International Journal of Water Resources Development

ISSN: 0790-0627 (Print) 1360-0648 (Online) Journal homepage: [Link]

Integrated water resources management in Nepal:

key stakeholders' perceptions and lessons learned

Diana Suhardiman, Floriane Clement & Luna Bharati

To cite this article: Diana Suhardiman, Floriane Clement & Luna Bharati (2015) Integrated
water resources management in Nepal: key stakeholders' perceptions and lessons
learned, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 31:2, 284-300, DOI:
10.1080/07900627.2015.1020999

To link to this article: [Link]

© 2015 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Published online: 13 Mar 2015.
Francis.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 823

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

[Link]

Download by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] Date: 25 November 2015, At: 09:45
 International Journal of Water Resources Development, 2015
Vol. 31, No. 2, 284–300, [Link]

Integrated water resources management in Nepal: key stakeholders’

perceptions and lessons learned
Diana Suhardimana*, Floriane Clementb and Luna Bharatib
a
International Water Management Institute, South East Asia Regional Office, Vientiane, Lao PDR;
b
International Water Management Institute, Jhamsikhel, Lalitpur, Nepal
(Received 10 December 2014; accepted 15 February 2015)
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

Integrated water resources management (IWRM) has been prescribed in the global
water policy literature for decades. This article looks at how the concept has been
applied in Nepal. It highlights the normative approach in IWRM policy formulation,
the existing institutional barriers to apply it and how these resulted in the framing of
IWRM ‘implementation’ as merely a compilation of donor-funded projects. Current
discourse on IWRM highlights the need to shift the emphasis from national policy
formulation to local adaptive, pragmatic approaches to IWRM. This article brings to
light the need to identify potential entry points to scale up locally rooted water
management approaches towards the development of nested institutional set-ups in
water resources management.
Keywords: integrated water resources management; water resources development;
policy implementation; sectoral egoism; institutional barriers; Nepal

Introduction
The concept of integrated water resources management (IWRM) has been the subject of
discussion among water scholars for decades (Blomquist & Schlager, 2005; Butterworth,
Warner, Moriarty, Smits, & Batchelor, 2010; Gallego-Ayala, 2013; Moriarty, Batchelor,
Laban, & Fahmy, 2010).1 As a concept, IWRM embodies a holistic perspective in water
resources management (Lenton & Muller, 2009), with objectives “to improve efficiency in
water use (the economic rationale), promote equity in access to water (the social or
developmental rationale) and to achieve sustainability (the environmental rationale)”
(Butterworth et al., 2010. p. 69); these are often denoted the 3 E’s. Coordination is a
central element of IWRM (Gallego-Ayala, 2013; Grigg, 2008). In addition to the 3 E’s,
IWRM core principles usually include integration, participation, decentralization, and
water management according to hydrological boundaries (GWP (Global Water
Partnership), 2000).
Over the last 20 years, the IWRM paradigm has been presented by international
development agencies to developing-country governments as a mantra for water resources
management (Biswas, 2008; Merrey, 2008; Molle, 2008). Major international donors such
as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and international
organizations such as the Global Water Partnership (GWP) have promoted IWRM
approaches as the flagship of water programmes worldwide (Biswas, 2008; Chikozho,
2008; Dombrowsky, 2008; McDonnell, 2008; Saravanan, McDonald, & Mollinga, 2008).
Amidst the fragmented sectoral decision-making landscape, and driven by the need to

*Corresponding author. Email: [Link]@[Link]

q 2015 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ([Link]
org/Licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
 International Journal of Water Resources Development 285

better coordinate water resources management due to the increasing competition for water
resources, IWRM has been widely presented as a welcome aim or vision (Butterworth
et al., 2010). With strong advocacy and funding support from international donors, IWRM
has evolved as a conceptual framework that describes the complexity of water problems
and decisions, becoming a mainstream approach in water resources planning and
management globally (UNEP, 2012; UN-Water, 2008; Van der Zaag, 2005). Many
developing-country governments in Latin America, Africa and Asia (e.g. Brazil, Mexico,
Cameroon, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Lao PDR and
Uzbekistan) have incorporated IWRM as a guiding principle for their national water policy
or water acts and/or have embarked on national and transboundary river basin planning.
However, IWRM has been criticized by an increasing number of scholars for both its
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

underlying concept and the way its implementation has progressed (Biswas, 2004, 2008;
Molle, 2008; Varis, Keskinen, & Kummu, 2008). As stated by Butterworth et al. (2010,
p. 69): “Like governance and sustainability, IWRM is a Nirvana concept (Molle, 2008)
that people can invest their hopes and fears in, exactly because it is so elastic and
amorphous (Biswas, 2004).” Lautze, de Silva, Giordano, and Sanford (2011) question the
positioning of IWRM as a prescriptive policy concept for better water governance. Molle
(2008) discusses the fact that it is often pretended that IWRM can accommodate all the
above-defined objectives to improve efficiency, promote equity and achieve sustainability,
when in reality there will always be trade-offs involved. Scholars also criticize IWRM for
its neglect of political structure and processes within and beyond the water sector (Allan,
2003; Blomquist & Schlager, 2005; Gyawali et al., 2006; Wester, Merrey, & de Lange,
2003). As stated by Blomquist and Schlager (2005, p. 102): “The watershed does not
resolve fundamental political questions about where the boundaries should be drawn, how
participation should be structured, and how and to whom decision makers within a
watershed are accountable.” Drawing institutional boundaries is indeed a political act:
“Boundaries that define the reach of management activities determine who and what
matters” (p. 105). Warner, Wester, and Bolding (2008) point out that river basin
boundaries and institutional arrangements are not natural but matters of choice and
contestation. These criticisms recommend an explicit recognition that decisions related to
water resource management are political choices (Wester et al., 2003), for actors to re-
open debates and critically re-assess concepts to avoid discourse closure (Molle, 2008),
and to shift from unrealistic blueprint institutional arrangements to adaptive, flexible and
inclusive approaches such as polycentricity (Blomquist & Schlager, 2005).
On the implementation side, there is little agreement among IWRM proponents on
such fundamental issues as what aspects should be integrated, how, or by whom, and
whether such integration is possible or desirable in the first place (Biswas, 2004), bringing
to light the potential institutional barriers to IWRM application (Swatuk, 2005) and the
need to take into account the context where IWRM is going to be implemented (Hering &
Ingold, 2012). The principle of participation of stakeholders at the basin level has also
raised issues regarding how to operationalize inclusion and representation, particularly in
countries where locally elected government agencies are absent or the civil society is
weak or does not adequately represent all sections of the society (Mehta et al., 2014;
Swatuk, 2005). Accountability becomes an important issue, especially with regard to the
design of watershed organizations, and political choices that must be made about how to
realize it (Warner, Lulofs, & Bressers, 2010; Wester et al., 2003). Lastly, coordination,
participation and decentralization have political, financial and human costs which cannot
be borne in many of the countries where IWRM implementation has been attempted
(Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2014).
 286 D. Suhardiman et al.

Taking Nepal as a case study, this article looks at how IWRM has so far been perceived
and ‘implemented’ by different stakeholders. While revealing key government ministries’
views on IWRM, it shows how IWRM has been imposed in places where it may not yet be
ripe for implementation. In particular, it looks at how the IWRM concept was introduced
as an ideal set of concepts into national policy documents without reflecting on its
relevance, applicability, or desirability. This lack of reflection resulted from a high level of
donor involvement and push in national policy formulation processes, combined with
government agencies’ lack of common vision on IWRM. As the incorporation of IWRM
into policy documents has not been effective in changing institutions and practices, most
donors have turned towards a project-based strategy to showcase and promote IWRM –
without, however, much success in influencing water resource management in the public
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

sector. Referring to the current mismatch between the notion of integration embodied in
IWRM and the prevailing sectoral decision-making structure and power relationships, this
article illustrates how IWRM application and implementation in Nepal are limited to the
framework of donor-funded projects at both the national and the local level. Two models
have emerged among donor-funded initiatives: a top-down and sector-based basin-level
planning approach (ADB, 2014; World Bank, 2014), with a focus on water use efficiency
and large-scale infrastructure development; and a participatory local planning approach
emphasizing equity and benefit sharing. Amidst these efforts, this article argues that
linking local approaches of IWRM to national water resources planning is pertinent to
ensure inclusive and accountable decision making and sustainable water resource
management but that this requires first a common vision and shared understanding of
water management issues among major stakeholders in Nepal. This article identifies
current challenges for such scaling-up as well as alternative ways forward.
The article’s main findings and line of analysis are derived from case-study research
carried out between June and October 2014. The research included a literature review on
IWRM and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 17 representatives of organizations
in Nepal, including government agencies (Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Irrigation,
Water and Energy Commission Secretariat [WECS], Ministry of Urban Development,
Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development, and Legislature-Parliamentary
Secretariat), civil society groups and NGOs (International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development, Nepal Water Conservation Foundation, World Wildlife Fund, Helvetas),
and international donors (World Bank, ADB, Government of Finland, Japan International
Cooperation Agency). Our interviews focused on how key stakeholders view challenges
and opportunities for IWRM application and how these views relate to their roles and
responsibilities in water resources management. They looked at the central positioning of
the National Water Plan and WECS’s role to promote IWRM application and how these
are connected with the current attempts to implement IWRM at the local level.

Local approach to IWRM and the issue of scaling-up

Recent discourse on IWRM highlights the need to shift the earlier emphasis from policy
and institutional reforms at the national and river basin levels to locally rooted, pragmatic
and adaptive water management with a specific focus on better sharing of the water
resource between users (Butterworth et al., 2010; Giordano & Shah, 2014; Pollard & du
Toit, 2011). For example, Lankford and Hepworth (2010) illustrate how a polycentric
approach to river basin management could be implemented deriving from an adapted and
more local approach to IWRM. Similarly, Moriarty et al. (2010) propose the idea of ‘light’
IWRM that focuses mainly on building mindsets and skills for the development of
 International Journal of Water Resources Development 287

appropriate planning models for IWRM at the district level in Egypt. Here, the idea is to
focus IWRM implementation on more practical and local entry points that offer a number
of potential advantages and could be complementary to policy reforms and river basin
institution building.
For scholars, this shift to more adaptive and local approaches in IWRM is driven by the
attempt to focus more on services people use, rather than directly aiming to integrate water
resources planning and management per se. Moriarty et al. (2010) and Van Koppen et al.
(2009) have brought to light that “another way to think across sectoral borders and
promote IWRM is to respond to wider domestic needs of many consumers, such as for
small-scale productive uses of water” (Butterworth et al., 2010, p. 77). This thinking is
embodied in the concept of multiple-use water services, which has been widely
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

implemented in Nepal since 2002, notably by International Development Enterprises and

the Finnish Embassy. Here, the idea is not only to focus IWRM implementation on a more
practical level, but also to incorporate local people’s development needs and aspirations,
in particular with regard to their water uses.
International organizations such as the GWP and the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature have also promoted locally rooted approaches to IWRM as
alternative pathways to ‘implement’ IWRM and get IWRM into national political
agendas through upscaling (Cartin et al., 2012; GWP (Global Water Partnership) South
Asia, 2010), mainly because of the lack of response to implement IWRM at the national
level. For instance, in Nepal, the GWP piloted local water parliaments in 2009. The
arguments behind this initiative were framed in relatively populist terms and concepts
such as Water Resources in the Hands of the People (GWP (Global Water Partnership)
South Asia, 2010).
This article argues that while a locally rooted, pragmatic and adaptive water
management approach could be a starting point for IWRM implementation, to ensure
effective, inclusive and accountable decision making at the basin scale, it would need to be
supported by a broader institutional framework both horizontally (across the different
sectors) and vertically (along the administrative levels) (Andersson & Ostrom, 2008;
Grigg, 2014; Ostrom, 2010). Identifying potential entry points to scale up the locally
rooted, pragmatic and adaptive water management approach is crucial to the development
of a nested institutional set-up in water resources management towards effective, inclusive
and accountable decision making. As stated by Andersson and Ostrom (2008, p. 78):
The key to the successful design of institutions is their multiple scales and their generation of
information that allows participants operating at many different scales to learn from
experience [as] the complexity of the environment involved is simply more than any single
corporate entity can absorb and manage.
In the context of Nepal, however, this article questions whether such ‘scaling up’ is
desirable and possible, both from the planning perspective and with regard to shared
perceptions of water management issues and the need for coordination, stakeholder
representation and the inclusion of poor and marginalized groups in the overall decision-
making processes (Merrey, Drechsel, de Vries, & Sally, 2005; Mitchell, 2005).

Integrated water resources management in Nepal

Water resources management in Nepal
Nepal is one of the most water-abundant countries in the world, with 6000 rivers, total
mean annual runoff of 224 km3 and per capita water availability of 9000 m3. However, the
hydrology of Nepal is primarily monsoon-driven, and about 85% of the rainfall happens in
 288 D. Suhardiman et al.

June – September. The temporal variability of rainfall and runoff is hence very high, and
the problems of excess water during the monsoon, and water scarcity during the dry
season, affect all aspects of life in the country.
Over 80% of Nepal’s population depend on subsistence agriculture for their livelihood
(World Bank, 2009); however, only 24% of arable land is irrigated. Crop productivity is
significantly lower than in the rest of South Asia, and the country relies heavily on food
imports from India. Despite vast groundwater reserves in the Terai, tube well development
and use remain limited, and access to groundwater is particularly difficult for the marginal
(, 0.5 ha) and tenant farmers who constitute the majority of cultivators. As a result, vast
tracts of land remain fallow during the winter and summer dry seasons. Thus, the issue of
improved water resources development and management looms large for the future of
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

the country.
Referring to this need to develop Nepal’s water resources, there is also high
expectation for hydropower development. This expectation is derived both from the local
population, who face low electrification coverage (up to 16 hours of load shedding during
the dry season in electrified areas), and the government, who see electricity export as a
potential source of revenue. Hydropower projects supply most of the electricity in Nepal
(National Electricity Authority, 2014). Nepal’s commonly quoted total and technically
feasible hydropower potential are 83,000 MW and 42,133 – 45,000 MW, respectively
(Ministry of Water Resources, 2001; WECS, 2010), based on the estimates from a doctoral
research study conducted in the 1960s (Shrestha, 1966 cited in Pokharel, 2007). A recent
study using more accurate hydrological, meteorological and topographical data and
hydrological model has estimated that the total hydropower capacity, on a run-of-river
basis at 40% Q (exceedance flow) and 80% efficiency, is 53,836 MW (Jha, 2010), but
actual power production amounted to only 650 MW out of 790 MW supplied in 2013, with
the rest mostly being imported.
In Nepal there are eight different ministries working in water-related issues. These are
Energy, which is responsible for electricity generation and overall power-sector
development; Irrigation, which is in charge of irrigation development; Urban
Development, which is responsible for drinking water supply and water sanitation
provision; Agriculture and Cooperatives, which is responsible for agricultural crop
production; Forest and Soil Conservation; Science, Technology and Environment;
Physical Infrastructure and Transport; and Federal Affairs and Local Development, which
is in charge of local infrastructure development in the rural areas.

The incorporation of IWRM into the National Water Plan

The government of Nepal formulated its Water Resource Strategy (WRS) in 2002 and its
National Water Plan (NWP) in 2005. With strong support and assistance from the
Canadian International Development Agency, UNDP and World Bank (JVS (Jalashrot
Vikash Sanstha), 2003), WECS formulated the NWP in consultation with relevant sectoral
ministries. Partially driven by the global push and the agenda of major international
development donors (such as the World Bank and GWP) to promote IWRM, the plan,
approved by the Cabinet, states the importance of IWRM principles and the notion of river
basin management to ensure that water resources development is done in an effective
and sustainable manner. As stated in the NWP (HMG (His Majesty’s Government),
2005, p. 7):
The integrated water resources management (IWRM) principle professes that water must be
viewed from a holistic perspective, both in its natural state and in balancing the competing
 International Journal of Water Resources Development 289

demands on it (e.g. domestic, agriculture, hydropower, industrial, cultural and

environmental). . . . The IWRM is defined as a process that promotes the coordinated
development and management of water, land, and related resources to maximize the resultant
economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability
of vital ecosystems.
Initially, the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) and WECS were identified as the
main government institutions responsible for promoting IWRM implementation. In 2009,
however, MoWR was split (mainly for political reasons) into two ministries: the Ministry
of Irrigation (MoI) and the Ministry of Energy (MoE). Though other ministries are actually
involved in water resources management, MoWR and later MoI and MoE continue to be
the most powerful ministries in water resources management. For this reason, WECS is
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

also located under MoWR and later under MoE.

WECS is the permanent secretariat of the Water and Energy Commission (WEC),
which was established by His Majesty’s Government of Nepal in 1975 with the
objective of “developing the water and energy resources in an integrated and accelerated
manner” (ADB, 2004, p. 4). The establishment of WEC was largely driven by the
government’s objective to be well equipped to negotiate transboundary water and energy
issues with India, notably through the creation of “an integrated and centralized
environmental database system for information related to water resources development
and management” (WECS, 2003). WECS was formed in 1981. The Canadian International
Development Agency supported it from its formation until June 2014, when it withdrew its
substantial support. In its early days, WECS’s role was envisioned as providing other
government ministries with review and technical reports in relation to sectoral ministries’
development plans, and provision of design guidelines. Following the development of
the WRS and NWP, WECS’s role was oriented more and more towards the formulation
of policies and legal frameworks to promote IWRM, and towards inter-sectoral
coordination.
Our interviews, however, revealed considerable confusion over what WECS’s role and
mandate are, as well as marked disagreement on what they should be. Representatives
from funding agencies believe that WECS’s role lies in coordination of water planning,
but some sectoral ministries perceive that WECS should solely provide technical expertise
to them, while civil society organizations perceive WECS as a government body in charge
of IWRM implementation – without actually defining what IWRM implementation
entails.
Following the NWP’s formulation in 2005, WECS developed a draft act that outlines
the institutional frameworks that need to be developed towards the realization of IWRM.
However, the act was never approved, because of MoE’s objection. The act was drafted
notably to give legal backup to WECS to review and approve sectoral ministries’
development plans and activities. MoE resisted the act because it would result in a new
control mechanism (in terms of technical audit), which would stand above the sectoral
ministries’ decision-making authority and might threaten their power and
budget allocation. Moreover, stated in the draft act was also WECS’s proposal to change
the membership status of the WEC from appointment only to full-time recruited staff.
WEC members are mainly high-level officials representing various sectoral ministries.
Officially, there are 11 ministries represented in WEC, and they are supposed to meet
regularly. In practice, however, the meetings with representatives from the other sectoral
ministries happen irregularly. WECS’s functioning is shaped mainly by MoE, which plays
a crucial role as the chair of WEC. The NWP initially proposed that “WECS will be
transformed to WEC, operating full time with a permanent office and with the provision of
 290 D. Suhardiman et al.

chief commissioner and commissioners, who will be full-time office bearers” (HMG (His
Majesty’s Government), 2005, p. 62). This provision, if implemented under the act drafted
by WECS, would have indirectly resulted in the replacement of all WEC current members
(representing the sectoral ministries) and in the loss of control of sectoral ministries
over WECS. Obviously, the act’s propositions to give WECS formal decision-making
authority to review and approve sectoral planning, combined with the change in the
modality of WEC membership/staffing, gave enough reasons for the MoE to halt the
act’s promulgation process. MoE (which chairs WEC today) thought that agreeing to the
proposal would result in MoE’s losing control of WEC.
MoE’s resistance to the act’s promulgation process reveals the institutional barrier to
the meaningful application of IWRM in Nepal. Or, as said by one informant: “We cannot
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

change the existing governance structure, which is very much driven by sectoral decision-
making power, just for the sake of implementing IWRM” (interview, September 2014).
Following this major setback, WECS has been unable to fulfil its role in promoting cross-
sectoral coordination, as outlined in the NWP. Lacking the legal backup to ensure sectoral
ministries’ compliance with the principles of IWRM (e.g. sharing its development plan
and activities with WECS and other sectoral ministries), WECS continues to struggle to
find the institutional niche where it can add value for sectoral ministries. Supported by
various international donors, WECS has conducted some pilot-testing studies for IWRM
implementation in the Indrawati and Dudh Koshi sub-basins. Lessons learned from this
pilot IWRM implementation were not applied elsewhere, however, due to lack of budget
and the absence of a strong coordinating agency at the national level, to whom the newly
formed river basin organizations would need to report.
In 2010 WECS prepared the Koshi River Basin Management Strategic Plan. The plan
was drafted in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund, rather than in a collaborative
effort with sectoral ministries. The latter were simply consulted as ‘stakeholders’.
Consequently, the plan was never considered a legal policy document because it was never
endorsed by government ministries or passed through the Cabinet. Explaining the
approach in the plan formulation, an official at WECS stated:
The objective of the plan was mostly to gather all relevant stakeholders and get them engaged
in the project so as to get their support in the field. It does not aim to be a River Basin Master
Plan. We had initially agreed on a River Basin Master Plan, but it was a huge task. We have to
rename the plan, as it might be misleading. (Personal communication, World Bank and WECS
workshop on Integrated Basin Planning and Management in Nepal, September 2014)
In 2012, the government of Nepal drafted the National Water Resources Policy. The
National Planning Commission, the government body in charge of formulating
development plans and policies across all sectors, entrusted WECS in 2009 to prepare
this policy to achieve the objectives defined in the NWP. The policy was drafted with the
support of GWP/JVS Nepal and has not yet been endorsed by the Parliament. Like the
NWP, it emphasizes the need for cross-sectoral coordination to develop and manage the
country’s water resources in a comprehensive way (Taylor et al., 2014). However, it
remains unclear how the policy will advance the NWP in relation to WECS’s envisioned
role to promote IWRM, given the secretariat’s current dysfunction and the lack of
common vision amongst different government agencies on what WECS’s role should be.
Recently, the government of Nepal signed a power trade agreement with the
government of India (18 September 2014), as well as a project development agreement
with the GMR Group to build a hydropower dam with 900 MW generating capacity on the
upper reaches of the Karnali River. While the signing of this power trade agreement could
potentially accelerate the speed of hydropower dam building in Nepal, a number of former
 International Journal of Water Resources Development 291

government officials from various ministries criticized this move in an open letter to the
prime minister (22 November 2014). The proposed plan and the criticism of it bring to
light the need for key stakeholder involvement to manage Nepal’s water resources more
effectively and sustainably, while also ensuring the incorporation of local populations’
development needs.

IWRM and the prevailing sectoral decision making

Amidst the lack of scientific evidence to back up the different claims, and the clear lack of
interest of the most powerful public agencies in applying IWRM, sectoral decision-
making processes prevail. In general, officials from powerful sectoral ministries (like MoE
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

and MoI) agreed that there is no need to consult other sectoral ministries or WECS for their
development plans as long as there is sufficient water for the proposed activities and that
the proposed activities would not affect other types of water use (e.g. agriculture,
hydropower and drinking water supply).
Although powerful sectoral ministries have started discussing multi-purpose projects,
which combine hydropower production and irrigation, they are sceptical about the need for
IWRM. Theoretically, WECS was to review sectoral ministries’ development plans and
activities to ensure cross-sectoral coordination and integration between the different
ministries. In practice, however, sectoral ministries never share their development plans
with WECS because they do not see the added value of doing so. Sectoral ministries
formulate their development plans and activities for approval by the National Planning
Committee to ensure budget allocation by the Ministry of Finance, without any
coordination or information sharing with each other. This issue of institutional barriers
was eloquently captured by one of our informants: “The concept of IWRM was
incorporated into NWP and WSS only for the sake of the policy, not for the government
agency involved in water resources management” (interview, September 2014). In turn,
WECS has been unable to fulfil its mandate of promoting cross-sectoral coordination, as
envisioned in the WRS and NWP, partially leading to its own dysfunction. On top of this,
WECS has also lacked human resources to fulfil its mandate, as the capacity and
motivation of civil servants posted in the agency has decreased for the last 10 years since
the Canadian International Development Agency withdrew its technical assistance.
While other sectoral ministries (like the Department of Local Infrastructure
Development and Agricultural Roads [DoLIDAR] under the Ministry of Federal Affairs
and Local Development, and the Department of Water Induced Disaster Prevention under
MoI) do see the need for IWRM, especially at the local and district levels, they lack any
power to initiate and scale up the process at the national or basin level. Moreover, as
DoLIDAR are implementing the small-scale irrigation projects (less than 25 ha), they
might feel that the main need for coordination is at the local or district level. In addition,
working solely at the district level, they might perceive coordinating with NGOs working
in the same localities as their entry point to initiating coordination.

Key stakeholders’ perceptions of IWRM

This section highlights key stakeholders’ perceptions of IWRM, thus unravelling some of
the basic reasoning behind the prevailing sectoral decision-making processes in Nepal’s
water resources management. Given the strong disagreement on how Nepal’s water
resources should be managed, it is pertinent to contextualize the current discussion of
IWRM, focusing on its relevance and applicability in relation to key stakeholders’
 292 D. Suhardiman et al.

perceptions, as a means to identify potential ways forward towards the shaping of a

common vision of Nepal’s water resources management.
Major international donors like the World Bank and ADB have been promoting IWRM
application in Nepal towards more holistic and sustainable water resources management
since the 1990s, notably through supporting the formulation of the WRS and NWP.
Closely linked with the way international donors and international organizations view
IWRM as a useful tool for optimal water resources use and effective management and
planning at the national level, interviewed civil society groups and NGOs view IWRM as a
promising tool to promote equitable and bottom-up decision making supporting the
inclusion of local populations’ development needs and aspirations.
Government agencies, however, have different opinions on whether and how they
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

could benefit from IWRM (Table 1). The powerful sectoral ministries view IWRM mainly
in relation to river basin planning and management, within the context of large-scale
infrastructure development (e.g. hydropower and irrigation dams) and negotiations with
India on water and energy management. This is most evident in the way infrastructure
development was presented as the core element in the NWP (HMG (His Majesty’s
Government), 2005), especially with regard to hydropower and irrigation development,
and the observation that large-scale hydropower development in Nepal is contingent on
cooperation with India (HMG (His Majesty’s Government), 2005).
The realization of large infrastructure projects became a precondition for IWRM
application. Information gathered from stakeholder interviews reveals that MoE and MoI
supported WECS in developing NWP and the integration of IWRM principles in the plan
because they thought this would encourage donors to invest in Nepal’s infrastructure
development. However, when the envisioned large-scale infrastructure development did
not materialize (partly due to political instability in the country), they lost interest in
supporting the idea of cross-sectoral coordination and today do not believe that IWRM is a
useful approach for water resources management in the context of Nepal.
Powerful sectoral ministries question the need for IWRM in relation to the overall
objectives of optimized water use, benefit sharing, public participation and conflict
resolution. Senior government officials from MoE and MoI feel that Nepal does not need
the IWRM approach because sectoral ministries work within distinct territorial and
operational boundaries without interfering with each other. It is argued that each sectoral
ministry still has all the space to develop its plan, without having to fine-tune it with others,
to optimize water use or prevent conflict situations. Interesting to note here is how the idea
of cross-sectoral coordination in IWRM was perceived by informants mainly in the
context of the MoI –MoE relationship, as two major water users, and not always involving
other sectoral ministries. For example, while both ministries seem to be clear on how they
could divide their roles and operations to ensure effective water resources management
(with MoI working mainly in plain areas, and MoE in hilly areas), conflicts in water
demand between irrigation and urban centres such as Kathmandu reflect the not-so-clear-
cut operational and territorial divide between MoI and the Ministry of Urban
Development.

Donor-funded projects as means to implement IWRM

Driven by international donors’ development agenda on the one hand, and challenged by
the prevailing institutional set-up on the other, IWRM implementation has been largely
framed within a donor-funded-project approach. The latter has become an institutional
remedy to promote IWRM and ensure its ‘implementation’ to some extent on the ground.
 Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

Table 1. Views on integrated water resource management (IWRM) of respondents from various government agencies in Nepal.
What aspects of IWRM are
Organization Is IWRM needed in Nepal? needed or not needed? Why is IWRM needed or not needed?
Water and Energy Commission Yes, in theory Coordination across all uses Maximizing the use of water without compromising
Secretariat the environment
Ministry of Energy Yes, generally, but not for Coordination across uses Lack of conflicts in water management and especially
hydropower development, except (hydropower, domestic use water allocation among water uses – rooted in the
in spring-fed rivers and irrigation) geographical separation of large hydropower
development from settlements
Department of Electricity Yes Inter-sectoral coordination To assess the impacts of other projects on
Development hydropower; waste of money
Department of Irrigation Not currently Coordination across uses Ministries can do their work separately without
(hydropower and irrigation) causing any problem or conflict. There are no
conflicting demands for water for agriculture or
energy during the dry season. Distinct
geographical areas of development for irrigation
and hydropower.
Better water management Efficiency is required only when resources are
limited and scarce. Nepal needs infrastructure not
better management.
Yes, in the future Coordination across uses To be cost-effective; potential impacts of hydropower
(irrigation, hydropower and development and operation on irrigation supply
domestic water)
Better water management Increases in population and emerging problems such
as groundwater exploitation and pollution
Department of Water Induced Yes Coordination across all uses We need IWRM for future generations
Disaster Prevention
Department of Local Yes Coordination across actors in To minimize negative impacts on the environment
Infrastructure Development the water, sanitation and and avoid replication
International Journal of Water Resources Development

and Agricultural Roads hygiene sector

Source: Authors’ interviews, September–December 2014.
293
 294 D. Suhardiman et al.

Examples include the ADB-funded Bagmati River Water Improvement Project, the
Japan International Cooperation Agency – funded master plan study for hydropower
development for Nepal, and the World Bank– funded Irrigation and Water Resources
Management Project. Today, while ADB is supporting MoI to update the National
Irrigation Master Plan, the World Bank is supporting WECS to develop river basin plans,
with a focus on hydropower development. USAID is also collaborating with the
Department of Hydrology and Meteorology under the Ministry of Science, Technology
and Environment in establishing river basin offices in the Koshi, Narayani and Karnali
River basins (Taylor et al., 2014). How donors coordinate their efforts to promote IWRM
application remains opaque, especially as donor organizations themselves are markedly
sectoralized in the way they operate and disburse funding. In the water sector in Nepal,
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

donors tend to work separately rather than in concerted effort. While there is a donor
platform, which meets regularly to discuss water issues, information shared in this
platform does not always translate into coordinated donor efforts. For the respectively
JICA-funded master plan study and the World Bank-funded project, donors have worked
with a single government agency (either WECS, MoE, Department of Irrigation or
DoLIDAR), indirectly reinforcing sectoral divides. Interviews with donor representatives
reveal that there will be some effort to coordinate the different initiatives, especially with
regard to World Bank and ADB river basin planning projects. Nevertheless, these efforts
happen on an ad hoc or personal basis rather than through institutionalized mechanisms.
Even when donors attempt to engage various government agencies and sectoral ministries
to collaborate, each sectoral ministry and government agency still tends to lead each of the
project components separately.
Through donor-funded projects, some international NGOs have attempted to
implement IWRM at the local level. The World Wildlife Fund has formed 11 integrated
river management committees under the Koshi River Basin Management project. The idea
is mainly to experiment with the IWRM principles of the NWP on the ground. These
integrated committees are grass-roots organizations, envisioned as providing a platform
for different water-related community-based organizations and water user groups to apply
the IWRM approach at the catchment level (Aryal & Rajkarnikar, 2011). The committees
are formed through a local election process, and the executive committee includes
representatives of all water uses. However, their formation is currently “at an experimental
stage”, and their role has been limited to drafting a catchment plan and supervising the
construction or rehabilitation of small-scale infrastructure (tanks, canal systems) funded
by the project. The long-term sustainability of these interventions is also very unclear,
especially once donor support wanes.
Similarly, Helvetas implemented a process of local planning to develop water use
master plans in collaboration with DoLIDAR. In contrast to the Koshi River Basin
Management project, the approach adopted by Helvetas is based on the administrative
boundaries. In the development of water use master plans, representatives of water users
and community-based organizations prioritize water development interventions for their
village development committee through a participatory planning process. The village
development committee is the smallest administrative unit in Nepal. It can include
between 10 and 25 villages. It can include up to 10,000 inhabitants in the Terai region of
Nepal, but is smaller in the hills and even smaller in the mountains. Each village
development committee is divided into nine wards, which often compete for allocation of
public resources. Within each ward, villages or settlements range from 20 to a few hundred
households. The process involves assessing current and future water needs and existing
supply across different uses. Once local people have identified and ranked their
 International Journal of Water Resources Development 295

development needs, Helvetas then usually supports the construction of up to two water
supply infrastructure or technology schemes (e.g. solar pumps or rainwater harvesting).
Currently entering its third phase, the concept of water use master plans will also
incorporate the idea of water conservation, next to provision of water supply for domestic
and small-scale agricultural use (less than 25 ha).
The formation of integrated river management committees has had mixed results on
the ground. In most cases they are not functioning in the way it has been envisioned with
regard to IWRM implementation, one issue being their registration and recognition as a
legal entity due to the sectoralization of the water sector: because the committees address
multiple water uses, they have no institutional home and identity. Other groups (e.g. water
user associations) often refuse to join the committee because they cannot directly benefit
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

from it. Water use master plan projects have been more successful in terms of
sustainability, but the attempt of the Finnish Embassy to scale these to the district level
was a failure. According to some of our informants, this failure was rooted in the fact that
the planning exercise conducted at the district development committee level did not
capture development priorities at the district level but was merely a repetition of the
planning exercise at the village development committee level. The prioritization did not
work because every village committee clung to its development priorities instead of
coming up with or contributing to the shaping of common strategy at the district level.
In this context, the very large data-set collected at the village development committee
level does not help define district-level development priorities. This illustrates how
representation and accountability issues complicate things when we try to scale up local
IWRM implementation.
Neither water use master plans nor integrated river management committees are
connected to a national master plan or to the broader institutional framework, either
horizontally (across the different sectors) or vertically (along the administrative levels).
Donor agencies involved in funding the formulation processes of the master plans (e.g.
hydropower, irrigation, basin plans) are not aware of these local-level initiatives.

Lessons learned: moving beyond IWRM?

The way IWRM has been incorporated into government policy in Nepal and is being
‘implemented’ merely as a compilation of donor-funded (pilot) projects illustrates the
notion of institutional barriers and highly contested political arenas for IWRM
implementation.
This work reveals four key findings with regard to IWRM policy formulation and
implementation in Nepal.
First, it highlights the weakness of a normative approach in promoting IWRM through
the incorporation of IWRM principles into national policy documents. While the
incorporation of IWRM principles in the NWP is a good starting point to promote IWRM
application, the Nepal case study confirms that to ensure meaningful application of
IWRM, such incorporation has to match with or be accommodated by the existing
governance structure and institutional set-up and, as importantly, by reflection and
dialogue among the main stakeholders on which principles are relevant to the current
context (Watson, 2014). Of particular importance is to consider the existing power
relations among public agencies in the water sector, where the most powerful actors have
more reasons to resist than to support IWRM implementation (Schoeman, Allan, &
Finlayson, 2014). Put differently, efforts to implement IWRM will continue to face
structural challenges when the existing governance structure and institutional set-up
 296 D. Suhardiman et al.

remains adamant in preserving sectoral decision-making authority over the need for
integration. For example, it has been very hard for WECS to fulfil its role as envisioned in
the NWP, especially since MoE has resisted the implementation of this vision.
Second, it brings to light the importance of understanding key stakeholders’
perceptions of IWRM towards its meaningful application. How various sectoral ministries
perceive the very idea of IWRM and how they could benefit from its application is crucial
in shaping the actual significance of the NWP. Discussions on potential ways forward on
IWRM application should be based on better understanding of key stakeholders’
perceptions of IWRM, and how cross-sectoral coordination and IWRM can provide added
value to those currently in charge of sectoral decision making. Such discussions should
also pose a question as to e.g. whether cross-sectoral coordination is really needed, to
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

achieve what objectives, for whom, at which (operational) level, and how key government
stakeholders could benefit from IWRM policy formulation and implementation. WECS’s
role possibly needs to be reinvented and clarified, and agreed by sectoral ministries
towards the shaping of a common vision for Nepal’s water resource management. During
the budget speech in July 2014, the government of Nepal announced its decision to work
on the transformation of the WECS into a National Water Resources Commission, which
is envisioned to more effectively coordinate water resources management across sectors,
involving not only various government ministries but also civil society and the private
sector (Taylor et al., 2014).
Third, it brings to light the limitation of local approaches to IWRM through for
instance the formulation of water use master plans and the formation of new institutions
such as integrated river management committees. Focusing on local approaches in
IWRM implementation could be an entry point to initiate coordination across scales
towards more effective and sustainable water resources management. Nevertheless, this
article argues that identifying potential entry points to scale up these local approaches
and connect them with the wider decision-making systems in water resources
management is pertinent to ensure informed, inclusive and accountable decision making.
At present, attempts to scale up local approaches to IWRM have not been successful
because local integration has tended to ‘crumble’ as soon as one tries to link it with
district-level planning systems. The lack of elected representatives in village
development committees and district development committees, the fact that the intended
devolution of functions, functionaries and finances to the village development
committees has not taken place, and the prevailing budgetary power of sectoral ministry
representatives at the district level to decide on selection and implementation, reflect the
institutional barriers to effective, inclusive and accountable decision making in water
resource management. Since 2002, there have been no elected representatives on the
village or district development committees, which have been de facto headed by civil
servants appointed by the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development and
supported by the ‘all-party mechanism’ – a term used to designate a joint committee of
representatives from local political parties who act as District Council and district
development committee members – until 2012. Local bodies are therefore neither
representative nor downwardly accountable. There is also limited devolution of funds
and responsibilities to district- and village-level government bodies within the current
decentralization framework. This brings to light the importance of understanding the
wider political system and how it might determine the limit of what is possible with
regard to IWRM implementation. The broader discussion as to whether scaling up these
local initiatives through hydrological and/or administrative boundaries poses both
structural and institutional challenges to developing nested institutional arrangements for
 International Journal of Water Resources Development 297

IWRM – and still remains largely dependent on how Nepal’s constitution, still in
preparation, will shape the federal restructuring of the state (Shrestha, 2010).
Last but not least, deriving from the notion of institutional barriers, this study links the
current discussion of IWRM with the issue of bureaucratic reform. At present, there is a
tendency amongst international donors and organizations to assume that sectoral
ministries will agree to apply IWRM if only they can come up with the right institutional
set-up and mechanisms of implementation. Incorporating the issue of bureaucratic reform
as an integral part of IWRM discussion can be an important first step to change the rules of
the game with regard to IWRM implementation in particular, and the way development
assistance is shaped by donors and government agencies in general. The issue of
bureaucratic reform remains uncovered in IWRM discussions primarily because the
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

sectoral ministries and international donors share common interests in directing IWRM
policy formulation and implementation following a ‘business as usual’ mode of operation
(Araral, 2009), often manifested in donor-funded ‘IWRM projects’.

Acknowledgements
We thank the CGIAR Research Programme on Water, Land, and Ecosystems for its financial support
of the International Water Management Institute in conducting this study. The study design, data
collection, analysis and interpretation of the result were exclusively undertaken by the authors. We
thank one anonymous reviewer and Dr. Prachanda Pradhan for providing constructive feedback on
the draft manuscript.

Funding
This work was supported by the CGIAR Research Programme on Water, Land, and Ecosystems
through its financial support of the International Water Management Institute.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Note
1. See Grigg (2008), Jeffrey and Gearey (2006), and Petit and Baron (2009) for the origin of IWRM
as a conceptual framework in water resources management. While the Mar del Plata conference
in 1977 marked the introduction of IWRM concept at the international level (Biswas, 2004), it
was only after the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro and the Dublin Conference (ICWE
(International Conference on Water and the Environment), 1992) that IWRM gained significant
international weight and global importance.

References
ADB (Asian Development Bank). (2004). Nepal & WECS (Water and Energy Commission
Secretariat). Country Paper. Regional meeting of National Water Sector Apex Body. (18 – 21
May 2004, Hanoi, Vietnam).
ADB (Asian Development Bank). (2014). 45206-001: Water resources project preparatory facility,
project data sheet. Retrieved from: [Link]
001
Allan, J. A. (2003). IWRM/IWRAM: A new sanctioned discourse? SOAS Occasional Paper no. 50.
London: SOAS.
Andersson, K. P., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric
perspective. Policy Sciences, 41, 71 – 93. doi:10.1007/s11077-007-9055-6.
 298 D. Suhardiman et al.

Araral, E. (2009). The strategic games that donors and bureaucrats play: An institutional
rational choice analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 853–871.
doi:10.1093/jopart/mun024.
Aryal, Ravi Sharma, & Rajkarnikar, G. (2011). Koshi river basin management strategic plan
(2011 – 2021). Kathmandu: Government of Nepal, Water & Energy Commission Secretariat.
Biswas, A. K. (2004). Integrated water resources management: A reassessment. Water International,
29, 248– 256. doi:10.1080/02508060408691775.
Biswas, A. K. (2008). Integrated water resources management: Is it working? International Journal
of Water Resources Development, 24, 5 – 22. doi:10.1080/07900620701871718.
Blomquist, W., & Schlager, E. (2005). Political pitfalls of integrated watershed management. Society
& Natural Resources, 18, 101– 117. doi:10.1080/08941920590894435.
Butterworth, J., Warner, J., Moriarty, P., Smits, S., & Batchelor, C. (2010). Finding practical
approaches to integrated water resources management. Water Alternatives, 3, 68 – 81.
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

Cartin, M., Welling, R., Córdoba, R., Rivera, O., Rosal, C., & Arrevillaga, F. (2012). Tacaná
Watersheds Guatemala & Mexico. Transboundary water governance and implementation of
IWRM through local community action. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN (International Union for
Conservation of Nature).
Chikozho, C. (2008). Globalizing integrated water resources management: A complicated
option in Southern Africa. Water Resources Management, 22, 1241– 1257. doi:10.1007/s11269-
007-9223-7.
Dombrowsky, I. (2008). Integration in the management of international waters: Economic
perspectives on a global policy discourse. Global Governance, 14, 455–477.
Gallego-Ayala, J. (2013). Trends in integrated water resources management research: A literature
review. Water Policy, 15, 628– 647. doi:10.2166/wp.2013.149.
Giordano, M., & Shah, T. (2014). From IWRM back to integrated water resources management.
International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3), 364– 376. doi:10.1080/
07900627.2013.851521.
Grigg, N. S. (2008). Integrated water resources management: Balancing views and improving
practice. Water International, 33, 279– 292. doi:10.1080/02508060802272820.
Grigg, N. S. (2014). Integrated water resources management: Unified process or debate forum?.
International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30, 409– 422. doi:10.1080/07900627.
2013.877338.
GWP (Global Water Partnership). (2000). Integrated water resources management TAC
Background Paper no. 4. Stockholm: GWP.
GWP (Global Water Partnership) South Asia. (2010). Newsline. Battaramulla, Sri Lanka: Retrieved
February 8, 2014, from [Link]
GWP South Asia.
Gyawali, D., Allan, J. A., Antunes, P., Dudeen, B. A., Laureano, P., Fernandez, C. L., & . . . Pahl-
Wostl, C. (2006). EU-INCO water research from FP4 to FP6 (1994– 2006): A critical review.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Hering, J. G., & Ingold, K. M. (2012). Water resources management: What should be integrated?
Science, 336, 1234– 1235. doi:10.1126/science.1218230.
Herrfahrdt-Pähle, E. (2014). Applying the concept of fit to water governance reforms in South
Africa. Ecology and Society, 19, 25.
HMG (His Majesty’s Government). (2005). Water and Energy Commission Secretariat. National
Water Plan. Nepal: His Majesty’s Government.
ICWE (International Conference on Water and the Environment). (1992). The Dublin statement and
report of the conference. Development Issues for the 21st century, 26 – 31 January, Dublin,
Ireland.
Jeffrey, P., & Gearey, M. (2006). Integrated water resources management: Lost on the road from
ambition to realisation?. Water Science & Technology, 53(1), 1 – 8. doi:10.2166/wst.2006.001.
Jha, R. (2010). Total run-of-river type of hydropower potential of Nepal. Hydro Nepal, 7, 8 – 13.
JVS (Jalashrot Vikash Sanstha). (2003). Nepal: Review of national status in the development of
IWRM. Institutional Instruments and Facilitation Role of Country Water Partnership, Nepal
Water Partnership/JVS. Kathmandu.
Lankford, B., & Hepworth, N. (2010). The cathedral and the bazaar: Monocentric and polycentric
river basin management. Water Alternatives, 3, 82 – 101.
 International Journal of Water Resources Development 299

Lautze, J., de Silva, S., Giordano, M., & Sanford, L. (2011). Putting the cart before the horse: Water
governance and IWRM. Natural Resources Forum, 35(1), 1 – 8. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2010.
01339.x.
Lenton, R., & Muller, M. (2009). Integrated water resources management in practice. Better water
management for development. London: Earthscan.
McDonnell, R. A. (2008). Challenges for integrated water resources management: How do we
provide the knowledge to support truly integrated thinking? International Journal of Water
Resources Development, 24, 131– 143. doi:10.1080/07900620701723240.
Mehta, L., Alba, R., Bolding, A., Denby, K., Derman, B., Hove, T., & . . . van Koppen, B. (2014).
The politics of IWRM in Southern Africa. International Journal of Water Resources
Development, 30, 528– 542. doi:10.1080/07900627.2014.916200.
Merrey, D. J. (2008). Is normative integrated water resources management implementable? Charting
a practical course with lessons from Southern Africa. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

A/B/C, 33, 899– 905. doi:10.1016/[Link].2008.06.026.

Merrey, D. J., Drechsel, F. W. T. P., de Vries, P., & Sally, H. (2005). Integrating livelihoods into
integrated water resources management: Taking the integration paradigm to its logical next
step for developing countries. Regional Environmental Change, 5, 197– 204. doi:10.1007/
s10113-004-0088-5.
Ministry of Water Resources. (2001). The hydropower development policy, 2001. Kathmandu:
Government of Nepal.
Mitchell, B. (2005). Integrated water resource management, institutional arrangements, and land-use
planning. Environment and Planning A, 37, 1335– 1352. doi:10.1068/a37224.
Molle, F. (2008). Nirvana concepts, narratives and policy models: Insights from the water sector.
Water Alternatives, 1, 131– 156.
Moriarty, P., Batchelor, C., Laban, P., & Fahmy, H. (2010). Developing a practical approach to ‘light
IWRM’ in the Middle East. Water Alternatives, 3, 122– 136.
National Electricity Authority. (2014). Annual report. Kathmandu.
Ostrom, E. (2010). A long polycentric journey. Annual Review of Political Science, 13(1), 1 –23.
doi:10.1146/[Link].090808.123259.
Petit, O., & Baron, C. (2009). Integrated water resources management: From general principles to its
implementation by the state. The case of Burkina Faso. Natural Resources Forum, 33, 49 – 59.
doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2009.01208.x.
Pokharel, S. (2007). Kyoto’s protocol and Nepal’s energy sector. Energy Policy, 35(4), 2514– 25.
Pollard, S., & du Toit, D. (2011). Towards adaptive integrated water resources management in
Southern Africa: The role of self-organisation and multi-scale feedbacks for learning and
responsiveness in the Letaba And Crocodile catchments. Water Resources Management, 25,
4019– 4035. doi:10.1007/s11269-011-9904-0.
Saravanan, V. S., McDonald, G. T., & Mollinga, P. P. (2008). Critical review of integrated water
resources management: Moving beyond polarized discourse ZEF Working Paper Series No. 29.
Bonn: University of Bonn.
Schoeman, J., Allan, C., & Finlayson, C. M. (2014). A new paradigm for water? A comparative
review of integrated, adaptive and ecosystem-based water management in the Anthropocene.
International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30, 377– 390. doi:10.1080/07900627.
2014.907087.
Shrestha, R. S. (2010). Federalism and water resources in Nepal. Policy Brief. IUCN and UK Aid.
Kathmandu.
Swatuk, L. A. (2005). Political challenges to implementing IWRM in Southern Africa. Physical and
Chemistry of the Earth, 30, 872– 880.
Taylor, II, G. F., Weinhold, M. R., Adams, S. B., Khatiwada, N. R., Bhattarai, T. N., & Shakva, S.
(2014). Assessment of water resources management and freshwater biodiversity in Nepal. US
Forest Service International Programs Office Report prepared for USAID. September 2014.
UN-Water. (2008). Status report on IWRM and water efficiency plans for CSD 16. Geneva: UN-Water.
UNEP. (2012). The UN-Water status report on the application of integrated approaches to water
resources management. Nairobi: UNEP.
Van der Zaag, P. (2005). Integrated water resources management: Relevant concept or irrelevant
buzzword? A capacity building and research agenda for Southern Africa. Physics and Chemistry
of the Earth, 30, 867– 871.
 300 D. Suhardiman et al.

Van Koppen, B., Smits, S., Moriarty, P., de Vries, P., Mikhail, M., & Boelee, E. (2009). Climbing the
water ladder: Multiple-use water services for poverty reduction Technical Paper Series No. 52.
The Hague, the Netherlands: IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre and International
Water Management Institute.
Varis, O., Keskinen, M., & Kummu, M. (2008). Mekong at the crossroads. AMBIO: A Journal of the
Human Environment, 37, 146– 149. doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[146:MATC][Link];2.
Warner, J., Lulofs, K., & Bressers, H. (2010). The fine art of boundary spanning. Making space for
water in the East Netherlands. Water Alternatives, 3, 137– 153.
Warner, J., Wester, P., & Bolding, A. (2008). Going with the flow: River basins as the natural units
for water management? Water Policy, 10, 121– 138. doi:10.2166/wp.2008.210.
Watson, N. (2014). IWRM in England: Bridging the gap between top-down and bottom-up
implementation. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30, 445–459.
doi:10.1080/07900627.2014.899892.
Downloaded by [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] at 09:45 25 November 2015

WECS (Water Energy Commission Secretariat). (2003). Water resource strategy Nepal.
Kathmandu: Water and Energy Commission Secretariat.
WECS (Water Energy Commission Secretariat). (2010). Energy sector synopsis report. Kathmandu:
Water and Energy Commission Secretariat.
Wester, P., Merrey, D. J., & de Lange, M. (2003). Boundaries of consent: Stakeholder representation
in river basin management in Mexico and South Africa. World Development, 31, 797 –812.
doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00017-2.
World Bank. (2009). Shared views on development and climate change. Retrieved August 23, 2010,
from [Link]
contentMDK:22038355, pagePK:146736 , piPK:146830 , theSitePK:223547,[Link]
World Bank. (2014). NP irrigation & water resources management project. Retrieved from: http://
[Link]/projects/P099296/irrigation-water-resources-management-project?lang=en