Developing regional collaboration in river basin management in response to climate change
Proceedings of the Second Workshop Thursday 19 and Friday 20 December, 2013 Thimphu, Bhutan Summary of Presentations Dr Lam Dorji Director, Royal Society for Protection of Nature, Bhutan Official Opening Bhutan welcomes this collaborative approach to water resource management in our region. The Royal Society for the Protection of Nature (RSPN) is actively involved in sustainable development of Bhutan’s water resources through the Bhutan Water Partnership. This involves local communities and regional partners developing sustainable livelihood programs responsive to the Government’s Water Act. Knowledge generation and collaboration are fundamental prerequisites to sustainable development including the development of hydro power, agriculture and forestry consistent with Bhutan’s emphasis on natural resource conservation. Dr Paul McShane Monash University, Australia Developing regional collaboration in river basin management in response to climate change The aim of this activity is to promote regional collaboration in South Asia rivers management based on identification of mutual benefits among riparian states responsive to impacts of climate change and human development on Himalayan‐sourced rivers. South Asia is likely to face a 50% deficit between water demand and supply by 2030 given increasing demand for water (particularly for agriculture and energy) and potentially decreasing supply (climate change, dams, declining water quality). There is a need, particularly in India, to better understand the link between surface and ground water so as to provide improved predictability in water resource allocation. This workshop focuses on identification of country‐specific issues relating to water resource management. The previous workshop described climate change, demography, land use, and dams as emerging issues affecting beneficial uses of water in the region. Now, we examine mutual benefits including the conservation of ecosystem services through a more collaborative approach to water resource management among riparian states. We also evaluate current legal and regulatory frameworks responsive to water resource allocation and sustainable development of natural resources. Although many bilateral water management arrangements are in place in South Asia, there are no multi‐lateral governance arrangements to guide trans‐boundary water resource management. Three case study river basins have been chosen to examine mutual benefits in water/land management: the Indus, Koshi, and Teesta. These river basins span the Hindu Kush Himalayan region and present contrasting management challenges including: vulnerability to climate change, hydropower development, land use change, and socio‐political dynamics. We employ two approaches in evaluating these river systems:  user‐friendly integrated models to explore consequences of alternative policy actions and of likely climate change scenarios;  knowledge management for co‐ordinating information exchange among participating agencies and stakeholders. Page 2
We address the following issues:  how can the identification of mutual benefits among riparian states encourage collaborative approaches to water resource management?  how can ecosystem services be formally valued so that they can be quantified among other values (e.g. hydropower) and realistic cost‐benefit analyses (of alternative water uses) be conducted?  what legal and regulatory mechanisms can be applied so that a consistent approach to water resource management is adopted for river basins transcending state and national boundaries? Professor A.K. Gosain Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India Regional collaboration on transboundary river management Management arrangements for Indian rivers are compromised by a general lack of information caused by poor knowledge sharing arrangements (e.g. among states or agencies), or a lack of information more generally (e.g. on ground water). River basins constitute basic units irrespective of state and national boundaries. Information needs (spatial and temporal) are becoming more complex as climate is changing and this will influence water availability and the influence of land use/demography on water (quantity and quality). For example, the Ganga river basin constitutes some 450 sub basins. Information must keep pace with fast changing base lines. It is important that water management is considered systemically as system‐level understanding is required for effective policy and governance given supply and demand for water. For example, what constitutes environmental flows and how can such flows be determined given the need to maintain vital ecosystem services in aquatic systems. Systems include bio‐physical aspects such as hydrology, run off, evaporation, agriculture, and water quality. However, there are also important socio‐cultural aspects that will influence knowledge sharing and adoption in specific water allocation policies. This is particularly important in trans‐boundary management issues e.g. managing water distribution in India/Pakistan and India/Bangladesh. There are many parallel programs with competing demands (e.g. water intensive industry, hydropower development, agriculture). Web‐based information (e.g. http://gisserver.civil.iitd.ac.in/natcom), including GIS based data and hydrological modelling (SWAT) is now providing greater access to knowledge influential in determining integrated water resource management strategies for Indian rivers exposed to climate change and to unsustainable human development. Dr Douglas Hill University of Otago, New Zealand Trans‐boundary management and governance issues in the Hindu‐Kush‐Himalayan region Changes in water availability, unsustainable land management and uncertainty over climate change impacts present challenges to agriculture, food security, energy consumption, and poverty alleviation in South Asia. Management of major rivers is responsive to socio‐political issues which will influence trans‐boundary governance of river basins. Historically, the preferred approach to water management has been on the supply side. This includes engineered solutions (e.g. dams, canals) and top down bureaucracy. Page 3
The emergence of integrated water resource management has placed greater emphasis on the demand side but system level solutions also include ecosystem services and benefit sharing mechanisms. Existing bilateral water resource management schemes (e.g. India/Pakistan, India/Bangladesh, India, Nepal) are affected by political tensions which can erode trust and confidence in proposed benefit sharing schemes (e.g. for water/energy allocation). Examples (Bhutan), where shares of revenue generated from hydroelectricity flow to local communities demonstrate mechanisms for benefit sharing. Challenges include different values for use of river or water. Easily valued benefits such as hydroelectric power tend to dominate over those less easily valued (in monetary terms) benefits such as ecosystem services (e.g. clean water, functional aquatic ecosystems). The lack of regional fora (e.g. Danube, Rhine or Mekong management commissions) highlights difficulties in developing and maintaining a collaborative approach to major river basin management. In some countries (e.g. Pakistan) civil society is constrained and restricted from participating in stakeholder driven approaches to management of river basins (e.g. the Indus). The traditional emphasis on surface water is at the expense of an inclusive consideration of ground water (in managing the total water resource). An integrated approach, including the link between surface and ground water, and an holistic approach to water resource management (including ecosystem services and their explicit valuation) is needed for more effective river basin management in South Asia. Mr Samir Mehta International Rivers, India Trans‐boundary river basin management: flowing against the current Major rivers are under increasing threat from human development with watershed degradation, climate change impacting on aquatic ecosystems and river health. Large dams reduce water quality and quantity, decrease water availability to downstream forests and wetlands, flood productive land, decrease biodiversity, and threaten local fisheries. Increasing reliance on hydropower in South Asia is promoting dam construction and associated environmental and social impacts. Yet impacts of climate change on dams (e.g. water flow from snow/glacial melts, changes to regional precipitation patterns) are rarely considered in planning. Furthermore, environmental impact assessments do not take into account trans‐boundary impacts. Bhutan is planning the construction of many dams across most of its major rivers. This will significantly boost economic growth (through the sale of hydroelectricity to India) but will also affect environmental flows in Bhutan’s rivers. India has states both upstream and downstream of Bhutan. Upstream dams will influence flows into Bhutan with consequent impacts on water quality and quantity. Dams in Bhutan are also vulnerable to glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs). These bring water and debris which could threaten the integrity of dams on vulnerable rivers. India lacks explicit policy and regulatory mechanisms to maintain environmental flows in rivers. Page 4
Mr Chhimi Dorji Snow and Glacier Division, Department of Hydro‐met Services Ministry of Economic Affairs, Bhutan Climate change, water and floods: the Bumthang valley and the Chamkharchu river The potential for flood and associated environmental and social impact in the Chamkhar river valley was examined. The Bumthang valley has 2,870 households supporting some 18,000 people. It is exposed to potentially dangerous glacial lakes and the Chamkharchhu river has a history of flooding. Climate change will increase flood vulnerability through increasing the likelihood of glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) and changes in extreme weather events (flash floods). There is a need for an effective early warning system to be developed and implemented to avoid catastrophic flood impacts. Community‐based flood mitigation and preparedness is preferred over a reliance on the National Government (Bhutan). Siren‐based warning systems are preferred over telephone or internet based systems as they are more robust to loss of electricity and/or network capacity. Mr Jamyang Phuntsho Department of Forest and Park Services, Bhutan Watershed management and ecosystem services in Bhutan The government of Bhutan aims to protect and improve watershed conditions through integrated water resource management. Enabling legislation and policies include the Water Act (2011) and a roadmap for watershed management (2011). Planning for watershed management follows classification and assessment based on biophysical, demographic, climatic and socioeconomic features. Draft management plans have been developed for two critical watersheds: the Baylangdra and Dagana. Recognition of ecosystem services includes a payment scheme where service providers receive payments conditional on acceptable conservation performance. Ecosystem services can be classified as: watershed services, carbon sequestration, scenic beauty, and biodiversity. Ecosystem services in watersheds are maintained with mandatory forested buffer areas for riparian habitat and restrictions on cattle grazing near rivers. A national payment scheme will follow pilot scale schemes. Mr G. Karma Chhopel Consultant, Bhutan The Bhutan Water partnership The Bhutan Water partnership aims to promote integrated water resource management though coordination of development and management of water, land and related resources consistent with sustainable management of vital ecosystems. Plans to develop Bhutan’s water resources for hydroelectricity (10,000 MW from current production of 1,080 MW) will test sustainable development aspirations. Dams may be built on all major rivers by 2030 affecting river flows and aquatic ecosystems. Minimum ecological flow standards should apply. The constitution of Bhutan provides for a minimum of 60% forest cover. Bhutan has 10 protected areas, representative of different ecosystems, comprising 51.4% of the country. Water resources in Bhutan are affected by climate change including the melting and retreat of glaciers. This should be taken into account when planning for management of Bhutan’s water resources. Page 5
Mr Ugyen Lhendup Royal Society for Protection of Nature, Bhutan Watershed action through education and research (WATER) WATER is a watershed education program that guides school students in identifying social, environmental and economic issues in local watersheds. The program aims to develop community engagement in integrated water resource management. Provision of basic water testing kits builds understanding and awareness of chemical and biological contaminants and abatement strategies. Knowledge of aquatic ecology assists in the assessment of ecosystem health. This knowledge is developed with the aid of laminated pictures of indicator organisms, and prominent local flora and fauna. Awareness and implementation of improved sanitary practices will assist in reducing illness from consumption of contaminated water. Formation of local coordinating committees will assist in communication and delegation of tasks including monitoring and evaluation, and environmental impact assessment. This will lead to action plans and identification of solutions for sustainable water resource management. Mr Jigme Nidup National Environment Commission, Bhutan Integrated water resource management in Bhutan Integrated water resource management (IWRM) in Bhutan is at an early stage of development. The National Environment Commission is the highest decision making body relating to environmental management in Bhutan. Its Water Resources Co‐ordination Division co‐ordinates and regulates water resources. Water resources in Bhutan are threatened by intensification of agriculture, industrialisation and hydropower development. There are four major river basins in Bhutan: the Amochhu, the Wangchhu, the Punatsangchhu, and the Manas. Major rivers flow from the alpine zone in the north to the south where they discharge into the Brahmaputra River. Rivers support high flows and sediment loads during the monsoon season and significant snow melts following the dry season. Short rain‐fed tributaries descend steeply from the east or west to join the major rivers. Priorities for water allocation in descending order are: the people, the environment, production (agriculture, industry, energy) and recreation (including tourism). The Ministry of Works and Human Settlement and municipal bodies are responsible for ensuring safe and adequate water supply for human consumption. The Ministry of Health monitors the quality of drinking water. Page 6
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forests regulates land use, irrigation, watershed management and water resources in forests, wetlands and protected areas. The Ministry of Economic Affairs is responsible for collection and analyses of water resources including flows and sediment loads. The Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs coordinates disaster preparedness and mitigation related to water (e.g. floods). The Bhutan Electricity Authority is responsible for managing hydropower generation and management. The National IWRM plan (2013‐2018) provides for sustainable development of Bhutan’s water resources given economic development (e.g. hydropower) and climate change. Discussion points Day One:  Classifying or valuing ecosystem services is not simple. Geographical consequences and scale factors combine such that upstream effects are small compared with larger downstream effects which are cumulative.  Payment for ecosystem services are often inflexible and require the establishment of markets with consistent valuation and trading mechanisms.  Looming water shortages in South Asia (where 85% of water is used in agriculture) can be tackled by improving efficiency (currently only 30%).  Trans‐boundary management issues are affected by politics, culture, and related trust among countries which share water resources. Dr Prem S. Chapagain and Professor Narendra R. Khanal, Tribhuvan University, Nepal Climate change and water resources: a case study of Jhiku Khola watershed, Koshi Basin, Nepal Climate is changing in Nepal including changes to monsoonal rain patterns, biodiversity, seasonal temperature and changes to cropping calendars. Surveys of households in the Panchkhal district including the Jhiku Khola watershed reveal a difference between demand (37% of households require more than 500 litres daily) and supply (37% of households have access to 100‐200 L, with only 23% having access to more than 500 L). Adaptations to water scarcity include rainwater harvesting and deep boring (wells). Most wells (65%) are for provision of drinking water with 17% used for irrigation. Issues with wells include drying and decreasing water quality. Other adaptations to water scarcity include migration, diversion of water from nearby rivers and improved water reticulation. Professor Hari Krishna Shrestha Nepal Engineering College, Nepal Flood management and climate change, Nepal There is link between climate change and flood management in Nepal. Temperature rise will affect the incidence and severity of glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs). Land cover change will affect run off and sedimentation in rivers and increase the likelihood of flash floods. Related to this, increased sedimentation will affect river morphology and flood intensity. Page 7
Design parameters for related infrastructure must take such changes into account including: high flood level (design height for roads, bridges, dykes and settlements), scour depth (to set foundation depth for bridges, barrage and dykes), and width of waterway to define set‐back for embankments, dykes and other flood protection measures. Seasonal changes in rainfall including projected increases in the wet season (floods) and decreases in the dry season (droughts) will present social, economic, and environmental impacts. Flood management in Nepal involves multiple actors including various government agencies and NGOs. Improved data/information on changing land patterns and climate change will provide greater input into flood management and water resource management more generally in Nepal. Dr Jagat K. Bhusal Society of Hydrologists and Meteorologists, Nepal Climate change considerations in hydro‐power development in the Nepal Himalayan region Nepal is a mountainous country with more than 6,000 rivers and rivulets. Most rainfall (>70%) occurs between June and September of any year. Development of hydropower in Nepal will be influenced by climate change including changes in rainfall patterns and in snow/glacier melts. Increasing temperatures and retreating of glaciers will also influence flows with potential decreases in alpine water availability during summer. The Koshi River is showing a decreasing trend in annual flow rate. Increasing trends in rainfall intensity have been increasing sediment loads in Nepalese rivers. Melting of permafrost intensified by warming is a causal factor as is land clearing in river basins. Water storage offers a potential adaptation to variability in river flows including reduced dry season flows. However, environmental impacts of dams through reduction in primary flows remain problematic. Climate change and associated glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) present hazards to large dams as does increased sediment loads which can damage hydropower turbines. Trans‐boundary or regional co‐operation is required to manage water allocation given likely climate change impacts. Dr Dhruba Pant Jalsrot Vikas Sanstha South Asia Consortium for Interdisciplinary Water Resources Study, India Comparative analysis of benefit sharing mechanism in hydro power project in Kulekhani (Nepal) and Teesta (India) Benefit sharing mechanisms aligned to new hydropower development were examined through a combination of desktop reviews, household and key informant surveys, focus group discussions and stakeholder workshops. The Water Resource Act (1992) of Nepal presents a difference between ownership and user rights. The customary right of users to water is recognised. A licence from the government is required for commercial use. Recognition of environmental services remains poorly defined. Upland communities could potentially be paid for their contribution to maintaining health water sheds (e.g. through forested catchments) under payment for ecological services. A comparative evaluation of benefit sharing for two river basins the Kulekhani (Nepal) and the Teesta (India) follows. The Kulekhani presents a watershed of about 120 km2 which accumulates in a 7 km long reservoir to generate 92 mW of electricity in a three stage cascade. Page 8
The Teesta project implemented by the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation is generating 510 mW of electricity through a run of the river scheme involving impounding water before discharge into the river. India provides for some environmental services through corporate social responsibility programs but these are poorly defined and do not formalise such services in a transparent or measurable way. Individual states can prepare guidelines for hydropower development and benefit sharing but there is no consistent national approach for India. Proceeds of hydropower are shared among governments in Nepal and India but the distribution differs considerably. In Nepal, District Development Committees (DDCs) representing where the power house is located retain 12% and other DDCs receive 38% of revenue from hydropower development. In India, free electricity to local areas for 12 years is provided by the developer under benefit sharing schemes. In both countries, fund allocation to local communities is not transparent and payment for environmental services remains underdeveloped and poorly defined in practice and in policy. Dr Gautam Rajkarnikar Department of Hydrology and Meteorology, Nepal The impact of climate change on the water resources of the Koshi River Basin The Koshi river basin is significant in supporting the world’s highest ecosystem, its deepest valley and the second highest sediment load (after China’s Yellow River). It is also a trans‐boundary river basin (Nepal/India) including the habitat of IUCN endangered species e.g. the snow leopard, red panda and freshwater dolphins. The Koshi has 40 potential hydropower sites with economically exploitable power potential of 10,000 mW. Climate change will affect the Koshi and other river basins in the region particularly with increased risks of glacial Lake outburst floods (GLOFs). GLOFs present extreme hazards to human life and to built infrastructure including dams, bridges, and roads. Extreme weather conditions (e.g. rainfall) also present risks to hydropower projects with droughts impacting on power generation capacity. Sediment loads also present problems to dams and to power turbines. China has developed flushing mechanisms for dams exposed to high sediment loads. Planning for water resource development in the Koshi basin must take into account climate change and the need for a collaborative trans‐boundary approach to water resource management. Dr Jagannath Adhikari Climate Change Institute Australian National University, Australia Working towards improved resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change in the Hindu Kush‐Himalayan region The aim of our ongoing project is to develop a climate change adaptation toolkit based on a set of scientific and evidence‐based methodologies or tools to guide local planners and policy makers during the adaptive response planning. An overarching strategy is to develop a source to sink approach to managing climate change risks linked to a knowledge platform for the region. The work is collaborative and involves counterparts in China (Monsoon Asia Integrated Regional Study (MAIRS)) and Nepal (Tribhuvan University). Page 9
It also links to this project “Developing regional collaboration in river basin management in response to climate change” drawing on the knowledge management components of trans‐
boundary water resource management. In particular, our two projects share an emphasis on the Koshi river basin as a case study. Field studies in the basin (Panchkhal) involve community consultation examining current issues including landslides and water scarcity. Demand for water is increasing with population growth in Nepal and concentration of people in the Jhiku Khola watershed (Panchkhal). Changes in land use are also occurring with deforestation and expansion of agriculture. Community awareness of climate change is high with adaptive responses including changes to crop varieties and planting times. Responses to water scarcity include the digging of more wells and rain collection. Collection and storage of water in higher regions with gravity feeds to lower ground is a cost effective response to managing water shortages in extended dry seasons. Links to improved regional climate projections will assist in developing improved responses to climate change and conservation/management of water resources in the region. Dr Shresth Tayal The Energy Resources Institute (TERI), India Cryospheric influences on the Indus, Teesta and Koshi River basins The three case study river basins chosen as part of the current program “Developing regional collaboration in river basin management in response to climate change” geographically span the Hindu Kush Himalayan region with the Indus in the west and the Teesta in the east. All are trans‐
boundary rivers. The Indus is a snow/glacial fed river with 4,582 glaciers. The Teesta, with 4 sub basins receives 449 glaciers, most of which (>90%) are small in size (<5km2) similar to the Koshi (7 sub basins) which has 779 mostly small glaciers. Current research in the cryosphere links meteorological, glaciological and hydrological monitoring to develop models of glacial behaviour given prospective climate change and its influence on runoff to case study river basins. Glaciers are retreating (mean 15 m/y). There has been a cumulative loss of 20% during the past 50 years. This will impact water supply (particularly the Indus which has a comparatively greater dependence on snow and glacial melts for flows). Management of water resources across national boundaries remains problematic given trust deficits, lack of a regional water sharing treaty, and lack of data sharing among countries/states. Potential solutions include supply side management of water resources given greater access to improved predictability of climate change impacts; increased co‐
ordination among riparian states/countries; identification and implementation of benefit sharing; and exchange of knowledge and information. Page 10
Demand side management, including the improvement of generally inefficient water distribution networks, should also be included in collaborative water resource management initiatives in the region. Improvements in both supply and demand management offer more optimistic scenarios given potential water scarcity in the region. Dr Terence Chan The Monash Sustainability Instituteand the Water Studies Centre, Monash University, Australia Systemic approaches to river basin management Systemic management of river basins is now widely recognised as essential for managing water. Water connects the many complex environmental, social and economic factors occurring within a watershed, including physics, chemistry, biology and ecology; the multiple human uses for both water and land; the many potential threats to the water resource, including water quality issues such as pollution, pathogens and eutrophication, and water quantity issues including flood and drought; socio‐economic issues such as demography, equity, governance and institutional arrangements; and socio‐political issues such as provincial, state or national boundaries. To address this complex interconnectivity, tools are needed to facilitate systemic river basin management. These tools include approaches such as risk assessment, stakeholder engagement and participatory processes, development and application of quantitative computer models, and adaptive management. Note that knowledge management is a complementary tool which should be considered in co‐ordination with those discussed here. Risk can be defined as the product of the likelihood and consequence of a threat to water. For example, the likelihood of sediment entering the water supply may be high if it occurs during every rainfall event, however the consequence is relatively low in comparison to the impact of a large flood, which in turn may have a low likelihood if it only occurs once every few years. The relative risk of two different threats may thus actually be similar, and the risks of the multiple different threats within a river basin thus need to be systematically prioritised for management. A computer model is one way of integrating the multiple issues and assessing, quantifying, and prioritising risks. Because of sparse data, high uncertainty and incomplete understanding of complex river basin systems, Bayesian methods are considered an appropriate tool which explicitly addresses risk and uncertainty, and can also link biophysical aspects of a system with the socio‐economic variables and management decisions being considered. The intuitive graphical basis of Bayesian network models is useful in engaging with a full range of stakeholders in model development, and can also integrate multiple sources of knowledge, including field data, output from other models, expert knowledge and traditional/local wisdom. The graphical interface is also useful in applying the model with policy makers and managers as an aid to policy evaluation and decision support, illustrating the consequences of alternative interventions on river basins. Fitting these tools into an overarching adaptive management framework ensures that as new developments occur (for example, climate change impacts or new demographic trends), and as new knowledge is developed, these can be incorporated for systemic and up‐to‐date river basin management. Page 11
Dr Jeremy Aarons The Monash Sustainability Institute and Caulfield School of Information Technology Monash University, Australia Benefit sharing through knowledge management Benefit sharing, in the context of trans‐boundary river basin management, is defined as “the process where riparians co‐operate in optimising and equitably dividing the goods, products and services connected directly or indirectly to the watercourse, or arising from the use of its waters”. Benefit sharing approaches are currently being adopted in a number of international river basins. However these approaches are not well‐developed for rivers in the Hindu Kush Himalayan (HKH) region. There is thus an opportunity to learn from existing efforts in order to develop effective approaches in this region. Current efforts in benefit sharing demonstrate that there is no ‘one‐size‐fits‐all’ approach: each approach needs to be tailored to the context and involve a unique mix of interventions. Importantly, the key players in benefit sharing are not states but stakeholders, including government agencies and water authorities (national, regional and local), industry organisations, NGOs and community groups and water users. In this context, effective benefit sharing requires: (i) a shared vision (mutual understanding, alignment of goals and agreements between parties); (ii) strategic planning and commitment (clear, transparent, agreed process with well‐defined goals & targets); and (iii) an adaptive approach (involving monitoring, evaluation, review and continuous improvement). Knowledge management (KM) is a systematic approach to collecting, sharing and integrating knowledge to inform policy and support decision making. KM provides a means to bring together the different forms of knowledge required for benefit sharing. This includes information on the structural context (governance arrangements, legal and regulatory frameworks, information and technology infrastructure) and the functional requirements (forms of benefit sharing, key data sets and science to support evidence‐based approaches, learning and improvement). KM also incorporates stakeholder perspectives and provides a platform for cooperation and collaboration. KM is the key to unlocking benefit sharing through a knowledge‐based approach. This approach adopts ‘evidence‐based’ assessment, building a benefit sharing framework from the bottom‐up based on best available knowledge including all relevant stakeholders. This involves co‐operation on data and information sharing, including the establishment of knowledge networks and trans‐boundary capacity building. Page 12
The aim is to build collaborative frameworks for benefit sharing based on co‐operation, negotiation and mutual agreement, incorporating shared information infrastructure (e.g. data systems, GIS, Decision support tools, warning systems) and systems for monitoring, evaluation, review and improvement. Dr Jeremy Aarons and Dr Terry Chan (convenors) Interactive session: Building a knowledge management framework for the Indus, Teesta and Koshi river basins This interactive session involved participation of all workshop delegates in small group work exploring benefit sharing in the Koshi and Teesta river basins previously selected as case studies. To make better use of the participant expertise present at this specific session a third case study, the Indus, was replaced with an additional case study investigating benefit sharing in trans‐
boundary river basins shared by Bhutan and India. The session was designed to explore the potential for co‐operation and collaboration for each case, including potential avenues for benefit sharing, the key stakeholders required and possible governance arrangements. The broader aim of the session was to inform the development of a knowledge management framework to support benefit sharing in the river basins. Groups were initially asked to identify where the river basin in their case study is located on Sadoff & Grey’s “co‐operation continuum” 1 (see figure below). This continuum describes the level of co‐
operation between relevant parties, ranging from conflict or mistrust (‘dispute’) at one end, to harmony and trust (‘integration’) at the other. Experience from current examples of benefit sharing shows that effective forms of benefit sharing depends upon the level of co‐operation amongst riparian states and stakeholders across this “co‐operation continuum”. 1
Sadoff, Claudia W; Grey, David. 2005. Cooperation on international rivers: a continuum for securing and sharing benefits. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2005/12/9604448/cooperation‐international‐rivers‐
continuum‐securing‐sharing‐benefits Page 13
Higher levels of co‐operation allow more integrated approaches ranging from coordination (e.g. information sharing and regional planning), to collaboration (e.g. cost sharing arrangements), to the possibility of joint action (e.g. joint investment and ownership). However where conflict or lack of trust exists between stakeholders, benefit sharing may not be possible or may be significantly constrained. The groups were then asked to list potential benefit sharing approaches that may be applicable to their case study, and nominate which of them would be the most feasible (noting the many different types of benefits that can be shared, including economic, environmental, agricultural, social and political benefits). For the most feasible option groups then explored what would be required to make it work. This involved listing the key stakeholders needed to co‐operate to make it happen (listing the role, interests and knowledge held by each stakeholder), describing the current willingness of each stakeholder to participate in benefit sharing, and what may need to change practically to get benefit sharing to work (e.g. key shifts required by stakeholders to support benefit sharing). Groups addressed potential governance arrangements for each of the trans‐boundary river basins selected as case studies. However, much more time is needed to develop a collaborative approach and a harmonised legal and regulatory framework aligned to governance of the case study river basins. This will form a large part of continuing work given the current project. Group: Professor A.K. Gosain; Dr Shresth Tayal; Dr Douglas Hill; and Mr Samir Mehta The Teesta River Basin Co‐operation Continuum: The Teesta was considered to be partway along the continuum, with some centralised activity occurring and a degree of coordination between India‐Bangladesh (e.g. existence of Joint River Commission, Joint Committee of Experts, Joint Technical Group), although benefit sharing is currently difficult due to sub‐national stakeholder disputes. The most important and likely benefit sharing arrangement for this basin was considered to be finalising a method of allocation of water volumes between countries. The key different types of benefits arising from optimising this allocation were for irrigation, hydroelectricity, and moderation of seasonal in‐river flow. Key stakeholders for this to occur were considered to be the respective national and state governments (particularly the Indian states of Sikkim and West Bengal), the Joint Committee of Experts and Joint River Commission, the indigenous people (particularly in Sikkim), farmers, hydrodevelopers, tea cultivators and industries (particularly Siliguri and Darjeeling) and the fisherfolk. The issues to be overcome for this to occur included the environmental issues around physical needs for sediment transport and maintenance of biodiversity, and allocations needed for agriculture. However participants considered the socio‐political barriers as more significant, including West Bengal fears around ‘losing’ water, the lack of stakeholder consultation, cultural significance and use of the river in Sikkim, centre‐state politics (in particular India and West Bengal), and equity in terms of electricity distribution (near site vs to the national grid). Page 14
Group: Dr Dhruba Pant; Dr Jagat K. Bhusal; Professor Hari K. Shrestha; Professor Prem Sagar Chapagain; Dr Gautam Rajkarnikar; and Dr Jagannath Adhikari The Koshi River Basin The Koshi was rated by participants as partway along the continuum, but on its way to high levels of cooperation, with some current collaboration between Nepal‐India, and the existence of a joint committee, but with the potential for much more co‐operation and joint action. Participants acknowledged that the absence of representation from the comprehensive ICIMOD‐
CSIRO Koshi Basin Project was a limitation in this discussion, and would need to be followed up to avoid replication and enhance complementarity. Multiple potential benefit sharing options were discussed for this system: irrigation; navigation; hydropower; flood management; data sharing; and payment for environmental services. It was considered that the most likely and most immediate to occur would be optimising data sharing, although irrigation, flood management and hydropower were also considered feasible options. To encourage data sharing, initiation of a multilateral key stakeholder forum was recommended. Key stakeholders required included: government line agencies (including MoE, MoSTE, MoFALE and counterparts from India and Bangladesh); multilateral agencies (WMO, ADB, World Bank, ICIMOD, UN Agencies); academic institutions and non‐governmental organisations. The current minimal level of data sharing was primarily considered to occur via the Joint Committee on water resources (Ministry/Departmental level) between Nepal and India, with the lack of a regional co‐operation mechanism being the primary barrier. On the ground it was considered that what was needed included initiation of Track 2 level collaboration and development of a joint ‘knowledgebase’. Group: Dr Lam Dorji; Mr G Karma Chhopel; Mr Chhimi Dorji; Mr Jamyang Phuntsho; Mr Ugyen Lhendup; and Mr Jigme Nidup Bhutan‐India Transboundary River Basins (particularly headwaters of the Brahmaputra, e.g. Wang Chhu) The Bhutan‐India relationship was generally considered to be at a relatively high level of co‐
operation, with current joint project assessment and design, and joint action and investment on hydroelectric power development. The main potential benefit sharing options in this case were hydropower, flood information data sharing and payments for ecosystem services (PES). It was considered that as hydropower development was already being successfully implemented, PES was the most feasible option to explore. Key stakeholders for this were the Royal Government of Bhutan, the Government of India (and state governments of Assam and West Bengal), other key stakeholders included the Bhutan National Environment Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests (custodian of forest, parks, watersheds), the Ministry of Economic Affairs (hydrological services; trade; hydropower), the Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, their Indian counterparts and the relevant civil society organisations and non‐governmental organisations. Page 15
The current situation already includes piloting of PES at a local level, but requirements for successful implementation included refinement of the concept and replication and upscaling to a national level. Additional barriers included better assessment of the ES values, investigation into boundary and payment mechanisms, and integrating the different PES scales from national to the local. Synopsis of the second workshop  Climate change impacts include glacial retreats and short term flows from snow and ice melts accompanying warming in alpine areas. This will increase the risk of harmful glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) including risks to human life and damage to built infrastructure including dams, bridges and roads.  Population increase in the region (Hindu Kush Himalayas) intersects with increasing demand for water (particularly for agriculture and energy), and with climate change (extended dry seasons) to create conditions of water scarcity. This is particularly evident in the Koshi river basin where, in Nepal, there is relatively little storage and dependence on tube wells for drinking water and for irrigation of crops.  A lack of a regional framework for water resource management and a historical reliance on bilateral arrangements among countries sharing trans‐boundary rivers has led to: o trust deficits o lack of knowledge/data sharing o poor co‐ordination of water conservation and habitat protection measures.  Given the lack of transparent formal arrangements, it is difficult to progress benefit sharing arrangements which could encourage greater collaboration among riparian states/countries exposed to climate change and to looming water scarcity.  Emerging legal and regulatory mechanisms e.g. Water Act (2011) Bhutan and a commitment from that country to prioritise environmental management provides an exemplar of potential benefit sharing including payment for environmental/ecological services. Although at a pilot stage, payment for maintenance of biodiversity, forested catchments, and other ecological services could extend across state and national boundaries.  Tension between climate change, hydropower, and maintenance of ecological services is evident in all case study river basins. Page 16



There are obvious incentives to develop hydropower given increasing demand for energy (particularly from India) and the need to address poverty in Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh. Even so, threats include: o damage to hydropower (dams and turbines) from increasing sediment load and GLOFs (climate change); o reduced flows and consequent damage to aquatic ecosystems (through storage dams); o reduced water availability to downstream states/countries (e.g. Bangladesh/Teesta); o conflict among countries given historical tension in water resource management (e.g. India/Pakistan; India/Bangladesh). Governance arrangements for river basins must include the basin as the basic management unit rather than treat basins according to state or national boundaries. This should provide a framework for co‐operation among states/countries through knowledge sharing and management. A key driver will be identification of benefit sharing arrangements and translation of these arrangements through formal legal, regulatory, or governance arrangements. Top‐down policy must link to bottom‐up community engagement through awareness raising and targeted education programs (e.g. water conservation, sanitation, land management). Surface water issues applicable to the case study river basins including land use/land use change, climate change, demography, and infrastructure (dams, weirs, barrages, irrigation, canals) must be linked to ground water (wells, bores, recharge rates) in a comprehensive approach to water resource management in the region. Looming water scarcity must be addressed by supply side management (particularly greater co‐operation and knowledge sharing relating to predicting regional climate change impacts) and demand management (particularly improving efficiency in water usage, e.g. irrigation). Page 17
Next steps: The third workshop is planned to be held in Melbourne, Australia (Monash University). The following themes will be developed at the workshop:  Benefit sharing arrangements applicable to the three case study river basins: the Indus, the Koshi and the Teesta. How can current work/research in the Koshi Basin (ICIMOD, ANU/MAIRS, Tribuhavan University/Peking University) be complemented with this project’s emphasis on systemic knowledge management? What benefits can be identified and how can these be included in current policy development and implemented in practical terms (given current legal and regulatory arrangements)?  A comparative evaluation of legal and regulatory arrangements applicable to the three river basins with particular emphasis on climate change and hydropower development.  Ecological services: how can they be valued and included in formal cost‐benefit analyses given likely changes to land use, dam construction, demography, and agriculture?  Development of a systemic approach to describing and comparing salient socio‐economic and environmental features of the three river basins.  Development of a knowledge management framework including mapping of principal actors responsive to collaborative governance and integrated water resource management given climate change and changes to water usage (particularly hydropower, agriculture and energy more generally). Page 18