166
M. T. Sall et al.
Fig. 12 Conceptual model
of how to govern and to
implement integrated water
resources management
methods in the delta
In Fig. 12, governance is directly related to land and water resources. Whenever
the term “Water” in “IWRM” is used at the nexus level, the notion of soil to produce
food and energy (with products and/or by-products) is implied.
Governance of these resources should be under the supervision of the State or its
decentralized administration. Indeed, it is desirable that control, pollution management and associated rules be formalized by a neutral and unifying entity, to include
a land and water use planning component to safeguard and allocate water and local
energy resources to reduce local conflicts.
To achieve this, government institutions must, therefore, implement a regulatory and enabling framework for IWRM approaches that is outside the operational
framework so as not to neutralize the dynamics of the project’s stakeholders. A
feature of governance must be strong awareness and supervision so that there is a
common understanding of rules and regulations. This component could be financed
through water charges paid by agricultural and agro-industrial producers and would
be expected to result in broad awareness, be a major focus of IWRM and promote
exchange among local and foreign private actors.
The suggested IWRM approach would no longer be under State control, as with
initial attempts in the early 1990s. Rather, we recommend that they be driven by
“champions” such as the CSS, and include all relevant local actors (agro-industry,
small producers, local decision-makers). Through the establishment of a consultation framework, stakeholders will promote their self-interest in developing natural
resource management within cooperative models centered on water resources, thus
minimizing conflicts and rivalries. Local actors themselves are best placed to solve
problems at their level, with minimal top-down State intervention. The State, on
the other hand, will continue to assume responsibility for the establishment of the
enabling environment that will specify the “rules of the game,” that is, the laws
constraining and obligations of each party.
M. T. Sall et al.
Fig. 12 Conceptual model
of how to govern and to
implement integrated water
resources management
methods in the delta
In Fig. 12, governance is directly related to land and water resources. Whenever
the term “Water” in “IWRM” is used at the nexus level, the notion of soil to produce
food and energy (with products and/or by-products) is implied.
Governance of these resources should be under the supervision of the State or its
decentralized administration. Indeed, it is desirable that control, pollution management and associated rules be formalized by a neutral and unifying entity, to include
a land and water use planning component to safeguard and allocate water and local
energy resources to reduce local conflicts.
To achieve this, government institutions must, therefore, implement a regulatory and enabling framework for IWRM approaches that is outside the operational
framework so as not to neutralize the dynamics of the project’s stakeholders. A
feature of governance must be strong awareness and supervision so that there is a
common understanding of rules and regulations. This component could be financed
through water charges paid by agricultural and agro-industrial producers and would
be expected to result in broad awareness, be a major focus of IWRM and promote
exchange among local and foreign private actors.
The suggested IWRM approach would no longer be under State control, as with
initial attempts in the early 1990s. Rather, we recommend that they be driven by
“champions” such as the CSS, and include all relevant local actors (agro-industry,
small producers, local decision-makers). Through the establishment of a consultation framework, stakeholders will promote their self-interest in developing natural
resource management within cooperative models centered on water resources, thus
minimizing conflicts and rivalries. Local actors themselves are best placed to solve
problems at their level, with minimal top-down State intervention. The State, on
the other hand, will continue to assume responsibility for the establishment of the
enabling environment that will specify the “rules of the game,” that is, the laws
constraining and obligations of each party.