Water is fundamental to all aspects of development, supporting every social and economic sector. Management of water is, therefore, vital to the growth and prosperity of communities and societies. Nevertheless the term ‘water management’ is often used and misunderstood with many meanings attributed to it, even among experts within the water community. Viewed in a broad spectrum, the term ‘water management’ entails protecting and managing the natural resource, providing water-related services, meeting allocation and entitlement agreements and distributing supplies across a broad range of complex, interlinked uses with increasingly uncertain demands.
Water, as a fleeting resource, flows through space and time across landscapes and through economies. All benefit from it, but few understand how it is actually managed. The management of water is not simply a technical issue; it calls for a mix of measures including changes in policies, prices and other incentives, as well as infrastructure and physical installations. Water resources management focuses on the essential integration of water management across sectors, policies and institutions.
Water management is marked by many levels of ‘uncertainty’, which are undergoing transformation as an upshot of global trends in demography, consumption patterns and migration, and climate change, resulting in increased levels of risk. Adapting to these uncertainties and developing strategies that militate against emerging risks makes water management policies, institutions and regulations more resilient, thereby increasing their chances of generating benefits to society.
The term ‘water management’ encompasses a variety of activities and disciplines because water moves in time and space consistent with the hydrological cycle. Broadly speaking, these can be divided into three categories: managing the resource, managing water services, and managing the trade-offs needed to balance supply and demand. Water resource management is about managing water found in rivers, lakes and groundwater. This includes water allocation, assessment and pollution control; the protection of water-related ecosystems and water quality; natural and man-made infrastructure for the redistribution and storage of these resources; and groundwater recharge.
The twentieth century was characterized by the dam-building era, as engineering design improved and better steel-reinforced concrete became available. This gave rise to what is termed by Allan (2000) the ‘infrastructure approach’, as an element of the ‘Hard Path Approach’ or the ‘Hydraulic Mission’, in which it was believed that the mere provision of hard infrastructure would suffice to meet the varied needs of humanity.
However, in recent years the limitations of the hard infrastructure approach have become increasingly clear, as pointed by Snaddon et al. (1999). According to van Stokkom et al. (2005), this has led to a new approach that foregrounds respect for natural hydrological conditions and acknowledges the limitations to the benefit of hard infrastructure.
Findings of some recent studies are now showing that substantial alterations in hydrological conditions, most notably changes in the natural flood pulse (Junk et al., 1989; Puckridge et al., 1993) caused by interventions such as inter-basin transfers (Snaddon et al., 1999), have led to unintended consequences, sometimes called by Tenner (1996) as ‘revenge effects’.
These alterations include the deterioration of ecosystems, especially wetlands, which if left unaltered offer a wide range of ‘benefits that are often essential to maintaining a basic standard of living in both urban and rural areas’ (Emerton and Bos, 2004, p. 20). Natural ecosystems such as forests and wetlands generate important economic services which maintain the quantity and quality of water supplies. Furthermore, as Emerton and Bos (2004) observes, they help to mitigate or avert water-related disasters such as flooding and drought.
Accordingly, water management is not merely a technical issue, but also one that requires a much more nuanced and holistic approach to achieve its goals. During the twentieth century the focus was traditionally on structural options for water management – developing physical infrastructure to ‘tame’ or ‘control’ water.
Presently, in the countries that have achieved essential water infrastructure development, there is a need for increased attention on non-structural management options to deal with the limitation of infrastructural interventions in hydrological systems, underpinned by growing uncertainty. Emerging twenty-first century water management can be thought of as increasingly focused on soft infrastructure, most notably associated with the management of trade-offs, and increasingly dependent on institutions, policy, legislation and dialogue between competing users.
Some authors like Brooks et al. (2009) and Wolff and Gleick (2002) have referred to this as the ‘Soft Path Approach’. The challenge for most developed countries, which have benefited from decades of infrastructure development, is to integrate soft measures into existing water management frameworks. Nonetheless, most developing countries are still in the process of meeting the most basic levels of water infrastructure development. The challenge for these countries will be to adopt and balance elements of both the hard and soft paths, in order to maximize the benefits (and minimize the costs and risks) of both approaches.
Sustainable water management continues to be and will be one of humankind’s most important challenges. Rapid changes in the hydrological cycle, and increased incidence of hazards such as extreme weather events, are further complicating the processes of decision-making for stakeholders and water managers by increasing risk and uncertainty.
The knowledge to address many of these challenges does exist. However, there are still considerable gaps in what we know. There are gaps in our understanding of how water services should be delivered, and of how to manage the resource of water more effectively and sustainably. This represents the first key challenge. But what is equally important is that even when the appropriate knowledge is available, it does not always get readily disseminated and shared – and translated into proper planning or effective action.
Viewed in broad perspective, institutions are weak in certain developing nations, especially at local-government level and in many communities. While this constraining effect is especially noticeable in countries that are developing into modern economies, it is a challenge for all societies as they continuously adjust their water sectors to new external changes and evolving internal demands. Therefore, it is the weak capacity in the water sector institutions that is the key obstacle to enhanced performance.
International investment institutions like World Bank, Asian Development and the European Comission have been experiencing constraints over the past decade in their attempts to increase investment in the water sector, and these constraints are caused inter alia by factors related to weak capacities in the sector’s agencies – capacities in terms of the number of civil servants and specialists; of the skills and experience available; and of the prevailing managerial and policy environment in the public sector. This necessitates the urgency for capacity building of the individuals, institutions and other stakeholders in water sector.
CAPACITY BUILDING
Capacity is a characteristic of individuals, organizations and other forms of institutions. It is not something external to these individuals and bodies. In 2005, the OECD defined capacity as the ‘ability of people, organizations, and society as whole to manage their affairs successfully’. Capacity building (CB) provides the frameworks, approaches and tools required to carry out institutional development. By its very nature, CB is relevant only in the context of change, and it is part and parcel of change management (Alaerts, 1999; EuropeAid, 2005).
Broadly speaking, capacity building and knowledge management are two sides of the same coin. This definition allows a measurable, operational interpretation to be given to capacity. It also emphasizes the link between capacity and a verifiable, on-the-ground impact after CB interventions have taken place. Seeing CB and knowledge management in this way also makes the case for developing critical ‘extra’ capacity to generate fresh knowledge to prepare for the future. Knowledge management has become a mainstream strategy used by private businesses to remain competitive, and therefore profitable, but most governments and sector agencies, and non-governmental organizations for that matter, still lack the structural provisions that would allow this learning to take place.
The application domain of CB is broad. However, there are a number of common situations where CB initiatives are having an effect. These inter alia include – improving technical competence, improving overall performance and results and improving decision-making.
Capacity Building Strategies and Approaches
Education and training
Capacity building, and in a more general sense, the generation and dissemination of knowledge, can take place through formal, non-formal and informal education and training. The objectives of a CB initiative and the choice of processes and instruments used depend on the context because the institutions they focus on are the exponents of a particular set of economic, social and cultural factors.
As the global demand for managing water under conditions of risk and uncertainty increases, the lag between the demand for and the supply of qualified staff is becoming significant, especially in developing countries. The needs of the water sector in terms of the development of individual capacities can only be adequately addressed through the close collaboration of water and education professionals.
Ownership as a key to effectiveness
It is essential for effective integrated water management to give a voice to relatively powerless groups, such as women and indigenous people and dalits. Efforts to ensure the ownership of local stakeholders are often absent in India and many other countries.
In a rapidly changing world, our economies and well-being increasingly depend on accurate forecasting of future events and trends. There is a growing need to shape policies that best reflect the courses of action that are most appropriate technologically as well as representing the preferences of society. Challenges of broad social significance such as responses to climate change and public health threats require that society is informed and ‘educated’. Consultation with an informed society can lead to policies that are owned by society – and diligently implemented by everybody in that society.
Harnessing Information and Communications Technology (ICT)
The generation, manipulation and communication of information are essential parts of the decision-making process for organizations involved in water management. ICT is recognized as a strategic enabler in the process of developing innovative solutions to address problems such as water scarcity. ICT also facilitates the analysis of environmental data so that researchers and climatologists can build more accurate models for weather forecasting (ITU, 2010).
The Way Forward
- There is a lack of best practice at all levels in analysing and assessing adaptive capacity for risk. Hence, there is a dire need of conducting regular capacity assessments including assessing the capacities of the workforce, the institutions, the key agencies, the policy and regulatory frameworks, and the main stakeholders. There is a need to identify realistic capacity development priorities that can be implemented within a practical time frame and which focus on ownership.
- There is also a need to appraise the capability of education systems and prepare adequate numbers of sector professionals who have the appropriate skills mix. This is especially important for managerial and governance skills so that there is the ability to prepare and carry out investments. In this process, it is essential to promote collaboration and cooperation between organizations and water and education experts.
- The water sector needs to engage in dialogue with society about investment initiatives and major policies. This ensures that decisions reflect actual expectations and foster ownership. The media needs to be taught about water issues so that their capacity to report on such issues is improved.
- Social learning should be promoted to build the adaptability of all stakeholders involved in making decisions about water management. This helps to increase flexibility and responsiveness when dealing with risk and uncertainty.
- ICT should be harnessed more to reduce costs and offer more flexible learning opportunities. Investments made in high quality learning materials for adaptive water management can be used by water professionals and students across a wide area.
By Dr. Arvind Kumar President India Water Foundation
