The Issue of (Good) Water Governance in the

Americas

World Water ForumMarseille – March 15, 2012

Karin KemperSector Manager, Environment and Water ResourcesLatin America and the Caribbean RegionThe World Bank

Presentation OutlineA few Thoughts about Water Governance, Good Water Governance and IWRM

The experience with attempts at Good Governance - A Global Study

What do the Study Results Mean for Good Governance globally and in the Americas?

Conclusions

A few Thoughts about

Water Governance, Good Water

Governance, and Integrated Water

Resources Management

UNDP and Global Water Partnership define water governance as a “range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society”.

What is Water Governance ?

So What is Good Water Governance?

• Combined Commitment of government and various groups on civil society, particularly at local/ community levels, together with the private sector.

• Ethical Issues - Transparency, Equity & Fairness are fundamental requirements

• Responsibility & Accountability - Each institution must know & take responsibility for what it does.

• Inclusiveness, participation, predictability & responsiveness - Decision-making & implementation must be inclusive & communicative with governments, civil society, & the private sector each having clear roles to play with shared responsibilities on the basis of public-private partnerships.

• Coherence - Policies & actions must be coherent, requiring political leadership and responsibility on the part of institutions at different levels to ensure a consistent approach within a complex system.

So what’s the difference between (Good) Water

Governance and Integrated Water Resources

Management?Governance provides the context within which Integrated Water Resources Management can be applied (according to GWP)

IWRM encompasses the Subsidiary Principle

The principle of Managing Water Resources at the Lowest Appropriate Levels, i.e. decentralization of decision making powers

=> certainly an ambition of Good Governance in IWRM

What Has Been the Experience with Attempts at Good Governance (or the Subsidiary Principle of IWRM)? -

Results from a Global Study

Global Study on the Principle of Managing Water Resources at the Lowest Appropriate Levels

(RBM Decentralization)

When and why does it (not) work in practice?

What can we learn from experiences around the world to advise countries facing reform needs?

*World Bank with University of Indiana and support from INBO and LANBO

Defining RBM Decentralization

increase in transparency in decision making, and increase in stakeholder involvement in decision makingMeasuring decentralization by taking into account:

The existing institutional framework

The process

The political economy and

The results

Three Main Study Elements

1. Extensive literature review of decentralization experiences

2. A global survey and analysis of 83 river basin organizations

3. In depth comparative case study analysis of 8 basins

12

Distribution of responses and data collection efforts by

continentsContinent Questionnaires

sent Responses Eliminated Retained in the data

set Africa & Middle East 18 14 2 12 (66)a Latin America 118 37 2 35 (30) North America 5 5 0 5 (100) East Asia-Pacific 7 7 3 4 (57) Europe 49 40 13 27 (26) Total 197 103 20 83 (42)

In parentheses are percent of retained questionnaires of those that responded

13

Location of the 8 In-Depth Case Studies

Organizational Features of River Basin Organizations Studied

Organizational features ranged from State corporation (Indonesia) to non-governmental organization (Canada)Management problems included scarcity and drought, floods, pollution, inter-sectoral conflict, mega-city urbanization, and erosion–usually combinedRBO responsibilities ranged from planning and consultation only, to infrastructure O&M responsibilities, collecting water charges, water quality monitoring to licensing of water uses and water allocation

15

CONCLUSIONS FROM THE ECONOMETRIC/SURVEY

AND CASE STUDY ANALYSES

16

Study ResultsHigh wealth or other endowments helpful but not essential to successDifficult water resource problems often stimulate, rather than deter, development of basin organizations and stakeholder participationPresence of water user organizations positively associated with reform successAdequate revenues, and financial autonomy to use revenues within the basin, contribute to successConsistency of central government support is vitalReforms often take a long time.

What do the Study Results Mean for Good Governance globally and in the Americas?

18

Institutional arrangements

Decentralization/Management at the Lowest Appropriate Level is not a panacea – it has to be done right don’t just copy approaches but look for the right features that fit a certain country or basin

-> recent discussion about scale – what IS the lowest appropriate level?

Champions are really important, but they don’t last forever…. Early institutionalization is key!

19

Political EconomyPolitical economy is important: vested interests to keep things as they are existed in all cases

Basins with complex problems and highly political issues may encounter difficult decentralization processes

Good Governance is a moving target….. Example Australia, Ceará/Brazil

Crises may help to push reform, but persistent recurring problems such as scarcity or flooding are also good incentives

Finances!

Predictable budget and budget decision making is important for stakeholders to remain interested in decentralization

Governments have little to lose with decentralization: determined, strong government support, including financial, will remain important

Conclusion

There is a clear case for ‘Good Governance’ to achieve better results

We need to look at scale

Consistent financing is a key issue

WRM is dynamic, and so is its Governance

-> urbanization in LAC, climate change, food crisis and increasing energy demand are important drivers for change

22