IWRM-the way forward?

The posts dated 18/11, 19/11, 24/11, 9/12 and 3/12 have focused on understanding the relationships between climate change and human behaviour/socio-economic systems (e.g. land use), which Ostrom (2007) contends is necessary for water management that meets basic needs while being ecologically sustainable. The need for a holistic, integrated approach to water management has also been established. To better understand integrated water management and explore its feasibility, I have chosen two articles—by Herrfahrdt-Pahle (2013) and Ludwig et al. (2013)—for my final post, on Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) and the alternative of climate change adaptation.

IWRM can be broadly defined as a form of water governance and management that seeks ‘integrated, economically, socially and environmentally sustainable use of water resources’ (Herrfahrdt-Pahle 2013: 552), ideally involving cross-sectoral coordination. Strategies are designed based on the extrapolation of current or past issues/data into the future, even though climate variability is unlikely to remain the same, especially with climate change (Ludwig et al. 2013). On the other hand, climate change adaptation often employs the use of climate models to produce long-term climate projections (Herrfahrdt-Pahle 2013), which is problematic due to the high degree of uncertainties propagated in the use of modelling chains. Yet, a more bottom-up approach geared towards reducing socio-economic vulnerabilities on a local scale to increase climate change resilience, may neglect much-needed technical solutions.

It seems then, there is no one optimal approach that is able to fully address the complexities of the issue of water management. As Ludwig et al. (2013) saliently point out, a single problem is framed differently by different stakeholders who have different interests, experience, and knowledge (Dewulf et al. 2015), such that no ‘optimal’ solution will be able to meet the demands of all. That said, the shortcomings of IWRM and climate change adaptation may be addressed, first and foremost through research. Ludwig et al. (2013) proposes a risk-oriented approach where a number of adaptation strategies are defined and then assessed using a wide range of projected climate scenarios. This appears to be more profitable, as it allows the relative severity of vulnerabilities under different climatic conditions to be assessed, as well as the combination of top-down and bottom-up strategies. The actual feasibility and usefulness of this approach, nonetheless would require further evaluation through concrete case studies.