Top Down Approach To Water Resource Managment

Top Down place out To body of peeing tack on Resource ManagmentEver since the period of Enlightenment, scientists and academics founder impinge on a top-down admission to managing the environment and its associated picks. The downf completely of this persistent ideology is that it merely values or prioritizes professional expert scientific association as a root for solveulating environmental policies and head closings concerning the environment (Smith et al, 2008).The consequences of prioritizing expert knowledge was that the topical anesthetic anesthetic knowledge and experiences of the meets of tribe at the grass root aim, were not taken into consideration during end making and was norm every(prenominal)y regarded as irrelevant (Smith et al, 2008). In the mise en scene of pissing resource circumspection, this admittance meant that the policies, plans and programs conjecture were skillful and exclusively scientific in nature, needinessing the dynamics o f the favorable realm and use of well-disposed theory (Smith et al, 2008).The technical nature of policies speculate come outd to be locally unsustainable and unacceptable because piddle supply resource focussing is an argona that deals with a resource that integrates basic human justifiedlys and is central to all life (Smith et al, 2008).Some examples of the consequences of this non-participatory feeler to peeing resource viement is the turn of wide dams for piddle system corpse yield and irrigation which results in the displacement of thousands of int polish offed beneficiaries or how roughly governmental sympathies have even intentionally used the irrigate policies speculate under this approach, to harm the disenfranchised (Jansky et al, 2005)Along with being purely technical in nature and non-participatory, schematic weewee resource caution approaches focussed primarily on the supply of body of irrigate resources particularly for developing and othe rwise frugalally inclined purposes.2.2 Supply-driven approachIt has been recognized that the evolution of irrigate resource caution is greatly interconnected with the growth of the worlds creation (Al Radif, 1999). Until the end of the nineteenth century, water resource focusing was primarily focused on the supply of water to users for agricultural, domestic and industrial uses which stressd to be successful end-to-end the 19th century due(p) to the pitiable population growth during this period. This approach to water resource prudence known as the supply-driven approach proved successful because the operational water resources during this time period were adequate to run the guides of the population (Al Radif, 1999).As shown in the Figure 1 above, when the worlds population was approximately 2 billion in the 19th century the novel water ecosystems basically functi whizd undisturbed as a user, supp perchr of goods and function and a regulator of both water quality an d quantity which take for granted a sustainable approach was being implemented however, when the population grew to 3 billion over 60 years, the approach was quickly undermined (Al Radif, 1999). This was mainly due to the governments focus on the supply of water resources by diverting water resources from the original stores to new store pathways. The approach to water resource focusing resulted in the deterioration of water quality, stresses on water supplies and the degradation of water resources (Al Radif, 1999).3. interconnected WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT3.1 Definitions, principles and objectivesAccording to the Global irrigate Partnership (GWP) 2000, Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) is viewed simultaneously as a philosophy, exhibit and approach which promotes the coordinated development and management of water and related natural resources, in order to maximize the resultant sparing and companionable welfargon in an equitable manner without compromising the sus tainability of snappy ecosystems (GWP, 2000 as cited by Funke et al, 2007).IWRM is also described as a guiding principle that necessitates the interdisciplinary, participative and strategic approach to managing water resources, stressing the co ordinate inter practiseion between and within both human and natural systems with the bearing of achieving sustainable development (Guipponi et al, 2000).Since thither is no unambiguous and universally accepted translation the examination of the Dublin principles which form the core of IWRM, allows a cle atomic number 18r appreciation of the signalize set offs that define IWRM (Funke et al, 2007).The Dublin principles state thatThe worlds fresh water is finite and a vulnerable water resource vital for human survival, development and the indemnify go of the environment.Water resource management should be a participative process involving all users planners and policy work outrs at all levels.Women play a gravestone role in the manag ement of water resources and hence should be come to in decision making.Water should be recognized as an economic good.IWRM emerged in response to the welkin by sector technical conventional water resource management approaches and is more holistic in that it recognizes the dis similar dimensions of water and accepts that water comprises an ecological system formed by a number of interdependent components, where each component influences the other (Matondo, 2002). This recognition results in management directed to joint consideration of aspects for example water supply, water treatment and disposal and water quality (Mitchell, 1944).While water is a system it is also recognized as a component and at that placefore its interactions with other systems accept to be taken into consideration as alterations in one system may have consequences in the other, therefore IWRM is a much broader spot or approach to managing water resources (Matondo, 2002).IWRM does not lonesome(prenomi nal) take into consideration the complex interconnections of the human and natural systems, it has even broader interpretations as it considers the interrelationships between water and socio-economic development where the main concern is the extent to which the available water supplies is both an opportunity for barrier against economic development and how to manage the resource to reckon sustainable development (Mitchell, 1944).IWRM comp ard to conventional water management approaches, recognizes and accepts that water resource planning and management fecal matter have physical, kind and economical impacts and is therefore multi and interdisciplinary involving a wide range of disciplines such(prenominal) as engineering, economics and social science (Matondo, 2002). The aim of formulating multidisciplinary teams in IWRM is communion to view the various statuss on water resources to get a line the maintenance of ecological functioning and the conservation of water resources (Al Radif, 1999).3.2 Bottom- up approachBy the end of the 1980s the conventional supply-driven management approach proved problematic and incompetent of delivering portable water and proper sanitation especially in ontogenesis countries. By the mid 1980s early 1990s, the realization and acceptance of the position that actions at the grass root level is what contracts or breaks policies, resulted in the vulgarisation of a more participatory approach to environmental management termed the bottom-up approach (Smith, 2008).In context of water management, conferences held in New Delhi in 1990, Dublin in 1992 and Rio de Jeneiro in 1992 endorsed community union which was officially adopted universally as a linchpin guiding principle in sustainable water resource management (Smith, 2008).The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Jeneiro specifically proposed that local communities should be come tod in all stages of decision making with regard to the management of water resources to ensure that de cisions made are locally appropriate, accepted and sustainable (Smith, 2008).The model of involving communities in all stages of decision making such as policy and plan formulation and check and program death penalty, were based on the fact that local people themselves are considered experts of their own local environment and therefore their knowledge should be highly appreciated (Smith, 2008). Unlike the conventional top-down approach, the bottom-up approach encourages local people to work together on environmental issues within their surrounding environment which consequently provides capacity building and empowerment opportunity to communities that are able to define their specific needs, wants and aims in relation to local water access and management (Smith, 2008).IWRM encompasses all aspects of the environment namely economic, environmental and social aspects however, the approach pays little attention to the ecosystems role as a provider of goods and services which resulted in the suggestion of an ecosystem-based approach (Jewitt, 2002).3.3 Ecosystem-based approachConventional water resource management approaches were typically a command control image of approach in the sense that it aimed to control the hydrological cycle through the construction of hydrological structures to harvest goods and services and produce predictable outcomes (Jewit, 2002). The reduction of ecosystem variation and functioning, mitigate in the goods and services provided by ecosystems and resilience of the systems were some of the consequences of adopting this approach (Jewit, 2002).The key components of the ecosystem based approach as shown in figure 3 complicate capacity building, partnership, policy and planning and the assessment of water resources (Al Radif, 1999).The correct functioning of ecosystems such as headwaters, wetlands and floodplains is vital for human survival since society derives a wide variety of pregnant life sustaining benefits and biodiversity from these systems (Al Radif, 1999). In the context of water resources ecosystems regulate water quality and quantity, habitat resources and provide vital discipline to society (Al Radif, 1999).Additionally, ecosystems are highly complex systems and the exclusion of vital aspects of the system regarding the environment such as ecological functioning during decision making due to the poor understanding of the systems dynamics results in undermined and unsustainable decisions (Jewit, 2002).This lack of understanding and lack of political willingness to accommodate non-quantitative aspects of ecosystem dynamics results in an incapable management system (Jewit, 2002).An ecosystem-based approach to managing water resources is a realization that management systems need to be flexible anticipatory and adaptive to deal with the complexity of ecosystems. The approach is similar to IWRM however the approach prioritizes ecosystem functioning and its related goods and services (Jewitt, 2002).4. IW RM IN DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIESDespite the universal acceptance of the Dublin principles which form the core of IWRM, The powerful implementation of IWRM in each individual rural area is dependent on the nature and intensity of the water problems that rest in the country (Funke et al, 2007).The argument put forward by the European joint regarding the five fundamental principles of good political science for the effective implementation of IWRM in each country, is not entirely relevant in developing countries as it is in substantial countries (Funke et al, 2007). This is mainly because the situations that occur in developing countries discord on many levels compared to those that house in developed countries (Funke et al, 2007). The founderness, confederation and transparency of governance in developing countries are hampered by more factors compared to developed countries such as illiteracy and widespread poverty and mistrust of government leaders (Funke et al, 2 007).Lack of budgets and human resource capacities in developing countries stimulate a gap between water resource management and the screening of new legislations, strategies and institutions in practice and it is therefore clear that with the uniquely characterized problems that reside in developing countries, the solutions to managing water resources in developed countries will prove inapplicable (Funke et al, 2007).IWRM principles and practices therefore need to take into consideration the local conditions which reside in developing countries such as Africa, if the management approach is to prove sustainable in a long run (Funke et al, 2007).4.1 IWRM in second Africa due south Africa is recognized universally as being at the chief of adopting IWRM as a water resource management regime (Jonker, 2000). The need for IWRM in the countries stems from climatic, historical and political perspectives all of which differ from developed countries and make the successful and effective i mplementation of IWRM a scrap (Jonker, 2000).From climatic perspective large parts of the country is water limited due to the low average and highly variable rainfall received in the country. The unfair patterns of both industrial and agricultural development from a historical perspective and the apartheid social engineering and planning legacy from a political perspective, resulted in the unequal access to and use of water resources and more concentrated water demands in particular areas of the country (Jonker, 2000).An additional challenge to IWRM in South Africa aroused when the citizens of the country took part in a national democratisation process and now have the growing need to participate in decision making processes at all levels (Jonker, 2000). This has its benefits challenge although the problems come in when decision makers have to decide the extent to which citizens are able to have an influence on decisions made and the challenge of trade offs (Jonker, 2000). The ma nagement approach embraces a multitude of stakeholders in South Africa which include environmentalists, government at all levels, NGOs and local organizations such as subsistence farmers, traditional leaders and women groups (Shculze et al, 2004).The political transformation in South Africa the mid nineties was used as an opportunity by the water sector for formulating new water justice policies and a new water act in 1998. IWRM formed the basis of this transformation and both the constitution and National Water Act (NWA) of 1998 make fundamental facilitations for the effective and successful implementation in South Africa (Jonker, 2000).4.2 The record and National Water Act of 1998Despite the peaceful political handing over to democracy in South Africa, in the context of water resource management, the allocation and management of water resources was still regulated by the 1956 Water Act which is primarily based on the riparian system water rights making no provision for the inte gration, equity or facilitation for transparent and open decision making, ecological sustainability or the reduction of poverty (Dollar et al, 2010).The inclusion of the concept of sustainable development into the South African Constitution due to the universe of a water reform process in 1995 resulted in a major shift towards IWRM because the Constitution forms the basis of all policies laws and practices for water management ( Dollar et al, 2010).The values entrenched in the Constitution include equity, the right of access to sufficient water and a healthy environment and therefore provides the enabling environment for the formulation and implementation of a new representative water act ( Dollar et al, 2010). It took over three years for the NWA of 1998 to come into law in South Africa and the NWA recognizes that water is a powerful bastard for restructuring society (Dollar et al, 2010). The act encompasses values such as human rights, social justice principles and provides po licies and legal frameworks required to ensure the equal, efficient and sustainable supply of water resources (Asmal, 1998).Despite the fact that the NWA does not contain the term IWRM, it encompasses the principles and objectives of the water management approach as set out on the ovalbumin paper policy document of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (Jonker et al, 2000). The act also makes noteworthy provisions and fundamental provisions for the effective implementation of IWRM (Asmal, 1998).Some of the provisions include the recognition by the act that water for basic human needs and proper ecological functioning moldiness be taken as first priority before mercenary and other water uses, the change from water rights to water-use rights and makes provision for levies to be charged for all major water users for their consumption (Asmal, 1998). This provision was made to ensure equity and efficiency but was met great resistance from the agricultural sector (Asmal, 1998) m ainly because the agricultural sector is highly dependent on water resources for irrigation purposes (Schulze et al, 2004).The NWA also facilitates human beings participation which is one of the core principles of IWRM and stresses that government should involve local communities and all affected and involved stakeholders during legislation and policy formulation, and take their comments seriously however, even though the their catchment is their responsibility government remains the super (Schulze et al,2004).Another substantial provision of the NWA is the focus on the arrangements and establishment of institutions which resulted in a significant shift to more integrated and co operative approaches to water governance and stakeholder participation to ensure IWRM (Asmal, 1998). The act acknowledges that political boundaries prove contrasted for water management and watersheds are more relevant. Part of IWRM is to ensure that there is equitable use of shared rivers and developmen t cannot occur in isolation, some other highlight of the NWA (Asmal, 1998).These provisions in the NWA of 1998 set the foundation for the implementation of IWRM in South Africa however despite the top quality of the act implantation fatigue occurs due to capacity constraints and other challenges to the effective implementation of IWRM (Asmal, 1998).5. CHALLENGES TO INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT5.1 Conceptual shortcomingsThe views of authors regarding universally accepted interpretation of IWRM provided by the Global Water partnership 2000 as being a hamper to the effective implementation of IWRM (Sherwill et al,2007). One of the arguments put forward is that the interpretation is narrow, incomplete and un challenge and that this conceptual shortcoming tempts the water resource manager pass on implementing the conventional water management practices and labeling it as IWRM (funke et al, 2007).Some authors argue that for effective implementation, the definition should incl ude allocation to compensate for the inescapable political processes that recast IWRM. While other authors argue that poverty should be included into the confine definition the European Union suggests a complete name change of IWRM to Constructively Engaged IWRM Allocation and management which will emphasize the impressiveness of realisticly implementing IWRM with prime focus on stakeholder involvement (funke et al, 2007).In the context of South Africa, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) defines IWRM as a management strategy aimed to achieve the sustainable use of water resources by all affected stakeholders at catchment, regional, national and international levels while maintaining the integrity of water resources at catchment levels. (Schulze et al, 2004).Universally, apart from the conceptual shortcomings of IWRM which hamper its effective implementation, IWRM is first and firstly an institutional challenge that demands institutional capacities for integrat ion which is in short supply (Van de Zaag, 2005).5.2 Institutional challengesThe management of resources and formulations of projects and plans have been fragmented, uncoordinated and implemented in a top-down approach however, according to the Global Water Partnership 2000 one of the about fundamental pillars of IWRM is integrated and coordinated institutional frameworks through which policies, strategies and legislations can be implemented (Funke, et al 2007).The integrative capacity of many countries lie at district level were various government departments such as health, environmental and education participate in implementing multi sector rural development programs ( Van De Zaag, 2005).South Africa on the other hand overrides existing management structures creating a structure alongside but separate from existing structures that are defined by hydrological boundaries and is regarded a waste of institutional resources (Van de Zaag, 2005).The South African NWA of 1998 mandates t he establishment of water management institutions resulting in the neglecting of focus on the practical implementation of IWRM (Van de Zaag, 2005). Institutional fragmentation still persists in South Africa because the countries environmental, water and land-use legislations and administrations are administered by separate lines of functions in government ministries (Van de Zaag, 2005).5.3 Governance and governanceEffective implementation of IWRM is regarded as a product of good governance as it enables tradeoffs to be made between competing users for a resource with the aim of mitigating any conflict, enhancing equity, ensuring sustainability and holding officials liable for their actions (Funke et al, 2007).Participative, open and transparent governance plays an important part in forming the framework required for the successful implementation of IWRM. The issue however is that inefficient capacity and inefficient government processes and structures reside in countries with relat ively ground democracies such as South Africa (Funke et al, 2007).Governance in developing countries lack the economic technical and human resources to implement IWRM and the challenge of politics and tradeoffs when making decisions regarding the allocation of water resources are unavoidable as they form part of the problem and solution (Funke et al, 2007). With reference to South Africa, later the modification of the countries water law to address post inequities, makes it more challenging for the successful implementation of IWRM in the country (Funke et al, 2007).5.4 Public ParticipationAlthough public participation has been highly valued and recognized as being a fundamental component for the effective implementation of IWRM, there are inevitable problems and complexities that are associated with the process that needs to be taken into consideration (Smith, 2008).The tetrad main problems associated with the process and highlighted by Smith 2008 is tokenism in terms of the hea d to which local communities are involved in decision making, myths of regarding the community as a homogeneous coherent and cohesive body, local-level capacity constraints and critical lack of facilitator knowledge (Smith, 2008).The problem of tokenism is that communities are only considered important for the provision of local knowledge regarding their environment and are not involved in important and effectual positions in the different levels of decision making processes (Smith, 2008). This may be due to the unwillingness of government to devolve their power to local level communities. This results in plans and legislations that are locally inappropriate (Smith, 2008).With regard to the community myth, most communities are simplified as cohesive homogenous and harmonious entities with similar interests and goals instead of recognizing it as the complex heterogeneous organizations that they are (Smith, 2008). This fact must be included in management planning. This will then ensu re locally appropriate outcomes.Other most problematic component parts are the pecuniary capacity constraints mainly experienced by bottom-up projects. Even though the community may be committed towards initiating a project, the essential element is economic material which local communities often lack (Smith, 2008). Therefore where there is community engagement the economic and social capacities needs to be considered (Smith, 2008).The lowest problematic element is the lack of knowledge regarding the process of public participation held by facilitators resulting in an influential process being facilitated by people without the necessary skills and capacities to initiate community participation initiatives (Smith, 2008).Despite the problems associated with public participation it is essential that the process be appreciated as an empowering, enlightening and sustainable approach to water resource management (Smith, 2008).