water : catalyst for cooperation
DESCRIPTION
The water problems facing our world need not be only a cause of tension; they can also be a catalyst for cooperation. ...If we work together, a secure and sustainable water future can be ours.” Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General, World Water Day, 22 March 2002TRANSCRIPT
Water: catalyst for cooperation
About GWP
The Global Water Partnership vision is for a water secure world.
Our mission is to support the sustainable development and management of water resources at all levels.
The Global Water Partnership (GWP) is an international network that was created in 1996 to foster the implementation of integrated waterresources management (IWRM): the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximiseeconomic and social welfare without compromising the sustainability of ecosystems and the environment.
GWP was founded by the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Swedish International DevelopmentCooperation Agency (Sida).
The Network is open to all organisations which recognise the principles of integrated water resources management endorsed by the Network. Itincludes states, government institutions (national, regional and local), intergovernmental organisations, international and national non-governmental organisations, academic and research institutions, companies, and service providers in the public sector.
The Global Water Partnership is an intergovernmental organisation of 13 Regional Water Partnerships, 83 Country Water Partnerships and morethan 2,800 Partner organisations in 167 countries.
ISBN: 978-91-85321-94-0
“The water problems facing our world need not be only a cause of tension; they can also be a catalyst for cooperation. ...If we work together, a secure and sustainable water future can be ours.”
Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General, World Water Day, 22 March 2002
CONTENTSCooperating on water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Creating a thirst for water management: post-quake cooperation in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Talking informally: a first step towards cooperation in Myanmar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Bridging the gap to cooperation: building knowledge, trust and confidence in Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Starting at grassroots: cooperation in the Caucasus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Managing destructive water: cooperation on floods in Central and Eastern Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Sharing benefits: transboundary cooperation in the Mediterranean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
A turnaround: from conflict to cooperation in the Berki River Basin, Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Managing liquid waste: cooperating across sectors in the Okavango Delta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Putting water on the political agenda: cooperation in Central Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Influencing the debate: involving the media in West Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Making water a continental priority: cooperation on climate change in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Encouraging sustainable change: building cooperation in the Peruvian Andes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Getting round the table on water: communities cooperate in Central America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Generating political will: a pathway to cooperation in the Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Linking science with policy and practice: cooperation across the globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Become a Partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
GWP Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
One of the most pressing issues of ourtime and for the future is how wemanage the world’s water resources.
Water does not flow according to theboundaries created by nations, regionsand communities. Moreover, water is afinite resource; what we have now is allwe’ll ever have. And for the first time inhistory, global demand is beginning tooutstrip supply.
This means that water is a resource thathas to be shared. To do that requirescooperation. Cooperation can bothprevent and solve problems.
The Global Water Partnership (GWP) isfounded on the belief that our mission –to support the sustainable developmentand management of water resources atall levels – can only be achieved if civilsociety, government and the privatesector partner together to solve waterchallenges. Creating partnerships aroundwater is the foundation of the GWPnetwork.
Starting at the local levelCooperation on water often starts outwith people getting together around a
specific issue, such as pollution of ariver or how to share water amongtowns. This, in time, can lead to widercooperation on other issues related towater, such as navigation, flood control,fisheries, agriculture, hydropower andenvironmental protection. As cooper-ation expands and more people getinvolved, community groups and agree-ments transform into more formalorganisations.
Transforming informal cooperation intoformal cooperation means influencingpoliticians, securing funds to financewater management, and educating waterusers and water managers. Advocating,financing, training – all of this requires asharing of skills, knowledge andexperience.
Addressing challenges throughcooperationGetting collective action on a commonresource requires trust and cooperationfrom everyone involved. That isn’t easy.There is a need for ‘horizontal’ cooper-ation, for example between state andnon-state actors or across sectors suchas agriculture or energy, and for ‘vertical’cooperation, between various levels,
G W P
4
Cooperating on water
Panos
from local, community and watershed todistrict, provincial, state, national andregional levels.
GWP’s role as a neutral platform isimportant in helping negotiate partisaninterests and move cooperation forwardat critical junctures. GWP urges all waterusers to engage in a process that resultsin water being managed in a way thatmaximises economic and social welfarein an equitable manner without compro-mising the sustainability of vital eco-systems. This integrated approach towater resources management (IWRM) iskey to achieving a water-secure world. It cannot succeed without cooperation.
Implementing changeCollectively, GWP partners and allies arepromoters of change: changing the waywe manage water. To do that meansturning non-cooperation on water intocooperation on water. GWP and itspartners lay the groundwork for waterusers to cooperate through advocacy,facilitating dialogues, sharing technicalexpertise, and building the capacity ofpeople and institutions.
The stories in this book, presented fromEast to West, show that workingcooperatively brings down transactioncosts, resolves differences and exploits
synergies within and outside the watercommunity. All this of course is onlypossible with a lot of groundworkincluding intensive advocacy, confidencebuilding, and knowledge sharing for thecommon good.
Getting collective actionon a common resourcerequires trust andcooperation fromeveryone involved.
5
Dr Ursula Schaefer-Preuss, GWP Chair
Panos
In May 2008, an earthquake measuring8.0 on the Richter scale jolted Sichuanand Shaanxi provinces in southwestChina. The earthquake left 69,227 dead,374,176 injured, 18,222 missing, 4.8million people homeless, and cut offelectricity, communications, transportand water. One of the many relief andrebuilding efforts brought togetherpeople who could help reconstruct andfuture-proof rural water supplies againstsubsequent disasters. This triggered adesire among those involved in recon-struction to learn more about how tomanage water better.
GWP China, through connectionsnurtured over a decade, catalysed acooperative effort to rebuild rural watersupply systems in four of the worst-hitareas. The partnership brought togetherfunds from the UK Department forInternational Development, theengineering expertise of MottMacDonald, on-the-ground projectmanagement officers in Sichuan andShaanxi, and non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs).
Learning by doingThe lack of skills to rebuild and managerural water supply systems so that theywould withstand future earthquakes wasa huge problem. Addressing this neededa two-pronged approach. First, localofficers responsible for managing andoperating water supply systems workedside-by-side with Mott MacDonald waterengineers. The water managers inter-viewed local government officers,farmers and other water users, andsought their views on problems andsolutions. The local managers surveyedand collected data and information onthe damage to rural drinking waterservices and, with the help and advice ofthe water engineers, drew up plans torehabilitate and reconstruct facilities.
Building knowledge and skillsThe second and critical part of thereconstruction effort was arrangingtraining for local government officials,and those responsible for water supplycentres and village water stations.Introducing the basic principles,methods and technical requirements for
G W P C H I N A
6
Creating a thirst for water management:post-quake cooperation in China
Panos
operating, managing and maintainingwater supply centres and stations tostaff involved in reconstruction was aturning point. Training courses werebacked up with a practical handbookcovering engineering in rural watersupplies, common management issues,and operating and managing rural waterservices.
Linking effortsThe cooperative effort was not onlyvaluable in bringing together the partieswho could help with reconstruction butalso made those affected by theearthquake – water authorities andcommunities – realise that cooperationon water management pays off. All thedepartments responsible for providingdrinking water to rural areas recognisedthe need to cooperate more fully withNGOs and international developmentagencies, and to link grassroots effortsin rehabilitation with action at higherlevels.
The work on water supplies was a smallpart of widespread relief operations afterthe earthquake. But people in the fourcounties will be better prepared forfuture disasters. Cooperation is apowerful tool for capacity development,for adapting and spreading ways to
earthquake-proof water supply facilities,and for building skills to manage waterin crises. Organisations such as GWPChina are able to mobilise partnersalmost immediately, to act as skillbrokers and to create the conditions forvarious parties to cooperate on watermanagement. In the aftermath ofdisaster, such collaboration created ‘athirst for management’, a desire for newideas to tackle water issues and anappreciation of the value of cooperation.
7
Resources
GWP China: A Decade of Impact. (2010) GWP BriefingNote. GWP.
The GWP ToolBox case studies listed below can be foundat www.gwptoolbox.org
China: Eco-compensation for watershed. Case Study#422.
China: From flood control to integrated floodmanagement. Case Study #420.
China Guizhou: Management of drought. Case Study#419.
China Fujian: Innovative water resource managementmechanism in rural communities. Case Study #401.
China: Innovative water resource conservation measuresin the North China Plain. Case Study #348.
GWP China | www.gwpchina.org
The May 2008earthquake insouthwest Chinadestroyed many ruralwater supply servicesand triggered a desireto start managingwater differently.
Myanmar, emerging from long isolationto embrace political change andeconomic development, is rich in naturalresources such as oil, gas, preciousmetals, timber and gems. In tacklingeconomic development, Myanmar hasmany challenges to overcome –earthquakes, cyclones, floods,landslides, drought, water pollution, andwater-borne disease from inadequatesanitation and water treatment.
Sustainable development in Myanmarmeans all sectors need to cooperate onwater. Population growth and shortagesof staple foods require agriculture toexpand. Developing industries requirereliable power and water supplies. Thelinks between water, energy and foodare complex, and are made morecomplicated by trade, investment andclimate change. Bringing parties togetheris a first step in understanding theissues and encouraging cooperation.
Managing the huge potential of waterresourcesMyanmar is endowed with abundantwater resources. The climate is tropical
G W P S O U T H E A S T A S I A
8
Talking informally: a first step towardscooperation in Myanmar
monsoon with hot humid summers andmild winters. The catchments of the tenmain river basins cover around 737,800square kilometres. Surface wateramounts to about 1,082 cubickilometres a year and groundwater to495 cubic kilometres a year. Only about5 percent of this plentiful water is used,mostly for agriculture. The potential fordeveloping water resources in Myanmaris huge. Wise management of waterresources is, therefore, critical forsustainable development.
Forging linksTo forge links across sectors andinterests, GWP Myanmar, the Myanmar
Panos
“Water is a life system, a finite resourceand a building block for a greeneconomy. …The Government of Myanmarwishes to make Green Economy andGreen Growth a national policy.”
Professor Dr Khin Ni Ni Thein, President, WaterResearch and Training Centre, Myanmar, andGreen Economy and Green Growth ConveningGroup Member
Irrigation Department and the Ministry ofAgriculture and Irrigation, brokered ameeting in August 2012 wheregovernment agencies, non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs) and journalists gottogether to discuss water, energy andfood security. The dialogue, sponsoredby GWP Southeast Asia, was intended tosow the seeds of cooperation on water.
Discussions at the meeting raisedawareness among the various parties ofthe need to encourage integrated waterresources management. Participantsexplored ways to improve understandingof water issues, reform water institutionsand put mechanisms in place tocoordinate water management. Discussions ranged widely over ways torespond to climate change, how to copewith disasters related to water, potentialwater supply and water qualitymanagement systems, and how tofinance the development andmanagement of water resources. Importantly, the discussions helpedgovernment agencies, NGOs, communityorganisations and stakeholders atgrassroots recognise the need for activecooperation in tackling these issues.
Aligning with national perspectivesNot least, the informal meeting pavedthe way for aligning efforts to develop,
conserve, use and manage water, foodproduction and energy with nationalperspectives. Holistic and cooperativerather than sectoral approaches to water,guided by the principles of integratedwater resources management, can fostersustainable development in Myanmar.
9
Resources
Good Water Governance and IWRM: Prerequisites forWater-Energy-Food Security. K.N.N. Thein.
United Nations Strategic Framework 2012-1015. UNCountry Team, Myanmar.
From Vision to Action: A Synthesis of Experiences in Least-Developed Countries in Southeast Asia. The FAO-ESCAP Pilot Project on National Water Visions – Phase 2.Bangkok, December 2004. (2004) L.H. Ti and T. Facon.RAP Publication 2004/32. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok and United NationsEconomic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
Website of the Ministry of Irrigation and Agriculture,Myanmarwww.moai.gov.mm
Website of Green Economy and Green Growthwww.geggmyanmar.com
Website of the Water, Research and Training Centre,Myanmarwww.wrtcmyan.org
GWP Southeast Asia | www.gwpsea.org
Sustainable developmentin Myanmar means allsectors need to cooperateon water. Populationgrowth and shortagesof staple foods requireagriculture to expand.Developing industriesrequire reliable powerand water supplies.
Rice farmers in the lower reaches of theNilwala River in Sri Lanka adamantlyopposed the construction of a barrier toprevent seawater penetrating up river.Afraid that their fields would becomewaterlogged, they baulked at proposalsto build a barrier near the river mouth orfurther upstream. Farmers were highlysuspicious of the motives of irrigationand water authorities. Water authoritieson their part feared salty water wouldgradually replace fresh groundwater,threaten supplies of potable water anddamage pumping stations. Argumentsabout whether or not the barrier shouldbe built and where went back and forthfor over six years. A turning point camewhen GWP Sri Lanka's Area WaterPartnership in Nilwala provided aplatform for stakeholders to discusswater issues.
In Sri Lanka, arguments about whether or not a barrier should be builtto prevent seawater entering the Nilwala River went back and forth forover six years. A turning point came when Nilwala Area WaterPartnership stepped in.
G W P S O U T H A S I A
Bridging the gap tocooperation: building knowledge,trust and confidencein Sri Lanka
Panos
1 0
Shared understandingRecognising that when people have ashared understanding of a problem andits consequences they will probablyagree about what to do, the Area WaterPartnership arranged a meeting inFebruary 2012 between farmers andwater authorities so that each side couldvoice their concerns and what theywanted to do about them.
Officials from the Irrigation Departmentand the National Water Supply andDrainage Board explained that fresh-water was already scarce. The sea levelwas rising and river beds were beingdeepened by sand mining. This meantthat, especially in the dry season whenthe river was low, sea water could workits way upriver and affect sources offreshwater. A further problem was thatduring dry periods, if salt water travelledup river it could damage freshwaterintakes and pumping stations. Officialsfrom the University of Ruhuna showedfarmers how saline river water can seepinto groundwater and eventually makefields infertile. The result would be thatfarmers would lose valuable cropland.
Seeing is believingFarmers voiced their concern that a barrierwould deprive them of some of their
farmland, as had happened with previousdevelopment projects. They made it clearthat they did not trust the authorities. Thefarmers said they wanted to see for them-selves how a barrier would work and howit would affect them.
A trip was arranged for farmers toinspect a barrier on the nearby GinGanga River that was similar to the oneproposed for the Nilwala River. Reas-sured that a barrier would not deprivethem of their land and would protecttheir land from salt water, the farmersagreed in principle that it should bebuilt. After another trip in September2012 to see exactly where the barrierwould be located they were persuadedthat construction was in their interests,and that the best place to build it wasnear the mouth of the river.
It is possible to get people with differentinterests to cooperate on water if theyunderstand why it is necessary and thatthey will benefit. Achieving this commonunderstanding can be through a simplemethod such as sharing information. Atrusted party, such as the Nilwala AreaWater Partnership in this case, cancreate neutral spaces for parties at oddsto explain their differ-ences and find win-win solutions.
1 1
Resources
Technical Report on Issues Related to Water andAgriculture in South Asia. (2012) Prepared by GWP SouthAsia for the Asia Pacific Adaptation Network. Hayama:Institute for Global Environmental Strategies.
Promoting Livelihoods and Influencing Policies throughArea Water Partnerships in South Asia. Briefing Note. GWPSouth Asia.
Meeting Water Challenges through Partnerships. BriefingNote. GWP South Asia.
Local action through Area Water Partnerships. (2006)GWP.
Website of GWP Sri Lankawww.lankajalani.org
GWP South Asia | www.gwpsouthasia.org
Three countries that were once part ofthe Soviet Union – Armenia, Azerbaijan,and Georgia – share part of the Kura-Araks Basin. Although it is in theinterests of these countries to cooperateon water, they have not signed any watertreaties, nor have they agreed how toshare water, maintain water quality orcare for the basin ecosystem. Atgrassroots, however, water managers arecooperating to explore how to changeexisting water management arrange-ments in ways that boost overall welfarein each country.
Raising awarenessBack in 2002, representatives ofenvironmental agencies andparliamentary committees in the threecountries, non-governmental organis-ations (NGOs), the European Union,international organisations, donoragencies and scientific institutions metand agreed to cooperate on setting up alegal treaty and basin managementcouncil for the Kura-Araks Basin. NGOs,including GWP Central Asia andCaucasus, launched a two-prongedcampaign, firstly to engage the public in
cleaning up pollution and, secondly toraise awareness of the need for countriesto work together to manage the river.
GWP Central Asia and Caucasusconcentrates on sharing information andexperiences of transboundary watermanagement drawn from the global GWPbank of knowledge. Every June, on Kura-Araks Protection Day, GWP Central Asiaand Caucasus tells the ‘story’ of the basinto the public – how the river is heavilypolluted, contaminated with household,chemical, industrial, biological, agri-cultural and radioactive waste – andexplains why cooperation is vital forpreventing pollution and why clean wateris vital for regional development.
Providing information and toolsGWP Armenia follows up the messages ofKura-Araks Protection Day by arrangingroundtables where people in localgovernment, NGOs and emergencyservices can explore solutions.Workshops arranged for land and watermanagers give them practical tools, suchas step-by-step guidelines on how tocooperate in setting up independent river
G W P C E N T R A L A S I A A N D C A U C A S U S
1 2
Starting at grassroots: cooperation in the Caucasus
basin councils. One of these workshops,in Dilijan in June 2011, began the task ofsetting up an independent council forthe Aghstev River, a tributary of the Kura-Araks that flows through Azerbaijan andArmenia. This task built on the basinmanagement plan for the Aghstev Riverpreviously developed in cooperationwith the European Union. The AghstevRiver Council will establish a legalframework for joint water management,and tackle deforestation and waterquality.
Influencing upwardsThe work to raise awareness and shareknowledge is paying off. At grassroots, atleast, there is a willingness to cooperatemore closely on shared water resources.Political tensions between countries donot necessarily prevent people fromgetting round the table to talk. When theAghstev River Council gets under wayand shows it can bring a wide range ofstakeholders together to manage waterand share benefits, the readiness tocollaborate on water may diffuseupwards to higher levels of government.
Impartial third parties such as GWPCentral Asia and Caucasus that offerknowledge, technical assistance andneutral spaces for dialogue can helpstakeholders cooperate to weigh up
opportunities and risks, and structureagreements to share benefits. Sustainedsupport of this kind – often over manyyears or even decades – plays a hugepart in enabling fruitful negotiations oncooperating to manage shared water.
1 3
Resources
Integrated Water Resources Management in the AmudaryaDelta. (2010) E. Kurbanbaev, O. Artykov and S. Kurbanbaev. GWP Central Asia and Caucasus. [Russian]
Integrated Water Resources Management in Armenia -Articles Collection. (2006) GWP Central Asia andCaucasus. [Russian]
A Network for Water Security. (2010) GWP Central Asia and Caucasus.
Website of GWP Armenia [Armenian, Russian, English]www.cwp.am
GWP Central Asia and Caucasus | www.gwp-cacena.org
An independent councilfor the Aghstev River, atributary of the Kura-Araks that flows throughAzerbaijan and Armenia,will be a legal frameworkfor cooperating tomanage water.
Flash floods have taken lives andwreaked havoc in many communities inCentral and Eastern Europe (CEE). Therisk of flash floods is growing ascountries urbanise and develop, and asstorms and heavy rain become morefrequent as a result of climate change.
Preventing and reducing flood damageinvolves being prepared, knowing whatto do and how to do it, and beingwarned in advance, knowing what iscoming and when. Recognising the valueof combining strengths in different areasof expertise and at different levels, theWorld Meteorological Organization andGWP took the opportunity offered by theAssociated Programme on Flood Man-agement (APFM) to cooperate onimproving how communities in CEEprepare for flash floods.
Learning from experienceGorzanow, a Polish village of 1,000people that suffered a flash flood in1997, was one of the communities inseven countries – Bulgaria, the CzechRepublic, Lithuania, Poland, Romania,
the Slovak Republic and Slovenia – thatpiloted ways to prepare for and deal withflash floods. As a first step, Gorzanowinhabitants helped map the extent of the1997 flood. Fire service experts thenmarked areas where floodwaters weretoo deep or flowed too fast to allowrescue operations. People in these areaswere the first who needed to be warnedand shown routes they could safely useto escape.
Involving and encouraging people incommunities to put forward ideas forpreventing and preparing for floods wereimportant. The plan eventually agreed onin Gorzanow took into account suggest-ions from the community and included
G W P C E N T R A L A N D E A S T E R N E U R O P E
1 4
Managing destructive water: cooperationon floods in Central and Eastern Europe
“…a multi-disciplinary and integratedapproach to flood management holds[the potential] to confront the issues offlash-flood affected communities.”
Avinash C. Tyagi, former Director of the Climateand Water Department, World MeteorologicalOrganization
improving drains and road culverts,installing a flood gauge, drawing up anevacuation plan, setting up an earlywarning system and running a campaignto make sure everyone knew what to doin the event of a flood warning. GWPCountry Water Partnerships took thesame approach to pilot projects in theother CEE countries and exchangedinformation on their experiences.
Combining strengthsThe pilot projects gave communitiesopportunities to test ways of dealing withflash floods suited to their particularcircumstances. Complementing on-the-spot strategies devised by communities,national meteorological and hydrologicalservices have adapted their forecastingtechnologies to allow them to both seethe big picture and zoom in to identifyareas at particular risk. This may helpmap risks and develop appropriatemeasures to mitigate risks.
Meteorologists, hydrologists, mayors,civil defence personnel, and GWP Centraland Eastern Europe through its CountryWater Partnerships cooperated to exam-ine, collate and extract lessons from thepilot projects and come up with recom-mendations for warning and preparingcommunities for flash floods.
Translating lessons learned intoguidelinesPoland took the lead in translating whathad been learned from the pilot projectsinto easy-to-use guidelines. The guide-lines cover different kinds of earlywarning systems and explain measuresto limit flood damage that can be takenat household, local, national and region-al level. When floods threaten, mayors,civil defence and water servicespersonnel, and individuals can do muchto limit damage if there are rescue plansin place and everyone knows what to doand when to do it. GWP Country WaterPartnerships have organised trainingsessions and seminars for local floodmanagers and the general public.Findings and experience from pilotprojects were used in implementing theEuropean Union Floods ManagementDirective into national legislation in theseven countries.
Preventing and reducingflood damage involves beingprepared, knowing what to doand how to do it, and beingwarned in advance, knowingwhat is coming and when.
1 5
Resources
Guidance on Flash Flood Management: RecentExperiences from Central and Eastern Europe. (2007)Associated Programme on Flood Management.
In Time for the Flood: A Methodological Guide to LocalFlood Warning Systems. (2005) M. Barszczynska, R. Bogdanska-Warmuz, R. Konieczny, P. Madej and M. Siudak. World Meteorological Organization and GWP.Institute of Meteorology and Water Management Warsaw,Poland.
Regional Workshop on Community Preparedness andPublic Participation for Flash Flood Management inEurope 29-30 October, 2007, Krakow, Poland:Recommendations. World Meteorological Organization,GWP Central and Eastern Europe, GWP Poland andInstitute of Meteorology and Water Management ofPoland.
Website of the WMO-GWP Associated Programme on FloodManagement. www.apfm.info
GWP Central and Eastern Europe |www.gwpceeforum.org
Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia, Greece, Kosovo and Monte-negro share the Drin River Basin in thewestern Balkans. Around 1.5 millionpeople rely on the water resources of thebasin for drinking water, agriculture,fisheries, industry and hydropower. Eachriparian state, however, has its ownpriorities, interests and systems formanaging water.
Throughout the Drin River Basin waterquality and biodiversity are threatenedby pollution from agriculture, untreatedurban wastewater and solid waste.However, awareness is growing of thevalue of cooperation on water. Thiscooperation is now being formalised toexplore synergies and share benefits.
Taking cooperation to a high levelUnder the Water Convention, the legalframework for transboundary watermanagement in the United NationsEconomic Commission for Europe(UNECE) region, and the European UnionWater Framework Directive there was anopportunity to bring countries togetherto talk about how they could cooperate.
UNECE and GWP Mediterranean took theopportunity and, after wide consultationwith countries, stakeholders and inter-national agencies, formally launched theDrin Dialogue in 2009.
The dialogue built on legally bindingagreements already in place signed bycountries sharing the transboundaryPrespa, Ohrid and Skadar lakes. Theconsultations have been important inbringing together ministries, sub-basincommissions and committees, andstakeholders and have led to a sharedvision for sustainable management ofthe whole basin. Water users in theregion have a growing understanding ofcooperation on transboundary waterresources as a way to open up oppor-tunities.
Moving towards formal agreementThe dialogue garnered political support.A memorandum of understanding for themanagement of the Drin Basin foundedon the shared vision and signed in 2011by ministers was a turning point. Thememorandum set out the main trans-boundary issues and steps to integrate
G W P M E D I T E R R A N E A N
1 6
Sharing benefits: transboundarycooperation in the Mediterranean
management of the basin in the short,medium and long term, paving the wayfor a legally binding agreement. A basinauthority, for which GWP Mediterraneanprovides a secretariat, is the mechanismfor riparian states to cooperate andcoordinate action to follow through onthe memorandum. Under thememorandum the first step is to assesshow water resources are managed ineach country. This will set the stage forpreparing a river basin managementplan for the part of the Drin River in eachof the five riparian states and makingsure they harmonise.
Translating intent into actionAgreement on a formal memorandumwas a significant step forward. Previous-ly, there was no coordination inmanaging shared water in the DrinBasin. Political commitment andconsultations across sectors have builtsolid foundations for cooperativesolutions. Some countries, havingemerged from political instability andconflict several decades ago, areestablishing market economies. In manycases, the drive for economic growthinfluences decisions on water andmanaging other natural resources.Environmental considerations are alsoimportant to countries seeking member-ship of the European Union. Creating a
transboundary institution for the DrinRiver Basin will encourage cooperationon putting in place joint frameworks forthe sustainable and integratedmanagement of the shared waterresources.
Cooperating to encourage cooperationInternational institutions can be instru-mental in catalysing cooperation byoffering their respective strengths whenwindows of opportunity open. Severalconventions, directives and processesprovided a framework for UNECE, as aregional policy institution, and GWPMediterranean, as a knowledge sharing,technical and networking organisation,to cooperate in helping Drin Basin stateswork together to manage shared waterresources. In a next step, UNDP, UNECE,GWP Mediterranean and riparian states,financed by the Global EnvironmentalFacility will, over the four years 2013-2016, combine forces to establish jointmanagement.
1 7
Resources
Establishing cooperative management in the Drin Basin.www.twrm-med.net/drin-river-basin
Status Paper - Management of the Extended Transboundary Drin Basin. (2008) GWP Mediterranean, Athens.
Drin Basin: A Situation Analysis. (2011) GWP Mediterranean,Athens.
Transboundary Waters Resources Management (TWRM) in the Southeastern Europe (SEE) and Middle East & NorthAfrica. www.twrm-med.net
The ToolBox case study below can be found atwww.gwptoolbox.org
Transboundary: Prespa Basin National Park. Case Study #258.
GWP Mediterranean | www.gwpmed.org
The Drin Dialogue consult-ations are opportunities toexchange views about co-operating on shared water.
Competition for scarce water betweenfarmers for irrigation, the church for holywater, water authorities for urban waterservices, and upstream and downstreamusers in the Berki River Basin, TigrayRegion in northern Ethiopia, wassparking quarrels. In a significantturnaround, water users have stoppedquarrelling and begun cooperating.Open discussions on how to allocatewater equitably have led to a betterunderstanding of how the way each usermanages water affects other users, andto less conflict.
Through interlinked neighbourhood,district, catchment and regional waterforums, water users have alreadyresolved disputes without any need forlegal or administrative action.Downstream water users in the BerkiRiver catchment who had previouslydestroyed a weir upstream that divertedwater for irrigation, now contribute toconservation measures upstream. Anupstream district has revisited a plan toinstall 100 water pumps that would havecut the amount of water availabledownstream. Water efficient drip
systems are being encouraged and thereare plans to recharge groundwater.
Triggering changeEthiopia has written integrated waterresources management (IWRM)principles into its water resourcesmanagement policy, has passed waterlaws, and has a strategy and workplan toturn policy into practice. However, scarcefunds and skills, and poor coordinationand involvement of stakeholders,hamper progress.
The trigger for change in the Berki RiverBasin was a two-year pilot project 2006-2008 run by GWP Eastern Africa andGWP Ethiopia. The project set up aframework for IWRM.
Cooperating to bring about changeChanges in the way water is managed inthe Berki River Basin would not havehappened without the cooperation ofmany different parties on many fronts.
GWP Ethiopia, district authorities andnon-governmental organisations (NGOs)raised awareness of the need for action
G W P E A S T E R N A F R I C A
1 8
A turnaround: from conflict to cooperationin the Berki River Basin, Ethiopia
Panos
on water in their constituencies –identifying, contacting, involving andeducating stakeholders, and winningpolitical support. GWP Ethiopia providedbackup on policy issues. District agri-cultural development agents channelledfeedback from communities.
Stakeholders themselves set up region-al, watershed, district and neighbour-hood forums where they could interact.Neighbourhoods built on traditionalyewuha abat (father of water) practicesto quickly create their own water forums.Forums evolved from existing systemssuch as this address the practicalities ofwater management at grassroots.
A team of experts from state govern-ment, NGOs, Mekelle University and theAgricultural Research Institute generatedinformation on water resources andsocioeconomic issues to help stake-holders understand problems, identifysolutions and prioritise actions.
Involving water users in planningOver the two years of the pilot project,water users worked together, first to getconsensus on the problems, then todevelop a plan setting out how demandfor water would be managed and theroles of the various partnerships.The cooperative effort on the plan gave
water users a better understanding ofhow their use of water affects otherusers. They began to open up, discusshow to allocate water equitably and worktowards ‘joined up’ water management.Cooperating is now seen as a way toresolve water issues, and manage waterand land resources of the whole catch-ment sustainably.
In water scarce environments, compe-tition for water is likely to intensify. Thismeans water users, like those in theBerki River Basin, need to cooperate andfind ‘win-win’ solutions that make allparties better off.
Harnessing water resourcesfor sustainable developmentin Ethiopia means coop-erating. Only half the population has access toclean, safe water and only6 percent of suitable land is irrigated.
1 9
Resources
Linking Participation to Results in Water ResourcesManagement. A Case study of Ethiopia IWRMImplementation Pilot Project. Policy Brief. GWP EasternAfrica and Ethiopia Country Water Partnership.
Enough water for all: How to manage demand. Lessonsfrom Ethiopia IWRM Implementation Pilot Project. PolicyBrief. GWP Eastern Africa and GWP Ethiopia.
Transmitting tensions down the river: How to resolvethem. A Case study of Ethiopia IWRM ImplementationPilot Project. Policy Brief. GWP Eastern Africa and GWPEthiopia.
The ToolBox case study below can be found atwww.gwptoolbox.org
Ethiopia: IWRM process in Berki River Basin – fromconflicts to joint planning. Case Study #365.
GWP Eastern Africa |www.gwp.org/en/gwp-in-action/Eastern-Africa/
Untreated sewage and other liquid wastethreaten the Okavango Delta, an inter-nationally important wetland and theheart of Botswana’s tourist industry.Protecting the delta from pollution safe-guards the tourist industry, reduces therisk of water-borne diseases, andensures clean water for wildlife, comm-unities and farming.
Wastewater treatment facilities insensitive environments such as theOkavango must not only be efficient andcost effective but also need to considerboth the environment and publicperceptions. After wide consultationacross sectors on guidelines for manag-ing liquid waste in the Okavango, pilotwaste treatment projects are underway.The intention is to push for the guide-lines to be written into laws regulatingtourism, land use, building and theenvironment.
Grasping opportunityMany of the problems affecting wetlandsstem from the failure of users tocooperate. In the Okavango Delta, what
was needed to prevent pollution fromliquid waste was to bring water userstogether to reach a common under-standing of the problems, and discusspossible solutions and ways forward.
GWP Botswana grasped the window ofopportunity offered by the IntegratedWater Resource Management WaterEfficiency Project sponsored by theGlobal Environment Fund and the UnitedNations Development Programme tofoster the cooperation needed to solvethe liquid waste problem. The first stepwas to identify the various stakeholdersand their interests. With an under-standing of who was involved and theirconcerns, the next step was to bring thestakeholders together.
Forging consensusOpen and inclusive discussions arrangedby GWP Botswana involved governmentdepartments, the private sector, non-governmental organisations, quasi-government organisations, and regionalenvironment and Okavango projects.Companies transporting hazardous
G W P S O U T H E R N A F R I C A
2 0
Managing liquid waste: cooperating acrosssectors in the Okavango Delta
Panos
waste, tourist camps, conservation trustsand the Botswana Meat Commission, forexample, were invited.
Consensus emerged on the need for aset of guidelines on managing liquidwaste. An approach to the Department ofWaste Management and PollutionControl led to further consultations.Other parties who could contributebegan to cooperate, bringing in a widerange of complementary expertise.
The end result was a set of guidelines forenvironmentally acceptable liquid wastemanagement for different habitats, landuses and amounts of wastewater. GWPBotswana made sure that all technicalaspects of the guidelines were in order.Because those with a stake in the wellbeing of the Okavango worked togetherto complete the guidelines they have anincentive to abide by them and encour-age others to do so. GWP Botswana,through its networks, will help shareexperiences of how the guidelines workin practice.
Linking local to national andtransboundary cooperationManaging liquid waste is not onlyimportant in the Okavango Delta butthroughout Botswana and for the entire
Okavango River. The Department ofWaste Management and PollutionControl is already using the guidelinesthroughout the country and pushing forthem to be written into laws such as theEnvironmental Impact Assessment Act,Tourism Licensing Act, Land Board Actand Buildings Control Act. The guidelineswill also feed into work by the SouthernAfrica Regional Environmental Pro-gramme to improve transboundarycooperation.
Cooperating to protectthe Okavango Delta frompollution will safeguardthe tourist industry,reduce the risk of water-borne diseases, andensure clean water forwildlife, communitiesand farming.
2 1
Resources
Changing Africa's Water Landscape. (2010) Briefing Note.GWP.
Managing the Other Side of the Water Cycle: MakingWastewater an Asset. (2009) A. Bahri. Background PaperNo. 13. GWP.
ToolBox case studies listed below can be found atwww.gwptoolbox.org
Southern Africa: Innovative Methods in WaterManagement Decentralisation. Case Study #387.
Transboundary: IWRM implementation at Pungwe RiverBasin in Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Case Study #333.
GWP Southern Africa |www.gwp.org/gwp-in-action/Southern-Africa/
Member states of the EconomicCommunity of Central African States(ECCAS) work together to lessen poverty,boost food security, and develop sociallyand economically. One of three prioritiesECCAS has set for 2015 is to cooperateto manage water resources across theregion.
Water resources in Central Africa areunevenly distributed. In the Sahel wateris scarce, whereas countries to the southhave water in abundance. The region hasnot yet harnessed the potential of waterfor hydroelectricity or agriculture, andmany citizens lack safe drinking waterand sanitation. Agreement on a regionalwater policy by the ten ECCAS memberstates in 2009 was a milestone incooperation on water.
Launching a regional visionThe agreement on a regional water policyis the culmination of a process thatbegan at the turn of the millennium.Following the 2000 World Water Confer-ence, Central African countries realisedthat, for their common good, it was
important to harmonise watermanagement across the region.
ECCAS member states started by drawingup a common vision for water. Once thiswas launched, countries began totranslate the regional vision into nationalintegrated water resources management(IWRM) policies. Countries worked withprogrammes promoting IWRM, such asthe United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) IWRM 2005 Targetprogramme, and programmes of theEuropean Union, the United NationsEconomic Commission for Africa andGWP Central Africa.
Setting up a formal mechanismOpen discussions at regional level wereimportant in resolving political issues,maintaining a flow of information onpolicy proposals and exploring technicalissues. GWP Central Africa played a parthere, arranging regional dialogues and,through the GWP network, for experts toadvise on technicalities. GWP CentralAfrica also made sure regional andnational politicians, technical experts
G W P C E N T R A L A F R I C A
2 2
Putting water on the political agenda:cooperation in Central Africa
Panos
and administrators were kept in the loop.
An important meeting took place inBrazzaville in 2006. Ministers decidedthat they needed to set up a formalmechanism for coordinating policies onwater resources management acrosscountries. Ministers agreed that the firststep was for ECCAS to lead on develop-ing a regional water policy.
Bringing politicians, technical expertsand administrators togetherTo get agreement on a regional policy awide range of parties – political, tech-nical and administrative – needed towork together at various levels and onvarious issues. In the first instance,ECCAS brought together three groups toput forward proposals for a water policy.
A group from ECCAS took the politicallead. A second group included ministersin charge of water, members of theAfrican Ministers’ Council on WaterTechnical Committee for Central Africaand national water managers. Thepeople in the second group were thosewho would be responsible, politicallyand administratively, for translatingregional policy into action in eachcountry. Development partners, mainly
represented by the UNEP CollaboratingCentre on Water and Environment andGWP Central Africa, made up a thirdgroup that found funding and offeredtechnical backstopping.
Realising potentialThe regional water policy is a greatopportunity for countries in Central Africato cooperate in putting IWRM intopractice to boost realisation of theregion’s potential. The policy adoptsIWRM as the path to sustainable develop-ment of water, from community tonational and subregional levels.
2 3
Resources
The ToolBox case studies listed below can be found atwww.gwptoolbox.org
Transboundary: Lake Chad Commission wants to save thelake and mitigate conflicts. Case Study #371.
Cameroon: Local initiative to protect Lake Ossa. Case Study #363.
GWP Central Africa | www.gwp.org/GWP-Central-Africa
A regional water policy is agreat opportunity forcountries in Central Africa tocooperate in puttingintegrated water resourcesmanagement into practice torealise the region’s potential.
Shared basins can be spaces for cooper-ation or for confrontation. The MonoRiver for example, shared between Beninand Togo, faces huge environmental andsocioeconomic problems.
The Economic Community of WestAfrican States (ECOWAS), GWP, the WorldWildlife Fund and the non-governmentalorganisation Green Cross waged aconcerted campaign to involve themedia in explaining the problems ofshared water and what could be doneabout them. Politicians took notice ofwhat the media covered. Benin and Togoare now on the brink of agreeing to setup a formal basin organisation for theshared stretch of the Mono River underthe auspices of ECOWAS Water Re-sources Coordination Centre (WRCC).
Transforming challenges toopportunitiesGWP West Africa and ECOWAS WRCC sawan opening under the West African Re-gional Water Policy for cooperating to set
G W P W E S T A F R I C A
2 4
Influencing thedebate: involving themedia in West Africa
Panos
up a management authority for the MonoRiver. ECOWAS offered its unique policyskills in assessing issues in atransnational context. GWP West Africaoffered complementary technical andconvening skills. GWP agreed to reviewand comment on technical issues. Inparallel, GWP is encouraging CountryWater Partnerships in West Africa toprepare to engage with a technicalcommittee which will advise theproposed Mono River authority.
Encouraging the media to cooperateThe partners secured funding to goahead with a feasibility study for a MonoRiver management authority from theEuropean Commission under the AfricanCaribbean and Pacific European UnionWater Facility. But partners realised thatthe media would be influential in gettingpolitical support. GWP Regional andCountry Water Partnerships organisedworkshops for journalists to explain theissues and arrange for them to meetthose affected by problems with sharedwater. The workshops spawned a streamof articles putting a human face to theissues – describing villagers who couldno longer fish, farmers whose lands wereinundated by releases from upstreamdams and mayors beset with watersupply problems. Journalists also
explained steps needed to address theproblems, such as setting up a jointmanagement organisation for the sharedwater.
Influencing movers and shakersBuilding alliances with journalistsencourages in-depth coverage of waterissues, rather than coverage only whenthere are floods, droughts or disasters.Movers and shakers at all levels – frommayors to presidents – take note of whatthe media says. Cooperating with themedia plays an important role in raisingawareness of the stakes and influencingthe decisions that have to be made.
West Africans in Beninand Togo will benefitfrom a legal frameworkfor cooperation on ashared stretch of theMono River.
2 5
Resources
ToolBox case studies listed below can be found atwww.gwptoolbox.org
West Africa: Roadmaps of Water Management in WestAfrica. Case Study #396.
Transboundary: Water management through multi-levelparticipatory governance and community projects in VoltaRiver Basin. Case Study #430.
Transboundary organisation in the Niger River Basin. Case Study #46.
Transboundary: Establishing a transboundaryorganisation for IWRM in the Senegal River basin. Case Study #45.
GWP West Africa | www.gwpao.org
Governments in Africa recognise thevalue of cooperating to foster regionaland Pan-African development, buildpeace, prevent conflict and tacklechanges in climate. Water links all theseissues and needs to move to the top ofthe development agenda. The AfricanMinisters' Council on Water (AMCOW),set up in 2002, encourages memberstates of the African Union to cooperatein managing the continent’s waterresources.
In July 2008, heads of African Unionstates and governments adopted theSharm El Sheikh Declaration. Thisdeclaration committed states to worktogether to make the continent moreresilient to drought, floods and climatechange. In November 2010, AMCOWrecommended that GWP and partnersshould cooperate to operationalise partof AMCOW’s work programme, the Water,Climate and Development Programme(WACDEP). WACDEP supports the im-plementation of climate changecommitments in the Sharm El SheikhDeclaration by integrating water securityand climate resilience in development
planning processes, and building climate resilience and security.
Bringing together complementarystrengthsBy 2011, GWP Regional and CountryWater Partnerships, developmentagencies and banks, donors andknowledge networks were cooperating inWACDEP. AMCOW advises on policy andintegrates efforts across Africa. Countries,regional economic communities and riverbasin organisations carry out the prog-ramme. GWP oversees day-to-dayprogramme management.
Seeking efficiencies through cooperationThe continent-wide programme linksnational, local and transboundary effortsin managing water for sustainablenational and regional development andadapting to climate change. By cooper-ating in WACDEP, partners link theirefforts, and coordinate and use supportfor development efficiently.
The cooperative effort will strengthen theknowledge base on the impacts ofclimate change, vulnerabilities and water
Cooperation locally, regionally andglobally to make water a top policypriority will build resilience to thedroughts and floods resulting fromclimate change.
G W P
2 6
Making water a continental priority:cooperation on climate change in Africa
Panos
security in basins. The knowledgegenerated will help in designing climate-resilient investments. Cooperation willalso enhance collaboration betweenregional climate change centres and riverbasin organisations, and establishmechanisms for the use and uptake ofclimate information. Not least, thiscooperation will promote peace andregional integration by supporting Pan-African and subregional institutionsresponsible for regional development,managing shared water, reducingdisaster risks, and providing climate andhydrological services.
One important aspect of the cooperationin WACDEP is helping countries developinvestment and financing strategies forwater – viable infrastructure projectsthat will not be affected by the un-certainty around how the climate willchange and that will be attractive topublic and private investors. Another isputting in place policies that will allownew ways of managing land, water andgreen growth to be tested.
Building on the principles of integratedwater resources managementWACDEP builds on the work done byGWP in Africa, started in 2005, helping13 countries develop national integratedwater resources management (IWRM)
plans. The neutral platform provided byGWP allows concerns to be voiced,challenges to be articulated andsolutions to be explored. Working side-by-side with governments, helping withtechnical issues, providing informationand arranging consultations betweennational governments, regional eco-nomic communities and basinorganisations, GWP has built trust andfostered confidence in IWRM as thefoundation for climate-resilient develop-ment.
WACDEP is already underway in eightcountries – Burkina Faso, Burundi,Cameroon, Ghana, Mozambique,Rwanda, Tunisia and Zimbabwe – fourtransboundary river basins – Limpopo,Kagera, Lake Chad and Volta – and thenorthwest Sahara aquifer system.Participating countries take the lessonsthey learn to regional and globaldiscussions and take away state of theart global analyses of water issues andprocesses to manage water. As water iscentral to Africa’s development, allparties involved in the programmecooperate locally, regionally and globallyto make water a top policy priority.
2 7
Resources
Water Security for Development: Insights from AfricanPartnerships in Action Report. (2010) GWP.
Strategic Framework: Water Security and Climate ResilientDevelopment. GWP.
Technical Background Document: Water Security andClimate Resilient Development. GWP.
Website of the Water, Climate and DevelopmentProgramme with more material.http://www.gwp.org/en/wacdep/resources
WACDEP website | www.gwp.org/wacdep
Water rights in the Ocoña River Basin inthe southern Peruvian Andes are passeddown from generation to generation. Asa result, there are a few large users andmany small users. The Local WaterAdministration of the National Authorityis in charge of water distribution, but thebasin faces major challenges – glaciersthat feed the basin have shrunk by37 percent in the last 35 years, highAndean wetlands where the rivers havetheir headwaters are dwindling andmining operations that jeopardise waterquality are spreading. Threats to waterresources place Peru third on a globalindex of climate-related hazards.
The impetus for changing the way waterwas managed sprang from two non-governmental organisations (NGOs), theAsociación Especializada para elDesarrollo Sostenible (AEDES) andCentro de Estudios y Promoción deDesarrollo (DESCO). These NGOs helpedcommunities organise themselvesaround water issues and introduced theidea of integrated water resourcesmanagement (IWRM). AEDES, a GWP
partner, sought advice from GWP Peruand the Pontifical Catholic University ofPeru, also a partner of GWP, on a strat-egy to encourage IWRM.
Providing information and a space to talkThe strategy adopted was, firstly, toprovide impartial information on thestate of basin resources and, secondly,to set up neutral spaces where all stake-holders could discuss roles andresponsibilities in water management. At first, only boards of water users wereinvolved in discussions. Later on, carewas taken to bring in associations ofagrarian producers, peasant commun-ities, shrimp fishermen, artisanalminers, municipalities and miningcompanies.
Grassroots groups began to take action.Llama farmers, for example, cooperatedto manage a queñuales forest andwetlands ecosystem in the NevadoCoropuna foothills. These private con-servation areas managed by the localcommunities are now recognised by thePeruvian Government.
G W P S O U T H A M E R I C A
2 8
Encouraging sustainable change: buildingcooperation in the Peruvian Andes
AED
ES
water_co_op_booklet.qxd 21/03/2013 09:20 Page 28
Nurturing participationIn 2003, building on the momentum atgrassroots, AEDES and DESCO arrangedmeetings with boards of water users inthe Ocoña River Basin. In 2004, waterusers agreed to meet regularly to discusshow to manage water more effectively.Between 2005 and 2006 these discus-sions led to the creation of a water userplatform and an agreement on itsstatutes and workplan. In 2007, anInterregional Coordination Board wasformed, which officially established theneed for IWRM in provinces in theArequipa and Ayacucho regions.
In 2010 work began on developing anIWRM plan for the Ocoña River Basinand, at this stage, state agencies, theNational Water Authority and regionalgovernments became actively involved.The Ocoña River Basin Council isexpected to come into being in 2014under the 2009 Water Resources Law,and to start translating the IWRM planinto action in 2015.
Aligning cooperationThe breadth of cooperation in the OcoñaRiver Basin is wide, involving the Nation-al Water Authority of the Ministry ofAgriculture through the Local WaterAdministration of Ocoña-Pausa, the
Ministry of the Environment, theRegional Environmental Authority andthe Regional Institute of Water Manage-ment and Technology of the Governmentof Arequipa, regional counsellors of theAyacucho Regional Government, theGeological Mining Metallurgical Institute,San Agustin de Arequipa NationalUniversity, the Research Center ofApplied Geography, the Institute for theDevelopment and Management of Water,and Bartolomée de las Casas StudyCenter.
Sustaining the momentum in cooper-ation between the two regions on basinmanagement entails aligning local,regional and national action. The newbasin council, and the IWRM plan for theOcoña River Basin soon to be put intoaction, are clear examples of howcooperation between water users,academics, NGOs and authorities canproduce sustainable change.
2 9
Resources
IWRM Principles: Basis for the Development of NationalPlans. (2008) GWP. [Spanish].
Program: Building the Institutional and Operative Basisfor the Integrated Water Management of Zaña River Basin.(2008) GWP. [Spanish].
ToolBox case studies listed below can be found atwww.gwptoolbox.org
Peru: Treated waters: communal participatorymanagement and its impact on human development andecosystems. Case Study #436.
Venezuela: Participatory management of water resourcesin Tovar municipality. Case Study #410.
Transboundary: Groundwater management issues forGuarani aquifer. Case Study # 368.
GWP South America | http://www.gwp.org/en/gwp-in-action/South-America/Cooperation between water
users, academics, NGOs andauthorities can find ways tocope with threats to waterresources.
In Guatemala each local governmentmust manage water for itself becausethere is no national water law. MostGuatemalan municipalities though justdo not have the administrative, technicaland human resources to tackle this task.This explains in part why only 60 percentof the rural population has access tosafe drinking water and 58 percent tobasic sanitation.
In the volcanic mountains of westernGuatemala, deforestation, soil erosionand the proliferation of mini-irrigationpollute springs, wells and rivers, partic-ularly affecting the health of women andchildren under five. Competition forwater is escalating. Communities andmunicipalities in the upper Naranjo RiverBasin are realising that they can andmust work together to deal with theseissues.
G W P C E N T R A L A M E R I C A
3 0
Getting round the table on water:communitiescooperate in Central America
Panos
Building alliancesEight municipal governments in theupper Naranjo River Basin started theball rolling in 2003 by setting up theAssociation of Municipalities of theNaranjo River Basin, known by itsSpanish acronym MANCUERNA. Thisassociation brought together basingroups set up by non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs) – ComunidadesAsociadas por el Agua, Medio Ambiente,Desarrollo Integral e Infraestructura –and municipalities. The alliance ofpolitical and grassroots organisationsencouraged communication and forgedconsensus on water issues. Citizens andauthorities actively cooperated to designpolicies and plans, and find resources tocarry out the plans.
Talking round the tableAt roundtables, representatives of publicauthorities and citizen groups discussedways forward in water resourcesmanagement. Guided by GWP CentralAmerica they drew up integrated waterresources management (IWRM) strateg-ies and plans for the basin. Practicalaction was underpinned by cooperatingwith journalists to raise awareness ofenvironmental issues affecting watermore widely.
Coordinating actionThrough MANCUERNA, authorities andcitizen groups cooperated to set upinformation systems to collect data, mapsocial and environmental indicators, andconnect new municipal water manage-ment units. Aligning municipal waterpolicies with national land and waterpolicies, and training in finance wereinstrumental in leveraging funds forwater projects. Four wastewater treat-ment plants were built, a service tocollect solid waste was set up, agri-cultural extension workers were trainedto address water use issues anddegraded water catchments were re-forested. Coordinating activities andinvolving water users throughout hasimproved water management. Alreadythis cooperative effort has made avisible impact on living conditions in theeight municipalities.
3 1
Resources
The ToolBox case studies listed below can be found atwww.gwptoolbox.org
Transboundary: Tacana watersheds Guatemala andMexico. Case Study #424.
Transboundary: Opportunities and challenges for theshared management of watersheds; the Trifinio Plan forthe Upper Lempa. Case Study #394.
El Salvador: Development of community participation inthe microbasin La Poza. Case Study #343.
Guatemala: Partnership for IWRM in the Naranjo RiverBasin. Case Study #327.
Guatemala: IWRM successful experiences, San JeronimoBasin, Baja Verapaz. Case Study #321.
MANCUERNA digital librarywww.mancuerna.org | [email protected]
GWP Central America | www.gwpcentroamerica.orgModels for cooperating tomanage water resourcescan be adapted, andadopted in a variety ofcircumstances.
When ministers in the Caribbean cametogether to cooperate on water theyshowed they were serious about tacklingwater issues. Alone, the small statesstruggled to grapple with water issues.By getting together they tapped into awider pool of experiences, expertise andsupport.
Several Caribbean states are ‘waterscarce’, depending on often limitedsurface water, rainwater harvesting,groundwater and, in some cases,desalination for freshwater. Uplandwatersheds are degraded, and waste andagricultural chemicals pollute watersources. Tourism, a major industry in theCaribbean, puts increasing demands onwater resources on most islands. Manyof the problems stem from inadequatemanagement and insufficient resources,both human and financial.
Encouraging high-level interactionIn 2005, GWP Caribbean and the
G W P C A R I B B E A N
3 2
Generating politicalwill: a pathway tocooperation in theCaribbean
change in regional and nationaldevelopment.
Sharing knowledgeMinisters are keen to craft solutions thatsupport social and economic develop-ment but protect the health of citizens,water resources and water supplyservices. They see sharing knowledgewith peers, adopting integratedapproaches, combining resources,undertaking joint studies and examiningcommon challenges as the way forward.Such cooperation avoids duplication,pools national, regional and internationalexpertise, and encourages equitablesharing of benefits across borders.
Lip service to integrated water resourcesmanagement is common. Political buy-inis rare but, as the Caribbean shows, isachievable. Respectful and reliableconveners such as GWP Caribbean can,over the years, foster cooperation amongthose influential in water issues.
When ministers in theCaribbean came together tocooperate on water theyshowed they were seriousabout tackling water issues.
3 3
Resources
High Level Session Ministerial Forum on Waterwww.gwp.org/en/GWP-Caribbean/GWP-C-IN-ACTION/High-Level-Session-Ministerial-Forum-on-Water-/
The IWRM Planning Process: The Bahamas Experience.(2011) Briefing Paper. GWP Caribbean.
The ToolBox case study below can be found atwww.gwptoolbox.org.
The Bahamas: The experience of IWRM planning processin Bahamas. Case Study #414.
GWP Caribbean | www.gwp-caribbean.org
Caribbean Water and WastewaterAssociation set up the first high-levelmeeting on water to encouragecooperation at the highest levels ofgovernment. Every year since then themeeting has brought together heavy-weight regional and internationalstakeholders – the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank, the United NationsEnvironment Programme, the EuropeanUnion Water Facility, the GlobalEnvironment Facility, the CaribbeanCommunity Secretariat, the CaribbeanDevelopment Bank, the EconomicCommission for Latin America and theCaribbean, the Alliance of Small IslandStates and the Organisation of EasternCaribbean States – and Caribbeanministers responsible for water. Theseannual meetings give ministers theopportunity to engage directly with watertechnocrats, water service providers, anddevelopment and donor agencies.Ministers are able to share theirperspectives as decision-makers,explore policy options and seek adviceon tech-nical issues.
Moving forwardIn 2012, the forum approved thedevelop-ment of a major newprogramme on water, climate anddevelopment. This will address issues ofwater security and resilience to climate
One of the cornerstones of the existenceof GWP is to be a knowledge sharingnetwork. This was pioneered by the GWPTechnical Committee, a group of inter-nationally recognised professionals andscientists who are at the forefront ofproposing actions that will promotesustainable water resources manage-ment. Partners in the GWP network have,collectively, a vast array of informationand knowledge on water management.They put this information and knowledgeto work by sharing it, with each otherand with policy-makers, private sectorinvestors, financial institutions, regionalbodies and international organisations.This cooperative effort to share, applyand generate knowledge by a broadrange of stakeholders across the globeboth draws on and strengthensindividual efforts and, at the same time,fortifies the collective effort to changethe way we manage water for the better.
Cooperating to share knowledgeGWP shares knowledge widely, throughpublications, websites, workshops,training courses, meetings and informalexchanges. Publications discuss up-to-
date information for a global audience.The GWP IWRM ToolBox – a free, onlinedatabase of local, national, regional andglobal case studies and references – isparticularly important in capturing,organising and sharing knowledge frompartners big and small around the world.All visitors to the website can learn howwater issues have been tackled in theircommunities, countries and regions,read about lessons learned. Someprogrammes, such as the joint GWP-World Meteorological OrganizationAssociated Programme on Flood Man-agement and soon to be launchedIntegrated Drought ManagementProgramme, take GWP technical know-ledge and use it to provide practicalsolutions. Cooperating to share know-ledge advances a common cause –integrated water resources management.
Cooperating to apply knowledgeKnowledge is only useful if it is ex-ploited. Through GWP, partnerscooperate to transfer knowledge so thatit can be applied. This cooperationavoids duplication, allows others tolearn from experiences elsewhere and
G W P
3 4
Linking science with policy and practice:cooperation across the globe
paves the way for cross-fertilisationbetween groups that address similarissues or complement each other.
Workshops are just one way oftransferring information and knowledge.Workshops organised by GWP at manylevels cover topics ranging from particip-atory approaches and gender awarenessto financing and flood management.Between 2007 and 2011, for example,the European Union Water InitiativeFinance Working Group and GWPorganised workshops across the worldon ways to finance water and sanitationservices. A practical guide Financing forWater and Sanitation – a Primer forPractitioners and Students in DevelopingCountries captures what was covered inthe workshops so that the informationcan be used by anyone, anywhere. Inaddition, GWP has developed a StrategicFramework on Water Security andClimate Resilient Development to helpgovernments develop ‘no/low’ regretsinvestments and financing strategies.
Co-generating new knowledgeWater experts from organisations aroundthe world brought together through GWP,analyse complex water problems andexplore solutions. Cross-sectoralanalyses and solutions, in watergovernance or water efficiency for
example, draw on current thinking inscience, technology, policy and practice.By bringing experts together to workcooperatively, GWP generates a range ofknowledge products for differentaudiences.
Managing, leveraging and usingknowledgeProgress stems from managing andleveraging experience, know-how andknowledge. This is why cooperating toacquire, share and use knowledge is soimportant. Cooperating adds value topartners’ collective intellectual andknowledge investment. Collecting,organising and transmitting knowledgecooperatively benefit everyone. Inform-ation, knowledge and communicationare at the core of human progress.Cooperating to generate new knowledgeand make it useful, accessible andmeaningful is essential for changing theway water is managed.
3 5
Resources
IWRM in Practice: Better Water Management forDevelopment. (2009) R. Lenton and M. Müller (editors).GWP and Earthscan.
The Handbook for Integrated Water ResourcesManagement in Transboundary Basins of Rivers, Lakes and Aquifers. (2012) GWP-INBO. [English, French, Spanish]
GWP Technical Committee Background Paper No 17:International Law – Facilitating Transboundary WaterCooperation (2013) P. Wouters. GWP.
Integrated Water Resources Management resourceswww.gwp.org/en/The-Challenge/IWRM-Resources/
Website of the GWP IWRM ToolBoxwww.gwptoolbox.org
Global Water Partnership | www.gwp.org
Advancing integrated waterresources managementmeans cooperating to share knowledge.
Becoming a GWP Partner is an oppor-tunity to find guidance and support onintegrated water resources management(IWRM) from expert sources, and tointeract with local stakeholders as wellas with the international agenda.
Applications are open to all institutionsand organisations that have an interestin improving the way water resources aremanaged, and support the Dublin-RioPrinciples. There is no fee. Just bringyour vision, dedication, passion andcommitment.
To find out more about being a GWP Partner, go to:http://www.gwp.org/en/Get-involved/Become-a-Partner
3 6
Become a Partner
GWP Network
water_co_op_booklet.qxd 13/03/2013 16:30 Page 37
AED
ES
water_co_op_booklet.qxd 21/03/2013 09:29 Page 38
Writing, editing and design by Scriptoria Sustainable Development Communications. Printed by Åtta.45Cover photos: PanosPhotos: GWP photo library if not otherwise credited.
Global Water Partnership (GWP) SecretariatDrottninggatan 33SE-111 51 Stockholm, SWEDENE-mail: [email protected]
The United Nations International
Year of Water Cooperation highlights
successful cooperation on water.
The stories in this book are a few
examples showing that water is a
catalyst for cooperation.