Inte

grat

ed ri

ver b

asin

Man

agem

ent

Briefing Note 5

Developing a Water- related Resource Inventory for a River Basin

Management

Integrated

Management

Integrated

From Concepts to Good Practice

41154

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Knowing the health or condition of a basin’s natural resources

This note is one in a series explaining the attributes and practical application

of integrated river basin management. The purpose of the Briefing Note series

and the issues and aspects that are covered are outlined in the mini-guide.

This note explains:

• How an inventory can help develop a sound understanding of the health

and condition of a basin’s natural resource base

• How to collect the data and create the inventory

• How the inventory may be used in river basin planning studies.

Inte

grat

ed ri

ver b

asin

Man

agem

ent

2

2

4

5

8

10

11

11

Contents Acknowledgments

Introduction

Wha t Does a Water-related Resource Inventory

Encompass?

How Can a Stand-alone Inventory of Natural

Resources be Developed?

How Can Basin-wide Resource Assessments be

Incorporated into River Basin Planning Studies?

How to Move the Development of a Water-related

Resource Inventory Forward: A Few Key

Questions

Abbreviations and Acronyms

References

1

IntroductionOne of the five key elements for successful integrated

river basin management is the availability of comprehen-

sive water-related data, information, models, and systems

that allow planners, managers, and key stakeholders and

the basin community to identify problems and issues,

and to adequately evaluate and determine alternative

solutions. Note 4 discusses the usefulness of data and

the need for all basin partners to agree to share data and

information, as well as the main components of informa-

tion systems.

In order to then decide how the resources should be man-

aged and shared among basin partners, some knowledge

about the extent, nature, and behavioral characteristics

of the natural resources within the basin is needed. Thus

at the beginning of any new river basin agreement or the

formation of any new basin organization, or for that mat-

ter, when any agency responsible for river basin manage-

ment commences basin-wide planning, one of the first

tasks should be to undertake an inventory of the basin’s

natural resources.

Some may argue that this work is part of the data collec-

tion component of IRBM. It is more than that. It incorpo-

rates the review, interpretation, and trend analysis of the

data and information to provide the policy and decision

makers with knowledge as to how the basin’s natural

resources are reacting to development stresses.

This work may be seen as part of the overall planning

process or as a separate undertaking. With an overall

picture of a basin’s resources and how these resources

are responding to the stresses of development, decision

makers can then decide what policies and strategies are

necessary to maintain an agreed balance between resource

consumption and environmental protection.

State of the Environment reports and natural resource

inventories cannot provide root cause analyses of how

Acknowledgments

This Briefing Note Series was prepared by Peter Mil-

lington, consultant, previously Director-General of the

New South Wales Department of Water Resources and

Commissioner on the Murray-Darling Basin Commission,

Australia; Douglas Olson, World Bank Principal Water

Resources Engineer and Task Manager for this Briefing

Note Series; and Shelley McMillan, World Bank Water

Resources Specialist.

Guy Alaerts (Lead Water Resources Specialist) and

Claudia Sadoff (Lead Economist) of the World Bank

provided valuable inputs.

The authors thank the following specialists for reviewing

the Notes: Bruce Hooper and Pieter Huisman (consultants);

Vahid Alavian, Inger Anderson, Rita Cestti Jean Foerster,

Nagaraja Harshadeep, Tracy Hart, Karin Kemper, Barbara

Miller, Salman Salman, Ashok Subramanian, and Mei Xie

(World Bank staff).

The authors are also deeply grateful to the Bank-Nether-

lands Water Partnership Program (BNWPP) for supporting

the production of this Series.

2 3

Inte

grat

ed ri

ver b

asin

Man

agem

ent

and why resources are degrading or predict future levels

of degradation under various development scenarios or

impacts. Modeling and predictive tools must be used for

these purposes. Normally, most policy makers are not

technical specialists (engineers or scientists) or they have

not been involved with the technical data and complexities

for some time. It is therefore counterproductive to provide

them with highly technical information. Rather, policy

makers want to know how much it costs to carry on with

business as usual: how much the various interventions

will cost, and how much will be saved by implementing

the respective interventions. In other words, the technical

natural resources behavior needs to be linked with the so-

cioeconomic data. But without the natural resource inven-

tory in the first place, there is no benchmark condition

upon which to judge future impacts and interventions.

If the basin organization has existed for a long time and

has accumulated a lot of data and information, the re-

source inventory will likely be undertaken at the beginning

of any major basin development planning study.

The two approaches are reviewed in subsequent sections

to show first how such analyses reveal trends in resource

behavior, and then how these trends guide the develop-

ment of specific policies and strategies by decision

makers – which in turn guide resource planning and

management decisions.

The value of a resource inventory becomes even more evident when new infrastructure projects (including some World Bank sector operations) are being considered. Without the knowledge and trend information revealed by such resource inventories, it is very difficult to develop a project properly and to be certain of long-term sustainability.

2 3

A water-related resource inventory establishes the health

or condition of the natural resource base (typically land,

vegetation, and water). If data exist, it also examines

emerging trends in the basin’s health. The identification

of the key resource parameters of the natural resource

base, the locations of those resources under threat, and

the stakeholders under threat are important for integrated

basin planning. Factors such as biodiversity and water qual-

ity measurements in rivers, lakes, and groundwater – such

as BOD (biological oxygen demand), suspended solids, and

toxics – can be included in the inventory.

The next step is the assessment of trends in resource

behavior. This typically involves the prediction of the re-

sponses of key resource parameters to further degradation,

the limits of resource extraction, and the components likely

to suffer the most stress based on current or proposed

practices. In this way, the assessment relates future de-

velopment options to resource health conditions. Decision

makers can then make informed choices for acceptable

levels of resource development and protection.

It is necessary to set criteria or establish indicators that

collectively represent resource or catchment health,

against which resource behavior can then be monitored and

measured. Not all basin organizations, particularly those

that have been constituted only recently and have recently

commenced basin-wide planning activities, may have had

the opportunity to develop such indicators. Hence the initial

resource inventories may not include much trend analysis.

In such cases, it is important that the data sharing protocols

mentioned in Note 4 have been negotiated so that the new

basin organization can access existing information held with

the line agencies.

What Does a Water-related Resource Inventory Encompass?

54

Inte

grat

ed ri

ver b

asin

Man

agem

ent

An approach adopted by the Murray-Darling Basin

Commission (MRBC) in Australia is illustrative. The

Commission has existed in various forms since the early

1900s. It has collected a vast amount of data and infor-

mation, but up until 1986 most of this related to water

quantity and quality (concentrating on salinity).

When the basin organization was restructured in the

mid-1980s to provide for a more specific basin-wide role in

all aspects of integrated river basin management, the first

meeting of the high level Ministerial Council concluded that:

> Inappropriate land management practices developed over

the last 100 years were now adversely affecting the land,

water, and ecological resources of the basin.

> Concerns were increasing about water scarcity and

continuing poor water quality – particularly salinity and

nutrient pollution – because of their combined impact: not

only on the health of the ecosystems but because of many

other effects, including the economic loss in agricultural

production, increased costs of water treatment, and loss of

income from tourism.

> Degradation was rapidly increasing in virtually all compo-

nents of the natural environment.

A quick overview of the available data in regard to these

three points immediately showed that most of the data was

incomplete and uncoordinated. Geographically, it covered

less than half the basin’s natural resources and had not

been converted into effective information that would allow

the MDBC Ministerial Council to undertake its new principal

role: to develop coordinated or integrated natural resource

planning and management policies and strategies for the

sustainable use of the basin’s resources.

Three projects were immediately initiated: options to

mitigate salinity, improvements to the efficiency of on-farm

water use, and improvements to irrigation infrastructure.

The Ministerial Council decided early on to undertake an

Environmental Resources Study (ERS) to identify the sensi-

tive environmental resources of the basin and their current

condition or health status, the actions that should be taken

to safeguard those resources, the further investigations

needed to overcome gaps in knowledge about natural

resource behavior, and the requirements for a comprehen-

sive basin-wide monitoring program.

Although the study covered the entire Murray-Darling

Basin, the primary focus was on the implications of the

management of the river system. The basin covers a

vast area –one-seventh of Australia – and there are many

uses and activities that occur within it that have little or

no relevance for the river systems. However, it was also

realized that many of the river problems stemmed from the

management practices within their catchments.

In scoping or defining the study, the Council specified that

all existing information held by the member-governments

and agencies of the MDBC was to be made available.

Further, the Council stipulated that the study was not to

focus solely on the nature and extent of the resource prob-

lems, but also consider management issues and solutions.

Both these aspects were important. The first ensured that

existing data were shared in an open and comprehensive

way between all basin partners and that another new major

and costly data collection project was not undertaken. The

second ensured that the study did not become an academic

exercise in problem definition. Trends, options, and solu-

tions were also to be deduced.

The ERS contained specific chapters on:

• Land resources

• Water resources

• Aquatic and riverine resources

• Terrestrial flora and fauna

• Vegetation management

• Parks and reserves

• Cultural heritage.

How Can a Stand-alone Inventory of Natural Resources be Developed?54

Each chapter described the current condition of the

resource, pressures, issues, responses and trends associ-

ated with its use or consumption, current management

approaches, and any proposals for improved management.

Approximately 50 priority actions were identified in the

ERS. Arguably the key findings were the identification of the

issues where current knowledge was insufficient for sound

resource utilization and protection. These issues were:

> Rising groundwater levels – Why was this occurring at

the current rates, and why at different rates in different

parts of the basin? What hydrogeological processes were

governing the changing groundwater behavior?

> Declining water quality – Why were the salinity and

nutrient levels in all streams increasing? Where were the

salt and nutrients coming from? What were the principle

causes? Did different rural and urban enterprises impact

the water quality differently? What nonstructural poli-

cies and measures could make a difference?

> Vegetation clearance – The large-scale clearing of the

basin’s landscape has caused significant land degradation

and changes in the hydrologic processes at the sub-basin

or catchment level. However, the magnitude of these

changes is unknown. Should revegetation be the main

corrective policy or should the nature and type of activi-

ties undertaken on the land change? Should some lands

be returned to native vegetation and commercial enter-

prises be prohibited? If so, should compensation be paid

to landholders who may be restricted in their activities?

> Declining native fish numbers – Fish surveys have indi-

cated that numbers are declining, but the surveys were

not sufficiently extensive across the basin to be conclu-

sive. Should more extensive studies be undertaken or

can fish habitats be improved using existing knowledge?

Will rural communities accept any limitations on water

abstractions to achieve improvements in fish health,

particularly if they questioned the initial survey results?

> Limitations on water use – Water diversions from all

parts of the basin have steadily increased over the last

10 years, despite policies to limit increases. By the year

2000, average annual diversions were about 80 percent

of the average natural flow passing out of the basin.

If extraction levels are too high, what reductions and

consequential socioeconomic impacts can be tolerated

to improve the aquatic and riverine health? What level

of aquatic health is sufficient? How should the basin

community be involved in determining what should be

the trade-offs between improved environmental health

and reduced socioeconomic performance?

Detailed audits and investigations, such as the National

Land and Water Audit, have been undertaken over the last

decade to provide more detailed and quantitative assess-

ments of these five areas. This has allowed the MDBC to

decide on a specific set of policies and strategies to guide

resource management decisions in these areas.

The value of undertaking a broad environmental re-sources study early in the life of a basin organization should be clear. The overall perspective it gives of the condition of the resources in a river basin then enables further studies, audits, and investigations to be targeted at the key areas for greatest improve-ment in resource management.

It can be argued that if MDBC had recognized the need

for this resource capability assessment work in the 1970s

and undertaken it, then the basin would now be healthier.

But at that time, neither the politicians nor the communi-

ties envisaged the problems, so no funding was directed

toward the development of such an information database.

Consequently, the natural resource scientists were not

sufficiently knowledgeable about the aquatic environment

and its response to development stresses and were not

prepared to offer inferences based on the limited informa-

tion. A knowledge vacuum existed with respect to water-

6 7

Inte

grat

ed ri

ver b

asin

Man

agem

ent

environment matters. Nevertheless, the water managers

had to respond to the government’s development goals

and objectives at the time. Nowadays, much more scientific

information is available about natural resource behavior

and responses to stresses. Thus what is largely required

is an effort to collate and assess the available information

and incorporate it in the early stages of basin planning.

Scientists and water resource managers must work closely together. They must be prepared to make estimates and judgments on the likely response of a basin’s natural resource to increasing development stresses. Often, they must base these judgments on limited facts and information. Traditionally, scien-tists have not been comfortable doing this, prefer-ring to wait until the science has been proven.

Some important features, or lessons learned, can be drawn

from the MDBC Environmental Resources Study process:

> The highest level of the MDBC institutional structure

– the Ministerial Council – decided on the nature and

extent of the study.

> Existing data were used for the study. The Ministerial

Council did not entertain any demands to obtain a lot of

additional data before the study could commence.

> The study not only listed resource condition and existing

and emerging problems; management issues, options,

and solutions were also developed.

> While the policy makers – MDBC ministers and depart-

mental/agency officials –were the primary audience or

target for the results of the study, the broader basin

community was also involved, since many of the changes

with respect to how the basin’s resources were to be

used and managed would impact a wide cross section of

the basin community.

It must be stressed that Australia is a highly developed

country where institutions tend to cooperate effectively,

legal systems work well, capacity is available to undertake

such environmental health assessments, and perhaps most

importantly, there is funding and political will to enact

changes. These circumstances cannot simply be trans-

posed to some developing countries, but will take to attain.

The MDBC took decades to grow and become effective

across all the aspects or disciplines of integrated river

basis management. This long time frame is also expected

for a river basin organization in a developing country.

Nevertheless, a start must be made. Often this will coincide

with a major World Bank or other donor-assisted project,

which can include measures and actions to begin natural re-

source data collection, analysis, and assessment of trends.

6 7

New basin organizations or agencies charged with the

responsibility for river basin management may not have

sufficient data to undertake a meaningful environmental

resources study. Yet they may be under pressure to

undertake some immediate basin-wide water and related

resources planning studies to facilitate the identification

of projects that could commence very early in the life of

the organization.

In such cases, broad resource assessments can be carried

out in the early stages of the planning, rather than as part

of a longer-term ERS. These tend to deal only with the

obvious components or parameters of the natural resource

base that impact the feasibility or a particular project or

projects, such as water quantity and quality issues. Other

more indirect aspects, such as aquatic and riverine health

and vegetation and catchment management impacts, are

often neglected.

This approach is understandable, as policy makers and deci-

sion makers usually do not have the time to spend (usually

many years) developing a sound understanding of resource

behavior and condition, followed by an appropriate policy

and strategy framework, before undertaking any real basin

planning for the utilization of the resources.

In the end, decisions must be made with regard to how the

river basin is to be managed. Adopting an informed and

principled approach is therefore recommended, whereby

decisions are made only when an acceptable level of justifi-

cation can be produced – or through the implementation of

an interim phase that uses the best package of information

available at the time, with an appropriate level of precaution

for unknown impacts.

When assessing resource behavior as part of overall

basin-wide planning studies, every attempt must be made to

differentiate between what facts are known about resource

behavior, and what are guesses about resource behavior. If it

is deduced that a particular project or policy could have an

undesirable level of impact, then an appropriate allowance

must be made in the planning scenarios for the extent and

quality of the data. In some cases, the paucity of data may

lead to the decision to defer a particular project until further

information is gathered and new assessments can be made.

The example of the Mekong River Commission (MRC) is il-

lustrative. While the MRC has existed since the mid-1950s, it

became a legally constituted river basin organization only in

the mid-1990s. The basin agreement specifies that the four

member-countries will “cooperate in all fields of sustainable

development, utilization, management and conservation

of the water and related resources of the Mekong river

basin.” It specifies the principles upon which the sharing

of the water and related resources of the lower Mekong

basin are to occur and states that a basin development plan

must be agreed upon, which will identify which projects of

basin-wide significance can be constructed, provided the

transboundary impacts are acceptable.

The MRC in its earlier form – the Interim Mekong

Committee – collected much data and information on the

hydrologic characteristics of the basin, but little in regard

to water quality or the nature, extent, and behavioral

characteristics of the overall natural resource base of the

basin. When conceptual studies commenced a few years

ago to determine how the two new main programs of

the MRC were to be constructed – the Water Utilisation

Program and the Basin Development Plan – it became clear

that a comprehensive picture of the condition and trends

in resources behavior could not be established. Significant

crucial information was lacking.

However, in view of the pressures to produce the Basin

Development Plan within a reasonably short time frame, the

MRC chose to include a resource assessment and capabil-

How Can Basin-wide Resource Assessments be Incorporated into River Basin Planning Studies?8 9

Inte

grat

ed ri

ver b

asin

Man

agem

entity study as part of the early stages of the basin planning

project, rather than attempt a full environmental resources

study (ERS), which could take three to five years to complete.

While such a study would not yield the detailed overall

picture of resource health and behavior as with the

approach adopted by the Murray-Darling Basin

Commission above –and thus not allow a full suite of

resource policies to be developed to guide the planning

studies – it has been a sensible process for the MRC, as

it facilitates speedy resolution and decisions on some

acceptable development projects.

In addition, the MRC has a detailed environment program

that can progressively provide environmental data and

trend analysis during the planning exercise to ensure the

most up-to-date evaluations of possible projects, bearing in

mind limitations in data.

The MRC Basin Development Plan project is discussed in

some detail in Note 7, which deals with approaches to river

basin planning. It has a number of discrete steps, as

shown below:

1. Data collection

• Natural resources

• Socioeconomic data

• Environmental data

• Related laws

• Planning tools

• National programs and objectives

2. Technical analysis of data

3. Socioeconomic evaluations

4. Development of strategies and scenarios to respond

to priority issues

5. Formulation development projects and management

strategies for sub-basins

6. Screening to determine highest priority projects

or programs.

The first and second steps are the stages at which the

natural resource assessment is done. This work is also con-

duced at the start of the planning exercises (see Note 3).

While MRC may not have the most complete information on

all aspects of how the basin’s resources respond to devel-

opment stresses, it has sufficient information to assess the

impacts of various development scenarios very early in the

process, and thus can determine those areas where some

caution may be needed.

8 9

If any of the questions below cannot be answered, then an

Environmental Resource Survey in some form needs to be

undertaken before or during the very early stages of the

river basin planning studies.

> What is the current health or condition of the natural

resources of the basin?

> Which are the key or critical resource parameters or com-

ponents of the natural resource base for scenario and

project planning, operational procedures, and the like?

> Which aspects of these components are suffering, or are

likely to suffer from, resource degradation or poor utili-

zation practices? Are these consequences likely to have

social impacts? Is there a poverty reduction dimension?

> Which member-government within the basin is likely to

be impacted and how severely?

> How will these key resource parameters or areas

respond to further water resources development?

> Which components are likely to suffer the most stress?

Are these the components that are most critical for

social and economic well-being or sustainable environ-

mental health?

How to Move the Development of a Water-related Resource Inventory Forward: A Few Key Questions

10 11

Inte

grat

ed ri

ver b

asin

Man

agem

ent

BDP Basin Development Plan

BET Beneficial Evapo-transpiration (ET)

CU Consumptive Use

DSF Decision Support Framework

ERS Environmental Resources Study

ET Evapo-transpiration

GW Groundwater

IRBM Integrated river basin management

KRA Key Result Areas

LWMP Land and Water Management Plans

MDBC Murray-Darling Basin Commission

MRC Mekong River Commission

NBET Non-beneficial Evapo-transpiration (ET)

O&M Operation and maintenance

Abbreviations and Acronyms OMVS Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du Fleuve Senegal

RBO River basin organization

SMART goals Goal that are S (Specific), M (Measurable), A (Achiev-

able), R (Realistic), and T (Time-based)

SW Surface water

SWOT analysis Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,

and Threats

TBWRC Tarim Basin Water Resources Commission

TQM Total Quality Management

WSC Water supply corporation

WUA Water user association

WUP Water Utilization Program

ReferencesWEB SITES

Water Resources Management Sectors and themes including: Coastal and marine management Dams and reservoirs Groundwater Irrigation and drainage River basin management Transboundary water management Water and environment Water economics Water supply and sanitation Watershed managementInformation and access to the respective Web sites can be found at:http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/18ByDocName/Sector-sandThemes

Dams Benefit Sharing from Dam Projects, November 2002http://www-esd.worldbank.org/documents/bnwpp/2/FinalReportBenefit-Sharing.pdf

Good Dams and Bad Dams: Environmental Criteria for Site Selection of Hydroelectric Projectshttp://essd.worldbank.org/essdint.nsf/90ByDocName/WorldBankSafeguardPolicies404NaturalHabitatsGoodDamsandBadDamsEnvironmentalCriteriaforSiteSelectionofHydroelectricProjects/$FILE/Good+and+Bad+Dams+final.pdf

GroundwaterGW-MATE: Groundwater Management Advisory Team Briefing Note Series.The overall structure of the series is as follows: Notes 1 and 2 – Broad introduction to the scope of groundwater manage-ment and groundwater system characterizationNotes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 – Essential components of management practice for major aquifers with large groundwater storage under stress from in-tensive water-supply development for irrigated agriculture and/or urban water-supplyNote 8 – The protection of potable groundwater suppliesNotes 9, 10, and 15 – Planning national and regional action for groundwa-ter resource managementNotes 13 and 14 – Management of smaller-scale water supply development in the rural environment The remainder of the series (Notes 11,12,16, and 17) deals with a number of specific topics that pose a special challenge.http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/18ByDocName/Sector-sandThemesGroundwaterBriefingNotesSeries

The Murray-Darling Basin Murray-Darling Basin Initiativehttp://www.mdbc.gov.au/

The Living Murray Initiativehttp:/www.thelivingmurray.mdbc.gov.au/

Heartlands Initiative http://www.ciw.csiro.au/heartlands/partners/index.html

10 11

ToolkitsBenchmarking, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation for Multi-Sector Proj-ects, Gender, Hygiene and Sanitation, Private Sector Participation, Small Townshttp://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/water/toolkits.html

Global Water Partnership IWRM Toolboxhttp://gwpforum.netmasters05.netmasters.nl/en/index.html

Water Demand ManagementBuilding Awareness and Overcoming Obstacles to Water Demand Manage-ment, Guideline for River Basin and Catchment Management Organiza-tions, IUCNhttp://www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/River_basin_management_guide-line_26Oct2004.pdf

Water Resources and Environment Technical NotesThe overall structure of the series is as follows: A. Environmental Issues and Lessons B. Institutional and Regulatory Issues C. Environmental Flow Assessment D. Water Quality Management E. Irrigation and Drainage F. Water Conservation and Demand Management G. Waterbody Management H. Selected Topicshttp://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/ardext.nsf/18ByDocName/Sector-sandThemesWaterandEnvironmentWaterResourcesandEnvironmentTech-nicalNotes

Water Supply and Sanitation http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/water/index.html

OTHER SOURCES

Barrow, C. J. 1998. “River Basin Development Planning and Management: A Critical Review.” World Development 26 (1): 171–86.

Boisson de Chazournes, Laurence, and M. A. Salman Salman. 1999. “Inter-national Watercourses: Enhancing Cooperation and Managing Conflict.” Technical Paper 414F, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Bruning, Stephen D., and John A. Ledingham. 2000. Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Prac-tice of Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chenoweth, J. L. 1999. “Effective Multi-Jurisdictional River Basin Manage-ment: Data Collection and Exchange in the Murray-Darling and Mekong River Basins.” Water International 14 (4): 368–76.

Chenoweth, J. L., H. M. Malano, and J. F. Bird. 2001. “Integrated River Basin Management in the Multi-jurisdictional River Basins: The Case of the Mekong River Basin.” International Journal of Water Resources Devel-opment 17 (3): 365–77.

Crano, William D., and Gary W. Silnow. 1987. Planning, Implementing and Evaluating Targeted Communication Programs, A Manual for Business Communicators. New York: Quorum Books.

Creech, Bill. 1995. The 5 Pillars of TQM: How to Make Total Quality Management Work for You. New York: Plume Books.

Dinar, Ariel, and D. Marc Kiljour. 1995. “Are Stable Agreements for Sharing International River Waters Now Possible?” Policy Research Working Paper 1474, World Bank, Agriculture and Natural Resources Department, Agricultural Policies Division, Washington, DC.

Dinar, Ariel, and Donna Lee. 1995. “Review of Integrated Approaches to River Basin Planning, Development and Management.” Policy Research

12

Inte

grat

ed ri

ver b

asin

Man

agem

ent

Copyright © 2006THE WORLD BANK

1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

All rights reservedFirst printing February 2006

Please check the upcoming WBI training events. www.worldbank.org/wbi/water

Management

Integrated

W O R L D B A N K I N S T I T U T EPromoting knowledge and learning for a better world