Integrating 'livelihoods' into integrated water resources management: taking the integration paradigm to its logical next step for developing countries

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is now the dominant paradigm for water management in both rich and poor countries. This paper examines the weaknesses in the current understanding of IWRM from a livelihoods perspective. Empowering poor people, reducing poverty, improving livelihoods and promoting economic growth ought to be the basic objectives of IWRM. However, the&nbsp;authors argue that the approach,&nbsp;as currently used, tends to focus on second generation issues, discouraging attention to making water available to poor people for productive and domestic uses. They argue that IWRM needs to be placed in the broader context of modern Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) and the livelihoods approach, which take a holistic and people-centered approach. <br /><br />The paper discusses the following: the relationship between poverty and water access a background on IWRM and INRM the current lack of synergy between IWRM and a livelihoods approach livelihood-centred IWRM the governance of IWRM for sustainable livelihoods The paper highlights the following observations on the relationship between IWRM and livelihoods: in economies where a large proportion of the population is directly dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods, access to reliable sources of water is a fundamental factor influencing the level of poverty taking a broad integrated approach to solve many of the water-related problems faced by poor people is unnecessary and in the current context of rapid social change and weak institutional structures is not likely to be successful hydrologic units such as river basins or aquifers are not always the most appropriate unit for analysis or management&mdash;many problems are more localized and can be addressed at a more local level much greater effort is needed to devise management approaches that can adapt to hydrologic variability (i.e., spatial and temporal variability in water availability), limited data and knowledge, rapid social, technological, economic, and demographic change, and the dynamics of politics the fundamental importance of strengthening governance structures by working with local communities and building local institutions The paper concludes with an alternative definition of IWRM, which promotes human welfare and livelihoods through effective democratic development and management of water and other natural resources in an integrated multi-level framework. It argues that transparent user-friendly information and models for assisting decision-making are an essential feature of livelihood-oriented IWRM. <br />