Local Water Security Action Planning...

Local Water Security Action Planning Manual

Local Water Security Action Planning Manual

R. Laušević

S. Milutinović

J. Petersen-Perlman

M. Reed

A. Graves

M. Bartula

S. Sušić

A. Popović

Regional Environmental CenterSzentendre • Hungary

April 2016

This manual is a step-by-step guidebook for practitioners who are

developing local water security action plans (LWSAPs) in local commu-

nities. The authors have compiled an original methodology comprising

seven interrelated activities, some supported by a separate tailored

methodology, which cover stakeholder analysis, public opinion assess-

ment, local water security assessment, and problem analysis and priori-

tisation. Each of the seven activities comprises two or more steps,

making a total of 20 steps in the LWSAP process. All 20 steps, and the

deliverables related to each one, are described in detail in the manual.

3

Introduction 6

THE WATER SUM PROJECT ............................................................................................................. 8

DEFINING WATER SECURITY ......................................................................................................... 8

What is water security? .................................................................................................... 8

What are the key dimensions of water security?..................................................... 9

What are the elements of water security?................................................................. 12

What are the main water security challenges in the 21st century?.............................................................................................................. 12

What are the threats to water security?...................................................................... 12

Countries in the MENA region ........................................................................................ 12

LOCAL WATER SECURITY................................................................................................................. 15

LOCAL WATER SECURITY ACTION PLANNING .................................................................. 15

REC methodologies for action planning .................................................................... 15

Overview of the LWSAP process.................................................................................... 16

Organisation of LWSAP team ......................................................................................... 21

Activity 1: Defining scale and scope 22

STEP 01: INITIAL ASSESSMENT................................................................................................... 24

STEP 02: SCOPING AND SCALING ............................................................................................ 26

Spatial definition ................................................................................................................. 26

Topics of substantive focus ............................................................................................. 26

Activity 2: Setting up the local planning team 28

STEP 03: STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 30

Why analyse stakeholders? ............................................................................................. 30

A methodology for stakeholder analysis ................................................................... 31

STEP 04: FORMAL ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNING TEAM ........................... 37

EditoR Prof. dr. Radoje lAUŠeVIĆ Regional Environmental Center, Szentendre, Hungary

LEAd AuthoR Prof. dr. slobodan mIlUtInoVIĆ University of Niš, Republic of Serbia

MAin contRiButinG AuthoR dr. Jacob PeteRsen-PeRlmAn Oregon State University, USA

contRiButinG AuthoRS Prof. dr. mark Reed, Birmingham City University, UK; International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) UK Peatland Programme

dr. Anil gRAVes, The Cranfield Institute for Resilient Futures (CIRF), UK

dr. mirjana BARtUlA, Singidunum University, Republic of Serbia

srdjan sUŠIĆ, Regional Environmental Center, Szentendre, Hungary

Ana PoPoVIĆ, Regional Environmental Center, Szentendre, Hungary

REviEwEd By dr. Viktor lAgUtoV, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary

Prof. dr. chad stAddon, University of West England, Bristol, UK

dESiGn And LAyout tricia BARnA, Regional Environmental Center, Szentendre, Hungary

coPyEditinG And PRoofREAdinG Rachel HIdeg, Regional Environmental Center, Szentendre, Hungary

PuBLiShER the Regional environmental center for central and eastern europe (Rec)

PRintinG typonova

Please cite this publication as follows:R. Laušević, S. Milutinović, J. Petersen-Perlman, M. Reed, A. Graves, M. Bartula, S. Sušić, A. Popović (2016).Local Water Security Action Planning Manual. Regional Environmental Center, Szentendre, Hungary.

ISBN 978-963-9638-69-3

This manual was developed under the project “Sustainable Use of Transboundary Water Resources andWater Security Management” (WATER SUM), Component 2: “Water and Security”. The project is implementedby the Regional Environmental Center and funded by the Government of Sweden.

The manual does not necessarily reflect the views of the REC or of the Government of Sweden.

Copyright © 2016 Regional Environmental Center, 2000 Szentendre, Ady Endre ut 9-11, Hungary

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmit-ted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without theprior permission of the REC.

This and all REC publications are printed on recycled paper.

CONTENTSAcknowledgements

LOCAL WATER SECURITY

ACTION PLANNING MANUAL



4

Activity 3: Assessing the current status of water security 38

STEP 05: PUBLIC OPINION ASSESSMENT........................................................................... 40

Why do a public opinion assessment? ...................................................................... 40

Stages in the public opinion assessment ................................................................. 42

STEP 06: LOCAL WATER SECURITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................... 50

Defining the scope and availability of data for the assessment process ....... 50

The indicator-based assessment ................................................................................. 51

The final LWS assessment .............................................................................................. 51

Activity 4: Analysing and prioritising problems 58

STEP 07: FORMULATION OF PROBLEM STATEMENTS .............................................. 62

STEP 08: DEFINITION OF PROBLEM STATEMENTS ...................................................... 63

STEP 09: PRIORITISATION OF PROBLEMS ......................................................................... 63

Activity 5: Designing the action plan 64

STEP 10: DEVELOPMENT OF A VISION ............................................................................... 66

STEP 11: DEFINITION OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................. 68

STEP 12: IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIONS ............................................................................. 71

STEP 13: SPECIFICATION OF ACTIONS ............................................................................... 73

STEP 14: PRIORITISATION OF ACTIONS ............................................................................. 74

STEP 15: FORMULATION OF A FRAMEWORK ACTION PLAN ............................... 77

Activity 6: Implementing the action plan 78

STEP 16: DEFINITION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE(S) .................... 80

STEP 17: DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .................................... 80

STEP 18: DOCUMENTATION OF IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................... 83

Activity 7: Monitoring and evaluation 84

STEP 19: PERFORMANCE MONITORING ............................................................................... 86

STEP 20: EVALUATION AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 87

5

Annexes 88

ANNEX 1: TEMPLATE AND WORKED EXAMPLE OF INITIAL LWS ASSESSMENT REPORT .................................................................................. 90

Template for the initial LWS assessment .................................................................. 90

Initial LWS assessment report for Al Karak, Jordan ............................................. 91

ANNEX 2: CALCULATION OF INDICATORS FOR LWS ASSESSMENT ................. 95

Resources (availability, supply, demand) ................................................................. 95

Ecosystem health (quality, stress) .............................................................................. 96

Infrastructure (demand, condition, treatment) ..................................................... 97

Human health (access, reliability, impact) ............................................................... 99

Capacities (financial, education, training) ............................................................... 100

ANNEX 3: DRAFT VERSION OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC OPINION ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................... 102

Section 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 102

Section 2: Questions related to project objectives .............................................. 103

Section 3: Information about water availability, use and quality .................... 106

Section 4: Information about the respondent ....................................................... 107

Section 5: Indicators of socioeconomic status ....................................................... 108

ANNEX 4: SAMPLE PUBLIC OPINION ASSESSMENT...................................................... 109

References 110



7

01

02

03

04

0506 07

08

09

1011

1213

14

151617

18

19

20S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TEPS

• ST E P S • STEP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EPS • STEPS • ST

EPS

•

ST

EP

S •

A

SSESSIN

G

IMPLEMENTING

ANALYSING AND PRIORITISING DESIGNING

THE ACTIO

N PLAN

MONI

TORI

NG

DEF

ININ

G S

CALE

S

ETTI

NG U

P LO

CAL

STA

TUS OF WAT

ER

SECURIT

Y

PROBLEMS

AND

EVAL

UATI

ON

A

ND

SCO

PE

PLAN

NING

TE

AM3

4

2

5

67

1

THE ACTION PLAN

MO

NIT

OR

ING

DE

FINI

NG S

CA

LE

S

ETTING U

P LOCAL STATUS OF WATER

SECURITY PROBLEM

S

AN

D E

VALU

ATIO

N

A

ND S

COPE

P

LANNING

TEAM 3 42

5

6

7

1

T

HE AC

TION P

LAN

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20


ACTION PLANNING

01LOCAL WATER SECURITY


6

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Introduction

7 Activities • 20 Steps

clean, healthy, and productive life, while ensuringthat the natural environment is protected and enhanced (GWP 2000).

● Water security is the availability of an acceptablequantity and quality of water for health, liveli-hoods, ecosystems and production, coupled withan acceptable level of water-related risks to people, environments and economies (Grey andSadoff 2007).

The issue of water security (according to the Grey andSadoff definition) has been the object of increased academic and policy interest over the past decade. In2009, the World Economic Forum (WEF) prioritisedwater security as a global concern, stating that “watersecurity is the gossamer that links together the webof food, energy, climate, economic growth, andhuman security challenges that the world economyfaces over the next decades” (WEF 2011). In 2013, theUN-Water Task Force on Water Security proposed aworking definition of water security developed fromcontributions made by the broad range of organisa-tions, agencies, programmes and institutions thatform UN-Water. It aims to capture the dynamic andconstantly evolving dimensions of water and water-related issues, offering a holistic outlook for address-ing water challenges through the umbrella of watersecurity, and is intended to serve as a starting pointfor dialogue on water security in the UN system.

Water security involves the sustainable use and pro-tection of water systems, protection against water-related hazards (floods and droughts), the sustainabledevelopment of water resources, and the safeguard-ing of (access to) water functions and services for humans and the environment.

Water security is a precondition for any effectivepoverty reduction strategy, and for effective environ-mental sanitation, wastewater management andflood control. Water security will only be reachedwhen high-level decision makers actually take thelead, make tough decisions about the different usesof water, and follow through with financing and implementation.

What are the key dimensions of water security?

Of all our natural resources, water underpins sustain-able development as perhaps none other. Food, energy, health, industry, biodiversity — there is nosphere of planetary life or human endeavour untouched by water. Water use has grown at morethan twice the rate of population increase in the lastcentury. A central challenge for sustainable develop-ment is how to balance the competing uses of water;ensure that the needs of all — especially the poor andmarginalised — are met; and maintain healthy and

diverse ecosystems. It is therefore no surprise thatwater appears explicitly as a recurring theme in manyof the newly established Sustainable DevelopmentGoals (UN General Assembly 2015), and in the pro-posed targets that serve as signposts towards theirachievement.

Water is recognised as a central plank of the greeneconomy. It is critical to the sustainable managementof natural resources and is embedded in all aspectsof development — poverty reduction, food securityand health — and in sustaining economic growth inagriculture, industry and energy generation (van Beekand Arriens 2014). Water security is therefore not onlyabout having enough water: It involves all water-related issues. In simple terms, water security addresses the “too little”, “too much” and “too dirty”issues of water management. Water security hasthree key dimensions: social equity, environmentalsustainability, and economic efficiency (Figure 1).

Water security is about far more than the problemsthat many people face, and that good water manage-ment should solve — or at least alleviate. It is aboutadapting to and mitigating water-related risks, suchas floods and droughts; addressing conflicts that arisefrom disputes over shared water resources; and resolving tensions among the various stakeholderswho compete for a limited resource.

Nor is water security only about the availability ofwater as a resource. It is also about the availability of the infrastructure to harness that resource andprovide water services, and the capability to manageand maintain this infrastructure. Reliable service delivery depends on the serviceability and robustnessof facilities and on the financial, technical and humancapability of service organisations to operate andmaintain them. This attention to social-technical in-frastructure is one of the differences between “sustain-able water” and “water security”. Many existing water

9

8

The WATER SUM project

Professor Dr. Radoje LAUŠEVIĆ

In response to the rapid depletion of water resources,deterioration in water quality, increased water de-mand, and changes in water endowments that are af-fecting environmental quality, food security,municipal infrastructure and economic developmentin most societies in the Middle East and North Africa(MENA), the Regional Environmental Center (REC,www.rec.org) is implementing the project “Sustain-able Use of Transboundary Water Resources andWater Security Management” (WATER SUM) (watersum.rec.org). The project is funded by the Government of Sweden (Swedish International Devel-opment Cooperation Agency [Sida] contribution ID 52030234) and is being implemented betweenApril 2014 and April 2017.

The overall objective of the project is to promote andenhance sustainable water resources managementand to foster a comprehensive and integrated approach to water security and ecosystem services forsustainable development in beneficiary countries in the MENA region in order to help halt the downwardspiral of poverty, biodiversity loss and environmentaldegradation.

The project is divided into two components: “Water Re-sources Management Good Practices and KnowledgeTransfer” (Water POrT); and “Water and Security”(WaSe). The goal of the Water POrT component is toaccelerate the more sustainable use of the region’swater resources and to promote a strategic approachto climate change adaptation. The WaSe componentaims to foster a comprehensive and integrated ap-proach to water security and ecosystem services forsustainable development in eight selected administra-tive territories in Jordan and Tunisia. The WaSe com-ponent is a part of efforts to combat water scarcity andincrease overall human well-being within the widercontext of ensuring regional peace and stability.

Two main results are envisaged:

● Increased capacities on the part of the respectivenational authorities to apply an integrated waterresources management (IWRM) approach; a framework for common understanding promoted among water practitioners and stake-holders regarding the need for cooperation and a regional approach to managing water problems;and strengthened abilities among practitioners fordealing with the impacts of climate change on the region’s water resources (WATER POrTcomponent).

● The process of introducing and drafting localwater security action plans (LWSAPs) initiated and

supported in target administrative territories inJordan and Tunisia, while partner communitieswork jointly towards sustainable development;and local environmental governance in partnercountries benefiting from the LWSAP concept(WaSe component).

This manual is part of the second project result as it supports the process of introducing and draftingLWSAPs. Following the inception phase of the project,Jordan and Tunisia were selected as focus countriesfor the WaSe component (Milutinović et al. 2015), andbased on stakeholder consultations in the initialphase of the project eight administrative territorieswere selected for the development of LWSAPs:

In Jordan:

● Al Karak Municipality● Jerash Municipality ● Al-Salt Municipality ● Ajloun Municipality

In Tunisia:

● Nefza Delegation● Bir Mcherga Delegation● Matmata Delegation● Sidi Ali Ben Aoun Delegation

The present manual will be used in these eight admin-istrative territories for the drafting of LWSAPs. How-ever, the authors hope that the manual will also be ofuse in other local communities interested in develop-ing LWSAPs.

Defining water securityProfessor Dr. Slobodan MILUTINOVIĆ

What is water security?

There are several definitions of water security avail-able in the literature:

● Water security is defined as the capacity of a pop-ulation to safeguard sustainable access to ade-quate quantities of acceptable quality water forsustaining livelihoods, human well-being, and socioeconomic development, for ensuring protec-tion against water-borne pollution and water-related disasters, and for preserving ecosystemsin a climate of peace and political stability (UNU 2013).

● Water security, at any level from the household tothe global, means that every person has access toenough safe water at affordable cost to lead a

“The international water communitybegan using the term ‘water security’much earlier. During the II WorldWater Forum in 2000 the concept ofwater security was introduced in twoprominent declarations, namely (i) World Water Council (WWC) introduced its vision for ‘A Water Secure World — Vision for Water, Life,and the Environment’ (WWC 2000)and (ii) the GWP published ‘TowardsWater Security: A Framework for Action’.” (GWP 2000)







11



10

NEEDS● human and domestic use

● food security ● livelihood development● healthy environment ● economicdevelopment ● productive use

INFRASTRUCTURE● storage and conservation● conveyance ● distribution

● protection ● treatment

RESOURCES● surface water ● groundwater

● soil moisture ● rain● wastewater reuse

● brackish and saline water● virtual water

ACTORS● individuals ● communities ● local

governments ● national governments● user associations ● industries ● water

councils ● basin managementorganisations ● utilities ● water user

associations ● environmentalprotection agencies…

• PROTECTION • ACQUISITION • ALLOCATION • DISTRIBUTION

• DELIVERY • USE • COLLECTION OF WASTE

FIGURE 2 ELEMENTS OF WATER SECURITY

THE NEEDS TO BE SECURED

What are the needs?

How much wateris involved?

How sensitive are the needs to variations in

availability?

What are the priorities and what measures arepossible to reduce these needs?

THE ACTORSTHE RESOURCES AND THEIR

POTENTIALTHE INFRASTRUCTURE

Source: Van Hofwegen (2009)

Who are the key actorsthat need water?

Who are the key actors that manage, regulate and/or

coordinate water?

Who are the key actors that ultimately make

water-related decisions?

Who are the supporting actors, such as civil society, research

and educational institutions,financing agencies and

governments?

What are the resources and what is their potential?

How much water is involved?

What is the variability of water availability?

What physical andnon-physical measures arenecessary to develop thoseresources to meet the needs?

What is available (built infrastructure components

and the natural infrastructure,such as rivers, lakes,

groundwater aquifers and thewatersheds that serve or are

affected by water andwastewater systems)?

How can existing built infrastructure be upgraded or

modernised to meetrequirements

in a water-efficient and cost-effective way?

Is existing water infrastructure sustainable(environmental impacts,economics, institutions)?

FIGURE 3 WATER SECURITY ELEMENTS: A CHECKLIST

FIGURE 4 SEVEN CHALLENGES TO ACHIEVING WATER SECURITY

Source: World Water Forum (2000)

FIGURE 1 THE THREE DIMENSIONS OF WATER SECURITY

ECONOMIC DIMENSION● Increasing water productivity

and conservation in all water-using sectors.

● Sharing the economic, social andenvironmental benefits of transboundary

rivers, lakes and aquifers.

ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION● Managing water more sustainably

as part of the green economy.● Reducing threats to ecosystems andrestoring ecosystem services in river

basins to improve the health of surfacewaters and groundwater.

SOCIAL DIMENSION● Ensuring equitable access to waterservices and resources through robust

policies and legal frameworks at all levels.● Building resilience in communitiesin the face of extreme water eventsthrough hard and soft measures.

COST

S /R I

SKS

COST

S/RI

SKS

COSTS/RISKS

COSTS /R I SKS

MEETINGBASIC NEEDS

SECURINGFOOD SUPPLY

PROTECTINGECOSYSTEMS

SHARINGWATER

RESOURCESMANAGING

RISKS

VALUINGWATER

GOVERNINGWATER WISELY

MAIN CHALLENGES TO ACHIEVING

WATER SECURITY



security problems are due to a lack of the right mix ofhuman and financial resources and incentives to prop-erly operate, maintain and repair service infrastructure,be it for water supply, irrigation, flood or drought pro-tection, pollution control or environmental purposes.

Water security also involves the protection of waterresources from water-related hazards. This protectiondepends on political factors, cooperation within na-tional and transboundary basins and aquifers, and thelevel of peace and stability in a region. Local people ineach community have to be considered, along withtheir culture, values and social and economic situa-tion, and their traditions and coping mechanisms inrelation to water excess and shortage, aggravated bythe effects of climate change. In this respect, water security can also be considered as bottom-up capacitybuilding for climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The development of water security should be shapedby local characteristics and should include localknowledge, local standards, local approaches andlocal solutions, incorporated into the extensive sys-tem of knowledge and instruments provided by insti-tutions and governments (Van Hofwegen 2009).

What are the elements of watersecurity?

Developing water security requires balancing theneeds for water and the availability of water with theinstitutions and infrastructure required to provide anacceptable level of security at an acceptable level ofcosts and risks (Figure 2).

When planning water security, it is essential to under-stand the elements shown in Figure 2 and their mu-tual interactions. A checklist approach can be useful,as outlined in Figure 3.

What are the main water security challenges in the 21st century?

The essence of water security is that concern for theresource base itself is coupled with concern that theservices that exploit the resource base for human sur-vival and well-being, as well as for agriculture andother economic enterprises, are developed and man-aged in an equitable, efficient and integrated manner.The Ministerial Declaration of the Second WorldWater Forum (held in the Hague in 2000), “Water Security in the 21st Century”, listed seven main chal-lenges to achieving water security (Figure 4). This con-cept implies that in thinking about water security wereally need to be thinking about “nexus security”.

Water security diagnoses include programmes to as-sess the state and evolution of these seven main chal-

lenges. Such analysis should identify the vulnerabili-ties of users, sectors and geographical areas, and re-veal causal relationships between human andnon-human drivers and water-related consequences.This information is a prerequisite for any of the prior-ity actions that lead to the integration of the three E’s(equity, economy and environmental sustainability) ofwater management. It is clear that to solve water is-sues that are so strongly related to the allocation (andprovision) of scarce water resources, and that are sointerdependent at various scales and between sec-tors, integrated and holistic approaches are required.

What are the threats to watersecurity?

Communities face multiple threats to their water secu-rity. Together, these threats have an impact on accessto water supplies of sufficient quantity and quality forbasic needs. For people who lack access to safe water,the primary problem is rarely one of physical scarcity,in which demand outstrips available supply, but ratherone of socioeconomic water scarcity. Water resourcesmay be present but not where or when they areneeded most. They may be contaminated, located agreat distance from households or inaccessible because of difficult terrain, or they may have been de-pleted by uncontrolled abstraction. WaterAid (2012)has identified seven groups of factors that comprisethe main threats to water security (Figure 5).

Achieving water security thus requires cooperationbetween different kinds of water users, and betweenthose sharing river basins and aquifers, within aframework that allows for the protection of vitalecosystems from pollution and other threats. Watersecurity is a precondition for any effective poverty re-duction strategy, and for effective environmental san-itation, wastewater management and flood control.Water security will only be achieved when high-leveldecision makers actually take the lead, make toughdecisions about the different uses of water, and fol-low through with financing and implementation.

Countries in the MENA region

Whatever definition of water security is used, accept-able standards of water security have to be identifiedand agreed upon in policies and laws. These shouldembed monitoring and compliance processes thatcan be regularly reviewed on a case-by-case basis, atlocal, national, regional and international levels asconditions evolve. Such standards, including the legalframeworks that support them, must recognise thatwater security, or the lack of it, is felt at the householdlevel, by farmers and industries, in cities, in the nat-ural environment of river basins, and in communitiesthat are building resilience to adapt to change, includ-ing climate change (GWP 2010).

13



12

FIGURE 5 MAIN THREATS TO WATER SECURITY

Source: WaterAid (2012)

FIGURE 6 DEGREES OF WATER STRESS

Source: www.gwp.org

Water security issues:• Vulnerability to floods • Pollution

• Increasing need for water and sanitation services(mainly in large cities)

Increasing water security through:• Development of an appropriate stock ofinfrastructure (storage, flood control etc.)

• Proper legislation and adequate institutions• Integrated and comprehensive water planning

Water security issues:• Mitigate past, present and future pollution• Ecosystems’ need for water• Legal frameworks ensuring access for all

Increasing water security through:• Effective legal frameworks at a range of scales• Economic incentives• Ethical management

Water security issues:• Water demand growing fast

• Water availability falling to crisis level• Overexploitation of groundwater

• Shortages compounded by pollution• Low efficiency of irrigation

• Vulnerability to floods/droughts

Increasing water security through:• Optimal mix of increasing supply and managing demand

• Strengthening institutional capacities and adopting a morecohesive and integrated legal framework• Developing appropriate mechanisms

for inter-sectoral water allocation

Water security issues:• Declining water resources• Pollution abatement• Environmental requirements• Conflicts of use

Increasing water security through:• Water conservation and reuse• Sustainable policies and legal frameworksand institutions for water management and disputeprevention and resolution

• Strengthening wastewater and pollution controlthrough enforceable legal and institutional mechanisms

Weak political will and low institutional capacity to manage water resources and water supply services

Social and political exclusion (due to inability to pay, political affiliation, disability, race, caste, gender, age or social status)

Poverty

Low community resilience to cope with stress

Poor hygiene and sanitation for water supply

Rapid population growth and urbanisation

Climate change and climate variability

C O P I N G C A P A C I T Y

WA

TE

R

S

TR

ES

S

LOW

HIGH

LOW

HIGH





14

Figure 6 positions countries according to their degreeof water stress and their financial and governance capacities to cope (including, perhaps, their determi-nation to act).

According to Figure 6, most MENA countries certainlybelong in the lower left quadrant, characterised byhigh water stress and low coping capacity. Water resources are overexploited and the situation willprobably worsen in the future. Currently, total waterdemand exceeds naturally available water supplies byalmost 20 percent. Today, demand is met primarily byunsustainably mining fossil groundwater reserves,and partially by increasing water supplies through desalination. As a result, water tables have fallen sig-nificantly in recent years, with the salinisation of some(mainly coastal) groundwater, particularly in NorthAfrican countries (Milutinović et al. 2015).

The main weaknesses of water systems in theanalysed countries are outlined below:

● In general, the water pipe network is outdated andinadequate and in serious need of refurbishment,reinforcement, repair and maintenance. An enor-mous amount of water produced is non-revenuewater.

● The wastewater infrastructure is outdated and inchronic need of maintenance.

● Water use per sector is inefficient, with high waterallocations to agriculture.

● Water pricing is not efficient in terms of cost recovery for service provision, nor is allocative efficiency achieved.

● Adequate water conservation programmes andgovernment subsidies to encourage conservationare limited or lacking.

● The product structure in the agricultural sector isinappropriate, including the cultivation of water-intensive crops.

● Political instability in the region has exacerbatedwater scarcity issues.

● The deterioration in water quality is closely linkedto water scarcity.

Recognition of the political importance of waterseems to be improving in the region, and water is in-creasingly seen as a priority area by governments. Al-though there has been notable progress at the levelof institutions and governance approaches, the insti-tutional set-up in the water sector in the analysedcountries is largely centralised and managed mostlyat the national level with little local stakeholder or civilsociety participation. Coordination between differentwater-related institutions is a major water gover-nance issue. The implementation of water policiesshows modest levels of cross-sectoral coordinationwith ineffective permanent structures or institutions.The enforcement of laws, the implementation of

water pricing reforms and water governance–relatedissues are still a challenge. Most efforts have faileddue to inadequate compliance or poor enforcement.

The financing gap in the water sector represents oneof the main shortcomings in the implementation ofwater plans and strategies. The majority of infrastruc-ture investments are still covered by a significant por-tion of financial support from donors through loansand grants. Cost recovery is generally low and this hasan impact on the financial sustainability of water serv-ices. There are opportunities for improving allocativeefficiency through pricing and the reform of abstrac-tion management systems.

Population growth will exacerbate the already existingwater crisis. The expected rise in water stress relatedto population growth will affect most countries in theMENA region, although groundwater-based countries(Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Jordan), which already sufferfrom water stress, will be the most severely affected.The picture is further complicated by urbanisation,which makes matters both worse and better.

Political instability represents another important fac-tor that exacerbates water crisis. An influx of peopledisplaced by conflicts across borders has led to an in-crease in the number of water-insecure areas in theMENA region. This implies a necessity to strongly con-sider the water–peace nexus.

Climate change threatens may worsen the situationto the point where social conflicts arise as water re-sources become scarcer and access to water moredifficult. More or less all MENA countries are exposedto similar weaknesses that can deepen their vulnera-bility to climate change. They are over-dependent onwater-sensitive economic sectors such as agriculture,grazing, eco-tourism and aquaculture. The ecologicalbase has already been harmed, particularly by waterpollution, land degradation, desertification and bio-diversity loss. In addition, the technological skills andfinancial and human resources needed to improvethe water sector’s resilience to climate change are rel-atively limited. In response to these future challenges,most MENA countries have identified a number of po-tential actions that could be taken to reduce their vul-nerability, particularly with respect to their water andagricultural resources. However, in terms of theirwater-related adaptation policy framework, variousassessments show that progress tends to be limitedor moderate.

Stakeholder participation in water issues is modest interms of water planning, and inadequate with respectto plan implementation. Although a participatory approach is relatively well recognised through the im-plementation of water use agreements (WUAs), effec-tive participation in water management and decisionmaking remains weak and, in some countries, lackssupporting legislation.

15

Local water securityProfessor Dr. Radoje LAUŠEVIĆ

Why local water security? At the local level, lack ofwater security — either water scarcity or poor-qualitywater — may lead to political instability or conflict,often exacerbated by attempts at profiteeringthrough private, uncontrolled sales of water. Threatsto water resources or ecosystems can further aggra-vate the situation (UNU 2013). In order to achievewater security, good water governance is essential. It requires capable institutions supported by well-developed legislative and policy instruments. How-ever, the implementation of any policy in the fields ofpoverty reduction, sustainable development and theconservation of biodiversity is impossible without ac-tive participation and ownership on the part of localcommunities and local governments, with the help ofstrategic partners such as national authorities, civilsociety organisations and businesses. Local watergovernance is therefore an essential element of robust water security planning and implementation.

Local water governance can be improved by initiatingand supporting the process of developing local watersecurity action plans (LWSAPs). While LWSAPs reflectnational, regional and international policy priorities,addressing water security issues at local level is a pre-condition for the well-being of local populations. Thedevelopment of LWSAPs also ensures an integratedapproach to water management as a means to en-hance water security, and showcases the direct andtangible results of supporting water-related dialogueand capacity building. At the same time, the imple-mentation of measures to achieve water security lo-cally can have important impacts regionally,particularly for downstream users.

Focusing on local water security contributes to im-proving water access for local populations. It is impor-tant to note that this does not necessarily mean watersecurity for all water users. It does not, for example,focus on the large-scale irrigation network or on theenergy-producing sector, nor is it a framework forcomprehensive national water security planning thatshould focus on all water users. Although the LWSAPfocuses on the provision of water services for thelocal population (e.g. the municipality), it acknow-

ledges that other water users are important and thattheir needs are interlinked with local ones.

Local water security action planning

Professor Dr. Slobodan MILUTINOVIĆ

The term “action planning” refers to the process thatguides the day-to-day activities of an organisation, pro-gramme or project. It is the process of planning whatneeds to be done, when it needs to be done, who needsto do it, and what resources or inputs are needed. It isthe process of operationalising strategic objectives.

Participatory planning is a process by which a com-munity works actively to fulfil a given socioeconomicgoal by consciously defining its problems and plan-ning a course of action to resolve those problems. Experts are typically needed, but only as facilitators. Be-sides, no one likes to participate in something that isnot of their own creation. Plans prepared by outside experts, regardless of their technical soundness, cannotinspire people to participate in their implementation.

REC methodologies for action planning

Mr. Srdjan SUŠIĆ, Ms. Ana POPOVIĆ

Since its establishment in 1990, the Regional Environ-mental Center (REC) has been assisting local commu-nities to build their capacities for sustainabledevelopment and environmental planning, manage-ment and financing (Hak 1996).

In collaboration with the Institute for SustainableCommunities (ISC), the REC developed a methodologyfor drafting and implementing local environmentalaction plans for sustainability (LEAPs) (Markowitz2002). The methodology has been used to developLEAPs in Central and Eastern Europe and has servedas a cornerstone for developing various developmentprojects at local, national and regional level. In the for-mer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Kosovo*,for example, the methodology has been adopted asofficial guidance for developing LEAPs due to its“grassroots” approach, ease of understanding and im-plementation, and wide stakeholder involvement. Interms of the proportion of the total population bene-fiting from the results of the initiative, the figures are1.65 percent in Kosovo* and 6.51 percent in the for-mer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Popović 2009).

An action plan is…

... a results-oriented, time-bound andactor-specific plan negotiated amongstakeholders within an agreedstrategy framework.

* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line withUNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.



17



16

The REC’s local development methodologies providea forum for bringing together diverse groups of indi-viduals who work together to agree on common pri-orities and actions for addressing environmentalissues in their communities. The process involves as-sessing and ranking environmental problems, settingpriorities and developing an action plan to addressthe main priorities — all with broad public involvementand in a way that creates a framework for potential investments. The result is a “living” operational docu-ment that can take a local community from a state ofongoing crisis management towards more strategicenvironmental management, even helping communi-ties to move towards compliance with relevant nationaland international environmental standards.

In the last decade alone, the REC has worked withover 150 municipalities across its partner countries.The organisation has addressed the issue of improv-ing local governance for sustainability, sharing its ex-perience in bringing the process of change to the localgovernance level as the one closest to the people.

The REC has capitalised on various existing initiativesand projects that provide support at local level. One ofthe most recent was the regional project “Local Envi-ronmental Action Planning for Sustainability in SouthEastern Europe”, supported by the Swedish Interna-tional Development Cooperation Agency, which re-sulted in the development of LEAP documents and theimplementation of over 75 priority environmental in-vestment projects in 20 municipalities in South EasternEurope. Around 60 to 70 percent of the municipal pop-ulation has been positively affected by this initiative.

The REC believes that the key to a sustainable futurefor local communities lies not in making local initia-tives more competitive, but in making them more per-ceptive and capable of identifying what a communityhas and what it needs, and what are the long-termconsequences of short-term choices identified in en-vironmental and other planning processes.

Based on the REC’s experience of the effectiveness of“peer learning”, and the sound results that can beachieved, the organisation’s local development plan-ning methodologies are based on inviting stakehold-ers from partner communities to be presenters,trainers and experts in capacity-building activities.

The REC’s local development methodologies aim toachieve the following results:

● Lasting environmental citizens’ groups incorp-orated into the municipal administration.

● Enhanced capacities of key experts from local authorities and other institutions to receive targeted training on developing and financing environmental investment projects.

● Gender balance in the process of developing localplans, as this will improve quality of life in munici-palities by creating conditions for future environ-mental investments that benefit the community asa whole.

● Priority environmental investment projects, withco-financing and guidance on transparent interna-tional standards, resulting in the improved qualityof municipal services and infrastructure, betterenvironmental management, and greater aware-ness of environmental issues in partner commu-nities.

● Cross-sectoral integration, which has proved to bea catalyst for fulfilling the long-term task of localsustainable development planning, while takinginto account the sustainable development agendaand other strategic development documents oflocal communities.

● Vertical governance integration, which is crucial inensuring the long-term sustainability and viabilityof programme results. Such integration isachieved by involving representatives of relevantnational environmental and other administrationsand national associations of local authorities. It isexpected to result in greater capacities on the partof representatives of the national administrationto replicate the process of creating local develop-ment methodologies in other local communities.

Overview of the LWSAPprocess


Local water security action planning comprisesseven interrelated activities, as shown in Figure 7.Each of the activities comprises two or moresteps, making a total of 20 steps in the LWSAPprocess (see Table 1). These 20 steps are described in detail in the chapters of this manual.

01

02

03

04

0506 07

08

09

1011

1213

14

151617

18

19

20S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TEPS


S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST


EPS

•

ST

EP

S •

3 ASS

ESSING C

URRENT

6 IMPLEMENTING THE ACTI

ON PLA

N

4 ANALYSING AND PRIORITISING 5 D

ESIGN

ING AN ACTION PLAN

7 MO

NITO

RING

1 D

EFIN

ING

SCA

LE

2 S

ETTI

NG U

P LO

CAL

STATU

S OF WATER

SECUR

ITY PROBLEMS

AN

D EV

ALUA

TION

AN

D S

COPE

PLAN

NING

TEA

M

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

STE

PS • ST E P S • STEP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST


EPS

•

ST

EP

S •

3 ASS

ESSING C

URRENT

6 IMPLEMENTING THE ACTI

ON PLA

N

4 ANALYSING AND PRIORITISING 5 D

ESIGN

ING AN ACTION PLAN

7 MO

NITO

RING

1 D

EFIN

ING

SCA

LE

2 S

ETTI

NG U

P LO

CAL

STATU

S OF WATER

SECUR

ITY PROBLEMS

AN

D EV

ALUA

TION

AN

D S

COPE

P

LANN

ING

TEAM

STE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

•

STE


S • S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

T


EPS

•

3 A

SSES

SING

CUR

RENT

6 IMPLEMENTING THE ACTION PLAN

4

ANALYSI

NG AND PRIORITISING 5 DESIGNING AN

ACTION

PLAN

7 MONITO

RING

1

DEFIN

ING

SCAL

E 2

SET

TIN

G U

P LO

CAL

STA

TUS

OF W

AT

ER

SEC

URIT

Y

P

ROBLEMS

AND EVALUAT

ION

AND

SCO

PE

PL

ANN

ING

TEA

M

STEPS

• ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

STE

PS • ST

E P S • STEPS

• ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

E

PS • STEPS •

3 A

SSES

SIN

G C

UR

REN

T

6 IMPLEM

ENTING THE ACTION PLAN

4 A

NALY

SING

AND P

RIORIT

ISING

5 DESIGNING AN ACTION PLAN

7 MONITORING 1 DEFINING

SCALE

2 SE

TTIN

G UP

LOC

AL

S

TATU

S O

F W

ATER

SEC

UR

ITY

PR

OBLE

MS

AND EVALUATION AND SCO

PE

PLA

NNIN

G TE

AM STEPS • STEPS • S

TEP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EPS

• ST

E P S • STEPS • ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

3 AS

SESS

IN

G CU

RREN

T

6 IMPLEM

ENTING THE ACTION

PLAN

4 A

NALY

SIN

G A

ND

PR

IOR

ITIS

ING

5 DE

SIGNING AN ACTION PLAN

7 MONITORING

1 DEFINING SCALE 2 SETTING UP LOCAL

ST

ATUS

O

F WAT

ER

SE

CU

RITY

PR

OBL

EMS

AND EVALUATION

AND SCOPE PLANNING TE

AM

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST


EPS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TEPS


S •

3 ASSESSING CURRENT

6 IMP

LEMENTIN

G THE ACTION PLAN

4 ANALYSING AND PRIORI

TISING

5

DES

IGN

ING

AN

ACT

ION

PLA

N

7 MONITORING 1 DEFINING

SCALE 2 SETTIN

G UP LOCAL STATUS OF WATER

SECURITY

PROBLEMS


PE PLAN

NIN

G TEAM

ST EP S • STEPS • S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• STEPS • STEPS •

STEP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EPS

•

3 ASSESSING CURRENT

6 IM

PLEM

ENTI

NG

TH

E AC

TIO

N PL

AN

4 ANALYSIN

G AND PRIORITISING

5 DESIGNING AN ACTIO

N PLAN

7

MON

ITORIN

G 1

DEFINING SCALE 2 SETTING UP LOCAL

STATUS OF WATER

SECURITY

PROBLEM

S

A

ND E

VALU

ATION

AND

SCOPE PLANNING TEAM

ST

EP

S

• S

TEP S •

ST E PS • STE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TEPS • STEPS • S

TEPS

•

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S•

3 ASSESSING CURRENT

6 IMPLE

MENT

ING TH

E ACT

ION

PLAN

4 ANALYSING AND PRIORITISING

5 DESIGNING AN ACTION PLAN

7

MO

NIT

OR

ING

1 D

EFIN

ING

SC

ALE

2 SET

TING UP L

OCAL STATUS OF WATER SECURITY

PROBLEMS

A

ND

EVA

LUAT

ION

AN

D SC

OPE

PL

ANNING T

EAM

FIGURE 7 LOCAL WATER SECURITY ACTION PLANNING CYCLE

Local water security action planning (LWSAP) is a participatoryprocess that comprises seven interrelated activities, asillustrated above. Each of the seven activities comprises two ormore steps, making a total of 20 steps in the LWSAP process,as shown in Table 1. Each step has a particular deliverable. All20 steps and their deliverables are described in detail in thechapters of the manual.





19

18

ACTIVITY STEP DESCRIPTION DELIVERABLES

5 Designing the action plan

10 Development of a visionPlanning team discusses and decides on the definition ofthe LWS vision at a planning team meeting or workshop,facilitated by local coordinator.

• Developed vision

11 Definition of goals andobjectivesPlanning team discusses and decides on the goals andobjectives at a planning team meeting or workshopfacilitated by local coordinator.

• REC’s “green sheet” table on LWSgoals and objectives

12 Identification of actions

Working groups identify and formulate appropriateactions for the respective topics of substantive focus.Planning team further discusses and decides on theactions at a planning team meeting or workshopfacilitated by local coordinator.

• REC’s “green sheet” table onidentification of LWS actions

13 Specification of actions

Planning team determines the responsibilities,timeframe, technical and legal issues, resources, possiblenegative effects and communication issues for eachspecified action. Planning team discusses and makesdecisions at a planning team meeting or workshopfacilitated by local coordinator.

• REC’s “green sheet” table onspecification of LWS actions

14 Prioritisation of actions

Planning team selects prioritisation criteria and appliesthem in order to prioritise actions. Planning team carriesout the ranking exercise and prioritisation at a planningteam meeting or workshop facilitated by localcoordinator.

• Prioritised actions

15 Formulation of aframework action planPlanning team, facilitated by local coordinator, developsframework action plan.

• Draft action plan

6 Implementing the actionplan

16Definition or establishment of implementationstructure(s)

Planning team, facilitated by local coordinator, develops aframework for action plan implementation, including theassignment of existing structures and/orrecommendations for new structures. This step must becarefully coordinated with all stakeholders and discussedwith the local administration and decision makers.

• Structure of implementation plan

17 Development ofimplementation plan Planning team develops an implementation plan. • Implementation plan

18 Documentation ofimplementationPlanning team develops procedures for documenting theimplementation of the plan.

• Documentation

7 Monitoring and evaluation19 Performance monitoring Planning team develops a monitoring plan. • Monitoring plan

20 Evaluation and impact assessment Planning team develops an evaluation plan. • Evaluation plan

TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)

ACTIVITY STEP DESCRIPTION DELIVERABLES

1 Defining scale and scope

01 Initial assessment

Initial planning team, coached by local coordinator, carriesout initial assessment in order to collect and systematisethe data necessary to define the spatial scale, the topicsof substantive focus and the principles to beoperationalised during the planning process.

• Initial assessment report

02 Scoping and scaling

Initial planning team, in consultation with localcoordinator and stakeholders, determines the scope andscale of the LWS planning exercise and proposes goalsand objectives. This should include a preliminarycampaign to generate public interest and support.

• Scope and scale of the LWSAP

2 Setting up local planning team

03 Stakeholder analysisInitial planning team, in consultation with localcoordinator, carries out the stakeholder analysis.

• REC’s “green sheet” table onstakeholder analysis

04 Formal establishmentof the planning team

Local self-government decision-making authorityformally appoints local planning team by a writtendecision (order), thereby establishing the terms ofreference for the planning team.

• Order on the establishment of thelocal planning team

3 Assessing the current status of water security

05 Public opinionassessment

Planning team, supported by external experts, carries outthe public opinion assessment, including identification of key issues, sample design and framing, dataacquisition and analysis, and interpretation of results.

• Report on public opinion assessment

06 Local water securityassessment

Planning team and working groups carry out indicator-based assessment of the current status of water securityand deliver the assessment report.• Definition of scope and data availability for theassessment process

• Indicator-based assessment• Final LWS assessment

• REC’s “green sheet” assessment tableon LWS

• Narrative LWS assessment report

4 Analysing and prioritisingproblems

07 Formulation of problem statementsWorking groups analyse manifestations of problems listedin the assessment report and "deconstruct" them in order to define root causes.

• Draft problem statements

08 Definition of problemstatements Working groups define lists of problem statements. • Developed problem statements

09 Prioritisation ofproblemsPlanning team, facilitated by local coordinator, discusses the lists of problems defined by the working groups andformulates a list of priority problems.

• List of priority problems

TABLE 1 STEPS IN THE LOCAL WATER SECURITY ACTION PLANNING PROCESS



21



20

Organisation of LWSAP team

The proposed structure of the LWSAP team at thelevel of local administrative unit is shown in Figure 8.

LOCAL WATER SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEEThe principal role of the local water security advisorycommittee is to monitor all planning and implemen-tation activities at local level and to provide betterlinks with national water institutions. The structure ofthe committee depends on the set-up and responsi-bilities of the national water sector, as well as the levelof decentralisation in the particular country. Ideally,the committee should comprise:

● a representative of the central governance bodyresponsible for water management;

● representatives of the regional government (governorates);

● representatives of territorial water management in-stitutions (JVA or WAJ in Jordan, CRDA in Tunisia); and

● representative(s) of local stakeholder groups.

INITIAL PLANNING TEAMThe principal role of the initial planning team is toconceive and initiate the planning process. The teamperforms the initial assessment and defines the spa-tial scale, the topics of substantive focus, and the prin-ciples, goals and objective(s) to be operationalisedduring the planning process. The initial planningteam also carries out the stakeholder analysis andproposes the composition of the planning team.

Typically, the initial planning team involves the mayor,high-level local representative(s) responsible for thewater sector, and a local coordinator.

LOCAL COORDINATORThe local coordinator supports the planning team in theprocess of developing and implementing the LWSAP.He/she should be trained or experienced in leading aparticipatory process and facilitating discussions, con-sultations and meetings, and must have the skills tomake joint activities more efficient and participatory.

PLANNING TEAMPlanning team members are involved in designing, im-plementing and monitoring the LWSAP. The group mayinclude managers, stakeholders, researchers and otherkey implementers. It serves as a board of directors forthe planning effort and governs the planning process,including decision making. It typically comprises se-lected stakeholder representatives who are coordi-

nated into thematic working groups, public forums andworkshops to analyse problems and opportunities;propose actions, targets and triggers; and prepare thedraft action plan. The planning team is typically madeup of 15 to 20 people, selected following the initialstakeholder analysis and appointed by the mayor.

Although not all stakeholders are automatically in-cluded in the planning team, key stakeholders shouldnot be ignored in any analysis of the situation.

WORKING GROUPSBecause the LWSAP process involves a variety of ac-tivities, the planning team is likely to want to formpartner-based organisational structures, or workinggroups, to implement specific elements of theprocess. An issue-specific working group is a smallbody of stakeholder representatives and experts whomeet to address a cross-cutting issue of common con-cern. Members possess mutually complementary in-formation, expertise, policy and implementationinstruments and resources, which they use in collab-oration in the framework of the participatory process.

Action plan development is usually an iterative processin which specialist working groups prepare specificproposals and submit them to the planning team orforum for review, comments, changes and decisions.The number of working groups and the topics they ad-dress are determined following the results of the scop-ing and scaling analysis. (Typically, each topic ofsubstantive focus will have its own working group.)Working groups are nominated by the planning teamand comprise three to five people who are ultimatelyresponsible for assessing a particular water securityissue. Each working group should include people thathave expertise and experience in the particular issue.Planning team members and external experts are botheligible to be nominated as working group members.

LOCAL STAKEHOLDERSAny individuals, groups, institutions or firms that mayhave a relationship with the project or programmeare defined as stakeholders. In the case of LWSAP,stakeholders are individuals, groups or institutionsthat have a vested interest in water security in theproject area, and/or that will be potentially affectedby LWSAP activities and have something to gain orlose if conditions change or stay the same. They may— whether directly or indirectly, positively or nega-tively — affect or be affected by the process and bythe outcomes of projects or programmes.

In the context of participatory decision making, theterm “stakeholder” is applied to groups, organisations(formal and informal; public and private) and individ-uals who have an important “stake” in the process oflocal water management and governance.

FIGURE 8 PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF THE LWSAP TEAM

LOCAL WATER SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEEThe committee’s principal role is to monitor all planning and implementing activities at the local level, and to provide a better link to national water institutions. It comprises: (i) representatives of regional governments(governorates in Jordan and Tunisia); (ii) representatives of territorial water management institutions (JVA or WAJ in Jordan, CRDA in Tunisia); and (iii) representative(s) of local stakeholder groups.

INITIAL PLANNING TEAMThese are the people who conceive of and initiate the planning process.Their specific role is to perform the initial stakeholder analysis, to proposethe composition of the planning team, and to propose the scope and scaleof the entire planning process. Typically, the initial planning team willinclude the mayor, top local representative(s) responsible for the watersector, and an external facilitator.

PLANNING TEAMThis is the complete group of people involved in designing,implementing, monitoring and learning from a project. This groupcan include managers, stakeholders, researchers and other keyimplementers. Just because someone is a stakeholder does notmean that you will want them on your project team. However, ifthey are a key stakeholder, you cannot simply ignore them in youranalysis of the situation. Typically, the team comprises 15 to 20people, selected following the stakeholder analysis and appointedby the mayor.

WORKING GROUPSWorking groups are determined by using the scoping and scalinganalysis. They are small groups of people (typically three to five)who are ultimately responsible for the assessment of a particularwater security issue. They should have expertise and experience onthe specific issue. Stakeholder group members and others areeligible to be members of the working groups.

LOCA

L COO

RDIN

ATOR

The local coordinator supports the respective local self-governm

ent (and in particular the local planning team

) in

the p

rocess of develo

ping an

d implem

enting the LWSAP.

WG1: Sustainablesupply

WG2: Safe drinkingwater

WG3: Protection ofwater resources

WG4: Flood and drought damageprotection

WG5: Data, informationand knowledgemanagement

WG6: Governance andmanagement

WG7: ...

LOCAL STAKEHOLDERSThese are individuals,groups or institutions thathave a vested interest inwater security in theproject area and/or whowill be potentially affectedby LWSAP activities andhave something to gain orlose if conditions changeor stay the same.

01



23

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

STE


S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EPS • STEPS • STEP

S •

ST

EP

S •

A

SSESSIN

G IMPLEMENTING


THE ACTIO

N PLAN

MONI

TORI

NG

DEF

ININ

G S

CALE

S

ETTI

NG U

P LO

CAL

STA

TUS OF WAT

ER

SECURIT

Y

PROBLEMS

AND

EVAL

UATI

ON

A

ND

SCO

PE

PLAN

NING

TE

AM3

42

5

67

1 THE ACTION PLAN

01

02

03

04

0506 07

08

09

1011

1213

14

151617

18

19

20S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TEPS


S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST


S •

ST

EP

S •

A

SSESSIN

G IMPLEMENTING


THE ACTIO

N PLAN

MONI

TORI

NG

DEF

ININ

G S

CALE

S

ETTI

NG U

P LO

CAL

STA

TUS OF WAT

ER

SECURIT

Y

PROBLEMS

AND

EVAL

UATI

ON

A

ND

SCO

PE

PLAN

NING

TE

AM3

4

2

5

67

1

THE ACTION PLAN

S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

•

STE


S • S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

T


EPS

•

AS

SESS

ING

IMPLEMENTING

ANAL

YSING AND PRIORITISING DESIGNING THE ACTION PLAN

MONITORIN

G

D

EFIN

ING

SCAL

E

S

ETTI

NG

UP

LOCA

L

S

TATU

S OF

W

ATER

S

ECUR

ITY

PROBLEM

S AND E

VALUATI

ON

AND

SCO

PE

PL

ANN

ING

TEA

M3

4

2

5

6

7 1

THE ACTION PLAN

STEPS

• ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

STE

PS • ST

E P S • STEPS

• ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

E

PS • STEPS •

AS

SESS

ING

IMPLEM

ENTING

AN

ALYS

ING

AND P

RIORIT

ISING

DESIGNING THE ACTION PLAN

MONITORING DEFINING S

CALE

SETT

ING

UP L

OCAL

S

TATU

S O

F W

ATER

SE

CUR

ITY

P

ROBL

EMS

AND EVALUATION AND SCOP

E

PLAN

NING

TEA

M3

4

2

5

6

7 1

THE ACTION PLAN

STEPS • STEPS • S

TEP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EPS

• ST E

P S • STEPS • ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

A

SSES

SING

IMPLEM

ENTING

AN

ALYS

ING

AN

D P

RIO

RIT

ISIN

G

D

ESIG

NING

THE A

CTION

PLAN

MONITORING

DEFINING SCALE SETTING UP LOC

AL

ST

ATUS

OF W

ATER

SECU

RI

TY

P

ROBL

EMS

AND EVALUATION

AND SCOPE PLANNING

TEAM3

4

2

5

67

1

THE ACTION PLAN

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST


EPS

•

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

STE


S •

ASSESSING

I

MPLEMEN

TING

ANALYSING AND PRIORIT

ISING

D

ESIG

NING

THE

ACT

ION

PLA

N

MONITORING

DEFINING SCALE

SETTING UP LOCAL STATUS OF WATER

SECURITY

PROBLEMS


PE PLANNING TEAM

3

4

2

5

67

1

THE A

CTION PLAN

ST EP S • STEPS • S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• STEPS • STEPS •

STEP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EPS

•

ASSESSING

IM

PLEM

ENTI

NG

ANALYSIN

G AND PRIORITISING

DESIGNING THE ACTION PLAN

MON

ITOR

ING

DEFIN

ING SCALE SETTING UP LOCAL

STATUS OF WATER

SECURITY

PRO

BLEMS

AND

EV

ALUA

TION

AND S

COPE PLANNING TEAM

3

4

2

5

67

1

THE

ACT

ION

PLA

N

ST

EP

S

• S

TEP S •

ST E PS • STE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TE

PS

• S

TEPS • STEPS • S

TEPS

•

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ASSESSING

IM

PLEME

NTIN

G

ANALYSING AND PRIORITISING

D

ESIGN

ING THE ACTION PLAN

MO

NIT

OR

ING

DE

FINI

NG S

CA

LE

S

ETTING U

P LOCAL STATUS OF WATER

SECURITY PROBLEM

S

AN

D E

VALU

ATIO

N

A

ND S

COPE

P

LANNING

TEAM 3 42

5

6

7

1

T

HE AC

TION P

LAN

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20


ACTION PLANNING

0122



22

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1Defining scale andscope01 Initial assessment02 Scoping and scaling


Planning is only valuable if it generates action. Thefirst step in any planning exercise should thereforebe to define the “scene” — that is, the issues, loca-tions and time period of action. By defining thescale and scope of the LWSAP process, the initialparameters for the entire planning exercise are established. These initial parameters involve twomain factors:

• spatial definition; and

• substantive focus.



25

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20



24

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

PURPosethe aim is to:

● develop a preliminary profile of the local self-government unit with respect towater security issues, to be further used in the LwSAP;

● propose the scope and scale of the entire planning process, including the spatialscale and the topics of substantive focus; and

● propose the goal and objective(s) of the LwSAP process.

InPUtsthe assessment should be based on existing data and experience (no new researchis necessary) that covers (but is not limited to) the following main issues:

● water quantity;● drinking water supply;● sanitation; and● water quality (including environmental issues, impacts on human health and

impacts on the health of aquatic ecosystems).

sUggested content1. country and regional context

● Political, economic and social context. ● constraints facing the water sector at the national and regional level (a list and

brief explanation).● Main national and local-level initiatives and ongoing processes related to water

security (a list and brief explanation).

2. Local context

● overview of water management challenges:

- brief regional overview (geography, climate, hydrology and hydrogeology, socioeconomic characteristics); and

- water-related drivers and challenges (water use and demand; vulnerability toextreme hydrological events and climate change; land and water qualitydegradation).

● the “governing” dimension of water security:

- institutions and actors involved (initial list of stakeholders; public participationand stakeholder involvement issues); and

- efforts and local initiatives on water-related issues (past and ongoing).

● initial problem analysis (narrative, plus initial list of problems).

3. Proposed topics of substantive focus (clear list)

InItIAl lws Assessment

Initial planning team, coached bylocal coordinator, carries out theinitial assessment in order to collectand systematise the data necessaryto define the spatial scale, thetopics of substantive focus and the principles to be operationalisedduring the entire planning process.

The initial assessment (sometimes referred to as“community profiling”) involves building up a pictureof the nature, needs and resources of a community.It is a useful first stage in any community planningprocess in order to establish a context that is widelyagreed on. The initial LWSAP assessment report isused to initiate the planning process and to developa proposal for the scope and scale of the planning, forfurther discussion by stakeholders. The typical struc-ture of the initial assessment report is illustrated inthe box on page 25.

By way of an example, the initial LWS assessment report for the municipality of Al Karak can be foundin Annex 1 (page 90).

STEP 01Initial

assessment

● Flood damage protection andemergency response

● Agricultural drainage andflooding

● Drought response● ...



27

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20



26

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

The scope of the planning is usually determined byfive factors:

● the subject of concern (in the case of LWSAP thesubject is clearly defined as local water security, asdefined in the introduction to the present manual);

● the geographical area covered by the planning(e.g. neighbourhood, municipality, region, water-shed);

● the relevant jurisdictions (e.g. political, geograph-ical or service jurisdiction);

● time (including both the urgency of the problemor problems addressed and the number of yearsto be covered by the final plan); and

● the institutional and community resources avail-able for planning activities.

These factors will ultimately determine how compre-hensive or focused the planning effort will be. In thisphase of the LWSAP process, specific attention shouldbe paid to including all voices in scoping and scaling.

Spatial definition

By definition, the LWSAP focuses on a local self-gov-ernment territory in a particular country, a geograph-ical area that is legally defined by existing legislation.The LWSAP process should address a geographicalarea that is sufficiently large to ensure that plan im-plementation will address all the major sources andcauses of impairments and threats to water security,as defined in the introduction to the present manual.Although there is no rigorous definition or delineationof this concept, the general intention is to avoid afocus on single neighbourhoods or other narrowlydefined areas that do not provide an opportunity foraddressing watershed stressors in a rational, efficientand economical manner, at least in the early stagesof the planning process. At the same time, the scaleshould not be so large that it hampers the possibilityto conduct detailed analyses, or minimises the prob-ability of involvement by key stakeholders and suc-cessful implementation. Selecting too broad a scalemay mean only being able to carry out cursory as-sessments, making it difficult accurately to link im-pacts back to sources and causes. It is also useful to

make a distinction between the scale at which theproblem/challenge is experienced and the scale atwhich effective interventions can be made.

In Jordan, LWSAPs should be implemented in cate-gory 1 municipalities (governorate centres and anyother municipality whose population exceeds100,000), despite the fact that municipalities are notformally seen as local public entities with broaderlocal responsibilities. However, (1) the municipal levelis the only level of government with an elected mayorand executive council that can be instrumentalisedfor a participative local planning process; (2) munici-palities in other categories are smaller than category1 municipalities, with consequently fewer internal ca-pacities; and (3) some encouraging efforts and inno-vative practices can be observed in Jordanianmunicipalities, such as the establishment of a part-icipative mechanism in Al Karak. All the above indi-cates that the results of project activities will be moreeffective in bigger municipalities. Given the complex-ity of the post-2011 territorial and political organisa-tion in Tunisia, the LWSAP exercise will have the bestresults at the level of delegations (mutamadiyat) (Milutinović et al. 2015).

Topics of substantive focus

Given that local water security is a complex issue, pre-defined by many factors (e.g. the position of the localself-government in the national system, power issues,geographical situation and water-related circum-stances), the local self-government will need to decideto what extent the LWSAP process can be narroweddown. This is often referred to as the “Where do youenter?” question.

Figure 9 shows typical topics of substantive focus.

The initial planning team may decide that resourcesfor planning are not adequate for a simultaneous review of the full range of water security issues facingthe local community. In this case, the planning approach would be designed to focus on priorityissue(s) (to be determined), while simultaneously con-sidering the impact on it of activities in other areas.

FIGURE 9 TOPICS OF SUBSTANTIVE FOCUS IN THE LWSAP

Initial planning team, in consultationwith local coordinator andstakeholders, determines the scopeand scale of the LWSAP exercise and proposes goals and objectives. This should include a preliminarycampaign to generate public interest and support.

STEP 02scoping

and scaling

● Efficient use of water● New water supply infrastructure● Water allocation system(s)● Irrigation● Climate change adaptation● Water availability data management,studies and research

● ...

SUSTAINABLESUPPLIES

● Municipal systems● Private systems● ...

SAFE DRINKINGWATER

PROTECTION OF WATERRESOURCES

● Water quality● Water resources conservation● Ecosystem health andbiodiversity protection

● Source water protectionplanning

● ...

FLOOD ANDDROUGHTDAMAGE

REDUCTION

● Data collection andmanagement

● Communication andmanagement

● Research partnership● ...

ADEQUATEDATA,

INFORMATION ANDKNOWLEDGE

● Local decision-making andorganisational structure(s)

● Coordination with higher-levelgovernance

● Sectoral coordination● Comprehensive planning● ...

EFFECTIVEGOVERNANCE

ANDMANAGEMENT

STEP 02scoping

and scaling



29

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20



28

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2Setting up the local planning team03 Stakeholder analysis04 Formal establishment

of the planning team

Professor Dr. Mark REEDProfessor Dr. Slobodan MILUTINOVIĆ

Activity 2 of the LWSAP process, Setting up the localplanning team, is divided into two steps: Stakeholderanalysis (Step 03) and Formal establishment of theplanning team (Step 04).

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

STE


S •

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

S •

ST


S •

ST

EP

S •

A

SSESSIN

G IMPLEMENTING


THE ACTIO

N PLAN

MONI

TORI

NG

DEF

ININ

G S

CALE

S

ETTI

NG U

P LO

CAL

STA

TUS OF WAT

ER

SECURIT

Y

PROBLEMS

AND

EVAL

UATI

ON

A

ND

SCO

PE

PLAN

NING

TE

AM3

4

2

5

67

1

THE ACTION PLAN

ST

EP

S •

ST

EP

Date post:	03-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Local Water Security Action Planning...

Documents