Overview of OECD work on water governance
•
1 gefällt mir•3,283 views
Climate Change and Resilient Cities. Presentation made at the Hague Academy for Local Governance, on 29 October 2015, Netherlands, by Aziza Akhmouch, Water Governance Initiative Project Manager, Regional Development Policy, OECD. www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/watergovernanceprogramme.htm
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie Overview of OECD work on water governance
Ähnlich wie Overview of OECD work on water governance (20)
Mehr von OECD Governance
Mehr von OECD Governance (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Overview of OECD work on water governance
- 1. OVERVIEW OF OECD WORK ON WATER GOVERNANCE Aziza AKHMOUCH, PhD Head, OECD Water Governance Programme The Hague Academy, 29 October 2015
- 2. • Setting the scene (30’) – Why work on water – Why governance matters • Zoom on Water Governance in Brazil (30’) • OECD Principles on Water Governance (30’) • Highlights on stakeholder engagement (1h) Outline
- 4. • Water : an issue for developed countries as well • Water : factor/obstacle to sustainable growth • Water risks are increasing in terms of – Access, universal coverage – Too much water – Too little water – Too polluted water • There is an important role for technical innovation… • … which requires robust & conducive public policies – Evidence (facts, data) – International comparisons (indicators, benchmarks) – Standards and support to reforms (recommendations) – Sharing experience on success stories and pitfalls to avoid Why work on water at the OECD?
- 5. Water demand will increase by 55% globally by 2050 Global water demand (Baseline scenario, 2000 and 2050) Source: OECD Environmental Outlook Baseline (2012)
- 6. Water stress by river basin (Baseline, 2050) Source: OECD Environmental Outlook Baseline (2012) 4 billion people will be living in water-stressed areas by 2050
- 7. Trends: progress on adaptation to climate change March 24, 2014 – Water Event 7
- 8. Consumption per capita (households) is decreasing in OECD due to pricing and innovation
- 9. Leakage rates are becoming a challenge Source : OECD 2015, forthcoming “Water Governance in Cities” (48 cities surveyed)
- 10. Key concerns for water management in cities of OECD Source : OECD 2015, forthcoming “Water Governance in Cities” (48 respondents/water departments, top 5 ranking out of 65 words)
- 11. Water crises are often governance crises Enough water for human and nature needs … if managed wisely! Coping with water risks, requires more than financing & hydrology Technical, financial & institutional solutions exist, but implementation is lagging Governance : a means to an end : manage too much, too little and too polluted water Local and global issue, with multiple actors at different levels Capital –intensive, monopolistic intensity, market failures Interdependencies across multiple stakeholders are poorly managed Many countries struggle to understand/clarify (and map) who does what No one-size-fits-all but a need to “mind” and “bridge” the gaps Need for place-based policies & overarching frameworks, strategy and rules Taking stock of what works well and what does not work is crucial Stakeholders have a role alongside policymakers at different levels Need to match the type of governance structures to the type of water risks to face Beyond the question of WHAT to do to meet the water challenge, there is a need to think about WHO DOES WHAT, WHY, AT WHICH LEVEL and HOW Water, a fragmented sector that is sensitive to multilevel governance
- 12. Water Governance refers to : • The range of political, institutional and administrative rules, practices and processes (formal and informal) through which decisions are taken and implemented, stakeholders can articulate their interests and have their concerns considered, and decision-makers are held accountable for water management (OECD, 2015) OECD Definition of Water Governance
- 13. OECD’s Evidence Base National Policy dialogues Thematic work Benchmarks OECD Multi-level Governance Framework : “Mind the Gaps, Bridge the Gaps” OECD 2011 : Water Governance in OECD Countries : a Multi-Level Approach
- 14. THE CASE OF BRAZIL
- 15. Why? Help Brazil develop future-proof water policies – Assess the performance of federal and state water systems – Suggest policy recommendations – Build consensus on short, medium, long term actions How? An evidence-based national policy dialogue – Robust economic analysis – International experience (Portugal, South Africa, EU, Australia, Canada) – Engagement and in-depth consultation with 100+ stakeholders at all levels What ? Two critical questions – How is the multi-level governance system performing in terms of coordinating state and federal policies and priorities? – Are current water allocation regimes robust enough to cope with future water risks? Background on the rationale & process
- 16. Key facts: • Brazil holds 12% of the world’s freshwater resources, unevenly distributed • The Amazon, Paraná, São Francisco River basins are some of the world’s largest water basins • Southeast region is water-scarce, facing the consequences of the driest winter period in 84 years • One of the highest shares of renewable energy in the world (hydropower accounts 92% of renewables-based electricity) Key challenges: • Too much water (e.g. major floods occurred Rio in 2011 and 2012) • Too little water (e.g. drought and scarcity issues in the Southeast current attention on water supply crisis) • Too polluted water (e.g. in large urban centres) Key governance features: • Under the purview of the 27 states and the Federal District • More than 200 river basin committees • Huge diversity across the country in needs and local conditions Water in Brazil: time for action
- 17. OUTPUT Key diagnosis Policy Recommendations Action Plan OECD – ANA Policy Dialogue Focus - Multi-level governance system - National Pact for Water Management - Water allocation regimes Process - Two Policy seminars gathering more than 100 stakeholders ( Oct 2014, March 2015) - Data collection - Economic analysis - 5 case studies - International good practice, as identified in the OECD Principles of Water Governance - In-depth consultation Expertise - OECD analytical tools - High-profile peer reviewers: Australia, Canada EU, Portugal, South Africa - Peer review during the 4th OECD Water Governance Initiative meeting (24-25 Nov. 2014) Iterative and consensus-based approach
- 18. The Brazilian model of water management Ambitious and forward-looking reforms: • Federal Water Law (1997) • Creation of the National Water Agency (2000) • State water laws and the creation of river basin committees and agencies, state and national water councils Salient features… • Integrated management • Decentralised • Participative … but unfinished business: • River basin planning • Water pricing • Management of multiple uses • Participation of users and civil society States with water resources councils, 1992-2012
- 19. A complex and fragmented institutional map! IBAMA FEDERAL LEVEL RIVER BASIN LEVEL STATE LEVEL MUNICIPAL LEVEL NON- GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS Secretariat of Water Resources and Urban Environment (SRHU) Ministry of Environment River basin committees Civil society Water users’ association Ministry of Health Ministry of Agriculture FUNASA State management entity State Water Resources Council Water agencies Municipalities CONAMA State Secretariat National Water Agency (ANA) Ministry of National Integration Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management Ministry of Cities CEMADEN Ministry of Energy and Mines IBGE EMBRAPA National Water Resources Council (CNRH) Ministry of Science and Innovation
- 20. Assessment • Strategic guidance – Silos across ministries and public agencies hamper policy coherence – Multiple water resource plans, poorly coordinated – Water resources plans do not set priorities or criteria that can drive allocation decisions • Functional scale – Mismatch between municipal, state and federal administrative /hydrological boundaries – Incoherent approaches from one basin to another in a highly decentralised context • Policy coherence – CNRH is not fully playing its cross-sector co-ordination role. – Sectoral planning occurs largely in isolation – Water allocation priorities and decisions may differ between federal/state authorities • Policy instruments – Water charges are low and they do not signal scarcity – Lack of good, accessible data and information on water – Limited implementation capacity by river basin committees – Implementation of water allocation remains the exception rather than the rule
- 21. Zoom on the National Water Council The level of representation of the various ministries is not as high as desirable The CNRH is not totally dedicated to and focused on strategic issues Representativeness of state councils and river basin committees into the activities of the CNRH in not sufficient
- 22. Select Policy Recommendations • Strategic policy – Raise the profile of water in the national political & economic agenda • Institutional framework – Upgrade the influence & effectiveness of CNRH to guide decisions – Strengthen and re-profile basin institutions • Policy coherence – Foster greater co-ordination across water-related ministries/agencies • Capacity – Strengthen financial and technical capacity of state-level institutions • Implementation – Foster a culture of continuity in state public policy – A more professionally based recruitment of water professionals – Mandates based on medium- and long-term consensual strategies – Further encourage pricing mechanisms to reflect opportunity costs – Experience-sharing, communication and bench-learning
- 23. How can the National Council contribute to more effective water governance? • Leadership of the Minister of Environment • Participation of other ministers in the most important sessions • Some regular (yearly) participation of the President of the Republic Political upgrade • Giving opinion on national plan or key legislation • Discharging the remaining issues to the government Focus on a few “deliberative” issues • Through consultations, ad hoc meetings, interviews and written contribution on specific issuesBuild consensus • Electoral system for the selection of its members Reassess the representativeness of CNRH • More accountability v. personal or sectoral views Role of state councils and river basin committees • More interaction with states, basins, municipalities, • Greater interactions with other sectors and levels of gvt Communication • Strengthen the capacities and training of stakeholders and other representatives Capacity
- 24. OECD PRINCIPLES ON WATER GOVERNANCE
- 25. OECD Principles on Water Governance Endorsed by OECD’s 34 Member States at the Ministerial Council Meeting on 4 June 2015
- 26. Clearly allocate and distinguish roles and responsibilities for water policymaking, policy implementation, operational management and regulation, and foster co-ordination across these responsible authorities 1 2 3 4 Manage water at the appropriate scale(s) within integrated basin governance systems to reflect local conditions, and foster co-ordination between the different scales Encourage policy coherence through effective cross-sectoral co- ordination, especially between policies for water and the environment, health, energy, agriculture, industry, spatial planning and land use Adapt the level of capacity of responsible authorities to the complexity of water challenges to be met, and to the set of competencies required to carry out their duties
- 27. Produce, update, and share timely, consistent, comparable and policy-relevant water and water-related data and information, and use it to guide, assess and improve water policy 5 6 7 8 Ensure that governance arrangements help mobilise water finance and allocate financial resources in an efficient, transparent and timely manner Ensure that sound water management regulatory frameworks are effectively implemented and enforced in pursuit of the public interest Promote the adoption and implementation of innovative water governance practices across responsible authorities, levels of government and relevant stakeholders
- 28. Mainstream integrity and transparency practices across water policies, water institutions and water governance frameworks for greater accountability and trust in decision-making 9 10 11 12 Promote stakeholder engagement for informed and outcome-oriented contributions to water policy design and implementation Encourage water governance frameworks that help manage trade-offs across water users, rural and urban areas, and generations Promote regular monitoring and evaluation of water policy and governance where appropriate, share the results with the public and make adjustments when needed
- 29. Multi-stakeholder and bottom-up at the OECD 110+ Delegates gathering every 6 months in a Policy Forum Steering Committee Wider beneficiaries Global Water Agenda OECD Indicators on water governanceOECD Principles on water governance Regional partners [Americas, Europe, Asia- Pacific, Middle East, Africa] WG n°1 Stakeholder engagement WG n°2 Governance & performance of water services WG n°4 Integrity & Transparency WG n°3 Basin governance OECD Water Governance Initiative
- 30. A Multi-stakeholder Declaration on the Principles (7th World Water Forum, Daegu-Korea, 13 April 2015) Endorsement of the Principles by 65 Major Groups, which also committed to put them in practice
- 31. http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/OECD-Principles-on-Water-Governance-brochure.pdf Download the Principles! Translation in 15 languages English French German Spanish Portuguese Italian Dutch Greek Korean JapaneseHebrewTurkish Chinese (Mandarin) Russian Hindi + Arabic
- 32. Next steps (2016-2018) Implementation of the OECD Principles on Water Governance Online Observatory of water governance best practices with success stories & pitfalls to avoid OECD Water Governance Indicators towards an OECD Water Governance at a Glance report Outreach & Dissemination With regional consultations and stakeholder dialogues
- 33. Towards OECD Indicators on Water Governance One cannot improve what cannot be measured Accountability Transparency Bench-learning Adjusting Systemic framework to measure water governance The Water Governance Cycle
- 34. Measuring governance: a challenging task 10 Critical Questions What is the scope? At which scale? What to measure? Whose views? Which process? Who are the beneficiaries? How will indicators be used? Who will monitor? How to ensure replicability? How to disclose results?
- 36. • Water governance refers to: – The range of political, institutional and administrative rules, practices and processes (formal and informal) through which decisions are taken and implemented, stakeholders can articulate their interests and have their concerns considered, and decision-makers are held accountable for water management (OECD, 2015) • Key features – Governance is a means to an end (manage too much, too little, too polluted water) – Governance is NOT ONLY about governments – Stakeholders have a role to play alongside policymakers : a shared responsibility – In water : governance is complex, fragmented and highly contextual – Governance structures need to match the level of water risks / problems to fix • Stakeholders – Any person or group who has an interest or stake in a water-related topic, may be directly or indirectly affected by water policy, and/or have the ability to influence its outcome positively or negatively.(OECD, 2015) Rationale
- 37. 38 solutions collected 1 dedicated session at the 6th WWF 74 contributors world-wide The genesis of the report 6th World Water Forum (Marseille, March 2012) By 2015, 50% of countries will have adopted consultation, participation and co-ordination mechanism allowing stakeholders at local, regional, national and international levels to effectively contribute to decision-making in a coherent, holistic and integrated way. By 2021, 100% will have done so Coordinators of the target group OECD & Suez Environnement Call for more evidence-based policy guidance and international comparison to support stakeholder engagement Creation of the OECD Water Governance Initiative => Specific working group on stakeholder engagement
- 38. 1. What does engagement mean? 2. Why do we need to engage stakeholders? 3. Who are the stakeholders to be engaged, at which scale? 4. What are the main obstacles? 5. Which mechanisms to engage stakeholders? 6. What are the main monetary or non-monetary costs? 7. What are the short, medium and long term benefits? 8. How to measure impact? 9. Where are good practices? 10. Which incentives to enhance stakeholder engagement? Why this report?
- 39. OECD Survey on Stakeholder Engagement (215 respondents) Science and academia (35) National governments (32) Sub-national governments (12) Civil society (29) Service providers (27) Watershed institutions (18)International organisations (16) Advisors (13) Business (12) Financial actors (10) Regulators (6) Others (5)
- 40. 69 Case studies Africa (7)Americas (15) Asia-Pacific (11) Europe (35) Global (1)
- 42. What does engagement mean?
- 43. Why do we need to engage? 8% 10% 13% 18% 24% 30% 31% 36% 39% 39% 46% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Market opportunities Information and communication technologies Incentives from donors Change in organisational culture Cost efficiency Adaptive governance Competition over water resources Regulatory frameworks for public participation Political and democratic pressure Crisis, change or emergency-driven situation Policy reform or project under discussion
- 44. Policy Implications of the drivers
- 45. Stakeholder mappings can help identify core functions, gaps and overlaps in roles and responsibilities. Special attention should be paid to new players and unheard voices. Who are the stakeholders?
- 46. Policy Implications of Mappings
- 47. How do stakeholders interact?
- 48. Major obstacles to stakeholder engagement in the water sector What are the main obstacles?
- 49. Policy Implications to overcome obstacles
- 50. What are the main mechanisms?
- 51. Policy Implications to select mechanisms
- 52. What are the costs?
- 53. A tentative typology of costs
- 54. Risks
- 55. What are the benefits?
- 56. A tentative typology of benefits
- 57. How to measure the impact of SE? Evaluation mechanisms used for stakeholder engagement Frequency of use across categories of stakeholders
- 58. Policy Implications of SE evaluation
- 59. 1. Inclusiveness and equity: Map all stakeholder who have a stake in the outcome or that are likely to be affected, as well as their responsibilities, core motivations and interactions. 2. Clarity, transparency and accountability: Define the ultimate line of decision-making, the objectives of stakeholder engagement and the expected use of inputs. 3. Capacity and information: Allocate proper financial and human resources and share needed information for result-oriented stakeholder engagement. 4. Efficiency and effectiveness: Regularly assess the process and outcomes of stakeholder engagement to learn, adjust and improve accordingly. 5. Institutionalisation, structuring and integration: Embed engagement processes in clear legal and policy frameworks, organisational structures/principles and responsible authorities. 6. Adaptiveness: Customise the type and level of engagement to the needs and keep the process flexible to changing circumstances. Concluding Principles for inclusive, effective and efficient stakeholder engagement
Hinweis der Redaktion
- All countries report observed changes in freshwater systems Water is a priority for adaptation. A window of opportunity
- Respondents to the Survey were the primary authorities managing water in the city, which, depending on countries could be municipal or metropolitan departments, regional authorities, service providers, deconcentrated bodies at the local level. When asked to associate the top 5 words, over a choice of 65, with water management in cities, respondents gave a high relevance to “infrastructure”, but also to efficiency, customers, investment and accountability. For OECD countries as a whole, investment requirements in the water supply and treatment sector are expected to increase by almost 50% by 2030 (OECD, 2007). Empirical research shows that heavy investment in water efficiency could boost overall GDP and create jobs and that adequate water and sanitation services appear to be a key driver for economic growth (Hammer et al. 2011). A range of innovative options can increase efficiency and save costs, from sophisticated IT tools for monitoring water service operations to energy costs minimisation for wastewater treatment.
- The dialogue is the result of an iterative, consultative and consensus-based approach, based on three steps: i) key diagnosis of the performance of federal and state water systems; ii) formulation of tailored policy recommendations; iii) action plan for the implementation. The report builds on several OECD tools on economic and governance, such as: OECD Principles of Water Governance; OECD Multi-level Governance Framework ; OECD Survey OECD-Brazil Policy Dialogue on Water Governance; OECD Framework for Water Resources Allocation. It relies on robust economic analysis. The report was peer-reviewed by high-profile peer reviewers and senior policy makers from Australia, Canada, the European Commission, Portugal and South Africa experts in the water sector and during the fourth meeting of the OECD Water Governance Initiative (24-25 November 2014). The OECD delegation carried out two field missions to Brasilia (9-14 March 2014), and Rio de Janeiro, João Pessoa, Salvador and Brasilia (18-23 May 2014).Two policy seminars (14 16 October 2014 and 10-11 March 2015) to discuss key findings and recommendations in the presence of various ministries and more than 100 Brazilian stakeholders. The report focuses on two questions that have been at the core of the policy dialogue with Brazilian stakeholders over the past 18 months: 1) how is the multi-level governance system performing in terms of co-ordinating state and federal water policies and priorities? 2) are current water allocation regimes robust enough to cope with future water risks? Water governance and allocation are therefore closely linked, as more efficient water allocation regimes require both greater co-ordination at federal, state and basin levels and strengthened capacity at sub-national level. This report provides an assessment in both areas and suggests ways forward, building on existing governance structures and policy instruments.
- Brazil is endowed with 12% of the world’s freshwater resources, and some of the world’s largest water basins (the Amazon, Paraná, São Francisco River basins). Brazil’s energy mix has one of the highest shares of renewable energy in the world, with 41% of TEPS coming from renewable energy sources in 2014, more than five times the OECD average. In 2012, 87.1% of the country’s electricity generation came from renewables (IEA, 2014). Hydropower accounts 92% of renewables-based electricity, while biofuels, primarily sugar cane ethanol, satisfy about 15% of transport demand (IEA, 2014). Multi-level governance is particularly critical in a decentralised federation, where water resource management is under the purview of the 27 states and the Federal District, and rooted in a history of participatory democracy based on more than 200 river basin committees. As in other countries, decentralised management is an appropriate response to diversity in needs and local conditions, but it also poses co-ordination challenges that need to be taken into account when putting in place solutions to “too much”, “too little” or “too polluted” water. The water supply crisis in Brazil’s Southeast region (especially in the states of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo), following the driest winter period in 84 years, has shone a political spotlight on more structural challenges. Forecasts of population and economic growth, as well as climate change, suggest continued pressure on water resources in the years to come. This calls for a shift from crisis management to risk management. Competition among different users (e.g. agriculture, industry, households) requires appropriate mechanisms for managing trade-offs, especially since hydropower is the main source of energy in Brazil (87.1% of electricity generation comes from renewables). Competition to access water can also hinder development. For example hydropower may be seriously affected by consumptive uses upstream; it affects the flow regime downstream and limits withdrawals upstream for other uses and environmental requirements. Brazil is a country of huge diversity, not just in terms of hydrographic characteristics and level of economic development but also in terms of institutions’ capacity, amongst others. Such diversity across states explains why there cannot be a one-size fits all assessment and response. Water scarcity due to severe weather conditions in recent years has triggered a debate about how water resources can be managed effectively in a “water-rich” country. Water availability needs to be monitored and managed locally, and robust institutions and policies are required to make the best use of available water, now and in the future. The image of “water abundance” in Brazil generates an awareness gap that hinders the capacity of responsible authorities to cope with pressing and emerging water-related issues. Politicians and citizens are sensitive to the consequences of “bad” water management but tend to look at it from a mere sectoral point of view. The report focuses on two questions that have been at the core of the policy dialogue with Brazilian stakeholders over the past 18 months: 1) how is the multi-level governance system performing in terms of co-ordinating state and federal water policies and priorities? 2) are current water allocation regimes robust enough to cope with future water risks? Water governance and allocation are therefore closely linked, as more efficient water allocation regimes require both greater co-ordination at federal, state and basin levels and strengthened capacity at sub-national level. This report provides an assessment in both areas and suggests ways forward, building on existing governance structures and policy instruments.
- Objectives The dialogue aimed to provide evidence-based assessment drawing on OECD work on water governance, water security, water resources management and financing, as well as lessons and good practices from OECD member and non-member countries. The dialogue focused in particular on two main pillars: The transition to more robust water allocation regimes to overcome conflicts and manage trade-offs across water users and uses; The strengthening of the multi-level governance system to better articulate state and federal priorities and improve capacity at different levels. Expertise The OECD delegation included: A broad range of expertise from the OECD Secretariat on the economics and governance of water management; and High-profile peer reviewers and senior policy makers from Australia, Canada, the European Commission, Portugal and South Africa; Process The OECD delegation carried out two field missions to Brasilia (9-14 March 2014), and Rio de Janeiro, João Pessoa, Salvador and Brasilia (18-23 May 2014). Two policy seminars (14 16 October 2014 and 10-11 March 2015) to discuss key findings and recommendations in the presence of various ministries and around 100 Brazilian stakeholders. The report was peer-reviewed by OECD member and non-member states during the fourth meeting of the OECD Water Governance Initiative (24-25 November 2014). OECD Tools The Dialogue builds on the following OECD tools: OECD Principles of Water Governance OECD Multi-level Governance Framework OECD Survey OECD-Brazil Policy Dialogue on Water Governance OECD Framework for Water Resources Allocation
- Ambitious and forward-looking reforms have shaped Brazil’s water resources management towards decentralisation, participation and integration. The 1997 Federal Water Law enacted basic principles and guidelines. The Law was very much in line with the desire of a society that had recently returned to democracy, but that had not yet brought all of the expected benefits. At the time, the subsequent adoption of state water laws and the creation of a plethora of institutions, including river basin committees and agencies, state and national water councils, undoubtedly contributed to strengthen a much needed policy framework for the water sector. The creation of the National Water Agency in 2000 provided for a highly qualified and stable institution to drive the reform process. The decentralisation to the states and river basin committees laid down a multi-level and “problemshed” approach, very much in line with the desire of a society to enhance place-based and bottom-up decision making in the aftermath of the democratic transition.
- Water policy design and implementation in Brazil are highly fragmented due to several governance gaps and related co-ordination challenges: There are many water plans in place, but they tend to be poorly co-ordinated and weak in practice due to the lack of capacity both with respect to implementation and funding. As a result, plans are often simply “paper tigers” or promises for others to fulfil. The National Water Resources Plan is too broad to set specific priorities, and fails to link to the broader development strategy and co-ordinate decision making. The mismatch between administrative perimeters (municipal, state, federal) and hydrological boundaries (river basin committees) leads to a “double grid” that needs to be reconciled, which is exacerbated by the double dominion and shared jurisdiction over state/federal rivers. Silo approaches among water-related ministries hinder policy coherence at different levels. In particular, poor co-ordination between water, land use, sanitation, environment and economic development policies is detrimental to water policy. The fact that municipalities are largely absent from participatory structures is a compounding factor. The National Water Council has not fully played its cross-sector co-ordination role. The level of representation of ministries is not sufficient, which undermines their influence on the decision-making process and strategic orientations. Given the technical nature of its work, the council has often been a recording chamber rather than serving as a full-fledged advisory platform to guide public action. Where they exist, water charges are low, as are bill collection rates. Funds accumulate with no visible use, which is discouraging for users charged and river basin committees in general. Revenues from hydropower are shared among several organisations and are generally not earmarked for the water sector. Prioritisation according to the federal, state and basin needs is rather low. While the ANA has a high level of capacity with competent and skilled staff and engineers, this is not always the case in deliberative bodies and public administrations across levels of government. States’ capacities are often limited in terms of staff, funding, participation and political commitment and the country is entangled with many river basin committees resulting in little implementation. The image of “water abundance” in Brazil generates an awareness gap that hinders the capacity of responsible authorities to cope with pressing and emerging water-related issues. Politicians and citizens are sensitive to the consequences of “bad” water management but tend to look at it from a mere sectoral point of view. The quality and accessibility of hydrological, economic and financial data and information varies across states in Brazil, as does the capacity to monitor water use and to enforce policies. The ANA’s key role should be complemented by other stakeholders to develop water accounts at the federal level and additional tools are required to feed into a national decision support system.
- • Strategic guidance. The multiple water resource plans at basin, local, state and national levels do not set clear priorities or criteria that define the water resources pool, drive allocation decisions for hydropower generation, irrigation and domestic use, or set priorities for times of scarcity. Poor co-ordination across levels and lax implementation make the plans even weaker as decision support tools. Municipalities, which have core competences related to water, are largely absent from river basin committees. Water resources plans do not set priorities or criteria that can drive allocation decisions. Moreover, plans generally do not factor in cyclical events such as droughts and thus lack clarity in terms of priority of water use in times of crisis. Significant sectoral planning occurs largely in isolation (e.g. hydropower development, irrigation extension), frequently unconnected to the water resources planning process. • Functional scale. Rivers cross administrative boundaries. Basin, state and federal agencies need to ensure their policies and tools are mutually reinforcing and compatible. This is particularly the case for water allocation regimes, which apply distinctively to federal rivers and their tributaries. Potential tensions between federal and state priorities are exacerbated by challenges related to the “double dominion” over water management, and the inconsistencies in approach to allocating water from hydrologically connected water sources. • Policy coherence. Mechanisms to ensure policy coherence, especially between water and agriculture, energy, environmental licensing, sanitation and land use, are weak. For example, the National Water Resources Council is not fully playing its cross-sector co-ordination role. Sectoral planning occurs largely in isolation. Water allocation priorities may differ between federal/state authorities, or between states, while, in the case of federal rivers/tributaries, decisions made at one level affect the capacity of others to achieve its objectives. • Policy instruments. Water charges are low and are most often considered as instruments to raise revenue, rather than to rationalise the use of water and signal scarcity. The proper design and implementation of policy instruments is hindered by information and capacity gaps. Indeed, the availability of good, accessible data and information on water varies across the states, preventing effective decision making in terms of who gets water, where and when. And river basin committees have limited implementation capacity and play essentially an advocacy role rather than building consensus on priorities and planning to guide decision making. Implementation of water allocation policy remains the exception rather than the rule: several tools exist for translating allocation principles into concrete water management. They include water management plans, water permits, collective entitlements, and enforcement and monitoring tools.
- Coping with current and future challenges means that water issues need to be brought into the high-level political and decision-making arena. In practice, the National Water Resources Council should be devoted to enhancing cross-sector co-ordination. But it has not fully played its role for three main reasons: First, the level of representation of the various ministries is not as high as desirable. Lengthy discussions on rather technical matters discourage the participation of high-level officials who tend to delegate to lower rank representatives. According to the 1997 law, the Minister of Environment should preside over the National Council, but this is seldom the case, which has a cascade effect on the level of representation of other stakeholders and the capacity to take decisions. The CNRH is not totally dedicated to and focused on strategic issues. If the council had a higher political level and a more strategic agenda, the system could be more effective and transaction costs would be lower. The 10 technical chambers and 22 working groups, all of a very specialised nature, can overlap with or replicate those of some public agencies (e.g. ANA). A national council focusing on overarching priorities for the country could be more appealing to other ministries and representatives of users and NGOs. Third, state councils and basin committees are not fully represented and often poorly informed about the activities of the CNRH. Not all river basin committees and state councils can have a seat (Figure 2.4) because the balance between categories of stakeholders needs to preserve a majority for the federal power. Sharing the outcomes between national, state and basin levels is a challenge. The deliberative profile of the council tends to translate into a “recording chamber” function, whereby decisions taken in committees are validated instead of being discussed thoroughly.
- Brazil has the ingredients for a future-proof water governance system, including tremendous potential in terms of innovation and skills, a large and rich experience, and a momentum to move forward. The report suggests the following actions to overcome multi-level governance gaps and strengthen integration and co-ordination: Raise the profile of water in the national political agenda, as a strategic priority with broader economic, social and environmental benefits. Upgrade the power, influence and effectiveness of the National Water Council and state water councils in guiding strategic decisions at the highest level. Strengthen and re-profile basin institutions for more effective and result-oriented stakeholder engagement. Foster policy coherence and consistency, especially through greater co-ordination of the Ministry of Environment with the Ministry of Cities, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of National Integration and their equivalents at the state level. Strengthen the financial and technical capacity of state-level institutions through empowerment mechanisms such as the National Water Management Pact, and further implementation of water charges as a policy instrument, where relevant and needed. Foster a culture of continuity in state public policy with a politically backed long term vision, a more professionally based recruitment of water professionals, as well as mandates based on medium- and long-term consensual strategies. Encouraging the adoption of pricing mechanisms, including water charges, to reflect the opportunity costs of alternative uses of water resources. Enhance experience-sharing, communication and bench-learning at all levels to draw lessons from success stories and common challenges.
- – The CNRH holds the potential to be an important vehicle to higher political visibility of water in the broader national agenda. It would be advisable to think of a “political upgrade” of the council. The frequent participation of the Minister of Environment, its persuasion of other ministers to participate personally in the most important sessions, and some regular (yearly) participation of the President of the Republic would have the merit of bringing the council to a higher level of visibility and effectiveness as an advisory body to be attentively heard and followed. – For discussions to be effective, the CNRH could discharge its “deliberative” power to the government itself to concentrate on building consensus with other sectors of society and channelling opinions of the various sectors and civil society to enrich water decision making. If the deliberative powers of the council were confined to a limited number of key points (like giving a positive opinion on the national plan or on key legislation) and if this institution was assumed to be essentially a high-level consultative body, it could be more efficient. In fact, what is important is not to discuss if a given decision is or is not deliberative. What is important is that decisions are implemented in practice. It is better to have effective influence on decisions that are really implemented rather than make supposedly deliberative decisions that remain unapplied. The key issue is how to make the CNRH more influential, and how to ensure a better and more effective representation of all stakeholders in it. – Build consensus with other sectors of society and channel opinions of civil society through consultations, ad hoc meetings, interviews and written contribution on specific issues – Reassess the representativeness of the National Water Resources Council, namely by reassessing the electoral system for the selection of its members – Larger representation of state councils and river basin committees, ensuring that the representatives of these collegiate structures reflect the agreements reached in those structures and not personal or sectoral views. It is important to stabilise representation in the CNRH to make it less dependent on political changes. But striking a balance between the comprehensive representation of states, river basin committees and stakeholders and the need for sizeable groups for meetings to be effective is instrumental. – Improve communication with state, basin and municipal levels, and take better into account the interactions with other sectors and scales of water management (space, time, jurisdiction, institutional) – Strengthen the capacities and training of stakeholders and other representatives
- Technical issues related to indicators’ construction: measurement errors, coherence of measurements, biases in expert assessments. Complexity of water governance: the definition of water governance encompasses multiple dimensions not easy to measure Uncertainty of the context: limited control of policy makers on factors that might affect the effectiveness of water governance Continuity: the scarce availability of data can hinder the measurement of progress year after year; Completeness: when focused on specific aspects, indicators fail to capture the whole picture of the water governance system. Comparability: Indicators are not necessarily standardized measures applicable to all contexts unconditionally, since the concept of governance itself may vary from country to country. Difficulty in establishing causality: an established indicator system might not be able to assess whether or not benefits are the results of certain actions implemented to achieve “effective water governance”.
- 69 case studies were also collected to feed the analysis with practical on-the-ground experiences and good practices of impactful stakeholder engagement. The project was developed in an iterative way as part of a working group of the OECD Water Governance Initiative, an international multi-stakeholder network gathering twice a year to share good practices and experience on water governance
- The report is structured around 5 building blocks of stakeholder engagement that we have used as a reading template throughout the project to collect evidence and derive from it policy guidance to the intention of decision-makers. Detecting the drivers, to ensure that stakeholder engagement is outcome-oriented Mapping the types of stakeholders, to ensure it is target-oriented and at the relevant scale Diagnosing obstacles, to ensure that stakeholder engagement is anticipatory and resilient Identifying mechanisms to ensure it is fit-for-purpose; and Fostering evaluation so that it is adaptive and sustainable I will now briefly highlight the main messages from the report and the survey regarding these five building blocks
- The typology suggested in this report distinguishes 6 levels of stakeholder engagement depending on the processes and the intentions they pursue : Communication: it intends to make water-related information and data available to other parties (i.e. information sharing) as well as raise awareness (e.g. can take the form of public campaigns, educational initiatives, or training of water professionals) Consultation: aims at gathering comments, perceptions, information, advice, experiences and ideas of stakeholders. The use of information gathered during consultation process often remains at the discretion of the entity that initiated it. In most cases, there is no obligation to take the views of the audience into consideration when subsequently amending plans, making decisions, or setting directions and little attempts are made to translate the views and preferences of stakeholders consulted into a collective decision. Participation: Participation means that stakeholders are associated with the decision-making process and take part in discussions and activities. For promoters of participation, the aim is often to improve transparency in decision making and the strengthened the foundation of the choices and decisions to be made. Representation: Representation is a more structural and institutionalised level of engagement. It attempts to develop a collective choice by aggregating preferences from various stakeholders. It often consists in having stakeholders’ perspectives and interests officially represented in the management of a project or of an organisation. Partnership: they consist of agreed-upon collaboration between institutions, organisations or citizen fora to combine resources and competencies in relation to a common project or challenge to solve. Co-production and co-decision : ultimate levels of stakeholder engagement since they are characterised by a balanced share of power over the policy or project decision-making process. This form of engagement tends to challenge existing organisational values and practices in the sector, and can have positive implications for accountability
- To highlights some results from the survey: Ranked first are policy reforms, crisis – such as in Italy after the referendum on the participation of the private sector – and democratic pressure such as in the MENA region after the Arab Spring when citizens demanded to play a bigger role in the decisions related to basic services such as drinking water and sanitation provision. Binding and non-binding frameworks have boosted stakeholder engagement (4th drivers for 36% of respondents): The EU Flood Directive requires public participation in flood management cycle. Organisations also tend to adopt more and more requirements in their policy. However, they sometimes only require some form of engagement without a clear mandate which lead to a “box-ticking” mentality with only the minimal level of engagement required is adopted. Competition over water allocation is considered the 5th most important driver, in particular for business who ranked it the 2nd most important driver. Water resources serve multiple purposes whether for irrigation, energy production or domestic use, which raises rivalries. Consultation and consensus based decision-making can help design water allocation regimes to achieve economic efficiency, environmental sustainability and social equity. EDF for instance has succeeded in optimising water allocation between energy generation and irrigation by signing conventions with major irrigators which includes incentives for water savings. In the contrary, results from the survey showed that, across the 215 respondents, incentives from donors in the framework of technical assistant programme, for instance, have been less influential, except for international organisations.
- Understanding the rationale that underlies stakeholder engagement as such is a key factor of success to understand the objectives and the expected outcomes. This is why we sought to identify structural and conjunctural drivers that have increasingly pushed decision-makers in the last 10 years. Structural drivers can be clustered into 4 categories concerning : climate change which will affect the availability of resources and the resilience of water infrastructures with differentiated impacts around the world. In Arizona for instance, the need to better manage water scarcity has encouraged several initiatives to engage public utilities, agencies and local residents to discuss issues such as water harvesting; economic and demographic trends that will influence the capacity of governments to mobilise public funds, but also their capacity to meet water demands, in particular in cities where population is projected to grow exponentially by 2050; socio-political trends with European directives related to water and floods, but also the post-2015 development agenda will set new standards and aspirational goals for adaptive water governance; and innovation and technologies which not only stimulate information sharing and open new channels for communication, but also encourage new co-operation for instance between governments, business and research and knowledge institutes. Conjunctural drivers and changing contexts have also triggered stakeholder engagement: They primarily concern : policy reforms, crisis, be it political or environmental, as well as increasing democratic pressure, the emergence of binding and non-binding frameworks Competition over water allocation
- Stakeholder mappings can be used to identify the core functions of stakeholders but also identify gaps and overlaps. For Mexico, it shed light on the cumulative functions of the National Water Commission (CONAGUA) in terms of policymaking, financing, regulation, service provision and capacity building. It is also important to go beyond the “usual suspects” and include new players that have gained interest in water governance: business companies are paying more and more attention to water governance in their strategy, for instance for what concerns the risks that water scarcity or pollution may raise for their core business. Their contribution can take the form, for example, of corporate water stewardships where they cooperate with governments and civil society in managing these risks. As risks of flood are becoming more acute in some regions, property developers are influential to harness new financial resources and to contribute to managing floods. Institutional investors like pension funds and insurance firms have also emerged as new financers in water infrastructure and utilities. Just as important, mapping exercises also shed light on categories of stakeholders that remain unheard such as women, youth, the rural and urban poor, and indigenous communities. They do not always come forward on their own and lack the capacity to engage effectively, hence, additional efforts and innovative ways are needed to contact and engage these groups to ensure a more balanced picture.
- The second component relates to the need to thoroughly identify the stakeholders to be engaged, within and outside the water community, in terms of who is responsible for what and at which level. => Having a clear picture of the types of stakeholders that should be engaged, their interests and interactions across different levels is a stepping stone to reflect on-the-ground diversity and set-up engagement at the relevant scale.
- Understanding these different motivations can also help to understand how stakeholders interact with one another which resonates with how much they influence decision making, but also questions related to trust, consensus building and solidarity. Governments: peer-to-peer dialogue, then with basin organisations, regulators and service providers. Same for basin organisations (peer to peer interactions first)
- Results from the survey 1. The first category concerns obstacles that restrict the integration of stakeholder engagement into projects and policymaking. It includes political resistance to the shift of power that stakeholder engagement implies, especially across actors that do not always share the same interests, indeed, it is often believed that decisions should be made only by technical and political experts. It was identified as the most important obstacle, particularly among watershed institutions. Also, scattered responsibilities across multiple actors limit coordination and lead to poor consultation and information sharing, and weak accountability. And the absence of sound legal frameworks hampers the application of standards on stakeholder engagement and assessing the compliance with existing requirements. 2. The second category concerns situations where engagement processes is frustrated by process and logistical issues or conflicting goals. The lack of clarity on how stakeholders’ inputs contribute to the final decisions can be misleading and discouraging is the 2nd most important obstacle identified in the Survey, in particular among business. Insufficient funds to sustain the engagement processes and the lack of competent staff are also barriers, as well as information asymmetry that prevent stakeholder from making informed contribution. Last, conflict of interests and capture of decision-making by certain groups raise issues of representativeness.
- The third component of the analytical framework considers two categories of obstacles that hamper stakeholder engagement: those that hinder the transposition of the concept of stakeholder engagement in practices; and those that impede the effective implementation of engagement processes: Anticipating these obstacles and mitigating the risks they raise can be done for instance by translating existing standards into legislative frameworks, setting up information systems on water and securing funds to help sustain engagement processes, while signing integrity pacts can help reduce the likelihood of consultation capture.
- We have identified 24 mechanisms, both formal and informal. The most commonly used are meetings, workshop and expert panels We have also tentatively shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of such mechanisms On the one hand, formal mechanisms can bring about a strong sense of legitimacy, for instance in the case of water associations and RBOs, relying on principle of representative democracy. But they both risk being high-jacked by certain groups, or only reflect the views of the person sitting at the table rather that their broader constituencies. On the other hand, informal mechanisms are flexible in their time frame and scale, and provide an open atmosphere which make participants more willing to discuss, but they can lack the necessary level of structure and mediation to ensure that the outcomes of the engagement process are effectively used There is also more and more innovation regarding mechanisms and decision tools because of technological progress, and also greater skills and openness in using such tools. ITC development has become a driving force and takes various forms such as virtual meetings, online platforms and e-voting. They also contribute to more transparency on information and help stakeholders better understand what governments do. However, they also raise some challenges such as a digital divide between levels of economic development.
- The fourth component focuses on the mechanisms for stakeholder engagement, which work differently depending on the place, time and objective pursued. => Water projects and policy processes are never identical and the key to selecting the most appropriate mechanisms is to understand the range of options available, their pros and cons, and how they may be better fitted to a particular type of stakeholders, a context or a purpose.
- Stakeholder engagement raises both some costs and yields some benefits which need to be assessed. Discussions, consultation and exchange of opinions raise some transaction costs, be they direct or indirect, monetary or not, that relate to different phases of the engagement process Early costs that relate to negotiation and mediation of existing social conflicts, or communication to stakeholders; Operational costs regarding logistical and process expenses, staff and delays in decision-making; Ex-post costs linked to the failure to deliver the outcomes and damage to reputation and the legitimacy of decision-makers.
- Stakeholder engagement raises some risks. They can relate to: risk of conflict arising between stakeholders during the engagement process, if it is badly managed. risks of opposition and litigation over the outcomes of the process if stakeholders are only involved in the final phase of the policy or project process and do not have any influence over it. accountability risks: when stakeholder engagement processes are set-up under false or misleading pretences (i.e. giving the illusion of inclusiveness on a particular water issue when the decision has in fact already been made) can lead to undermine the accountability of decision-makers if the participants realise their inputs was in fact never used. risks of frustration and fatigue: capture by certain groups, inertia to change current practices, and complexity of process or over-consultation can all raise risks of frustration and fatigue among stakeholders.
- On the other hand, benefits can be short-term and long-term and clustered into 4 types depending whether they relate to acceptability and sustainability; social equity and cohesion; capacity development; or economic efficiency.
- Stakeholders are increasingly using evaluation tools such as evaluation report and satisfaction survey to measure the success of the engagement efforts. The frequency of use of the tools vary among stakeholders: for instance 67% of civil society does it on a regulator basis against 45% of business. Overall, assessing stakeholder engagement should not be considered as an end in itself but rather as a way to improve the process and its outcomes. It can strengthen the accountability of decision makers, by measuring whether resources and stakeholders’ efforts are properly used; and also help manage risks and potential challenges that engagement processes may face, such as divergent objectives across actors. Evaluating the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement, both the process and its outcomes sheds lights on how it contributes to improving water governance, but also on its different impacts across categories of stakeholders. Indeed, different costs and benefits accrue to different actors and the sustainability of stakeholder engagement will depend on how they are distributed, the willingness of stakeholders to bear them, and the needed trade-offs. Evaluating stakeholder engagement can raise some difficulties: comprehensive frameworks of evaluation methods and reliable tools are lacking; evaluation frameworks need to work across a wide variety of forms and goals of engagement processes; and there is no widely held criteria for judging success and failure of stakeholder engagement in terms of process and outcomes.
- The fifth component focuses on the evaluation of stakeholder engagement. The report points out that this undertaking has been rather ad hoc thus far, potentially because stakeholder engagement has often consisted in a “tick-the-box” approach to comply with existing rules. But assessment of stakeholder engagement, more specifically in terms of effectiveness, costs and benefits, is crucial to guide effective decision-making.
- The report advises decision makers on six basic principles. First, map all those who have a stake in the outcome of any water projects, and their responsibilities, motivations and interactions. Second, define the line of decision making and how stakeholder engagement will contribute. Third, aim for result-oriented stakeholder engagement with the proper financial and human resources and information. Fourth, carry out regular assessments of stakeholder engagement. Fifth, embed engagement processes in clear legal and policy frameworks, making them a required part of organisational structures and principles. Sixth, customise the specific issues and keep the process as flexible as possible.