Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Evolving IWRM Mukhtar Hashemi
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Evolving IWRM Mukhtar Hashemi


Published on

  • very very thanks about your sildes
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • haddad moradi:
    thank you
    its grate
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Evolving the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Paradigm:To reassess the underline policy assumptions
    Part A
    ❶ Associate Researcher, The Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research (CLUWRR), Newcastle University, UK;
    ❷ Scientific Advisor, The Office of Applied Researches, IWRMC, Ministry of Energy, Iran
    ❸ National IWRM Consultant, UNDP/GEF Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project, Department of Environment, Iran
    22-24 Feb 2011
    Amman- Jordan
    Kempinski Hotel
  • 2. A. A regional outlook
  • 3. WANA Geopolitical conditions:
    Semi arid and Arid
  • 4. Mecca
    Driving Forces:
    Population Growth
    Urbanization -Mega Cities
  • 5. Regional disparity
    The degree of the ability of WANA Countries to meet the 2025 urban water demand?
  • 6.
  • 7. Results
    7 countries with no difficulty to achieve the demand
    include: Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, UAE, Qatar,, Kuwait and Bahrain
    Persian Gulf states depend on desalination
  • 8. 9 countries with no difficulty but they conditionally can meet the demand
    Yemen- no urban population driver due to poverty
    Syria- depends on water from Turkey
    Sudan- friction with Egypt? poverty, less demand
    Morocco: short term problem with re allocation of water resources
    Libya- Oil to water- desalination??
    Iraq- water from Turkey
    Eritrea/Ethiopia - Poverty- no demand increase
    Egypt- if 60% share of the Nile Unchanged
    Algeria- underdeveloped
    Afghanistan- Poverty and under-development
  • 9. 1 country with geopolitical problems rather than resource problems
    Palestinian – a question of Equity
    Israel takes a lion Share
    no urban supply infrastructure
  • 10. 4 countries with sever problems in meeting the demand
    Tunisia- rundown of its irrigated agriculture by 50% or desalination
    KSA-Small renewable resources and huge urban populations and there might be a need for more desalination plants and use of groundwater
    Oman-Extensive groundwater mining not viable long term option and require desalination in the future
    Jordan- Small renewable resource; import of water from Lebanon via Israel is a non-starter; desalination from Aquaba port is a difficult task with over 1000 m pumping requirements and 250 km of water transport; reallocation from irrigation only buys time;
  • 11. Overexploitation Zayandarud River Esfahan: Sheep or fish?
  • 12. Can you allocate any water
    Where is Water?
  • 13. Climate Change???? Droughts??
    What happened to the rain?
    (Penman, 1961)
  • 14. Basic definition: systems approach
  • 15. B. Moves towards implementing IWRM
    Dominant paradigm- 40 years of history
    There has been a lack in implementing IWRM worldwide despite its adoption by national governments around the globe
  • 16. Characterisation of efforts
    Numerous researchers- variety of IWRM themes
    Scattered and dispersed efforts
    Lack of communication
    World Bank (2007):
    water scarcity in MENA (=WANA)
    Impact of non water policies are greater
  • 17. Integration; IWRM and Sustainable development
    Meeting the criteria for sustainability
    Underlying theoretical background
  • 18. (Source: Morrison et al 2004)
  • 19. How to achieve holism?: sustainability criteria
    spatial adequacy (basin level),
    representation (participation),
    communication (precautionary), and
    forward looking (prediction).
  • 20.
  • 21. Policy integration useful
    Recommendation 1:
    • There is a need for an integrated research policy
    • 22. Sustainable research portfolio- appropriate funding mechanism
  • The missing policy links
    7 missing policy links which are neglected in IWRM plans
  • 23. The omissions
    1- Green water- soil moisture and water stored in plants
    2- Gray water and return water
    3- Environmental services (functions) of water
  • 24. 3. Impact of land use change on blue water
    Forest Policy based on Land and water myths (e.g. Calder 2005)
    1 Forests increase rainfall.
    2 Forests increase runoff.
    3 Forests regulate flows.
    4 Forests reduce erosion.
    5 Forests reduce floods.
    6 Forests ‘sterilize’ water supplies – improve water quality.
    7 Agro forestry systems increase productivity.
  • 25. More research needed…..
    The negative/ positive impact due
    biophysical interactions
    Site specific
    Type of plants and canopies
    How impact? Geological factors such as landslide and jungle management activities, roads etc liter cover
  • 26. 5- Virtual water in water balance
  • 27. Water Dependency vs. Water self sufficiency
  • 28. More research: scarcity vs. Dependency
    water scarcity water dependency
    Iran and Pakistan water scarcity but low dependency
    Iran 93 water self sufficiency
    Pakistan 100 water self sufficiency
  • 29. Scarcity- dependency [source Delft, 2003)
  • 30. water footprint
  • 31. Iran Half liter of drink beverage from sugar beet-
    The total water footprint of 0.5 litre PET-bottle sugar-containing carbonated beverage according to the
    type and origin of the sugar (SB=Sugar Beet, SC=Sugar Cane, HFMS= High Fructose Maize Syrup)
    UNESCO-IHP (Ercin et al, 2009)
  • 32. UNESCO-IHP (Ercin et al, 2009)
  • 33.
  • 34. More omissions …
    6- fisheries sector in river basin management -neglected
    7- role of belief systems - direct bearing on policy making decision
  • 35. Recommendation 2
    Redefinition of the scope or focus of IWRM
    equitable allocation strategy include whole water balance (Blue and Green Water or so called the ‘ever-green’ revolution: Falkenmark and Rockstörm, 2006).
  • 36. Policy to acknowledge technical challenges – technology driven
    to understand the physical processes affecting green water (e.g. vapour flow and green soil flow) and be able to include these concepts in the water balance components of the water resources models. Hence, there are many technical challenges to initiate the new green revolution. Technology will have an important role to play. It has to adjust to new paradigms and take an adaptive and innovative technical strategy.
  • 37. Recommendation 3: Redefinition of the scale of IWRM
    A depoliticized river basin concept approach- but most decisions are political
    Most use- Agricultural water use- smaller unit - smaller physical unit (at catchment or watershed level) can be used to reflect what happens at the farming level.
  • 38. Management at farm level
  • 39. Recommendation 4: ecohydological concept- interface among ecology, land and water
    Redefining water science intersecting applied and socio-economic disciplines
    Restoration/ adaptive management as part of the policy
  • 40. Recommendation 5: virtual water policy as a regional policy for cooperation
  • 41. Recommendation 6: Enhancement of the Role of belief systems and culture in policymaking
    Policy making- straggle over idea and [values]
    Interplay between policy and Legitimacy
  • 42. Recommendation 7: linking IWRM and ICZM- water –land-sea-interface
    Coastal ecosystems are vital
    60% of population
    90% of global fisheries
    25% global biological productivities
    Integrated Coastal Area and river basin management- ICARM – not new but focus on new gaps….
  • 43. Science and Policy Interface:An integrated socio-technical and Institutional Framework to deal with water scarcity in WANA region
    Part B
    ❶ Associate Researcher, The Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research (CLUWRR), Newcastle University, UK;
    ❷ Scientific Advisor, The Office of Applied Researches, IWRMC, Ministry of Energy, Iran
    ❸ National IWRM Consultant, UNDP/GEF Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project, Department of Environment, Iran
    22-24 Feb 2011
    Amman- Jordan
    Kempinski Hotel
  • 44. Framework: Science and Water policy interface
    Transforming Scientific evidence into policymaking
  • 45. Half full or half empty?
  • 46. Definitions
    A Framework is a non-predictive representation of structures and provides interlinkges for the relevant components of a system that influence the policy in question.
    theory “makes specific assumptions on the linkages between variables and outcomes” (quoting Clement 2008)
  • 47. Definitions cont.
    a model “makes more precise predictions than a theory and often relies on mathematical tools"
    Interface: a mechanism or framework to link two systems; be able to exchange, use or process the information
    Perspectives are mental models of actors involved in designing , implementing and affected by policy in question
  • 48. A Science- water policy interface defines the points of interaction, interplay and linkage between technical and social or non-technical frameworks.
  • 49. Multidimensional Water scarcity
    3 levels (World Bank, 2007)
    Governance level: lack of transparency in decision making
    Organisational capacity level: inability of organisations to effectively manage water resources
    Physical resource level (water shortage, water stress conditions, temporal and seasonal variations
  • 50. Avoiding pitfalls
    Poor definition of policy objectives
    Lack of Local knowledge
    Inadequate consideration of Ethics
    Lack of clear participation mechanisms
    Undermining learning during the process
    Lack of economic assessment of policy
  • 51. Science and water policy interface
    Linking sociopolitical and technical assessment frameworks
    use of different theories and frameworks to form the a single conceptual framework
  • 52. Components
    Conceptual frameworks: underlining policy assumption (IWRM) and dealing with cultural and ethical issues (perspectives)
    Analytical frameworks:to study change, predict future trends, assess impacts of policies on the water resources systems and provide alternative options- integrated socio-technical assessment frameworks- institutional assessments to evaluate policy implications
  • 53. Components
    DSSsto model the system - empirical evidences -consisting of coupled tools such as process, planning and evaluation models and tools statistical and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDA) tools.
    stakeholder participation platform – clear policy on enabling environment - feedback mechanisms
  • 54.
  • 55. Living with uncertainty
    Recommendation 1
  • 56. uncertainty is a byproduct of analyzing complex issues
    The scientific uncertainty of any analytical assessment -limit the authority of scientific knowledge in policy making
    The scientific ambiguity serves both policymakers and scientists: it can be used as an alibi in accounting for a lack of policy effectiveness. However this should not affect the importance of scientific knowledge in decision making as uncertainty is a byproduct of analyzing complex issues
  • 57. DSSs are not for policymakingRecommendation 2
  • 58. support the decision-making process
    despite scepticisms and uncertainties, modelling systems have become indispensable tools in water resources management
    Past research indicates that decision makers are becoming more dependent on scientific information (e.g. Matthies et al, 2007; Liu et al, 2008) and hence there is a quest for developing comprehensive DSSs;
  • 59. a tool to facilitate an informed, transparent and participatory decision-making process
    certain end-users expect the so called ‘super’ software which can make decisions with a click of a button i.e. they require instantaneous answers to extremely intricate situations.
    DSSs are not off-the-shelf software packages but they are interactive multi-stakeholder decision-making platforms. A DSS is not a tool for making-policy but it is.
  • 60. first, establishing the relationships between the dominant paradigms (e.g. IWRM) and different analytical frameworks (e.g. Institutional Analysis, DPSIR);
    and second, linking social (policy) and scientific methodological approaches through an exchange mechanism among outputs of the frameworks used in the Decision Support tools.
    integrated methodological framework
  • 61. An evolving IWRM
    An IWRM approach can use scenario analysis which is embedded in the DPSIR framework. This will interface with the IA framework. The interface between science and policy can be established by looking at integrating technical and social assessment methodologies on a dynamic, interactive multi-windowed stakeholder interface platform. The IWRM paradigm will itself need to evolve to embrace emerging issues such as the management of ‘green’ water and accounting for virtual water.
  • 62. Perspectives and ethics
    Polices to deal with water scarcity in WANA region are influenced by cultural and ethical aspects which represent a dimension of the community attributes which has to be considered in any policy analysis exercise. On the above basis, it is argued that it is vital to incorporate ethical perspectives into integrated institutional and technical frameworks for better water resources management under water scarcity
  • 63. Science and water policy interface
    an interface between scientific knowledge systems and policy-making decisions.
  • 64. Conclusions
    Given the complex nature of water scarcity in the WANA region, finding the science –policy interface is vital to enhance the policymaking process in the region.
  • 65. In the WANA region in which water scarcity is a fact of life, water sector institutions need to be re-oriented to cater for the needs of changing supply-demand and quantity-quality relationships in the emerging realities
  • 66. Thank you
    Water Resources Group
    School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University, UK