The Politics of Integrated Water Resources Management

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), it can be said, is one of the foremost paradigms in water resource management in Africa currently. It has been promoted by multilateral and bilateral donors, and is the flagship project of international bodies such as the Global Water Partnership (Mehta, 2015). Importantly, IWRM has been incorporated into many water policies and strategies in the nations of Africa.

IWRM has exploded on the water scene in Africa, and I want to understand more about it. I want to understand the politics of it’s success - how has it become so popular? Is it really that great? What have been the results?

But, before all this… what exactly is IWRM?

The most commonly referred to definition for Integrated Water Resources Management is that provided by the Global Water Partnership. It is defined as:

'A process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems'.

With a focus on what is known as the ‘3 E’s’ (Efficiency, Equity, Ecological Integrity) IWRM aims to include the integration of all stakeholders in a basin to produce more a more holistic, participatory and harmonious strategy of water sharing (Van der Zaag, 2005).

Sounds great! In fact so great that it has been taken forward as the most popular method for water management today. It is rare to find a single paradigm become quite so popular, and I think this is therefore important - why has it become so popular?

…What are the politics behind the spread and uptake of this method in Africa?

There has been much speculation – both for and against the strategy – as to why IWRM has become so popular, both globally and in Africa.

It seems there are a plethora of reasons those in support of the method believe it has been so successful. Firstly, after decades of dam construction and resultant criticism of this method, IWRM arrived and spread in the 90’s when global focus was turning to ‘soft’ management strategies (Mehta, 2015). For example, Adams (1985) highlights how the construction of the Baklori Dam in Nigeria caused extensive downstream issues (to fishing, agriculture and the economy). With IWRM encouraging downstream-upstream linkages the method was therefore seen as very favorable to dam critics (Van der Zaag, 2005). Furthermore, previous strategies for water management were increasingly coming under fire for being too sub-sectoral and disconnected, as Biswas (2004:249) clearly states it, water management was seen to have become:

 ‘Multi-dimensional, multi-sectoral, and multi-regional and filled with multi-interests, multi-agendas, and multi-causes, and which can be resolved through a proper multi-institutional and multi-stakeholder coordination.’

This lack of coordination led to more debates in water management strategies, which came to a head in a UNCED conference in Rio in 1992 were the concepts of IWRM were debated (Savenijie and Van der Zaag, 2008).

Those more wary of the approach have scathed its popularity as being a result of it being a  ‘Wishy-Washy’ method that allows people to continue what they are doing, but now with a trendy, up to date label of using the latest paradigm. For example, Biswas (2004) again in his paper is left with many questions after reading the Global Water Partnership definition:

Who is doing the promoting? What is meant by land and ‘related resources’ (does this mean agriculture, energy, or what?)? What specifically is being maximized? And what is precisely meant by equitable?

Indeed, it is quite hard to be sure.

Overall on paper however, I think it can be said that IWRM probably has more positives than negatives, although negatives of course do exist. 

We will now turn to look at the strategy in practice.

How does IWRM play out in real life?

Just as there are binaries in why IWRM has become so popular in Africa, there are even stronger opinions surrounding the success of this strategy in practice.

Nigeria’s Komadugu-YobeRiver Basin has been called a success case of IWRM. Located upstream of Lake Chad, dam construction and irrigation caused falling river levels leading to conflict and impacts on livelihoods. As part of an IWRM approach, governments and civil society agreed to a water charter whereby farmers, fishermen and herders joined in plans to restore the river. The results have reportedly been a restoration of the rivers flow locally, improvement in livelihoods and also less conflict.

However, it seems that criticisms have been far and wide; I don’t know if that because critical voices are often heard louder or if this is a sign that IWRM is, in fact, the wrong strategy. Nevertheless, IWRM in practice has been scathed as…

… Being too abstract. 

As mentioned earlier, the criteria for IWRM can be seen as rather ‘wishy-washy’. For example, in water-rich Uganda, the paradigm of IWRM was used but focus was placed on regulating water and introducing neoliberal reform, rather than on allocating water to those who needed it (Mehta, 2015), something that many would criticise.

… Lacking recognition of local level realities.

Looking at the implementation of IWRM in South Africa Mehta et al., (2014) have highlighted how the policies failed to fully recognize the complexities and inequalities of the context, leading to lack of participation and minimal farmer power.

… Being too difficult. 

It is hard to ever really gain full participation of all actors in a basin. Mehta (2015) demonstrates the case of Mozambique, where elites trained in the Netherlands implemented IWRM in the late 90’s. The colonial legacy of a centralized state however meant efforts at creating truly participatory institutions were stunted.

Where does this leave us?

Overall therefore I think a small attempt at a conclusion can be made. From the research I have done it would seem that, on paper, the popularity and – in many ways – need for IWRM is clear. On paper there are much more positives than negatives that an IWRM approach can offer. The fallback mainly comes in implementation, as seen it appears there are actually more negatives (so far) than positives.

With my still very limited knowledge therefore I can only make a tentative recommendation that the ideas behind IWRM must be taken seriously, as they clearly have some stamina in solving issues around water management. But at the same time I think that not every single person can ever be satisfied in such large basin regions with so many complex and different participants. Future attempts at IWRM therefore might need to be more clear-cut, understanding that it is almost impossible for everyone to be satisfied, but doing the best that can be realistically achieved. I also believe that water infrastructure projects also need to be prioritized and not ignored by IWRM.

Adams, W.M. 1985 The downstream impacts of dam construction: a case study from Nigeria . Trans.I.B.G., 10(3), pp 292-302.

Biswas, A.K., 2004. Integrated Water Resources Management: A Reassessment. Water International 29 (2), 248–256.

Mehta et al., (2014) Learning from Southern Africa on Fair and Effective Integrated Water Resources Management,

Mehta, L (2015) Politics of Integrated Water Resources Management in southern Africa, (WWW) Institute of Development Studies (ids.ac.uk; 12/11/16).

Savenijie, H.G. and Van der Zaag, P. 2008. Integrated water resources management:  concepts and issues. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 33, 290-297.

Van der Zaag, P. 2005. Integrated Water Resources Management: Relevant concept or irrelevant buzzword? A capacity building and research agenda for Southern Africa, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 30, 867-871.