Learn more about the importance of identifying and aligning your Water Fund with relevant institutional and political conditions.
Why is it important for a Water Fund to align with institutional conditions in the Feasibility Phase?
Listen to Froylan Hernandez-Ruiz of TNC (note: Pre-Feasibility is the same as Feasibility here).
At this step of the process, the review of legal and institutional conditions does not need to be a comprehensive review of all existing legislation, governance rules, and/or legal structures that could apply to the project area. If other Water Funds already exist within the same country, it is highly recommended that a review of those Water Funds be completed to compare governance and legal structures. The review should be high-level and include a consideration of the following:
All existing water funds and/or payment for ecosystem services programs; and
The different types of governance models that could apply
Existing Water Funds operate within 3 different governance models:
Governed by a board consisting of public and private organizations, usually those that have contributed financially. Significant variety exists in size, structure, and powers of these boards. An assembly or advisory committee of non-financially contributing partners is common.
Examples: Quito Water Fund, Ecuador; Monterrey Water Fund, Mexico; Medellin Water Fund, Colombia.
Decision-making power remains solely within a public authority like a municipality or public utility. An advisory committee of non-financially contributing partners is also common. To date this model has been limited to the US and Brazil.
Examples: San Antonio Water Fund, Texas, USA; Truckee River Fund, Nevada, USA; Espirito Santo, Brazil.
Unique to Brazil, these quasi-public river basin committees include representatives of the federal government, states, municipalities, water users and water resources civil organizations. They are not exclusively focused on natural solutions but have done so.
Examples: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Brasilia, Brazil.