In today’s post I will be discussing one of the most widely adopted approaches to water solutions in Africa: Integrated Water Resources Management ("IWRM"). These principles, born from the 1992 International Conference on Water and the Environment in Dublin, have become one of the most widely accepted approaches to approaching water infrastructure development in Africa, Southeast Asia

The Global Water Partnership provides the following definition:

“IWRM is a process which promotes the co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems” (IWRM - Global Water Partnership).

IWRM calls for establishing systems that take a holistic approach to management and ensure that all local actors and stakeholders have a voice in water management. This can come through either direct involvement or via elected locals who take charge of supporting and managing the local water infrastructure. By employing this framework, policy leverages the local knowledge and expertise of community members and provides a means of ensuring equity in the distribution of water once a project has been completed.

In theory this sounds ideal, and in many cases it has proven to be successful. For instance, the Nairobi Water and Sewage Company (NWSC) transformed itself from an ailing, disorganized government utility to a public company that now is much more successful in delivering water across the capital. With the 2002 Water Act, the government had its role in policy formulation reduced, and increased the role of local communities in designing and implementing a water utility system that would meet their needs (World Bank Water and Sanitation Program in Africa). As the role of local governance increased, communities were able to express their own needs. The mix of open dialogue and community engagement with international funding and NGO assistance led to a successful utility company that increased access to clean water across the various communities and districts in Nairobi.

However, it appears that many communities are struggling to implement equitable solutions as IWRM defines it. In a project developed in the Lake Manyara sub-basin that was described as IWRM, Ngona et al., 2003 reported that many local stakeholders affected by the new project had little to no awareness of the project in place; with ignorance came a lack of voice and equitable input regarding the project. This dynamic was arguably worse in Tanzania, where local participation was simply a mask to legitimise decisions that were already pre-determined by local government and influential donors (Dungumaro and Madulu, 2013). In both cases, many ex-post conflicts arose upon completion of the project from resistance of locals who had little influence on the project as it was going through the project formation and approval process. Thus, it appears that, in order for IWRM to be implemented successfully, it needs to be truly equitable and create a structure that is not simply used as a mask to legitimise the decision-making of existing institutions.

Furthermore, the previously mentioned project in Nairobi came with a significant financial cost, over USD $20 million, which was sponsored largely by The World Bank. Although it was successful, many academic are concerned that IWRM is starting to become a prescribed solution for any community struggling with water insecurity. This problem is described in the following claim:

“Integrated water resources management provides a set of ideas to help us manage water more holistically. However, these ideas have been formalized over time in what has now become, in capitals, Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), with specific prescriptive principles whose implementation is often supported by donor funding and international advocacy” (Giordano and Shah, 2013).

The global political prescription of IWRM advocates for a localised approach to water management, as it should. However, from what we have seen in actual implementation it has become anything but a localised solution with local stakeholders engaged in constant interactions with national and global actors. Although the resources and expertise of international NGO’s and donors are often welcome and helpful in creating solutions to local water problems, a rigid definition of IWRM may impede certain communities from being able to receive much-needed funding for water infrastructure overhauls.

Thus, we are already seeing some issues with the use of IWRM as a water management term. A report by the UN World Water Assessment Program found that approximately 75% of countries in the program used IWRM in the writing of legislation, even when the actual IWRM does not appear to have been put in place (UN World Water Assesment Program, 2009). Many programs have made few changes at all to the planning process, but do so under the name of IWRM in order to attract political support, NGO involvement, and capital from donors.

Ultimately, it is important that NGO’s and other international organizations provide assistance to local governments in Africa as they seek ways to serve their people and solve their water provisioning issues. However, if IWRM becomes a drug that we prescribe developing countries instead of a truly community-based approach, it may inhibit our ability to truly provide assistance to communities in need.