Short Essay on IWRM  

By Camilo Huneeus, Chemical Engineer, Master of Environmental Management, Yale.  

Please explain how SDG 6.5.1 target (IWRM) can help the achievement of other SDG 6 targets? 

Most  -if  not  all-  environmental  problems  of  today  stem  from  the  use  of  a  Cartesian  approach  to  decision 
making  when  in  reality,  social-ecological  systems  are  complex  adaptive  systems  (Levin,  2006).  Therefore, 
managing  and  interacting  with  such  systems  demands  a  systemic  approach  such  as  the  one  established  in 
SDG  6.5.1.  IWRM  is a holistic framework, widely accepted by the water sector and is present in the  laws and 
regulations  of  many  countries.  IWRM  pushes  for  the  establishment  of  an  environment  of  policies  and 
institutional  arrangements  for  cross-sector  cooperation.  Such  arrangements  can  thus  be  a  support  tool 
interconnecting all of 8 targets established in SDG 6.  

The use of  an IWRM approach and its principles is key to develop  plans and strategies that consider linkages 

  Without  IWRM  there  is  no  way  to  balance  everyone  interests  nor  -for  example-  the  safe  water  needs  with 
the  protection  of  water-based  ecosystems.  Building  on  this  example,  using  the  IWRM  holistic  approach 
would  allow  for  example,  to  identify  the  necessary  elements  to  achieve  safe  access  to  water  (6.1).  IWRM 
would  clearly signal that a clean environment is key  for ensuring water quality (6.3); for improving  water-use 
efficiency  (6.4);  for  eliminating  open  defecation  to  avoid  water  contamination  and  improve  health  (6.2);  to 
protect  water-related  ecosystems  sustaining  water  and  water  quality  (6.6);  to  strengthen  the  participation  of 
local  communities in assuring water availability  (6.B), and to ensure technical capacity for managing the water 
resources  (6.A).  With  such  an  approach  it  would  be  possible  to  identify  interconnections  between  these 
targets  (how  one  affects  the  other)  while  enabling  the  generation  of  strategic  coordinated  plans  for  each  of 
the  targets.  If  in  contrast  each  target  was  pursued  independently,  -for  example  focusing  on  building  water 
distribution  systems  (SDG  6.1),  other  variables  such  as  what  is  happening  in  the  ecosystems’  head-waters, 
would  be  disregarded and ultimately the achievement of the overall goal would fail due to the lack of available 
water, much as it is happening now in cities like Lima or Santiago.   

There  is  no  “one-size  fits  all”  method  for  implementing  IWRM.  Each  country  and  region  has  to  devise  its 
own  strategies  and  paths  forward.  For  instance,  countries  in  South-Asia  can  unleash  the  power  of  their 
current  efficacy  management  instruments  by  mobilizing  funds,  while  South  American  countries  might  focus 
on developing regulations that enable IWRM.  

 How would you measure IWRM? 

Evaluating IWRM involves examining both governance structures and relevant complex adaptive systems, 
which require newer methods and approaches that extend beyond the measurements of the starting and 
ending states of a system, and evaluate alternatively the dynamic path that they take over time (Fiksel, 2006; 
Clark and Dickson, 2003). These methods should in addition be able to capture multiple interacting shocks 
and stressors experienced by the system. This need, however, presents challenging costs associated to data 
collection and analysis which are often not feasible to attain for organizations that quite rightly are keen on 
more direct interventions versus spending precious resources on data collection and analysis. Thus, the 
challenge to measure IWRM entails making it sufficiently robust and efficient.  

As mentioned before, measuring IWRM requires to evaluate and measure governance structures (Rouillard, 
2014). This is mainly a qualitative task involving answering beforehand questions such as “​Is policy integration 
encouraged in the region and how? “What is the transparency and anti-corruption framework of the country”? “Are governance 
structures malleable?” 

An initial task for measuring IWRM requieres properly defining the boundaries of such measurements. In 
other words it calls for identifying at what level IWRM will be measured (Regional, National, sub-national) 
and also specifying the stakeholders and acquirers that will be taken into account.   

For measuring IWRM at a national level one can: 

1. Develop an evaluation tool that answers qualitative questions (such as above mentioned) regarding 
laws and policies related to water and their interconnection to other relevant regulations, such as 
land-use planning or contamination management. 
2. Perform a quantitative analysis regarding governance structure integration. 
3. Evaluate the cross-sectoral coordination, the capacity of authorities and the weighted participation of 
stakeholders considering equal gender participation.  
4. Examine information management systems and their integration (for example the operational 
linkages between meteorological and hydrological monitoring services) 
5. Evaluate the water quality and water availability and its monitoring systems. 
6. Evaluate pollution control systems, ecosystem management systems and disaster risk reduction 
strategies. 

Evaluating each one of the above mentioned represents a daunting task that requires the development of 
complex tools. However, this evaluation can be performed by -as mentioned before-, identifying 
interconnections, enabling conditions and barriers. This step requires reviewing the laws and regulations, 
using the knowledge of experts and key actors, as well as examining available secondary data such as the 
global baseline for SDG 6.1. 

Whilst for the case of sub-national and basin level analysis is less complex, it nevertheless requires a higher 
level of detail.. One must review the effectiveness of the local basin and aquifer management instruments; the 
level of involvement of different social organizations (not only those who use water directly or own water 
rights) ;the budgetary constraints and the quality of the corresponding monitoring and management 
structures. Specific tools must be developed for relevant or the geographic area under evaluation. For 
example, the evaluation of water management in the Terai might have a strong component of flood resilience 
while in Jakarta it might focus on subsidence while in Borneo it must be inclined towards deforestation.  

Considering the above, the development of a sound and effective monitoring IWRM tool must include the 
following steps: 

1. Building a baseline assessment: either a general water resource management assessment or one 
tailored to a specific problem, for example, flood management. 
2. Developing baseline indicators: indicators that touch around all the SDGs that interconnect to water 
and to all SDG 6 target must be developed. These indicators might be geographically referenced, 
especially those that are drought and flood-related.. Water quality, sanitation, water-borne diseases, 
irrigation, aquatic life and other contextual indicators must also be defined. 
3. Defining goals, objectives and priorities: What we are measuring must help us understand the 
direction we are taking.. The process of defining priorities might allow feedback into the indicator 
development component and vice versa.  
4. Monitoring over time: As mentioned before, evaluating a complex system such as water management 
systems requires measurements not only at the beginning but also at the end of an intervention so 
that over time a take corrective actions are taken, if necessary. 

Developing indicators demands distinguishing between process, outcome and impact indicators. In the same 
line the following steps are necessary: 

1. Develop a system base map: We must understand how the system looks like. If not, what will we be 
measuring? 
2. Develop goals and objectives our work.  
3. Define indicators that fit stated goals and objectives. Use adequate frameworks for each aspect of the 
system, from the Climate Vulnerability Index to Water Quality Monitoring Framework from 
NWQMC​.  
4. Validate indicators in the field and redesign if necessary (iterative process) 

Needless to say, these indicators must be cost-effective (the value of the information is higher than the value 
of obtaining the data), feasible to measure in the existing context and must take into account gender and 
socioeconomic components. For example, we can not include aquifer depletion indicators if wells are not 
monitored. In this case, the indicator -at least on a first stage- would deal with the development of wells 
monitoring systems. Along the same line, indicators must have an adequate level of granularity, so women, 
different ethnic groups and vulnerable populations are not left out. For example, it is commonly considered 
that adequate sanitation levels are reached when there is no open defecation. But asking only this might 
overlook menstrual hygiene quality, infant health and waste disposition.  

Evaluating IWRM thus requires the examination of not only policies and regulations but also the 
measurement of advancement milestones for all SDG 6 targets. An IWRM evaluation must consider the 
evaluation of each SDG target and also of their respective indicators. SDGs indicators must be adapted to 
the local context and should comprise strong gender components and cross-sector integration. At the same 
time, additional sub-indicators (more granular) indicators might also be developed. For example, 6.3.1 
proportion of wastewater safely treated​ could be subdivided in indicators relative to cost, energy consumption, 
capacity, etc.  
Monitoring IWRM is a task that requires creating synergies under a holistic and participatory approach, it 
must reflect the interests of all stakeholders involved in water management, from local water associations to 
global institutions.