Practicality of integrated water resources management (IWRM) in different contexts

ABSTRACT

The significance of integrated water resources management (IWRM) is broadly recognized, but practical implementation methods are little known. This paper proposes a Practical IWRM approach that has the potential to accelerate consensus-building and problem-solving relating to water resources based on the formation of an aligned perception of natural and human-made water resource systems among stakeholders, and the establishment of a properly functioning multi-stakeholder partnership (MSP). This approach was applied in four countries – Sudan, Bolivia, Indonesia and Iran – where it has worked well in different contexts, and can be an effective methodology usable elsewhere in the field.

KEYWORDS:

• Integrated water resources management (IWRM)
• multi-stakeholder partnership (MSP)
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• social consensus-building
• community
• conflict

Introduction

Historically, humanity has employed various methods of local water governance through mediation and arbitration in conflicts over water shortages and disasters. In the modern era, via advancements in civil engineering technology, large reservoirs and water supply facilities are constructed to meet demands without consideration of the natural or social environment; consequently, sustainability of water resources management is gradually receiving less attention among users who are able to access such resources with relative ease (Koichiro, 2008). In the latter part of the 20th century, water resource issues have become increasingly complex and exacerbated by the increasing demands and conflicts through population growth, urbanization, industrialization and agricultural development. The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development (1992) recognized water resource management as a global issue upon acknowledging the importance of sustainability and the natural environment, implementing a participatory approach among users, planners and policy-makers at all levels. Subsequently in 2015, integrated water resources management (IWRM) was adopted as Target 6.5 under the Sustainable Development Goal 6, and was implemented in numerous countries.

The Global Water Partnership (2000) defined the IWRM as ‘a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems’. Experts, however, have raised doubts about the implementation of this concept. The International Water Management Institute (2007) discussed that the IWRM initiatives in developing-countries’ water economies have proven to be ineffective and potentially even counterproductive. McDonnell (2008) suggested that the possibilities of realizing IWRM are limited, not by the conceptual framework, but by the ability to capture the full scale of variables, interactions and complexity that exist in all water management projects or policies, further suggesting that the framework requires revised methods. Moreover, Biswas (2008) argued that the lofty phrasing of the definition has little practical resonance on water management practices, calling into question the entire practical value of IWRM. He posed the question: ‘Is IWRM working?’ and raised 41 sets of issues that should be integrated.

Although ideologically accepted by all pertinent parties, the standard IWRM definition by the Global Water Partnership (GWP) may propagate a misconception that IWRM can resolve all water resource-based issues. In practice, water resources managers have met obstacles when applying the IWRM approach, largely because the precise methods and goals of IWRM remain unspecified. Realization requires balancing numerous natural and societal issues, integrating all relevant sectors and stakeholders, all of which are potentially impossible from an intellectual and logistic standpoint.

Nevertheless, in small areas or basins where related sectors and stakeholders are relatively less complex, water resource solutions are feasible using the IWRM approach. For example, there are many functional local governance institutions for traditional water allocation and management, such as the Subak of Bali, and the Mirab system of Iran and Afghanistan, where local water resources management solutions have supported the capability of an integrated approach over small areas or basins. Water resources managers are extrapolating these results to larger areas with an innovative methodology that is so far untested. This suggests that IWRM could be leveraged as a practical and effective tool. Thus, analyses of problems and stakeholders are critical to identifying and integrating the key players, and building a consensus among them.

Practical definition of IWRM

A more practical, concrete definition is essential for the realization of IWRM. Grigg (1996) defines water resources management as the application of structural and non-structural measures to control natural and human-made water resources systems for beneficial human and environmental purposes. Water resources management includes the following services:

• To supply enough water for human societies, and natural environment for domestic and agricultural use, hydropower generation, water transportation, recreation and sewerage treatment to improve water quality, aquatic and wildlife, etc.

• To deal with excessive water and protect human societies and natural environment against flooding, inundation and sediment disasters.

• To plan balanced policies and projects based on social consensus-building that coordinates a trade-off among various water purposes under the social constraints and conflicts.

Figure 1 shows the three service circles, of which service 3, consensus-building, is a core component of IWRM. The integration component of IWRM requires balanced coordination; thus, the essence of IWRM must be to manage conflict, build a consensus among various stakeholders and find solutions across multiple sectors. Problems that can be solved within a single sector, without conflict, should be resolved internally among the sector, although such cases are rare. IWRM should, therefore, provide a tool for the resolution of water resources-related and all other interrelated concerns. The aim of IWRM, according to the GWP, is to maximize the economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems. That is the reason why service 3, consensus-building, is inevitable within IWRM implementation.

Figure 1. Practical definition of integrated water resources management (IWRM); the shaded area represents the crossover of actions which may collectively be considered as IWRM.

Practical IWRM approach

Methodology of Practical IWRM

A practical methodology is necessary for IWRM to achieve clear outcomes; therefore, Practical IWRM is herein proposed, with the following defined objectives: (1) to focus on problem-solving-oriented activities; (2) to adequately consider the local context; (3) to leverage both natural science and social science sectors; (4) to formulate a functional, multi-stakeholder partnership (MSP); and (5) to draw lessons from Practical IWRM activities. The aims of this approach (Figure 2), in part employing the ideas of Yoshimi and Maiko (2006), are as follows:

• To identify water resources issues concretely in the local context, and structure them by recognizing conflicts and risks.

• To understand all water-related circumstances, focusing on the local context of the target area. That is, to understand the water resources of the natural environment and ecosystem, in addition to the social conditions, including laws and regulations, constraints, local water governance, social composition, culture, tradition, and history. Furthermore, the influence of climate change on water resources and society must be evaluated.

• To determine natural and human-made water resource systems, leveraging technologies of both natural and social sciences, and to recognize how these systems and functions are interrelated so as to establish boundary conditions and locate solutions.

• To establish an MSP that consists of all stakeholders related to the problems – central and local governments, related sectors and subsectors, water users, those who stand to benefit and lose, etc. – and have the MSP function sustainably towards step-by-step consensus-building among the stakeholders.

• To share common perceptions on structured problems, the investigative results and the analysed results on natural and social conditions.

• To construct a principle/policy on how to best operate the MSP towards consensus-building, solution planning, and implementation.

• To plan alternative solutions to solve water resources issues under the constraints of both natural and human-made systems, build an MSP consensus, and adopt the optimal set of solutions.

• To prioritize the proposed solutions, and build a consensus within the MSP.

• To make decisions and allocate funding for the implementation of solutions adopted by the MSP.

• Responsible agencies must carry out each step of the projects and programmes of solutions as selected by the MSP unconditionally.

• To assess and absorb the lessons gained from problem-solving activities in the Practical IWRM implementation.

Figure 2. Practical IWRM approach.

Process/cycle of Practical IWRM

The process of Practical IWRM starts by identifying and structuring problems according to motivation, such as concern, dissatisfaction and risks to water. In the investigation stage, analyses are conducted to gather all related stakeholders. The MSP is then formed, the results of the investigation stage are shared, and perceptions surrounding the present situation of the natural and human-made water resource systems are discussed. In the planning stage, the MSP prepares the principle/policy of their operation, prioritizes solutions and builds a consensus among stakeholders. Subsequently, the proposed projects and programmes are authorized by the decision-makers, and implemented. The resulting changes to the natural and human-made water resources systems, and the associated lessons imparted, must be identified and absorbed to improve the Practical IWRM process. These changes will alter the situation of the stakeholders and societies, and gather momentum and inspire further improvement when the next cycle of the Practical IWRM process commences. Even if a consensus cannot be built by the MSP, and specified changes cannot be identified, lessons may still be gleaned from the experience. The subsequent cycle of the Practical IWRM process should not be started until the motivation to change is present, and once begun, it has to be enhanced using the lessons learned.

The MSP can promote proper water resource management through repetitive implementation of the IWRM process. Accomplishing all proposed activities at once is unrealistic, and give off the impression of failure. Thus, it is important that water resources managers focus on what is possible to best advance Practical IWRM. Specifically, they should first address the relatively simple water resource problem(s) identified, and work out solutions using consensus-building in the MSP. Water resources managers can then implement the project solutions, gain an additional insight from the lessons learned and accumulate successful experiences. Care and time must be taken to repeat the process of Practical IWRM until proper water resources management is achieved, thereby serving the welfare of the people.

The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and its counterparts have been applying the Practical IWRM approach in four countries: Sudan, Bolivia, Indonesia and Iran (Figure 3). Their implementation and functionality within different contexts are described in the subsequent sections.

Figure 3. Themes of Practical IWRM implementation in Sudan, Bolivia, Indonesia and Iran.

Sudan: ensuring groundwater sustainability from the ground up

Decreasing groundwater resources in North Kordofan

The Nile River runs through Sudan and directly supplies water for one-third of its population. The remaining two-thirds, residing in the ‘non-Nile Area’, often suffers from a shortage of water resources. The Federal Government of Sudan is participating in the Nile Basin Initiative, an international coordination mechanism working to avoid conflicts over the Nile’s water resources. Although Sudan is applying the IWRM approach in the Nile Basin, the non-Nile Areas remain largely unmanaged.

The state of North Kordofan is located in central Sudan in the non-Nile Area. It contains the Bara Basin, where groundwater is widely used for municipal and irrigation water, and groundwater sustainability is at risk due to population growth and economic development. Recently, state engineers observed that well water levels appear to be declining, although there are no continuous monitoring data to support this observation. The state supplies potable water to the capital El Obeid by pumping deep-well groundwater from the Bara Basin. Demand grew with population rise, and groundwater withdrawal doubled during 15 years between 2000 and 2015 (Dam Implementation Unit et al., 2015). The Water Resources Technical Organ (2019) reported that more than 40% of irrigation farmers using shallow wells felt that groundwater levels were declining, and have had to extend pipes deeper, requiring additional generator fuel to pump water out. The drawdown of irrigation wells is likely to happen because irrigation wells use a relatively large amount of water, while associated farms are concentrated in relatively small areas. In addition, a direct road from Khartoum to El Obeid opened in 2018, and with it came opportunities for new investments, further accelerating groundwater use.

The Mizu-Shushi-Kenkyu Group (1993) reported that excessive groundwater extraction affects not only the direct aquifer that is being pumped, but also the aquifers above and below it. Even though the apparent decline of shallow and deep-well levels in the Bara Basin appears related to each other, pumping volumes are increasing to meet demand. The state government lacks sufficient data, and is largely unable to explain the risk of groundwater sustainability to stakeholders. Thus, water users, such as irrigation farmers and El Obeid residents, remain unaware of any groundwater risk, and collaboration is needed to stop this critical trend, as presently there is no permanent coordination mechanism among the stakeholders.

Practical IWRM activities and what has changed in North Kordofan

A Practical IWRM project began to address the above water resources issues, identifying the following main activities and changes.

Capacity development of Practical IWRM promoters

Federal government staff members have undergone expert training on IWRM on both the natural and sociological aspects, with subjects such as natural and social data collection, water-balance evaluations, problem analyses and stakeholder analyses. Federal and state staff members went to the fields in North Kordofan together with the experts and analysed data, problems and stakeholders. The federal staff members familiarized themselves with the local situation, whereas state staff members learned about the IWRM approach by working with the federal staff. Both sets of these water resources managers are responsible for proper water management, and had now acquired the basic skills to monitor and analyse water resources, as well as stakeholders’ issues. Subsequently, the state government started monitoring and accumulating water resources data with its own budget, an essential step for consensus-building among stakeholders.

Raising awareness of groundwater resources limitation among stakeholders

Based on the data collected thus far, the state government started to spread awareness of the groundwater drawdown and the risk of depletion with farmers and officials in localities (administrative units within a state). State staff members asked the irrigation farmers for their cooperation in monitoring groundwater levels in their irrigation wells not only for data acquisition but also to increase understanding of how groundwater levels change by pumping frequency and season. This cooperation with water users is essential, and the state staff have been seeking to further solidify this relationship, such as by awarding knowledge-based certificates to farmers.

IWRM unit establishment for SWRC

North Kordofan plans to establish the State Water Resources Council (SWRC) as the MSP, with federal support. The council is to consist of stakeholder representatives for farmers, the private sector, community groups and related state government ministries in charge of water supply, agriculture, investment and environmental protection. The Ministry of Infrastructure and Urban Development of the state government formally set up the IWRM unit to accelerate the council establishment, and once created, the unit shall serve as its Secretariat.

Sustainability and lessons learned in North Kordofan

The state began monitoring groundwater, establishing an MSP and proposing changes. The Practical IWRM for the Bara Groundwater Basin in North Kordofan has thus commenced, although the above activities and changes represent a fraction of what is necessary. The following outcomes are expected through the above activities and changes:

• Federal and state government staff have acquired the IWRM mindset and basic necessary skill sets. Establishing the water users committee (WUC) in November 2020 as a part of the SWRC, staff have started communicating with farmers, who are cooperating in groundwater observation and gaining a better understanding of the situation. As this is but the first cycle of Practical IWRM, there will likely be a next cycle.

• The SWRC will soon be established as the State Ministry of Infrastructure and Urban Development has already submitted an official proposal and necessary budget to the governor in December 2020. Federal and state staff members will accumulate and analyse additional data and develop communication with groundwater users in the Bara Basin through the WUC. People’s awareness of the necessity of cooperation for sustainable groundwater use will be enhanced. Moreover, the WUC will explain their needs and how they can cooperate in the SWRC. All stakeholder cooperation will be coordinated by the council. This will collectively help ensure the sustainability of groundwater for agricultural production, livestock and urban use.

• The support mechanism from the federal government to the SWRC is shown in Figure 4, and the federal government could apply this approach to other states facing water resource issues.

Figure 4. Support mechanism from the federal government to the state water resources council in Sudan.

The following lessons have been learned from the project implementation thus far:

• Proper groundwater management can be initiated by sharing concerns and communication between officials and water users, even if current data on groundwater level decline are insufficient. Nevertheless, the significance of monitoring and data utilization for consensus-building among stakeholders cannot be overlooked.

• The development of the capacity to support the Practical IWRM approach is effective, initially from federal staff members and then the state. Federal staff members can assist the state with understanding IWRM concepts, and state staff members can provide local context.

Bolivia: rebuilding trust beyond the water war in Cochabamba

People’s distrust on governments and the deterioration of water resources

Cochabamba, the third largest city in Bolivia, is located in a semi-arid climate, has an annual precipitation of approximately 400 mm/year and presently suffers from water resources issues. Demands for drinking and irrigation water have continuously increased, driving severe water scarcity. River environments in Cochabamba have been seriously degraded. For example, the Rocha River, whose basin occupies 24 municipalities, including the Cochabamba Metropolitan Area, is heavily contaminated. Moreover, water allocation conflicts often arise among residents and farmers in the upper and lower reaches of the basin. Cochabamba is known for the Cochabamba Water War, a protest movement by residents peaking in 1999–2000 against the privatization of the water supply and increase in water prices. Consequently, people’s trust in the departmental government (Autonomous Departmental Government of Cochabamba) and municipal governments in Cochabamba has been significantly undermined.

This lack of trust has made it more difficult to resolve water problems and conflicts, and caused a negative feedback cycle driving the decline in water resources management (Figure 5). Undermined trust has complicated consensus-building, and many water projects are unable to be materialized. For example, a municipal government proposed a new wastewater treatment plant, but it was rejected because residents know of an existing treatment plant in Cochabamba that emits a foul odour and they did not believe the government’s explanation that the proposed plant would emit less odour. The Cochabamba departmental government had tried formulating an MSP for the management of the Rocha River Basin, but the trial failed from a lack of political support, legitimacy and stakeholder recognition of its significance. The departmental government thus abandoned the idea of a basin-wide MSP due to too many stakeholders with differing interests, and instead aimed to solve problems through smaller MSPs, focusing on individual issues with targeted stakeholders.

Figure 5. Negative feedback cycle of water resources management in Cochabamba.

Practical IWRM activities and subsequent changes in Cochabamba

The departmental government, together with the JICA, adopted a Practical IWRM approach in order to address the water resources management issues and break out of the present harmful cycle. The main activities and changes are as follows.

Analysis of water resources management in the Rocha River Basin

Analyses have been conducted on existing water resources projects in planning or semi-functional, and on dysfunctional and small MSPs addressing individual water resources issues. The results indicated that the most significant failure was due to the insufficient consensus-building among stakeholders. When a municipality government faced citizen opposition to a project, the departmental government had tried unsuccessfully to intervene after the conflict. One driver derived from the results of analyses on the legal framework of water resources management in Bolivia and Cochabamba is the unclear legal obligation of the departmental and municipal officials, making them hesitant to intervene proactively in order to avoid legal infractions. Moreover, the process of collecting citizen opinions is sometimes overlooked. Results showed the necessity of preventative action by the departmental government, which holds the responsibility for supporting municipalities in terms of planning, budgeting and project coordination. Additionally, the problem analyses also provided an educational opportunity for both departmental and municipal officials to align their perceptions on the situation.

Pilot projects to facilitate problem-solving and IWRM

The pilot projects for consensus-building among the residents, departmental and municipal officials were implemented by promoting the function of small MSPs. Initially, the departmental government collected, analysed, and disclosed current natural and social conditions such as water level and quality, discrepancies of legal frameworks, and stakeholder mapping. This contributed to the formation of a common understanding and relationship among residents and officials. Additionally, through collaboration, departmental officials have recognized the inability of the municipalities, and the necessity to support them. Municipal officials have recognized the importance of visiting project sites to understand residents’ concerns and interests, and subsequently, mutual trust among departmental and municipal officials has grown gradually. The main activities and changes of each pilot project are as follows:

• Project for groundwater interference in an urban area: Digging new wells and pumping creates conflict between neighbours as it decreases surrounding ground water levels. The municipality should be aware of the current groundwater levels, but are unable to monitor because of residential opposition. The pilot project team, consisting of departmental and municipal government officials, explained to the residents the scientific processes of groundwater decline and the importance of public engagement on this issue. As a result, the municipal government decided to establish a multifunctional team for evidence-based groundwater management and information disclosure. Moreover, the discussion of prohibiting well construction within a certain distance of pre-existing wells was initiated based on monitoring results and simple groundwater simulation results.

• Project for river water contamination improvement: Initially, by recognizing that no water flow and quality data have been monitored, the municipalities lacked the technical capacity for such hydrological monitoring, even if such a mandate existed. It was decided that departmental and municipal officials should cooperate to implement joint monitoring, requiring that the departmental government redefines its mandate of ‘coordination’ as ‘collaboration’ to develop the appropriate hydrological monitoring capacity of municipalities. Accordingly, the municipality commenced hydrological monitoring.

Inter-institutional platform of the Rocha River

In 2018, the departmental government, with project support, launched the Inter-Institutional Platform of the Rocha River Basin (PICRR – Plataforma Inter-Institucional de la Cuenca del Río Rocha), and established procedural rules. Experiences from the above pilot activities showed that small MSPs are suitable to collect stakeholder opinion and align perception; thus, the departmental government-designed PICRR comprised a board, management unit, social council and technical council with 11 thematic committees (Figure 6). The three thematic committees of the Groundwater, Treatment Plant and Legal System were established ahead of others based on the said pilot project activities and the legal framework analyses.

Figure 6. Structure of the Inter-Institutional Platform of the Rocha River (PICRR).

Sustainability and lessons learned in Cochabamba

The PICRR is expected to function as a basin-wide MSP, incorporating experiences and lessons from problem analyses and pilot activities conducted thus far. In particular, the issues revealed through the project process assessment and legal framework analyses will help define the themes to be resolved in the PICRR. The Social Council formulated primarily for residential stakeholders, is also expected to commence discussions on social conflict issues, specifically referencing experiences of the pilot project activities. The Management Unit supports overall activities of the PICRR as its Secretariat, and by definition must remain neutral with respect to the interests of organizations and stakeholders. Thus far, the PICRR has assembled and discussed the approval of a master plan, and will soon begin consensus-building discussions on water resources issues and conflicts. The Thematic Committees discuss problems, whereas the Technical and Social Councils identify solutions, and the Board of the PICRR makes the decisions and orders to implement them on the ground. This upward-spiral cycle of IWRM will help break the negative feedback cycle in Cochabamba, and rebuild trust among government authorities and residents.

The following lessons have been learned from project implementation in Cochabamba, and are essential to MSP functionality:

• It is important to collect, analyse and transparently disclose objective data and information for the sake of establishing a firm, cooperative foundation among all stakeholders, allocating power to the departmental and municipal governments towards consensus-building with residents.

• Officials must empathetically communicate with residents, remaining respectful of their viewpoint. Close communication and common perceptions among stakeholders are key to altering behaviour.

• Discussing and working collaboratively with departmental and municipal officials in the field will foster a common understanding, improve communication and collectively, these experiences will rebuild trust.

Indonesia: consensus-building in the sinking megacity of Jakarta

Land subsidence in Jakarta

Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, is undergoing continuous economic development and experiences chronic water shortage. Industries are digging deep wells for factory use, and residents unconnected to water supply providers are forced to dig shallow wells for daily use. This excessive groundwater abstraction is causing land subsidence upwards of 2 m between 2000 and 2018, particularly in northern Jakarta. Land subsidence has increased the risks of flooding and inundation, and once subsided, uplifting is all but impossible. Saline water infiltration and sea flooding are also increasing in prominence. Thus, the National Capital Integrated Coastal Development (NCICD) Project was created by the Indonesian government, has been allocated a substantial budget and is being implemented to protect at-risk areas, including those at risk from land subsidence (KPPIP, 2020).

Tokyo also had been undergoing land subsidence since the 1960s, and the Tokyo Metropolitan government has allocated trillions of yen for adaptation measures. If a similar situation occurs in Jakarta, the Indonesian government will have to bear a tremendous cost for adopting preventative measures. Hence, immediate countermeasures against land subsidence in Jakarta based on consensus-building among stakeholders are necessary, although many stakeholders remain unaware of the current issues and risks. According to JICA et al. (2019), and based on the related experience in Tokyo, land subsidence in Jakarta is a result of the following causes:

• The precise areal extent and depth of land subsidence in Jakarta cannot be pinpointed, inhibiting the development of exact countermeasures.

• The scientific literature on halting land subsidence in Jakarta by regulating groundwater abstraction is limited, although cases in Tokyo and Bangkok have shown this to be true.

• Insufficient alternative water resources are available for regulating groundwater abstraction.

• Many stakeholders are involved, but lack a common understanding of collective issue, and clearly demarcated responsibilities for promoting countermeasures.

Practical IWRM activities and subsequent changes in Jakarta

In 2015, the International Round-Table Conference on Land-Subsidence and Analysis in Jakarta was held with 20 or more stakeholders, including related government agencies, universities and developmental partners. Subsequently, a high-level forum was held in 2016 with ministers and directors; the present conditions, causes and countermeasures were discussed, along with the significance of groundwater regulation in combating land subsidence. These two discussions helped align stakeholder views, and enhanced motivation for action. As a result, the Indonesian government, together with the JICA, initiated a project to address the land subsidence issue, and promote countermeasures by adopting the Practical IWRM approach. The primary activities and changes are discussed below.

Action based on the results of scientific land subsidence observations

The areas and amount of land subsidence in Jakarta from 2007 to 2018 have been measured by interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) analysis (Figure 7), which is used to analyse the displacement of land using the differences in the phases of waves returning to the satellite. The results revealed a non-uniform pattern across the scattered areas. The most severe land subsidence areas were classified as Critical Zone A (denoted by red flags in Figure 7), and included fishing port facilities, densely populated residential areas and commercial facilities, where surveys confirmed large amounts of groundwater extraction. Based on these findings, the responsible ministry established a Groundwater Bureau in charge of land subsidence countermeasures; moreover, the Jakarta government (the government of Special Capital Province) actively sought out illegal wells, and revised government regulations for proper groundwater extraction management in critical zones. Further, two monitoring wells were constructed in Cakung and Cengkareng (Figure 7) to monitor land subsidence across three geological layers that are likely to constrict, and to clarify, which layer is primarily responsible for controlling land subsidence; these monitoring findings will be used to improve and enforce the groundwater regulations imposed by the Jakarta government.

Figure 7. Land subsidence areas in Jakarta, 2007–18. Readers of the print article can view this figure in colour online at https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2021.1921709

Source: JICA et al. (2019).

MSP for mitigation and adaptation against land subsidence

A Joint Coordinating Committee (JCC), consisting of inter-organizations and five working groups (WGs), was established by ministerial decree (Figure 8). The JCC is composed of the Secretariat (WG5), and all related governmental directors, and decides on the direction of mitigation and adaptation measures against land subsidence in Jakarta. The other WGs work towards understanding the present situation of land subsidence (WG1), propose adaptation and mitigation measures (WG2 and WG3, respectively), and raise awareness of land subsidence (WG4). Within two years of formation, the member stakeholders of the JCC have scientifically confirmed that groundwater extraction is the main cause of land subsidence in Jakarta. The JCC further made a short-term action plan for consensus-building on mitigating land subsidence in Critical Zones A and B (Figure 7).

Figure 8. Project organization chart for land subsidence countermeasures in Jakarta.

Note: Simplified by the authors from the original structure.Source: JICA et al. (2019).

Sustainability and lessons learned in Jakarta

The enforcement of the revised regulations is expected to reduce groundwater extraction and mitigate land subsidence. Various countermeasures in the short-term action plan of the JCC consensus will be executed to achieve practical results; and project organization by the JCC is expected to play a central role in promoting consensus-building and decision-making even after project completion. The MSP must continue with the present changes to accelerate countermeasures against land subsidence in Jakarta. The identification of alternative water resources is also essential for reducing groundwater pumping, and large-scale development of water resources may take years. Thus, rapid development techniques are necessary, such as water saving, rainwater harvesting and the reallocation of water to severely impacted land subsidence areas, and are included in the short-term action plan adopted by the JCC.

The following lessons were learned from the project implementation thus far:

• Knowledge-sharing of past experiences under similar situations (e.g., Tokyo), and aligning perceptions between stakeholders and high-level decision-makers, were effective at enhancing motivation to initiate problem-solving countermeasures.

• Scientific identification of severe land subsidence areas in Jakarta through satellite analyses, clarified what countermeasures were necessary. It further prompted consensus-building among stakeholders, and accelerated countermeasures.

• Although solving small problems directly achieved small outcomes, it contributed to focusing stakeholders’ attention on land subsidence. Constant, accumulated small changes are a key to success in the Practical IWRM approach.

Iran: turning point of Urmia Lake for both conservation and livelihood

Shrinking of Urmia Lake and the associated countermeasures

Urmia Lake, located in north-western Iran, receives an average precipitation of 345 mm/year across the basin. It was once the sixth largest lake in the world; however, according to the Ministry of Energy (2020), the water area shrunk rapidly from 5700 km² in the 1990s to 1440 km² in 2014, and has been constant since then (Figure 9). Asghari-Kaljahi et al. (2018) reported that the lake water had become strongly saline, tourism and fishery industries had declined, and deleterious health effects resulted from related salt dust storms. The primary factor typically driving lake shrinkage tends to be deregulated water overuse, of which the main causes are related to the following:

• The expansion of irrigation agriculture increased water demand; subsequently, dams and reservoirs were constructed without ecological consideration to lake flow. Furthermore, unpermitted agricultural water use may also be driving lake shrinkage. Although the local government had previously recognized these issues, effective measures could not be taken due to a lack of clear data describing the reasons for lake area loss.

• A further cause is the lack of stakeholder and water-user awareness. These parties are largely unconcerned with increasing the demand on finite water resources, the resulting lake shrinkage and the related negative effects not only impacting the natural environment, but also people’s livelihood and health.

Figure 9. Transition of Urmia Lake, 1992–2016. Readers of the print article can view this figure in colour online at https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2021.1921709

Sources: FAO (2019) for 1992 and EORC-JAXA (2020) for 2009–16.

To address the above situations, the Iranian government established the Urmia Lake Restoration Program National Committee (ULRPNC) in 2013 (Figure 10). The ULRP and Sharif University of Technology (2015) described the mandates of the ULRPNC for better understanding the Urmia Lake crisis and developing a roadmap and action plan for restoring the lake water levels and ecosystem. Structured as an MSP, it emphasized participation and coordination of all relevant organizations, and aimed to relieve lake stress using the IWRM approach.

Figure 10. Organizational structure of the Urmia Lake Restoration Program National Committee (ULRPNC).

Note: Simplified by the authors from the original structure.Source: ULRP and Sharif University of Technology (2015).

The ULRPNC has discussed and coordinated various policies and restoration measures carried out by the Ministry of Energy and other relevant, authorized implementation agencies, including: (1) controlled reduction of agricultural water consumption; (2) water supplies from novel water resources; (3) research and non-structural measures; and (4) increasing lake water through structural measures. The lake water levels appeared to recover slightly between 2016 and 2017, although it is difficult to differentiate the effects of the above measures from the increased basin rainfall observed during the same period. As lake water levels remained low in 2020, there is a continued need for identification of further measures of lake restoration.

Modelling of the hydrological cycle for Urmia Lake

A model of the hydrological cycle for the Urmia Lake Basin was constructed where water-use measurements were estimated from actual basin evapotranspiration (ET) levels by applying the METRIC (mapping ET at high resolution with internalized calibration) method to moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite imagery and ground-measured climatological data (Ministry of Energy et al., 2020). Throughout the modelling process, various discussions were held with provincial partners and branches, as well as social and cultural councils (Figure 10), leading to the collection of local data and information, and fostering a common understanding of responsibility surrounding lake restoration.

Current restoration measures were evaluated using this model, and the simulated results indicated that lake water levels could not recover to the minimum water level required for ecological balance (elevation of 1274.1 masl), even if all listed measures were implemented. Thus, the ULRPNC’s goal of complete lake recovery faces significant further challenges, as the restoration of the lake’s water levels will likely take decades. Moreover, the implementation of additional measures may require a tremendous budget, potentially causing further adverse effects on local economies and populations. Thus, it is necessary to construct restoration policies that balance environmental conservation and socioeconomic conditions through building a consensus among all parties. The hydrological cycle model could be used for policy evaluation and as an explanation to stakeholders, including decision-makers and local communities.

Lessons learned from the case of Urmia Lake

The following lessons were learned from the ULRPNC’s restoration activities, as well as the hydrological modelling and simulations:

• Sharing collected information, and discussing the progress of countermeasures in the field with the local stakeholders motivated them to participate in the MSP.

• ULRPNC is implementing several measures with stakeholders across various sectors. An increase in lake inflow implied that the ULRPNC structure and operation as the MSP was working properly; however, the hydrological basin simulation results indicated that the policies were inadequate to restore lake water levels sufficiently. This demonstrates the importance of the scientific approach put forth with Practical IWRM implementation.

Balanced development in closed lakes such as Urmia Lake

Globally, there is an abundance of closed lakes at risk of disappearing. Harriman (2014) and Columbia University (2008) reported that the Aral Sea shrunk to 10% of its area between the 1960s and the 2000s, significantly degrading human livelihood through the collapse of the local economy, and damaging respiratory health from increasing sandstorms. Coe and Foley (2001) reported that Lake Chad, once the fourth largest lake in the world, had shrunk from 25,000 to 1600 km² between 1963 and 2001 due to overgrazing, overuse from irrigation and climate change, contributing to an accelerated growth of poverty and deterioration of human health. The question then arises if it is possible to promote economic growth without compromising environmental sustainability in closed lake basins that appear destined to shrink with development. The water resources management policies in closed lakes environments must not be lake conservation or livelihood, but rather both lake conservation and livelihood. The Iranian government now stands at a critical turning-point regarding if the Urmia Lake Basin can attain both prosperities. The use of a Practical IWRM approach will be essential to achieve the required balance of welfare with consensus-building among stakeholders. In this way, Urmia Lake should not need to follow the fate of the Aral Sea or Lake Chad.

Achievements and lessons from Practical IWRM implementation

Achievements of Practical IWRM implementation

The achievements of the Practical IWRM implementations in the four cases listed above can be summarized as follows:

• In Sudan, onsite capacity development of IWRM and the local context from sharing between foreign experts, federal and state officials greatly facilitated IWRM implementation. Trained state officials, with limited data and information, explained their concerns about the present groundwater conditions from the ground up. With these activities, farmers began to cooperate with groundwater monitoring upon state officials’ requests, and have gradually raised awareness of their finite groundwater resources. Although a small IWRM cycle, the state of North Kordofan appears to be heading towards appropriate groundwater management.

• In Bolivia, departmental and municipal officials working together in the field have increased their IWRM capacity, particularly by communicating with stakeholders, subsequently increasing mutual trust. Both officials jointly explained the problematic situation to residents, gradually aligning a common perception and rebuilding trust towards government officials. Furthermore, drivers of the issues, and measures to improve them, were discussed through broad problem analyses; future MSP discussions must centre around these themes.

• In Indonesia, discussions at high-level government meetings and the JCC (i.e., MSP), created a common understanding of land subsidence among decision-makers and related officials, through affirming a common recognition of the experiences of Tokyo and scientifically clarifying land subsidence conditions in Jakarta using satellite imagery. It prompted consensus-building among various stakeholders, while promoting adaptation and mitigation countermeasures.

• In Iran, local stakeholders near Urmia Lake were motivated to participate in the MSP by the sharing of data and information collected by the ULRPNC. The ULRPNC, functioning as the substantive MSP, through their activities with provincial partners and multi-sectoral stakeholders, likely had some positive effects on lake restoration; however, modelled hydrological results suggested much more needs to be done to save the lake, of which countermeasures may have huge costs and force stakeholders to be more patient. Thus, a policy change focusing on both lake conservation and livelihood is required for sustainable development. This example shows the importance of the scientific approach put forth by a Practical IWRM implementation.

Lessons from Practical IWRM implementation

The comprehensive lessons, including achievements and difficulties, drawn from the activities of the four Practical IWRM cases can be summarized as follows:

• Capacity development for IWRM implementation is inevitable as even the organizations, agencies and stakeholders responsible for water resources management may have an incomplete understanding of IWRM. Thus, it is necessary to put forth a tangible methodology usable on-site for IWRM implementation. The capacity development of IWRM between foreign experts, national and local officials has proven to be effective.

• Globally, many conflicts over water resources have arisen (Pacific Institute, 2019). The four cases above represent a small sample of IWRM activities around the globe, but a repeated lesson learned from these conflict management activities is that planners responsible for water resource management, practitioners and stakeholders must have proper scientific information regarding water resource availability, as well as social and cultural backgrounds. The most important motivator to stakeholders for IWRM implementation is the creation of a shared, common perception of the present conditions.

• Obtaining sufficient data and information for building a common perception among stakeholders may require a substantial amount of time, and continuous monitoring is imperative. Nevertheless, the cases of Sudan and Bolivia show that careful explanations and diligent appeals to stakeholders on the issues contribute to the creation of a common understanding among them. Officials’ enthusiasm over issues was transferred to stakeholders.

• Some small MSPs were established in Cochabamba, but many ceased discussions and conflicts escalated. In Sudan, the Federal Water Resources Council was established, but is no longer functioning. Two other state water resources councils established before the formation of the state of North Kordofan have also faced significant operational difficulty. Globally, MSPs face many of the same risks, and these cases have shown that MSP establishment is not enough, but the discussion with stakeholders must continue for building a consensus towards solutions.

• Stepwise problem-solving and consensus-building are effective tools for sustainable MSP functionality. The accumulation of small, but quantifiable, successful experiences, can enhance the capacity of the responsible bodies, and motivate relevant stakeholders towards sustainable changes.

Building blocks for IWRM implementation

The goals of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6, sustainable water and sanitation for all consist of six targets and two means. One of the six targets (6.5) consists of two indicators, 6.5.1 IWRM Implementation and 6.5.2 Transboundary Cooperation. UN-Water (2018a) assessed the degree of IWRM implementation and reported that globally 38% of countries have at least medium-high IWRM implementation, with the remaining 62% reporting below medium-low levels, far from the desired targets set by indicator 6.5.1. Degrees were assessed with the following four key components for both national and subnational/basin levels (according to the questionnaire found in UN-Water, 2018b):

• Enabling environment: Water resource laws or policies, IWRM plans, etc., that support IWRM implementation.

• Institutions and participation: Governmental authorities’ capacity for leading IWRM implementation and coordination, and public or business participation levels in water resources policies, planning and management.

• Management instruments: Management instruments that enable decision-makers and water users to make rational and informed choices, including water availability monitoring, water-use management, pollution control, ecosystem conservation and disaster management.

• Financing: Available finances for water resources development and management, including the budget for investments and recurrent costs, as well as revenues raised from taxing water users.

The key components listed above primarily address prerequisites, such as: (1) laws and plans, (2) capacity and stakeholder participation, (3) scientifically backed data and solutions and (4) government budgets and revenues from water users; however, they do not observe or incorporate processes and outcomes from IWRM implementation. The preparation of such prerequisites and establishment of an MSP are insufficient for successful IWRM implementation, and ongoing discussions with stakeholders are necessary for adequate problem-solving. Therefore, an additional component to assess the processes and achievements of IWRM efforts is required. The additional component must be capable of measuring the type and number of water resource issues that have been identified and either resolved or discussed. Thus, we propose here: (5) Processes and achievements: Achievements of IWRM implementation, including the identification of water resources issues, and problem-solving activities.

Conclusions

Practical IWRM activities applied in four countries accomplished the following achievements:

• A common perception among all stakeholders was developed with objective data and information based on technologies of natural and social sciences.

• Government organizations and officials responsible for water resources have developed their capacity for Practical IWRM implementation, and begun to enthusiastically reach out to stakeholders and incorporate their perspective into problem analyses.

• Governments are establishing MSPs with their core principles of operation according to the experiences of activities following the Practical IWRM approach.

• Moreover, by accumulating small successes, responsible officials gained confidence and began IWRM implementation by themselves; furthermore, stakeholders were also motivated towards cooperation over water resource management.

These accomplishments demonstrate that the Practical IWRM approach is working well in different contexts and can be an effective on-site methodology towards consensus-building and problem-solving. The four cases discussed are either nearing or just starting to realize proper IWRM, and full actualization will likely require an extensive period of time. Throughout this process, however, efforts must continue with trial and error, and the corresponding experiences and lessons obtained will help identify more tangible methodology for each process of Practical IWRM implementation.

Appropriate IWRM is essential for conflict management among sectors and stakeholders to build a consensus and promote solutions for social and economic well-being. Water resources managers are expected to implement Practical IWRM in their respective countries and regions, and identify any ongoing issues to be overcome, or lessons to be learned. Their experience and knowledge must be shared worldwide to achieve SDG 6 regarding humanity’s well-being with respect to water resources at a global level.

Acknowledgments

This work was prepared to supplement the presentation made during the Stockholm World Water Week in 2019, co-convened by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the Global Water Partnership (GWP). We wish to express our sincere gratitude to Professor Howard Bamsey, Chairman of the GWP, who delivered the event’s opening speech. The Practical IWRM projects in the four countries were funded by the JICA under the scheme of technical cooperation, and were implemented and sustained by the dedicated efforts of many people. We thank our counterparts in the four countries who are working together to implement Practical IWRM, especially Dr Ahmed Adam of the Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resource of Sudan; Mr Gonzalo Muñoz and Mr Alan Lisperguer Roslaes of the Autonomous Government of Cochabamba Department of Bolivia; Ir. Jarot Widyoko, Sp-1, Director-General of the Water Resources, Ministry of Public Works and Housing of Indonesia; and Dr Massoud Tajrishy, Head of the Planning and Resources Mobilization Unit (PRMU) of the Urmia Lake Restoration Program (ULRP) of Iran. Finally, our appreciation goes to all our colleagues in the Global Environment Department of JICA for their invaluable suggestions and advice. We hope this paper will elevate the achievement of SDG 6.5, and attain social amelioration through the implementation of IWRM.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).