286
17.4.2 Enhancing Planning Processes and Evaluation Tools
for MWEPs
In the past, the benefi ts of MWEPs have been mostly overestimated, while the costs
have been underestimated (Flyvbjerg 2007 , 2012 ; Ansar et al. 2014 ). A comprehensive and integrative planning approach may help to improve the sustainability of
water resource management. It incorporates the search for alternatives, the adjustment of the plans to technical innovations and the application of transparent auditing and planning procedures. MWEPs as technical structures are always
simultaneously embedded into contextual societal and economic frameworks. The
planning process should include options for dealing with situations in which – due
to uncertain costs and/or benefi ts – high burdens on a nation’s state budget can
emerge. The use of economic cost-benefi t analysis (CBA) or multi-criteria analysis
(MCA) based on a comprehensive understanding of values (e.g. the total economic
value, TEV, framework) may provide overarching analytical tools to assess changes
in values due to large-scale investments (Young and Loomis 2014 ). Involved parties
should ensure that they have suffi cient resources to fi nance the project, either within
the present generation or with acceptable burdens on future generations.
Regarding the planning process of MWEPs, it is also important to evaluate not
only the fi nancial but also the legal, institutional and societal capacities right from
the outset. Legal instruments, formal and informal institutions and implementation
strategies (e.g. the existence of an effective revenue system, the inhabitants’ tax
mentality, the effectiveness of governance structures) should match available
resources at each level of authority and address the needs of the stakeholders (Lim
2014 ). Designing regulation and a decision-making process should take into account
specifi c locations of capture and weak capacity and to improve the existing infrastructure (Faure et al. 2010 ).
We highlight the following essentials that a planning process for MWEPs
should include:
• Developing alternatives, including the “no-action” alternative and exit
strategies
• Drawing up a fl awless set of rules for assessing and evaluating MWEPs
and a transparent planning process
• Using appropriate decision-support tools such as CBA and MCA within
the planning and evaluation process
• Analysing the economic, institutional and societal capacities to assure the
sustainability of the project
• Clearly distinguishing between the planning and implementation process
in order to minimise the risk of appropriation by vested interests
• Independent controlling accompanying the planning process
• Comparing MWEPs with successful reference systems
C. Bismuth et al.
17.4.2 Enhancing Planning Processes and Evaluation Tools
for MWEPs
In the past, the benefi ts of MWEPs have been mostly overestimated, while the costs
have been underestimated (Flyvbjerg 2007 , 2012 ; Ansar et al. 2014 ). A comprehensive and integrative planning approach may help to improve the sustainability of
water resource management. It incorporates the search for alternatives, the adjustment of the plans to technical innovations and the application of transparent auditing and planning procedures. MWEPs as technical structures are always
simultaneously embedded into contextual societal and economic frameworks. The
planning process should include options for dealing with situations in which – due
to uncertain costs and/or benefi ts – high burdens on a nation’s state budget can
emerge. The use of economic cost-benefi t analysis (CBA) or multi-criteria analysis
(MCA) based on a comprehensive understanding of values (e.g. the total economic
value, TEV, framework) may provide overarching analytical tools to assess changes
in values due to large-scale investments (Young and Loomis 2014 ). Involved parties
should ensure that they have suffi cient resources to fi nance the project, either within
the present generation or with acceptable burdens on future generations.
Regarding the planning process of MWEPs, it is also important to evaluate not
only the fi nancial but also the legal, institutional and societal capacities right from
the outset. Legal instruments, formal and informal institutions and implementation
strategies (e.g. the existence of an effective revenue system, the inhabitants’ tax
mentality, the effectiveness of governance structures) should match available
resources at each level of authority and address the needs of the stakeholders (Lim
2014 ). Designing regulation and a decision-making process should take into account
specifi c locations of capture and weak capacity and to improve the existing infrastructure (Faure et al. 2010 ).
We highlight the following essentials that a planning process for MWEPs
should include:
• Developing alternatives, including the “no-action” alternative and exit
strategies
• Drawing up a fl awless set of rules for assessing and evaluating MWEPs
and a transparent planning process
• Using appropriate decision-support tools such as CBA and MCA within
the planning and evaluation process
• Analysing the economic, institutional and societal capacities to assure the
sustainability of the project
• Clearly distinguishing between the planning and implementation process
in order to minimise the risk of appropriation by vested interests
• Independent controlling accompanying the planning process
• Comparing MWEPs with successful reference systems
C. Bismuth et al.