Hydroenergy and Climate Change: Investigating Disciplinary Priorities and Interdisciplinary Opportunities for Global Change Research Workshop Report September 2014 Photo source: http://xaquintero.blogspot.com.ar/2010/09/argentina-designa-dos-cientificos-para.html
Andrea K. Gerlak (Joint-­‐Principal Investigator) Director of Academic Development, International Studies Association Senior Policy Associate, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy University of Arizona, United States agerlak@u.arizona.edu Marcelo Saguier (Joint-­‐Principal Investigator) Senior Researcher, Department of International Relations Latin American School of Social Sciences (FLACSO), Buenos Aires, Argentina Research Fellow, National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) msaguier@flacso.org.ar 1 Project Overview Advancing Good Practices in Building Interdisciplinarity: Moving Towards User-­‐
Oriented Science is a project aimed at advancing good practices in building interdisciplinarity for global change research. The overall goal of the effort is to reflect on and improve the current practices of knowledge generation, mobilization and use with respect to the social and environmental impacts of hydropower development and water-­‐energy futures in South America. Fostering dialogue between diverse stakeholders involved in the processes of construction and contestation of knowledge on transboundary waters in relation to dams and hydropower development is central to the exploration of the possibilities and limitations of interdisciplinary knowledge building. It is a three-­‐year project (2014-­‐
2016) funded by the Interamerican institute for Global Change Research. The joint Principal Investigators are Andrea K. Gerlak (University of Arizona, US) and Marcelo Saguier (Latin American School of Social Sciences, Argentina). Workshop Overview The project seeks to contribute to advancing our understanding of the potential of interdisciplinarity for water governance through a series of three capacity-­‐building workshops. The workshops are designed to generate new knowledge, develop skills and build capacity, and create spaces for interaction and collaboration. The first workshop, titled Hydroenergy and Climate Change, was held in Buenos Aires, Argentina in July 2014. Participants included a mix of social scientists, hydrologists, biologists, water engineers, policy specialists, and social advocacy actors all specialized in different aspects of hydroenergy. The Workshop Agenda can be found in Appendix A. The Workshop Participant List and bios can be found in Appendix B. 2 Framing Global Change Research Questions: Workshop Findings The goal of the workshop was to identify and frame global change research questions in the context of hydropower development and water-­‐energy futures in South America. Below we report on the workshop discussions around both disciplinary priorities and interdisciplinary opportunities. Question 1: What do you see as the primary questions or research agendas in different disciplines on the linkages of hydroenergy and climate change in South America? •
There is lack of computation data on discharges relative to climate change to account for changes in vegetation, soil, precipitation, to generate prospective scenarios in energy generation in addition to other activities relate to water use. Make future scenarios of precipitation patterns specifically in basins to assess the implications on hydro energy generation (engineering + climatology + hydrology). The reason for this information is that climate change accelerates forecasts. This makes hydrological information, for example, useless, since rain patterns are changing from historical records. This has implications for the assessment of the technical conditions of dams and their capacities to regulate flow. They were planned to function under different climate conditions. Likewise, this affects their potential as energy sources. •
There is no information of how poverty affects the use of land. •
There is a need to compare global warming emissions of the hydro energy sector with those of other sectors (carbon, gas, oil and indirectly biofuels). 3 There is political economy competition between different sectors to impose their energy solutions. Each has different coalitions of actors and interests. •
Hydro security, dams and climate change: Assess availability of water for all activities and uses. This runs against the tendency to focus almost exclusively on the relation of dams with energy generation. Hydric security needs to look also to issues of efficiency in water use, as well as the conflicts that arise in relation to distributional tensions between sectors and activities dependent on water. Namely, it is taking seriously the often stated multipurpose of dams. In addition to energy generation, they are linked to flood controls, navigation, irrigation, land use – whether extractivist modes of development or not. Thus, the so-­‐called benefits of dams (energy and navigation) need to be expanded to integrate all other elements. This opens ground to address dams in an integrated fashion, to conceive of them as a public good. Looking at how financial investment defines the scope (narrow or broad) of hydro-­‐
projects is important to determine who benefits and loses. •
Hydro-­‐ways: sometimes it is pointed out that navigation on hydro-­‐ways cause fewer GH emissions than transport with trucks. Hence, that they are more efficient as a means of transportation in terms of climate change impacts. However, many hydro-­‐ways are able to maintain water levels with the regulating effect of dams. In these cases, without dams there would be no hydro-­‐ways. Hydro-­‐ways are used to ship exports to international markets, mostly raw materials or low value added goods like soya beans. Yacyretá has a system of locks that also enable navigation. •
There is need to assess the role of hydro-­‐electrical dams in natural disasters. The example of Pantanal in Brazil was cited in this case. There are no policies that take this into consideration. 4 •
A way to stimulate reflection on the opportunities of hydro energy cooperation is to assess the history and lessons learned of established binational hydro projects such as Yacyretá and Itaipú. Likewise, to learn about the experience of Corpus Christi, a project that has been stalled due to social opposition and a plebiscite. What can we learn from these experiences? Moreover, the assessment needs to take into consideration how climate change effects can accentuate conflicts further. •
Lagging policy/institutional responses to climate change effects are the result, among other things, of the perception that those effects will be felt in the future while there are needs that have to be addressed in the present (energy). There is a sense of different temporalities. This explains that difficult incorporation of planning for climate change as well as institutional fragmentation. •
The relation between dams and climate change can also be seen in terms of the challenge of relocating people that currently live in areas that are exposed to flooding. This is not about areas that would be flooded if dams are built, but flooding is taking place recurrently as part of climate events due to climate change (more rain added to deforestation). This situation raises the need to address new policy responses that take into account compensation issues as well as health policy and infrastructure to tackle health-­‐related problems. In other words, this is not a future scenario of climate change, but it is happening today. •
Two important issues underlie the debate about the hydroelectric development of the region. On one hand, the question about energy matrix and, on the other hand, water use. So, we should think about: How is the construction of hydroelectric dams linked with other energy sources (oil, geothermal, solar, wind, etc.)? In turn, it is necessary to consider who will 5 benefit from the hydropower development of a region: people who live in the same place where the dam will be installed? Urban citizens from other areas who do not suffer the environmental degradation that would eventually cause the construction of the dam? (urban/rural divide). These questions lead us to investigate the social and the environmental impacts, and conflicts that emerge from this interaction. Al those reflections should contribute to the debate about development, growth and energy efficiency. •
There is a tension between the use of hydro energy to ensure the energy security of large cities, while small communities where the dams are often placed don’t see the benefits of energy generation. In this respect it is important to see the institutional/legal frameworks that establish taxation and the distribution of fiscal resources between the national, provincial and municipal state levels. It was pointed out that in Brazil municipalities receive a much greater share of the fiscal revenues of energy generation than those in Argentina, where there is little that provinces and municipalities receive. Question 2: Do you see opportunities to enhance the dialogue between diverse perspectives and disciplines and move interdisciplinarity forward around hydropower development and water-­‐energy futures in South America? •
There is little understanding of the environmental benefits of hydroelectric projects; the benefits of storing water. Instead, there prevails a view that stresses their negative implications. There is need to have a more informed and balanced understanding of the role of dams. There is ground for better approaches of public information and communication. This can be a site to enhance interdisciplinarity. In many cases bad communication results in bad policy decisions which, in turn, represent economic costs due to unaccomplished projects. 6 •
The establishment of permanent forums where different sectors and epistemic communities can participate in relation to dam issues. The existing basin councils (Consejos de Cuencas) are not adequate for this. They are too formalistic. In such forums there can be participation of public authorities of municipalities and provinces comprised by the basin area, in addition to representatives of the different water governance institutions/institutes. Yet, what is important is that the activities of these forums take place throughout the entire policy cycle. In particular, during the stage of defining the problems at stake (agenda definition) rather than serving as means to legitimate/communicate agendas that have already been defined. •
The framing of scientific research in terms of “inputs” or “services”. For example, research information on fish genetics changes due to rising water temperatures caused by climate change can be useful to formulate better policy/instruments for the fish farming sector – or any other sector. Establishing the links between science and productive activities there is room for developing interdisciplinarity, as well as showing the social and economic importance of scientific research. •
It’s important to recognize the central role of water science, but to understand that it is not enough. We should turn into “hidro-­‐economical” and “hidro-­‐social” studies. •
Generate trust between the scientific and policy communities. Practical ways to tackle this is through collaborative activities to generate information. Also, to recognize the corresoponding authorities and legitimacy of knowledge generated in scientific and public policy institutions by using and acknowledging their respective publications (referencing), rather than ignoring each other, or worse, replicating existing information. Reciprocal recognition is key to generating conditions of trust. 7 •
Setting up/finance research groups between scientific and policy communities. Practical examples include a system of internships of university researchers in policy institutions, collaborative research, etc. Hydro-­‐electrical dams are rich repositories of data since they keep accumulated measurements, evaluations, etc. One way to create synergies with the research communities is to build collaborative links with the dams to access and work together with this information. •
Improving transparency and access to information is central to opening the public debate about the benefits and costs of hydroelectrical projects in terms of climate change challenges. Likewise, in terms of creating conditions for interdisciplinarity. There remains tight control of some information. For example, Argentina’s energy plan (Plan 2030) is not publicly accessible. •
In learning from past hydroenergy project experiences we can move forwards interdisciplinarity. Many relocated communities have experienced difficult situations that we know little about. Compensation is not strictly a material condition, since there are other factors that need to be incorporated at the time of defining policy (post relocation support, psychological, infrastructure (transport, health and education), etc). There is ground to stimulate interdisciplinary knowledge and policy approaches between natural scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, social work, political scientists). •
“Environmental strategic assessment” is a new approach being developed in Brazil. The government commissioned social movements to devise it. Their coverage is broad and multi-­‐sectoral. The BNDS changed its policy and is promoting this instrument as a means to assess risk and plan accordingly. Social movements are also linking this initiative to new regulatory conditions 8 introduced to the banking sector to account for risk and hence assume a criterion to assess banks’ responsibilities in lending practices. Likewise the experience of “Agua Boa” can also be a good case to learn about the potential of interdisciplinarity as related to multi stakeholder cooperation initiatives. Emergent Themes A few areas were identified to have potential as sites for interdisciplinary engagement and research: 1. The improvement of public/policy debate: there is little understanding of the role of hydroenergy in relation to socio-­‐environmental development issues. Views are often polarized between supporters and skeptics, often without real opportunities to engage with each other’s perspectives. There are currently failed opportunities for research to intervene in public debates to help explore the pros and cons of hydroenergy and related governance considerations. The difficult engagement of research in public/policy debates relates to: (a) the fragmentation between different fields of specialization across as well as between the social and natural science divides; (b) the almost inexistent participation of the natural science research community and institutions in debates and processes related to hydroenergy and development; (c) the awareness of hydroenergy projects as “local” issues; (d) the narrow focus that treats dams only in terms of sources of energy rather than considering also other aspects (flow regulation, irrigation, . 2. Building synergies/trust between the scientific and policy communities: Practical ways to tackle this is through collaborative activities to generate information. Also, to recognize the corresponding authorities and legitimacy of knowledge generated in scientific and public policy institutions by using and acknowledging their respective publications (referencing), rather than ignoring each other, or worse, replicating existing information. Reciprocal recognition is 9 key to generating conditions of trust. Likewise, setting up/finance research groups between scientific and policy communities. Practical examples include a system of internships of university researchers in policy institutions, collaborative research, etc. Hydro-­‐electrical dams are rich repositories of data since they keep accumulated measurements, evaluations, etc. One way to create synergies with the research communities is to build collaborative links with the dams to access and work together with this information. 3. Spaces of deliberation: Permanent forums where different sectors and epistemic communities can participate in relation to dam issues. The existing basin councils (Consejos de Cuencas) are not adequate for this. They are too formalistic. In such forums there can be participation of public authorities of municipalities and provinces comprised by the basin area, in addition to representatives of the different water governance institutions/institutes. Yet, what is important is that the activities of these forums take place throughout the entire policy cycle. In particular, during the stage of defining the problems at stake (agenda definition) rather than serving as means to legitimate/communicate agendas that have already been defined. 4. Research outputs as inputs: The framing of scientific research in terms of “inputs” or “services” that can be valuable for policy decision making and industry is potentially useful to promote interdisciplinary work. For example, research information of changes in fish genetics, due to rising water temperatures caused by climate change, can be useful to formulate better policy/instruments for the fish farming sector – or any other sector. Thus, establishing the links between science and productive activities there is room for developing interdisciplinarity, as well as showing the social and economic importance of scientific research. 5. Environmental impact assessment processes: “Environmental strategic assessment” is a new approach being developed in Brazil. The government 10 commissioned social movements to devise it. Their coverage is broad and multisectorial. The BNDS changed its policy and is promoting this instrument as a means to assess risk and plan accordingly. Social movements are also linking this initiative to new regulatory conditions introduced to the banking sector to account for risk and hence assume a criterion to assess banks’ responsibilities in lending practices. Likewise the experience of “Agua Boa” can also be a good case to learn about the potential of interdisciplinarity as related to multi stakeholder cooperation initiatives. 6. Incorporating social science research: It is important to recognize the central role of water science, but to understand that it is not enough. We should turn into “hydro-­‐economical” and “hydro-­‐social” studies, and better incoportae social science perseptives into our udnerstandings. 7. Improving transparency and access to information: Transparency and access to information is central to opening the public debate about the benefits and costs of hydroelectrical projects in terms of climate change challenges. Likewise, in terms of creating conditions for interdisciplinarity. There remains tight control of some information. 8. Reviewing antecedents: In learning from past hydroenergy project experiences we can move forwards interdisciplinarity. Many relocated communities have experienced difficult situations that we know little about. Compensation is not strictly a material condition, since there are other factors that need to be incorporated at the time of defining policy (post relocation support, psychological, infrastructure (transport, health and education), etc. There is ground to stimulate interdisciplinary knowledge and policy approaches between natural scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, social work, political scientists. 11 9. Linkages between climate change and hydropower: There is relatively little knowledge about dams’ potential contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation responses. Advocates of dams infrastructure in policy and technical fields focus their attention narrowly on the energy contributions of dams, leaving aside other dimensions where dams can provide potential benefits for developmental concerns and climate change issues in particular. This is the case of the role of dams in helping mitigate climate events (regulate water flows in cases of flooding, water storage when there are droughts, etc), but also for human consumption and agriculture. 10. Equity and fairness issues: Hydro security should open up the conversation to issues of the public good and questions about who benefits and who loses from hydropower development. Are there differences in how urban and rural communities experience the dams and “benefits” of the hydropower construction ad well as the “burdens” of climate change impacts? Questions like this can lead us to investigate the social and the environmental impacts, and conflicts that emerge from this interaction. 12 Appendix A: Workshop Agenda 9:00am -­‐ 9:15am Workshop Welcome and Introductions •
•
•
Official welcome from workshop organizers, Marcelo Saguier & Andrea Gerlak Welcome from Holm Thiesen, IAI Director Review agenda for the day 9:15am – 10:00am Brief introductions from workshop participants 10:00am – 10:30am Hydroenergy and Climate Change in South America panel discussion Marcelo Saguier 10:30am – 11:00pm Coffee break 11:00am – 12:30pm Hydropower Development and the Uruguay River Case Victor Pochat; Celio Bermann; Diego Rodríguez. 12:30pm – 2:00pm Lunch 2:00pm – 2:30pm Interdisciplinary Work for Global Change Andrea Gerlak 2:30 – 3:30 pm Discussing Primary Questions and Pressing Research Areas. What do you see as the primary questions or pressing research areas related to hydropower development and climate change in South America? (Group exercise). 3:30pm – 4:00pm Coffee break 4:00pm – 6:00pm Enhancing Dialogue and Crafting Interdisciplinary Questions. Do you see opportunities to enhance the dialogue between diverse perspectives and disciplines around hydropower development and water-­‐energy futures in South America (Group exercise). 6:00 – 6:30pm Workshop Wrap up and Next Steps. Housekeeping for expense reimbursements 7:00pm Dinner (optional) 13 Appendix B: Workshop’s Participants Bermann, Celio Celio Bermann, Associate Professor in the Institute of Energy and Environment of the University of Sao Paulo (USP). Vice-­‐
Coordinator of the Graduate Program on Energy/USP, Coordinator of the Group of Studies on the Dialectic of Dependency in IEE/USP and Researcher of CNPq-­‐Brazilian Council on Sciences and Technology Development. Research themes: energy policy, energy planning, energy and environment, renewable energy, energy and sustainability. Author of several publications, including the books "Energy in Brazil: for what? For whom? -­‐ Crisis and alternatives for a sustainable country ", Sao Paulo, 2002; "The new energies in Brazil: dilemmas of social inclusion and Government programs". Rio de Janeiro, 2007; in addition to numerous articles in specialized journals. Brunstein, Fernando Fernando Brunstein, Architect and Mestre em Planejamento Urbano e Regional de la Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. He works as a researcher at the Center for Urban and Regional Studies (CEUR) and as an independent consultant for Argentine and multilateral public agencies of the UN system. He evaluates policies related to urban and metropolitan services in Argentina, with special emphasis on the metropolitan area of Buenos Aires. His work tends to generate input to develop policies that benefit vulnerable citizens. He has experience in issues related to flooding, poor access to potable water and sewage, local and global air pollution (associated with climate change), noise pollution and irrational use of energy. In recent years, he has focused on stakeholder analysis, analysing problems and setting goals. Carrizo, Silvina Silvina Carrizo, Architect, Universidad Nacional de la Plata. In 2003 she obtained a PhD. in Geography, Urban planning and Management (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3), and then worked there as Ataché temporaire de recherche et d'enseignement between 2004 and 2005. She joined the CEUR (Center for Urban and Regional Studies) as a researcher of CONICET and in 2006, she started to teach to the staff of researchers at the Universidad Nacional del Noroeste de la Provincia de Buenos Aires Buenos, where she leads the Center for Land Studies, Energy and Environment. Since 1999, through individual and collective, national and international projects, she has 14 studied the changes in the energy networks in the Southern Cone, and their territorial impacts on regional integration. Cussac, Victor Victor Cussac, PhD in Biological Sciences, Professor at Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Researcher at that university and Senior Researcher of CONICET. He is the Director of the Institute for Biodiversity and Environment Research (INBIOMA), CONICET-­‐UNCO. He is an Advisory Editor of the Environmental Biology of Fishes (Springer). His work focuses on the eco-­‐physiology of freshwater fish. He has done important work on the biogeography of Patagonian fish. He has studied the reproduction of Randia (Rhamdia quelen), fish passage at dams (specifically in Garabí project), wild fish populations in several dams. He has also studied several effects of climate change (translocation, extinction, changes in abundances) on native and exotic fish. Dos Santos, Marco Aurelio Marco Aurelio Dos Santos, Visiting Scholar of Energy Planning Program of COPPE from 2002 to 2007 at the Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Since 2007, he is Associate Professor of Energy Planning Programo of COPPE since 2007 at the Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He is senior researcher of energy and environmental planning. His main scientific interest is grenhouse gas emission and environmental impacts of energy production. He is author of several books and scientific articles in international journal regarding greenhouse gas emissions from hydro reservoirs. Faria, Alcides Alcides Faria holds a degree in Biology from the University of Brasilia. He was one of the founders of Greenpeace Ecoa -­‐ Ecology and Action. He participated in the creation of more than 30 environmental organizations and national and international networks. He was Executive Secretary of the Rios Vivos Coalition, network formed by more than 400 organizations in Brazil, United States and Europe. He is also a former member of the Board of the Socio-­‐Environmental Support Center (CASA), former Executive Secretary of the Pantanal Network, former Executive Secretary “Articulação Infraestrutura e Energia na América do Sul”, former member of the National Environment Council (CONAMA), former Member of the Board of the National Environment Fund (FNMA), former Director and Coordinator of energy and infrastructure at Ecoa, former Member of the Board of the IDB in Brazil. He has published many articles on environment reseach, especially in the Pantanal region. 15 Fulco, Carlos Alberto Carlos Fulco, Architect and Master in Landscape, Environment and City (Universidad Nacional de La Plata), member of the Executive Direction of Binational Entity « Yacyretá » and member of its Committee. He is also a Researcher and Professor at the Universidad Nacional de La Plata (UNLP), at the Universidad Nacional de Misiones (UNAM), at the Universidad Nacional del Noredeste (UNNE), at the Universidad Católica de Santa Fe (UCSF) and he is a Guest Researcher at Harvard, USA. He has coordinated different tasks in programs with national and international funding for the Inter-­‐American Development Bank (IDB or BID), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Federal Council of Investments (CFI), Buenos Aires Government, National Commission of the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires (CONAMBA) and the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Area (AMBA). Gerlak, Andrea Andrea K. Gerlak is Director of Academic Development with the International Studies Association and Senior Policy Associate with the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona. Her research interests are in the fields of public policy, institutional theory, natural resource management, and water governance. She studies conditions supporting collective action, the interface between science and policy, and institutional change and adaptability in large-­‐
scale ecosystem settings in the United States. In international transboundary settings, she studies the role of intergovernmental organizations in cooperative institutional arrangements and scientific knowledge and information sharing in global water governance. Andrea holds a BA and MA from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and a PhD. in Political Science from the University of Arizona. Hancock, Kathleen Kathleen J. Hancock (PhD, University of California, San Diego) is Associate Professor of Political Science at the Colorado School of Mines, where she teaches in and was the previous Director of the Masters of International Political Economy of Resources (MIPER) program. In her book Regional Integration: Choosing Plutocracy, Dr. Hancock develops a theory on how great powers, economically integrate the states in their regions. Her work on hydropower issues focuses on the proposed Grand Inga Dam to be built in the Dem. Republic of Congo (DRC).. A forthcoming co-­‐authored article argues that the dam will enhance regional energy security but not the DRC’s own energy security. Two other papers in progress focus on how water can be part of the “resource curse,” an extension of the paradoxical (and contested) argument that states rich in resources may grow slower than expected and have a variety of economic, social and 16 political ills. As an academic, she has conducted research in several countries with different grants. She is currently working on an edited volume, several papers, and book chapters on issues related to regionalism and natural resources, with a focus on electricity, water and pipelines; and coordinates an international group of scholars and practitioners working on the international political economy of regionalism, resources and energy. Martín, Facundo Facundo Martín is Assistant Professor it the Department of Geography at the National University of Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina. He holds a PhD in Social Sciences from the Buenos Aires University and an Ms Sc in Agrarian Social Studies from FLACSO/Argentina. He has also Postdoctoral Studies at Universidad Federal Rural de Rio de Janeiro in the field of Environmental History and Political Ecology. He works with a research team on space-­‐society and nature-­‐culture relations in dry lands, political ecology of water and critical studies of development and global environmental change. He is currently Co-­‐PI of a Collaborative Research Network 3 funding by the IAI. Montaña, Elma Elma Montaña, PhD in Geography, Planning and Territorial Ordering (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle -­‐ Paris 3) and she also holds a Diplôme d'Etudes Approfondies (DEA) in Latin American Societies (IHEAL-­‐Paris 3). She is a Specialist University Teacher (UNCu). Dr. Montaña is the Scientific Director of the Inter-­‐American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), an intergovernmental organization supported by 19 countries in the Americas that funds interdisciplinary research on Global Environmental Change. Earlier, Dr. Montaña was working as an Independent researcher of CONICET in Argentina. She worked at the Institute of Human, Social and Environmental Sciences (INCIHUSA), were she was Vicedirector. She was a professor at the National University of Cuyo, Argentina. Orlando, Leonardo Leonardo Orlando, PhD Candidate in Political Science and International Relations at Sciences Po Paris and National University of Rosario. His thesis, supervised by Professor Ariel Colonomos (Sciences Po Paris -­‐ Columbia University) is “Del'interdépendance à l'intégration : gouvernance environnementale et construction de la paix en eaux transfrontières. Les cas du fleuve Uruguay et du lac Victoria”. He has a Bachelor’s degree and a Master of Philosophy from the University of Paris I Sorbonne and Università di Roma Tor 17 Vergata. He participated in the students exchange programme « Erasmus », he is a current doctoral fellow of CONICET and Junior Research Fellow at the French Institute for Research in Africa (IFRA-­‐Nairobi). In 2014 he conducted field research in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda under the auspices of the Conseil régional d'Île-­‐de-­‐France, and during the academic year 2014-­‐2015 he is going to be Visiting Researcher at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Pochat, Victor Victor Pochat is currently an International Consultant on Water Resources Planning and Management, having worked for UNESCO International Hydrological Programme (IHP), the Regional Process of the Americas towards the Sixth World Water Forum, the World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP), the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Organization for Economic Co-­‐operation and Development (OECD), the Global Water Partnership Organization (GWPO) and the International ExpoZaragoza2008. His career has been developed within the scope of water resources planning and management. He is a Civil Engineer, with a major in Hydraulics, and a Master of Science in Engineering, with a major in Hydrology. He has greater experience on management, as regards the organization and administration of technical agencies and the planning and management of water resources themselves. He reached first-­‐level positions in national water institutions in Argentina, related to science and technology (President of the National Institute for Water Science and Technology), the construction and operation of hydraulic and electric works (President of the Board of Directors, Hidroeléctrica Norpatagónica S.A.), as well as the planning and implementation of the national water policy, with its diversity of issues (Undersecretary and National Director on Water Resources). At regional level, he has been involved in projects and studies related to the water resources shared by Argentina and its neighboring countries. At international level, he has had a very extensive and important participation in UNESCO IHP and it is also remarkable his involvement in Global Water Partnership (GWP) and in different activities of some NGOs, being founding member and President of the Argentine Institute on Water Resources (IARH). He was Assistant Teacher in courses on Hydrology and Hydraulics and Professor of “Water Resources Planning”. He has also participated as Professor in various graduate courses in his country and overseas and has presented his experience in several publications and in numerous national and international forums. Rodríguez, Diego Diego Rodriguez is a lawyer, Master in Environmental and Planning Law by University of Limoges (France), Specialist in Environmental Law (Universidad Nacional del Litoral), Specialist in Environmental Impact Studies (FLACSO), Professor of Introduction to Law (University of Entre ríos, Argentina), Executive Director of the M'Biguá Foundation (Citizenship and Environmental Justice) and Staff Member of Environmental Law 18 Team and Advocacy in Public Policy, Wetland System and Development Funds. His areas of work include studying and monitoring the socio-­‐environmental conflicts that may adversely affect or jeopardize the region and its communities in the Mesopotamia Argentina, in the basins of the Parana, Paraguay and Uruguay Rivers. Roncati, Héctor Alberto Hector Roncati has a degree in Genetics (National University of Misiones). Since 2003 he has been the Head of the Environment Sector in Yacyretá Binational Dam. He has participated in the implementation of the Environmental Management Plan with specific environmental actions of the physical-­‐biotic environment. He has been researcher in fish genetics at the National University of Misiones and Coordinator of the monitoring activities of fish fauna in the Paraná river and and Coordinator of the evaluation of the facilities for the transfering of the fish fauna at the Yaciretá Dam. Saguier, Marcelo Dr. Marcelo Saguier is a Research Fellow at Argentina’s National Science and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and a Senior Researcher at the Department of International Relations of the Latin American School of Social Sciences (FLACSO) in Buenos Aires. His research interests include: the international political economy of natural resources; regionalism in Latin America; transnational social movements. He was a Program Co-­‐Chair of the FLACSO-­‐ISA Joint Conference “Emerging Powers in a Changing World” held in Buenos Aires, 2014. He holds a PhD in Politics and International Studies from the University of Warwick, an MSc in International Relations from the London School of Economics and Political Science and a BA Honours in Philosophy from Queen’s University at Kingston, Canada. Soldatelli, Elisangela Elisangela Soldatelli studied Journalism at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Between the years 2001 and 2008, she worked in Núcleo Amigos da Terra/Brasil, a non-­‐
governmental organzation, as a writer and Project coordinator. She represented that organization at Red Brasil sobre Instituições Financeiras Multilaterais and Federación Amigos de la Tierra Internacional in several meetings related to the socioenvironmental consequences and processes of facilities in South America, especially the ones related to the building of 19 hydroelectric dams in the basins of Uruguay River. In 2008 she received a doctorate scholarship from CONICET. She is currently doing doctoral studies on Social Sciences at Universidad de Buenos Aires, and completing her thesis. Her work focuses on the process of planification of two binational hydroelectrical dams (Garabi and Panambi) in the Uruguay basin. Thomas, Oscar Alfredo Oscar Thomas, Architect, graduated with honors by Universidad Nacional del Nordeste. He is the Head of the Entidad Binacional Yacyretá, representing Argentine government since 2003. He has been the Argentine president of an Argentine-­‐Brazilian comision in charge of studying the use of hydropower in the borders of the Uruguay river, which studies the dams Garabí and Panambí (Comisión Técnica Mixta Argentino-­‐Brasileña para el Aprovechamiento de los Recursos Hídricos Compartidos de los Tramos Limítrofes del río Uruguay y su afluente río Pepirí-­‐Guazú) since september 2009. He has been the Argentine head of an Argentine-­‐Paraguayan comision that studies the use of hydropower in the Paraná River (Comisión Mixta Argentino-­‐Paraguaya del Río Paraná (COMIP) para el Estudio del Aprovechamiento de los Recursos Hídricos del Río Paraná) since 2011. He formerly worked for Misiones government in urban planning. He was a university professor at Universidad Nacional del Nordeste and Universidad Católica Nuestra Señora de la Asunción (Paraguay). Tiessen, Holm Dr. Tiessen´s educational background is in biology, soil science and agricultural production systems with a B.Sc., (Cell & Molecular Biology) from King's College, London, U.K., in 1976, and a Ph.D., (Soil Science) from University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada, in 1982. He has worked in the areas of nutrient availability and cycling in natural and agricultural ecosystems; carbon cycling; soil organic matter turnover and stabilisation; tropical landuse; drivers of and constraints on agricultural development. He has held professorships in the soil Science department of the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and as head of the institute for tropical agronomy in the University of Goettingen, Germany. In 1998 he received the prestigious Alexander von Humboldt Science Prize for his work on tropical landuse systems. Resulting from his engagement in global change science, he received the IPPC's recognition for contributions to the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He has been active on the executive committee, Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, International Council of Scientific Unions since 2001. Dr. Tiessen has more than 20 years of professional experience in science and science management, and international program funding. During his academic career, Prof. Tiessen developed and conducted university courses on International Development in Agriculture; Soil Biochemistry, Nutrient Cycles in tropical Soils; Management of Semiarid and Marginal Lands. He has held or still holds visiting scientist or professorships at the Centre for Development Research at the University of Bonn, Germany; Universidad Nacional de La Pampa, Argentina, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, México; Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas and Unversidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brazil. Since 2005 he is leading the Inter-­‐American Institute for Global Change Research concentrating on science governance and the management of international 20 science personnel, finance and administration. He is coordinating the scientific research program of IAI, is responsible for the efficient operation of the Directorate, represents and promotes IAI in diplomatic, political an international fora, prepares and submits long range plans, financial policies and the annual program budgets. Dr. Tiessen has edited and co-­‐
edited 8 books. Authored and co-­‐authored 40 book chapters, 75+ peer-­‐reviewed articles and 8 technical reports, and is a member of the Editorial Board, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 21