MULTI-LEVEL WATER GOVERNANCE:
GAPS AND GUIDELINES
Aziza Akhmouch, PhD
OECD Water Governance Programme
Water and Oceans Law in Times of Climate Change
Utrecht, 31October 2013
What we think
2
The “water crisis” is largely … a governance crisis
Enough water for human and nature needs … if managed wisely! Coping with future water challenges requires more than financing & hydrology How to manage water-related risks & trade-offs ? Through better governance
Interdependencies across multiple stakeholders are poorly managed
No optimal level of “good water governance” nor a one-size-fits-all
What we have learned
Australia Belgium Canada Chile France Greece Israel Italy Japan Korea, Mexico Netherlands, New Zealand Portugal Spain United Kingdom
(England & Wales) US (Colorado) 3
17 OECD (2011)
13 LAC (2012)
Argentina, Brazil Chile Costa Rica Cuba Dominican Republic El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Peru
Beyond the question of
“WHAT” content water policies should have,
there is a need to think about
“HOW” they will be implemented
and “BY WHOM” this implies
getting into the “black box” of water policy
Water : a fragmented sector with multi-level interactions
=>> Three models can summarise challenges related to water policy, based on the level of territorial and institutional fragmentation
OECD (2011) Water Governance in OECD Countries : a Multi-level Approach
6
Mind and bridge multi-level governance gapsA methodological framework
OECD (2011) Water Governance in OECD Countries : a Multi-level Approach
LAC and OECD countries face common gaps ... but different priorities can be identified
OECD countries
LAC Countries
Key multi-level governance challenges in OECD countries
OECD (2011) Water Governance in OECD Countries : a Multi-level Approach
How to ensure horizontal coordination of water policy?
All countries surveyed set-up coordination tool at central government level None considered the creation of a “magic” ministry devoted exclusively to water
as the panacea
Horizontal coordination across water-related policy areas
Current debate in Mexico : A water ministry? A federal regulator?
OECD (2013) Making Water Reform Happen in Mexico
Central GovernmentMinisterial Departments
Sub-national Governments
Inter Governmental Council(COAG, Australia)
River basin organisations
Contracts(ex. France; EU, etc.)
Special Commission (Delta, Netherlands)
Whatever the type of system – federal, regionalised, unitary – there is a strong need of coordination across ministries and levels of government
A wide range of governance instruments for vertical coordination of water policy
Conditionalities( EU programming)
Vertical co-ordination across levels of government
Some OECD countries have set-up all these mechanisms (France, Mexico), while others have more centralised water systems, with limited involvement of sub-national governments (e.g. Korea, Israel)
14
Co-ordination across local and regional authorities
Wastewater management in the Netherlands : The need for horizontal coordination between municipalities (sewage
collection) and regional water authorities (treatment)
OECD (2014 forth.) Water Governance in the Netherlands : Fit for the Future?
Preliminary OECD Guidelines for effective management of multi-level governance in water policy
1. Diagnose multilevel governance gaps in water policymaking across ministries and public agencies, between levels of government, across subnational actors
2. Involve subnational governments in the “design” stage of water policymaking, beyond their roles as “implementers”
3. Adopt horizontal co-ordination tools to foster coherence across water related policy areas and enhance inter-institutional cooperation across ministries and public agencies
4. Create, update and harmonise water information systems and databases for sharing water policy needs at basin, country and international levels
5. Encourage performance measurement to evaluate and monitor outcomes of water policy at all levels of government
6. Respond to the fragmentation of water policy at subnational level by fostering coordination across subnational actors and between levels of government
7. Foster capacity building at all levels of government
8. Encourage public participation in water policy design and implementation
9. Assess the effectiveness and adequacy of existing governance instruments for coordinating water policy at horizontal and vertical levels
Lessons from OECD Water Policy DialoguesMexico (2013), Netherlands, Jordan, Tunisia (2014) and Brazil (2015)
Institutional “mechanistic” reform cannot be thought of in a vacuum => the form of institution need to match water management functions and target critical issues (pricing, allocation, rights/concession deeds etc.)
Flexibility is needed to match the type of governance to the level of risk => a one-size –fits- all (e.g. Mexico’s RBO) does not work !
Good practices need to be scaled-up, a crescendo approach often helps.
Next step (2015) : OECD Principles on Water GovernanceC
AP
AC
ITY
B
UIL
DIN
G
OECD Water Governance Initiative A multi-stakeholder Policy Forum to scale up best practice and shape policy guidance
2013-2015
OECD Principles on Water Governance
OECD Indicators on Water Governance
