, trade. Similarly, the state governments, which are directly including Land and Water Management schemes. User responsible for natural resource management under the groups and the Sub-Basin Management Boards may apply Constitution, have had to introduce new policies and find in- for funding. The submission is reviewed by the MDBC for novative ways to fund them, if sustainable natural resource compliance with basin policies and economic validity. management is to occur. The stakeholders now understand that their livelihoods The concept of a River Basin Environmental Improvement in terms of resource health (soil, water, vegetation) are Fund is being tested in a number of countries and has been dependent on their contribution to the management of the established in the Tarim River Basin in western China as land and water resources. part of a World Bank project. In this instance, a compre- hensive mix of donor grants, central and regional govern- A joint government-user panel assesses all the sub-basin ment funds, and a range of user-based charges have been plans developed by the Sub-Basin Management Boards, as proposed. The fund has not been very effective because of well as the lower-level Land and Water Management Plans. general funding shortages and other government priorities, A cost sharing arrangement is determined to reflect the as well as the financially poor state of most farmers. spread of benefits. The costs are approximately shared two-thirds among the Sharing the costs for river basin planning and man- national, state, and local governments and one-third among age-ment between government and the stakeholders the land and water users. These proportions change from -- more often referred to as funding the partnership plan to plan, depending on how the benefits are shared. in natural resource management -- is highly recom- A Natural Heritage Trust (using some of the profits from mended for most scenarios, even in cases where the the privatization of key government companies) has been users' share may be much less than mandated or may created by the national government to support these cost include on-the-ground labor as payment in kind. How to Move Stakeholder Partnerships, Participation, and Funding Forward: A Few Key Questions 15 >Do the current arrangements for integrated river basin >Are stakeholder groups genuinely happy with the roles and natural resource management include a process for they now have? stakeholder/community consultation? >Shouldthisrolebeformalizedinbasinagreementsorwater > Is this process actively supported by the top levels of resources laws so as to assure long-term participation? anagementM government? >Can major stakeholder groups access the highest planning basin > Do the top levels of government accept the active contri- and management levels (say ministerial level) through an er bution of the stakeholders in decision making? advisory mechanism? riv > Aretheparticipationarrangementsappropriateforthe >Are new lower-level planning processes needed to provide prevailing cultural, social, and political values? Have all better interaction and partnership between government ntegratedI relevant parties been included, particularly at district/village and the land and water users? levels, and is it affordable for them to participate? >Have the options for funding annual work programs as > Is there genuine participation, or is it information sharing well as the natural resource management functions been through informal consultation? reviewed and decided? > Are the skills and experiences of the NGOs being used to >Have various combinations of government grants, user help with community participation? If so, are the NGOs charges and taxes, donor funds, and a basin environmen- formally linked into the process or is it on an ad hoc tal trust fund been considered as funding options? basis? Is it necessary to formalize the involvement of the NGOs? Are the NGOs being paid for their contribution? >Has an ability-to-pay study been done to assess the contributions users can make? > Arethestakeholdersinvolvedinthedecisionmakingforthe aspects of IRBM that are of interest and relevance to them? >Haveallstakeholdergroupsbeeninvolvedintheability-to-pay studies and in the final decision making process on charges? Abbreviations and Acronyms 16 BDP Basin Development Plan OMVS Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du Fleuve Senegal BET Beneficial Evapo-transpiration (ET) RBO River basin organization CU Consumptive Use SMART goals Goal that are S (Specific), M (Measurable), A (Achievable), DSF Decision Support Framework R (Realistic), and T (Time-based) ERS Environmental Resources Study SW Surface water ET Evapo-transpiration SWOT analysis Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, GW Groundwater and Threats IRBM Integrated river basin management TBWRC Tarim Basin Water Resources Commission KRA Key Result Areas TQM Total Quality Management LWMP Land and Water Management Plans WSC Water supply corporation MDBC Murray-Darling Basin Commission WUA Water user association MRC Mekong River Commission WUP Water Utilization Program NBET Non-beneficial Evapo-transpiration (ET) O&M Operation and maintenance References WEB SITES Groundwater GW-MATE: Groundwater Management Advisory Team Briefing Note Water Resources Management Series. Sectors and themes including: The overall structure of the series is as follows: Coastal and marine management Notes 1 and 2 ­ Broad introduction to the scope of groundwater manage- Dams and reservoirs ment and groundwater system characterization Groundwater Notes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 ­ Essential components of management practice Irrigation and drainage for major aquifers with large groundwater storage under stress from in- River basin management tensive water-supply development for irrigated agriculture and/or urban Transboundary water management water-supply Water and environment Note 8 ­ The protection of potable groundwater supplies Water economics Notes 9, 10, and 15 ­ Planning national and regional action for groundwa- Water supply and sanitation ter resource management Watershed management Notes 13 and 14 ­ Management of smaller-scale water supply development Information and access to the respective Web sites can be found at: in the rural environment http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/18ByDocName/Sector- The remainder of the series (Notes 11,12,16, and 17) deals with a number of sandThemes specific topics that pose a special challenge. http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/18ByDocName/Sector- Dams sandThemesGroundwaterBriefingNotesSeries Benefit Sharing from Dam Projects, November 2002 http://www-esd.worldbank.org/documents/bnwpp/2/FinalReportBenefit- The Murray-Darling Basin Sharing.pdf Murray-Darling Basin Initiative http://www.mdbc.gov.au/ Good Dams and Bad Dams: Environmental Criteria for Site Selection of Hydroelectric Projects The Living Murray Initiative http://essd.worldbank.org/essdint.nsf/90ByDocName/WorldBankS http:/www.thelivingmurray.mdbc.gov.au/ afeguardPolicies404NaturalHabitatsGoodDamsandBadDamsEnvi ronmentalCriteriaforSiteSelectionofHydroelectricProjects/$FILE/ Heartlands Initiative Good+and+Bad+Dams+final.pdf http://www.ciw.csiro.au/heartlands/partners/index.html Toolkits OTHER SOURCES Benchmarking, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation for Multi-Sector Proj- ects, Gender, Hygiene and Sanitation, Private Sector Participation, Small Barrow, C. J. 1998. "River Basin Development Planning and Management: 17 Towns A Critical Review." World Development 26 (1): 171­86. http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/water/toolkits.html Boisson de Chazournes, Laurence, and M. A. Salman Salman. 1999. "Inter- Global Water Partnership IWRM Toolbox national Watercourses: Enhancing Cooperation and Managing Conflict." http://gwpforum.netmasters05.netmasters.nl/en/index.html Technical Paper 414F, World Bank, Washington, DC. Water Demand Management Bruning, Stephen D., and John A. Ledingham. 2000. Public Relations as Building Awareness and Overcoming Obstacles to Water Demand Manage- Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Prac- anagementM ment, Guideline for River Basin and Catchment Management Organiza- tice of Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. tions, IUCN http://www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/River_basin_management_guide- Chenoweth, J. L. 1999. "Effective Multi-Jurisdictional River Basin Manage- basin line_26Oct2004.pdf ment: Data Collection and Exchange in the Murray-Darling and Mekong River Basins." Water International 14 (4): 368­76. er Water Resources and Environment Technical Notes riv The overall structure of the series is as follows: Chenoweth, J. L., H. M. Malano, and J. F. Bird. 2001. "Integrated River A. Environmental Issues and Lessons Basin Management in the Multi-jurisdictional River Basins: The Case of B. Institutional and Regulatory Issues the Mekong River Basin." International Journal of Water Resources Devel- C. Environmental Flow Assessment opment 17 (3): 365­77. D. Water Quality Management ntegratedI E. Irrigation and Drainage Crano, William D., and Gary W. Silnow. 1987. Planning, Implementing and F. Water Conservation and Demand Management Evaluating Targeted Communication Programs, A Manual for Business G. Waterbody Management Communicators. New York: Quorum Books. H. Selected Topics http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/18ByDocName/Sector- Creech, Bill. 1995. The 5 Pillars of TQM: How to Make Total Quality sandThemesWaterandEnvironmentWaterResourcesandEnvironmentTech- Management Work for You. New York: Plume Books. nicalNotes Dinar, Ariel, and D. Marc Kiljour. 1995. "Are Stable Agreements for Water Supply and Sanitation Sharing International River Waters Now Possible?" Policy Research http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/water/index.html Working Paper 1474, World Bank, Agriculture and Natural Resources Department, Agricultural Policies Division, Washington, DC. Dinar, Ariel, and Donna Lee. 1995. "Review of Integrated Approaches to River Basin Planning, Development and Management." Policy Research 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