OVERVIEW OF OECD WORK ON WATER GOVERNANCE

Aziza AKHMOUCH, PhD Head, OECD Water Governance Programme The Hague Academy, 29 October 2015

• Setting the scene (30’) – Why work on water – Why governance matters

• Zoom on Water Governance in Brazil (30’) • OECD Principles on Water Governance (30’) • Highlights on stakeholder engagement (1h)

Outline

SETTING THE SCENE

• Water : an issue for developed countries as well • Water : factor/obstacle to sustainable growth • Water risks are increasing in terms of

– Access, universal coverage – Too much water – Too little water – Too polluted water

• There is an important role for technical innovation… • … which requires robust & conducive public policies

– Evidence (facts, data) – International comparisons (indicators, benchmarks) – Standards and support to reforms (recommendations) – Sharing experience on success stories and pitfalls to avoid

Why work on water at the OECD?

Water demand will increase by 55% globally by 2050

Global water demand (Baseline scenario, 2000 and 2050)

Source: OECD Environmental Outlook Baseline (2012)

Water stress by river basin (Baseline, 2050)

Source: OECD Environmental Outlook Baseline (2012)

4 billion people will be living in water-stressed areas by 2050

Trends: progress on adaptation to climate change

March 24, 2014 – Water Event 7

Consumption per capita (households) is decreasing in OECD due to pricing and innovation

Leakage rates are becoming a challenge

Source : OECD 2015, forthcoming “Water Governance in Cities” (48 cities surveyed)

Key concerns for water management in cities of OECD

Source : OECD 2015, forthcoming “Water Governance in Cities” (48 respondents/water departments, top 5 ranking out of 65 words)

Water crises are often governance crises

Enough water for human and nature needs … if managed wisely! Coping with water risks, requires more than financing & hydrology Technical, financial & institutional solutions exist, but implementation is lagging Governance : a means to an end : manage too much, too little and too polluted water

Local and global issue, with multiple actors at different levels Capital –intensive, monopolistic intensity, market failures Interdependencies across multiple stakeholders are poorly managed Many countries struggle to understand/clarify (and map) who does what

No one-size-fits-all but a need to “mind” and “bridge” the gaps Need for place-based policies & overarching frameworks, strategy and rules Taking stock of what works well and what does not work is crucial Stakeholders have a role alongside policymakers at different levels Need to match the type of governance structures to the type of water risks to face

Beyond the question of WHAT to do to meet the water challenge, there is a need to think about WHO DOES WHAT, WHY,

AT WHICH LEVEL and HOW

Water, a fragmented sector that is sensitive to multilevel governance

Water Governance refers to : • The range of political, institutional and administrative

rules, practices and processes (formal and informal) through which decisions are taken and implemented, stakeholders can articulate their interests and have their concerns considered, and decision-makers are held accountable for water management (OECD, 2015)

OECD Definition of Water Governance

OECD’s Evidence Base

National Policy dialogues

Thematic work

Benchmarks

OECD Multi-level Governance Framework : “Mind the Gaps, Bridge the Gaps”

OECD 2011 : Water Governance in OECD Countries : a Multi-Level Approach

THE CASE OF BRAZIL

Why? Help Brazil develop future-proof water policies – Assess the performance of federal and state water systems – Suggest policy recommendations – Build consensus on short, medium, long term actions

How? An evidence-based national policy dialogue – Robust economic analysis – International experience (Portugal, South Africa, EU, Australia, Canada) – Engagement and in-depth consultation with 100+ stakeholders at all levels

What ? Two critical questions – How is the multi-level governance system performing in terms of

coordinating state and federal policies and priorities? – Are current water allocation regimes robust enough to cope with future

water risks?

Background on the rationale & process

Key facts: • Brazil holds 12% of the world’s freshwater resources, unevenly distributed

• The Amazon, Paraná, São Francisco River basins are some of the world’s largest water basins

• Southeast region is water-scarce, facing the consequences of the driest winter period in 84 years

• One of the highest shares of renewable energy in the world (hydropower accounts 92% of renewables-based electricity)

Key challenges: • Too much water (e.g. major floods occurred Rio in 2011 and 2012)

• Too little water (e.g. drought and scarcity issues in the Southeast current attention on water supply crisis)

• Too polluted water (e.g. in large urban centres)

Key governance features: • Under the purview of the 27 states and the Federal District

• More than 200 river basin committees

• Huge diversity across the country in needs and local conditions

Water in Brazil: time for action

OUTPUT

Key diagnosis

Policy Recommendations

Action Plan

OECD – ANA Policy Dialogue

Focus

- Multi-level governance system - National Pact for Water Management - Water allocation regimes

Process - Two Policy seminars gathering more than 100 stakeholders ( Oct 2014, March 2015) - Data collection - Economic analysis - 5 case studies - International good practice, as identified in the OECD Principles of Water Governance - In-depth consultation

Expertise - OECD analytical tools - High-profile peer reviewers: Australia, Canada EU, Portugal, South Africa - Peer review during the 4th OECD Water Governance Initiative meeting (24-25 Nov. 2014)

Iterative and consensus-based approach

The Brazilian model of water management

Ambitious and forward-looking reforms: • Federal Water Law (1997)

• Creation of the National Water Agency (2000)

• State water laws and the creation of river basin committees and agencies, state and national water councils

Salient features… • Integrated management

• Decentralised

• Participative

… but unfinished business:

• River basin planning

• Water pricing

• Management of multiple uses

• Participation of users and civil society

States with water resources councils, 1992-2012

A complex and fragmented institutional map!

IBAMA

FEDERAL LEVEL

RIVER BASIN LEVEL

STATE LEVEL

MUNICIPAL LEVEL

NON-GOVERNMENTAL

ACTORS

Secretariat of Water Resources and Urban Environment (SRHU)

Ministry of Environment

River basin committees

Civil society

Water users’ association

Ministry of Health

Ministry of

Agriculture

FUNASA

State management entity

State Water Resources Council

Water agencies

Municipalities

CONAMA

State Secretariat

National Water Agency (ANA)

Ministry of National

Integration

Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management Ministry

of Cities

CEMADEN

Ministry of Energy

and Mines

IBGEEMBRAPA

National Water Resources Council (CNRH)

Ministry of Science and Innovation

Assessment

• Strategic guidance

– Silos across ministries and public agencies hamper policy coherence

– Multiple water resource plans, poorly coordinated

– Water resources plans do not set priorities or criteria that can drive allocation decisions

• Functional scale

– Mismatch between municipal, state and federal administrative /hydrological boundaries

– Incoherent approaches from one basin to another in a highly decentralised context

• Policy coherence

– CNRH is not fully playing its cross-sector co-ordination role.

– Sectoral planning occurs largely in isolation

– Water allocation priorities and decisions may differ between federal/state authorities

• Policy instruments

– Water charges are low and they do not signal scarcity

– Lack of good, accessible data and information on water

– Limited implementation capacity by river basin committees

– Implementation of water allocation remains the exception rather than the rule

Zoom on the National Water Council

The level of representation of the various ministries is not as high as desirable

The CNRH is not totally dedicated to and focused on strategic issues

Representativeness of state councils and river basin committees into the activities of the CNRH in not sufficient

Select Policy Recommendations

• Strategic policy – Raise the profile of water in the national political & economic agenda

• Institutional framework – Upgrade the influence & effectiveness of CNRH to guide decisions – Strengthen and re-profile basin institutions

• Policy coherence – Foster greater co-ordination across water-related ministries/agencies

• Capacity – Strengthen financial and technical capacity of state-level institutions

• Implementation – Foster a culture of continuity in state public policy – A more professionally based recruitment of water professionals – Mandates based on medium- and long-term consensual strategies – Further encourage pricing mechanisms to reflect opportunity costs – Experience-sharing, communication and bench-learning

How can the National Council contribute to more effective water governance?

• Leadership of the Minister of Environment • Participation of other ministers in the most important sessions • Some regular (yearly) participation of the President of the Republic

Political upgrade

• Giving opinion on national plan or key legislation • Discharging the remaining issues to the government

Focus on a few “deliberative” issues

• Through consultations, ad hoc meetings, interviews and written contribution on specific issues Build consensus

• Electoral system for the selection of its members Reassess the

representativeness of CNRH

• More accountability v. personal or sectoral views Role of state councils and river basin committees

• More interaction with states, basins, municipalities, • Greater interactions with other sectors and levels of gvt Communication

• Strengthen the capacities and training of stakeholders

and other representatives Capacity

OECD PRINCIPLES ON WATER GOVERNANCE

OECD Principles on Water Governance

Endorsed by OECD’s 34 Member States at the Ministerial Council Meeting on 4 June 2015

Clearly allocate and distinguish roles and responsibilities for water policymaking, policy implementation, operational management and regulation, and foster co-ordination across these responsible authorities

1 2 3 4

Manage water at the appropriate scale(s) within integrated basin governance systems to reflect local conditions, and foster co-ordination between the different scales

Encourage policy coherence through effective cross-sectoral co-ordination, especially between policies for water and the environment, health, energy, agriculture, industry, spatial planning and land use

Adapt the level of capacity of responsible authorities to the complexity of water challenges to be met, and to the set of competencies required to carry out their duties

Produce, update, and share timely, consistent, comparable and policy-relevant water and water-related data and information, and use it to guide, assess and improve water policy 5

6 7 8

Ensure that governance arrangements help mobilise water finance and allocate financial resources in an efficient, transparent and timely manner

Ensure that sound water management regulatory frameworks are effectively implemented and enforced in pursuit of the public interest

Promote the adoption and implementation of innovative water governance practices across responsible authorities, levels of government and relevant stakeholders

Mainstream integrity and transparency practices across water policies, water institutions and water governance frameworks for greater accountability and trust in decision-making

9 10 11 12

Promote stakeholder engagement for informed and outcome-oriented contributions to water policy design and implementation

Encourage water governance frameworks that help manage trade-offs across water users, rural and urban areas, and generations

Promote regular monitoring and evaluation of water policy and governance where appropriate, share the results with the public and make adjustments when needed

Multi-stakeholder and bottom-up at the OECD

110+ Delegates gathering every 6 months in a Policy Forum Steering Committee Wider beneficiaries

Global Water Agenda

OECD Indicators on water governance OECD Principles on water governance

Regional partners [Americas, Europe, Asia-

Pacific, Middle East, Africa]

WG n°1 Stakeholder engagement

WG n°2 Governance & performance of water services

WG n°4 Integrity &

Transparency

WG n°3 Basin

governance

OECD Water Governance Initiative

A Multi-stakeholder Declaration on the Principles (7th World Water Forum, Daegu-Korea, 13 April 2015)

Endorsement of the Principles by 65 Major Groups, which also committed to put them in practice

http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/OECD-Principles-on-Water-Governance-brochure.pdf

Download the Principles!

Translation in 15 languages

English French

German Spanish Portuguese Italian Dutch

Greek Korean Japanese Hebrew Turkish

Chinese (Mandarin)

Russian Hindi

+ Arabic

Next steps (2016-2018)

Implementation of the OECD Principles on Water Governance

Online Observatory of water governance best practices

with success stories & pitfalls to avoid

OECD Water Governance Indicators

towards an OECD Water Governance at a

Glance report

Outreach & Dissemination With regional

consultations and stakeholder dialogues

Towards OECD Indicators on Water Governance

One cannot improve what cannot be

measured

Accountability

Transparency

Bench-learning

Adjusting

Systemic framework to

measure water governance

The Water Governance Cycle

Measuring governance: a challenging task

10 Critical Questions What is the scope? At which scale? What to measure? Whose views? Which process? Who are the beneficiaries? How will indicators be used? Who will monitor? How to ensure replicability? How to disclose results?

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

• Water governance refers to: – The range of political, institutional and administrative rules, practices and processes

(formal and informal) through which decisions are taken and implemented, stakeholders can articulate their interests and have their concerns considered, and decision-makers are held accountable for water management (OECD, 2015)

• Key features – Governance is a means to an end (manage too much, too little, too polluted water)

– Governance is NOT ONLY about governments

– Stakeholders have a role to play alongside policymakers : a shared responsibility

– In water : governance is complex, fragmented and highly contextual

– Governance structures need to match the level of water risks / problems to fix

• Stakeholders – Any person or group who has an interest or stake in a water-related topic, may be

directly or indirectly affected by water policy, and/or have the ability to influence its outcome positively or negatively.(OECD, 2015)

Rationale

38 solutions collected

1 dedicated session at the

6th WWF

74 contributors world-wide

The genesis of the report

6th World Water Forum (Marseille, March 2012) By 2015, 50% of countries will have adopted consultation, participation and co-ordination mechanism allowing stakeholders at local, regional, national and international levels to

effectively contribute to decision-making in a coherent, holistic and integrated way. By 2021, 100% will have done so

Coordinators of the target group OECD & Suez Environnement

Call for more evidence-based policy guidance and international comparison to support stakeholder engagement

Creation of the OECD Water Governance Initiative => Specific working group on stakeholder engagement

1. What does engagement mean? 2. Why do we need to engage stakeholders? 3. Who are the stakeholders to be engaged, at which scale? 4. What are the main obstacles? 5. Which mechanisms to engage stakeholders? 6. What are the main monetary or non-monetary costs? 7. What are the short, medium and long term benefits? 8. How to measure impact? 9. Where are good practices? 10. Which incentives to enhance stakeholder engagement?

Why this report?

OECD Survey on Stakeholder Engagement (215 respondents)

Science and academia (35)

National governments (32) Sub-national

governments (12)

Civil society (29)

Service providers (27)

Watershed institutions (18)International

organisations (16)Advisors (13)

Business (12)

Financial actors (10)

Regulators (6)

Others (5)

69 Case studies

Africa (7) Americas (15) Asia-Pacific (11)

Europe (35)

Global (1)

Analytical Framework

http://www.oecd.org/environment/stakeholder-engagement-for-inclusive-water-governance-9789264231122-en.htm

What does engagement mean?

Why do we need to engage?

8%

10%

13%

18%

24%

30%

31%

36%

39%

39%

46%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Market opportunities

Information and communication technologies

Incentives from donors

Change in organisational culture

Cost efficiency

Adaptive governance

Competition over water resources

Regulatory frameworks for public participation

Political and democratic pressure

Crisis, change or emergency-driven situation

Policy reform or project under discussion

Policy Implications of the drivers

Stakeholder mappings can

help identify core functions, gaps and overlaps in

roles and responsibilities. Special attention should be paid to

new players and unheard

voices.

Who are the stakeholders?

Policy Implications of Mappings

How do stakeholders interact?

Major obstacles to stakeholder engagement in the water sector

What are the main obstacles?

Policy Implications to overcome obstacles

What are the main mechanisms?

Policy Implications to select mechanisms

What are the costs?

A tentative typology of costs

Risks

What are the benefits?

A tentative typology of benefits

How to measure the impact of SE?

Evaluation mechanisms used for stakeholder

engagement

Frequency of use across categories of

stakeholders

Policy Implications of SE evaluation

1. Inclusiveness and equity: Map all stakeholder who have a stake in the outcome or that are likely to be affected, as well as their responsibilities, core motivations and interactions.

2. Clarity, transparency and accountability: Define the ultimate line of decision-making, the objectives of stakeholder engagement and the expected use of inputs.

3. Capacity and information: Allocate proper financial and human resources and share needed information for result-oriented stakeholder engagement.

4. Efficiency and effectiveness: Regularly assess the process and outcomes of stakeholder engagement to learn, adjust and improve accordingly.

5. Institutionalisation, structuring and integration: Embed engagement processes in clear legal and policy frameworks, organisational structures/principles and responsible authorities.

6. Adaptiveness: Customise the type and level of engagement to the needs and keep the process flexible to changing circumstances.

Concluding Principles for inclusive, effective and efficient stakeholder engagement

THANK YOU

www.oecd.org/gov/water aziza.akhmouch@oecd.org