GGWWPP in actionGGWWPP in action

For morGWP Secror y

Australia countrm.pascoe@w

Carphinds@gwp-car

Central Afrgwpcaftac@inch.org

Central Amerftabora@gwpcentr

Central and Eastergwpcee@shm

Central vadim@icwc-aral.uz

China:duzhk@iwhr

Eastersthuo@nilebasin.org

Meditersecr

South Amerdallasia@gwpsudamer

South Asia:rsastr

Southeast Asia:secr

Southerr.beukman@cg

Wdammo

The Global Water Partnership (GWP), established in 1996, is an interna-tional network open to all organizations involved in water resources man-agement – government institutions, agencies of the United Nations,bilateral and multilateral development banks, professional associations,research institutions, non-governmental organizations, community groupsand the private sector.The GWP mission is to support countries in the sus-tainable management of their water resources.

Through its network, the GWP fosters integrated water resources manage-ment (IWRM). IWRM aims to ensure the coordinated development andmanagement of water, land, and related resources in order to maximize eco-nomic and social welfare – without compromising the sustainability of vitalenvironmental systems.The GWP provides a platform for multi-stakeholderdialogue at global, regional, national and local levels to promote integratedapproaches towards more sustainable water resources development, manage-ment and use.

The GWP network works in 14 regions: Southern Africa, Eastern Africa,Central Africa,West Africa, the Mediterranean, Central and Eastern Europe,Caribbean, Central America, South America, Central Asia and the Caucasus,South Asia, Southeast Asia, China and Australia.The GWP Secretariat islocated in Stockholm, Sweden.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe GWP gratefully acknowledges the partners who kindly contributed tothe texts and interviews in the creation of this report.

The GWP specially acknowledges the financial contributions made to thePartnership by the donors – Canada, Denmark, European Commission,Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UnitedKingdom, and U.S.A. – that contributed a total of USD 9.5 million in corefunding and USD 4.2 million in restricted funding.

The regions are encouraged to raise their own funds. During 2007, USD1.8 million were raised by the regions/countries, an increase of USD 0.1million compared to 2006. Donors at regional/country level included GEF-IWLEARN, DFID, DANIDA, Greek Ministry for Environment, JapanWater Forum and SIDA.

ISSN: 1650-9137

Published 2008 by the Global Water Partnership, GWP.Reproduction of the text of this publication for educational or other non-commercial useis authorized without prior permission from the copyright holder.Texts by Green Ink Ltd., UK.Graphic design by Greenwood Communications AB.Production by Svensk Information.Printed by Elanders.Cover photo: Farmer Li Yuping washes oats in a basin of water before laying the grainout to dry in Guanxin village in China’s arid northwest Gansu province.

GWP TThe GWP scholarbrin werto wand practice;appreconomic conditions;and analysis rthe GWP netwdeE-mail:

M_203114_Omslag 08-04-23 16.18 Sida 3

3

Chair report 4

Overview 5

A quick scan around the GWP network in 2007 6

Putting Partners First:GWP network development activities 12

Managing Africa’s Water Resources:Update on GWP support to IWRM planning 17

Financing Water for All:Continuing the dialogue 22

Dealing with Disparity:The National Dialogues Initiative 27

Managing Flash Floods:Guidelines from Central and Eastern Europe 32

Contents

12-16

17-21

27-31

32-37

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 3

4

As I reflect on eight years of close involve-ment with the Partnership, I am struck bythe ambiguity of our success markers.

Compared to a decade-ago baseline, there isprogress.The international commu-nity, the global media, and nationaland international decision makershave made significant strides inissue awareness, and acceptance ofthe need for more integrated, moreeffective water resource manage-ment. Investment curves are rising,albeit slowly. GWP’s own surveysfind that at the level of law andpolicy, good work has been doneacross the world. Our network islarge and in good health.

But compared with the magni-tude of the challenge we lag far, farbehind any reasonable view ofwhere we should be.The well known combina-tion of population growth, pollution, and increas-ing per person use, continue to produce a realityof almost half a billion people in 29 countries fac-ing water shortage, and by 2025 about 2.7 billion,or one third of the expected world population,living regions facing severe water scarcity. Climatechange seems sure to exacerbate this picture.

Every day the population grows and theamount of water available per person decreases.Every week, somewhere in the world, there aremanifestations of climate variability which willhave marked impact on water resources. Everymonth pollution increases.We must rethink ouruse of water – there is no other option.

How do we increase impact? A bigger part ofour collective effort must be focussed beyondwater management since service levels and infra-structure availability are as much a financial prob-lems as a water management issue.There is nosolution to the water problem without someoverhaul of the way agriculture is subsidized, theway water as an industrial or agricultural input ispriced, the way local authorities are vested with

the responsibility to provide water to their inhab-itants. Do delegated authorities have access toprocesses which will create good managers whocan in turn get access to sustainable financial

resources? This is the kind of ques-tion we must tackle.

The whole Partnership must exertmore conscious effort to involveinfluential players, concerned leadersand advocates from other sectors,and media advocates to our currentpartnership which continues to bemade up primarily by water experts.We must find alliances to drive glob-al initiatives to tackle pressing prob-lems in water; and create ever moreactive short and long term alliancesat regional, country and catchmentbasin partnerships to drive changefrom national through to local levels.

The new Strategy to be worked out in the yearahead must keep this vision clearly in view.

It is a bittersweet process to step down as Chairfrom an organization that has brought global con-tacts, exhilaration and great feelings of accom-plishment. But all organizations (and people!)need renewal and I am delighted and excited bythe prospect of Letitia A Obeng as the new Chairof GWP.

I repeat my publicly stated thanks to EmilioGabbrielli, the global and regional staff and thewhole partnership network – including ourdonors – for our collaboration. I am pleased tohave been added to the distinguished group ofGWP Patrons and from this vantage point, hopeto be able to continue the professional and per-sonal friendships and support GWP.

GWP must maintain momentum.As it does, Ilook forward to seeing the impacts of theseefforts: impacts that will result in new (and wellimplemented) water policies and more sustainablewater management practices across the globe thatultimately will benefit the dispossessed – and allliving things.

Chair report

Margaret Catley-CarlsonChair

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 4

5

Reflecting on another busy year in theGWP network, a key challenge was tomove towards closure on the current

2004–2008 Strategy while preparing an inclusiveprocess through 2008 for develop-ing the new GWP Strategy2009–2013.

The GWP regional water part-nerships continue to play a keyrole in raising awareness and build-ing political will at the regionallevel.To promote increased sharingof experience and knowledgeacross the regions, a number ofinter-regional meetings for part-ners were held in 2007, rather thana single global “ConsultingPartners Meeting”. In addition, asyou will read in Chapter 1, thesemeetings provided opportunitiesfor GWP partners to discuss strategic and opera-tional issues relating to the next strategy.

GWP is changing the way the IWRM plan-ning programmes are being managed to furtherdecentralise responsibility to the regions.Thisinvolves integrating the programmes and thecore activities of the partnerships making it easi-er to capture of knowledge and lessons learnedand ensure sustainability of the outcomesthrough local follow up.A brief update on thelessons learned to date can be read in this report.

The National Dialogues that started at the endof 2006 were completed by the end of 2007.The Dialogues were held to help countries fur-ther develop and maintain momentum in theprocess of development of national IWRM Plansto meet the 2005 target of the WSSD Plan ofImplementation.

During 2007, water financing continued to bea key theme across the network.Workshops onfinance were held in Eastern Africa (Nairobi)

and West Africa (Ouagadougou) bringingtogether water and finance officials, civil societyand experts.This work was carried out inalliance with the EU Water Initiative Finance

Working Group (EUWI-FWG).As amember of this Working Group,GWP has been involved in thedevelopment of an introductoryguide for practitioners on financingwater infrastructure and services.

One of the roles of the GWPTechnical Committee (TEC) is totake the lead on the technical aspectsof various global GWP partnershipinitiatives.Work with theInternational Water ManagementInstitute (IWMI) during 2007 con-centrated on the Triggers of WaterPolicy Change initiative, which focus-es on using research results to make

positive policy change happen.TEC published aPolicy Brief “Climate Change Adaptation andIntegrated Water Resources Management” in Augustand a number of other briefs are being preparedfor publication in 2008 including a TEC Back-ground Paper on financing and integrated waterresources management.

GWP has been effective at advocating theneed for better water resources management andhosting multi-stakeholder meetings jointly withkey partners in the regions.As with most globalaction networks, GWP has been good at report-ing its activities but has experienced difficultiesdocumenting the outcomes of this work. Inresponse to this concern GWP has progressivelyintroduced a reporting methodology based onthe IDRC Outcome Mapping approach.Theapplication of this approach will increase thenetwork’s ability to build learning and reflectioninto its work throughout the life of GWP’s2009–2013 strategy.

Overview

Emilio GabbrielliExecutive Secretary

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 5

6

A quick scan around the G

CONTINUED DIALOGUE CONCERNING WATER POLICYAND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AT GLOBAL LEVEL

• Participation by senior GWP programme staff in the UN Water meeting in Bonn, Germany in January.

• Senior GWP management and programme staff participation in the World Economic Forum in January, raising the role of water higher on the agenda in the private sector.

• Participation by senior GWP management in the UN Task Force on Water and Sanitation.

IWRM PROGRAMMES AND TOOLS DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO REGIONAL AND COUNTRY NEEDS

• GWP Technical Committee (TEC) published Policy Brief 5 onClimate Change Adaptation and Integrated Water Resource Management;drafted TEC Background Paper 12 on Water Financing andGovernance (published April 2008) and the ComprehensiveAssessment of Water Management in Agriculture Issue Brief 12 onDeveloping and managing river basins:The need for adaptive, multilevel,collaborative institutional arrangements (published by the InternationalWater Management Institute (IWMI),April 2008).

• In partnership with GWP and the EU Water Initiative FinanceWorking Group, Cap-Net developed a training manual and facilita-tors’ guide on Economics in Sustainable Water Management.

Pete

r Par

ks/A

FP/S

CAN

PIX

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 6

7

e GWP network in 2007GWP CARIBBEAN

• GWP Caribbean, Caribbean Waternet, andthe Center for Gender and DevelopmentStudies of the University of the West Indiesdeveloped training material to supportwork on gender and water.

• The structure and first draft of a handbookon flood risk management for theCaribbean was developed.

GWP CENTRAL AFRICA

• In parallel to the sixth ministerial session ofthe African Ministers Council on Water(AMCOW), GWP Central Africa helpedorganise a workshop to examine the pro-posed Central African regional water policy,and an institutional study on creating acoordination unit for water resources man-agement within the Economic Communityof Central African States (ECCAS).

• The first water forum in Cameroon wasorganised in November, targeting govern-ment officials, NGOs and other stakeholders.

GWP CENTRAL AMERICA

• Journalists from Central America and the DominicanRepublic participated in the workshop Drinking Waterand Sanitation held in Panama City in December – thefifth event organised for journalists by GWP CentralAmerica and the Inter-American Development Bank(IDB).

• During 2007, members of GWP Guatemala continuedmeetings with legislators to promote the principles ofIWRM and push for better water governance and otherissues that should be incorporated into the water law. InMarch, legislators from the Congress of the Republicformally agreed on a political process to develop a newwater law.

Anet

te N

ante

ll/SC

ANPI

X

Dino

dia/

AGE/

SCAN

PIX

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 7

8

GWP CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

• GWP Central and Eastern Europe organised the second round of national IWRM dialogues –on how to incorporate IWRM into the existing legal and policy frameworks – in cooperationwith ministries and national parliaments in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania,Moldova, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine.

• Under the coordination of the International Commission for the Protection of the DanubeRiver (ICPDR), GWP country water partnerships in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia,Slovenia and Ukraine were involved in developing and implementing national celebrations ofDanube Day on June 29.

GWP CENTRAL ASIA AND CAUCASUS

• GWP Central Asia and Caucasus worked withUNDP Uzbekistan to organise and facilitate theinter-sector roundtables and training programmeson IWRM under the framework of the nationalIWRM planning process.

• The Uzbekistan Ministry of Justice agreed to estab-lish the Uzbekistan Water Partnership under thecoordination of the NGO, Eco-Priaralie.

GWP CHINA

• GWP China co-sponsored the 2nd Yangtze River Forum, The Yangtze and Lake Dongting, held inApril in Changsha, the capital city of Hunan Province.The Forum adopted the ChangshaDeclaration, Guiding Principles for Dongting Lake Protection.

• GWP China helped organise the 5th High-LevelRound Table, Protection of Water Resources and WaterEnvironment of China, which was held in Beijingin November – a powerful demonstration offurther inter-ministerial cooperation to addressthe water resources and water pollution problemstriggered by rapid economic growth in China.

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 8

9

GWP EASTERN AFRICA

• GWP Eastern Africa supported theAMCOW sub-regional meeting onFinancing Water, hosted by Kenya in April,that reviewed the financial opportunitiesand bottlenecks within the water sector.The key outputs were adopted in theNairobi Accord that will guide financingwater in the greater Horn of Africa.Thekey points of the Nairobi Accord were pre-sented to AMCOW in its Congo-Brazzaville meeting in May and adopted inthe Brazzaville Declaration.

• In July, GWP Eastern Africa hosted thefirst interregional meeting among theGWP Africa regions – Southern, Eastern,Central and West – in Mombasa, Kenya.

GWP MEDITERRANEAN

• GWP Mediterranean supported the organ-isation of the 6th Meeting of the Circle ofParliamentarians (COMPSUD) that tookplace in May on Corfu island, Greece,which focussed on possible ways tostrengthen the relationship between sus-tainable development and integrated waterresources management.

• In preparation for the national IWRMplanning process, a training course in Syriaon IWRM Planning was jointly organisedwith GTZ Syria in Damascus inSeptember.

GWP SOUTH AMERICA

• Support provided towards the organisation in June of the 1st Peruvian Conference forLegislators on key points to the governance of water resources in Peru, followed by a meetingwith the President of Peru, helped reinforce the government’s decision to establish the PeruvianNational Water Agency.

Albe

rtNo

rman

din/

Mas

terf

ile/S

CAN

PIX

Ange

la K

laus

chen

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 9

10

SOUTHEAST ASIA

• The Southeast Asia Water Forum held inKuala Lumpur, Malaysia in October high-lighted the value of collaboration and part-nership in addressing the water concernsthat abound in the region.

• Emerging from the third Southeast AsiaMinisterial Meeting on Water Resourcesheld in Putrajaya, Malaysia in October, the2007 Ministerial Declaration – calling forintegrated approaches for more sustainablewater resources development, managementand use in the region – was signed by allparticipating ministers from BruneiDarussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, LaoPDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines,Singapore,Thailand and Vietnam.

SOUTH ASIA

• The outcomes of the Dialogues onIWRM undertaken during 2006 and 2007by the country water partnerships in SouthAsia were analysed in a regional meetingheld in November in Bangalore, India. Keymessages derived from the analysis includ-ed the need for reallocation of water fromagriculture, stronger linkages with politicalsystems, and the importance of addressinggender issues.

• The role of Area Water Partnerships insupporting communities in the regionaddress their water challenges has beenstrengthened by the respective countrywater partnerships, notably in India,Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

GWP SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA: INTER-REGIONAL INITIATIVES

• Created in 2006, the Lusophone Water Partnership includes repre-sentatives from almost all Portuguese speaking countries in theworld, only East Timor is still to be incorporated. Important stepshave been taken to define a common strategic agenda as the founda-tion for joint action and several key documents on IWRM havebeen translated into Portuguese and broadly circulated.

• GWP South America – together with GWP Peru, GWP Brazil andGWP Central America – supported the development of the LatinAmerican Seminar in March in Lima on IWRM national planning.The resulting declaration, the Declaration of Lima, states the commit-ment of all participating countries to engage in national IWRMplanning and implementation, to work on the establishment of stableand clear legal and institutional frameworks, to include genuine par-ticipation and representative management, and to strengthen thewater financing capacity in the countries.

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 10

11

WEST AFRICA

• In partnership with the Association for the Defence of Environment and Development(ADAD), GWP Cape Verde organised training workshops in February on conflict managementand negotiation for water sector personnel from the islands of St Vicente and St Antão E S.Nicolau; and in March in Sâo Filipe (island of Fogo) with the mayors of the three municipali-ties of Fogo.

• GWP West Africa signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the EconomicCommunity of West African States (ECOWAS) in June formalising the long-existing workingrelationships with ECOWAS through its Water Resources Coordination Unit (WRCU).Thiswill allow GWP West Africa to officially benefit from the political support of ECOWAS which,in turn, can call on GWP for expertise for support in the implementation of their activities.

SOUTHERN AFRICA

• In May GWP Southern Africa organized, on behalfof the Southern Africa Development Community(SADC) Water Division, the SADC Multi-stakehold-er Water Dialogue on IWRM from Concepts to Practicebeyond the Converted in Maputo, Mozambique.

• Integration of IWRM plans into the NationalDevelopment Frameworks has been achieved inZambia in its Fifth National DevelopmentProgramme, and in Malawi in its Growth andDevelopment Strategy.

Hein

e Pe

ders

en/S

CAN

PIX

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 11

International development agencies are makingincreasing use of global partnerships and net-works in their efforts to reduce poverty and

support sustainable resource use. For example, theUK’s Department for International Development(DFID) has increased its support to networks bya factor of ten over the past decade.The trend isbeing driven by a perceived need and sense ofurgency, coupled with frustration that formal sys-tems are not driving fast enough progresstowards global targets such as the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs).The move was ledinitially by civil society but is being valued moreand more by institutional actors, who recognizethat collective action is needed to solve complexsocial issues. Factors such as globalization, growthin information technology and more distributedgovernance are both driving and supporting thetrend by making operating on a global levelmore feasible and efficient.

The GWP is a successful example of a globalpartnership.The network is held together by ashared purpose: to help countries achieve moreequitable and sustainable management of theirwater resources. It was established in 1996 inresponse to the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED) heldin Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which called for anintegrated approach to solve the world’s growingwater resource problems.

Comprising 13 semi-autonomous regionalwater partnerships and over 60 country water

partnerships, the GWP network is supported bya central secretariat and a technical committee.The partnerships focus on providing an informedneutral platform for negotiation and shaping pol-icy.Through this, they create interaction betweenstakeholders that would not otherwise be possi-ble.“The partnerships introduce a new mindsetbased on influence and social change and learn-ing,” says Alan Hall, GWP Coordinator forGlobal Initiatives. Consultant Ricardo Wilson-Grau adds:“By encouraging collaborationbetween diverse actors, the partnerships con-tribute to policy change and modify behaviour,but it is seldom possible to attribute such changedirectly to partnership activities.”

The problem of attributing demonstrableimpact is common to all networks, global andlocal. Difficulty in measuring achievements candiscourage donor support and there is pressureon networks to conform to a more conventionalproject approach.This is usually based on a rigidlogical framework analysis that was developed fordevelopment progress and, whilst suitable forphysical activities, does not suit more intangiblepolicy work.“This is something we have beenlooking at closely,” says Hall.“And we are pio-neering the use of the Outcome Mappingapproach developed by the InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC) as amethodology to guide our reporting and evalua-tion procedures.We are learning by doing andthere is now a strong Community of Practice

Putting Partners First:

GWP network development activities

12

Partnerships and networks are increasingly recognized as effective means ofachieving global development goals. As one of the longest established globalpartnerships, the Global Water Partnership (GWP) continues to lead the wayand refine its approach to network development. Our major networking activi-ties in 2007 took the form of three inter-regional meetings. These replaced theannual global Consulting Partners event and allowed more members per regionto join in the proceedings.

Aam

irQu

resh

i/AFP

/SCA

NPI

X

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 12

"By encouraging collaborationbetween diverse actors, the partner-ships contribute to policy change andmodify behaviour, but it is seldompossible to attribute such changedirectly to partnership activities."

Ricardo Wilson-Grau

Aam

ir Qu

resh

i/AFP

/SCA

NPI

X

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 13

14

coordinated by the Global Action Network(GAN-Net) that brings together many networksfacing this same challenge.”

Each regional and country partnership under-takes activities that respond to its own circum-stances and needs. Exchange of experience, ideasand lessons learned from actual practice in allaspects of sustainable water resources manage-ment is therefore invaluable. In an effort toincrease stakeholder participation and theexchange of knowledge, the GWP replaced itstraditional global meeting in 2007 with threeinter-regional meetings.These were held inBulgaria, Kenya and the Philippines.“This was anexperiment to see if we could exploit a deepervein of experience that could be shared across awider group of partners,” says Bjorn Guterstam,GWP Network Officer. Participants at all threemeetings deemed the experiment to be success-ful.As a result, the GWP has introduced a newmeeting timetable that allows for a global net-working event every second year to maintaincohesiveness, but with inter-regional meetings inthe intervening years.

ENHANCING COLLABORATIONThree regional partnerships – Central Asia andCaucasus, Central and Eastern Europe, andMediterranean – met in Varna, Bulgaria inOctober.Their main topics of discussion weretransboundary waters, public participation andintegrated water resources management (IWRM)planning.The meeting brought together two sig-nificant blocks of countries – members of theEuropean Union (EU) and their immediateneighbours.

Participants from EU and candidate EU coun-tries were able to share knowledge and experi-ence of preparing for and implementing EUWater Directives.Although there are no similarunified schemes on national IWRM planning inCentral Asia and Caucasus, the region has usefulexperience of shaping national policy through

country-level IWRM dialogues. By bringingthese stakeholders together, the GWP hopes tobuild on existing initiatives working to improvethe management of water resources in the region,such as the EU Water Initiative partnership forEastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia.

The session on public participation underlinedthe importance of civil society in making IWRMwork, especially at river basin and local levels.Participants stressed the value of having a neutralplatform where all stakeholders can develop theirideas and activities freely and independently.

The meeting highlighted many areas forpotential collaboration. One example is theNational Water Policies Dialogues organized bythe United Nations Economic Commission forEurope (UNECE) within the mandate of theEU Water Initiative, which can be coupled withthe GWP National Dialogues. In addition, thereis considerable scope for collaboration on trans-boundary water resources management.Waterresources education, a topic on which theregional GWP Mediterranean Partnership hashad considerable success, is a third area; and afourth is the 5th World Water Forum in 2009,which is hoped to improve the enabling environ-ment for IWRM planning in all countries.Amajor benefit of coordinated initiatives is thatthey attract government and donor support.

Each region drew up specific conclusions andrecommendations that would be developed andimplemented in support of national govern-ments’ efforts to apply the principles of IWRM.The recommendations were then amended andapproved in plenary sessions and will feed intothe preparation of the GWP overall strategy for2009–2013.

“The inter-regional meetings opened up anew dimension for the partnerships to addresscommon issues, where more partners had theopportunity to participate,” says Guterstam.“Next steps include plans for GWP Central andEastern Europe to share information on waterfinancing with GWP Central Asia and Caucasus,further collaboration on transboundary waterissues, and several activities on IWRM and sus-tainable sanitation, starting up during theInternational Year of Sanitation in 2008.”

PARTNERS IN DEVELOPMENTThe GWP regions in Africa work closely withintergovernmental agencies such as the SouthernAfrican Development Community (SADC), theEast African Community, the Economic

GWP Central Asia andCaucasus, Central andEastern Europe andMediterranean held theirfirst inter-regional meetingin Varna, Bulgaria inOctober.

Bogd

an M

acar

ol

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 14

15

Community of West African States (ECOWAS)and the African Ministers’ Council on Water(AMCOW).At the same time, GWP is workingwith 12 countries in Africa specifically on theformulation of national IWRM Plans (see nextchapter).

The inter-regional conference held inMombasa, Kenya in June was held principally toallow participants to share knowledge and expe-rience on continent-wide IWRM strategicissues.They were asked to make recommenda-tions on the development of a strategy thatwould allow the GWP to exploit opportunitiesand engage effectively with key initiatives work-ing towards the continent’s development goals.

Participants reflected on progress towards thewater-related MDGs and the national IWRMplans that are being formulated as an appropriateresponse to the challenges of equitable and sus-tainable water management. In addition, themeeting provided a platform for discussing thestrengthening of ties and collaboration withregional economic communities, governmentministries that impact on water resources, andother important organizations and governancestructures.

One of the main outcomes of the meeting wasthe agreement to strengthen working relationswith AMCOW through a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MoU).AMCOW perceivesGWP to add value and complement formalprocesses by bringing a broader view from stake-holders, and values this collaboration. GWP seesthis as an opportunity to raise awareness, solicitpolitical support on water matters and supportgovernmental processes.“The MoU provides anumbrella under which the GWP regions inAfrica can become more involved in pan-Africanprocesses through their respective regional entityor community, such as SADC, ECOWAS, etc.,”says Aly Kerdany, GWP Network Officer.

The participants discussed several topical issuesrelating to the implementation of IWRM andthe attainment of the MDG targets (e.g., sanita-

tion, climate change, infrastructure developmentand financing of IWRM initiatives, monitoringand evaluation, and knowledge sharing). It wasagreed that there is scope for further discussionon how the implementation of IWRM can belinked with the attainment of the MDGs andhow to relate climate change and sanitation goalsto the IWRM process.

Representatives from the African Network ofEnvironmental Journalists (ANEJ) and theAfrican Film Producers Association took part inthe conference and were involved in discussionson how the media can support widespreadaction and performance accountability regardingIWRM planning and climate change. GWP andANEJ pledged to formalize their collaborationand strengthen their working relations at coun-try, regional and continent level.

FOCUS ON IWRMThe inter-regional meeting held in Manila, thePhilippines in November invited GWP membersfrom Asia-Pacific and the Caribbean to discusspressing IWRM issues.About 100 GWP mem-bers from Australia, the Caribbean, China, thePacific, South Asia and Southeast Asia attendedthe meeting, representing governments, civilsociety, water utilities, consultants, private opera-tors, external support agencies and internationaland regional organizations.

The event focused on three major themes:addressing climate change in the context ofIWRM, addressing IWRM aspects of water sup-ply and sanitation, and improving knowledgemanagement in IWRM. First, regarding IWRMand climate change, the participants recommend-ed that GWP should continue to support theintegration of energy issues into water policiesand the development of inter-regional actionprogrammes on climate change through com-mon river basin management.They asked thatspecial attention should be paid to small islandcountries to help them develop strategies to copewith the impacts of climate change.

GWP held its first PanAfrican Conference inMombasa, Kenya in July.

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 15

16

Second, the recommendations on water supplyand sanitation fell into two main groups: imple-menting reforms in niche areas at relevant levels(e.g., improved governance, changes in publicperception and behaviour) and strengtheninglinkages and synergy with other water supply andsanitation initiatives (e.g., the national IWRMplanning process).

Third, participants asked GWP to continue sup-porting improved knowledge management, withspecial emphasis on improving knowledge genera-tion, dissemination, sharing, access and applica-tion, especially in informed decision-making.Thiswould include continued focus on improvingcapacity for IWRM among all stakeholders.

A significant outcome of the meeting was thesigning of a Memorandum of Understandingbetween GWP China and GWP South Asia.Thetwo regions agreed to collaborate on efforts suchas information sharing and exchange, sustainablewater resources management and other initiativesthat will benefit both of them in improving theirknowledge and practice of IWRM.

“The meeting evaluation showed that the par-ticipants perceived the meeting as a very stimu-lating and effective opportunity to discuss burn-ing issues,” says Mercy Dikito-Wachtmeister,GWP Network Officer.“Because the meetingwas closer, the regions were able to sponsor agreater number of partners to attend and virtuallyall the sectors related to the three thematic areasof the meeting were represented.”

As a result of the meeting, the regions will morefully integrate their strategic interventions andworkplans and cooperate further with their boun-dary partners. In addition, they will follow upfurther opportunities for cooperation, such as withthe Asian Development Bank on knowledge hubs,river basin management and water financing.

When measuring and attributingimpact, how do partnerships deter-mine or track their progress?Measuring change in the structureand process of decision-making ina complex policy environment isvery difficult, as is attributing thecredit for change that occurs.Similarly, it is challenging todecide who should be account-able for making the change hap-pen.The Evaluation Unit of the

Canadian International Development ResearchCentre (IDRC) developed Outcome Mappingas a reporting, monitoring and evaluation toolthat would take these problems into account.As an organization that distributes grants toresearch institutions all over the world, theyfound they needed to develop a better under-standing of the impacts of their grantees, par-ticularly those working in international part-nerships.

Outcome Mapping recognizes that change indevelopment processes is complex and hasmultiple actors and factors. It is also continu-ous, not limited to the life of the project, and

non-linear to allow for unexpected results.Outcome Mapping acknowledges that changesmay be beyond the control of the project butsubject to its influence, and that change is atwo-way process within which the programmewill also change.The technique is highly suitedto partnership situations since it fosters partici-pation and continuous learning and develops asense of ownership.

The GWP’s fundraising (global, regional andnational) depends largely on being able todemonstrate that its members are not onlydoing good work, but also achieving results.The Outcome Mapping methodology willenable the GWP to understand its contribu-tion to the processes that lead to long-term,major, sustainable changes in global water secu-rity, elimination of poverty, improvement inhealth and protection of natural resources.

In 2007, the focus was on introducing theconcept of Outcome Mapping into the GWPnetwork.All three inter-regional meetings pro-vided training on how to use Outcome Map-ping in their progress reports. In 2008, partnerswill learn how to use Outcome Mapping asthey prepare the 2009–2013 strategic plans.

OUTCOME MAPPING

Regional Council membersof GWP South Asia reflecton the outcomes of theAsia-Pacific inter-regionalmeeting during theirNovember assembly inBangalore, India.

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 16

17

GWP has supported the national IWRMplanning processes in twelve countriesand four sub-regions in Africa: Benin,

Cape Verde, Mali and Senegal in West Africa;Cameroon in Central Africa; Eritrea, Ethiopiaand Kenya in Eastern Africa; and Malawi,Mozambique, Swaziland and Zambia inSouthern Africa.

GWP’s support for IWRM planning in Africarests on a foundation of awareness and politicalwill that has been generated over the past tenyears.Aligned with many ongoing initiatives ineach country, the activities are supported by thefollowing building blocks:

■ Awareness: Raised awareness of IWRM amonggovernment officials and politicians has result-ed in greater participation of directors andpermanent secretaries of planning and financein water-related ministries, increasing theirsense of ownership.

■ Participation: The role of the country waterpartnership (CWP) approach has proven itseffectiveness in bringing different actorstogether in each country to discuss toughissues and agree on the way forward.

■ Capacity: Capacity building initiatives are con-tinually being adapted to address the changingdemands of the different IWRM planning andimplementation stages.

■ Information sharing: IWRM planning is a newexperience for many nations – GWP is help-ing project teams compile and share localexperience and knowledge across countriesand regions.

■ Financing the plans: Development of fundingstrategies by ministries of finance and plan-ning, and resource allocation through nationalbudgeting exercises, are already underway inKenya, Malawi, Mali and Zambia.

■ Integration and coordination: Decision makingprocesses involve different stakeholders at thedifferent levels. Policies established by minis-tries of forestry, energy, water and others needcoherency among them if water managementis to be improved.

The 2002 World Summit for Sustainable Development called for all countriesto prepare national IWRM and water efficiency plans by 2005. GWP’s supportto the national processes established to develop these plans has been exten-sively reported in GWP in Action from 2004. Here we provide a brief update onIWRM planning in Africa, while awaiting the final outcomes of the work thatwill come to closure and be extensively reported during 2008 and 2009.

Managing Africa’s Water Resources:

Update on GWP supportto IWRM planning

AwarenessParticipation

Capacity

FinanceIntegration

Information

The IWRM planningactivities are grounded on six building blocks.

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.28 Sida 17

In supporting governments withtheir IWRM planning GWP serves as a facilitator providing a neutralplatform for dialogue.

Sylv

ain

Gran

dada

m/A

GE/S

CAN

PIX

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 18

19

ADDED VALUE OF GWPIn supporting governments with their IWRMstrategy and planning processes, GWP has takena role as a promoter and catalyst of change, andthrough its activities has added value in threemain areas:

1. GWP serves as a facilitator, helping to set theframework for implementation of the planand encouraging decentralization and sharedresponsibility, while the national governmentsretain control and ownership of their IWRMplanning process.

2. GWP is a linking mechanism, helping coun-tries and regions share knowledge and experi-ence among themselves on creating waterauthorities, catchment councils and similarorganizational frameworks; decentralization;integrated planning; and capacity developmentin water financing, conflict resolution, gendermainstreaming, environmental flows and oth-ers according to demand.

3. GWP helps provide a neutral platform fordialogue, encouraging broad consultation thatbrings non-traditional and marginalized waterusers into the debate, often for the first time.

PROGRESS CONTINUESThrough the work of GWP’s regional waterpartnerships, a good understanding of the politi-cal processes taking place in the regions has builtup.This has allowed the regional partnerships toleverage political support for the IWRM plan-ning processes at national level with Africa’s keyregional political bodies – the Africa MinistersCouncil on Water (AMCOW), the EconomicCommunity of West African States (ECOWAS),the Southern Africa Development Community(SADC) and the Economic Community forCentral African States (ECCAS) – resulting inimproved cooperation on water managementbetween countries in the respective regions.

The GWP country water partnerships play a key role in supporting the broad stakeholderparticipation involved in the IWRM planningprocesses and in awareness raising, capacitybuilding and knowledge exchange activities.

GWP’s continued collaboration with the inter-national network for capacity building inIWRM (Cap-Net) has resulted in the imple-mentation of three regional capacity buildingplans in East, Southern and West/Central Africa.GWP and Cap-Net are also working together tolink capacity building efforts in the Portuguese-speaking countries via the Lusophone Water

Political support at national level is critical• Gaining political support can be a long, slow

process but ensuring the active participationof senior government officials can provedecisive.

• Bringing on board non-traditional stakehold-ers, such as ministries of finance and plan-ning, early on in the process is important forfunding implementation of the plans.

• Global trends are difficult to translate intolocal facts. Dealing smartly with uncertaintyand changing political environments isessential.

Stakeholder engagement needs pushing• The benefits of inclusion need clear illustra-

tion if stakeholders are to fully participate.

• A continuous need for awareness raising andcapacity building on better water resourcesmanagement is required if the stakeholderbase is to be widened.

• Consultation raises stakeholders’ expecta-tions: if no action is derived from it fatiguesets in.

Roadmaps need building• Based on an analysis of the national status

of water management, an agreed roadmapfor the planning process – defining roles ofthe those involved and the key steps – isneeded.

• Realistic planning and indicators need to be included and well defined from the beginning.

• Identification of immediate and longer-termactions helps set priorities and keeps theplan realistic.

• Tying in activities with on-going programmesis important but impacts on timelines.

• Once the IWRM Plan is prepared, the countrywater partnership and lead ministry needpass the plan on to a higher political bodyfor adoption by cabinet.

• By lobbying Cabinet, a ‘champion’ withingovernment can speed up the adoption andimplementation of the plan.

The multi-stakeholder water partnershipsplay a central role• GWP country water partnerships (CWPs)

need to interact closely with government –setting appropriate structures and processes,and understanding how officials work – ifthey are to be effective.

• Effectiveness in facilitating and supportingthe planning process is increased if CWPmember skills in these areas are enhanced.

• ‘Champions’ strengthen the multi-stakeholderplatform by creating a common understandingof the purpose of and approach to IWRMplanning.

IWRM PLANNING PROCESSES: LESSONS LEARNED

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 19

20

The GWP country waterpartnerships play a key rolein supporting the broadstakeholder participationinvolved in the IWRM planning processes, and inawareness raising, capacitybuilding and knowledgeexchange activities.

Partnership – comprising Angola, Brazil,Portugal, Moçambique, Cape Verde, São Toméand Principe, and Guinée Bissau. Cape Verde hasalready established strong links with the WestAfrican countries making the most of jointtraining courses, sharing experience and partici-pating in exchange visits to several countries inthe region.

EMBEDDING WATER IN NATIONALDEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND PLANS

Described in detail in GWP in Action 2006,Zambia’s IWRM plan was incorporated into theFifth National Development Plan in early 2007.In Malawi, the IWRM plan was integrated intoMalawi’s Growth and Development Strategy in2007 while in Mali, the IWRM plan was inte-grated into the country’s second Poverty Reduc-tion Strategy Papers (PRSP).

In Benin, the 2006 national IWRM and waterefficiency plan helped Benin’s policymakersrevise the country’s Growth and PovertyReduction Strategy to take into account the roleof water in development (see GWP in Action2006). In Eritrea and Kenya work continues tostreamline the IWRM plan with other nationaldevelopment processes.

A first draft of Senegal’s national IWRM planwas discussed in a workshop at national level inSeptember 2007 and in Cameroon, the govern-ment established the IWRM Unit inside theMinistry in charge of water and allocated thefinancial resources for the IWRM planning

process. Mali’s IWRM plan was examined andapproved by the government of Mali in April2008. It will be implemented in two phases;2007-2011 and 2012-2015.

However, the contribution of water to broaddevelopment goals is often not well understoodat the political level outside the water sector and,as a result, actions needed to unlock this contri-bution are not identified and prioritised.To rec-tify this, the contribution of water to varioussectors of economic and social life needs to berecognised and good water management needsto be given the appropriate priority by thosesectors. For this to occur, not only do water sec-tor practitioners need to engage with nationaldevelopment planning processes but managers ofdevelopment planning processes need to ensurethat water sector representatives are effectivelydrawn in.To provide guidance in this area, theGWP Technical Committee recently publishedits Policy Brief 6 on How to integrate IWRM andnational development plans and strategies and whythis needs to be done in an era of aid effectiveness.(available on www.gwpforum.org)

The Policy Brief argues that, for aid dependentcountries, programmes to promote aid effective-ness provide an opportunity to better integratewater management into broader developmentinitiatives. Such programmes may also makeintegration a necessity, since they will make itmore difficult to obtain extra-budgetary supportfor stand-alone water projects.

Jørn

Stje

rnek

lar/

PHOE

NIX

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 20

The contribution of water to broaddevelopment goals is often not wellunderstood at the political level outsidethe water sector.

Sean Sprague/Phoenix

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 21

22

The enormous challenge presented by theMDG on water (to cut by half the propor-tion of people without safe drinking water

and basic sanitation by 2015) highlighted theneed for a massive global investment in waterservices. In response, the GWP, the World WaterCouncil and the Third World Water Forumjointly initiated the World Panel on FinancingWater Infrastructure.The Panel published itsreport Financing Water for All in Kyoto in 2003,outlining options for meeting the water sector’sfuture financial needs (see GWP in Action 2003).

Kyoto and other global events have raisedawareness and prompted a positive response fromimportant international financing institutions –the Asian Development Bank for example.At thesame time, major international institutions, suchas the Organisation for Economic Cooperationand Development (OECD), have increased theirinvolvement in the water financing debate, andbankers and financiers are attending high profilewater events in greater numbers. However, wateris still considered to be the greatest public infra-structure financing challenge in developing

Financing Water for All: COne of the GWP’s key objectives is to influence the way people think aboutfinancing water. Our efforts in 2007 towards this goal include promotingdialogue through workshops and other neutral platforms, and building capacitythrough education and training materials. Such activities keep finance in thespotlight and provide support to decision-makers as they seek to develop sus-tainable systems for financing water services.

Water is still considered to be the greatest publicinfrastructure financingchallenge in developing

countries.

Corb

is/Sy

gma/

Euro

paPr

ess S

CAN

PIX

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 22

23

countries and progress is being restricted by alack of demand and capacity at the local level.

Why is financing water services so difficult?Historical factors are partly to blame, explainsAlan Hall, GWP Coordinator for GlobalInitiatives.“Access to water is a basic need andmany governments have built political support bysubsidising the true cost of supplying water to theelectorate,” he says.“In addition, water has a lowprofile compared with other economic or socialinfrastructure policy and planning and dependsheavily on government budget allocations.”

Funding for water and sanitation is not clear-cut and often suffers from an uneasy compro-mise where water services are priced below eco-nomic levels and the sector remains chronicallyunder-financed. But water does not have toremain the financial world’s poor relation.Well-run and financially solvent water undertakings –private or public – are in evidence in many partsof the world, and these have little difficultyattracting additional finance. Indeed, utilities canoffer a safe and steady investment for pensionfunds and other cautious investors.

There is an urgent need to extend the sourcesof finance and not rely solely on governmentbudgets and donor funds. Sharing successfulexperience and knowledge of innovative financ-ing mechanisms is one of the GWP’s main tasks.Building on the momentum created by theWorld Panel at Kyoto, we continue to supportthe European Union Water Initiative FinanceWorking Group (EUWI-FWG) and other initia-tives that promote financial sustainability andcapacity building on financing for the water sec-tor.And we continue to provide a platform fordialogue, encouraging stakeholder discussionsand bringing together water, finance and plan-ning professionals at regional and country level.

SHARING KNOWLEDGE AND GUIDINGREFORM IN AFRICA

In 2004, the GWP – with funding from theDutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs – supportednational IWRM planning in six African coun-tries (see GWP in Action 2004).The programmeincludes a component for increasing understand-ing of and potential access to a broader range offinancing instruments.As a partner in the pro-

: Continuing the dialogueSOME BASIC PRINCIPLES

OF WATER FINANCEKey issues in determining a financing strategyare:• A country’s system of finance for water and

sanitation may contain various financingsources. However, all major parts of the sec-tor should be funded in an adequate andsustainable way and when public finance isneeded, it should be reliable and sufficient.

• Sanitation is likely to need a differentapproach to water supply.

• Subsidising water for social reasons is anational political decision, but if the nation-al treasury cannot or will not provide therequired funds, the water sector becomesstarved of finance.The offer of free orcheap water may be a populist gesture thatmainly benefits the rich, impoverishes waterinfrastructure and services, and makes theirproper financing impossible.

• Water and sanitation have social and cultur-al overtones in many societies and cannotbe regarded purely as economic services.However, there is a strong case for address-ing social needs through properly budgeteddirect measures (e.g., targeted subsidies, freeor cheap basic water quotas, support forpromotion of sanitation demand, etc.).Within this policy framework, servicesshould be conducted on businesslike princi-ples and users treated as customers.

• The ideal kind of commercial finance forwater infrastructure is a long-term, low-interest loan available in local currency tosub-sovereign borrowers.

Source: Financing Water Infrastructure and Services:An introductory guide for practitioners in developingcountries. EUWI-FWG:www.financingwaterforall.org.

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 23

24

gramme, the EUWI-FWG agreed to support theGWP regional partnerships in Eastern and WestAfrica to develop and implement regional- andcountry-level activities on finance.Two specificoutputs were regional workshops on financingthe water sector in both Eastern and West Africa.

The first event, entitled Regional Workshop onWater Financing in West Africa, was held in Ouaga-dougou, Burkina Faso, in March 2007.The eventwas organized by the West Africa Water Partner-ship with support from the Ministry of Agri-culture, Hydraulics and Fisheries Resources ofBurkina Faso.The main aims were to share know-ledge and experience of different types of waterfinancing, build capacity on new mechanisms forfinancing water, and improve understanding of thelinks between finance and governance.

Participants were drawn from ten countriesand included members of the West Africa coun-try water partnerships, senior representativesfrom ministries of water and finance, non-gov-ernmental organizations (NGOs), the WaterResources Coordinating Unit of ECOWAS,basin organizations,West Africa MonetaryUnion, the GWP and the EUWI. On the firstday they discussed infrastructure financing andabsorption of funds, focusing on the constraintsand possible solutions at both regional andcountry level.The second day focused on financ-ing water from an IWRM perspective and theimportance of integrating water into nationalPoverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs).

The second event, Financing Water in EasternAfrica, was organized in response to a requestfrom the African Ministers Council on Water(AMCOW).The Ministers asked for a stakehold-er meeting between governments, donors, theUnited Nations and informed technical agenciesto discuss why investment in water was laggingbehind demand, and what could be done toredress the situation.

Held in Nairobi, Kenya in April 2007, theworkshop was organized by GWP Eastern Africa.The overall objective was to provide clear guide-lines on the types of policy and institutionalreform that countries need to undertake in orderto meet their own and international developmentobligations. Participants included senior represen-tatives from government water ministries, donors,NGOs and United Nations agencies.

“The conference findings were somewhat sur-prising,” says Simon Thuo, Coordinator of GWPEastern Africa.“It appears that the main reasonfor the backlog in water investment isn’t just a

shortage of funds. Instead, it appears to be relatedto an inability to absorb the funds available,which is linked to a lack of capacity – mainlymanagement and technical – and governancebottlenecks that delay implementation of pro-grammes.”

A key output of the Eastern Africa meetingwas a formal Ministerial Statement on Financingfor Water issued by the Ministers of the EasternAfrica AMCOW sub-region.The Ministersacknowledged the value of partnerships and col-laboration for achieving the MDGs and the needto increase national budget allocations for sus-tainable water use.They recognized that publicinstitutions alone would be unable to meet thedemand for water infrastructure and services, andthey agreed to provide the framework for effec-tive participation of non-state actors.They alsostipulated that the public sector would needstructural reforms in order to attract additionalfunds.The statement was later submitted andadopted at the full Ministerial meeting ofAMCOW in Brazzaville, Congo in May 2007.

Follow-up activities to these workshops, in theform of country-level roundtable meetings, arenow at the planning stage in Ghana, Benin andBurkina Faso.The GWP will also follow up withcountry-level activities in Eritrea, Mozambiqueand Swaziland as part of the Partnership forAfrican Water Development (PAWD).TheEUWI-FWG will liaise further with the GWPon country-level follow-ups to see where itsmembers can add value and resources.

The outcomes of the country-level activitiesshould dovetail with ongoing processes such aslinking with national PRSPs.“In Mali, officersof the Ministry of Finance have become veryactive in the development process of the IWRMplan and this has promoted debates in integrat-ing IWRM into the second generation of thenational PRSP,” says Sidi Coulibaly, Communi-cations Officer for the West Africa WaterPartnership. In addition, the workshop openedthe door to decision-makers from Liberia, whichhas very little water infrastructure following theyears of conflict.

BUILDING CAPACITY ON WATER FINANCINGFOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

In response to the need for guidance on financ-ing issues, as expressed at the two workshops,GWP has worked with EUWI and Cap-Net todevelop several knowledge products on waterfinancing.

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 24

25

The GWP Technical Committee has complet-ed a new Background Paper on Water Financingand Governance by Rees,Winpenny and Hall.The paper sets out the critical link betweenfinancing water and the reform of water gover-nance that must be strengthened to make invest-ment attractive and effective.The paper stressesthat with better governance the sector will bemore investment friendly and more likely to uselimited finances effectively, thereby ensuringgreater financial sustainability.The paper alsohighlights the need to finance public goods andnon-structural aspects (such as IWRM) that arecritical to sustainable development.

The EUWI-FWG responded with a newpublication entitled Financing Water Infrastructureand Services:An introductory guide for practitioners indeveloping countries.This non-technical introduc-tion to finance for water infrastructure and serv-ices complements earlier reports from the FWG,

the World Water Council and the GWP.TheGuide is available on the GWP and EUWIwebsites and at www.financingwaterforall.org.

Although the Guide takes a broad view of thewater sector, it focuses on water supply and sani-tation.The chapters cover the principles of gover-nance and finance, how to estimate financialneeds, and how to implement cost-sharing andcost-recovery systems. Different sources of financeare explored, including national government, offi-cial development assistance, NGOs and commer-cial businesses.And there is a useful section listingsources of further advice and information.

The target readers are politicians, water offi-cials and professionals, private business people,members of civil society organizations andlaypersons who are involved in providing waterinfrastructure and services.The authors of theguide have tried to reflect the viewpoint ofadministrations that have responsibility for

A new publicationEconomics in SustainableWater Management: TrainingManual and Facilitator'sGuide has been publishedby Cap-Net in collaborationwith the EU WaterInitiative Finance WorkingGroup and GWP. The man-ual is available in English,French, Spanish andPortuguese.

Corb

is

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 25

26

investment and services, which are increasinglymanaged at a sub-sovereign, decentralized leveland may include municipalities, regional andlocal utilities, local districts and communities,and in some cases private operators.The bene-fits, costs and risks of different financing optionsare presented as water authorities and operatorsmay see them, not strictly as they are viewed byfinanciers or donors.

LEARNING ABOUT FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTSThe GWP, Cap-Net and the EUWI-FWG havealso joined forces to build capacity by develop-ing training material to train the trainers. Econo-mics in Sustainable Water Management:A TrainingManual and Facilitators’ Guide follows the success-ful model of an earlier manual on formulating

IWRM plans (see GWP in Action 2005). Cap-Net led the development of the manual follow-ing a “training of trainers” meeting held inMexico in May 2007 and two material develop-ment workshops held in Pretoria, South Africa,in August and September.The content wasrefined further following its use in trainingcourses in Togo (for participants from francoph-one West Africa) and in Kenya (for participantsfrom the Nile Basin).

Available in English, French, Spanish andPortuguese, the training manual will help capaci-ty builders to conduct short training courses forwater managers on economic and financialinstruments for IWRM.As a result of the train-ing, they will be able to make more informedwater allocation decisions that promote efficientand effective resource use.The manual and guidecan also be used in educational programmes andfor awareness-building activities. Users areencouraged to adapt it to their local context.

The potential of financial and economic instru-ments to contribute to improved use and sustain-able management of water resources is increasing-ly being recognized. Kees Leendertse, HumanResources Development Specialist at Cap-Net,states “The growing interest in the subject fromGWP partners and incorporation of economicand financial considerations in IWRM planningdemonstrates the importance of financing; how-ever, water managers and professionals generallyhave insufficient knowledge of the different eco-nomic and financial instruments available.”

The manual sets out the concepts and princi-ples of economic and financial aspects of sus-tainable water management.The second sectionoffers guidance on the practical application ofeconomic and financial instruments and makes astrong case for their consideration withinIWRM.A sample programme for a five-daytraining course and links to sources of furtherinformation are also provided.The accompany-ing CD includes adaptable presentations for eachof the sessions, resource materials for use in thetraining or as background reading, and refer-ences and case studies.

“The success of the initial training coursesusing the material has prompted us to organizeseveral more,” adds Leendertse.These are plannedto take place in Thailand (for the Southeast Asia,South Asia and Arab regions), Guatemala (forCentral America),Argentina (for South America)and another in the Caribbean region.

ABOUT THE EUROPEAN UNION WATER INITIATIVEFINANCE WORKING GROUP

The EUWI was launched at the World Summit for SustainableDevelopment (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002.The initiative isdesigned to contribute to the achievement of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) and WSSD targets for drinking water andsanitation, within the context of an integrated approach to waterresources management. One of its key goals is to increase the effective-ness of the significant financial and technical resources available withinthe EU and its Member States for overseas development assistance.

In order to shape the financial strategy of the EUWI, a FinancialWorking Group (FWG) was formed in 2003, with representatives fromthe public sector, private sector and civil society who have specialexpertise or interest in financing the water sector.The FWG has twokey objectives:• To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of existing and future

EU aid flows to water, including encouraging innovation, the devel-opment of institutional and regulatory frameworks and capacitybuilding.

• To enable the use of development funding as a catalyst to leverageother forms of finance (including donor, user and private finance) toimprove access for the poor to water and sanitation services.

Jean

-Léo

Dug

ast/

PHOE

NIX

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 26

27

Communication is a central feature of all GWP activities, and has been sincethe organization was established in 1996 as a mechanism for alliance buildingand information exchange on IWRM. The National Dialogues Initiative is theGWP’s latest effort to further discussion and promote progress in the develop-ment of national IWRM plans.

Dealing with Disparity:

The National Dialogues Initiative

The GWP’s increasing presence at thenational level was demonstrated at thecountry water partnership meeting held in

Stockholm in August 2006, where delegateswere drawn from more than 70 countries.As aninternational partnership that supports countriesin the sustainable management of their waterresources, one of the GWP’s main roles is tofacilitate conversations among groups who oftenhold disparate views, gathering them together todiscuss complex and contentious water manage-ment issues. Such dialogues engage and informpeople about how IWRM approaches canimprove water management.

Dialogues go by many different names: con-versations, workshops, forums and multi-stake-holder consultations or platforms. For the GWP,a dialogue generally means a neutral mechanismto facilitate stakeholder participation.A typicaldialogue is a time-bound meeting, most often ofone or two days, which raises awareness, pro-motes links and agreements among stakeholdersand influences policy change. Sometimes, how-ever, the term refers to a longer consultativeprocess, as in the GWP Dialogue on EffectiveWater Governance (see box).

The GWP launched its National DialoguesInitiative (NDI) in response to the national water

A typical GWP dialogueraises awareness, promoteslinks and agreements among stakeholders.

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 27

28

priority papers prepared at the August 2006meeting and the second informal survey on thestatus of the 2005 WSSD target on nationalIWRM and water efficiency plans.The US$1million made available to countries under theNDI was intended to build further momentumand promote multi-stakeholder dialogue on watermanagement in support of the national IWRMplanning process.There was a strong demand forthe funds and approximately 100 dialogues wereheld in a total of 42 countries at various stages ofpreparing their IWRM strategies.

LINKING DIVERSE STAKEHOLDERSSeveral of the national dialogues had the princi-pal aim of linking diverse stakeholders.TheUkraine National Dialogue, held in March2007, brought stakeholders together in discus-sions on integrated river basin management.Participants included representatives from differ-ent government ministries (to promote cross-sectoral integration), and heads of river basinorganizations (RBOs), along with representativesfrom NGOs and international developmentorganizations such as the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) and the

Global Environment Facility (GEF). Several aca-demics and representatives of basin organizationsfrom North America also attended.

Andriy Demydenko, Chair of the UkraineWater Partnership, was pleased to see importantfinancial stakeholders taking part.“Representa-tives from the Ministry of Finance and the headsof the RBOs were able to exchange views forthe first time ever,” he says.As a result of thedialogue, a government Joint Statement was dis-cussed and adopted.This included pledges forinter-ministerial collaboration as well as bettercoordination and integration of functions, par-ticularly those related to implementation of theState Program for the Water Sector.TheNational Dialogue attracted extensive mediainterest and resulted in radio, television andnewspaper coverage.

Several events of note took place after theDialogue. First, cross-sectoral coordination wasstrengthened when new stakeholders (includingNGOs, business groups and the academic sector)were included in the Interagency CoordinatingCouncil on Water Resources Development.As aresult, the work of this Council has becomemore active and transparent. Second, several dis-trict authorities decided to establish inter-districtriver basin councils, thereby taking a more inte-grated approach to water management throughbetter coordination with RBOs.And third, pilotriver basin management plans are being plannedor developed for several transboundary rivers,including the Pripyat (which borders Ukraineand Belarus), the Danube, the Western Buh andthe Dniester.

DIALOGUE ON EFFECTIVE WATER GOVERNANCE

The GWP launched its Dialogue on Effective Water Governance in 2002 in partnership with theUNDP and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).The Dialogueadded the necessary political dimension to the GWP’s focus on IWRM, taking the debate to theregions and countries and raising the political will to change water governance systems for thebetter.

Taking the form of stakeholder meetings and political roundtables, events took place in 36countries and in every GWP region.The report Effective Water Governance: Learning from theDialogues was circulated at the 3rd World Water Forum in Kyoto in 2003.

The Dialogue was effective in promoting the issue of governance from an abstract concept to amore functional level. It showed that improved water governance has the potential to create morebalanced use of water resources and better management and delivery of water services. It alsohelped stakeholders to share and explore current thinking and best practice on water governance,rank priority issues and identify implementing mechanisms.The concept continues to feed intothe processes of preparing national IWRM plans.

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 28

29

The Ukraine NationalDialogue, held in March2007, brought stakeholderstogether in discussions onintegrated river basinmanagement.

“Although we cannot attribute these changesexclusively to the March Dialogue, they werenot mandated by directives in legislation or law,but brought about by the actors and institutionsinvolved, many of whom participated in theMarch Dialogue,” says Demydenko.“So onecould argue that the Dialogue created themomentum for these changes.”

The Bangladesh Water Partnership organized aseries of National Dialogues. One focused onmanagement of land and water, a serious issue in acountry where thousands are displaced and 10,000ha of agricultural lands are lost each year duringthe monsoon. Participants were drawn from gov-ernment organizations, donor agencies and theAsian Development Bank, along with farmers andlocal government officers.“We tried to air manydifferent solutions, since we wanted these peopleto understand each other,” says Quamrul IslamSiddique, Chair of the Bangladesh Partnership.Among the ideas discussed were high-cost engi-neering solutions versus smaller-scale, locallyaffordable plans, and the use of chemical fertilizersversus organic farming and composting.

The second Bangladeshi Dialogue was run as aconsultation on IWRM and was designed toactivate stakeholders at the local level.“Basically,it sensitized people in the villages and remoteareas to government policies, since they areoften unaware of state decisions,” explains

Siddique.“Acting as a catalyst between the localand national levels is an important role for thepartnership.We pass feedback from the locallevel to the government and we also feed infor-mation back to the grassroots.”

In the Philippines, the aim of the Dialoguewas to improve links between government offi-cials and small-scale private water providers, inan effort to encourage more practical input intoIWRM and poverty reduction planning.ThePhilippines Water Partnership organized fourpre-conferences, with 40–50 delegates at each,and the recommendations from these were fedinto the larger National Dialogue.

“Finding the small-scale providers was the firstchallenge,” says Rory Villaluna, Member of theGWP Southeast Asia Regional Council.“Thereis no national water department and the govern-ment holds few records for the utilities involvedin water service provision, especially those serv-ing the very poor in rural locations. So it is verydifficult to contact them or distribute informa-tion on principles, laws and regulations.”Thisfinding has led the partnership to start building adatabase of small-scale providers.

“Interfacing with small-scale water providers isan essential way to put the national IWRM Planin a more practical light,” concludes Villaluna.“In many ways this is implementing the IWRMPlan, since these are the on-the-ground actors.”

Igor

Kuc

her/

AFP/

SCAN

PIX

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 29

30

The National Dialogue in the DemocraticRepublic of Congo aimed to present the newlydeveloped draft Water Policy,Water Strategy andWater Act (based on IWRM principles) to stake-holders at the provincial level to gather comments,create awareness and ensure buy-in. Consultationswere held in four of the country’s elevenprovinces. Each event was attended by around 50people, drawn from the main water managementstakeholder groups: government departments, localand international NGOs, research and academicgroups, consulting engineers and Regideso, thenational urban water utility.

“Communication between the capital,Kinshasa, and the provinces is hampered by alack of infrastructure, technical limitations andresidual political tensions as the country recoversfrom conflict,” explains Jean Boroto, Consultantfor the GWP Southern African Water Partner-ship.“So the Dialogues were very important toensure local issues are reflected in the nationalwater policy documents.” Lake Kivu in Nord-Kivu province is a case in point.The lake is acritical resource, providing water for agricultureand domestic use. It is also a vital transport link.The Dialogue participants pointed out thattransport had not been addressed adequately inthe policy document developed by central gov-ernment and they suggested how this could berectified.

In all provinces, the Dialogues were very wellreceived and gained extensive radio and news-paper coverage. Indeed, their success promptedthe organizers to develop a proposal for a seriesof similar events in the remaining provinces.

PROMOTING NEW IWRM APPROACHESIn addition to promoting links among stake-holders, most National Dialogues providedinformation on IWRM concepts. In Grenada,the participants also benefited from training inIWRM road mapping.Three meetings wereheld in May 2007 and these introduced IWRMconcepts, provided information on the roadmapping process, and promoted awareness ofand involvement in sustainable water stewardshipamong high-school pupils.

“We have a real opportunity to introduceIWRM approaches in the design phase, sinceGrenada does not yet have a defined water man-agement strategy,” says Paul Hinds, GWPRegional Coordinator for the Caribbean.TheGrenada Dialogue participants identified theneed to set up an interim committee and to

Meeting the water challenge in LibyaLibya is a water-scarce country where rain falls only in the north of thecountry. Elsewhere, its people rely on fossil groundwater to meet theiragricultural, industrial and domestic needs.This water is pumped throughthe desert along thousands of kilometres of pipes. Estimates as to when itwill run out vary from a few decades to several hundred years’ time.

The country has prepared a national strategy for water resourcesmanagement, but this has yet to be launched formally.There is a needto improve Libyan water governance, and this starts with the waterinstitutions, including the primary agency for planning – the LibyanGeneral Water Authority.

The GWP Mediterranean region has begun working with theLibyan Government and other stakeholders to move towards a moresustainable system of water resource use and allocation.The collabo-ration came about following the Rabat Declaration on IWRMPlanning in North Africa (January 2006) and a North African confer-ence organized by GWP-Med and the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP).

A subsequent study of the Libyan water sector commissioned bythe African Development Bank (AfDB) and the African Water Facility(AWF) was followed up by a project identifying priorities tostrengthen water governance and institutional development in Libya.GWP-Med was called in at that time to provide a neutral platformfor discussion and to advise on IWRM concepts. Its neutralityengaged many key players and allowed sensitive issues to be raised.The UNEP Collaborating Centre on Water and Environment (UCC-Water) was also involved from the beginning

The National Dialogue held in April in Tripoli was not a typicalGWP National Dialogue, since the common set of stakeholders (e.g.,NGOs, water user associations, standard private sector interests) werenot represented. However, GWP-Med facilitated the presentation ofexperiences from North Africa and other parts of the region, the timingwas good, and the process built momentum.As a result, the AfDB andthe AWF took the recommendations and did their homework. InOctober 2007, the AfDB,AWF and the General Water Authority madea formal agreement to put the National Dialogue recommendationsinto practice, with the primary focus on the country’s water institutions.

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 30

31

work on a draft national water policy to presentto parliament.They created a water policy steer-ing committee headed by the PermanentSecretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands,Forestry and Fisheries.“This process has beensanctioned by parliament and many high-rank-ing government officials are involved, whichbodes well,” adds Hinds.

In Slovenia, as in other Central and EasternEuropean countries, the EU Water FrameworkDirective (WFD) is a major driver of IWRM. Itwas therefore a principal topic at the NationalDialogue.“We soon realized that the experts donot always appreciate the differences between

meeting the WFD and introducing IWRM,” saysMartina Zupan, Chair of the Slovenia WaterPartnership.“So we explained that the WFD islegislation while IWRM is an approach.We alsostressed that river basin planning, a key part ofthe WFD, could benefit from consideration ofIWRM principles.”

Participants were drawn from governmentinstitutions (environment, agriculture, nature protection, planning, economics, foreign affairs,finances), municipalities, research, education,NGOs and the media.The presentations and dis-cussions were pitched carefully, so they were bothuseful to the experts and could be understood byother stakeholders. In addition to discussing WFDand IWRM, the Dialogue provided an opportu-nity for stakeholders to address new topics suchas climate change and sustainable sanitation sys-tems. In addition, the NDI funds helped speed upthe process of taking the national water policydocuments to the provincial level.

Region/IWRM IWRM plan or In process, but Initial steps Not included survey grouping process in place requires further work in surveyCaribbean Trinidad and Tobago Grenada

Central and Czech Republic Bulgaria MoldovaEastern Europe Estonia Lithuania Ukraine

Hungary Slovenia PolandRomaniaSlovakia

Central America Costa Rica Honduras Guatemala

China Provinces of:Hebei Shaanxi Yellow River

Mediterranean Libya

South America Brazil Argentina ParaguayChile VenezuelaPeruUruguay

South Asia Bangladesh India Sri LankaNepalPakistan

Southeast Asia Thailand Indonesia CambodiaLaos MyanmarMalaysia VietnamPhilippines

Southern Africa Democratic Republicof Congo

West Africa Ivory CoastTogo

COUNTRIES RECEIVING FUNDING UNDER THE NDI

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 31

32

Between 1996 and 2002, Slovakia suffered80 damaging floods, including catastrophicflash floods in the middle and north part

of the country.The summer of 1997 was partic-ularly bad.A long period of unusually heavy rainaffected the majority of the country’s rivers and366 cities and municipalities were inundated.Floods damaged more than 8250 houses and 70were completely destroyed.The Morava River,for example, was put on emergency status for aperiod of 21 days.The cost of emergency relief,flood damage and preventative work amountedto nearly US$50 million. Economic and humancosts were even higher in Romania followingthe floods of 2005, which affected 1734 locali-ties.The flood damage was estimated at US$1.4billion and 76 people lost their lives.

REDUCING THE VULNERABILITY TO FLASH FLOODING

On top of the increases of flash flood risks due torapid urbanization and uncontrolled development,experts predict that climate change has the poten-tial to lead to more frequent and intense rainfallevents, further adding to risks of flash flooding invulnerable regions. However, loss of life and prop-erty can be reduced significantly if communitiescan be made aware of pertaining flash flood risks,warned of conditions that may trigger a flashflood in their community, and if they put in placean appropriate flood response plan.

A new guide, produced by GWP Central andEastern Europe, aims to improve communitypreparedness for flash flooding in Europe.Thework was conducted under the auspices of the

Associated Programme on Flood Management, ajoint initiative of the World MeteorologicalOrganization (WMO) and the GWP. Based onexperiences and available literature from Centraland Eastern Europe, the guide was drafted by thePolish Institute of Meteorology and WaterManagement (IMGW) in cooperation withGWP Poland.The Governments of Japan andthe Netherlands provided financial support.

Guidance on Flash Flood Management: RecentExperiences from Central and Eastern Europe (avail-able at www.apfm.info/publications.htm) is tar-geted at mayors, provincial administrators andnational meteorological and hydrological servic-es.“We have written the guide in such a waythat the information can be understood easily byboth technical and non-technical people,”explains Professor Janusz Kindler, Chair of GWPPoland.“The idea is to motivate and enablethem to prepare and implement plans for reduc-ing the vulnerability of local communities to theimpact of flash floods, within the overall floodmanagement policy of the country.”The guidefocuses readers’ attention on locally developedearly warning systems and how these can beintegrated with the national meteorological andhydrological services.At the same time, it pro-vides a wealth of information on various flashflood management measures that can be taken atthe local level, build better coordination betweenvarious layers of government, and improve pub-lic flood awareness and response behaviour.

The guide is based on past experience of flashfloods in seven countries: Bulgaria, CzechRepublic, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovak

Managing Flash Floods:

Guidelines from Centraland Eastern EuropeFlash floods occur with very little warning and have the potential to causemajor loss of life and damage to property. Recent experiences in Central andEastern Europe have prompted GWP, in close partnership with the WorldMeteorological Organization, to conduct pilot projects and develop strategiesfor flash flood warning and community preparedness. The results are availablein a new guide aimed specifically at vulnerable local communities.

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 32

The damage from the 2005 floods inRomania was estimated at US$1.4 billionand 76 people lost their lives.

Dani

el M

ihai

lesc

u/AF

P/SC

ANPI

X

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 33

34

Republic and Slovenia. Pilot projects in flash-flood-prone communities in Poland, Romaniaand Slovakia have helped the experts to developand refine their recommendations on flash floodwarning and community preparedness strategies.The pilot projects involved a wide range ofstakeholders and were conducted within consor-tia consisting of the national meteorological andhydrological services, mayors and civil defenceauthorities of affected municipalities, and GWPrepresentatives from the local country partner-ships and the regional partnership for Centraland Eastern Europe.

Produced in a clearly structured and easilyaccessible format, the guide provides basic back-ground material on how flash floods are gener-ated, why they are so dangerous, and what canbe done to mitigate their effects.The secondpart looks at how flash floods can be tackledwithin a country’s overall flood managementpolicy.The third section explains the elements ofa flash flood management strategy. Finally, theguide outlines which groups of people and insti-

tutions can take what kinds of action andexplains how a collaborative effort to address theissue could be initiated.The benefits of a partici-patory approach are emphasized throughout andall sections are illustrated with experiences fromthe pilot studies and the lessons that have beenlearned from them.

The available guidance material will be usedand disseminated by the hydrological and mete-orological services in each of the seven partici-pating countries and by the World Meteoro-logical Organization. It will play a useful part inthe regular meetings organized with peoplefrom flash-flood-prone regions.“The learningfrom this joint initiative will provide valuableinput to the future steps the WMO will take insupport of its member countries on the issue offlash flooding,” says Avinash C.Tyagi, Director ofthe Climate and Water Department at WMO.“This initiative provides an excellent statementabout the potential a multi-disciplinary and inte-grated approach to flood management holds toconfront the issues of flash flood affected com-

WHAT IS A FLASH FLOOD?

A flash flood is a sudden local flood of great volume and short duration that occurs within a few– usually less than six – hours of excessive rainfall (such as that produced during a thunderstorm).It can also be precipitated by failure of hydraulic infrastructure, or a sudden release of water heldby an ice jam or other blockage. Flash floods can roll boulders, tear out trees, destroy buildingsand bridges, and scour out new channels. Rapidly rising water can reach heights of 10 m andsometimes more.The same heavy rain that produces flash floods can also trigger catastrophicmudslides.

Several key factors contribute to an increased risk of flash flooding:• Topography such as steeply sloping highland terrain, narrow valleys or ravines increases the rate

of runoff. Steeply rising land also causes convection currents, which can stimulate thunder-storms.

• Saturated soil or shallow watertight geological layers increase surface runoff.• Urbanization and construction with watertight materials promotes surface runoff while fields,

grassland and forests encourage water infiltration.

The damage caused by flash floods is often severe and they present a serious threat to humanlives.Timely warnings would significantly reduce loss of life and property. Unfortunately, forecast-ing flash floods is very difficult. Even using modern forecasting technology, hydrologists and mete-orologists estimate that the exact place and time of a flash flood can be determined only an hourbefore it happens. Often warnings come too late, or are not supplied at all, either because of a lackof forecasting capacity or because of difficulties in spreading warnings, for example, during thenight.That was the case in July 1998, when two people drowned in their own beds as a result ofsudden flooding from the Bystrzyca Dusznicka River in southwest Poland.

Flash floods therefore present a serious challenge for concerned authorities and putting in placea community warning and response plan is essential in vulnerable locations.

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 34

35

The outcome of a workshop held in Krakow,Poland in 29–30 October, 2007 on “CommunityPreparedness and Public Participation in FlashFlood Management in Europe” was a detailed setof recommended actions needed to reduce thedevastating impacts of flash floods in the region.Aimed at decision makers at all levels, the rec-ommendations included:

1. Flash floods require a multi-disciplinary andmulti-sectoral approach in managing andmitigating their adverse impacts.

2. Flash floods are best managed by the localauthorities with active and effectiveinvolvement of the people at risk. However,there is need for a National strategy to dealwith the flash floods within the overallIntegrated Flood Management policies dulyrecognising the subsidiarity principle.

3. Flash floods should be especially and specif-ically addressed while implementing thenational or regional (e.g., EU FloodDirective) flood management policies,IWRM and basin flood management plansor disaster/crisis management plans.

4. The National Strategy to manage flashfloods should be focussed on providing thenecessary technical, financial and legalframework for the competent authorities toplay their legitimate role.

5. There is a need to build an appropriatenational time table for actions and providenecessary financial support, wherever appli-cable.

6. The flash flood hazard assessment shall becarried out for all possible sources of flashfloods (cloudbursts, lake outbursts, etc.)within the overall flood risk assessment ofthe river basin, duly involving the multi-hazard approach, including those for land-slides, mudflows and debris flows, avalanchesetc., wherever appropriate.

7. Appropriate legal provisions should bemade to clearly define the roles and respon-sibilities of various institutions at differentadministrative levels (national, river basin,state, district or local) involved in flash floodmanagement including the mechanism forflow of data, information, forecasts andwarnings.

The full set of fifteen recommendations maybe viewed on the Associated Programme onFlood Management website:www.apfm.info/pdf/cee_workshop/WS-Krakow-recommendations.pdf

Getting better prepared for flash floods in Europe

Flash floods are bestmanaged by the localauthorities with active and effective involvement of the people at risk.

Dani

el M

ihai

lesc

u/AF

P/SC

ANPI

X

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 35

36

munities.” If resources allow, the guidance mate-rial will also be translated into several EasternEuropean languages.

ENCOURAGING CLOSER COOPERATIONIn addition to collating information and provid-ing recommendations, the exercise has broughtthe different stakeholders closer together.“It hasallowed the involved institutions to draw closerto the potentially affected communities: theusers of their products,” says Roman Konieczny,head of the IMGW team that led the pilot studyin Poland and drafted the guide.“This hasincreased insight into the information and pre-paredness requirements of local communitiesand helped to develop solutions that are adaptedto their needs.” In some of the pilot areas, closeconsultation was vital to rebuild the communi-ties’ trust in public authorities, especially regard-ing flood warnings since these had not alwaysbeen effective in the past.

The project has also led to closer cooperationand coordination among the institutions provid-ing flood forecasting and warning services. Forexample, under one of the pilot studies, newinstitutional arrangements were agreed betweendifferent levels of government to increase theeffectiveness of the current warning system. In

addition, as a result of the flood events studiesand consultations with affected communities,detection of areas at imminent risk and systemsfor warning communities have been improved.“Although the effectiveness of these can only bejudged properly when the next flash flood hits,we have urged participating communities to runregular emergency drills to keep up their levelsof preparedness as well as that of the respectiveauthorities,” says Konieczny.

One potential hurdle highlighted by the proj-ect was that flood management responsibilitiesare usually divided between several differentinstitutions, each with a different mandate andbudget. Conducting pilot studies appears to be asuccessful way of introducing a more integratedapproach and attracting additional funds to sup-port community preparedness activities.Moreover, success stories on pilot scales willfacilitate implementation of the required institu-tional changes, including laws, policies andadministrative arrangements.“If an issue needs tobe addressed by such a wide range of stakehold-ers, as is the case in flash flood management, dif-ferent constituencies have to find ways to com-bine their respective strengths.This is whatmaterialized through the combined efforts ofthe GWP and WMO in this initiative,” says

A new guide, produced byGWP Central and EasternEurope, aims to improve

community preparedness forflash flooding in Europe.

Joe

Klam

ar/A

FP/S

CAN

PIX

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 36

37

Joachim Saalmüller who coordinated the initia-tive for the Associated Programme on FloodManagement.

INVITING FURTHER FEEDBACKThe draft guide was presented at a regionalworkshop entitled Community preparedness andpublic participation for flash flood management inEurope, held at the end of October 2007 inKraków, Poland.The workshop aimed to fosterdialogue between hydrological and meteorologi-cal forecasters and civil defence authorities, pro-vide access to good practices and lessons learnedin flash flood warning systems for local commu-nities, and promote community approaches toflash flood preparedness and response.

More than 40 people from 12 countries attended.The participants were mostly representatives ofCentral and Eastern European national hydrologi-cal and meteorological services, water manage-ment institutions and local government. Invitedexperts from Japan, France, and Switzerland pro-vided a perspective on the issue in their respectivecountries. During the workshop, participantsdeveloped and adopted new recommendationsfor reducing the devastating impacts of flashfloods.Together with examples of flash floodwarning systems from outside Central andEastern Europe, these recommendations wereincluded in the final version of the guide.

GETTING STARTED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

The development of a local flash flood risk management plan is usually initiated by the localadministration.The stimulus might be a flood event that has demonstrated the inadequacy of thecurrent protection system, or growing awareness that the risk of a flash flood might be hamperingeconomic development in the area.While it is essential to encourage community participationand support, this is not easy and it is always time-consuming. Organizers must prepare well andensure they have sufficient skills in mobilizing people and minimizing conflict between them.Some capacity building in the form of adequate background knowledge (for both decision-mak-ers and community members) may also be required.

The first step in constructing the plan is to establish what support can be expected from deci-sion-makers and the local community.This includes estimating their readiness to participate in theplanning process and their determination to improve local flood preparedness.The next step is toput together a team to develop the plan.The team should include representatives from all stake-holder groups to ensure broad-based participation. Finally, as wide a spectrum of local communityparticipation as possible should be involved in the creation and shaping of the plan.This will sig-nificantly increase its relevance, acceptance and future implementation.

Getting started in Gorzanow, PolandGorzanow, a village of around 1000 inhabitants in Poland, suffered a damaging flash flood in1997.The village was chosen as a pilot site because there was a high risk of further flash floods.The first step in developing a protection plan was to draw a map showing the maximum reach ofthe 1997 flood.The volunteer fire fighters also marked a zone where the depth and velocity ofthe water were too great to permit rescue.This knowledge was important when designing thewarning priority system and escape routes.While community mobilization and participation inthe planning took some time to accomplish, the map helped to encourage discussion andexchange of information.

A survey highlighted existing knowledge and gaps that needed to be addressed.These includedpreventive measures that could be taken, such as improving the drainage network and road cul-verts.The community set up a water gauge and developed an evacuation plan and education cam-paign to ensure everyone knew what to do.A new telephone system built by the county adminis-tration can warn around 800 inhabitants in the course of an hour.The telephone system is backedup by a group of volunteers, who ensure a second route to spread warnings.

The Gorzanow pilot study findings and recommendations are now forming a useful input intonational flash flood preparedness strategies throughout Europe.

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 37

38

GWP CATALYZING CHANGE SERIESCatalyzing Change:A handbook for developing waterresources management (IWRM) and water efficiencystrategies

Policy BriefsPolicy Brief 1: Policy brief for governments on thepractical steps for making national water managementplans

Policy Brief 2: Water and Sustainable development:Lessons from Chile

Policy Brief 3: Gender mainstreaming:An essentialcomponent of sustainable water management

Policy Brief 4: How IWRM will contribute toachieving the MDGs

Policy Brief 5: Climate Change Adaptation andIntegrated Water Resource Management

Policy Brief 6: How to integrate IWRM andnational development plans and strategies and whythis needs to be done in the era of aid effectiveness

Technical BriefsTechnical Brief 1: Checklists for change: Definingareas for action in an IWRM strategy or plan

Technical Brief 2: Tools for keeping IWRM strate-gic planning on track

Technical Brief 3: Monitoring and evaluation indi-cators for IWRM strategies and plans

Technical Brief 4: Taking an integrated approach toimproving water efficiency

Technical Brief 5: Mainstreaming gender in integrat-ed water resources management strategies and plans:practical steps for practitioners

TEC BACKGROUND PAPERSNo 1: Regulation and Private participation in the Waterand Sanitation Sector by Judith A. Rees (1998)

No 2: Water as a Social and Economic Good: how toPut the Principle into Practice by Peter Rogers,Ramesh Bhatia and Annette Huber (1998)

No 3: The Dublin Principles for Water as Reflectedin a Comparative Assessment of Institutional andLegal Arrangements for Integrated Water ResourcesManagement by Miguel Solanes and FernandoGonzales Villarreal (1999)

No 4: Integrated Water Resources Management bythe GWP Technical Advisory Committee (2000)

No 5: Letter to my Minister by Ivan Chéret (2000)

No 6: Risk and Integrated Water ResourcesManagement by Judith A. Rees (2002)

No 7: Effective Water Governance by Peter Rogersand Alan W Hall (2003)

No 8: Poverty Reduction and IWRM (2003)

No 9: Water Management and Ecosystems: Livingwith Change by Malin Falkenmark (2003)

No 10: Integrated Water Resources Management(IWRM) and Water Efficiency Plans by 200 – Why,What and How? by Torkil Jønch-Clausen (2004)

No 11: Urban Water and Sanitation Services,AnIWRM Approach by Judith A. Rees (2006)

No 12: Water Financing and Governance by Judith A.Rees, James Winpenny and Alan W Hall (2008)

Intellectual resourcesand practical advice from the GWP Technical Committee

M_203114_Inlaga 08-04-23 17.29 Sida 38

44

For more information, contact the GWP Secretariat at gwp@gwpforum.org,or your nearest regional office:

Australia country office:m.pascoe@watercentre.org

Caribbean:phinds@gwp-caribbean.org

Central Africa:gwpcaftac@inch.org

Central America:ftabora@gwpcentroamerica.org

Central and Eastern Europe:gwpcee@shmu.sk

Central Asia and Caucasus:vadim@icwc-aral.uz

China:duzhk@iwhr.com

Eastern Africa:sthuo@nilebasin.org

Mediterranean:secretariat@gwpmed.org

South America:dallasia@gwpsudamerica.org

South Asia:rsastry@gmail.com

Southeast Asia:secretariat@gwpsea.org

Southern Africa:r.beukman@cgiar.org

West Africa:dammogbante@gmail.com

GWP Technical CommitteeThe GWP Technical Committee (TEC), whose members are leading practitioners andscholars drawn from around the world, is a resource to the GWP network and to thebroader water and development community for supporting policy and practice changein water resources management. Its central work and role is to provide intellectual lead-ership for the identification and understanding of critical emerging issues with regardto water and sustainable development; spearhead initiatives to support changes in policyand practice; work to demonstrate the economic and developmental value of integratedapproaches in the wider development community and in diverse political, social andeconomic conditions; produce timely, relevant, contextualized and rigorous informationand analysis regarding water and sustainable development for use within and outsidethe GWP network; and advance frank and informed dialogue on water and sustainabledevelopment among water and development-related organizations and institutions.E-mail: rlenton@iri.columbia.edu

GGGG

Global Water Partnership (GWP) Secretariat

E-mail: gwp@gwpforum.org

Website: wwwwww..ggwwppffoorruumm..oorrgg

Fred

eric

J.Br

own/

AFP/

Gett

y Im

ages

M_203114_Omslag_080429 08-04-29 15.05 Sida 1