２２２：久々のIWRM論議

南部アフリカもいよいよ涼しい乾季に入った。５，６，７月は朝は寒々とした毎日だが、８月には流石に暑くなるし、マラリア蚊もでてくるだろう。

本ブログもすでにIWRMだけを語るものではなくなった。水の知、コンサルタントの問題など関連領域も広い。最近は映画やテレビも題材にしている。要は広い領域での視点が大事である。

とは言え、IWRMの動向も忘れたわけではない。第５回世界水フォーラム以降はさっぱりIWRM関連記事が入っていないが、３年後の第６回はIWRMの発祥地でもある南アのダーバンであり、できれば参加し発言する気合をもってフォローしていきたい。

その南ア・ケープタウンで昨年IWRMの実施というテーマで国際会議が開かれた。総括的な論文をイギリス人が書いているので紹介したい。すでに述べてきたとおり、イギリス人は公平な立場で良識的な議論ができる。その辺がフランス人とは違うところである。ADBの水資源専門家も同様である。飯のためにIWRMがあるのではない。

サマリーと結論だけを下記に添付する。

Abstract

This paper provides a synthesis of the main issues discussed at a conference (International Conference on Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) entitled: Lessons from Implementation in Developing Countries which took place from 10 to 12 March 2008 in Cape Town, South Africa, at the Cape Town International Convention Centre) which was coordinated to share experiences and lessons learned on the implementation of IWRM in developing countries. This paper discusses six themes that emerged from the conference. These themes provide a perspective on the current status of IWRM and assist in formulating the agenda for further research and implementation approaches based on lessons learned. Firstly, although there is considerable history and international acceptance of IWRM, there is still ongoing debate on how IWRM is defined. However, aside from these debates there is general agreement on the principles underlying IWRM and the potential it holds for managing complex systems that cannot be adequately achieved through the single-sector management approach of the past. To overcome past management paradigms, new capacity building approaches are required. Secondly, implementation of IWRM requires a balance between policy and institutional support and community level projects that have small-scale tangible results for the poor. Thirdly, IWRM involves integration across many spheres, specifically the integration of groundwater management into long-term water resource planning. Fourthly, although there is general endorsement of the importance of public engagement in supporting IWRM approaches, effective public engagement requires considerable strategic planning to ensure that efforts are both applicable and relevant to those involved. Fifthly, the conference highlighted the importance of developing appropriate economic methods and instruments to address the economic trade-offs and decisions that are apparent in water management. Finally, appropriate data, information systems and indicators are required to adequately monitor progress with IWRM implementation.

Conclusion

On the basis of its ability to address the integrated nature of managing complex water resource systems, few can argue against the value of an IWRM approach. Implementation of IWRM approaches should result in better water sharing between users, supporting economic and social objectives, while maintaining environmental ecosystems. Many cases, particularly those discussed from Africa, illustrate that IWRM is effective in achieving these outcomes. However, the conference clearly emphasised that more needs to be done to speed up implementation so that benefits and successes can be more easily identified.
A GWP survey in 2006 showed that two thirds of countries are at some stage of introducing IWRM as guiding principle for water management; however, much of this is related to establishing an enabling environment (including policy reform and institutional restructures) (GWP, 2006). Progress in widespread implementation is harder to gauge and will likely show fewer success stories. More effort is now required to demonstrate and monitor how implementation of IWRM is improving water management, specifically in relation to how the poor are benefiting. The United Nations World Water Development Report aptly argues that ‘more analysis of the practical means of moving from a fragmented, sector-by sector approach to IWRM needs to be carried out for lower income countries, and these experiences need to be shared widely’ (UNESCO-WWP, 2006, p 527). The conference emphasised that we cannot use imperfect legislation and institutional structures as an excuse for slow implementation. IWRM provides a promising approach but it also represents an unattainable ideal, or as Molle (2008) argues a ‘nirvana concept’. Perfect integration between all sectors, across the hydrological cycle and between all users is unlikely. One cannot wait to achieve this integration before tangible benefits are achieved on the ground. Benefits must include increased access to water services, socio-economic empowerment, protection of ecosystems, improvement in water quality and overall poverty reduction. Unless we can effectively show that IWRM approaches assist in achieving some of these benefits, the concept of IWRM will lose much of its promise in providing a more holistic and sustainable approach to managing scarce water resources.

賛美と感謝は神様にするものであり、IWRMという対象には現実を踏ま批判も受け入れる対応が必要であろう。